Currently each school has one or two tactical spells per level.
I would like to see more tactical spells can really influence the battle by doing damage, summoning creatures, changing the terrain or altering the dynamics of the battle in dramatic ways.
Example of spells that dramatically affect the field of battle.
The following spells reduce the line of sight and attack range for all units making battles less predictable and negating the advantages of ranged attacks.
Darkness - LOS & Attack Range: Reduced to 1 - Duration: 1 turn per caster level
Forest Fire- LOS & Attack Range: Reduced to 3 - Duration: Entire battle + Forest Tiles are engulfed in flames
Downpour - LOS & Attack Range: Reduced to 2 - Duration: 1 turn + Dispels Forest Fire
Field of Boulders - 25% of battlefield is impassible terrain.
Darkness (tactical) - The battlefield is covered in darkness, the attack range and line of sight for all units; friend and foe, is reduced to 1 tile for one turn per caster level. Can be dispelled by Light (Light)
Darkvision (tactical) - Selected unit's line of sight and attack range is not affected by Darkness or Forest Fire.
Forest Fire (tactical) - All forest tiles are engulfed in flames for the duration of the battle. Any unit entering such a title suffers damage. The smoke from these flames gradually reduce the line of sight and attack range for all units; friend and foe, to 3 tiles for the duration of the battle. Can be dispelled by Downpour (Water)
Downpour (tactical) - Dispels Forest Fire, reduces line of sight and attack range of all units to two tiles; friend and foe, for 1 turn.
Field of Boulders (tactical) - Boulders rise from the ground rendering 25% of unoccupied titles impassible and giving defenders new defensive positions.
Agreed ! There isn't enough Tactical spells ! And your idea of forest fire and field of boulder is exactly the kind of spells I'd like to see in the game and that's that kind of spells that will make the game better with Magic because if you have one caster against an army, those spells combined together will block them and then you'll get X turns to crush them at your ease assuming they don't have casters or archer who can reply to you (or flying units... I don't believe there's any but who knows)
However I don't like the idea of having one spell that dispell one specific spell, it should be for example healing rain, it heals your units and it can be used to dispell forest fire. If you start to have one dispell spell for every spell, it will make the game to heavy I believe. We should keep a high number of spells without falling in declinaison of one spell more and more powerful or dispell of one specific spell.
In any case, I think that whether you like or dislike a piece of software you can choose to be respectful to those that are creating it. I think a lot people are very rude/demanding on forums sometimes, just assuming that it's the internet and so there is not really a person on the other side of the screen, and if someone calls you on it, you can just say "I was just giving my opinion, that's what forums are for right?".
I guess I am just asking that people give their opinion in a more polite way. I really don't mind if your opinion is that the game is horrible. That is fine with me if you think that, but don't express it as though Derek/Brad/Cari/Scott/etc. are trying to ruin your life or sell you a lemon of a game. They are real people that care a lot more about the game than you probably do, and they want it to be good. If the game is just not your type of game, fair enough, give specific feedback and reasons for your dislike. If you want it to be better, then give specific examples and move on. I think a lot of folks in this thread have given good feedback, however, I was simply surprised at how negative it was.
I think people forget there are real people that read these messages, and I adamantly disagree that WoM would have been a better game had all the people complaining about it had their full say last summer. It would have resulted in the same game, but a loss of trust/openess with the community. The game was what it was because of design decisions and engine limitations (as has been hashed over by Frogboy many times).
There too, I agree with you Murteas, you're right. I think all these complains (and probably especially mine) comes from frustration to have played MoM almost 20 years ago and never saw a game that could be a rival to it in any serious way.
Maybe I've been a bit rude as well as a couple other people but the game until now is great, graphically it's awesome ! The world and the units are awesome, the general feeling that comes out of the game is awesome, the new addition, new terrain, creatures, ideas, quests, ... and I skip a lot, is awesome ! The game is really close to perfection and the best part ? Derek and everybody else are listening to our suggestion / complaints about the game and making their best to create the best game ever to please the community !!!
Now, they release the new magic system and although it's WAY better than WoM (and I say that in every way) it's not close from what we all expected when we remember the grimoire of MoM which has still the best spell list ever made in a game. And when the work that has been done until now was so amazing, they release to us a list of spells which is okay but not the greatest ? For a game based mostly on magic ? Magic being really bad in WoM, it's precisely why I stopped playing it, it's fun as a warrior but when you have a mage ? the game becomes boring. And IMHO, Magic was truly the only thing that needed to be changed in WoM because I already like the system and the game as it is but know what ? They did even better with FE !!!
In the end, yes, I've probably been rude and I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my comments but when I see the level of perfection the devs team can reach with every other area of the game, I know they can do way better than that with the spell list. I don't really complain about the system how magic work, I'm glad how they made it that way but the spell list... seriously ?
Now, being a PnP player, for the system, some spells could do constitution check to resist to it (mostly curse) or other checks for other spells but if there is just a "resist magic" check, I'll be happy too but I believe the number of shards in your possession will influence the strenght of your spell but it could for example play a role in your defense too, so the number of shards that a player control would truly be important because the more you have, the more chance you would have to resist to a magic attack!
The spell for destroying shards will be really treacherous because you can capture a city and so a shard and if you see that you cannot keep it for long with armies coming towards you, you can just consume it and flee... Just to make the oponnent in a bad situation (which would be good for you because he would lose magical protection too.
Anyway, as I said before, I'd like to see dispell and magic protection spells (Strategic and Tactical) to ballance the game a bit more against a player that would be too powerful with magic and buffs. (IE. Strategic Enchantement: In that area, you cannot cast anyspell, magic is dull, and if armies with buff / magical equipment fight in it, all the effects will wore off until you're out of the area... Or magical shield that prevent any caster from casting a spell on the city (AOW2 idea)).
We would need also more direct damage spell (Tactical instead of Strategic), and especially with fire! And also city spells to make a couple explosion in the city, to plague it, to reduce production time or stop it, etc.
I'm in a hurry to see what will be the next answer from Derek and the devs with all the comments we've made already in the hope that they will expand it a lot.