Larian Studios Forums Dragon Commander Dragon Commander - Beta Misleading or unclear descriptions

I decided to post my language nitpicks. Some of the mistakes could actually cause misunderstandings.

The strategy cards that increase revenue are described so that the bonus seems bigger than it is.

Example - Revenue increase (1): "Increase the gold revenue of this country by 200% for 1 turn(s)."

The words state that in addition to regular revenue, there is a 200% increase, resulting in a total revenue of 300% the usual amount. What actually happens is that there is a 100% increase (X + X * 100% = 2X).

Either the text is wrong, or the implementation.

See also: "Increase population" where you use the same wording. I tried "increase by 250%" on a population of 2000, and got 5000. That's 2000 + 150% of 2000, so it is the same issue.

See also: "All pumped up" where you seem to get it right. ("Your troopers will fire 75% faster.")

Master dragon research "permanent" effect.

Aura of anihilation: "This aura permanently increases the damage done by friendly units in a 1500 meter radius around you by 30%."

While this is understandable, the text gives the impression that the friendly unit gains a permanent bonus once within reach. The bonus is not permanent, the aura is.

Suggestion: Replace the word "permanently" with "continuously", or omit it entirely.

Better? This aura increases the damage done by friendly units within 1500 meters of you by 30%.

Better: Friendly units within 1500 meters of you do 30% extra damage.

Cheaper strategic purchase card

I couldn't find the text when I tried. The cards that reduce gold price for naval, airborne or land units; do they only affect the country they are played in? I think the text says that "all" naval/airborne/land units are cheaper, which could be misleading.

Not a language question, but a card effect

Is protection from invasion only effective if you act before the invader on that turn? It didn't prevent battle when I was number 3 and number 2 attacked the protected area. (Captured capital, tried to prevent recapture by playing a protective card.)

Manual: Contradiction in hunter description (edit july 20.)

"Strong against" mentions "Air units and player dragon (when hunter has 'A Bird in the Hand' researched)"

The exact same text is included in "Weak against". (Although the closing ' is missing here)

I would guess that the hunter is strong against these airborne units if the research is completed, and weak otherwise. Perhaps the "weak against"-version should say "Unless hunter has 'A Bird in the Hand' researched".

Manual: Complex "Strong against"-entry for Imp Fighter (edit july 20.)
Strong against: Air units, if wielding the 'Bombs Away' upgrade; Armours, Devastators, Juggernauts, Infantry type units apart from Grenadiers.

The problem: While it is obvious that bombs apply to ground targets, the description reads as if the upgrade makes it strong against air units. Replacing the comma with a full stop/period would eliminate this issue.

It might be better to have one enumeration of things the basic unit is strong against, and an extra list for those units that gain noteable new "targets" from upgrades. (Such as Hunter and Imp Fighter)

User Interface - Ready or Retreat

This is no error on your part, but my mind takes shortcuts. Apparently, if it begins with "Re" it can't be too far off... I would appreciate it if retreat and ready were set apart in some way. (Different colour, alternate wording where beginning and end are clearly different. For example, "withdraw" would never look like "ready".)

I have retreated from quite a few favourable battlefields. My fault, yes, but maybe you can help.

Or give me one of those really annoying dialogue boxes asking me to confirm my unusual choice.

This may be a bug rather than a misleading text, but it is in the same zone: Increase the gold revenue for this country by 200% for 2 turn(s).

That effect lasts only 1 turn.

Also, I still hope to see the "by 200%" corrected to "by 100%" or "to 200%", as per the original post (unless the text is correct and the effect wrong, in which case a gold revenue of 3 should increase by 2 * 3 for a total of 9 with this card played).

i tbink they mean twice as much

On review it seems that none of this has been adressed (fixed, or mentioned in public). Most of it can be ignored without much trouble. It represents room for improvement rather than outright flaws. There are some plain errors that I'll be a little sad to see in a release, since they were discovered quite a while ago.