Hello there!

I recently started again a few campaigns, one after another - I'm at the moment on a Mordra one, on Hard mode, which is going well -, and, because I usually spend at least as much time trying to understand a game's mechanisms, doing a lot of research, than I actually use up playing it, I took the time to browse all the archived conversations I could find. Pevel's archives were useful! The manual's not bad at all, but it still contains quite a heap of small oddities - probably due to changes during the last part of the game's development - and I don't own the Official Strategy Guide...
So, here's for a dozen of questions, roughly listed by theme, to which I haven't been able to find a precise answer:

- The Shadowlord's advantage. From what I'm seeing, he seems able to cast two spells per Turn, but is that all ? I'd like a confirmation, because I've experienced quite a few weird situations during which my troops suffered from Artefact spells despite being far from any enemy's (item) range. I remember vividly a unit being struck by a Sickness spell despite being far from the wand bearer. Much more than 3 hexagons... This never happened with Spellcaster units; only with Artefact bearers. So I was starting to wonder whether or not the Shadowlord had some kind of uncanny ability regarding all his units' (item based) spells. Could he grant them the same unlimited range he has for himself ? And, regardless, can I assume that it's impossible to simulate his ability while playing an Arena random match ?

- The Plague spell. Arguably not a great asset as far as I can tell, it seems deal between 0 and 3 wounds to all enemy units, but details can't be found anywhere. Is it a magical attack per se or merely a random 1D4 (25% chances per) effect ? Do magic resistance and Resistance to Spells ability come into play ? From what I'm seing, it doesn't seem that clear...

- Animate Tree. More or less the same issue... It seems to deal a (quite) strong magical attack, but does anyone know about its details or made tests to obtain a bit more information about those attacks' strength ? Here too, magic resistance and Resistance to Spells should come into play, but it doesn't seem that obvious in practice.

- Bless spell and Healer ability. The Unofficial FAQ's few mentions set aside, details aren't explained anywhere... Is the spell and the ability's base rate of success the same as the (25%) Amulet of Blessing's wound conversion effect ? Also, I've found one or two mentions about automatic (5%) Healer upgrades between each Island of the campaign. Which would mean a whooping 25% increase by the end of the game... Can anyone confirm this ? Last time I finished a campaign with Calis, I sure didn't feel like my units benefited from a 50% chance of converting any wound into a morale loss or - as the Unofficial FAQ claims it - a 50% decreased chance of suffering from wounds and deaths during the combat calculations...

- Amulet of Blessings, Amulet of Protection and Skirmisher (or Light Cavalry) aptitudes. With the morale boost set aside, the respective protection effects of the said two Magic Items doesn't seem that obvious or, rather, details are nonexistent. Can I assume that the first one matches Calis' Healer ability and the second one Skirmisher or Light Cavalry units' damage mitigation aptitude ? Can anyone please confirm that or clarify a bit their differences ? And, while we're at it, does anyone know (or has anyone made experiments about) the exact loss of morale mechanic involved when a Skirmisher or a Light Cavalry unit mitigates some damage ? Because if it was a rigorous "one (Morale) point for one (Wound or Kill) point", I wouldn't see those units retreating that often, so the ratio's most likely to be much higher than that, even when taking in account the Suppression and Retreat mechanics...

- Spell evolution. The manual mentions that Whirlwind's (Krell ?) character version, plus the Fireball spell - with no mention about a character there - will increase in power throughout the campaign... But that's about it. Does anyone know about additional details ? And while it's true that the Shadowlord's versions seemed a tad more annoying than Aelcar's - considering how much time one spends to keep his precious Sky Hunters at level 5 ! -, I never noticed an increase or evolution regarding the Fireball spell cast by Artefacts. I guess those don't evolve at all, which seem to quite quickly make them useless - unless you're only after experience. Lastly, what about the two other spells, Fear and Weakness ? And any other one, while we're at it... Can I assume that experience has absolutely no impact on any unit's spells or abilities ?

- Vulnerabilities (and Resistance) to Magic or Mechanical damage. Okay, I get that the "Mechanical" label concerns only attacks, while the "Magical" one includes both attacks and spells. That much, the manual does tell. But beyond that, does anyone know the details about those vulnerabilities ? I remember reading once - don't ask me where, unfortunately ! - a post which claimed that they applied a -3 Armor malus to the concerned units... Could this be true ? This would mean that the Vulnerable to Magic ability has consequences when hit by a Fireball or (presumably) an Animate Tree spell, and yet doesn't affect a unit's saving throws against Charm, Panic or Weakness spells...

- Link between Magic Resistance and Spell Resistance. It is still quite unclear to me how saving throws (or checks) againts spells work out in the end, as I never red any explanation about that... Does a 75 Magic Resistance value also mean, on top of its effects on Armor, that any spell enforcing a saving throw has a (measly) 25% chances of actually working ? With, of course, zero chance of affecting any unit equiped with an Amulet of Resistance and and only 10% chances against Magical units (or Shadow Warriors !) with a 90 Magic Resistance value ? Which would explain why Summon Banshee, Charm or the Wand of Sickness' effects fail to occur so often, up to the point where one apparently can't expect anything from them as soon as you play in harder modes (and can't really afford missed opportunities)... Now, I still saw units equiped with that Amulet of Resistance suffering from spells from Aelcar or the Shadowlord. Can I assume that it only means unlucky rolls against magical attacks, despite their 150% Armor values ?
- Building defence bonus and river defense malus. Those aren't explicitly detailed anywhere... Units located in River hexagons only use half of their Attacks values, that much is explained in the manual, and I may have red once or twice about a +4/-4 couple - regarding units defending Buildings (Towns, Towers, Shrines [?], etc.) or forced to defend Rivers. But that's about it, so any information would be welcomed! In any case, units guarding Buildings do seem much tougher than usual, so I clearly suspect an Armor boost in addition to the occasional "No Retreat" benefit. And Skirmishers crossing a River seem even tougher than when guarding Forest hexagons, but that may be a subjective impression...

- Clear terrain and possible Building specificities (Towns, Shrines, etc.). Now, apparently, only Shrines are considered as "Clear ground" for Cavalry units, but I'd still like a confirmation about that, as I still obtained impressive results with them against defenders located in Rampart or Turret hexagons. I also would like to make sure that none of them, in any case, will ever be considered as Rough terrain - for the sake of Light Infantry or Skirmisher's lives! Lastly, just to be absolutly sure regarding building hexagons' effects, is the complete absence of any specific benefit really certain ? By that, I mean any possible differences between Caves, Towns, Towers, Turrets, Castles, Citadels, etc.

- Skirmishers, Light infantry and Cavalry bonuses. Those three types of units' descriptions all lack a (well known) detail in the game's manual, but I'd like to be absolutely sure about it, since I only red about the full effect once or twice on forums. So, for the sake of clarity, can anyone confirm ? Skirmishers and Light Infantry will (also) benefit from a +3 bonus to their Armor values on Rough terrain, while a Cavalry unit gains +4 Armor points while attacking (and only while attacking) towards Clear terrain (and Shrines for that sake). Is that complete and correct ?

- Berserker ability and Skirmishers. Though rarely seen in practice, the Berserker ability seems to apply (according the game's manual) only when facing Melee and Missile attacks. What does that mean, exactly ? Do Loric (or any unit affected by his Berserker spell), Borric or the Berserker Light Infantry units keep their unmodified Melee values against Skirmishers ? Or do they benefit from the +2 bonus without the -2 (Armor) malus ? Has anyone checked that detail ? I failed to observe a significant difference for now... I do assume that such units maintain an (initially) unmodified Armor value against spell damage (apart from the Armor reduction due to magical attacks, of course).

- Why attacking ? Yes, why... That may seem a simple question, but, even after reading Horpner's old post about combat calculations (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/fantasygeneral/how-combat-works-t490.html), I'm not sure I understand the actual benefit to attacks in many situations. I mean, as far as I can tell and (obviously) between comparable units - two Heavy Infantry troops, no Cavalry Charge bonus, etc. -, there is always a retaliation... Even when the defender actually dies from the attacker's assault! Which means that, somehow, the game calculates the damage rolls of both units simultaneously... or does it? If it was really simultaneous, there would be no benefit (or so) for attacks in such cases... Since, yes, you're possibly playing on your strong point, your superior Melee value, while attacking with a Troll, but you'll also, inevitably, suffer from a counterattack wrecking your (very) cheap Armor one! So, what's the point of attacking first in such a situation? Does the game really fail to take in account the deaths when calculating a retaliation ? And once again, just to be sure, I do know about Supression mechanics or the fact that Missile and Skirmish calculations will proceed before the Melee ones. But if actual Wounds or Kills mechanics fail to take in account the attacker's blows before the defender gets to deal his, then, Archers against Archers (Skirmishers against Skirmishers, etc.), there's no point in attacking first, isn't it ? I'm starting to notice quite the defensive evolution in my tactics, Turn after Turn, battle after battle, because of that creepy realization, and the AI's apparent inability to plan full scale well coordinated assaults only reinforces it... So feel free to enlighten me.

- Distance checks during attacks and defenses involving different weapon ranges. Quite the long sum up, but this covers several situations which seem unclear to me and aren't (in my opinion) well explained in the game's manual. I do understand that, obviously, a unit can't fight at a range it can't reach: when an Archer fires on a Heavy Infantry soldier, there's no retaliation. Nor can a unit force a fight if it can't reach first its opponent: to engage a Sky Hunter in combat, a Cavalry rider needs a Bow. I also understand that units particularly weak in some aspect will avoid fighting at a range which disadvantages them, unless forced to do so: A Skirmisher doesn't willingly step into melee combat, but a Javelinman will use his (small) Skirmish value before proceeding to Melee. I've even witnessed rare situations in which a Melee unit actually avoids all kind of retaliation from its foe: it was equiped with a Magical Bow for example, while the said enemy was so low on Life that it died from the Missile attacks, even before the Melee calculations were required. Okay, up to that point, it's easy... But when a Bombardier fires on a Cavalry rider equiped with that Bow or a Skirmisher attacks a Javelinman, what happens ? Yes, there is a retaliation, but the attack was still leaded by someone trying to keep the defender at the right distance, as per the principles explained previously, wasn't it ? So do the usual rules apply and do those units only suffer from the damage dealt by the Magical Bow's Missile attacks ? Or are they, even while being the attacker, forced into full combat, up to the Melee stage ? This really doesn't seem that easy to check in practice, so I'd like some confirmation there...

- Morale values and saving throws. Of course, even if the basic rules are explained in the game's manual, one could be curious about the details. I mean, higher Grade and experimented units often have Morale values way over 100. Yet, taking in account the (not so) rare situation in which they still manage to be "Broken" or "Disoriented", reaching those values doesn't seem to protect them from negative Morale statuses. Horpner, in the thread evoked earlier, explains some details about the Retreat mechanics which are interesting, but they don't (seemingly) cover anything related to those negative effects. And those are clearly different, distinct events, since they are distinguished by abilities such as "Bloodlust" ("Battle Lust" in the manual; another change...), "Heroic" or "Berserker". "Berserker", for example, makes a unit immune to (both) Retreat mechanics and negative Morale statuses, while "Heroic" only prevents the possibility of retreat. But that's not all of it... David Melanson, in the details of his trainer dedicated to Fantasy General 1 (https://cheaters-heaven.com/trainers/163-fantasy-general-universal-game-editor-module-ssis.html), evokes several details I've never red about anywhere else: distance traveled would, according to him, influence a unit's morale like damage does; victories could restore that morale (a bit, I guess ?), offering an alternative to the "Rest" function. So I'd like a bit more details about the Morale rules...

- Morale specific rules. There are, additionaly, (at least) three troublesome situations which could be clarified. They concern Skirmish and Missile damage (generaly speaking), flying creatures during any sort of combat, and, lastly, the (apparently) special situation of the attacker (regardless of the unit type). You see, while I believe I've seen quite a lot of Missile attacks inflict a negative Morale status, I don't think I've ever seen a Siege Engine (Bombardier, etc.) force a foe to retreat... And it's the same about Skirmishers (Light Cavalry, etc.), which, incidentally, don't seem to inflict often negative Morale statuses - but this is probably more of a subjective feeling, based on their (usually) lower damage rate. No, I'm mainly talking about retreats here: has anyone ever seen Skirmish or Missile damage force a unit to retreat ? Or can't those types of damage reach such an effect ? For I believe the game treats them differently as far as morale saving throws (or checks) are concerned. This seems also true during combats involving flying creatures, even (this time) with Melee damage... Has anyone witnessed an enemy Sky Hunter immediately routed because of combat results ? I'm not talking about flying away during his Turn, obviously. Aerial combat does seems to benefit from special rules, but I'd like some confirmation there. And this leads me to my last observation about the special status of the attacker. I wondered earlier, a bit above, which kind of advantage being on the offensive provided to the attacker... Well, there seems to be one, undeniably, as the said attacker, regardless of his type, never seems to be (immediately) forced to retreat! Only the defender can be (immediately) routed. At least in my experience, but I admittedly didn't play a lot with huge screens of weak lower Grade units on the offensive (Slingers, etc.), nor do I often force attackers low of Life and Morale, to persist in their endaviours. So if anyone could add something to those observations, it would be useful...

- Morale's effect on melee performance. Yes, for there is quite undeniably one, and it seems quite undocumented, both in the game's manual and in most forums or articles. I knew nothing about it at first, before I fell (as evoked earlier) on David Melanson's trainer (https://cheaters-heaven.com/trainers/163-fantasy-general-universal-game-editor-module-ssis.html). The couple of details he talks about (in the lower part of his explanations) include an allusion to the possible influence of any unit's Morale value on its combat performance. That part did ring a bell, as far as I'm concerned, for I had observed related situations for some time, especially during the last Turns of most Random Map battles - since the AI doesn't seem to benefit from a huge budget on those (compared to most non Random Map ones) and fights are usually bloodier as there's no fixed objective for anyone to run at. From my perspective, the AI (almost) always seem quite desperate during those last Turns and, by "desperate", I'm not talking about its decisions, but about the actual performance of whatever units it still has under its command. The same units, which halted you and inflicted significant damage a few Turns ago, look quite weakened during those last retreats (with no Broken status) and with less Morale. Of course, there are various factors which could explain that, such as lower (Life and) Attack values, but, to me, there really seem to be some sort of common pattern (and fighting consequences) waved by those end game situations. It's less obvious on other Maps, as fights may not occur or last that often - unless you're deliberately casting aside all "No kill" tactics and trying to annihilate every single unit your army comes across. So I do believe now that Morale value (which can be set up to 200, using that Trainer) does affect melee performance, even though details about that aspect seem to be nonexistent for now. Any contribuation about that aspect would be welcomed...

- "Disoriented" status. That and only that. It's a common Morale status which, yet, isn't completely explained in the game's manual. Or at least not as clearly as it could have been. It is described as "only a temporary effect, that is gone after the attack is finished", while it is said, a bit sooner in the manual, that "disordered units recover at the end of a combat". So, what will it be ? Does that status concern only the initial attack (or the defense) which caused it, implying it never ever affects any unit for more than one assault (be it attack or defense, but not both) ? Does a Disoriented unit suffer from the corresponding malus during a whole "combat" (an attack, plus a possible retaliation) ? Could this status even be extended to further fights during the same Turn ? One does, indeed, usually see the "Disoriented" label appear repeatedly when the same Disoriented unit gets attacked by several units in a row, but that's no proof of anything - especially considering that unit's (rapidly) decreasing Morale, faced with multiple saving throws back to back. So, should anyone have precisions about that detail, I'm all ears...

- Definition of a Turn, regarding Spell descriptions. Another small detail, but about which I'd like confirmation. Of course, if the AI didn't cheat to cast its units' spells and abilities, it would be simpler to assess. And some of those spells' descriptions are explicit enough in that regard: Death Wounds affects only one fight, be it an attack or a defense, be it during the current Turn or an ulterior one. But since I often see Spell effects listed in opposing units' information panel at any point of the game, especially at the beginning of my Turns ("Forced March" for example, still appearing in your foes' panel one Turn after its use), I'm starting to have doubts and would prefer a definitive answer: by " one Turn", when talking about the Bless spell for example, did the game's designers meant only the current one or both your Turn and then your foe's ? Does "Bless" affect only fights occuring during the same Turn... or will it also benefit your units during your opponent's Turn ? Just like "Death Wound" could... This question also concerns "Armor" and "Berserk", but reaches new heights with the "Invisibility" spell. For that one obviously lasts for at least both your and your foe's Turn - it wouldn't be very useful otherwise, would it ? -, but I still wonder if a Skirmisher's sudden (re)apparence, right in the middle of an enemy army sometimes, can be taken in account by the AI. For you do have to cast "Invisibility" again during your Turn, and that often happens right under your enemies' noses. So I'd like confirmation about the duration of those spells...

- Building occupations, victories and all possible gold sources. This point is quickly explained, without details, in the game's manual. For one does gain gold each time he liberates - or occupies for the first time - a building which had previously fell into enemy hands. This event can only occur once per battle, but can therefore apply - if you're really that greedy and can manage to accomplish it - even with buildings which were initialy in your care. All you have to do is to push your opponent towards your buildings or let his units seize them, before you recapture those places, even though such a complicated move seems hardly worth it - except for Shrines of course. In any case, one gets 5 coins per liberated Town, which is not much, but does still add a small sum to each battle's final prize - considering it's not rare to fight on Maps which contain four, five or six Towns. During the early part of the campaign, small benefits like this one can always be nice. Now, to be honest, I didn't really pay attention (yet) to other buildings' economical impact, so I can't absolutely guarantee that a similar sum is granted for Towers and Castles for example. The manual does state so... and, interestingly, also distinguishes Villages from Towns, even though (at least to me) there seems to be no "Village" label - or any different Town graphics which could be considered as such. Shrines, apparently, are excluded from that list, but if anyone took the time to observe closely his Gold meter before and after liberating each building type, his observations would be welcomed. I also wondered if victories (mainly slaying units) could affect your gains in any way, but I guess such a thing doesn't exist.

- Hypothetical link between Shrine gifts and AI upgrades. I never thought about that point before someone mentioned it on the Fantasy General forum on Steam (if I remember correctly). According the one or two players who wrote about that aspect of the game, as the player finds gold through Shrine gifts and (at least) beyond a certain threshold, the AI will be granted a slightly larger sum to spend in reinforcements. This information was shared mainly in order to discourage new players from saving and reloading before liberating Shrines, which means I can't vouch for its actual accuracy. But if it's true, this obviously begs for a few more questions. How much would be that "budget increase" and when would the AI start to receive it... Also, one could wonder if the arrival of volunteers, especially beyond a certain number - since you're actually finding quite a lot of them, even without Marcas' Fame ability -, could affect the AI in any way. This is obviously mere hypothesis, but feel free to add any additional information about it.

- Link between Famous ability, fame and volunteers. I remember reading several times reports that some heroes (Krindel for example) merely appeared at their respective Shrines on a 40% chances basis. But that's about the only things I know about heroes and volunteers - those who'll join the player after liberating Shrines, as I guess others (between battles) are strictly granted on a fixed predetermined basis. I was wondering if some kind of "Fame" value was secretly calculated or (only) monitored by the game as a campaign advances... Do the chances of being joined by volunteers increase between Islands or not ? Do a player's victories have an impact on that aspect, although it doesn't seem so ? In any case, I wanted to know if someone had tried to calculate the Famous ability's effects. How much does it (precisely) benefits to Marcas ? If someone knows the answer, he'll do us a favor...

- Volunteers' departure mechanism. It is a common mechanism to each of the campaign's islands' last battle: you're always expecting to lose at least a hero there - should you have one -, in addition to all of your volunteers. But I don't have yet quite understood how this mechanic actually works: sometimes you're left by a single hero, sometimes by more. Which led me to believe that the player gets (somehow) punished beyond a certain threshold. And I red a similar observation on the Steam forum, also (apparently) in order to discourage new players from saving and reloading before liberating Shrines. The observer noted that the number of heroes leaving a player depended heavily on their total number within that player's army. After (and as a result of) each island's last battle, I suppose... Any additional details would be appreciated.

- AI adaptation and upgrades. Even though a formula regarding the link between any player's army and the AI's reinforcements' (bonus) experience level has been shared somewhere else (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/fantasygeneral/unbalanced-army-penalty-t402.html), I was wondering if someone knew further details about AI adaptation during any battle. For it does seem, at least up to a certain point, to adapt a bit to one's playstyle and army composition. It does recruit more Sky Hunters or Archers in some situations for example, but there seems to be some part of randomness in its purchases... Of course, this is only my own subjective observations, but, according to people - on old (archived) conversations of the Fantasy General Cooperative website - who tried to play through the campaign with very specialized armies, the AI doesn't catch up to their unique strategy beyond a certain threshold of specialization. It is completely overwhelmed if one manages to recruit hords of Phoenix Hawks or Phoenix Knights for example, instead of trying to counter it in a similar excessive manner. If anyone tried to experiment a bit with that aspect of the game and had drawn conclusions about it, it would be interesting to share...

So, that's it for now! I hope that one or two veterans (and owners the game's Official Strategy Guide) will notice this thread one day or another... It's always amusing to notice how little information can be found on internet about great games from older eras. Any additional details would therefore greatly benefit future players! Thanks in advance !

Additional questions:

- Distinction between Siege and Missile attacks. As far as I know, the game's manual doesn't mention anything about this, and yet it is definitely a factor which should be mentioned (and taken in account) when playing Siege Engine units. Their attacks aren't of "Missile" type, but are refered to as "Siege" type - despite, in practice, sharing most of their characteristics with the "Missile" type. The Siege Engine class' description does contain interesting information about it (+2 to adjacent units' [Melee only or Skirmish and Missile ?] attacks when besieging buildings - Apparently, Shrines are excluded of the list -), to which you can add its support attack to allied units engaging in combat with building defenders as long as the Siege Engine unit remains in range, but that's not all. So far, I've been able to confirm two additional features which seem worth to know: On one hand, Siege attacks never entice (any kind of) retaliation - While Archers attacking Archers will suffer damage, a Siege Engine can fire at point blank range against them with no fear of retaliation. On the other hand, they'll never be seen as retaliation themselves - which means a Sky Hunter can suffer from melee damage when attacking a Siege Engine (since it has a Melee value), but a Skirmisher, Archer or Bombardier can safely engage in combat with it: no ranged counterattack will occur. If someone noticed another feature worthy of being mentioned there, feel free to elaborate...

- Ranger Advantage during the campaign. After the battle of Giant's Throw Island, on the third continent, all the player's units are supposed to receive what looks like the Ranger Advantage (free movement through Forest hexagons, on top of an extra point of Vision range). At that point, the Ranger Advantage is indeed associated to the player's savegame. This can easily be checked by opening it with one of the game's trainers (like Gem Polish). Of course, it's not that useful on a continent almost exclusively covered by Jungle hexagons (lol), but that's not my gripe here. It seems that this advantage disappears rather fast. In fact, I only noticed the Vision bonus during the next battle (after Giant's Throw Island) and, because there were so few (forest) opportunies to actually make use of that Advantage, quickly forgot about it until it became a bit more interesting - on the fourth continent. Surprisingly, my units couldn't move through the woods for free... and, checking my savegame, I noticed that Ranger wasn't active anymore. Which begs a question: "why" ? Even through I've now gone through the campaign several times now, I still haven't elaborated a definitive conclusion about that: is there simply a bug somewhere ? Was it planned to allow the use of the Ranger Advantage only on the third continent and, even so, possibly only with half of its effects ? Or does a programming oversight mean that, in practice, the player only benefits from "Enhanced Abilities" during the course of his next battle... and that's it ? In any case, there's something weird going on here...

- Fame (Famous), Warlord and General Advantages. The game's manual only describes their effects during the campaign, completely leaving aside their (modified) interest in Arena games..., but not only those. For during the campaign, a few missions involve specific generals, using different Advantages than the Shadowlord's usual four henchmen. General Dreng, for example, relies on Fame, Warlord and General, like King Dragga, but the Goat King apparently favors Dwarven. In those cases, the three Advantages I quoted seem to work differentely than on the player's side. Now, from what I understood during PbM games, Warlord allows new recruits (bought during a battle) to start with an extra Shield of experience, while General allows for a(nother) free extra Shield during the initial recrutment process. This could explain why, against a player used to face, for example, level 3 (3 Shields) recruits at that point of the campaign, General Dreng is able to field level 5 recruits - using both of his Advantages' benefits. Am I correct here ? As for Fame (Famous), I'm not sure I understood its effect - while affecting another general than the player, that is. I believe this allows the AI to replenish its gold reserve, little by little, under some conditions. Possibly a similar gain as the player's, when he liberates any Shrine, Town, Tower, etc., but on a Turn by Turn basis. I checked General Dreng's economy regularly during the battles he's involved in - using trainers such as Gem Polish - and, on top of frequent purchases at incredibly low costs - which even the "Light and Heavy Infantry Recrutor" special ability can't explain -, his warchest almost always increased for completely unexplained reasons. At the end of one Turn, during which I bled him dry and forced him to recruit massively, he ended at 13 gold pieces... and at the end of the next one, after recruting several units - for around 150 and 200 gold pieces -, he was back at 35! I just don't get it, but, aside from any mechanics which could allow the AI to cheat, I'd like to make sure Fame (Famous) wasn't at work here.

- The AI's battle economy. As explained above, I'm starting to suspect that AI doesn't play fair when it comes to its economy. This might only happen because of special undocumented purchasing abilities, perhaps combined to equally undocumented ways to earn gold during battles, but, at least in Hard mode, it does seem to recruit units even though its warchest is empty. This observation, of course, relies mainly on experiments made with the few trainers available for Fantasy General 1 - UGE or Gem Polish. I repeatedly brought the AI's forces to zero (or so) and, even though it was supposed to be bankrupt, it still managed to recruit units again... But the pattern (and proofs) here are difficult to assess, for the AI's behaviour proves to be rather fickle: it may recruit like a powermonger during one Turn and yet fail to do so again after you've reloaded the game to replay the said Turn. It's difficult to understand whether or not it is really bound by common economical restrictions, completely freed from them, or an elaborate mix of rules and permissions in order to give (the player) the impression of a regular human behaviour. Which was a common issue with the AIs developed in early periods of gaming history... If anyone proceeded to such experiments, feel free to add your results here.

Can't help you there, just happy to see people playing and enjoying this great game. Made it to the 3rd continent and was intimidated by the huge map size, put the game down and never picked it up again. Hopefully I'll go back and make it to the end one day.

Can't imagine how big the map sizes on the final continent must be.

Hahaha ! I can at least pat you a bit on the back about that problem ^^: no, the next continent's maps aren't that much impressive. The game uses a few different map sizes and, from what I recall, the last map of the third continent uses the biggest one available. I didn't check, but I'm pretty sure about that...
So no, don't worry; if you try again, you'll get used to it. Plus, as your army only keeps growing in size, those big maps actually become easier to manage as time passes. Even in Hard mode...
Nice "Shadow of the Horned Rat" avatar by the way ^^ ! I enjoyed a lot that one too...