Alstein

Maybe a mistake, but I think Brad has everything story planned out for this years in advance. Hence the book.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="77" id="2783464"] Quoting lord ebonstone, reply 70Unless you're charging $30 for these, they're patches, not expansions. I still expect two free $30 expansions as an apology for this disaster of a game, the fact that I can't return it to you because I chose to buy from Amazon, and my general feeling of wasting $70. That's a pretty entitled attitude to make. My suggestion in the future would be to wait for a demo. That's what I tend to do. I can

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="47" id="2782965"] Quoting Robert Hentschke, reply 46 Quoting Stuie_acs, reply 43Even simpler than that would be: Defender moves first; attacker better be ready for whatever they are gonna throw at you (or else you shouldn't have attacked). That only reverses the problem of instant annihilation in the first round. It's neither fun nor "tactical" if a defending stack becomes unattackable. Instant win for the defender is not prefe

Does using a US proxy work for Steam?

Maybe combat speed gets a divisor for spells depending on how potent they are? Chain Lightning- if it gets a divisor of 2, combat speed would be if the mage moves at 4 speed 4/2=2. So a haste+ chain lightning combo would be effective.

[quote who="Kilsonx" reply="16" id="2781934"] Quoting Terraziel, reply 5As far as the ever increasing starting location resources are concerned, I think they would be better off dropping them as a conceit and just making your first settlement produce them by default, some sort of dubious special building, The Sovereign's Throne. or something like that. They could then go back to allowing random resources around your starting location which would add necessary variation.

Just thought of something- Sions. Sions may need to be changed because of this system: No idea how though.

To me, it's not hard to make a stand on this. How many games do you need to play at once? I did buy TF2, but that was a Valve MP-only game, for which I don't mind Steamworks on something like that- I can even see why a Steamworks-like DRM is necessary for a game like that. SP games don't need DRM. There's enough good stuff out there, though I don't need to "settle"

Because MoM did it does not automatically make it a good idea. I don't see the logic in that at all. Increasing mana regen should be either essence or int based I think. Books should give you the option of more powerful spells, more diverse spells, and more efficient spells. I'd love to see later on down the road, cross-elemental spells such as acid blast (water/earth hybrid), magma stream (fire/earth hybrid), great

Well, some obvious changes I think need to be made That +1 mana needs to be +10, +12, or +6 to allow for fractional uses. Not all summons should have the same cost. Book of summoning summons need to be more effective then straight elemental summons. In that sense, I'd like to see the magic tree changed- make spell books a lvl 1 magic tech, make the books themselves rare/ultra rare techs. Create more books. <

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="121" id="2613468"]Steamworks is architected according to their business model. Prior to Steamworks, if you wanted that kind of functionality (matchmaking, accounts, DRM, etc.) you had to pay $ per unit (whether it be to GameSpy or SecuROM or whomever). Steamworks pays for itself by bundling the store. I don't object to Valve doing that. I object to Steam fans who assert that it technically had to be done that way. It didn't have t

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="24" id="2778451"]Actually, a better way to solve city spam (rather than up army maintenance costs ... are u kiddin me holmes?) would be to have Total Worldwide population (of your faction) to cost food. Like, 1 food per 200 global population, or something. Then, like another poster mentioned, have each Specialist Building cost a certain amount of "free population" ... so you have used population and free population ... and only free population

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="2778171"]The bulk of the AI work is going to be in v1.1. It's almost impossible to make it produce a cohesive strategy given how easy it is for the human player to summon tons of units. It's an O(N^3) issue. Basically, it boils down to the need for a game AI to be able to have N strategies. In a typical game, say GalCiv II or Civ IV, you'd have the AI have several different general strategies (rush, boom, turtle, etc.). Bu

I have no problem using Steam for a) Valve games b) gamers that don't use Steamworks It's the Steamworks DRM/steam integration that I have issues with. Somewhat similar to the Microsoft antitrust suit to me. There should always be a non-Steam option for non-Valve games.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="8" id="2777246"]Basically, we need to move away from buildings that conjure resources. It needs to be about converting 1 resource to another. Food was chosen because you are seeded with a fertile land nearby as well as a gold deposit. If you have a resource that doesn't have some cost associated with it, what happens is that the route to victory becomes about creating as many cities as possible without regard to any strategic placement or considera

Basically, I think customization needs to be reduced if anything, at least for armor. The magical trinkets- those should be kept.. However, armor should be bought as suits & shields , not so much individual pieces. Simply do padded, leather, chain, scale, plate. Then enhancements on each. As for weaponry: I'd like to see that changed too Currting tech can make swords. Sword tech can ma

My idea spun off this: Have the logistics techs instead of increasing the size of squads, have them increase the stack limit? Heroes, summons, channelers, and other notable NPCs not count in the stack limits- to make them more useful? Adventurers with the leadership special ability (new ability) can count as -1 or -2 units for stack size (effectively increasing the stack limit) Cities get a +city

Just avoid AOW2 and you're fine. That game gets completely overshadowed and made irrelevant by SM.

I'm thinking more on the gameplay- there's nerfing, then there's obliterating. I'd have been fine with merchants just giving 1 or 2 gildar instead.

I don't think Merchants are that good a deal anymore. 1 food for 3 gildars isn't good. I could maybe buy markets with a buff costing 1 food, but not merchants/moneychangers. Could you revert that back?

Paypal is something I will never, ever use again.

the new resources they reveal, are they visible to all players, or just the players with the tech? Somtimes I get resources randomly pop up for me, and that's what I assume it is. Change suggested: Discovering those techs will reveal untapped resources only to the player with the proper tech Built resources are still visible to all players. Can someone confirm though that it works how I think i

It works. It's probably not supposed to be there yet, but it works.

[quote who="Gene1966" reply="2" id="2772377"]Increase the penalty for focusing on one tech even more than it is today, this would be a simple and yet effective tool to persuade folks to level their research across each of the tech areas. just my 2 cents...[/quote] That's forcing a style of gameplay down people's throats. The key is to make different paths, and no path- viable. Diplomacy, Adventure, and Magic tree issues can be solved w

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="159" id="2773418"]I never said that. However, Brad and others have said on multiple occasions that that was at least the general direction of what tactical combat would look like. People who have been on these forums longer than two weeks might know that...[/quote] I think he meant the real-time tactical, which got dumped. Probably for the best that it is, this game is enough of a Frankenstein right now as it is, that g