Alstein

Oh, I do believe a nerf was needed. This is just way too much of a nerf. Right now, .76 is less enjoyable then .75 despite the nice fixes in other areas. I'm going to see if there's ways around- you may have to do military techs early and get better units, but that's still leaving a large chunk of early game where you're spamming doing nothing- which is unfun. BTW: I do understand that balancing takes time/issues, and overnerfing happ

By grain do you mean the bonus resource. If you mouse over settle with your sovereign or pioneer , you can see the grain/materials for each fertile tile.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="1" id="3066483"]proactively kill them?[/quote] They're often too near to strong/deadly monsters, making it impractical. I don't mind strong monsters or enemy armies razing stuff, but having weak monsters destroy your improvements early game when you don't have stacks to fight them is super-annoying.

This idea would require upgradable outposts. Why not have outposts "scare off" monsters of a certain strength? A level 1 outpost would scare off weak monsters, level 2 medium, level 3 strong? Beyond that no effect. I'm just getting really annoyed at monsters attacking my improvements adjactent to outposts. It's impossible to defend all your territory, so most of your stuff will get razed by random w

I think what you did was a little overkill on the low levels. I think it makes sense for the higher levels though.

The one thing I don't like is army-wide penalties for injuries. It should be champion only.

I do think enchantments need to have more diversity in maintenance costs, and fractional costs. I'd also like to see a tactical mana limit based on spell affinity and intelligence. This would make using those high-level spells require some specialization.

The big thing I want with outposts is for them to defend improvements within their ZOC. Preventing a raze of something within the outpost's ZOC until you defeat the outpost seems like the best option. I'd also want to see upgradable outposts.

[quote who="Computica" reply="58" id="3065266"]Being greedy is sometimes the main motivation of some companies. Most people not only want to make bigger profits than last year but give themselves big bonuses also. You eventually would have to wonder what it all leads to if you own a company that didn't have any competition or was the top at its class. [/quote] The very nature of large public corporations is that they are beholden to their shareholde

[quote who="Zaisha" reply="5" id="3065899"]Something to keep in mind is that if injuries are too crippeling, they simply create the "reload save before battle" impulse that a dead champion has. A champion that becomes effectively useless after one or two lost fights might as well be dead. [/quote] True, but it's swung in the other direction, where I use my champions to be cannon fodder for my normal troops. One thing that I thin

In general, I'd say the following 1) AI of course. 2) Pacing issues 3) I think the game needs random events, and as many as BTS/FFH had. 4) Unrest needs to be a real mechanic, with real effects (like rebel armies spawning), and be affected by things other then just taxes. I think a lot of folks are complaining about lack of choices, but I think some of this may be due to the above issues. It's p

I think part of the problem is a lack of Civ IV/FFH-style events. Makes things a little too deterministic. Sometimes FFH events changed how you'd do something. Also, it might be possible the slow tech speed is part of the problem here as well in terms of feel.

Injuries should be a table, with modifiers based on two factors a) Number of deaths b) How negative you got. If you go to -1HP, it should be something minor. -60HP should have a good chance to cripple or kill you. (Maybe it could be cumulative HP you went negative by)

Increased costs don't get passed on to the consumer in highly competitive markets, or with elastic goods. It's the stuff that hasn't had a free market develop yet, or has had its free market broken by large corporations, that costs get passed onto the consumer.

Idea: Maybe add an option to the details on caravans to auto-send to a city you've founded or set a trade route to already? A caravan screen so to speak.

I don't mind it, but I do think unit sizes need to be upgraded- to balance normal units vs heroes.

They've already said that this will be "it will be ready when it's ready" game. Agreed on the building everything in every city, and hearing that they want to lower the number of buildings, not sure that's a good idea- may need to do the opposite. Maybe build times need to be reduced in the later game.

With books, have two champions in a stack. Trade the book from one champion to another- both champions can then read the book apparently. I wasn't able to see if it worked, but an unmodded Irane had a strength of 9 afterwards, so it looks like it didn't work, so it might just be a UI glitch.

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="47" id="3064811"] Quoting Alstein, reply 42Trade barriers are just holding off the inevitable. Addressing income inequality is probably the fairest solution to maximize net social benefit. I agree with the first part because the way trade is supposed to work is that it allows different countries to specialize at what they are good and trade for what they are bad at making, thus increasing the productivity and output of both countries. If

If there's no way around this, then unique one per civ buildings should be destroyed on capture, or auto-replaced by a placebo building which does nothing. If you capture a placebo building and DO NOT have the appropiate building, it becomes auto-replaced by the actual building.

[quote who="RavenX" reply="43" id="3064681"] Quoting Alstein, reply 42Trade barriers are just holding off the inevitable. Addressing income inequality is probably the fairest solution to maximize net social benefit. Indeed. It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens though.[/quote] I'm thinking 10-20 years. Just gotta have boomers start dying off.

Trade barriers are just holding off the inevitable. Addressing income inequality is probably the fairest solution to maximize net social benefit.

[quote who="myfist0" reply="1" id="3063432"]WTF, now I have to login to see that article? I guess I better stop quoting an article with a link to it as I will probably be extradited. Well I found it and I like the "flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers" flexibility = 80 hr work week diligence = no bathroom breaks industrial skills = they can work a screw gun All while living in a dorm no better than pr

double post

The problem with this is boring endgames are kinda endemic to the genre, due to the slippery slope nature of the genre. If you do something about it, you often get blasted for clumsy "comeback mechanics". It's really a difficult design problem and a no-win situation.