Cauldyth

You will give us beta 2 now. You will give us beta 2 now. You will give us beta 2 now.

[quote]Why the decision to drop Wraiths and Magnars?[/quote] The post is about the races of Men, and has nothing to do with the Fallen. Wraiths and Magnars are factions of Fallen, and will presumably be comprised of Fallen races (either Trogs or Urxen).

Hmm, even if you remove the housing to shrink the city size, that still seems pretty dense me. My gut feeling, having not actually played 1Z yet, is that either cities should be much smaller (1/4 tile for all improvements, not just housing?) or some other mechanic should discourage founding them that close together.

[quote]Personally, I think that cities of certain city size should be blocked from building certain buildings[/quote] Brad stated this as being the case in the OP. [quote]In Elemental, a city goes through 5 stages: Outpost, Village, Town, City, Metropolis. These 5 levels matter a lot because many types of city improvements require a certain city level.[/quote]

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="24" id="2585601"]My goal is to make my territory very defendable. My second city is 4 tiles away from the first one (city center to city center). My strategy will be to have the two reach out to one another to build a wall to keep other players out.[/quote] I suppose it's an example of a "Twin Cities" thing, which is not unheard of (Budapest is actually two cities grown together - Buda and Pest). I was just concerned that it wou

Those two cities you've founded seem awfully close together, especially considering that they may be building a fair number of additional improvements each. Is that indicative of the goal you're aiming for, or is it just a peculiarity of this example on a small map?

Some interesting sounding faction traits in that third screenshot...

I agree, I think the objections are to simplistic rock/paper/scissors. I disliked GalCiv2's combat for that reason. In Elemental, where we can make proper use of combined arms and battlefield maneuvring, it makes sense to represent the natural advantages/disadvantages of using certain equipment. Archers will be vulnerable to cavalry not because an arbitrary game rule dictates that they take extra damage from cavalry, but because they're slower than cavalry and not well armou

[quote]Personally, I picture playing custom games of 2 vs 30 AI players where the two of us are on a single team and the AI players are all playing FFA.[/quote] I'm sure that's how my friends and I will use the MP.

[quote]Will the AI assumably still be a fair opponent after, say, a year of play?[/quote] An AI will never be a match for a player who's mastered the game, unless it's allowed to cheat. It's not yet possible for even the best AI researchers in the field to accomplish that, except in the case of much less complicated games (chess, backgammon, etc.).

The beauty of player-designed units! So we can decide between versatile archers, who will be more expensive and so we'll have fewer of them, or highly specialized/vulnerable archers, which are cheaper so we can have more of them. Sounds like fun. Or we can just make horse archers, and give them a big honkin' sword in addition to their bows! They'll be expensive, but they'll be quite the versatile force. :)

Hmm, are horses perishable? And can we eat them? :)

That sounds good to me. I'm guessing that in a versatile game like Elemental, there will always be viable alternatives if you don't have access to horses or some other resource, unlike in Civ, where you're just screwed. I would also guess that something like metal ore would be relatively common, so you could always mine or trade for at least a little bit of it. Even if you only have a trickle coming in from one mine or trade agreement, you can still build an armoured force,

To the best of my knowledge, they've never even said what Combat Speed Modifier does. It may have more to do with initiative (who's attacks get resolved first) and nothing at all to do with DPS. So the dagger may just inflict its damage to the enemy before the enemy's return swing with the larger weapon is calculated. If the dagger happens to kill an enemy unit or two, then they never get their return attack. It's sort of like First Strike in MoM, but more finely gra

[quote who="cleflar" reply="21" id="2579430"]Cephalos developed the PerfectWorld map function. You have to download it from his site which is easy and safe. I believe that you can google it to find it, or send him a PM. He was very helpful.[/quote] I guess this is the latest: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=310891 Those screenshots look very impressive, particularly the second

By the way, one thing I would really like to see added to spice up the landscape are unique geographical features, some possibly tied to the Cataclysm itself. Perhaps a volcanically active region where the planet's crust is thin and lava flows freely, or perhaps a great rift in the earth. These would be unique features that wouldn't show up in every game. Some may be relatively mundane, apart from being a navigation obstacle, but others may prove to be of magical or strategi

Is it Thursday yet? :)

[quote]Ideally even a powerful Freeze Water Spell which turns the first 10feet of water to ICE thus preventing movement for ships, trapping water summons underneath and allowing ground units to walk across the ICE.[/quote] Yeah, I've been hoping for something like this. A Part Water spell would be nice too. Turn a water square into land while the spell is up, then it reverts back to water once it's over. It would also be neat if casting an Earthquake spell in the o

And some of these endgame summons should be uncontrollable. It wouldn't add the powerhouse unit to your forces, it would merely unleash it upon the world as a whole. You may control where it is summoned, but after that it just proceeds to wreak havoc on anything that crosses its path. Sort of a spell to unleash chaos upon the world, and chaos by its nature shouldn't be controllable. [e digicons]8(|[/e]

Here's the link: https://forums.elementalgame.com/364874 The relevant quotes from it: [quote]On our previous games, I wrote the AI myself – The Politial Machine, GalCiv, Entrepreneur, etc. This time, I have a small team to help me with it.[/quote] [quote]the AI in Elemental is a very big deal. People are excited about the features of Elemental but to me, those features are meaningless unless

Actually, Brad has previously stated that considerably more work will be put into the Elemental AI than went into the GalCiv2 AI. With GalCiv2, he wrote the AI singlehandedly during the final stages of development. He has said that they're starting much earlier on AI development for Elemental, and that he also has some extra help on it. Stardock has made it clear that the priority for Elemental is the singleplayer. Don't expect them to care too much about ha

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I'll say it again - I'll probably play on the cloth map even in the release. I like sliding pewter miniatures around a Tolkienesque hand-drawn map. :)

[quote]Having a rock paper scissor susyem would be a bad choice.[/quote] Oh, I'm not advocating that, I actually disliked that part of GalCiv2. I just want different types of units to have different roles on the battlefield, and that's only possible if there are somewhat more sophisticated distinctions between them. The example you give is a good one.

I would also like to see some differentiation along these lines. I don't want the situation where you're screwed if you built the wrong kind of unit, but I do want to see the game encourage combined arms. The game should encourage well balanced armies - a core of infantry, cavalry for rapid response and charges, pikemen to protect against enemy cavalry, archers in the rear, skirmishers for harassment, etc. That's only possible if different equipment imparts different bonuses

Brad has stated that there will be no "silliness" in Elemental. Edit: Sorry, that link above points to the exact quote. Ignore my redundancy.