Cauldyth

I'll say what I've said a while back when a similar question was asked. This is pretty much the only game of its type on the radar, and may very well be the only one released in the next 5 or 10 years. Do whatever you need to do to make it as good as possible. It would be foolish of me to insist on getting it earlier, and risk having it fall short of what it could've been. It's not an RTS for FPS, where I can just go pick up another one if this one is lacking. So

[quote]In this UI, the player has researched the ability to research 3 things at once (no penalty).[/quote] It seems to me like it should be the other way around. There should be penalties for focusing on only one research item. It makes sense from a logical perspective - adding more people to a project has diminishing returns. If a nation put all of its resources into researching a single thing then yes, it would go faster, but there would be a lot of waste. <p

I like it. It's akin to the Allies and the Soviet Union in World War 2.

Big thumb's up from me for camp #3.

[quote]I'm not into it but that only Stardock can host the games makes me wonder something. What if Stardock banishes? Will it be ready for a patch, made before the banishment, that enable people to host games in their computer?[/quote] When this has happened to other companies, they've simply released the server code publicly. Then people can run their own servers. I doubt Stardock is disappearing any time soon though. ;) [quote]I would still like to see bots as a

[quote]More dev shops need to be reasonable about slipping schedules when they need to slip. I'm a regular pest on these forums, but I'm entirely OK with seeing the beta 0 date move. And I'm also very happy to see a reaffirmation of the singleplayer experience as the center of the Elemental project.[/quote] Seconded. This may be the only fantasy TBS game of significance for the next 10 years, since most developers are piling on the RTS bandwagon. I want Elemental to be as

[e digicons]:-"[/e] The waaaa-aaaaiting is the hardest part... [e digicons]:-"[/e]

Someone should re-make Archon in the Elemental engine. ;)

Woo!

I'd also like to voice my support for using a more stylized art direction. I find it much more interesting than attempts at strict realism. Besides, if a company goes for photo-realism, can they really call it art at that point? Doesn't "art" imply some sort of personalized touch by the artist instead of just a mechanical re-creation of reality? Bring on the stylized art instead, it's much more interesting and distinctive!

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="22" id="1977215"]We're using Havok for physics.[/quote] You guys are nuts. And I mean that in the absolute best way possible. ;)

I would highly recommend EU3 plus the two expansion packs, Napoleon's Ambition and In Nomine. You can buy the whole set (called EU3: Complete) for about $30. The series adds a lot of depth to parts of the game that virtually all other strategy games ignore completely (intricate diplomatic relations, choosing which national laws to invoke, treatment of different ethnic and religious groups, rebellions with a purpose and goals, and the list goes on). I love it for the fact tha

So the new release date is what, 2015? [e digicons]:grin:[/e] I look forward to seeing the video (or any other new media you care to dribble out to us!).

[quote]"We have never forgiven you for killing our great hero Sir Lawrence in the War of 1266, and now intend to take this opportunity to avenge ourselves upon you."[/quote] This reminds me of something else. From screenshots, obviously terrain features can be given names (either by the player or automatically by the game, it's not clear which). Can wars also be assigned names? That would be cool, particularly if the AI would occasionally refer back to them.

[quote]I agree that 'next-gen' game AIs should be include story/personality parameters in their decisions as much as possible. I want a single-player TBS game where the computer players are at least as much concerned with building a story line as they are with any given zero-sum game checkpoint.[/quote] I'd also love for AIs to be able to recognize situations within the game, and respond/react/comment accordingly. I don't mean in ways that are directly aimed at making them bette

Most of June is in spring. Spring ends around June 21st. ;)

Well, this all sounds very awesome to me. It should also allow the AI to use up many more CPU cycles than they would normally, right? If each AI is running on its own CPU somewhere in the deep bowels of Stardock HQ, then they can do a lot more computationally intensive stuff than if all 5-10 AIs were running on the same CPU that the user was also playing on (running 3D graphics, etc.). Very nice!

I agree with the general sentiment of what's been said so far. I'm okay with insta-transport portals as long as they're very expensive and late-game. They should be so expensive, probably requiring continual "mana" upkeep from the channeler while active, that they would not be used casually. One thing I hated in MoM was the insta-travel roads. As others have pointed out, it completely removes all strategic considerations of army deployment. Just build one mega-st

How about just allowing the user to change the difficulty setting mid-game? If they're doing too poorly or too well, then they could adjust the AI themselves. They could even switch back and forth between two settings every X turns, if they want to simulate an AI that's somewhere between those two.

[quote]Plus, I am a role-player at heart, and that "balance" talk has always seemed like jock crap to me and has no value if you're talking about some amazing fusion of playing a Napoleonic or US Civil War miniatures game and re-imagining one of your favorite fantasy novels.[/quote] Well, those latter two would be considered full conversions, and thus would be internally consistent. I've got no problem with things like that, but what was described in the journal entry was a mech

[quote]So for most players, they will probably stick with what we include[/quote] Count me among them. What you describe sounds cool, but I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to game content. I'm also a firm believer in Sturgeon's Law: "99% of everything is crap" and I believe that it applies doubly to game mods. You guys may be ranking and sorting them based on production value, and so forth, but that won't address issues of game balance. It's difficult enough

Sounds... interesting. Just for the record, I hope single player is still the top priority based on what was said. My priorities will always be single player first, then conventional multiplayer (primarily just a me and a friend or two playing against the AI). Persistent multiplayer sounds unique, but I hope it won't draw too many development resources from the first two items.

[quote]I missed the talk from Frogboy about no tactical water combat. Was aerial combat mentioned as well? [/quote] In a couple of the previews at other sites he mentioned that naval combat would be simplified. I believe somewhere on these forums he also mentioned that he's opposed to flying units, but I may be wrong. I'm sure there will be units with wings (dragons, for a start) but I don't think they'll be able to remain out of reach of ground units during combat.

Personally, I hope (and am glad to hear) that water will be treated differently and most of the combat focus will be on land. One thing I dislike about Dominions is that water provinces are just like land provinces, you just need units with a different flag set to enter them. I'd prefer that the strategic mechanics of water tiles be completely different than the strategic mechanics of land tiles. I don't want to see armies of units marching across the surface of the ocean,

Plus, it's only 6 months until the public beta, at which point anyone who's pre-ordered can play it. Need to get people interested in it by the time that date arrives!