But challenge and strategic considerations are only fun up to a certain point. What you're suggesting just sounds like adding another variable to optimize. Providing mechanism for monster spawning isn't on its own very compelling, since there are other mechanisms which could serve the same purpose. Obviously all of this is just theorycrafting -- I'd have to play it to know.
There's a delay.
Hooray for moral progress! Instead of stripping the clothing off our fantasy women, we're turning them -- literally -- into the reproductive organs of the state. [e digicons]:|[/e]
Yuck! Corruption/pollution is one of the most annoying mechanics in Master of Magic/Civilization. If traditional pollution is modeled, then it should either be removed from tiles automatically, or be modeled as a production penalty as in Master of Orion or a growth penalty. As for magical pollution, perhaps as a special event, but not as a mechanic.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="7" id="2404192"]I don't think you guys can mod anything right now because the data is streamed from the servers. [/quote] Does this mean that the .xml files in the /English folder are overwritten every time the game is loaded? Or are they ignored?
Civ II: Test of Time... but I think this is going in the other direction from the one you wanted.
So does the game read all .xml in the English folder, regardless of the file name?
Any reason why Python 2.x as opposed to 3?
X-com might not be as fun in a melee-heavy setting.
Sounds cool! I've started on a couple of projects like that - although never finished. You might want to consider eventually switching to something like python. Most scripting languages aren't very good at storing and sending data, which becomes a problem when you start trying to build a ui.
Company of Heroes - Should be relatively cheap these days. Gets repetitive, but fun while it lasts. As someone put it on the previous page 'not Starcraft'.
Whether or not fictions elicit genuine emotional responses is controversial philosophically (ie. the seemingly emotional responses that we have may not count as 'actual emotions'). I don't know if that matters for your science fair or not.
There has to be some significant penalty for losing your sovereign. Be it essence, mana, a delay, etc.
Right-click move is Warcraft-style. Left-click move is Command-and-conquer-style. Either way feels fine.
Are the rates at which units are constructed tied to the size of the city/city improvements?
My only complaint about Sins cards was that the real-time nature of the game made it difficult to constantly mouseover a unit to actually read the infocard. Should work great in a TBS like Elemental.
Option C or A. The unit shouldn't be able to be built (with full gear) without the resource. I take it then that all resources in elemental are going to be like strategic resources in civ?
How about a Harry Potter-inspired horcrux-like system, where sovereigns can throw some spell to invest a part of themselves in some item/unit/whatever in exchange for a terrible price, say, splitting the sovereign's power -- her essence, casting ability, etc. -- by the number of times the spell is cast? Obviously the specifics would need to be worked out.
Oh sure. The hex/square debate is fine. I thought you were arguing in favor of the bizarre pythagoran-based system proposed by the OP. I don't think the problem is as bad as it's made out to be, but I don't think there're any real problems with a hex system. Cheers.
[quote]If there is a graphical representation of the tiles you can travel to, then there won't be any calculation to do. And travel paths would be more realistics.[/quote] I can build a unit that moves three squares/turn in nine turns, and a unit that moves two squares/turn in five turns. The enemy city is nine squares away, six horizontal/vertical, three diagonal. It isn't immediately obvious which choice is the better option. That [i]is[/i] a problem that isn't solved by any graphic
[quote]But gameplay-wise it add problems, like that city that is at "3 turns from you" when it should be 5 turns! Isn't it a real strategic problem?[/quote] Erm, no, it isn't because players adapt their strategies to fit a square-based system. Civilization players have been able to handle it fo
It's tedious if it's repetitive, with little challenge involved. You know the next city is going to fall to your stack of doom, it's only a matter of your stack reaching that city. It's not really the roleplaying aspect, which you seem to enjoy, it's the challenge. Really, for me, the most fun part of the game is the turning point, right before I realize that I am going to win.
[quote]... "ending sentence with preposition".[/quote] Which is a horrible lie perpetuated by high school English teachers who don't understand that English isn't Latin and that intelligent speakers don't always use adpositions prepositively. (In this case, the 'in' is redundant, so removing it is a good idea.) [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
Actually, this example is culled from Master of Magic and Age of Wonders. For example, defending with Nightblades, which were invisible, or Golden Dragons, which were flying and magic immune, are popular strategies in those games. Without turn limits, battles could turn into an endurance race, or a game of chicken. Battles should and probably will have a retreat option. As for indecisive or multi-turn battles, well, do 4x games need to be any longer than they already are? Mop up is al
If it were to cost 2 * sqrt(2) to travel diagonally, why should it cost 2 + 2 * sqrt(2) to travel two squares horizontally and one square vertically and not 2 * sqrt(5)? Any decision that's made -- save real coordinates, which are incompatible with the game as currently conceived -- will be 'unrealistic' and to some extent arbitrary. 1-square-same-cost is the best option because of its simplicity: it avoids the problem of fractional -- radical, really -- movement points.