I think that a lot of these fears will be mitigated by the relative power of the sovereign. In AOW, wizards weren't much better than lower tier combat units. From what Stardock has suggested, the sovereign will chew through combat units almost effortlessly.
Do I want to know the context in which that picture was drawn?
[quote]In some post some where they said at the start of the game you have to physicaly walk around and pursuade people to join your village.[/quote] Is this the Populous influence?
The interface.
I think that MoM and AOW have the right amount of abstraction -- no need to differentiate between physical damage types, first strike/negate first strike and similar modifiers provide enough distinction. I do agree that some form of elemental resistance/weakness system is needed, but I'd assume that the developers are planning on implementing that.
This is the best thread I've read in a while.
[quote]Face it; there are almost no examples at all of societies where women where prefered as heirs. That kind of political correct thinking will do nothing to improve the game. It's a fantasy game, but I want it bit realistic in political and economical terms.[/quote] Its accurate according to 'fantasy' as a genre, as opposed to 'fantasy' as reality with the addition of magic. For example, both the authors cited as influences use prominent female heiresses. Also, if you want
Whisky - Try abandonia or download.com. IF that doesn't work, try poking around on the Atari website.
There really aren't any. If you don't want to spend money, you'd be better off downloading Master of Orion or Ur Quan Masters which have been released as freeware.
Does this mean that your heroes will die of old age?
[quote]They spend very little on health care in the Sudan. Perhaps we should emulate them...[/quote] I hear, though, that if the UN Development Programme has it's way, they'll end up paying a lot more. Who says global socialism is dead?
[quote]I'd love to see gimped factions that could barely win on easy.[/quote] Why not have difficulty settings instead? Then you can play with or against [i]any[/i] faction at [i]any[/i] difficulty setting you choose? [quote]It doesn't I guess you never played chess or checkers then eh?[/quote] Pssh! Don't tell me that you don't appreciate the differences between white and black or black and red. [e digicons];P[/e] It's a bad analogy -- chess and checkers aren
[quote] With 12 factions there should be plenty of variety, some that are well balanced and some that are gimpy... I am with the people who feel that too much concern for balance absolutely kills this kind of game.[/quote] See above. That's certainly true of games which take a lazy approach to balancing. I agree that balance shouldn't be the [i]only[/i] consideration, but it should be [i]a[/i] consideration. I think there's some confusion about what balancing entails. It doe
[quote] I'll go a step further and say throw out balancing all together. Have some factions that are so gimp it is ahrd to win single player on Easy setting. If it becomes a big deal in MP and they all want to be perfectly balanced, let them all play the same faction or their own customer faction.[/quote] Why, when challenge can be determined by the difficulty setting? Balancing opens up a range of viable options -- this is true in both singleplayer and multiplayer. 'Letting them
Sure. I think that bonuses and penalties are a better way of handling this. The choice the player has to make is what combination of bonuses/penalties are best, considering their current situation. In other words, the Civilization system minus the interference of the Senate. (Or, alternatively, the Master of Orion system, which makes government type a racial pick.)
So far, the diplomatic victory condition doesn't fit the fantastic setting. From the discussion, it seems that most people want to shoehorn in some sort of Secretary-General of the United Nations/Orion Senate, but this seems more appropriate for a Civilization/Master of Orion setting. The cultural victory condition is interesting. It seems like a combination of Civilization's build the Spaceship/Magical Contraption condition and its cultural condition. I think the problem with it in i
[quote]I am deathly afraid that this is the factor all of gaming is boiling down to, making your game 'balanced' so everyone is equal. This is not the world we live in at all though it is so shallow. America and France, for example are not equal, neither is one person and another.[/quote] The problem isn't balancing, it's that many designers take a lazy approach to balancing -- creating mirrored sides rather than unique, yet competitive options. The reason for this is that the la
[quote]Commander Keen - on an old DOS machine[/quote] Same. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]
Is this different from the simultaneous turns option present (or by default) in most modern TBS?
I hated that. I want my populace to be an unthinking mob. While I have no problems with accepting penalties to espionage and war weariness in the name of freedom, I feel as though I should be making the important decisions, and shouldn't have to submit to the whims of the senate just to get my science and economic bonus. In other words, I would rather have a simpler game that sacrifices the need to engage in internal politics.
[quote]Much of early modern history relied on the ability of banking consortiums or families to provide the credit and specie necessary to supply, outfit, and pay soldiers, administrators, and builders. Just because it doesn't take pride of place in Hollywood movies doesn't mean banking only came to be with the advent of the internet.[/quote] Thank you for posting this. The objection, though, isn't that advanced financial techniques weren't influential [i]historically[/i], rather that
I don't think the game needs this mechanic. It's inconsistent with the generally medieval (ie. fuedal, rather than capitalist) fantasy setting. It also has the potential to lead to the 'game playing itself' vibe that I get when playing MOO3 -- or even worse, against you, as when playing a democracy in any of the Civ games. Perhaps if it were confined to a special event ('Citizen Moneybags offers to pay for part of the construction of your new barracks') it wouldn't be so bad.
[quote]What that manchester united debate is lacking is a premise from which you can start that has to be objective...[/quote] Obviously the example is given as an exaggeration. The point, though is that any debate which attempts to persuade cannot have any 'objective' foundation unless such a foundation is agreed upon by the debaters. The committed Pyrronhian sceptic, for example, wouldn't agree to the use of 'the sun has a high temperature so it is hot' as a foundation for deba
[quote] Of course you can start by choosing arguments that are true. It can be as simple is "The sun is hot" and work your way from there... I am not saying, by any means, that what I've posted is the absolute truth. I could be just plain wrong. If you find a flaw somewhere in my arguments and point them out to me, I will admit that I was mistaken, or bring up some new ones. That is how these things should be carried out. [/quote] You wouldn't have much success in convi
I'm on the fence about preordering. If I do preorder, I'll want to purchase the digital + software version. I can't guarantee, however, that I will have the same address when the game ships (or even if my billing address will be the same). Can I change the address to which the game is sent at a later date?