Sethai

why not split spell books from the elements entirely? ie no book of fire or water, but a book of lesser destruction, a book of minor summoning, a book of minor enchanting, then give EVERY spell in the game an elemental association so even a sov with only one book will get a benefit from any shard, but sovs with more books get more benefit. then create a common system for researching all spells and books (i'd personally merge the sorcery tech tree and the spell research mechanism and

is it just me who really dislikes the way that defenders get a counter attack against every single attack made against them? it allows melee units to do at least twice the damage that ranged units can, and really slows down proceedings. currently there is little advantage to surrounding an enemy versus letting him take on your units one at a time: the same number of attacks are made in either case with no modifiers. plus it slows down battles and makes the turn system far too coarse grained.<

[quote who="sagittary" reply="9" id="2768515"] No, they did not. The pikemen did.[/quote] well, it depends when exactly in the medieval period you mean. true, attacking the front of a solid pike formation was suicide, but the ability of cavalry to outmaneuvre infantry, neutralise missile troops and give the allied infantry the advantage through a flanking maneuvre won a lot of battles. it most of the cases i have studied, infantry were a powerful, yet dependable constant, a

what annoys me is that in the early game i have to build my cities in really awkward annoying narrow spots between the coast and forests (which i can only remove at 1 tile every 15 turns with blistering sands) and such like, just so that i can get the resources within their area of influence at the start of the game. the worst of these is the starting settlement which MUST be within two tiles of the starting fertile land, just so that you can get enough food to ever expand. however, once i ge

[quote who="gapper4" reply="44" id="2770050"] While I certainly respect your opinion [this being a free country and all], I simply cannot see why anyone would prefer TBS to TW-style tactical combat. TBS does not have a single advantage over TW-style, and does have many disadvantages. Since you can pause the game and issue orders in TW, you can make it as TBS as you want. It's entirely up to you how many "turns" you want a battle to have. You can't even flank properly in Elemental.

i think there should be a predefined, long list of good names for each faction. establish a linguistic theme for each: this is a really easy way of giving each faction a bit of individuality. by trying to make a random generator sound good you end up applying so many extra rules that you might as well just write out all the permutations. give one faction a romanesque theme (places ending is -us and -ium), one a more refined elfish lilt, etc.

more imprtantly, i'd like to see a combat advantage for taking a mount other than just speed. there should be hit point increases and a massive attack bonus on the turn you charge. cavalry ruled medieval warfare.

[quote who="ozzlok" reply="3" id="2768208"] I have to disagree. IMHO RTS games come down to about 10% strategy and 90% CPM (clicks per minute). There are even apps available for RTS games that will put an average CPM number up in the corner that you can monitor duing your games...Starcraft, C&C, Total War. If that isn;t a major part of the RTS then why do so many RTS players care what their cpm is? You can make up for a whole lot of strategical m

just thought I'd start a fun topic to give us a break from arguing over the minutiae of how best to fix the current situation of the game for people to and share their wildest ideas for future elemental games and expansions (assuming they are ever made). personally i'd like to see a further refinement of the strat mode, but make a big push to replace the tactical battles (probably the weakest part of the game at the moment) with.... epic, To

definately the specializations need to be displayed and some leeway for inspecting your empire first to be allowed but.... generally i'm not sure i even like the idea of levelup specializations. it's like they suddenly thought "holy crap, we need to come up with a way to make people care about levelling up" and just decided to slap on an arbitrary percentage bonus. imo the advantage of levelling up a city should be the ability to build new buildings (or maybe a base imp

i have never really got into the adventuring side of the game. usually i don't spot any inns within my territory after the first quest, and i can't figure out how to increase my notable location level. i think it's shameful that hp are linked entirely to con, with no level based bonuses. CON should provide a % bonus to base hp tied to level. currently even a well defended sov can be killed with one or two well placed attack spells. it doesn't help that the equipment in the shop makes it more

I really don't care about my save games. I'll play far more after the final version is released than i will before, so i'd hate for temporary problems to stand in the way of the ultimate quality of the game.

currently i think i like the global resources as is. conquering a crappy city on your outskirts and then having to develop it for years so you can reinforce your frontline armies is pants. as is the micro of shipping troops half way across the map (see total war games). forcing every settlement to develop, to me discourages the idea that the game is about having a few resource based outposts surrounding each city, and therefore makes power even more proportional to the number of settlements,

really, i currenty believe the present system is awful and needs a complete reimagining. giving hp bonuses to armour makes the stats an awkward compromise. i'd make the stat system universal, and have different hp systems for heroes and buildable units. keep items limited to attack/defense bonuses and hp tied to experience and stats. start with a base amount of hp, give an additional amount for each level of sovereign (or recruited experience), then multiply the whole thin

[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="18" id="2766397"] Quoting alborrelli, reply 13 And please.. please please introduce truly random events. I'd love to get that message at the beginning of turn saying, "sorry dude, a fire burnt down the XXX in your city"... or "sorry chump, theives made off with 20 chrystals" from your vaults... now THAT would rock. That would suck, actually. I hate random events that arbitrarily punish the player. It would be

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="103" id="2765685"]We agree with you. It's going to be modified coming up. [/quote] The system works EDIT: that is, the system of community feedback and dialogue. not the 1dN system, obviously.

even with a few gold mines, i usually still find myself in the same position as the OP and i've played quite a few games now. what's the point of building multiplier buildings when there's nothing to multiply? there need to be a few more base gildar production buildings. or alternatively, give me an extra gildar per turn per level of city, to encourage people to develop cities instead of building lots of little outposts.

they have all the same problems as minor civs in gal giv 2. the point of them, i believe is to add colour and give the player some easier conquests in the early to mid game. however, the arbitrary limitations on their nature are totally pointless. if you want to have factions that are more isolationist and less powerful generally, then this can be done completely through giving them different AI and changing their stats.

i have problems with this bar too. usually the resources are properly displayed in a black on transparent grid, but the pretty background image fails to scale correctly along with it. pretty minor though.

[quote who="Nack210" reply="26" id="2765612"]It'd be nice if caravans produced 2 things. 1st: Gold. Always. 2nd: One of the resources being produced in one of the two cities. Or even better, one of the resources made by the TARGET city. That way, if you trade with a friendly city that produces, say, horses, and you don't have any, you could get them that way. [/quote] this. exactly.

[quote who="Gene1966" reply="12" id="2764216"]FWIW... my two cents I think the current implementation is a design trade-off decision, I have no actually proof it's only my opinion or guess. I based this off existing game mechanics of Food Production. Unlike most strategy games were food is a required resource to expand one's population AND farms or other food producing improvements can be constructed, in Elemental only nodes that are fertile can produce food

[quote who="Fearzone" reply="44" id="2763201"] Not saying city building is perfect or finished, just better than the other aspects of the game. Plunking down buildings and watching the economy grow, yes, more or less I have a fun time with that, and in any case I think it is ahead of the rest of the game. We move forward not by comparing elemental with other games but by appreciating how it is unique and good, attending to that, and then fixing the rough edges. I hope to see

[quote who="Archonsod" reply="30" id="2763326"] Quoting Sethai, reply 13 a hell of a lot of people in these threads https://forums.elementalgame.com/393547 https://forums.elementalgame.com/395308 don't agree. A lot of people also thought the world was flat. Generally, I find the more people support something, the more wrong it's likely to be. The problem is the scale is off, not th

[quote who="Archonsod" reply="12" id="2762555"]The system works fine, it just needs the numbers tweaking.[/quote] a hell of a lot of people in these threads https://forums.elementalgame.com/393547 https://forums.elementalgame.com/395308 don't agree. you say that the AI can't handle too many stats. fine then. in that c

it may be good value in comparison to other spells, but only because casting in general is so difficult given the limited regen rates.