Sethai

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="8" id="2970390"]Keep in mind that, so far, all marketing announcements have showcased how FE is different from WoM. While we're not wasting much breath on their similarities, E:FE will be a natural progression of streamlining and improving Elemental, and at it's core it IS still Elemental (4x city building, exploring, expanding, battling, etc). So don't worry about us flipping from Fantasy 4x to RTS or something [

I welcome the decision to ditch spell books. The idea of books coming from tech research and spells coming from spell research seemed sort of like saying the same thing twice as far as i was concerned. Overkill is a good mechanic as well. It means that two guys

Good questions. The initiative thing I believe is coming though details are scarce. I’m very curious about it actually. If it just determines the fixed order in which units on the battlefield take their turns then it will surely be a rather minor advantage once the first turn has passed. On the other hand if it provides a continuing benefit and units with high initiative will effectively have to wait less time between their turns, it will result in some units effectively getting the occ

I can see why they are trying to support both, so that WoM ends up as a more respectable product,, but ultimately I don’t think any of us want two games and have to decide which one to play because they like some of the features in one and some in another. We still don’t know too much about FE. People say it will be more focused and more story driven, but so far I’m not really seeing what WoM features will be missing. Obviously dynasties have gone, but that was a sen

What's clear is that some consolidation is needed. We can't go on with there being two completely different types of unit in the endgame, one with 10 attacks at 20 damage each, and another with 1 attack doing 200 damage. You can either simplify the groups down to the level of monsters and turn those extra guys into simple attack and defence bonuses, or you can make the monsters and heroes more like the groups with multiple attacks. Increasing attacks would keep the distinction

[quote who="Winnihym" reply="33" id="2968267"]No, you couldn't design your own units, but let's talk about balance. Solutions to balance this would be to have the monster have better probabilities of hitting, or be able to attack faster, or (like MOM) have damage from the attack be able to spread over multiple units (so that the monster can kill, say 6 units at a whack on a good roll). [/quote] Great post winnihym. MoM might not have had unit design, but

[quote who="Das123" reply="25" id="2966795"] But rather than using dice roll mechanics to do this, it would be better to just use maths to achieve the same thing. And then if you are using maths to do this then you no longer need multiple hits for regiments and they can then work as units. [/quote] Hmm. While it is very possible to normalize results artificially, I fail to see why it’s better that way. In fact, I think it’s slightly murky and deceptive t

[quote who="jecjackal" reply="26" id="2966807"]While extra attacks for extra members does make since in some scenarios, it doesn't make since in all. For example, if I am a hero fighting 100 enemies in melee, all 100 enemies cannot attack me at once. I think there could be a simple solution to this. Max Soldier Attacks = TargetNumSoldierSize + 1;.[/quote] Yeah, I agree. I lean towards max attacks = the average of the attackers and the defenders. But you'd have to leave th

[quote who="Das123" reply="23" id="2966734"] I agree with most of what you are saying, Sethai, but as you yourself point out the very nature of the beast makes balancing this game nigh on impossible. I'm considering how other games have abstracted combat and other than Heroes of Might and Magic I'm struggling to find good examples of stacks of individuals attacking as multiple units as opposed to stacks of individuals abstracted down to a single unit. [/quote] It is

[quote quoting="post"] Multiplying attack numbers for groups is shit. Make the benefit of groups mainly about survivability with a slight attack bonus - not a multiple of all the attack strengths in the party. [/quote] I dispute this. It's certainly not as valuable as better weapons, but this is because of the problems with weapon damage values starting to low and finishing too high, which is the real problem here. I know you're trying to work within the sytem, but I

[quote who="Winnihym" reply="20" id="2966025"]MOM handled multiple units well, because attack values for any given combat were based on single unit on single unit combats. A unit with 8 figures in it (halfing slingers) was devastating not because of a single large attack, but because of 8 little attacks. I think each slinger had an attack value of 3 or 4, wihch in the MOM world was 3-4 30% chances to hit and do one point of damage. Defenders had a defense rating, of which ea

[quote who="Vallu751" reply="12" id="2964955"]A quick note to op. Attack numbers are not multiplied for groups even though the UI shows it that way. A group of 4 soldiers with 6 attack each will make four distinct rolls of 6, not a single roll at 24.[/quote] This is the point exactly. Everyone keeps saying "unit X should get 12.512% attack bonus in Y situation," but they're really missing the point. It is not a question of how the system can be tweaked but of how it works

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="53" id="2962224"]http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm Once oil production starts the terminal decline, a huge population die-off is inevitable anyway. [/quote] What sort of world would be left for the survivors though? How much sufferring must they go through first? Isn't it better that people not be born than die painful or humiliating deaths from starvation, disease or war? As to how a sterilization policy would effect gender

I apologise if the purpose of my thread were misinterpreted. I am not certain that population control is ethical and my intention was more to discuss that, if it was accepted, how it could be achieved. I believe it can be however. Offering money for sterilization is not the same as people selling their

[quote who="navigatsio" reply="11" id="2961448"] Agreed. Besides, what criteria or organization, entitiy, authority, etc. would anyone suggest be responsible for determining the measure or worth by which one stays..or goes. Be kinda like playing God, don't you think? (or whatever "higher" power you believe in...) [/quote] Well, as said previously, every action ultimately has an effect on other people's reproductive choices. For example, the issues of

Given that environmental damage and resource consumption are proportional to the amount of human being on the planet, can population control techniques ever be ethical, justified or practical, and if so which techniques are fairest? How can population control be implemented without creating a gender imbalance? Must the operation of such programmes be implemented on a national basis, or is an international consensus required? Is it fair to say parents in developed countires (often with declini

[quote who="Tridus" reply="38" id="2958568"] Quoting Sethai, reply 37 The Wii & Kinect only sell to people who don't like video games and want an expensive, more flashy looking version of kerplunck for "family occassions" that sound nice in theory but which no one enjoys. If those people enjoyed games they would have bought stuff like deadspace extraction, okami, boom box... but they didn't. "Enjoy it" and 'want more&#39

Sieges would be nice, if they can find a way to do them better than the status quo without diverting too many resources or attention from the basic stuff. I’d also advocate a “laying siege” mechanic where an army surrounds a settlement without actually going in for the kill. Armies should not be able to move to a city and attack the inhabitants in the same turn unless they have the means to do so (ie catapults). The attacking army should have to wait a number of turn

Wasn't the wii just a gamecube with a fancy controller? I think ninty have made a smart move. Hardware is plateauing and the Wii U will be powerful enough to last a good long time. Motion control will clearly never be precise enough for anything but gimmicks. The DS has demonstrated clearly that a personal touchscreen can have tons of uses. The Wii & Kinect only sell to people who don't like video games and want an expensive, more flashy looking version of kerplunc

All very good general points by the OP. It goes back to what I've been saying for a long time: so much of what is wrong with this game come back to the now byzantine city planning system, which the AI clearly can't get it's head around. A clear system that just limited cities to a given number of studies/workshops/laboratories at each city level (and thus abolished gold maint thereof and citizen requirements) would both be simpler to play & code for, represent all the options

[quote who="RooksBailey" reply="6" id="2957955"] As for how to balance Champions with children, I think the easiest, and most logical way, is to get rid of the imbue champion ability. What was supposed to have separated the sovs from the rank and file were there ability to use magic. By allowing sovs to give champions this ability, you destroy the uniqueness of a sov. I think only sovs and their children should be able to use magic. This would be consistent with t

Actually, I seem to remember reading that brad was something of an Ice & Fire fan, as am I (that's the book series), funnily enough. It's sad that dynasties have gone, but without nerfing heroes, it would have been impossible to balance dynasties. You can't just hand out the most powerful units in the game like that.

This has got to be the best and most economic way of illustrating this kind of game on this kind of budget. Even if you could do 3d cut scenes i think you'd lose something of the stylised look to the game. If you've got the art, flaunt it, I say.

[quote who="marlowwe" reply="61" id="2956970"] Hmm, I would argue that it is in fact a fundamental design decision. Each trait that is added to the game must be meaningful and must have a well defined purpose. A player should never look at a trait and say that it is superfluous. Otherwise what is the point of having it in the game? Instead a player should look at a trait and recognize that there are trade-offs and that the trait may or may not help them. Whether the player succeeds

I would add to the list in the second post that you also need to focus on technologies that either improve food or improve housing. If you can get big cities sooner than anyone else you can win the game in whatever the hell way you like, because those people will get you more technologies sooner, and much money with which to pay for them. This is why the city system needs fixing more than anything else. The city/population/economy thing needs to largely something that just "happens,"