i'm not sure how feasible the new continents thing is, but i'd appreciate a more dedicated character sheet. this whole aspect on the game is getting overhauled (inluding perks), so i imagine the interface will be overhauled too.
[quote who="kapeman" reply="3" id="2945500"]With regards to specialization, wouldn't it make sense to get a bonus for having more of a specific building type in a city? [/quote] I guess that's what the % bonus buildings and level up bonuses are for: you get more bang out of them if you have more of the basic production buildings in the first place. so this change doesn't really make much difference to the incentive to specialize. I'
i thought about it for a moment, but all my ideas were obscene.
The recent discussions on 1.3 in the dev journals (about limiting the number of buildings you can have by settlement level, and increasing the citizen costs of buildings exponentially in this journal https://forums.elementalgame.com/408950 ) have got me thinking once again about the biggest problem with elemental, to my mind. In elemental, settlements (like characters) have levels, which they achieve by crossing certain popula
[quote who="Alstein" reply="15" id="2944855"]The citizen system is needed for town growth, and as a cap for infinite building. [/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by town growth. If you mean population, well we had that before we had the citizen system. The two are very different things. I've got no problem with population. Citizens are the number displayed in the building info as one of the costs of buildings. The point is that citizens are
This is defately the way to do it. Great designing there. I’d like it if the diplomacy techs removed the need for fighting some monsters altogether though. Those who use diplomacy to beat a lair would have to pay a “tribute” in gold per turns, but would be able to recruit more of the monsters, while those who defeated the monsters would not have to pay but would get fewer and more expensive creatures. That would be an interesting player and gameplay choice between li
[quote who="DsRaider" reply="9" id="2944689"] He is adding a building/tile limit determined by city level, and city level does effect and thus determine production. So what are you trying to get at? Plus the new scaling population costs will decrease building spam. [/quote] <span style="font-size: xx-sma
[quote who="noobshot" reply="7" id="2944682"] i agree with this 100%. this is one of the things that turns the game into fugly as it progresses. cities grow so much it eats the so called fantasy world around it making it look like one giant urban sprawl of a map. i really think the accual zone a city can grow in needs to be shrinked as to not eat the map. oviously all the buildings need to be shrinked into the box. like a lvl1 city can be 1by1 tile. lvl2-3 can be 2by2 tiles an
i too have read this a few times and still don't really understand it. as far as i was aware you could build as many buildings as you liked (other than uniques) in any settlement so long as you had enough citizens (and you almost always did). wasn't that the point? that citizens > buildings > production? i often had settlements with more citizens than population, which i thought was weird, but i assumed that those buildings were being "deactivated" (and if not, why not, if there
you're going to love fallen enchantress...
i really wish there was a recommended number of opponents stated for each given map size.
i can see the arguments, but it feels like a very artificial distinction.
dynasties were flawed in their current implementation. heroes should be one of the best units in the game and handing them out almost at random either mean the player can massively abuse the system and get a huge advantage, or you have to water them down. neither is fun. and because there's no aging, you end up with loads, which is really fiddly to manage. having said which, i would like them back at some point. medieval total war manages it quite effectively. so lo
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="30" id="2937259"]Yes, but do you go around renaming all the other players Cities and heroes too? What a pain in the ass.[/quote] preach it brother.
[quote who="RReppu" reply="62" id="2932354"] /snip These bugs have been in this game forever and they still are here! So what this pach is fixin then? These bugs are biggest and most annoying game killers atleast for me. [/quote] wow. i was about to load this up, have not tried it for the last few beta or three, but if this stuff is all still broken i don't really see the point, or what has really changed recently. i have all t
it will be really nice to see more of the gorgeous art that has been created for this game and see the story brought to life. i expect to really enjoy this stuff. however, i'm not sure if it's the best use of resources. most of us never played the campaign that shipped with the original game, and even (in the best case scenario), that the campaign and sandbox games were integrated as i always hoped they would be (both in elementa and gal civ 2) most will surely end up skipping
i raise this topic almost every month, see here https://forums.elementalgame.com/403887 it's reaching the point now where i'm starting to suspect some sort of minor conspiracy, or that stardock has something philosophically against upgrading units, since the feature never got (properly) implemented in galactic civilizations 2 either.
[quote who="Gwenio1" reply="102" id="2930515"] Quoting razor436, reply 61Speaking of balance and tech, there is one thing that always nagged me about TBS games: large factions have a large advantage at producing tech, leaving small factions lagging far behind. In Civilization terms, I'm thinking tanks and helicopters vs. musketeers. In FE, how does the little guy remain relevant in a game with large superpowers. Are small factions fighting a lost cause because they cannot build as ma
this is all very wise, a lot of thought has clearly gone into it. my thoughts? getting rid of techs spawning resources and monsters is exactly what the game needs. the problem with the resource system was that instead of encouraging players to pursue different, equally valid paths, it simply slowed or boosted you ability to do ANYTHING (ie, locked some factions in a situation where there was not enough food to grow and do anything else) and then, by the time you got to the mid
the ai always rush builds lots of individual basic units to get its power rating up, whereas i don't really build a military until i have the techs and income to build something i can be fairly proud of (and know that i'm not going to scrap 50 turns later). i know a lot of people swear by the tactic of spamming a load of spearmen in the early game and wiping out the ai before it can build anything, but i've always thought that sounded like a boring way to play. trouble is, once i&
i agree largely, so long as this can be done without making it difficult to level up new champions. personally i find the adventure/champion side of the game very fiddly atm. getting 4 champions 3 children, 2 spouses and 6 grandchildren up to a level where they are even useful/safe in the midgame to late game requires a lot of micro management and one of the easiest ways is to take them on battles they don't participate in. splitting xp is a much better way, but i'd want a few
+1 to the OP. this may be a small issue, but by the same token it must surely also be one of the easiest to fix. there must be no other easier way of lending a little bit of individuality to the factions than simply giving them each a long list of individually tailored names. for example, elven/welsh/arthurian names for paridien, english/shire type names for tarth, faux latin type names for kraxis, or whatever.
yeah, i think it's important to note that what makes the idea of the game so appealing in the first place is that it's essentially the omni game. civ building, magic, adventure, unit design, tactical battles. pretty much everything that any fantasy game tries to do. that scope and ambition is part of the reason why it's taking so long to get right, but it's also the whole point of the game. i think it can be done.
this is always the case in my games, and it was also the case in gal civ 2 as well. the ai always rush builds lots of individual basic units to get its power rating up, whereas i don't really build a military until i have the techs and income to build something i can be fairly proud of (and know that i'm not going to scrap 50 turns later). i know a lot of people swear by the tactic of spamming a load of spearmen in the early game and wiping out the ai before it can build anything, but
yes, i'm still reading the forums, but it feels like everyone's pretty much already said everything they have to say. once there is some new stuff to talk about everyone will roll back in.