[quote who="Beric01" reply="31" id="3093310"] Let me lay this out very clearly for you: Blargh...unit design!!! [/quote] Yes, I have no problem with you disliking custom unit design, and thinking No good game can ever come of it. I don't agree, but that's just my opinion. My original statement was directed at the desire to put a function to have the feature disabled, when it is compl
[quote who="smakemupagus" reply="26" id="3093297"] if you try it a couple times to find out you don't like it, the AI keeps using the units you designed. .[/quote] Now that specific issue, *is* something I can see wanting to be able to disable.
[quote who="Beric01" reply="25" id="3093295"] And this "optional" feature WILL intrude on my game. It's resources devoted to a system that will never work properly, and thus taken away from what truly needs work. .[/quote] So you made your argument against it, and move on. If the resources are already spent on developing the feature, what good does it do to require the devs to spend more resources on putting in a function to disable an entirely voluntary
[quote who="Beric01" reply="21" id="3093231"] Quoting Bingjack, reply 20 Quoting Beric01, reply 18 Make unit customization a disable-able feature. Why should something that's completely voluntary be "disable-able"? Because there's almost an obligation to use it, and it's then assumed the AI uses it as well.[/quote] Yeah, I don't buy this. There's no way a completely
Everyone wants faction differentiation with meaningful gameplay impact. The players want this. The Devs want this. I want this. Theres a guy that feeds the pigeons in a park by my house, and he's never played the game, but I'm pretty sure he wants this. Out of curiosity, though, would you be willing to launch the game with only 3 different factions as long as they were sufficiently different? Gal Civ 2 didn't hi
Ahhh. Gotcha. Thanks!
[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="7" id="3093216"]First of all you have to make it clear what the threat level means. a ) How difficult the battle will be for YOU b ) how difficult the battle will be for the average human player c ) how difficult the battle will be for the average AI player [/quote] All those things change with the stack it's being compared to though. I think about the best we can realistically
[quote who="JaboJoggins" reply="2" id="3093214"]I thought the way that feature worked is that it flagged the unit so that when, through technology, you gain a better armor/weapon that the design will automatically be updated. [/quote] I've always had to manually upgrade my units. When parked in your own territory, there's an "upgrade" option in the extended action menu, if one is available. It's possible I'm doing some thing wron
I'm leery of absolute counters in a game without readily available damage types. It's not like it was before in WoM, where there was different flavored elemental damage in the low end of every spellbook. For a large part of the game your practical damage options are going to be physical, and fire *if* you have a fire mage. At some point you can build magic weapons, *if* you have crystals. Otherwise, most non-fire elemental is currently end game, with high level
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="107" id="3093169"] They're units in the game. In my game anyway. God knows what's in beta 2. That's like, 3 weeks ago.[/quote] That's cold, man.
This is a real question...I fear I may be misunderstanding something. Please correct me if that is the case. The way it seems to work, is that in the unit designer, if you want to make a unit able to upgrade its equipment at a later time, presumably by buying the upgrade while in owned territory, you have to deliberately select "upgradeable" for that slot. It doesn't appear to increase the cost in any way. If that is the case, why wouldn't all units be upgradeabl
[quote who="Beric01" reply="18" id="3093144"] Make unit customization a disable-able feature.[/quote] Why should something that's completely voluntary be "disable-able"?
[quote who="wickedmurph" reply="30" id="3093153"]There is one pretty straightforward way to deal with this - one that thousands of wargames have already hit upon. Simultaneous damage. Give the attacker a damage bonus, but make both units hit at the same time, either way. This allows you to keep damage breaking down your units effectiveness, which is good, but eliminates that whole "first strike" issue.[/quote] Lots of great tactical games *don't* d
I imagine the tactical layer makes it very difficult to ballpark actual threat levels, because of what a player mind can do on a tactical grid that an AI can't, and the things the AI cant take into account, like movement and special abilities. If I were playing an Ironman game in roguelike fashion, I would definitely pay attention to it, as in that situation I would be erring always on the side of caution. In a casual game, not so much.
[quote who="mastroego" reply="103" id="3093083"] It won't be nice if they finally start to listen to posts like this around beta 4 or something. I hope to be proven wrong but I'm seeing a pattern here. Can't do more races because of the 3d models? Fine, then be A LOT more daring with flavour and differentiation. Sure, we can play Civ with just humans, but we know about Chinese, Mongols, Greeks... it's enough to fill in with our imagination. I
[quote who="AAndrewKnight" reply="25" id="3093059"] Quoting Bingjack, reply 23but neither is making weapon damages *more* similar. Not necessarily more similar, just weaker, so we would have, for instance 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 instead of 10, 20, 50, 80, 100 damage. So that it is not possible to kill a unit in one, or even two or three strikes, unless you use a very very late weapon against an unarmed opponet.[/quote] The thing I don't like about that, is th
[quote who="AAndrewKnight" reply="22" id="3093045"] Attack rating shouldn't stack one on top of the other, but rather something more like a +1 for each additional squad member, not +10+20+30, until even low tech units are one-slotting entire planets. Don't agree about that. Attack should be multiplied by squad members just like it is now, but the damage should be much weaker overall. Units should be able to answer the first strike with mostly the same strength. I sugg
[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="2" id="3092931"]Honestly I find regular units to be far stronger than a solo defender, but this is mostly due to the rediculous hitpoint gains from level. [/quote] They have high hit points cumulatively, to be sure. But it only takes a fractional loss of those HP to kneecap that unit's effectiveness. Whereas a high def/High HP solo unit like a Champion hits as hard at 1 Hp, as it does at 50, making them preferable for tanking, IMO. 
double post.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3092920"] Me: The problem with Spears vs. Swords isn't that the swords aren't "better". It's that the spears are already enough to kill a target enemy 5X over. Sure, the swords can do it 20X over but dead is dead. I think the weapons just need a general tuning (or HP increased).[/quote] You and Derek would certainly know better than me, Brad. We tend to think myopically about certain iss
Now that the game is starting to emphasize training armies again, as I use them I find that the "glass cannon effect" is still pronounced. If I recall, this was a big issue in WoM. Now, it's not *as* bad as WoM. There are more mitigating factors in play. The Ai can now occasionally one up you on initiative, and destroy the combat effectiveness of one of your stacks. It is generally more intelligent than before, though there's a ways to go. In most combats, howev
@Xan Fair enough. I just don't want the forums to turn into a sort of hive mind where the community (largely made up of fans) are reflexively talking down dissenting opinion. While the devs are human beings and need cheerleading too, I 'd be fine if the majority of the feedback was negative, as long as it's civil. Better now than after release. Even if their reasons for disliking something are completely off base or poorly stated, getting an idea of the amou
My interest in playing elemental plummets without the custom unit design. It's where they've hung their hats, at the expense of other things. It's what makes Elemental unique. You may scoff, but balance in primarily single player games is overrated. I can't think of a single SP rpg or strategy game worth a damn that has ever been completely balanced out of the box. There were always some imbalanced units or strategies, and discovering them let you feel c
[quote who="seanw3" reply="1" id="3092361"]This is certainly one way you could go with them. I like the current method, it is simple and elegant. Outposts allow resource gathering without city spam. The drawback is that they are difficult to defend and enable you enemy to use guerrilla warfare on you. The choice between cities and outposts is a complicated one. [/quote] I agree with this, BUT, I do wish structures, at least the Outposts themselves, had a token HP/A
Also the people that are arguing with those that expressed negative opinions. I understand you may not agree with them, but now is the time for those opinions to be expressed. If the devs really are listening, the game will only benefit from even the most scathing critique. Arguing that they are somehow wrong doesn't really help the game. Keep in mind that the survey question is vague. Some people, like me, are responding on whether it looks like the devs are valuing the rig