Scorpiana

[quote]Anyhow, the solution to this is relatively straight forward. Give the Elementopedia a button on the main UI, and have it automatically display the page of the currently-selected object when clicked.[/quote] This could work, but then the object has to be selected. Another solution might be to add a shortcut-key ( F1? ) to the Elementopedia. When it's used while an info-card is shown, it opens to that subject. Otherwise it opens to the standard screen.

[quote]Another way to limit city sprawl, I think, would be to allow us access to resources without having to build a city on top of it.[/quote] I really hope they implement something like this. At least for some resources, needing a city to use fertile ground or a shard seems reasonable to me, but for a mine a lot less...

[quote]A fantasy strategy has tradition to follow![/quote] Why? I mean, it would be nice to have a fantasy game that doesn't follow all the existing traditions and really tries to do it's own thing. There are plans for 12 different factions using two races, that should be enough to start with I think.

It sounds very interesting, but as some others already posted, it might get very complicated very quickly when you have more units walking around. In battles with various different units you either have to micro which unit fights against which enemy (which might get boring / time consuming in big battles) or you ignore this mechanic completly which makes it pretty useless. So, I'm more for a general experience bonus for all units that survive a battle.

[quote]In elemental, sure there are going to be the mundane units that knock swords and if they are mostly just going to knock swords then attack and defense only are fine. But if armies are going to be susceptible to dragon's breathing fire, water bolts, lightning storms, etc. it SEEMS to me that resistances per each element are kind of a necessity. But I may not be seeing the big picture.[/quote] Maybe I didn't express what I ment good enough, as it seems you didn't understand me...

It was developed in-house, it's a continuation of the engine that was developed for the unreleased/unfinished game Society .

[quote]As a matter of curiousity, is there any real world reason you'd want a double bladed sword over just two swords, or are they really as rediculous as they seem to be? One of those things that mystified me from games and movies.[/quote] Well, maybe if you look at it as a staff with sharpend ends, it might make more sense... A good staff fighter should be able to go 1 on 1 with a sword fighter and keep the sword fighter at a distance because of the reach of the weapon. If this wou

[quote]As things currently stand, units don't even have strengths and weaknesses to given elements - so while I personally like the ideas being presented, I am not seeing how it would be implemented. Units only have attack and defense, hit points and movement speed. With such limited stats, how do you make a unit resistant to fire?[/quote] Well, we also have only seen a limited set of creatures and equipment. For all we know, such bonusses might be granted by equipment for normal (Fal

[quote]It won't let me vote - when I try it says "You cannot vote repeatedly" even though it is my first attempt to vote.[/quote] Same here...

Taken, thanks for spending the time to make these surveys...

The Book of Names?

[quote]First of all can we stop with all the real world talk? It does not really matter if it is somehow "reasonable" for X units of some type to kill Y units of a weaker type. This is not going to be some detailed hyper realistic simulation game. You should be focused more on what would be fun to play than what would "really" happen.[/quote] It shouldn't be hyper realistic, but it should be somewhat realistic to be fun. If 4 peasants would be able to kill 2 knights every time where i

Some people might not like what I'm gonna say, but... [e digicons]}:)[/e] [quote]You think we'd have Christians all over the world today if Jesus was never resurrected? Doubtful....very doubtful.[/quote] Sure we do, the proof is in this world, as Jesus never was resurrected. It's all just a fantasy story... PS. Just in case... I don't believe in the resurrection, if you do and feel good about it, great for you. I don't and also feel good about it, so gr

[quote]Of course, its all about the gameplay, in the end. So a lowish number of 20:1 or 30:1 might need to be used.[/quote] Absolutly... Your post just reminded me about some people complaining on the Total War forums that Knights againts Peasants where way overpowered so I couldn't do anything but react [e digicons]O:)[/e]

There has been talk about achievements in Elemental before (can't find the thread though...). I think the consensus was that as long as they don't give an in-game bonus (Like plus to attack, defense, ...) most people wouldn't mind if they were included in the game. The problem which some people had with achievements giving in-game bonusses, was that then to be competitive, you are more or less forced to complete them. So, I'd like for some achievements to be included with some cosmeti

The idea sounds nice, but I think the cost shouldn't include essence. If they go with your proposal, it would cost 9 essence to build 1 fully upgraded building. As building a city only costs the initial 5 essence (as far as we know), 9 essence for a stronghold seems much to high for what you proposes it offers...

[quote]I tend to think a 100 peasants would kill 2 knights, no problem, 50 peasants, well organized, could also do the job.[/quote] Imagine you are a peasant, not really wel-fed, wearing old clothes, armed (if you are lucky) with a pitchfork or a cudgel. You have 99 others like you hanging around. Never had any training in warfare, no discipline and probably not much at stake except your life. Now imagine being at the front of that group when 2 fully trained knights on heave w

When you kill a sovereign, instead of his realm just dissapearing, I think it should stay around, maybe split up in various factions with new non-channeler leadership. And depending on that new leadership, the cities might stay at war with you or revert to neutral. Or under certain circumstances they might even offer to become your vasal.

[quote]We don't get a spell which we cast which just destroys all our enemy's remaining cities and buildings[/quote] Who knows, maybe that's exactly what this 'Spell of Making' is, making all the enemies dissapear...

[quote who="Filthgrinder" reply="4" id="2397834"]Damn, wish there was a better picture of that availabul. Stunning.[/quote] Try this one...

Yup, got to be option 3 I guess...

[quote]@Frogboy: How about being able to change how our Sovereign looks? Hair length and color, color of robes and armor, that kind of thing. Aesthetics.[/quote] Don't forget gender. If we can't make a female sovereign, I'd be very disapointed...

[quote]First, let me say that the sovereign dying is a non-negotiable thing to us. It's an important core concept.[/quote] Well, I don't mind the Death = Game Over way this game seems to be going to work. Having played rogue-likes a lot (Mostly Angband) I'm a bit used to this and I think it really makes you think about the way you play. Should I attack one more monster, or run away for a bit to heal up... Off course dieing from a stupid decision or a bad roll isn't fun, but if y

[quote]It wouldn't be the first time someone find difficult to belive that I'm actually a man (which shouldn't be so difficult considering that there are no women in internet ). [/quote] Offcourse there are women on the internet, I know both of them... [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

[quote]Such is life, work around it. Your son deserves that throne.[/quote] Well, if I can't choose my heir, I might as well kill of all other heirs until the one I want is the oldest one around. Souvereign: 'Hey son, I made this deal with the old, dangerous dragon living in that swamp over there. Could you go and have a talk with him?' Unfit heir: 'Sure dad, no problem...' Souvereign to dragon: 'As agreed, I'm sending my heir over to you as a sign of goodwill,