LNQ

Went and bought the game, just to support the development. Loved Magic Carpet way back.

It's one of the most fun features in single player 4X games (even though it seldom is balanced well).

There's so many generalizations going on in the replies here that when thinking about the point of Brad's message, the irony levels are reaching incredible heights.

You have the same screenshot (empty) in the empty and full essence slot examples in the OP.

You should use the [eWIP] tag and maybe [Help needed] or some such. Before I clicked here I thought it was a request that someone else would make this mod.

Are they serious over there at IGN? They don't have the resources to review this game? That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[quote who="LNQ" reply="32" id="3253771"]I think 75-79. Mainly due to lack of polish, otherwise 80-89.[/quote] http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/elemental-fallen-enchantress Hey, someone had to do it. EDIT: The OP states December 1st as the date, so the jury's not out yet, but at least there's finally an official score.

I would love to have more uniqueness by sacrificing the customized unit creation.

There are good reviews and bad reviews. There are professional reviews and there are user reviews. These two variables are not related to each other. The metacritic score (based on professional reviewers) will affect a consumers choice much more than the user score.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="88" id="3265893"] Gamespy's 70 point review doesn't properly depict what they've said in their review. In the review they gave 3.5/5 stars.....and while that is 70%, in the comments below the review, the reviewer SPECIFICALLY said that 3.5/5 DOES NOT equal 70......yet metacritic in it's infinite wisdom decided to plunk the score in as such anyways.[/quote] Metacritic can't start adjusting individual scores / scales, that would lea

There's a lot of abandoned stuff in the XML. Is your theory backed up with examples of why it would work like that? The guesses you make are just confusing me right now. I'm unsure if you have actually tested your ideas about avoiding placing certain tiles in the middle etc, or if you're just throwing in random theories. If you haven't tested any of that, I'm sorry but why confuse the subject with elaborate guesses?

I think the immersion comes if the AI plays the game like human who hates using cheese and doesn't regard the human player any different than an AI player. You could have an option to set the AI to regard the human automatically as their worst enemy for the hardcore players, but by default is should be as above.

What bothers me in all this is that the AI is not playing to win, it is playing to win against the human player. Here's a scenario that best helps explain how I think the AI SHOULD work in terms of declaring wars: A is strongest B1 and B2 are second strongest C is weakest Let's ignore who is empire and who is kindgom, lets say all are kingdoms. A decides to declare war on B1 to overtake its lands. Now, with the current AI B2 would

[quote quoting="post"] + AI more careful about going on difficult quests [/quote] I hope this is not going to be the only fix to the issue of AIs being able to perform hard quests too early. They need to be able to do the quests at realistic power levels. To me it would be better if the AI didn't make a roll at all with the quests; rather, the AI would automatically succeed in a quest when it has a strong enough army and attempts to compelte it. The cas

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="12" id="3259936"] ... And of course the "stack of doom" issue (or, the AI's inability to build them) is what really keeps the tactical battles from being "half the coin" of the game. The AI is quite something to behold - better than any other strategy game - but it spreads its most powerful stuff out too much. As long as the single winning strategy is to build a singular "strongest" army, the AI should be doing that. Either the game, or th

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="8" id="3259968"]What world difficulty are you playiing at? If you're playing on easy world difficulty, the monsters won't attack cities. At all.[/quote] I hope you do realize that this stuff needs to be documented in game. When you select a difficulty, for example easy, it has to tell the player what changes from normal. Why are we left to guess what the difference is with each difficulty setting? L

[quote who="Sythion" reply="14" id="3257898"]Or fancy ale because I hate wine.[/quote] What a strange fellow. But I agree on waiting for a proper review before celebrating.

You are a king amongst men.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="3" id="3254070"]I have to say, I haven't seen too many reports of autosaving problems in a long time. I live and die on autosaves so if you're having problems with them, you should definitely contact someone in support.[/quote] It's an understatement to say that this is not the kind of response I would like to see about issues like these. Where's the internal QA?

[quote who="Bellack" reply="39" id="3253845"]I'm not currently noting bugs at this point. so I'll give it a 70 at this point. With current bugs I'd give a a 68. [/quote] That's awfully low in my opinion. And here I thought I was one of the most negative guys here in this forum. :) I would be quite surprised if the game got less than 75.

Pretty much the above. The fundamentals are good now. I hope this game will go the same route as the GalCiv games, where by the second expansion the whole game is awesome.

Haha, I actually like the look of the new Spell Notebook. It's less generic.

I think 75-79. Mainly due to lack of polish, otherwise 80-89.

Very good post.

Awesome work. Have you considered making the end turn button bigger, like by a lot? I absolutely hate that it is as small as it is. Even widening it to fill the empty area of the new mini map and renaming the button from 'Turn' to 'End Turn' would be an improvement.