Tormy-

[quote who="Belizan" reply="5" id="2772087"] Wont' run on a 64-bit os though [/quote] Huh? No probs here and I have x64 Vista.

*bump* .. because of the ongoing discussion about "epic" battles. :) [ https://forums.elementalgame.com/396516/ ]

[quote who="JSJ101" reply="81" id="2771903"]Also, as many other posts have mentioned, no one is asking for 10,000 individually controlled units. As an illustration, 8 Full Battalions of 100 6 Companies (or whatever) of 50 = 1100 units, and only 14 commands to issue each turn. This is hardly overwhelming, imo. (P.S.) My laptop runs MTWII, which renders many many many units at once without any problems. My laptop is fairly horrible. I don't think this

[quote who="Lermanicus" reply="66" id="2771800"] Quoting pad152, reply 65 What version of game (1.08, 2.00, etc.) will the AI be able to play on a map of islands? Speaking of this when is version 1.08 coming out? [/quote] This week . :)

[quote who="boltcutter" reply="90" id="2771820"]You're going to hate me, Brad... I like Dominion's combat system. It's hideously complex, because the computer can do the work, and includes some of the following: Longer weapons can "fend off" shorter ones - if the shorter weapon attacks, and the longer weapon hits, the attacker has to make a morale roll [and take a point of damage] to even swing. Shields have an armor value, high, that adds to the armor value IF the parry

[e digicons]:(O[/e] [e digicons]:([/e]

....and yet another topic turned into "Civ5 vs EWoM"! [e digicons]:X[/e]

[quote who="JSJ101" reply="27" id="2771362"]Thanks for heading this up, RX. I would love to see battles that look something like this. Granted, with the tile-based system we have now, it's not going to look exactly like that picture, but I would love 1) More than 12 units in an army. 1.5) Bigger tactical maps to accomodate. They don't have to be huge, but bigger than we have now would be nice. 2) Bigger unit sizes. From 1 (for scouts and garriso

[quote who="Raven X" reply="78" id="2770954"]Now, personally, I think things like "Moving Metal" and "supplies" SHOULD be Handled Automatically, BUT, you should NEED caravans to do it. You should NEED roads built. You should NEED a "Network" to do all these things for you. I don't want to load metal on a cart and make sure it gets where it's going. That's why I have Subjects in my Empire. To do the small mundane things for me. [/quote] Yeah, we -who wanted to see a local res. sys

[quote who="Khardis" reply="13" id="2769683"]On that note, I'm heading out on a mediterranean cruise in three weeks. And yes, a $17000 rig is absurd. Almost as absurd as this: http://www.novelquest.com/emperor.html (Okay, the absurd one starts at 40000$. The other one might actually be worth it. Sort of.) [/quote] Holy ****! [e digic

Here is a working D/L link for v2.0 http://89.108.111.97/tmp/MOM200.zip

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/10/paypal-freezes-minecraft-devs-600k-euros/ http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1096322756/working-on-a-friday-update-crying-over-paypal "And.. Paypal. On the 25’th, they limited my account for unspecified reasons (a suspicious withdrawal or

[quote who="Raven X" reply="59" id="2769405"] Quoting Tormy-, reply 58 Yeah, we've talked a lot about this back in those days. Needless to say, I always preferred the local resource system [like you've said it's more strategic and realistic as well], but I never had problems with micromanagement in any games. However.....local res. model -> much more micro [especially on huge maps]. I guess most of the players wouldn't like that. It's not for the

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="32" id="2769525"]I remember it Raven ... and the reason we have small unit sizes BETTER be just because of the blindness of the Dev Team instead of the weakness of the engine. [/quote] IIRC Brad has mentioned a while ago [..actually this "epic battles" topic has been brought up already because of this screenshot...heh, funny, isn't it? :P] that the reason of this is balance -> regarding max. number of units

[quote who="MrCapitalG" reply="7" id="2769153"] Quoting Twohawks, reply 5 I would rather see moderated threads that are dedicated to specific topics and moderated heavily to remove noise (off topic stuff and personnel disagreements and so on) that in the first post keep a synopsis of the discussion.. I am firmly in the camp that real time does not well support the numbers of people, the varying degrees of communication skills (let

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="23" id="2768937"]I notice in the screenshot corpses stay. In the game they fade about half a second after getting killed. Just changing that would be a great thing. [/quote] +1. [Should be optional of course...] :)

[quote who="Rishkith" reply="11" id="2764061"]Yeah, this is where beta really started (and then continued) to just go wrong for me. The old economic system was rather popular and made the game a lot more tactical, strategic, and fun. There were a couple long official discussion threads over what type of economy people wanted and they clearly wanted some complexity and not global resources. Then after an off-topic user created discussion thread about housing with li

[quote who="Simsum" reply="113" id="2766926"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 103 We agree with you. It's going to be modified coming up. But how? Any chance you'll explain the revised system before you start implementing it? [/quote] This is a good question. Froggie, could you post more details about the upcoming changes regarding the combat rolls?

[quote who="Zard0z" reply="59" id="2768903"]Hehe, Kazakhstan 0.01% Must be Borat himself [/quote] Lol! Good one! [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

[quote who="Raven X" reply="19" id="2768826"] I expected Epic Sized Battles with Thousands of units, or at the very least, Hundreds. With the numbers changed on Food production and the costs to train and keep units much larger numbers can Still be achieved in the game . [/quote] Agreed, and yeah....gotta love modding. :) [...but what about the AI - will you see hundreds or thousands of units in an AI controlled army if you make drastic changes like those?]</

[quote who="Mivo" reply="218" id="2768897"] Quoting Eiralin, reply 217 It has great potential, but potential does NOT sell games, even indie ones. Potential does sell games to me. I'm willing to take a risk and be part of an evolving project.[/quote] Absolutely. I've spent 200$ on Dwarf Fortress already [donations in the last years], because it has a huge potential...but again, not everyone "works" like me I guess.. :D

[quote who="Xan" reply="314" id="2768025"] Quoting Warmark, reply 313 Quoting Tormy-, reply 311 Eh? I am not registered on Qt3, but as I heard the Qt3 community is "mature enough", so this sounds weird... I've been a registered member at Qt3 for many years and there are lots of bright, knowledgeable and mature gaming people from inside and outside the games industry who post there. But the Elemental thread IMO is a lot less "

[quote who="Austinvn" reply="72" id="2768070"] I think the current problem with Elemental - and the reason so many seem to dismiss its "complexity" out of hand - is that while it has the second sort of complexity, i.e. many individually simple systems that need to be juggled at once , balance issues currently render this complexity meaningless. [/quote] Exactly. Note: The problem isn't only balance, but many of those "simple systems" are far from being polis

[quote who="shadowtongue" reply="58" id="2767525"]I know, it's laughable falconne... The elemental fanboys are out in this thread and for some reason they have a bug up their ass that Elemental has to 'beat' civ for whatever stupid reason. [/quote] [quote who="shadowtongue" reply="66" id="2767952"] Quoting divvu80, reply 59 Quoting shadowtongue, reply 58 The elemental fanboy

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="7" id="2766766"] Quoting Raven X, reply 4 I really think we should be able to trade techs. It's a valuable part of diplomacy.+1 [/quote] +1 as well, but perhaps this should be optional. [IE. We should be able to turn off tech trading before we start a new game.]