NTJedi

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="21" id="2429359"] The thing is that intelligence, willpower,... aren't going to be commonly used at all. I agree with 4 (having 2 attack attributes, one for range and one for melee), but 1 and 2 are going to be pretty strange (or even missing at all) and 3 is nice but it's more headaches than it's worth and it can be abstracted more or less ok with defense and hit points. [/quote] Wrong... take a look at Dominions_3 and you'll see havi

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="14" id="2428727"]Very good post NTJedi, as usual. Quoting Tasunke, reply 3 I would say add Morale and Endurance (especially Morale) Without morale the combat system will be handicapped, but we've talked about this in many topics already. [/quote] Thanks Tormy... I wish I had more time to devote for Elemental, but my career keeps me unpredictably busy... so I might vanish for weeks a

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="8" id="2428308"]I think Willpower/discipline is a very appropriate attribute. Willpower, rather than intelligence, would determine a unit's defense against mind spells, and could also double as a modifier for morale (if we get morale...). After all, a unit with strong willpower would be less likely to turn and flee, cower in fear, or succumb to temptations (corruption) of any kind. I see this as being totally separate from any attribute that would m

Intelligence is also important for spells such as illusions... if a warrior believes a swarm of wasps are buzzing around his head trying to crawl into his nose and ears then the soldier will probably fall helplessly to the ground dropping his sword and shield so he can cover his ears and nose with his hands. An illusion is a spell which does no harm and in fact powerless unless the enemy targets believe its real... thus using intelligence. <

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="1" id="2428033"] as far as extra-planar temptations/demons, as usual most units would be completely vulnerable (although I would like for levelled and high-morale units to be quite resistant) ... you could display immunity, Resistance, and Bonus relations via Religion tags. [/quote] Most units should not be completely vulnerable to corruption attacks because it should depend on the unit. Instead of adding a unique religion tag

[quote who="SolarBall" reply="2" id="2428094"]Some of your examples (the mind flayers, corruption), would involve highly specialized combat rules that would not come into play that often, but would require a bunch of extra things to keep track of in game, so I wouldn't want these in the original game at release. (For mods, this isn't an issue, although I am not sure how hard it would be to allow such modding, so do not have a strong opinion either way on that issue.) [/quote]

That Bearataur would be quite nasty in battle... it's even wielding a weapon which looks like a sledge hammer with spikes thus the creature has higher intelligence than the average bear. It's primary weakness is no armor... even some leather would help. The image Tormy posted appears much more deadly. A quick glance indicates at least 5 heads which usually corresponds with multiple attacks, 50feet tall or more, chains matching the rest of the

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="8" id="2427232"] Right now I am worried about the combat system for example...maybe it will be way too simple. We don't know too much at the moment, and this ATT/DEF/SPEED system is very primitive. If the devs want to create an epic fantasy TBS game, it must be improved real fast. [Yes, I am talking about elemental/magical dmg types & resistances & immunities, or even physical dmg types. + lot of others things should be mentioned, but if we won't e

I've noticed this most recent build is heavily pounding the CPU usage. I have a dual_core cpu and Elemental32.exe is always using 52% or higher. This seems extremely high for being a cloth map only version. Perhaps Stardock can let us know if this is intended by design OR if it's a bug.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="9" id="2422223"]Continuous turns: Think Balder's Gate style battles. [/quote] My brothers really enjoyed the Baldur's Gate style battles... they'll be pleased to hear this information. :)

[quote who="Valiant_Turtle" reply="7" id="2422456"] I personally want gigantic sea turtle transports, but I kinda doubt I'll be getting them. [/quote] You can find those in AgeofWonders:ShadowMagic with the unofficial patch 1.4.... but you'll need to find a map which has them or place them into a map from the editor. It's the dragon turtle. I'm praying modding will be available in Elemental where players can add underwater battles and underwater str

Frogboy writes: [quote quoting="post"] * We don’t currently like how roads are being built but don’t want players to be forced to building “workers” to build the roads. If anyone has any suggestions we’d like to hear it. [/quote] In regards to roads the current method is encountering problems/concerns

Agreed

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="34" id="2418710"] How do you separate fire spells from the fire element? [/quote] Fire spells are magic which use traits of fire such as a solar burst causing blinding is an effect of extreme brightness from a sun or moon in the sky. The fire element is what you see when striking a match and often mixed with fire spells thus creating fireball, incinerate, explosion, etc., on the battlefield. [quote] I think

Age of Wonders:Shadow Magic also allowed players to forge their own items!

[quote who="rakenan" reply="31" id="2418503"] The only difference adding a fire damage type is to prevent that spell from setting a lava catapult on fire or melting a fire giant's molten armor. Your way would make it impossible, or at least more difficult than necessary, to code the really interesting spells that don't act like normal fire or normal lightning or whatever. [/quote] I never said all fire spells should always causing burning/consume. &n

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="29" id="2418264"] It would force the devs to code two variants of every AI, because the AI would differ vastly between one of those options and the next. [/quote] Actually what I'm suggesting would only merely ask to use less of the intended AI design for SD=GO... thus one option includes the AI programming for SD=GO which is X,Y,Z while the other options for SD would be X,Y and the other option is X. &nbs

[quote who="red1939" reply="8" id="2416779"]No resource storing! When I think about resource storing, it makes me dizzy. [/quote] Unfortunately without resource storing the underdog is at even a larger disadvantage in a game. As the map becomes more dominated by the strong players the weaker players will lose control of their mines and be more bottled up inside their towns. At least with the option for storing resources they can hold out longer against sieges and

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="13" id="2418070"] I really, really hope that you will at least try out resource storage and transportation before killing it all together. There are so many great features that can fall out so naturally from a developed economic system, it would be a shame to lose all of those without ever having even tried to implement the former. [/quote] I completely agree with everything <a id="ctl00__Content__RepeaterReplies_ctl12__LinkUser" cl

[quote who="rakenan" reply="27" id="2418071"] I am strongly opposed to hardcoding anything into damage types other than the type itself. [/quote] And if each element damage only does damage then as Frogboy wrote these other types of damage would be boring. These secondary effects are not only realistic for each element, but also make the battles more interesting.

[quote who="rakenan" reply="25" id="2418026"] Secondary effects like destroying armor, causing a damage over time effect, or slowing the target down, are not damage types. They are secondary effects. [/quote] I never said the secondary effects were damage types... never. [quote]It differs from your ideal of poison damage only in that it will still work on, say, an iron golem or animated skeleton that shouldn't be affecte

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="22" id="2417730"] And you can still do those things without calling it a damage type. Maybe my idea of damage types is different from yours, it seems we want the same things, but my worry is that damage type is typically considered to simply be a setting that determines damage output against a resistance. That makes for boring gameplay and makes having different elements kind of pointless, Think fire ice lightning in Final Fantasy, t

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="17" id="2417035"] Fire destroying armor isn't anything like damage types. Damage over Time isn't anything like a damage type. Lightning spells firing quickly isn't anything like a damage type. It's just spell variety [/quote] Wrong... these are types of damage and all of them can have nothing to do with spells. Fire damage can be from a torch, lightning damage can be from a storm, etc., etc., . Each

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="15" id="2417016"] Your answer is about making a variety of fun and useful spells, not damage types. [/quote] Poison damage, Heat/Fire damage, Cold/Ice damage, etc, etc, are damage types.

My avatar is my real photo.... yepp you guessed it... I'm the Kurgan. Yes, I did lose my head... luckily a saint used a scroll of ressurect and brought me back to life where I lead a normal life with a career in the computer software industry.