Darkodinplus

While I believe the theory is solid actually implementation would be difficult or impossible given the scope Elemental already has. I would prefer that Elemental divide the main quest or master quest whatever its called up into segments (lets say 5) and then come up with 2 or 3 unique events for that segment. This would give the master quest a nice degree of variability but would stop short of the daunting task of making the quest totally different and potentially one d

Very nice, I can't wait to play with the unit creator in Elemental.

[quote who="Tamren" reply="1" id="1993216"]You call that a long post?!?! One challenge with military fortresses is that you can't force people to attack them in most situations. You can build a wall to block off a valley and put a fort up over the only gate for example. But there will be plenty of situations where your fort will have a lot of empty space around it. [/quote] I like the idea of having fortresses and watch towers and Tamren makes

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. [e digicons]O:)[/e]

Landisaurus your post makes no sense to me can you clarify on your problems A and B given the information that has already been covered?

I don’t think it would be possible to get around some sort of a time restriction on multiplayer games for duels or regular turns. Single player on the other hand you could totally remove any time restrictions. I probably should have included that distinction in my original idea.

You have a point, which was hiding in the back of my mind while thinking of plan b. I kind of attempted to address it at the end of my post with the comment on scaring and knock outs. I can’t really think of a good explanation for why a stronger Channeler would hold back to such a degree that it would potentially cost him something important. That is very counterintuitive to anyone I would think. Of course maybe there are some features in Elemental that would make plan c more viable and

Ok I think I understand where your coming from now. So in a non-fatal duel your assuming that a Channeler that kept all their essence would have an unfair advantage over a Channeler who invested essence thus potentially giving the first Channeler all the rewards from quests or diplomacy? Hmmm, I can think of two ways to address this. Plan A; (what I thought originally) have non-fatal duels be set at a

Oh here I thought you meant in the fatal duels, a balancing problem with non-fatal duels didn’t even register as a possibility to me. Well in a non-fatal duel no one is going to be killed or injured (severely anyway) so I really don’t understand where your concern is coming from? Is your major concern attack X by essence keeping Channeler defeats essence invested Channeler in one hit or a situation like that and how would that be a bigger problem for the que

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="13" id="1989760"] like those old German fencing clubs where you weren't really cool until you had a nice scar across your face somewhere.[/quote] Hmm, permanent scaring of Channelers through the dueling system I hadn’t thought of that but it does sound very cool. Having your Channeler in some major duel against an arch-rival only to get the left side of your face burned off by a fireball or get yo

This diagram seems very simple yet effective. I do wonder however will there only be four areas of customization (weapons, armor, helmets, and training) or will the player later on have the ability to add boots, magic rings, amulets, and pendants? Can we assume equipment creation is a similar process? Either way I really like how simple and straightforward the process seems to be from your diagram although I would hope for more options later in the game. This answers some

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="21" id="1989469"] Quoting landisaurus, reply 20 Yeah I don't think going 64 bit will allow revolutionary AIs. What should, though, is multiple cores.[/quote] Actually since programs can use more memory in 64-bit programs it could potentially have a huge impact on AIs but it would largely depend on whether modern AIs are limited by processing or how much code they actually have. If I had to guess I would say the current bottleneck is

Well in order to get this thread back on topic I’ve recently though of a new way non-fatal duels and dueling in general could be used in Elemental. Quests could make great use of dueling both fatal and non-fatal for example, to get a dragon (or some other powerful sentient beast) to ally with you it could demand you prove yourself in battle against itself. Granted the dragon would probably need to take it easy on you so as not to kill you but still that would be p

Oh yea, I totally agree I didn't see that at all in your first post. I didn't mean to suggest that armor/weapons should come out of thin air just that based on the number of total reservers that you have a % above what you need in equipment is produced. I would have assumed this goes on behind the scenes without the player ever having to see it though.

***EXAMPLE*** Ok let’s use basically the same example as before Player A and Player B are going at it everything is pretty even, then Player A gets the allegiance of some magical beast that decisively tilts the odds in his favor. Now getting this magical beast cost Player A both time and resources which Player B has used to invest in advanced infrastructure in 3 of his key cities. Now Pl

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="1" id="1988356"] I think end-game channelers, especially on large maps, will be able to significantly overpower dragons. If your channeler is able to cast a single spell capable of devastating the entire world, he should be able to handle a lone dragon. Plus, who's to say you can't confront the dragon with an army at your back?[/quote] We don't really know, you could be right but since the dragons survived the devastation brought about f

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="19" id="1988336"] And equipment would still be a concern - it would have to be in order to be balanced, for one. And it would also have to be to make any sense. THat equipment that's kept at some base (more likely with the reservists) while they aren't using it, would have to be stored at some point, taken for your 'revenue' of that equipment. [/quote] I don't really understand what you're saying here would you mind providing some clari

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="24" id="1988274"] Why? If your channeler alone is powerful enough to kill a dragon all by himself with minimal effort, then why would threatening it be unintelligent? A dragon that's been forced into serving you should have a chance to go rogue and turn against you, though, so it would be a risk. Plus it could make all other dragons think less of you.[/quote] I've had well over 150+ planets in GalCiv2 on the larger maps and that is a 32-bit progr

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="16" id="1988225"] But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not replenishing squads costs the same as training new ones [/quote] Actually it does, I thought an upkeep cost to a reserve system would be obviously but this upkeep cost would replace your one time training cost for new recruits and shorten the time required to get fresh troops. Also with a decent reserve system equipment wouldn’t be a conc

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="22" id="1988154"] Wow ,90 cities... Honestly I think if you're at that stage, you'd both be fielding such powerful armies that even a dragon wouldn't be able to so drastically sway the odds. Frogboy has said that a single dragon would be capable of wiping out a thousand regular soldiers all by itself, but if you've got 90 cities I'd imagine you'd be able to field several armies numbering in the tens of thousands of soldiers each. [/q

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="14" id="1987986"] But I still think I favor equal costs for replenishing squads and training new ones. [/quote] This is exactly why most nations have some sort of reserve system, so they don’t have to take the time and money to train fresh recruits. I personally find this along with the reputation of a squad idea flawed, replacing X number of soldiers shouldn’t cost or take as long if you hav

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="20" id="1987843"] Well if Player A declares war immediately after he gets the dragon to ally with him, Player B shouldn't have time to prepare superweapons or highly trained elite slayer units before a significant portion of his army or towns has already been lost. It shouldn't be possible to whip up super-anything on a dime, but should require significant preparation. Not to mention there might be other ways of getting a dragon to join your side other th

Since this game isn't set on Earth a day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours everyone is just assuming that. So the amount of time that passes in the game could theoretically be whatever you wanted it to be. That being said I like the idea of an interactive weather system and a day / night cycle. An added bonus as another thread suggested would be battles that take multiple world map turns to complete.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="18" id="1987505"]I'm going to assume that getting a dragon is a monumental task requiring a substantial investment, thus the scenario is moot. If the dragon is on top of an already equal army and you have no answer, the dragon eats you. In such a scenario, you're losing, substantially, and that's the way things go when you're severely outgunned. [/quote] Not in my opinion, by your own appraisal

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="5" id="1987358"] Could also be fun to be able to throw a giant fireball into enemy ranks which then turns into a fire elemental. Those scenarios aren't ridiculous but don't fall under your 'linear' approach. [/quote] Using the rules I just made up as an example I concede you wouldn’t be able to make that spell despite it being reasonable but with a bit of imagination you could easily