Lol... the zoos in my empire will certainly be more interesting than the zoos here on earth. I don't want to see animals sleeping, I want to see them fighting it out as nature intended!
Personally I think that having shards be easily defensible probably isn't the way to go. It wouldn't necessarily preclude turtling, however it would force a player to turtle in a more realistic way. The traditional turtle in a real-time strategy game is to hide behind your walls and defenses while you tech up. Such a thing is not possible in real life, as such a strategy leaves all of your peasants to be slaughtered, your farmland to be burned, and your resources to be pilla
Personally I think that you should be able to convert one type of animal resource to another within reason; it should just be expensive and time consuming. Two animals that rely on a similar biome should be interchangeable as you could gradually readjust the farming of one type of animal to another by introducing the new type and slaughtering the old. This would be expensive and would take a while, however it has been done in the past (ie the near hunting to extinction of
Personally I see a campaign working in the way that you describe, however I must agree with vieuxchat that for a skirmish game I don't see why you wouldn't just start on that larger map to begin with.
Well, since questing (and dungeons) are supposed to be part of the map, why not do something similar as player creations in-game to protect what is valuable to each other from those who would steal it? I mean if the player is going to be a physical unit on the map, why not his treasury and magical item inventory as well? And if his treasury and magical item inventory are on the map, others will want to take it (enter their heroes adventuring for riches), so the player will want to
I think gross inefficiency would be enough of a handicap, as territories like what you guys described would need to either be small and communally based, or rely on a barter system, which by its nature is inefficient.
I think that is a fantastic and realistic idea to implement this in a way that makes sense for medieval warfare landisaurus... have some karma.
I agree... adding in personalities and NPC's that you as a player grow attached to as you employ for certain tasks is a great way to add depth.
I was thinking, how about a dynamic quest/mission system in addition to the one related to the map? If one player takes certain relics or artifacts that could give him a bonus, other players could try to steal them. I'm not sure how the normal quests are set up, however this could be done in a dungeon like fashion where each faction has their national treasury (and possibly can set up defenses to protect it) and the others can try and breach those defenses.
I'm not so sure of that. You'd certainly have different buildings and structures, and different means of raising troops, but I wouldn't think that it would preclude you from having different races under your control. The economy would simply have to be done by tile.
I think that perhaps a bit could be taken away from EU3 as well by having specific events/societal characteristics based off of the sliders.
I don't think that anyone truly knows how the two games will compare... I would say don't even bother trying. Dominions 3 is a nice little game that is good for multiplayer because there are so many options. If I would hazard a guess, I would say that Elemental will be better, simply because Stardock has the financial muscle and the AI talent to make it more effective (in addition to being an exceptional company when it comes to turning out a quality product). However I real
[quote who="Spartan" reply="9" id="1941697"]@lwarmonger - Sounds like you are describing modern cooperate America and the new world order in your last post. Hmmm... The times they are a changin'.... [/quote] I wouldn't go so far as to say that, as all power is relative and while the fall of Rome was accompanied by the rise of a multitude of other powers, the US's faltering in recent months has been accompanied by the even worse collapse of our competetors and rival
Indeed, Patrician III and Port Royal do have things to contribute to an economic system.
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, "was ancient Rome an Empire that leaned evil or good?" Personally, I think that the later Roman Empire (where there were far fewer slaves) had more in common with how an "evil" empire should look than the Early Principate under Augustus (where slavery was very common). The later Roman Empire was characterized by a despotic, oriental regime whose rapacious pursuit of taxes (always levied against those who could least afford to pay t
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="4" id="1940692"]Even if it's a culture thing, I don't think slavery could ever be seen as something different than "un fair/evil/whatever you call that". It's not just a matter of culture. [/quote] I disagree. The ancient world was built on slavery, and for the most part until Christianity made an appearance there seemed to be very little spoken about it from a moral perspective (and by that point slavery was nowhere near as widespread as it ha
The problem is that most medieval armies weren't large enough to create situations where a battle would last more than one day. The reason that Crecy lasted so long was that the French didn't arrive until quite late in the day, and did so in dribs and drabs (who then charged up the hill piecemeal). When the army is small enough that it can all fit on one field (and when fighting is resolved hand to hand it lends itself to a relatively speedy resolution) one side generally will
I like the diminishing idea. In a normal game it sounds like you have a set amount of mana, and generate more each turn (thus enabling a strategy to "build up a huge well of mana" for those world destroying spells), however with a finite amount you have to decide whether to horde it, enhance your ruler, enhance your heroes or improve your land/armies. In a diminishing game you could start out with that huge well of mana that you could have built up by endgame in a normal game, but
It was my impression that cities could only be founded on certain "fertile" tiles (of which there would be some, but not many, naturally existing), however that doesn't mean that other terrain is not useful or cannot be worked. My impression is that the ground within your territory gradually grows based on your alignment and magical focus, however you may imbue certain tiles (specifically) to be "fertile" in order to found cities.
Agreed. I want to have intimidating forests for my "evil" empire! And as a neutral, I want my industrial wasteland cities mixed in with my pleasant countryside. The pleasant country is to breed more workers for my decaying cities... for some reason when people are miserable they just don't seem to copulate as much... it isn't like they are slaves, they should just be content with toiling in my factories (occasionally with some pointed persuasion) until they die. T
Yeah, I just started a new Twilight of the Arnor game, and sure enough during the pre-turn advice it says that your population represents taxpaying citizens, and so your population expansion consist primarily of your citizens getting richer, and thus able to pay taxes. Back on track, personally I think that some suspension of disbelief is allowed, as most games aren't very good at getting precise timescales right anyways. I will be happy if Stardock follows through and the world
I think the idea is probably to have some way to mitigate the effects of the mega-spells, not beat them entirely. For example, a mega-spell that causes deserts to expand greatly into fertile land could have its effects reduced (say the land turns from fertile ground to plains in the areas effected by the counterspell) but not eliminated... and countering major spells would require an ongoing committment of energy.
[quote who="RisingLegend" reply="2" id="1941553"] 3) Yes.. this has always frustrated me about games like these. With Civilization, I actually never really noticed it all that much as the turns went up by like 50 years sometimes and the more important population reference was the relatively small number next to the city name anyways. But with GalCiv, as population was an important thing for taxation, i always wondered how those millions of babies being born each
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="24" id="1940773"] 3) However, I don't think trade should be instantaneous, but it should use the caravan system. If you just trade for a specific amount of a resource, a caravan should set out from one end and make its way to the other. If you set up a constant trade route, caravans should constantly head back and forth. This would make trading with close nations easier due to both distance and danger. A caravan coming from far away will be much more like
Lol... regardless of what they say, people are truly capable of anything, for good or ill. They just don't know it yet.