The two most cartoony pictures seems to be from a pirate game. Will we see a game called Brad's Pirates? Otherwise I feel GalCiv3 is a safe bet. That is the title the fans really are longing for, and the market needs a new great TBS Space game. To much RTS released lately, and Endless Space, allthough a decent game, didn't quite reach the leage of GalCiv.
[quote who="Major Stress" reply="3" id="3363110"] I think SD is gonna do GC 3 eventually, but I wouldn't believe anything unless Stardock announces it themselves. SD wants to do things in 64 bit now, and if another GC is made it must be 64 bit. [/quote] Indeed, and with multiplayer too. After reading about all they gonna do for multiplayer in Europa Universalis 4 (a game that take ca 100 hours + to play from finish to end) it should prove that
[quote who="Major Stress" reply="3" id="3363110"] I think SD is gonna do GC 3 eventually, but I wouldn't believe anything unless Stardock announces it themselves. SD wants to do things in 64 bit now, and if another GC is made it must be 64 bit. [/quote] Indeed, and with multiplayer too. After reading about all they gonna do for multiplayer in Europa Universalis 4 (a game that take ca 100 hours + to play from finish to end) it should prove that
Here is the link: http://www.ign.com/games/galactic-civilizations-iii/pc-14277477# Not a big surprise that they do a new GalCiv now, but perhaps strange that IGN confirms it before Stardock has even announced it?
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="34" id="3358058"] quoting post *** Unreleased *** Removed the Potential 2 and 3 traits Now make Potential 1 = 25% exp bonus.[/quote] That would make it a clear non-brainer first choice......
I'd like you to make games called: - Ancient World (or Empires). - Medieval Realms - Ruler Galactic Civilizations 3 doesn't sound too badly either.... Neither does Elemental II, Birth of the Shadow Lord...... ;)
[quote quoting="post"] I'm more and more impressed with all the things you've improved over FE. If FE had 20 things wrong with it, you've nailed like 18 of them. Great work across the board! [/quote] Indeed a masterpiece! It's the number one fantasy strategy for me, as GalCiv2 is easely the best space strategy, and Europa Universalis 4 will be the best historical strategy game of all times. :) Yet
[quote who="abob101" reply="80" id="3354445"] So if I have a strong lair next to my city (because it was only tile with some essence on it), I should be restricted from building stuff to not release the creatures and lose the city? No, CTRL+N to get a better start is cheating in my eyes (you don't like the spot you been assigned to, by all means move around and find a better one, don't restart until you get PERFECT spot). Why shouldn't you have any decision making
[quote who="stardock334" reply="59" id="3353640"] I don't recall seing MadDjinn using spellcaster and mage units only (or go to units) in his ridiculous LPs. [/quote] The biggest human exploit of them all in this game is the use of city snaking, making the need for "culture" buildings and outposts alot less for the human then for the AI. This is also removing an important part of the challenges nit to the early build up of your empire. The AI
Lol, that the expansion is called Legendary Heroes doesent mean that the champions should be Gods after a few battles. Some strange arguing by some here. The steamroller effect is something a game like this have to have mechanisms to soften. Without the XP-split of heroes the game would be pretty unchallenging pretty soon, and the way to victory would be pretty one-sided; heroes leveling en masse.
[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="59" id="3352361"] Its released, let us know what you think.[/quote] Wonderful! I'll shut down my laptop and run to my gaming PC right now!
[quote who="cwg9" reply="46" id="3352349"] Do you also think then that the XP should be split evenly with the regular troops too instead of just for Heroes? Is exempting troops from the XP split mechanic also "terrible game design"? [/quote] Nope, because units level up differently and don't have the potential of heroes. Despite this the use of units must be encouraged. All this works perfectly wel
It's important to notice that you don't lose XP by having more heroes in an army, you just share it. It would be bad design if the total XP gained became huger thanx to having more heroes in an army. This would totally ruin trade-offs and strategy when it comes to your composing of armies. Would be terrible game design indeed if I may say so.
I'm following this one. Can't wait for the next chapter. I'm a big fan of how you do LP's and a big fan of the Polycast. Just one thing; I love your settings with difficulty level and all (same difficulty I play on myself), but I'd say this game is alot better strategy wise and more challenging if you do auto-placement of buildings. Then you get a real need for getting out more pioneers to outpost connect cities, build monuments, gettin
[quote who="SBFMadDjinn" reply="55" id="3352326"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 28 Some AI tweaks too regarding diplomacy. Something to fix this issue: https://forums.elementalgame.com/443837/page/1/ basically, the output of a treaty should have weight in the costs of the treaty.[/quote] Nice to see you here old chap. Love your FE LP's on Youtube, and the fact you play high level difficu
Sorry for doubble posting, just tried to edit the post, and pressed reply........
Seems like some people think you can't have more heroes together just because of XP-split? Are you serious? It's about prioritizing for the situation. Even with the XP split it's very often a good strategy to have more heroes in an army, especially early game (Where it is almost ALWAYS a good thing to do). This is a strategy game, you are supposed to think and make some hard choices, not be maximum rewarded whatever you do.
XP split is the best type of game design when having the possibility to mix heroes and units in an army at your own choice. They already understood this when Heroes of Might and Magic IV was made. I was chocked when the first beta build of Fallen Enchantress didn't have it back in the days. I have explained why in numerous threads like this before. Having XP-split in this game is a non-brainer, and I hope that's final.
Yeah, the only good solution is to be able to build your own roads. You don't necesarily need an engineer unit. We could let the pioneers be able to build roads as well. This would add to the strategy of their use. To prevent road spam there of course has to be an upkeep cost. This could also be combined with a one time cost every time a pioneer builds a road on a tile. It's not tedious to build your own roads. This is a strategy game, and road bui
Isn't it racism to claim that the Tarth race is inferior to the others?
[quote who="joasoze" reply="1" id="3349104"] Each unit belongs to a category. You can see it when you open the information window on a unit. There is no list of such creatures, but there is a logic to it. A twisted unit will be one of those monsters that are non standard humans and beasts. [/quote] Yep, this is all correct, but what I think the OP is trying to say is that if you try to use this collar on for example a beast, then the collar shouldn't disa
[quote who="lelovelady" reply="98" id="3348737"] I'd like to see (at some point) the ability to "build road to" - right now units with the build road ability have to move one tile, build road - move one tile - build road - this gets VERY annoying ... it'd be nice to select their current point as a starting point, then click "build road to" and click their ending point and have them automatically build a road from point a to point b. Alternately,
[quote who="phazonfreak" reply="6" id="3348679"] Tarth is an early game powerhouse that is able to unvover and settle the map very quickly with the stealth/master scouts trait and can snipe monsters with their 3-man ranged armies utilizing their blood trait. As an offset they have to deal with increased unrest and have to watch out that they don't fall behind midgame research- and productionwise. They are basically wood elves. Gilden are the slow but mighty faction that s
More armies are also made more important with the change: turn ends for an army after a battle. With this change having more armies are more benefitial (instaed of one supreme stack with super expensive units). This combined with more expensive horse units (pluss the fact their movement is nerfed with this change to armies), will at least make the strategy of making cheaper none horse armies (or armies combined of infantry and some expensive horse units) alot more plausible.
Hehe, guess this a part of the planning of where to found cities..... ;)