Spartan

[quote who="Asharak" reply="12" id="1935938"]Excellent summary, Keith. Thanks for the doing that. I would also concur that wrinkles like the situational bonuses can be left out until we see if/how the core idea works after some playtesting and balancing. - Ash[/quote] I concur on both points. Moreover the summary is worthy of karma. [e digicons]k1[/e] [quote who="Asharak" reply="15" id="1936147"] Alternatively, of course, SD could take an additive appro

[quote who="Solam" reply="8" id="1936024"]Spartan I gave you some Karma for this nice post. Saves me lots of time. Thanks a bunch[/quote] Cool. Thanks! Annatar11 is kicking my butt on points somehow. Every little bit helps. I figure one day they will be good for something. If not, braggin' rights are always in vogue. [e digicons]B)[/e]

There is already a thread or two actually on this topic already. You should hop in those.

@Vandenburg - plus one karma for taking the time to write down the words from the trailer. I thought about doing it myself looking for Easter eggs and other such things but I did not have the time. [e digicons]k1[/e]

[quote who="Vandenburg" reply="10" id="1935949"]So yeah, whom else can you trust in the games industry?[/quote] Paradox Interactive. It has at least from what I have seen and experienced always stepped up like SD and treated gamers right. It is very similar to SD in my opinion, which is why I have suggested several times that they should consider a merger.

[quote who="Tiavals" reply="11" id="1935935"]The system in CK and Rome was pretty poor IMO. You couldn't care less about the leaders and it was totally random what they did, with no input or reason to it. The idea is a good one, but it was implemented very poorly. Especially in Rome. CK had a slightly better system.[/quote] That is where mods come into play. And yes I agree there are some issues with it and have been for some time, but, despite the glaring failures and faul

[quote who="Tamren" reply="8" id="1935658"]Depends on what you mean by simple. I really don't like the idea of all infantry being pigeonholed into a speed of one map tile per turn. Its okay to abstract the mechanics under the hood but they have to have a little complexity to begin with. Lets say your lightly armed scouts had a speed of 2-6. 1 is normal marching speed. 2 is about jogging speed. 6 for infantry is an all out sprint. 2-6 means that your scouts can maintain a speed of 2

[quote who="bookishboy" reply="7" id="1935639"] Quoting Ron Lugge, reply 5From past experiance, you can trust SD to do right by you. And from what I've heard, the game purchase includes both 32 and 64 bit additions, you don't have to choose the right version. This would be great if true! [/quote] Please see my prior post. [quote who="bookishboy" reply="7" id="1935639"]I'm just not sure that I'm ready for a world where I can trust PC game publi

OK. Game issues aside for a moment, I would like to see SD do layering because to the best of my knowledge, every time layering has been done it has failed and in some cases to an epic degree. SD as a software company tries to be innovative with its products, so for it to do this and be able to do so successfully would be another nice plume in its hat in the annals of gaming history.

Many of us are hoping for a very strong RPG orientation as the core gameplay element.

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="9" id="1935679"]Agreed. Having characters come alive in a strategy game is not something that is easy to do, but has the potential to be great fun, especially if the character is given some, but not all control over character development. That was one thing I really liked about Crusader Kings, was that you had a stake in the development of your dynasty. I really am looking forward to EU: Rome Vai Victus, as I want to see characters in your

I agree on the notion of a simple speed system. I really don’t look forward to an open percentage one. If it goes into percentages then there should be absolute quarters and nothing more.

Some really good stuff in this thread.

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="11" id="1934935"] Quoting lamperti, reply 6It sounds like it may be too late to ask for this, but I really prefer strictly turn based tactical battles. As someone mentioned above, I don't want to be spending my time thinking about whether or not I need to hit the pause button. The system that MOM had worked very well for me. I would really appreciate it if it was an option, at least, to make the battles strictly turn based. D

The richer the RPG element of the game, the better it will be for all, in my not so humble opinion.

Ron is speaking gospel here. [e digicons]:banhammer:[/e]

[quote who="auboy105" reply="1" id="1935079"]I think he just means machine flying units as I know dragons are in the game...[/quote] I concur. If it is not natural, it should not be methinks.

[quote who="Jalicos" reply="15" id="1935388"] quoting post OK. Call me anal but all the gradient silhouettes are driving me nuts. Know what drives me nuts? People who use the same avatar. I already have three of you mentally filed under "castle guy", and that just won't do. Imagine if this catches on! I might actually have to remember names! Still, it's good to spruce the place up a bit. These look really nice. [/quo

[quote who="Nathaniel Richter" reply="5" id="1935447"]After some more reading I too have to say that I would be more in favor of of 'blind/focused/specific' model as well. As delad mentioned I think it would give a good balance between those that want to specialize and those that what more replayability.[/quote] Great. So it looks like we have a consensus. Now for some feedback from SD...

Good stuff. Thanks for the update. Now about allowing users to select the currency of their transaction and making that choice a permanent part of their account preferences ... [e digicons]:andrew:[/e]

Beat me to it! Karma [e digicons]k1[/e] On a side note, I really like the artistic style of the trailer.

[quote who="Ron Lugge" reply="22" id="1934509"] I need to be a beta tester Screw beta, give me the keys to the alpha-testing machine! Mwa ha ha ha ha![/quote] Word! [e digicons]:jafo:[/e]

@McFungos - That my friend is what I love most about them - the time involved. For a RPG game the immersion factor is the most important gameplay element for me. That wrapped around a great story and well it's like x-mas. I do agree however that the systems should be optional. Moreover I also believe that a manual should not be required. Screen info, pop-ups and a well developed in-game infopedia should be the only necessary sources of information.

[quote]I would like NPC/AI governors in an RPG/4X game where they had real personality, dialogue, story developments etc... and I posted about doing that earlier but the more I think of it I just don't think that such a degree of RPG could be worked into this without hijacking the straightforward 4X goal.[/quote] I'm of the same opinion. I think it will add lots of value to the gameplay - if done correctly.

I would like to be able to program governors and save them as well as assign them avatars and have a track record or historical one follow them from game to game.