Kalin

Put it this way, we can't even go through squares with OUR army in it (try filling up a city with your units, and then try to walk something through it), it'll walk all around the world before trying to go through that MASSIVE city. I understand your point regarding non-aggression pacts, and I can see they might change that, along with the silly city behavior. But unil then, use terraforming spells. However, I completely disagree with your assertion regarding tile blockage. Yo

2 words: Terraforming spells

It only works if they actually block some clever pathway, but that rarely happens. When I see this, I just walk right around them, let them attack me and waste their movement instead of mine.

I'm pretty sure that's where Waerloga the Dragon Lord is imprisoned. It's a Wild land, but unimplemented (a lot of them are buggy). If you build a city close by and expanding it enough (for the sight), you'll be able to see him sitting on his dragon wearing all kinds of cool gear. Edit: Bah, should have read more.

Yeah, this is becoming a pretty big problem with the added monster attacks and unrest penalties for occupation. I think they should just get rid of it all together. Hopefully also removing those terrible 2 grain tiles from the list of colonizable tiles.

It seems to me like you're intentionally neglecting your research (city build up) in order to rush your enemies, while that is a perfectly acceptable strategy, you can't really blame the game for the research problems. Take for example: You can get a 5 grain city to level 5 simply by researching that repeatable food production research near the end of the civilian tech tree a few times. But since you're neglecting that and rushing warfare, you're worried about how it's too

Just got in a good 550+ season game playing as Tarth, I could have won it handily by season 200-300 but I decided to build up while observing the AI to make the report instead of just mowing them all over. I currently have 10x the might value of the next player... so I could just declare war and demand surrender if I wanted to win. Game settings: Large Map, Temperate World (seems to give the fairest starting locations - might just be my imagination), All other AI at Challenging (a bit

I think it probably needs 3 stages too, like none at

Jeez I'm slow... just noticed this and the update is already out, a lot of the bugs I've jotted down seems taken cared of, except for one: Heart of Morian (sp? the boss of the swamp) gives bonus to constitution of units, and that wasn't working in .911 because those stats were removed... I don't suppose you guys caught that one too that while fixing the Academy of Revelation?

I've also only seen one... forgot what it was called, but it increased the level of monsters by 1... of course I was in clean up mode and most of the monsters are dead, so I have no idea if it actually works. I'm thinking that event needs to happen way earlier in the game.

The 2nd suggestion, replacing dodge 3 with it, just isn't enough. You'd just have 1 less trait, and 5 less dodge. I was able to get some 120+ dodge in my last game, so 5 less doesn't seem like it would fix the problem, and I'd have another trait. If a nerf is in order, it definitely needs to be +1 per level. Maybe make it less rare or something to compensate. Although honestly, I think they just need to establish some kind of cap on dodge/accuracy. Make it so that ther

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="41" id="3135721"] Except we disagree. Obviously, it's Kael's game and design here but I still totally disagree with what you write above. If you had said "I don't think there is enough" then I might have agreed but you say there is NO meaningful decisions. If I am building up my infrastructure then I'm not training a unit. That is a trade off. Whenever you gain a city (conquer or found) you are diluting your gro

I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that a lot of us are getting the game for free. On one hand, having a good collector edition would seem like a good idea to generate revenue from the fans, on the other hand, it also seems like trying to have the cake and eat it too if there's too much in there that normal players don't get. Fair or not, it's probably not something that they would want to discuss so I suspect they won't say much about it until near relea

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="108" id="3126441"]*personally* I would like to see multi-tile cities but kept in terms of "districts". I want to look at a city and be able to instantly tell how advanced it is in different areas even if it means the city is using 3 or 4 tiles.[/quote] I don't really have a problem with having limited amount of districts instead of "buildings" on the map, if the end result is still somewhat similar. Although IMO, the

Just a quick thing about the map scale, and trying to make things make sense: If a tile is hundreds of square miles, how does two tiny group of adventurers always run smack into one another when they are in the same tile? Or heck, your long is a "season" anyway? I suppose that would depend on how long a year is... which you could basically say is anything you want seeing as how this isn't even happening on Earth. So pretty much all the premise behind distance and time is subjective (unles

Judging from everyone's supposed hatred of snaking, perhaps this isn't all that unnecessary...

As I posted in the other thread, simply adding a cost to buildings that are farther away from the city hub would do wonders for the situation, say 5 Gildar for every tile away from the hub. Thus, you can still build massive cities or snake or creatively wall your empire, but it comes at a cost to your treasury. If you can afford it, go crazy. Which is how it should be. As for specializing cities, I've always been a fan of upgrade paths for buildings. For example, le

In my mind, the set tile cities (like you are suggesting you might be headed to with beta 4) removes too much of the city construction (essentially taking it out completely), which is a shame. I happen to like the current city construction mechanic (playing with tiles and shaping cities) because I think it allows you to build forts and adapts to the openness of the game and making chokepoints. Having said that, I do think it could use a few changes to address the key issues: </p

I'm going to start by saying that I'm impressed with all the work you guys have put into the game thus far, and hope to see the game become a great game in the end. It's win-win for everyone, IMO. However, on topic, if I may add my 2 cents: there's no need to completely neglect customized factions when you try to add faction differentiation. A lot of what you are saying can be done with the current customization system, all that needs to be done is to tie those "differ

[quote who="diamondspider" reply="4" id="2872935"]The controvery around DD pricing isn't so much about the savings on box, DVD, and manual, it's about the overhead needed for a brick and mortar store, inventory holding costs, and many other issues that make up the margin between the typical cost of each product and what it has been sold for. That is why digital distribution should be substantially less than the classic approach, not so much the box and such.[/quote] This is

Very nice work here Heavenfall, as always. Just wondering, but is there any chance you could also push the rider back a little on the existing horses as well? They look rather odd being that far forward.

Nice info on the mechanics there. On another topic, I think the only way to get a certain resource to always spawn is to use a starting point resource generator (like the naturalist sovereign trait). Here's an example of what I mean: [Quote] Champion_Talent</Abil

I'll get excited over this game, the week before release... otherwise I'll end up waiting for months if not years and lose all the excitement for it when it actually comes out.

I'd like to add to the "no"s on dual gfx card and liquid cooling as well. These are nothing but fluff that costs tons of money. Liquid cooling is only good for being quiet, but there are some very decent alternative that are much cheaper. The whole dual gfx card is a hoax. This was originally conceived because they thought gfx cards were capping out on their capabilities, and thus to improve it you would need to put several together (like the CPU)

The problem is two folds: 1. hardware for PC is currently developing too fast, and... 2. ... there are competitions in hardware development/design/manufacturing. A good computer that's 1 year old is far from being top-of-the line. This is because, in a given year, you could have 2-3 real improvement in a field. If you take several of them together, say Gfx card, memory, processor, you just got a bunch of different system configurations. </p