WIllythemailboy

For clarity, I think this is something like the situation Scoutdog is trying to avoid: "Oh crap, there is an invading army 10 turns from getting their catapults in range of my city. I'd better invest in another level of Masonry to get stronger walls to hold them long enough for my army to come back and defend me." Two turns later.. "New masonry technology gives me better ROADS?!?! Now they can get in range in 5 turns instead of the 8 I should have had. FML."

[quote]If it's not a technical issue, 32 seems like the best number there. If there is a problem, try to keep the AI number high even if the human number has to come down some.[/quote] This. Getting 32 people to play one game is not practical, but getting 4-8 to play a game with the balance filed in by decent AI would be great. Aim for 8-12 max humans and 32 total. For time: there are good points and bad points. Long beta gives testers a chance to really wring the guts out of

- Why are starting settlements being created on dungeons?!?!?! Is this a programming issue, or are you fishing for suggestions of lore-based logic why this should be so? If it's the latter, I'm sure we could come up with a few winners [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

Or starves, or suffers equipment degradation due to supply losses (carts wear out, horses die, etc. and no way to replace them).

[quote]In stories, cataclysms are a flexible concept, and often the 'world' that was destroyed is a bit more social than physical. Even with world-wrecking magic as the operative term, there's still plenty of room around the edges for things 'not part of our world' to be left out of the cataclysm.[/quote] At this point I'm thinking one fo two possibilities. First would be a plague, which swept the world and killed most of the population. This would leave abandoned cities full of ancie