Climber

I always like city specialization of its production. However, this design begs a question, is production specialization the only way? If yes, that means gamers do not have a choice. There should be 2 ways for us to choose, specialize vs generalization. In the game, can generalization (i.e. most of my cities produce almost the same stuff) provide some benefit that specialization don't? Maybe, generalization do not provide the quantity an

I wish for 2 styles of RMG . One is almost symmetrical, another one is real-world like . The first one is mainly for balanced play amongst players, the latter is used for players who need to figure out how to get out of an disadvantagous (or advantagous) starting surroundings. The latter needs not be balanced, if you are the only player that stuck like the Japanese, so be it. Both has its reason of

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="2668310"]One of the requirements for v1.0 available spells is that the AI has to be able to use them. It's really cool (and easy) to come up with really cool sounding spells. It's not even hard to program them in for the player. But getting the AI to use them effectively (or at all) is another case. Post release when I have a lot more time to play with the AI, I can look at more sophisticated spells.[/quote] Can y

Support the general idea behind Hound post#35, especally we need many different ways to Categorize spells (acutally units/heroes/tech/etc). The best ways is the use of "Tags". Most, if not all spells need to scale well into end game. Also my Ranking bonus and Acheivement based bonus idea should work well with spells too. Maybe a the player that have achieved the lenghtiest peace, will be granted exta power for their "Protect (City)" spell. Again, listen to Pi

Frogboy say: [quote]Players set a threshold of how many units need to be involved on both sides in order to bring up the tactical battle screen. So it’s quick battle automatically until that threshold is met.IF the threshold is met, the player can choose auto-resolve or tactical battles.[/quote] 1. The amount of time needed for Tactical combat does not relates to how many units players brought into the field. It is the number of "Stack

Great update! Like it! [quote] 2. A tough unit (i.e. your sovereign) should not be going around founding cities. You should have to secure the area first. NPCs and Creatures are going to become far more hostile in subsequent betas (in case you wondered why so many NPCs are wandering around, in Beta 1/2 they’re neutral. In Beta 3 they’ll start claiming unprotected cities as part of their new kingdom and monsters will start to target nearby defenseless unit

Pls read the link I've posted in the previous page. The intention is to have a good design, and why it is great is already presented there.

This is the dev journal that gets me excited. Is this post your answer to my post 5 Unique playstyles by making each individual tech tree viable , Frogboy ? Are you going to (attempt) make them totally balanced, so that each tech tree can hold its own against other trees? (while the regular mix and match is possible) How about drastically changing the gameplay mechanics by using "ranking

#1 City Improvements Give us reason to not make the city as big as possible (i.e. high level city). It can be achieve by giving Rural production Bonus to magic/farming/ beast-breeding related production building. Adjacency Bonus aren't that interesting , nor it gives much fun factor to the game. It will become a no-brainer decision very soon. I like city specialization</strong

You should change your thread subject... to reflect your central concept better...

It is not really new but I support this idea, it can fit well in the Adventuring tree in the context I've given there. All beasts living in a lair/dungeon should be treated as Natural resources , that can be mined/utilized. It's population should grow (or explode) to 'city sized'. There should be not "much" distinction btn Fallen/Human/Spider/etc on this

Just to correct the misconception, developer says there is flying units, but not flying army.

Great idea, like it! Should be 'canon'.

Like it!

HookedX , thanks for your support. I am sure the way you present the idea will garner more support from the fellow forumers. However, my core idea is more revolutionary, so I want to use a more edgy way to highlight the revolutionary aspect of it. I expect the first 3 specialization methods you've mentioned fully. This is my minimal expectation for the game. For the 4th one, "synergistic techs" is usually termed as "

[quote who="Ellestar" reply="37" id="2646346"]Not a bad idea, i had a similar one somewhere. However, i think you should mention possible victory conditions for each playstyle. To be competitive, each playstyle should be able to win a game.[/quote] Isn't victory condition given already? I've been following the forum everyday, I should have mentioned that in the OP. Yes, each playstyle should be able to win a game... that is what I call balance amongst the 5 trees.</

I did, not much responses from the forum. I can be a good mechanism of "Adventurer based' economy too.

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="31" id="2643603"]I don't see the need for extreme specialization (picking one line of research and leaving it there for the whole game) to be particularly viable. Honestly, that would be pretty boring. I'm also skeptical that it'd be feasible to have such utterly diverse unique play styles based on which tech tree you follow, and give us the freedom to mix and match. Many combinations would be incredibly difficult to reconcile, let alone balance to even a

[quote who="LeBlaque" reply="50" id="2644542"] Quoting Nick-Danger, reply 43 Since I'm in the WEGO camp, I won't again spout its accolades. However, I have to suspect the above quote is right on (I don't know) as a WEGO implementation would likely take much more programming than a more standard TBS as during the Execution Phase of the players' WEGO the Units must respond intelligently to potentially numerous unfolding situations. By way of examp

A long time ago, I've suggested for a potent spell like that, it will be annouced to the target player/globally. Thus, the potential victim is given a chance to 'counter spell' it. Not all potent spells are like that, whether is spell is "counter-able" is a carefully designed. This, can be one of the way. A fun way too.

[quote who="Tridus" reply="20" id="2641935"] Maybe you don't care about having a big army because you have magic, or diplomacy, or this game you don't care about adventurers. No matter what, in every game you always need an economy. Fixing that gets you closer to your goal, as the other four trees are less dependent on each other, whereas all of them depend on Civics.[/quote] As the post above described. I want 5 different economy types

[quote who="seanw3" reply="11" id="2641189"] Obviously it is an exaggeration to say I would only research one tree. I do believe that it makes sense to be competitive even if I only focus on a single tree. This should be a viable strategy that has benefits and weaknesses but it should never be dwarfed by a middle ground strategy. How would that be fun? My main counterpoint is that the more viable extreme strategies are, the more varied and fun IMO the game will be.

[quote who="Tridus" reply="6" id="2641132"]How in the world would you be able to win a game with no troops, no magic, no adventurers, and no diplomats? Sure, you might have the greatest farms in the world... which don't do you a lot of good if you can't trade with anyone or defend yourself against anyone that wants it.[/quote] Yes, you can. If there is a Victory condition for being the most populous, and your starting location is an island all on your own.

[quote who="_PawelS_" reply="5" id="2640980"] I don't think this is the way to go. If you invest in one category, the research costs go up, and the alternative categories will become much cheaper and more tempting. I think it's a question of priorities and adapting to situation, not mindlessly investing in one category through the entire game.[/quote] Your answer is correct as ever, pal. However, it is also a balance question (design), or a judgment question (player). &nbsp

Mordor probably is not be the best description of the “Adventurer” society. For their society, the SOV do not want to populate the world with Fallen or Human in their empire, no bustling cities nor villages. Instead, the goal of these SOV is to re-habitat the land with monsters, like the Giant Spiders, the Trolls; all those buildings that live inside the lair/dungeon. They do that because they have the tech/skill/power to control their min