Climber

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="16" id="2585523"]Quoting TheProgress, reply 13Are there plans for mountains to obstruct the player's view? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a watchtower could see over a mountain. Good point. I'm going to log that as a bug.[/quote] LOS engine is quite important for me, and I've mentioned that in various posts. Does it exist in this game? When such engine exist, we can implement all kinds of infravision, invisibility, super

[quote]+ Improvements now use ConstructionResourceCost modifiers for their up front costs when placed, and refunds when destroyed [/quote] Climber: [quote]Suggestion 1: If a city mines ore, it becomes available everywhere and goes into storage. If that city is connected via roads (network) then need LESS ore to make your armor. Suggestion 2: If a city mines ore, it becomes available everywhere and goes into storage. If that city is NOT connected via

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="92" id="2579511"] Stockpiling of non-perishables is in. If a city mines ore, it becomes available everywhere and goes into storage. If that city is connected via roads then you get more ore. [/quote] I see your point. I make further suggestion, hopefully it will keep the conversation rolling. How about the following? Suggestion 1: If a city mines ore, it becomes available everywhere and goes into storage. If th

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="49" id="2578217"]Roads and caravans matter because as a practical matter, you won't be able to compete economically if you don't build a trade network. [/quote] Frogboy, assuming your #49 is a reply to my post #48, I believe you mean that free & instant resource teleportation is not a major concern, so that "when <a class="l" onmousedown="return clk('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search?search=Christopher%20Columbus

Regards to post #82, I believe there maybe a better way. Having buildable warehouses are micro management nightmare. It is a good thing that warehouse has unlimited capacity. Some resources are perishable . Horses are good only for a few years, preserved horse meat for dozen month, fruits lasts 1 month max. The quantity stockpiled dwindles after certain time has past. These forces player trade away

[quote who="onomastikon" reply="34" id="2578015"]Whee! Great! - Resources being Global: Does that mean they are available everywhere even if no roads / caravans travel between them? Even if their source is in some of "your territory" on the other side of "someone else's" territory with whom you are not friendly? Do resources get magically teleported between locations of "your territory"? I would find that puzzling; I like Global Resources, but these have to be linked via unhindered

[quote]I could have a huge farming community at the back of my empire feeding in a huge metropolis elsewhere[/quote] When the map can be XXXL, the situation above seems overly unrealistic. It essentially means teleportation of food for free. Food source and the metro can be really far away. I can understand the beauty of simplicity in your design and other concerns. But how about the following modification? First, use your system, but

I would like to remove the repetitiveness of building houses too. To decide which cities contains my population, it depends on how much prestige AND food available in the city. For a 1000 prestige city that receive 1000 food/turn, its max population is 1000 person. When food supply is decreased to 600/turn, 400 people will attempt to caravan themselves to neighbouring cities where food and prestige can support them. That 400 people may get sick,

I wish all units (normal producible units, heroes, nobles and the Sov) has one or more personality traits. Monsters have personality when applicable. Personality trait should pay important roles in a few key areas of the game, namely Morale, Marriage, and Diplomacy. In this context, Mood is similar to personality. For example, a hell hound will be literally 'permanently' angry. I use these terms interchangeably here. <span style="text

Haree78: [quote]It worked that basically while 1 player moved all his units the other saw the opponents units how they were before the move and set all the shooting up, who shoots who. Once both were done the shooting was resolved then the units moved. Brilliantly done. ...The problem with simultaneous movement is how do you catch up with someone? [/quote] Haree78, the above is very well written, basically the same idea I've suggested; bu

For professions, a common thought is use checkbox. However, will using a slider be more interesting? Maybe you can be an average (5TP) carpenter, skillful carpenter(7TP), master carpenter (9TP), and legendary carpenter (20TP). My point here is, you can have 1 slider for 1 profession. My 2nd point is, for most sliders, it will be some kind of deminishing return, but then it will be also balanced/reflected by the lowered marginal TP cost. This is shown as

hehe... I am not sure if 300 is rhetorical or not. When we have divide 300 by 3 (Professions, Talents & Weaknesses & Fraction Traits") it is about 100 each. Maybe closer to 200 is what we are "hoping"? who knows. Breniir, the 5-click-slider idea more or less is what my OP suggested. So I agre

Impressed! Keep up the good work!

Fort should be an important part of the game, and it requires more discussion. I like chokepoints, fort belongs part of the chokepoint mechanics. Strategic map Zone of Control is necessary, and its importance with any multiplier game is vital too. Shameless promotion here, pls check my older post about Roads, Fortress and the Great wall on the Strategic Map I do not like your 2nd and 3rd idea.&

Isn't it this game call War of Magic ? Our devs aren't going to agree to allow the existence of this option! [e digicons]XD[/e] [e digicons]XD[/e]

The slider does says 'insane" + "cruel" cannot become a special 'expert torturer" bonus. However, is this comboing really fun? I reserve my judgement here. Checkboxes are fine... only when the number of traits are limited. When the number of traits avaliable, it make much more sense to turn 2 or more traits into a slider; ugliest -> most handsome. Slider is a natural evolution of checkboxes, when the # of traits increases. 300

Ah... I've not thought that quite a few of you dislike 'sliders', I should have recalled there was some posts about that. Anyway, how about instead of Slider, the devs will find some smart way to beautify it, to make it more RPGish? Upon my own reflection of this particular idea, I just want to have as many option (& combinations) as possible. This should make the game rich, provide a lot of replayability. Also I like my Sov (or empire) progress in their 's

imbiginjapan has a pretty good summary, but why you do not put my OP suggestion in too? [e digicons]X([/e] For #1, the balancing will be difficult. If they make it too easy, it defeat the purpose of the shard system. For #2, this will give the player one more reason to do some mad-early-rush to the shards<

I've suggested the following in the Talent & Weakness trait: [quote]A Combined slider for talent & weakness for all talents. Instead of having "ugly" as a weakness, use One slider that ranges from "Ugly as hell" to ugly to normal to handsome to&n

[quote]As for Climber: Who gave you the authority to declare what a person's focus in a game should be? I air on Frog Boy's wisdom. Give people options and let them pick the focus they find most fun. Don't like it? I'm not offended that you don't. So switch it off. Frog Boy's games master this concept, and I give him major props. Just because someone might switch it off doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an option to others.[/quote] Isn't

Can some one playing the beta tell me if my OP concern is a valid concern? I cannot play the beta now, as I have no time in my RL. And if my concern is correct, I wish our beloved devs will chime in to see if there will be remedy in place. Greyclouds40, your idea is on the mark. I thought it will be interesting that if some Virgin shards will only change to an element your neighbor has, will be fun. Maybe only 15% of virgin shards are like that.

Well I hate this idea, it distract player from the main focus of the game. That, being said, mini-game can add to the game IF AND ONLY IF the devs cannot find a way to streamline Multiplayer games. So let me put it that way, mimi-game should really be the last resort to resolve the multiplayer issue. Under this presumption, maybe it will be fun for someone to start a thread to see what kind of mimi-game p

[quote] Well, the Order of TC's is nice, but I think if Battle A is between players X and Y, and Battle C is between Players Q and Z, then the X-Y battle and the Q-Z battle should be able to be fought simultaneously .... and all other players can choose to watch either X-Y or Q-Z [/quote] Of course, this is what I meant in my Queue post. Let the game handle it, simultaneously

Just like another poster said above, one of the major goals of making mutiplayer TBS game is to minimize the downtime, the wait for other players to finish their turns. With some minor issues as evident in AOW2SM, simultaneous turns with Tactical Combat OFF achieve this goal. The cruz however is how to put have TC ON AND minimize downtime . I am proposing a a 3 phases systemthat should achieve these

(Disclaimer, I have not play the latest beta so if my assumption is incorrect, pls let me know) Will this be quite frustrating that randomly generated map or a pre-designed map prevent you from using magic because of a pick-shard mismatch? Don't get it wrong, I do like what SD's proposed shard system. But I can also see that are multiple issues related to that. Hopefully this discussion will make it fun instead of frustrating. I am proposing the follow