[quote who="Dwarmin" reply="6" id="1936103"]I'd like to make some non standard cavalry heh Giant Chicken riders, CHARGE![/quote] You mean Choccobos? It doesn't matter of what you think, the Japanese will have it done stranger already. ;)
Well, you can trust StarDock because you can trust the owner of it, Brad Wardell. Imho the fact that it is wholly owned by him is the major reason why StarDock is so unique. He can follow his own vision and isn't bound by shareholder to follow the easiest path to fast money. So yeah, whom else can you trust in the games industry?
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="6" id="1935810"] Nooo, why do you hate me Brad, why!?! I actually like that. It's bothered me in games like HOMM/King's Bounty (I haven't played the original MoM, gasp!) that you basically just get random creatures in your army like it's no big deal. My army in King's Bounty can easily kill dragons by the 10s in a single combat turn. I think it'll be much more interesting if the magical creatures are actually, you know, magical - that is, rar
[quote]For instance you have 4 heroes, then you earn 4 times as much xp than a sovereign with only one heroe (and even if your sovereign is weaker)[/quote] In the long run, perhaps. In the short run I'll kill your sovereign easily with my more powerful one. [e digicons]}:)[/e] [e digicons]x_x[/e] So on a large map it may be a good idea while on a small map it could mean death. It all depends though on how much essence you would lose permanently. Is it just a one time cost,
[quote who="Gamespot" reply="1" id="1"]There will be naval battles, but we don't plan on them [being] tactical in nature like the land battles, as most of the action will take place on land. [/quote] Nooo, wrong inspiration from the Total War games. [quote who="Gamespot" reply="1" id="1"]Moreover, the game resources--food, stone, wood, and iron--aren't beholden to the city that has the tile on the particular resource. Rather, players can build caravans to transfer a unit of fo
The important difference between continuous turn based battles and real time battles is the turn part. Or in other words, the lowest time unit in a real time battle is usually a tick (some fraction of a second depending on the game engine, 1/30s in the newer C&C games for example). The lowest time unit in a continuous turn based game is up to some seconds (a fraction of a second or up to 5 seconds depending on the speed settings in Paradox' games). This means that you can
[quote]Another more likely one would be something like "fire-elemental-gems + steel = fire-resistant-steel" which could then make fire-resistant-armor or some such.[/quote] Personally I think more of, "fire-elemental-gems + steel = cooking oven"... But yeah, I like your idea. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]
[quote who="McCracken76" reply="12" id="1934948"]Hm, before I can comment, I'd like to see a screenshot or two of the battle system in motion. Perhaps what Stardock has developed thus far lends itself much better to real-time battles (when two armies on the TB world map meet) a la Shogun TW?[/quote] While a screenshot in motion is somehow impossible to do, there's one of the battle view (but isn't linked in the screenshot section, had to hunt it down by google): <p
I personally dislike too much AI automation that isn't directly ordered by myself (governers like in GalCiv2 are perfectly fine though). But I hate the leaders in the Total War games even more. Too much micromanagement and reorganisation necessary without a real benefit in gameplay (making each sword a talking sword wouldn't be an improvement in gameplay either, though you would have more RPG elements [e digicons];P[/e] ).
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="23" id="1934954"]I do know I'd like to avoid flying units but that's personal preference.[/quote] Nooo. Won't please somebody think of the flying unicorns? Anybody? [e digicons]8O[/e] But aren't dragons flying be default? Or do you just mean, every unit can be attacked at mellee, even flying ones? I'm confused (and flying-unicorn-less).
Why? Just because. [e digicons]:P[/e] With RPS I meant the simplified system you usually get in games. Take WC3 for example, it's unit counter system is very arcane and abstracted; as a beginner I have no idea what works best against what. Take the Orc's rider. How should I know it's useful against buildings? Or against flying units thanks to ensnare? Or what is the counter to a human knight? It's totally incomprehensible without careful study. It may b
[quote who="eetmorsqrls" reply="19" id="1934875"]http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrview/pc/sins_of_a_solar_empire/775249/80464/ eat that![/quote] Fanboy. [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote]It is just that there ARE dual-monitor setups on a lot of geek machines, so if it isn't a problem there should be the option for it.[/quote] Somebody wrote in another thread (I think it was the random/blind research thread) a very good post about that: Optional content feature creep isn't a very good idea for the developers.
Bah Rock, Paper, Scissor systems suck. As Frogboy has said in regards to another sytem which usually gets simplified (the production system), the simplification doesn't happen because people wouldn't understand it, but because it would consume a lot of calculation power of the computer itself and a lot of work of the developers to make it easily presentable to the player. So I expect a quite complex battle simulation from StarDock presented on an intuitive UI for beginners on
As long as I don't have to make pink space ponies jokes I'm game. ;)
[quote]Or we could just have the most basic stats pop up, such as attack, defense and the move of the stack.[/quote] This. Judgin from the early screenshots we've got this will be the case. And for a quick glance at the enemy power it's enough to know the type of troop and the general power of it. But detailed statistics will probably be necessary for the tactical battles, though a lot could be made through graphical representation of the units. Type of of equi
[quote who="Spartan" reply="3" id="1933242"]That should not be an issue with current PC duel core processor capability - especially for those of us with 64b systems and multi quad cores.[/quote] It's not an issue with cpu power, it's an issue with screen place. You only can have so much at the screen at one time without it getting out of hand. And needing to split the screen for a 2 layer world isn't really a good option. Imho it doesn't add enough gameplay for what it
Ok, I never liked the two layers/world approach in MoM, AoW, HoMM, etc. They allways have one significant flaw, you can't have both of them on the minimap/main map/whatever, at once. Making the overview of your empire always much harder then it should be. I often lost a city or a battle because I forgot to check for an army underground in HoMM which isn't shown on the minimap. On a design standpoint, that's imho a critical flaw (and a really annoying one imho).
I don't like this idea at all. It makes luck a too large factor and removes control from me as a player. [e digicons]:thumbsdown:[/e] As an option in game creation, ok, but not as the standard mode. Also there are better options to increase the replay value then to artificially make tech developement random.
[quote]I agree. If this were a single player RPG then I would be all about the weapons and breaking down Weapon vs Armour effectiveness. In a game like this where combat and units are going to be abstracted to such a large degree anything more then a simple Weapon type vs armour type chart will be overkill and a waste of the developers time.[/quote] I disagree. Imho fights should be simulated as accurately as possible to make "realistic" results. Conversely to popular wisdom
[quote quoting="post"] The game lists technology as one of the major pieces of the strategy. What I want to know is how far could it be advanced? Can it be taken as far as gunpowder, steam and machinery? Or just to the edges of what is traditionaly considered fantasy? [/quote] I would guess that will be heavily dependent on the faction. Ie. you'll have the usual tinkering faction with steampunk stuff on one side and the nature loving treehuggers armed with grizzly be
[quote]Well if any unit is possible, how about a Dragon riding a Champion.[/quote] Equal opportunity I say. :D ------------------ Imho the most important thing is, how the combat system works with those customization options. If it doesn't make a difference if I equip my troops with axes or swords, then it's just cosmetics which would really be a waste. But if it makes a difference, I would want pegasi, swords, hor
[quote who="Ron Lugge" reply="10" id="1932143"]Yeah, can't we have subordinate wizards?[/quote] Yes, we can! [e digicons]^_^[/e] But we probably would have to give the wizard some of our magic power which she then uses to enchant the weapons.
Just make it so that the map borders aren't just a line but, like in Terry Pratchet's books, a cliff falling down to the turtle below. [e digicons]:')[/e]
Sounds very very nice and I hope it will work out well. [quote]Can you click to produce a unit in a city without the proper resources in store, and then have to wait while some caravans come to drop the resources off, or will you have to tell the caravans manually to stop by that city before you can start producing? The former would be great, as long as there were some estimates on how long it's going to take even before you click. It would remove some unneccesary micro-management.[/q