Rincewind57

I haven't read through all 17 pages so apologies if some of this has already been decided. Here are my thoughts though: I think retreats should only preserve champions, all 'standard' units should not survive. But if only champions remain, retreat should become impossible, to prevent endless champion retreats. In terms of time limits, I think rather than a set time-limit there should be a 'reinforcement' time. After, say, x minutes or whatever, the defender can call in

My guess is that the expansion is due to the large amount of ideas that will have cropped up by the time the game goes gold, many from beta-testers, with a response of "sadly we don't have the development time". Judging from Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor I'm sure it'll be more than many, especially in this age of... *shivers*... DLC. (BlazBlue charging for modified character colours comes to mind... :-()

Also, remember that 'HD' graphics should have no real effect at all. PC games have been using much higher resolutions than 1080p for some considerable time. It's more about more advanced graphics overall. Apologies for the pedantry but oh well.

Perhaps a power supply fault or... certainly worth checking... a CPU overheat? Perhaps the CPU was on the verge of over-heating, the dedicated GPU increases the case temp and *boom*, your cpu now overheats.

I think I'd like to see this tested over some real games (once there is a decent ai or multiplayer) , on the basis it could become too powerful but it's hard to say without having seen tactical battles. Maybe we should get access to tactical battles? Too obvious that I'm begging there? :) :P

I tend to think of one 'unit' as representing a regiment or similar. Then groups of units are armies to me. So I guess in that sense it might be more reasonable?

Random? Nay! Pseudo-random! Worthless? Nay! Inspired further postings! [quote] And it failed, and it was our fault[/quote] Nay, the random post failed and it was Blaze of Glory's fault. And, thus and verily, it was so. And there was much rejoicing.

Could you give us your system specs please? Also, I assume you've tried lowering the settings? Bear in mind this is a beta so there may of course be performance problems/glitches/etc

Remember also that SD is quite small and low-budget. Might be a bit of a strain on them to do the conversion without a significant enough increase in profit. Remember games like Civ4 are so well known that many Mac users would immediately snap up a copy. I doubt the majority of Mac users are avid SD followers.

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="27" id="2675962"]Sounds like improvements in leaps and bounds, but still nervous about tactical battles. Either it's very easy to get tactical battles right or they will be woefully undertested.[/quote] Remember there's still plenty of private Stardock beta-ing going on :-). Think of all the games where the public don't even get a sniff of a beta and they are relatively bug-free. So hopefully the tactical battles will be fine :-). Tho

[quote] No. feminism is not about a female dominiated society. You can suggest semantics, but that is not what it has been used for politically.[/quote] I'd argue that over the last 10-20 years feminism has changed from its noble beginnings and now has indeed been perverted into a desire for a female-dominated society. I'll leave it at that though, not wanting to get into a full-on debate about this. Arguing about terminology, historical context etc notwithstand

[quote]Oh god! Not a feminist! PFfft. Women having equal rights? Having less fear of equal treatment? What will they ask for next? To wear...PANTS?![/quote] Surely feminism doesn't refer to a pursuit of an egalitarian society but a pursuit of a female-dominated one? Presumably the word for the former would be a humanist?

Can I suggest a radical solution? We instead have 'chaps'. There can be 'good chaps' and 'bad eggs'. Thereby circumventing all of the political correctness issues whilst being simply splendid terms to use in their own right.

[quote who="LeBlaque" reply="31" id="2674836"]A very interesting video. You know, I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but having seen that and listening to the conversation, I have no idea how you plan on getting this product "finished" by July 16th for the gold mastering and August release date. I'm really curious how this all comes together in just over 1 week. [/quote] Remember the private and public beta are very different, the private alre

Same for eject button, same resolution :-).

I'd imagine most implementations of 'minor' factions would naturally make them weaker than major, therefore making them prime targets for conquest. I'd certainly like to see either: a) Them having unique things that are Lost on conquest, or b ) Them having unique things that can also be traded for but if you invade then you lose the trade. So for example maybe they give you a supply of drakes but if you declare war they cut off the supply and you can build no mo

You know you can remove steam from the list of startup options right? Then just load, play a game, then exit :-).

I do a lot of creative writing myself so I'd like to put myself down for a tentative 'perhaps', depending on future responses/decisions/etc

I get the impression also that the 'city-building' is going to be "souped-up" to make it more fun quite soon. There has been talk of city 'levels' and increased specialisation such.

Off-topic but has to be said, in some ways Wild Magic surges would be awesome. Having completed BG2 i started a game as a wild-mage, right at the start i cast a spell on Imoen, wild surge... change gender. Now That is a random event...

In terms of action games I don't think graphics are hurting at all but in strategy I fear they are. As is the insistence on making things main-stream. Command and Conquer 4 and Supcom2 leap to mind (P.S I love supcom 2 but, really, it's Not a sequel to supreme commander. It's what c&c4 could have been in the sc universe). I fear a lot of publishers/developers are failing to realise that some things will Not become main-stream. C&C3 sold pretty well for a strateg

I discovered, whilst testing the sovreign ability that gives you 2 Sentinels to start, that if you rush your opponent and capture a city before building any of your own, your next city can be built by your Sovereign and still counts as 'founding your kingdom'. Is this expected behaviour? I can't be sure. No crash report seems necessary since it's not a crash but... interesting behaviour.

Seconded. Also the option to only allow 'non-custom' races/sovereigns for the choice of AI players, whilst still being random, would be nice. (Same for galciv2 :) :P).

Seconded, if it doesn't require a major re-code.

The number of 'encounterables' is currently fixed and does not vary with map size. This should be changed by release afaik.