Denryu

So in other words Ravenx throws out as a given fact something he does not even believe in order to offer up a soft ball pitch for any other Christian bashing atheists (oh noes we never bashed anyone we just said who could take as FACT these silly fairy tales?) and the Ravenx joins in as he and Scorpiana high five each other for getting a cheap shot on believers in (and of course they will protest their innocence, the never meant to be offensive /big eyes, innicen look/ There was no re

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="95" id="2400764"] Quoting Wintersong, reply 94 (Lucky) skillful players? Nay, it would be a foolish thing to play without the "being able to be ressed" setting imo. [/quote] It all depends on the tradeoffs. If they coded an "I win" button that was available on turn one and all you had to do to win was click it, would you be foolish to play without that "option"?

Just a few thoughts I have had and don't feel like making a spearate post for each. 1. Number of units in a stack should effect from how far away they are visible. Single units should be well night invisible unless you are in an adjacent square, and army of hundreds should be visible from quite some distance (assuming they are not skulking in the woods). 2. Terrain should affect visibility. No seeing units on the other side of mountain ranges or deep in the forest. (units in t

[quote who="keithLamothe" reply="77" id="2400065"]For the beta, let's try something simple for sov death: - if defeated outside your influence, game over - if defeated inside your influence, lose 5 essence; if you don't have 5 essence, game over Let's see if it really needs something more sophisticated from there. The "but then people just won't use their sovereigns" objection is a good one, so the use of one's so

or we could leave the non-negotiables alone until we understand why they are non-negotiable.

Non-neg....Hey wait that's actually a pretty good idea. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] However, the only real issue is that the SD=GO is somehow critical to some gameply mechanic that SD is currently keeping under wraps. Anything that can be worked into that I think is great. It would be a shame if they buckled on their non-neg.... due to overwhelming pressure and we never found out how it was originally supposed to work. I guess this is time to plead for more info from above so that we c

God loves stupid people - he makes so many of them.

Non-negotiable.

[quote who="Megajames75" reply="22" id="2398502"]"medallion should be a thumbnail of card picture" Maybe I missunderstand, but I would prefer the card pictures to be a larger medalion, the medalions are awesome. Also this is fantasty, since when did cards have to be rectangles? [/quote] rectangles are efficient text holders?

[quote who="Nights Edge" reply="14" id="2398288"]The idea of Sovereigns only being vulnerable on attack is interesting, I reckon it probably has some tactical implications on top of making players feel secure. Armies with a Sovereign in might jink for position or try to slip past the enemy's main forces to go after softer targets. Not sure if that would be good or bad. Some alternative ideas: A lives system, including buying lives back. Prepare some sort of wa

In a different post Brad mentioned that possibly owning a resource might produce 1 per turn of that resource but a town might generate .1 of the resource. This is what leads me to believe that the simplest model (do you have a resource or don't you?) is being discarded for a bit more of a quantitative model (how much of a resource do you have?) I could be mis reading the tea leaves here though.

[quote quoting="post"]Sovereign Handling People do not want luck to decide the fate of their sovereign in a battle. Many people don’t like the idea of ones sovereign dying meaning the end of the game. The sovereign being a unit in the game is key to the game mechanics that will become more apparent later. But we have been convinced by the feedback that there shouldn’t be an “evade” ability. Instead, we’re now leaning towards if yo

I think you should be able to make any unit you want. However along the lines of what Frogboy stated about wanting to make as much of it as possible equipment and only things like weapons and armor "required" for a specific unit, I think that there should be some very basic units provided - A scout, warrior, archer (and whatever "base" unit type might be needed. Then everything, including weapons and armor become merely equipment upgrades to this base unit. So a warrior might start with a sti

Yes these "super tool tips" are awesome!

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="132" id="2397411"]I think everyone is concentrating way too much on gritty gameplay and not enough on awesomeness and fantasy. Frankly, if an epicly powerful being dies, of course there is a way to resurrect them. What slain sorcerer or demon or whatnot doesn't threaten the world beyond the grave? A pathetic one. The idea of a sovereign dying = end of game simply goes against a lot of high fantasy I've read. Even Gandalf "died" after his encounter wi

Here is another thought I had that follows the 'C' concept. Let's say a Dread Knight is made, but you are out of mithril swords (the armor pieces you had enough) and also you are out of Koladia leaves (you lost that resource). So you make him with a fine steel sword (the next best thing you had available) and no Koladia leaves. Like has been suggested by others this unit should be designated as Dread Knight (-), in other words a sub par Dread Knight. I think that when and if you are a

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="8" id="2397085"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 1 Magic related abilities (various abilities for magic) Dynasty related abilities (abilities related to producing a family) Governing related abilities (abilities related to running your kingdom or empire) Adventuring related abilities (abilities related to your sovereign going on adventures) Ok, let's see if I understand it correctly. As you put it, it seem

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="2396714"]Very interesting! ...Dynasty related abilities ( abilities related to producing a family ) ...[/quote] [e digicons]}:)[/e] I so want to go there. I'm not going to go there, but I SO want to! [e digicons]}:)[/e]

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="109" id="2396281"] Quoting Denryu, reply 100 Quoting arunodayt, reply 91 Quoting Demiansky, reply 90 If sovereign death = game over, it will greatly benefit the player and severely penalize the AI. Essentially what you will have is a moral hazard in which the character will be motivated to use his sovereign more carelessly and level up/ gain rewards faster than the AI's.&n

[quote who="TatertotEatalot" reply="28" id="2396149"]I'm thinking we need warehouse buildings to stockpile resources and such. It is this value that will be used when constructing units instead of a requiring to have access of the resource at that time. [/quote] I am really in favor of this. It would mean the economic model would have to switch over to a more quantitative model - which I am also hugely in favor of. So if you have five mithril mines for 40 turns and y

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="44" id="2396028"] Quoting Tormy-, reply 43 Quoting Frogboy, reply 42Some good ideas here. We're digesting them now. Good to hear Brad. Please consider implementing an additional Sovereign system also, because the one what we have "now" won't be very popular amongst many players. [The proposed dynasty/successor system for example sounds very good, as an alternative.] Either way: The key of this "second

[quote who="KbT" reply="28" id="2396066"]I don't have much to add to the discussion, other than to say resources should be important. Flat, small percentage modifiers, like Gal Civ II, is terribly dull. The resources in your realm should be an important feature in all aspects of that realm - its warfare, its culture, its trading, its research. What I'm trying to get at it that I'd like to see kingdoms naturally play to their strengths, and their strengths being th

[quote who="Black-Knight" reply="106" id="2396067"] Quoting Rishkith, reply 105 The sovereign should not be a recyclable unit you throw into battle. I like the idea that he is a super unit that is also game losing should he die. Afraid the game will end when you lose him in battle? Don't use him, as some AI players shouldn't either. YOU play the sovereign in the Elemental campaign and I like that it ends there. It makes the game tactical while

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="3" id="2395846"]I don't remember which economic model was going to be used for starters... I'd favor A mixed with C. I mean, if you don't have mithril, forget about those nice mithril armour pieces and swords. (no more Dread Knights for you) You should get a warning about substituting pieces if je still wants to build them but... well, that would be like a new unit. If instead of the lack of mithril we talk about the lack of twilight bee apiary (why d

Yeah I see now why you are wanting to make resources give bonuses instead of prerequisites. For reasons I put in the other thread I still think that making it a requirement is desirable. How about making certain materials give a bonus to an item? This allows an option C type of resolution. For instance, what if a mithril sword was an iron sword with a mithril overlay (which gives the sword a bonus)? Then if you lose mithril, your unit gets just an iron sword (notifying