Denryu

[quote who="Paradoxnt" reply="8" id="2232760"] ...Finally, I hope there is a limit on cities in this game. I hate games that become a race to see who can build the most cities to support their economy/military....sort of like a settler rush! Maybe available citie zones on maps should be predetermined during the maps creation. Or maybe available city zones can be determined by the distance from other cities (just make it a very long distance). Or maybe city zone

29 results. Some explanation. A vote of "Hate" gave a score of -2. Dislike=-1, Neutral=0, Like=+1, Love=+2. So under the column "Average rating" That is what that number means. Without further ado, Da numberz! 1. Please respond to how strongly you favor each of the features discussed in Elemental: Internal discussions made external. Higher scores for what you like, medium

@tridus I agree no ARTIFICIAL limits. However, there should be natural consequences, some of them not good for putting all your eggs in one basket. A few I can think of: Powerful spells that AE damage an entire stack. Resources/caravans/towns less protected. It's a good argument for not abstracting away something when that something provides a natural and easily understood counter to doing something else. I have no problem with a Stack of Doom, but it should no

I think the best way to avoid Stacks of Doom, is to provide reasons (or more accurately not abstract away reasons) to keep your armies split up and spread out. The fact that a stack is going to be limited to the slowest unit in the stack seems like the only movement penalty that should be needed. The biggest thing that causes stacks of Doom is to not really care that much about protecting your borders - you just garrison your soldiers to protect cities and everything else goes to The

Just FYI, with 25 surveys taken camp 2 is getting destroyed. I'll post the full results of the survey later tonight, So if you haven't voted, pls do so. Camp 1 has the highest rating with 3 just a smidge behind. By the way (and I will post this with the results later) the weighting is Hate = -2, Dislike = -1, Neutral = 0, like = +1, and Love =+2. So that will give the "rating average" a little more context. Surprisingly, there are some features that are almost universally loved and a

[quote who="Solam" reply="7" id="2231329"] Quoting unacomn, reply 6 I love this, it fits perfectly with my prefered tactic from Master of Magic. Getting one guy armed with so much magic equipment that he lights up like a christmas tree, and sending him to take out legions. I use to do that all the time. The thing in this game now is never forget that the channeler can probably conjure a mountain and drop it direc

[quote who="Kitkun" reply="14" id="2231464"] I just want to phase out undesirables. Like bears. [/quote] KARMA GIVEN!!! [e digicons]k1[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] p.s. karma CAN be a bitch, or so I hear....[e digicons]8O[/e]

Up to 20 responses - I will probably give it a day and share the results.

1. Please respond to how strongly you favor each of the features discussed in Elemental: Internal discussions made external. Higher scores for what you like, medium scores for neutral and low scores for dislikes. Camps are listed first and then broken down into features. answered question <td class=

I believe only the person who made the survey gets to see the results. I will post the results in a couple of days. 12 people have taken the survey so far. Also, if anyone wants to make their own surveys, it is free to join survey monkey wit a basic account, which is what I did. edit: I just tried to share my results so everyone can see, but that is not allowed with a basic account. [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e] Below is a cut and paste job. Also, climber, the questi

FYI - not that it will help StarDock, but I created a survey on surveymonkey just to see what kind of response it would get. Click">http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=EjNvMWbHExYaTOyb6vfbWg_3d_3d">Click Iexpect this will be buried, so I created a new post in the General forum also.

Hey all. Not sure if SD cares to know or not - I am interested though. I put up a survey on surveymonkey regarding the various "camps" but also how strongly you like or dislike individual features from each camp. Not sure if it can be spammed - probably can but please only take it once. Don't be a bad monkey! Here it is Click">http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=EjNvMWbHExYaTOyb6vfbWg_3d_3d"

[quote who="Tridus" reply="12" id="2230618"] Quoting Szadowsz, reply 10 Incidently this topic has kinda moved a bit beyond the original 2/3/4 camps, Its getting hard to see what model with modifications the actual majority approve of or are arguing for anymore. It could use some major clean up and possibly a repost with an update to the camps or something along those lines I don't think it matters. This isn't a vote, Stardock isn't goin

Or they could list all the different features, from all camps, and see who likes what. I really like a lot from camp 3, but I do not like autoupgrade of units in the field and I don't like owning a resource makes it instantly available Civ wide. If they determined which features are loved/hated/indifferent then they could shoot for a camp 5 option that would incorporate as much as possible of the popular. Or maybe they ahve already taken the voluminous inout and made their decision.</

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="2230414"] Quoting Denryu, reply 5 I agree, I think it would be a lot smoother to caravan NR and abstract MR distribution. I'm still basically a Camp 1 person despite all the very interesting counterarguments in this thread. That's mainly because I believe complexity at the modeling level is almost always good for a TBS game, but also because I want to see the genre evolve to include a wider variety of 'action s

I agree, I think it would be a lot smoother to caravan NR and abstract MR distribution.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="14" id="2229210"]It would indeed. It would be even better if they had a good morale system to go with it and the untrained mob shit themselves and ran on seeing a dragon. [/quote] [e digicons]XD[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]

@climber - you read my reasons for going this route, correct? If you have 110 resources (presumably more in late game if you have multiple sources of any resource) the map is going to be AWASH in caravans. The only options then are to abstract caravans (not popular because people want to be able to raid them) or you forget about ever seeing the ground because your kingdom is going to be one frothing mass of caravans. They won't even have to move - they can just hand whatever they are shipping

Humping Blizzard's leg does not really bring much to this discussion .[e digicons]:smitten:[/e]

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="16" id="2229223"] I did think of that as well, but I decided it might be too much and would probably result in people feeling like they need to make sure all their shipments are just right for ultimate efficiency. The problem with it is that it functions in steps, and thus (taking from your example) shipping 49 units is significantly cheaper per unit than 50 units . And in fact, shipping 49 units. I think it'd be better j

I would love it if armies "behaved" differently in tactical combat based on thier training level! Your peasant hordes that you handed a stick would mill around in a disorganized mob, your +2 Pikemen with elite training march in perfect precision! Wouldnt that be a hoot!?

@pigeon - I very much agree with everything you said - nice points! I like the gold cost of caravans as opposed to a percentage of what is being hauled. I liked your trading hub/mixed goods caravan idea - wonder what SD thinks? Since it seems like we are leaning towards kind of a fixed cost per caravan, you could send your mixed goods caravan at any point (i.e. when it only had 70 total things, or even 10) but it would be much more cost effective to send as much stuff each trip as pos

Sure, I can see that. It would add complexity, but this could even be another slider bar - you could either set it empire wide for ALL resources, or set each individual harvest location. The main thing, I think would be to make it costlier/less efficient to be sending many small caravans as opposed to a few large ones. At the beginning of the game, or when you capture your first resource, you could be asked for a default caravan size. Each additional resource that you captured could b

[quote who="psychoak" reply="5" id="2228457"] This is why everyone that isn't a Blizzard fanboy wants to kill Blizzard fanboys. A generic, archaic game with polish and little else becomes the greatest RTS of all time. It is to strategy what McDonalds is to the hamburger. Market penetration with good advertising and not much else. I suspect most Blizzard fans just haven't tried anything besides one of the equally safe and unimaginative games in the same vein.<

[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="3" id="2228381"]It wouldn't scale well especially in the aerly stages of the game, like if you only wanted 10 swords but had to wait until you amassed a 100 ore [/quote] Sure it would. 10 ore produced/day = 10 days to form a caravan. Caravan goes to town you want to produce swords, and fills the forges storage capacity of iron. Forge uses 10 iron to make swords and has 90 available for IMMEDIATE use for future production. Ess