Denryu

[quote who="Phaedyme" reply="3" id="2202602"]I disagree that RTS games lack thinking, or that clicking precludes thinking. I do agree that they tend to have a frenetic pace, and many designers seem strangely averse to providing a useful pause function. I remember Star Wars: Rebellion would obscure a huge chunk of the screen when you paused it, and disallow any interaction with the UI. [/quote] One of the reasons Sins of a Solar Empire is up there among m

[quote who="Leinad0033" reply="7" id="2098732"] Quoting alibenbaba, reply 6 Short answer: Bad idea. Why is that? Basically I see two possible options for those buildings: The same buildings always has the same shape (can also be used as an advantage / disadvantage: e.g. Faction A has especially small archeries) Depending on the city location or plain randomness building sizes differ <b

I also liked in MoM how you could fight an 8 unit squad down to having only one surviving member and over time the squad would "heal" (during turns without combat) and replace the missing members of the squad. Ah well.

[quote who="Campaigner" reply="16" id="2177711"]I guess (and absolutely hope) that you train individual units which you can form into groups (GalCiv 2s fleets) if you want to and that you can also disassemble squads to individual units again. Having only a certain number of units moving through f.e. a mountain pass is a good idea and I just know it's gonna be incorporated in the campaign in that there are a squad of superpowerful troops guarding a pass which you c

It really doesn't sound like it. I am likely not going to be modding AI anyway, but from all of the above, it sounds like you will be able to make any AI you want to compete against in solo play (which is pretty cool) but all MP AI has to come from Stardock. Now, I am betting that if someone just came up with a Godly AI that Stardock would put it on their servers and it would be accessible in MP. But it sounds like any AI in MP has to come from Stardocks servers.

I am thrilled that the focus is single player, with multiplayer available. That is really good news! The campaign - I tend to be a sandbox player, but I think it is very cool that it will be there. A great way to get the back story - much funner to play it than to read it! The modding sounds awesome! I have never modded, and I don't know Python, but I do have 10 years of professional coding experience, and if I am ever going to do it, this sounds like the platform to do it on!

Winter you always have the hottest avatars! Even the furry was HAWT! (Always good to meet another boob man! Ah wait redundant!)

[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="7" id="2170876"] Quoting psychoak, reply 6 You don't need to explain yourself. We're just making fun of a really good writer that royally hosed an outstanding story by torturing his readers with badly done, nonsensical sequels in an ever stretching reach to absurdity. least he didn't die before he finished (wheel of time mumble) [/quote] Don't even get me started on Wheel of Time - talk about a love/h

I cannot believe how long it has been. DemiGod must have had some serious birthing-pains. [e digicons]:waaaa:[/e] They have about 5 weeks to get beta-0, started (their front page says BY June, which to me means June 1). Also, will there be an official announcement here when beta 0 is started? Seeing as how I am sure anyone in it will not be allowed to say they are in it.... I let my Everquest 2 account lapse specifically so I could focus on this beta (HINT HINT) I hope

I was just wanting it to hark back to MoM, where your army fought to the last man. Sure routing is more realistic and adds depth, but in my opinion (and in my opinion alone it appears) it subtracts from the fun factor. It's not the end of the world either way. And I certainly wouldnt mind troops being susceptible to fear magics, but a battalion routing because 10% of their units are down, I dunno it just seems to prolong fights needlessly. In my book, the

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="1" id="2164641"]How about Summon Dev Journal on the Magic System? [/quote] [e digicons]k6[/e] it's the closest thing to +infinity available... I am guessing that the magic system is something that they feel like they can work out the details fairly late in the dev cycle (and they are probably right) So we may not even have a good idea on the magic system in the early betas. I mean there will be spells, I hope, considering the title, b

Heh looks like I am way outnumbered, even by just one responder! Anyhow it looks like I am the only one who would want "no routing" - I am a bit surprised. I guess having it in gives the option of having spells that make units less likely or even immune to routing.... Other positive is all the duplicate posts make this look like a very popular thread, so people take a look to see the awesome OP that started it all. [e digicons]XD[/e]

I have no problem with being able to retreat units and so forth, and in a simulation like Total War I think that it is just fine - but I think that for units to rout ala Total Wars would really suck for this type of game. Now I have no problem with a Fear spell or something that makes units run away as long as the spell is in effect - I expect that. But having battalions just wimp out because they are getting creamed, I think that would not fit in E:WOM. That's it. If anyone f

We really need more info on the magic system, but this is a very common concern and one that I share. I don't mind a lot of DD spells, but there has to be some trade off so that you don't always jsut go to "old reliable". And each school needs some real variety on what is available, so that you don't just have ice bolt/fire bolt/earth bolt blah blah. One thing, different units need to have meaningful resistances so that even if there are all those bolts available, it will matter which

[quote quoting="post"] In most TBS games, the default victory condition is to destroy all other players. EWOM should be no exception, as it is very easily understood concept. However, I/we want multiple victory conditions; these conditions are somewhat easier to achieve in most cases, and more importantly more fun to players because player has to use alternative strategies to execute or spot. Depending on mapmaker, any game can have 1 to 3 VCs. I want al

[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="20" id="2160633"] Quoting Vicente, reply 9 Quoting ckessel, reply 5 And I did say "good" programmers I'm a C# programmer, but I won't say a specific language makes you a better or worse coder (because if you say that, then everyone should be programming in Lisp probably ). it could be worse you could have to program in MC68332 assembly language [/quote] 10 years of my life

I see landisaurus' bear attack and give you this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG02fwZBflw

Yes, I totally hear you on this. There was one game (can't remember) that a virtually unbeatable strategy was "race to tech x, disregarding everything else except for turtling up to that point. Then spew out as many of unit y as possible that is now incredible because of above tech x and zerg the hell out of the AI. IT can be fun to "discover" this path, but it usually means that I will probably play the game 2 naybe 3 times after that. (Unless the gameplay is just so fun that I like

As far as the "space sci fi with no aliens" goes, I have heard that the Honor Harrington books have little or no alien influence and that it is the best space sci fi out there. Haven't read it (yet) so all i can give you is hearsay. Dune also comes to mind, although I am not sure that it is exactly what I would call space sci fi...the original trilogy is definitely some of the best sci fi ever written imho.

[quote who="Tiavals" reply="8" id="2159326"]I vehemently disagree on the "not so great" part. It would be quite ludicrous if there was a single best way of winning. Once you have it, the game would be dreadfully boring and meaningless, since you don't even make a choice because you're forced to take the best path. The thing is, most games have techs or buildins or spells or whatever that are NORMALLY better than the others, but the difference comes when your situation is different

As far as the balancing goes - I think there should be some "not so great" options. Part of the fun of strategy games like this is (at least for me) learning the optimum path to victory. If all paths are balanced to pure equality, then choices can be neutered to meaninglessness. Of course, every FACTION should balance against the others... but anyway... As far as massive volume of input, the whole point of having it generate XML is so it could be input and summarized automatic

Sounds like a great idea.

I know, I know the less time they spend talking to us the more time they are making the game. We just had such a nice burst of info a couple weeks ago and then silence. I am having withdrawals. And I am DYING for more info about the magic system! DYING I tell ya! [e digicons]X([/e]

Just wanted to repost from another thread - It would be nice if loyalty could be based on at least two criteria. Love and Fear. (+ others?) Machiavelli said that as a prince, it was better to be feared than loved. A town that is in utter terror of their "master" is very unlikely to revolt due to knowing that they are going to get destroyed for doing so. Being feared by your subjects might h

[quote who="dionisus1122" reply="8" id="2146234"]I don't care about having a 'story campaign'... I care about a robust single-player experience. If they can do both a great multi-player and single-player, than that is great... but I am tired of the vocal multi-player drowning out the needs of a large, single-player base. I'd be disappointed if they spend all this time and money developing multiplayer features at the expense of a single-player experience. That's all I am sayi