[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="19" id="1989729"]That 'strange earthy elemental' thing reminds me of Ralph Bakshi's Wizards. Now there's an interesting theme for an Elemental mod, but not for kids! [/quote] I swear to you I thought the same thing! I was like "Hey, that pic reminds me of "Peace" (the assassin robot dude) from "Wizards". +1 for GMTA
I just got thru playing a game of Gal Civ that brought up something that kind of irked me. I had disabled alliances (which you might wonder how it applies to this thread - read on). So I was getting along well with the Altarians (pretty normal) and also we getting along OK with the Drengin (bad guys) I had gone with a neutral stance in the good vs evil thing. So the Altarians attack the Drengin, and since the Altarians had been getting a little snotty with me lately re
[quote who="Serik55" reply="16" id="2007009"] One way I could think of would be to make the AIs take increasingly large risks when pushed to the wall, like sending their channellers on the front line. Good point. Command&Conquer does something similar. If you destroyed most of the AI's structures, it would sell the rest and send a wave of infantry and harvesters at your base in a final, desperate attack. Another benefit of your idea: the AI's desperation might a
This got me thinking about many things I would like to know more about. How many different kinds of resources wil be in the game? Are even basic types or resources going to be moddable or player designed? Will you be able to trade excess of specific resources with other players, or will trade be more generic per gal civ? If tradeable how will players buy/sell resources from each other? The possibilities of being able to use embargoes as a diplomatic tool are fascinating, but I
I REALLY like the ideas of on channeler death something happens to the armies present at the time - like the idea of mana pouring out of holes from the channeler's body - GREAT idea! And I also like the ideas such as volcanoes or other game altering effects resulting from a dying curse etc. This definitely should be something that time and power would need to be invested in beforehand. I don't like the idea that they can target a specific player too much (aside from the above mentione
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="8" id="2004161"]Gender's just another hull type, [/quote] Give's "mount point" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? [e digicons]*_*[/e]
I strongly disagree with the OP. Yes there should be some added "difficulties" of managing a larger empire, but the last thing I want is the AI balancing things to favor the underdog for the sake of keeping things interesting. Besides, it seems that Stardock may already have discovered an innovative way around this. That is, having a lot more cities than another player does NOT mean you are in "mop up" mode. Your opponenet may have been focusing on those few remaining cities and gone
I think the word you are looking for is "costumization" - [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] OK. only landisaurus is probably gonna get the joke. [e digicons]^_^[/e] https://forums.elementalgame.com/334968
I think the word you are after is "customization" - I thought this was going to be a thread about how the various races dressed! [e digicons]XD[/e] GalCivII has really good cutomization also I would be surprised if there isn't something similar in EWOM.
I could see this working if each individual mage is it's own unit. If you are expecting that a "unit" of mages is 4-6 mages and you can give each mage in that unit unique orders.... well it kind of defeats the purpose of them being a unit, doesn't it? I agree witht he mana pool idea and maybe you training them with a repertoire of spells that you can then direct the entire unit to cast from the repertoire. While it would be "cool" to be able to give each mage in the squad unique comma
Oh, I just had a thought. User generated random events [e digicons]}:)[/e] So anyone can design random events (when in the game they can occur, duration, effect(s), other?) So you can have your world a tectonically unstable planet with earthquakes the norm rather than the exception... Or magic system that never has a "power outage" - or at the other extreme having access to power VERY sporadic. Lots of potential there - or it could really foul up t
The ONLY problem I have with being able to turn of specific events, is that you have, at game setup time, a complete menu of all the possible events. There is something to be said for going about your business and having an event that you have never seen before occur. Dealing with the completely unexpected has something to be said for it. I guess the "option" is always there not to go in and peruse the events in advance, and that's probably the route I will take early on - just leave
I don't have any original ideas - most of the MoM ones were good. Magic short (Magic stops accumulating) and good/evil moon as well as certain types of magic becoming doubly powerful are, I think, pretty much gimmes. Same you lose random amounts of gold for whatever reason, population decreases due to famine or whatever. Building destroyed due to meteors/volcano, etc. A few other ideas: All magic enhancements to all units are stripped. [e digicons] No teleportat
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="3" id="1997541"]Woah, I misread that. Events, not spells ; I'm sorry. Yeah, events are fine. If you want to play 'tournement style' or something, then let it be turned off. But for random play, I don't see why not. I mean, it can be fun sometimes to recover from a random super-disaster late game (I hate it early game though, because I'm a perfectionist and if my early game is mes
[quote who="Sammual" reply="5" id="1930438"]I perfer worlds that are tubes (They wrap east to west but not around the poles) Sammual [/quote] +1
When playing Civilization 1-4, one of the best (IMHO) things that could happen in the early game was for a village to join you or to get an extra settler. This early boost would make the rest of the game a breeze - usually. So how do you feel about these type of events, where in the very early game a very positive event can make the game a cakewalk, or a very negative event could be insurmountable? There is definitely a tradeoff, because like I said, when one of these happened in my f
Shouldn't the summary show 14 turns remaining? [e digicons]}:)[/e] 9 for the swords and 5 for the training? Also are "non-person" units like seige engines or battering rams going to be made similarly? Nice concept, and I too would like to see a horsey.
The first thing to me is units need to have various resistances to different elements, so that it actually matters what spells you are using. I mean it should matter whether you throw firestorm, or earthquake, or tornado, or cloudburst. A DD fire based spell should not do much to a fire elemental, maybe even heal it, but a good downpour should dampen it's spirits! Too many games the only difference, really, is the visual effect but the spells realy are pretty much just a matte
[quote quoting="post"]I won't list things which Stardock is already obviously going to do for Elemental, for example multiplayer, more complex economics, different map sizes or better diplomacy (OMG MoM diplo blew), but things which might actually be not thought of yet. The concept of lesser and greater heroes needed to be abolished. It meant the player was completely discouraged from hiring lesser heroes and heroes became too much a late-game i-win button not a full game len
My kingdom for a spell book! [e digicons]:drool:[/e]
Concept art is allowed to look like crap [e digicons]:P[/e]
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 have some negative consequences such as lower production or higher costs to produce units. Towns that were loyal because they love you soooo
I think giving certain mounts their own attacks is a fine idea. However I do not like the idea of mounts continuing to fight when their rider is killed (or vice versa, I suppose). At that point you are really treating them as two completely separate units that exist in the same location - two separate HP pools, attacks, abilities. Blegh. KISS, treat them as one unit as far as death/negative and positive effects, etc.
[quote who="Elvenshae" reply="6" id="1978752"] Quoting landisaurus, reply 5 ...you can have great roleplaying sessions using D&D (of any edition), GURPS, Warhammer Quest, MERPS, BESM, Shadowrun, Vampire, or any of a hundred other game systems. (And, yes, I've played all of the specifically named game systems [and several others besides], and had a blast with all of them. [/quote] Tell me you have played RoleMaster from I.C.E. I th
I like the idea that when you retreat, there is a chance that you are going to take some losses as you exit the field of battle. Sometimes you might get away with no losses. Sometimes you might get reamed. Maybe it could be a factor of the average speed of your opponent vs the average speed of your units. If you have much faster units, it could be a near certainty that you could run away with minimal or no losses. But if you are much slower then if you flee the odds that you are going to take