the Gorgon

[quote who="Raven X" reply="39" id="2528643"]As far as I know they haven't gone back on the decision to keep Sovereign Death = Game Over. It does bring to mind the question though of why they put so much work and love into the Dynasty system if none of those children will ever become Sovereign's them-selves. In the long run the best thing would probably be a "Heir Option" that you would check at the beginning of starting a Custom game. Also by only allowing this option during a custom game th

[quote]It's not about liking it or not. That's the core. [/quote] Yes it is about liking it or not, and that's whether it has been hinted as a core element or not. That is the main function of this Forum no, to discuss the pros and cons of various solutions and come up with good arguments and good ideas that in the end will make the game better, and ensure that also the customers are in on the ideas. Take the many discussion on race for example: for t

I think one of the problems behind the game getting predictably boring because you know you'll lose or win is how the AIs are handled. This was the case in GC2. In short: as long as you are part of the middle-class potential winners, the AI would seldom attack early in the game. But if you became military weak then your civ was immediately up for grabs. Natural? Yes, but not unavoidable. What could be done is make sure that other factors than military (and econmomy) actually c

As an addition, commenting on the original post above: - magic seems cool - I love the ugly children idea - ok with ugly graohics, good idea to make a good game - quests and champions, remains to be seen what it means in game - dynasties: disaster! I hope this version won't make it into the game otherwise it would be a terrible loss indeed ... [e digicons]X([/e]

[quote who="Denryu" reply="30" id="2526434"] Quoting xGhost4000x, reply 29I haven't played MoM but I'll agree with Gunshy and Cauldyth, I would prefer to BE the soveriegn rather than BE the kingdom. Same.[/quote] Here I have to disagree. Even if the Sovereign is "immortal" you are not really that person - in that case it would turn into a 1st person shooter kind of game. You play (you are) the sovereign as long as he lives. When he dies you continue to play as

No. No. No. - Your bastard child shall inherit the Essence! [e digicons]:D[/e]

[quote]You will not in your life time see Obama say, "Let's go to Mars.". Period.[/quote] I'm afraid you're right. But you can always hope of course ... And considering the current situation of the US economy I can even understand why it's not the right moment ... [quote]There is nothing on Mars other than geology that we cannot learn on the moon[/quote] Eh, did you smoke something lately? - no seriously, Mars is a completely different story from the moon. It is s

I'm actually working in the real space business, and I must say it's a very good decision to stop the constellation program. Why? Because Constellation means the only thing humanity would have done in space for the next 30ish years would have been to go back to the Moon. Yes, what we already did in the 60s. Not that exciting, no. So, now Obama is freeing up money badly needed to even continue sending Americans into space at all (shuttle cancelled soon ...). And fr

I also second the "small, magic empires" line of thought. Some reflection on it: - I'm not against chaneller-centric magic rather than depending on buildings, but I think bildings are needed too. This could maybe help with a small magic kingdom, e.g. if it's very expensive to expand your civ and keep it connected you will not have enough money/resources to build certain buildings that a smaller kingdom could invest everything in. Also, these buildings could have radius defen

Yes, another really cool thing with a dynasty system with heirs for all kingdoms (your own as well as the others) is that you would constantly be worrying about your offspring. That also means that the enemy would try to snipe them out ... And that you could get at the enemy by getting at his/her heirs ... This could be turned into a really important strategic factor actually. Take a big kingdom already getting dangerously powerful and it seems it'll

Really cool spell, rain of fire, hmm I mean, really hot spell ... Can't wait to see the other ones ... [e digicons]:d[/e] The system for learning spells seems good as long as you can't just cash in on new spells before a fight to counter the enemy. There could also be a limit like you can only learn maximum one new spell per turn, and on top of that maybe it would still take x turns to actually acquire the spell after you have paid for it. Just to avoid that players can sit

[quote]A dynasty isn't really a dynasty unless there is certainty that the ruler will one day die of at least natural causes. It seems that the game would be a lot more interesting if you were confronted with this fact, and were forced to groom a successor to take the sovereign's essence once the sovereign dies or actively pursue ways by which you could extend your sovereign's life span. Making the sovereign immortal from the atrophe of age just seems to do less game feature wise than making

This is definately a step in the right direction. If the Fallen are as different from humans as orcs are from elves they should satisfy our thirst for fantasy and variety. As long as they really play differently too. Keep up the good work on it!

I must say I don't like the basic SD proposal at all. Much too simplistic. If your sovereign's power and empire cannot be inherited by your own children then I think there is a major mistake in the basic game construction and can only hope SD will rethink it all. That's really what the game is about, your own empire, and what happens with it. That you would only use your offspring to marry into other families is not enough IMHPOV. Why limit such a great potential as dynasties and inheritance

If you manage to deliver on these ten it will be the best game ever! [e digicons]:dur:[/e] Personally I don't care too much for 32 multiplayer but have nothing against it. The only thing to emphasize would be that it stays, basically, a strategy game. The "rich world" should not be allowed to make it more or less random who wins, and the "crazy magic" should always be well earned ... But I'm sure you are in full control there. [e digicons]|-)[/e] To really mak

I agree with the original post. The reasons for why a lot of people would prefer several races have been spelled out elsewhere on the forum already (e.g. unique abilities like flying, playing more D&D-like campaigns, i.a. ...). To my knowledge SD has not yet really given any one reason why it's all human based. Without any inside info, I would guess it could be linked to the graphics in the battle screen: much more difficult to include a wide variety of races ... How do you

I agree with above that other factions' techs and abilities should never be visible without you getting this info through your own effort (intelligence, spies). There was already a long discussion on how the intelligence/spy system should work, e.g. on https://forums.elementalgame.com/354543

Two things: 1. What about the balance between strategy and RPG? Quests definately makes the game more an RPG, but it depends a lot also on how they are made. Just don't forget that the more powerful they are the more they start interfering with the strategic dimension, that's why it's important to make them difficult (and with penalties if you fail) if there is an important reward. I definately want quests in the game, but they shouldn't upset the balance of your planning and dec

Yes good idea, we need some fresh options on diplomacy

Ok, this won't be in line with the "sovereign dies = game over" rule (or rumour?) about on the Forum, but I got so excited I had to share this thought. The replies on Frogboy's post https://forums.elementalgame.com/371029/page/1/#replies actually veered off towards this direction but I set this idea out here since it was rather off topic and there was no clear thread to follow. The goal

"It's possible to mod it" is not a very convincing argument for what should or should not be in the game. But it's better than nothing of course.

This loks better than the first post. I really like the approach of choosing a history for your sovereign. Also, to add talents and weaknesses is ok. But there is one risk or problem: it's still too much a collection of small attribute additions/subtractions. Frogboy wrote in his earlier post that you should be able to give unique traits, and I think we could go much further than this. More overall and special options should be there to really make different and colour

I must agree with PiegonPigeon at last [e digicons];)[/e] We need more than just modifiers. (When there are simple modifiers these could just be put in brackets behind the explanation of the trait, like "barbarian strength" (+ short cool explanation of how strong you are) (+3 strength). The sovereign customization should go much further than just modifiers to the basic traits. E.g. it would be really cool with a mind flayer type of sovereign (mind blast attack on battlef

Really good post, I completely agree with NTJedi. The examples with the mind flayer, succubus etc are pertinent and good: there is no way you can easily create such units in the game if there are only 4 stats. Adding more stats doesn't need to make the game too complex. Is creating a character in classical RPG D&D too complex? Rather the opposite, and that includes strength, dexterity, constitution, int, wisd, charisma ... The developers always said Elemental should be like doing your own

Why scrap fire and frost damage??!! I really hope they will be put in again. The game is called elemental War of Magic - how can it then just go for a single "arcane" damage type ... If you ask me, even earth and air damage could be considered so it's linked to the four elements, but at least fire and frost should be in.