peregrine23

[quote who="Sinij" reply="94" id="2807812"]I don't see how specialist will work with current combat system. If losing units (happens even when you win) will result in population loss, and population isn't over-abundant resource then combat will be 100% done with summons. Various summoned elementals are already strong, now there will be more reason to use them.[/quote] i'm pretty sure you pay the population to create the unit, but after it is created it doesn't interact with your speci

Here is why population as a resource DOES help city spam: You now have a limited of total buildings you can build in your kingdom restricted by your population which is in turn limited by your food. So with your set number of buildings you can place a few in a bunch of cities or a bunch in a few cities. Every new city you build costs food which means 50 less specialists (assuming the current ratio of house supporting 50 pop costing 1 food remains constant) which in turn means fewer to

[quote]Getting rid of INT influence on spell damage seems like a very bad idea to me. Consider that weapon damage still scales with STR, so as your Sovereign levels up and raises his STR, the weapon will do more and more damage. This is not the case with a spell. Once you can cast that spell, your sovereign's level won't affect its damage at all. That not only leads to the majority of spells being left completely unused by the end-game because it never makes sense to cast anything other than

I think this has been mentioned before, but in the new global mana system, who can cast spells? Is it like before with a spell that imbues heroes, but now each imbued hero has a mana maintainance cost, or is there a new system? Also, people seem very concerned about city spam, I think this would make a great faction difference. I like how one faction is better at producing metal and the other producing mana, but it would also be cool if one was better a producing a number of stro

[quote]So when a company, trying to spin a profit, sells a CD for $20 when the real cost for that is essentially nothing, it is difficult to justify spending this much.[/quote] You completely misunderstand, they are not charging for the physical media but for the time, effort and creativity that went into producing the content (plus $.10 for the physical media).

The problem with the "Piracy is great advertising and pirates go on to buy products" argument is that the decision of how to distribute a product belongs to the person/people/company that paid the money and put in the work to produce the game/movie/music. Even if it were true that piracy increases sales, it is the person who holds the copyright's decision whether to allow the product or a version of the product to circulate for free. Piracy is stealing. The only way to justify piracy is to ar

I've taken a bit of a break while waiting for 1.1. Been playing Civ V and some other games. At this point I don't want to spend a bunch of time learning the ins and outs of the game when I know they will change drastically, especially because I like to use magic a lot. Still a great game, but I don't wee myself playing much 'till 1.1.

Not sure what you mean by "CLEARLY" . The way I have understood treaties is that they grant a greater benefit to the more powerful faction. It's one of the best reasons to keep small factions around.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="2803871"] We'll be selling the armor for horses as a separate $9.95 purchase so we can't really combine the horse AND the armor.[/quote] Good joke, though I loved Oblivion and you can damn well be sure I bought armor for my horse. Also, new abilities on cavalry sound cool no matter how they end up being implemented, looking forward to 1.1!

I really like the spy idea, even more if they can pull of espionage missions as in Civ IV and V. Also it would be cool to get spells that inflate/deflate apparent strength of cities/stacks so you could lure other into attacking or at least not avoiding a strong stack or avoiding a weak one. Strategic possibilities are intriguing. As for Civ V. Thanks Frogboy, they are both solid games and very fun and very different from each other. Civ V has its issues, but it is very

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="41" id="2782949"]For 1.09, I am lobbying to have something put in that goes way back to an original concept that got lost and that is, using your citizens as a resource (population is still a resource, it's just not used for anything). This way, we could begin migrating back to the original concept tha tyou can build multiple buildings in a given city as long as you have the resource (available citizens) to make use of it. This encourages fewer cities a

I don't understand why "balance" is even an issue. Stardock has stated that this is primarily a single-player sandbox game. Given that, the fact that there is one strategy that seems "better" than the others shouldn't be a problem, especially because the AI doesn't use that strategy. If you don't find that strategy fun, don't use it. Why insist that Stardock compensate for your inability to avoid power-gaming? So instead, Stardock has gradually made this game slower paced and, in my opinion,

Good stuff, but I will miss organized, now investing in movement is pointless. I know people thought it was OP, but it really helped the pace of the game IMHO. I feel like the this and the recent revision to terrain movement cost has drastically slowed the pace of this game, which makes it less fun, for me at least.

I had a sovereign with the natural leader and intimidating traits and then he got a book from a quest that improved his cha by 8. After that it seems like opponents were constantly panicking, but I wasn't paying enough attention to figure out if they happened at exactly the same time. He also traveled with a big scary army of golems, so it may have just been coincidence.

[quote who="HooblaDan" reply="21" id="2774587"]AWESOME stuff across the freaking board. One thing... I like the idea of having children that might be more powerful than you are. I mean, isn't the idea of children that they'll end up better off than us? So I always thought that having a child born with more essence than myself was cool. Maybe instead of 50-100 it could be 75-125? I'm no game dev, that's just an idea. Don't know whether or not the idea of having more powerful children works for