endofdayz

[quote who="SavageBananaMan34" reply="32" id="2329910"] As I said in another thread, the problem with those games is that the spies are mass-produceable and are not heroes like in KoH. Spies in Elemental should be specialized heroes (and perhaps further specialized within the umbrella of "spy") infused with essence, to give the player the option of employing spies at a significant cost to his empire. I'm sure Stardock can come up with a proper "counter-spy" mechanism. [/quote]

[quote]I imagine a lot of the "tapping into" will involve name generation: the "Dreadwood" in those cloth map screenshots had to come from somewhere![/quote] Or it could just be a scary area with woods in it...

"I want to make my own stories, not play tiny bits of someone else's 10,000 year fantasy story. The ease of content creation is a great feature, so is the 'official' lore just there for people who won't mod? At worst, how hard will it be to mod out?" Cant agree enough with the OP. I would rather there be no story, and we instead have a good dynamic random map generator, along with a solid "fantasy" focus. I will mod out most of the story crap q

[quote who="Scorpiana" reply="26" id="2329425"] The campaign is indeed based around those two forces (not the sandbox) but even in the campaign there are 6 (or 7??) humanoid and fallen factions. Diplomacy between those factions at least should be more then 'Hey, let's beat up the big guy...'. Outside the campaign (as Wintersong mentioned) anything goes, so decent diplomacy should be implemented anyway. [/quote] Actually, good point. What does everyone think decent

Well, like I said, I think that diplomacy should be important but it shouldn't detract from the games inherent "epicness". This game, in my view is about outright power and ancient relics and stuff. Too much diplomacy will turn this into Civ4: Fantasy. Of course, to leave it out in its entirety would be a poor decision. I just don't like the way some people believe that diplomacy in this game should be so deep. Its mostly a single player game, and unless Stardock can do what no other game mak

Choose your own adventure book for elemental? Id buy it whether it was good or not, just for nostalgia. [quote who="Scoutdog" reply="30" id="2329329"] Well, I only spend around 5% of my time here.... but you're right: I don't exactly have a social life.[/quote] lol its all good, just a friendly jab.

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="8" id="2328914"][cheapshot]What social life?![/cheapshot][/quote] Coming from a 15 year old who spends the better part of his time on an obscure internet forum... Sry, I had to. On topic: I would buy the book, but I would also hope the lore is for the most part available online. Its always nice to know why "Martogs Bane" or whatever came to have its name.

Hopefully we get some nice ambient sound as well... birds chiring when looking at the woods, marching when moving an army, etc. Little things like that make the difference between a good game and a great one.

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="20" id="2328865"]MoMer, huh? I for one don't see why you should be forced to take a militaristic stance when you can try alternate ways of winning, which in my opinion are much more fun. This is a TBS, not an FPS: there's more to life than shooting (or swordplay in this case), and the game should reflect that.[/quote] I would be surprised if you didn't dissagree with me scoutdog lol. The game is based around two diametrically opposed forces, good a

"The scriptable engine allows each so-called sandbox game to have a truly unique life of its own because there’s just such a massive amount of lore to tap into." [e digicons]:drool:[/e] sounds like my social life is a year away from crashing and burning.

Pre-ordered! Can't wait to give it a run, but I concur with someone earlier in the thread: WHERES MY BETA!! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

The fantasy genre is probably the only genre I would say this about, but Espionage should be left out, and diplomacy should be relatively simple. This is a game of epic proportions, where you can have one army with a dragon in it fighting another army with an archmage in it, in a collosal battle. Having all that undermined by a petty espionage system bothers me. Diplomacy needs to be there, perhaps even with some depth, but be realistic, it shouldn't go beyond alliances of conveniance

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="58" id="2301681"]I know for a fact that the spell system will have a tree structure to it. Moreover, a strict D&D system would, as I said, put an unfair advantage on players who go Gandalf (meaning power up their channeler and ignore city-building). However, the option of alternate quest-basing for all spells would certainly help, as mentioned above.[/quote] A D&D system for certain spells would be awesome, and it would increase thevalue of heroes

One would hope that there would be a massive limit of players for those of us willing to play it. 32 seems good. The other issue is that if there are nuetrals that can have some effect (think the minor races in GC2) you can have a map with 32 players and an effective 100+ nations, even if all are tiny. That would single handedly sell the game to some people I know, as more countries means more depth generally.

I am starting to see where a compromise can effectively come into play that will make the game better for everyone. Make the base tree non-random, shown techs AND some random "spice techs" that are still shown (like playing a game of Civ4 in which philosopy appears only 1 in 4 games). I imiagine spice techs will be crazy stuff like derigibles, blunderbusses, etc. Good times for all. Make it so that there are certain "Field" techs that require an investment and give random bonu

[quote who="Nesrie" reply="23" id="2326504"]Well as I said before, I don't are for it much. I expect to see more. It is a style thing though, not a quality thing. I don't think it needs to be realistic, just "softer" if that makes sense. Visual appeal is only part of a game, and while there are games that I have not played because I could stand the look of it, that's not the usual issue for me in not buying a game. [/quote] The softness you mention is seriusly the

Honestly, I remember playing Civ2 with its graphics and those being some of the best gameing sessions I ever had. Graphics only mean as much as people let them. The other day, after hearing about MoM for the first time, I Dl'd it (its freeware now) and had a great time. I stopped playing only because the game suffers from late game "janitor" syndrome (ie you won, but you have to find EVERYTHING and kill it to be acknowledged). But the graphics didn't mean anything to me. The game was

[quote who="Jalicos" reply="5" id="2326323"] The Fog of War is an actual fog? [/quote] Lol, I think it was a figure of speach, though who knows. By the way stardock, there are already 4 spells and I don't see any involving summoning undead armies. I am seriusly considering with-holding my purchase until you fix this discrepancy. [e digicons]#:([/e] /s

If the subject is healing I think that the depth of the system should allow for it. In other words, there will be so many spells (hopefully) that atleast some of the nuetral ones will be healing. That said, the good-evil thing is actually pretty realistic. Would sauron heal his orc minions? Evil is generally so anti-life that they care little for thier own men. On the topic of the good-evil system itself, i don't think you should be forced down a certain path in the game but r