xthetenth

[quote] Why did you do a double-post with the exact same text, roughly 6 hours after your previous one?[/quote] Because I'm a terrible terrible person. No, actually I have no idea, user error with a side of odd computer screwup and a spotty connection. I think when I posted it acted up and stayed as if it didn't, so when I went back a few hours later I went "Hey! why didn't my computer post that!" Sorry, need more sleep (last week of school, too tired to think).

[quote]"Why does population grow so quickly in one turn?" "MAGIC!"[/quote] lvl 27 fertilimancers?

Sorry, accidental dp, been a while since that happened.

I'm still irked that my high school's DnD club met the one day I couldn't go. Really really annoying... I also wanted to try Dark Heresy, but the guy who had the books graduated before we got a campaign together. [e digicons]XO[/e]

[quote who="Ron Lugge" reply="22" id="1940503"] what if you're shipping +20 swords of dnd reference to the city that you want to go to a new royal guard unit, and the peasants keep 'upgrading' to them and you have to manually unequip them? Ideally, your peasants aren't going to be using the same type of weapons as your elite guards -- if they are, something is wrong with your paradign.[/quote] That's the point. Swords are good weapons, and if your peasants

[quote]True, but only to a point. In software, what took tons of time and effort a short while ago tends to become a canned routine for today's dev tools. Plus, Stardock have been working on various aspects of this new engine for quite a while already. I'm keeping my expectations reasonable, but I don't see any reason to avoid some wildly hopeful thinking [/quote] Plus, the engine this is built on was designed from the bottom up with this kind of user customization in mind,

[quote]Also, three wizards? Gandalf, Saruman... and who? Galadriel doesn't count, she's a ring bearer (seperate thing), as well as being an elf (which Wizard's weren't -- they weren't human, elves, or dwarves, they were something else sent specifically to help deal with Sauron).[/quote] Did radagast show up? I'm not sure if he was only mentioned or actually took part. [quote]the ghost army can be ignored since there seems to be a deficit of Narsils.[/quote] I almost

[quote]Will there also be a system where the futher from your capital, the higher the maintenance costs/lower the financial contribution of that city? That seems to curb the "expand forever" concepts found in some games.[/quote] I think that's covered by the resource system where your production takes an eternity to reach its destination, but it may want a bit more, I'm not sure now, I think I'd want to play it before deciding.

[quote]Cull my quotes? You think I made too many of them?[/quote] A huge one. It's not that big a problem to me, I've got a nice hi-res monitor, but it made what you were responding to unclear. [quote]I touched on this a bit when I mentioned the scalability of combat. When combat moves to large scales, detail becomes less important but no less relevant. I think we could probably create another thread to discuss the particulars of health alone. Heck, maybe a dozen threads.[/quo

[quote]Even if the economics are far more simplified, unless I get all the resources back, in which case the economy system is kind of a joke, that upgrade is at a loss.[/quote] Why would this be? When you upgrade, the old equipment should go back into the stockpile the new equipment came from. Upgrading shouldn't be at a loss, especially at this time, when weapons were rare and rarely truly outdated. [quote]Um, done right, auto is good. If I'm going from type A armor 1 to ty

[quote]You don't necessarily want all your spearmen to upgrade to pikes later[/quote] I really meant armor upgrades within the same class and the like, not upgrading between different kinds of equipment. I'm starting to think of a lot more reasons not to like it, though. Best sweep that one under the rug. [e classic]:-|[/e]

[quote]Well, don't take it out of context He said that meaning that regular armies will be composed of mostly men, as in you're not going to be "building" hordes of gryphons or whatever through a production building in your city.[/quote] sleep, then post. Gotcha. I'd rather not have too much summoning, I'd much rather have to ally with the creatures and gain allies that way. So if I ally with a minor tribe led by something not all that threatening, I'll get a small number allied bears

[quote]The difficulty with changing the situation is that any increase in detail just slaps the developer in the face with an exponential increase in effort required. Tracking invididual hitpoints for different parts of the body is a step forward. But I could probably divide the human body into 100 trackable parts with ease and that is a 10000% increase in the data you have to store and calculate.[/quote] Then only pick the key components. Seriously, even if you just do it fallout 3 s

Shame empire's coming up before it, if total war didn't have naval battles, people would probably not feel nearly as strongly. All honesty, I don't think this setting has enough of an emphasis on naval power to justify the development resources, and I don't think the land battle structure will suit it particularly well. My feeling on the naval strength is that there likely won't be more than one continent on most maps, much like lord of the rings, so the importance of navies will be largely a

[quote]So, where does this leave Zubaz? [/quote] The official imperial spy in this hive of scum and villainy (and now Star Wars references [e digicons]:S[/e] ) [quote]I hope a full upgrade system will be implemented. Frankly speaking it is something else I simply assumed would be in the title.[/quote] What's your opinion on automatic upgrades? I like the idea in most respects, but where should it fir in the assingment queue for that resource? I'd say pu

It's also invalidated by brad saying it's mostly going to be men, with fantasy creatures relatively rare, but quite powerful in the gamespot interview.

[quote]Perhaps we must appeal to the frog for more information[/quote] Why oh why do I want to see an omniscient frog oracle in the game as a rare easter egg? [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [quote]Domestication, eh? I certainly that applies to more than just horses. I'd love to outfit some Razorbacks with armor and let them loose on an enemy infantry column. [/quote] Pegasus knights! I must say I'd love the ability to customize a dragon, but with someth

[quote]Wheras these fallen, in the world of Elemental, sounds more like Ascended beings, superior to the average mortals they share the world with.[/quote] I think it's because they're called that from the human perspective. Also, why do I think I know what race you're playing? [e digicons]:P[/e] I see them as a necromantic/undead faction, and am not really sure enough in my conception to make a comparison.

[quote] Yep, by then there will be no difference between player vs player and player vs AI Both will be sentient beings lol[/quote] The AI will even call you gay and disconnect if it's losing [e digicons]:P[/e] . [quote]with a 64 bit OS how big will tacticle battles be? around 5,000 units like total war? or 10,000 (in this case i will preorder immediatly)?[/quote] I think it may be a differently scaled system, but that kind of thing is quite l

[quote]The usual skeletons, zombies etc do get repetitive and feels like standard fodder.[/quote] Isn't that the point? I honestly would like to see the raised undead not be endlessly diversified, but make the fallen bring the better undead to the battlefield. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Warhammer Fantasy Battles Vampire Counts. They've got the ability to raise skeletons and zombies, but bring the more interesting undead to the battlefield. (I would like to see raise

It's just a bit fast for those of us who like to micromanage each unit. I generally end up with about five groups and managing the battle with them, but that has its own set of problems. I bet SD can do a really good job no matter what they choose, I just think a more finicky system with more potential for management on a small scale would suit this game better.

Well, first off, instead of price based production, you'll need to supply the resources to your production facilities, so you'll need resources, but I don't think that production will require much cash. I don't know how it's going to work, but it sounds great. Read Brad's post "redefining 4x economics" in the dev journals section.

Why don't we have just have demand 'pull' supplies just as much as supply 'pushes' them, and have potential demand define the level of 'enough'? This would be the simplest way of doing things, I think. Have three goals: 1) Satisfy all existing production orders as quickly as possible 2) The tricky one where we figure out which towns should have their 'minimum stock' (which is determined by their potential use of the resource if they start to produce a lot) filled first, those

I think they're the heads of the beasts faction and I'll be that somebody'll try to mod them in.

These details are very likely to change. I've gotta be honest, I'd love maps that were a good bit bigger because something on this scale would be overwhelmed by an 8 unit army, the options for maneuver would be plugged up terribly. Something twice this size would be really good, it'd let speed differences matter more and give the possibilty for much more tactical maneuver.