[quote]Modders should be able to go nuts adding complex systems (resource storage, multi-tiered resource production) for those so inclined to play such a game.[/quote] That is very exciting to hear, I need to learn how to mod! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
Looking good Frogboy! [e digicons]:grin:[/e] thanks for the update. I'll go back to the very first post on this and agree with Denryu, but that's only cuz I really liked camp 1 when you threw us that bone so many months ago [e digicons]|-)[/e]
I found this game yesterday, it's a free game on MoFunZone but to be honest I would have paid for it! It can be a little frustrating at times as the enemies get difficult very fast from place to place but I mean I actually have seen my character grow as a hero, and its nice to go back and kill those pesky wolves in a shot kill now that at the beginning gave me so much trouble [e digicons]}:)[/e] It's addicting and I would highly recommend it! <a href="http://www.mofunzone.com/p
Wow... this had me laughing out loud [e digicons]^_^[/e] Thanks, I needed that [e digicons]k1[/e]
I would prefer this game to not be bogged down by different government types. But if they must be in, then i'd say have it be done at the beginning like it was in GalCiv. I just don't think that changing governments in the middle of a game fits the mood of a high fantasy. For Civilization? yea fine, we are playing over thousands of years of history... But in a game like Elemental, I just don't see it. In fact, if I had my way, I'd make it a feudal system like the one seen in
[quote]Or perhaps, more interestingly, you could have multiple commodities that represent currency and that change value based on abundance (these commodities could be useable too). Salt, grain, gold, mana crystals, head of cattle.[/quote] This is actually what i would prefer. So in one game, iron might be very rare and thus worth so much more throughout that game, and in another it might be a different resource thats rare. So that money actually means something, because yo
[quote]I'm actually more worried about the game's economy being dumbed down , but I don't care overmuch either way.[/quote] Im worried about this as well, I sure hope the devs give us another chance to sway them in a certain direction. I don't want to see the economy be so simple like in every other 4x game since the beginning of time...
[quote]What a relief, I thought this thread was going to be about a Viagra purchase gone terribly wrong.[/quote] [e digicons]:O[/e] ... [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]
[quote]Re how vague money has traditionally been in TBS games, well, is it that wrong to hope for Elemental to make a big step forward?[/quote] I don't think it is wrong to hope. In fact, I had very high hopes for the economy back when the "internal debates made external" thread came about... Mostly I just think, from as far as i can tell, that the devs are streamlining the economy to appeal to the s
Well, we already know from the beta that we are finding bags of coins in the world around us... So possibly the world before the cataclysm had a single currency and the post-cataclysm factions are just using those coins as a basis. I mean with as vague as money always is in these 4x games, this is as good an explanation as any imo.
I like this idea a lot demiansky, I know Frogboy has said many times that a handful of the elite more well equipped units will be able to take on hundreds of lesser units but theres no way of demonstrating this sort of thing in game (because you'd always be upgrading, like you said, its a problem in games like these imo) So i think your idea would solve this problem by allowing units to actually mean something and for us to be more attached to certain units. However, for it to work I
[quote]Beg pardon, but could you clarify your "this" there? Could be you want to avoid two types of settlement found, or you don't like the snaking even if you can't stop doing it in the betas so far.[/quote] I sure can clarify [e digicons]:grin:[/e] i was talking about avoiding snaking, i would most definitely like to see multiple settlement types found, it would add a depth to the game I think, I liked in the game Knights of Honor where you would have tiny villages and port t
[quote who="GoodGame" reply="71" id="2487263"]Dynasties should represent family houses though. Ones that can cross kingdoms, and create positive diplomatic feeling when spread around by marriage. But a failure of a dynasty shouldn't mean complete failure of the kingdom/race, but rather leave a void for an upstart dynasty to fill. And also there needs to be considered whether or not the kingdoms are absolute monarchies, or more fedualistic, in which the dynasty can devol
Mercenaries are only loyal to the money they are making, i hope we see a loyalty factor if we have mercenaries. Yes, money can buy you troops, but it doesnt guarentee that they will remain loyal to you throughout the war.
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="12" id="2487758"]Adding a second, size-limited settlement type for outying resource collection sites and fortifications would go a long way towards putting me in the no-player-house-buliding camp. In yet another game, I found myself helplessly snaking huts out twoards a resource I wanted but couldn't justify starting a whole new city to reach. [/quote] This is definitely something i want to see avoided, because that snaking looks gross but i have al
I think if you are able to just upgrade housing to the next level than you will have a city full of mansions... which is absolutely ridiculous in they are trying to create a living breathing world. [quote]The only problem that I can see with the suggestion is that the housing doesn't directly upgrade. I seem to remember that estates, for example, held fewer population but brought more prestige than houses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.[/quote] as i remember it, population in
Id like to see quests done like "King of Dragon's Pass" where we have choices, and then those choices come back later at an unexpected time to haunt you or reward you (based on your decisions) It fits with Frogboy's earlier comment about rat killing (because its a choice) but it wouldn't just be an immediate benefit and then your done, your decisions might cause more things to happen. Let me give some examples from the game itself. <img src="http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/4345/46j
For anyone a fan of the series that started with 2001: A Space Odyssey or the pics sent back from Saturn's moons, I found this pretty interesting, it's a long read, but it only takes a skim over to get the gist of what this guy is trying to say http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm What do you guys think about it??
Love it, 100% agree [e digicons]:D[/e]
[quote]I'm sorry to say this, but I've begun to regret pre-ordering the game. Not because I know the game will suck or anything, but because I'm afraid it may, yet I've already paid for it. The direction the game design is heading is troubling. I get that they want a game that's simple to play, and hopefully as fun as possible. On the other hand, I'm honestly worried that in the pursuit of simplicity and fun, they'll do away with suspension of disbelief and depth of str
I'll agree, I love that you guys show us the "behind the scenes" stuff [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote]I like the op version better, actually. It adds to the dynasty system in an intuitive way that is also simple to execute. Realism is nice, but get too many details and it starts to get in the way. Cleflar's idea sounds good, but you could probably stiffen the penalties for betrayal in simpler ways (prestige of the aggressor could drop by an amount related to the size of the dowry).[/quote] Your welcome to your opinion of course, but I just wanted to say my idea is really not th
I like the idea (because im "gung ho!" realism) but I think once again, you'd have to balance the importance of prestige over something like a shard. I mean a shard is going to give you mana, and allow you to cast spells of its element. To me, this is far more important than a hundred prestige points but that may just be me. However, if prestige gives lots of other bonuses it may be seen as a worthy trade-off. I'd rather see a system where those things are all tied to that one princes
[quote]It should feel barren, desolate, destroyed - but not empty.[/quote] I totally agree here, I like how we've been able to see new things show up on the map after each update to the beta, it's fun to watch it grow [e digicons]|-)[/e] And I really like points one and two, and three would be cool too if i knew how countering worked [e digicons]|-)[/e]
[quote]Re planes. Planes were in those early games because of the memory limit. We don't have that memory limit. 640k is long gone. [e digicons]:)[/e] Bigger maps.[/quote] I don't mind losing planar travel, but MoM always left me frazzled by the end game of larger maps because of all the cities. Though to be honest it wasn't the cities as much as all the enemy units pointlessly running around the map in insignificant numbers. Was this a problem with the AI