Mazuo

I didn't play much of SupCom 1 and didn't really like what little I did. That being said, SupCom 2 is completely unimpressive in almost all ways. So while I agree that it's been dumbed down, I think the more salient point is that at least from the demo it's simply a clunky, bad game. Leave room for those of us that appreciated the complexity of the first game, but didn't enjoy it who can still recognize the sequel as probably a victim of console porting and bad design.

In my only game so far I was married and had two sons. If you thought the random name generator came up with some oddities for worlds, the kid names being pumped out are license to bullies everywhere to beat the crap out of them.

Same for me too. Started just SE of that forest.

Similar problems here, but not exactly. Goody huts seem to appear in front of my Sovereign while exploring. Could be that I was clicking the ground there, but I'm not sure. Equally strange are the goody huts you can get the tooltip text for by just moving your mouse over the fog of war.

http://pastebin.com/wKwFpaA9 Nothing strange happening at time of crash. I had a caravan going back and forth for several turns successfully at least. Pressed end turn while Sovereign was exploring and my two towns were growing and it crashed. Had to manually trim the debug file as it contained 100,000+ lines of: "Debug Message: ERROR: (CD3D9Renderer) Failed to create a vertex buffer (invalid call): size: 0 flags: 0 usage: 0." <

You can guard/assist each other, but they just treat it as a follow command and won't help with any constructions. Could be wrong, but I think that's what the button was labeled as.

Edit: *grumbles about double post*

The sheer amount of Sovereign customization options in 1G is amazing. Great work folks!

The money accessed by the banks is typically only held for a short time as part of a transaction to confirm you actually have that amount available. You're not charged anything until you can actually participate in the beta or have the released game as far as I'm aware.

I think that truly is the misunderstanding. Gamers are more used to betas referring to something like the Starcraft 2 beta where the game's essentially done except for unit balancing and server load testing. I'm glad to see some more folks will likely make it in sooner than later, but I definitely agree that it would have lead to more than a few demands for a refund considering the broken mess 1A-1D have been. Don't get me wrong, that's not an attack, it's just that Elemen

Yes, explaining every character for an hour is the same as giving any sort of indication as to who an entire faction of people are. Thanks. Anyway, it's already probably resolved as I'm guessing they reintroduce the groups in the earlier missions.

[quote]So there's no reason you should have to be told.[/quote] What? Annatar has a point that if it's a later mission we'll already know, but it's just poor game design to toss around faction names with no explanation and expect people to look up the first game.

I had proposed mobility or at least changes to the speed of a unit based on the weight of their armaments in a topic a long while back, so yes, I agree. I'd be really appreciative if no armor in the game actually reduces the chance to be hit unless it has some enchantment of some sort on it. I'd much prefer armor to reduce incoming damage by a set or percentage amount. Hell, you could even combine that with damage thresholds where perhaps some plate armor reduced all melee

[quote]Another +1 for organic roads. We already have caravans trying to go between settlements. If there isn't a road yet, they can still try, and over time will carve a trail out.[/quote] I agree with this as well. If there's another use planned for roads there might be some problem with this method, but as I understand it now they're only meant to go between cities. I'd really like to see no manual control of roads at all except perhaps a cost-related option in the mid-t

Played the demo for a couple hours this morning, and I'd agree with Annatar's impression of 'meh'. Units are somewhat visually appealing, but feel very blocky and almost made out of Legos themselves. I'm not really sure why in this day of modern gaming there appeared to be no way to determine what your units were actually good at without building them and throwing them at enemy forces. No tooltip saying what they can fire on? Plus the first experimental you bui

Reminds me of the Tropico 3 demo's general creation. Not a lot to add right now except I'd actually find it quite enjoyable and interesting if you could get quite a few creation points back for advantages by taking some rather severe disadvantages. Certainly don't make them all that powerful in either category, but a handful of debilitating conditions for the tradeoff of affording more or stronger starting abilities sounds fun to pick and choose from.

If one did want to go with the old rock-style Earth element, I'd think increased weight of weapons so fewer number of attacks, but much harder hitting would work. Armor would be even simpler as Earth-enchanted would make it much tougher than the standard piece, but perhaps slowing the movement speed of the unit. Anyway, I'd love to speculate more about the 'mystical' we're set on getting instead, but there's not much more to say until we get some more details about it. Goo

I understand fire, ice and lightning as classic elemental types, but why mystical? Mystical magic damage seems both generic and redundant without some elaboration. I would think nature damage in the form of plants, venoms, etc. would fit more with Earth and then you'd have the four elements. Plus, you'd have the built in oppositions between fire and ice already, but how does mystical counter lightning? They both seem rather similar by just the words involved. I

Stackable conditions and escalating warnings for diplomatic speak should be very interesting to see. Good luck advancing the idea and making it work.

Not sure how they don't want to answer when the stickied thread is there and they've discussed this in another thread before as well. https://forums.elementalgame.com/364793 Seems to boil down to how if you can run the beta right now with none of the final game graphics in it, good for you. But don't plan on being able to do so on a card that's 5-6+ years old when the later betas or full game comes out. SM3 is dirt cheap now. Insisting on being able to play o

Did so, but just used the fogbugz error reporting system since I had a crash report to send in anyway.

Was just about to create a thread on this myself. Same thing just happened to me.

I knew what was going to happen with the sun from just the preview the week before. That is some pretty terrible writing right there. Top it off with how not only did the ship have reserves, but enough to probably dwarf what a ZPM puts out considering they literally submerged into the star. How hard would it have been to write that they approached within a few thousand miles of the star and recharged with the intense radiation and heat even at that distance? Have to

Least they can figure out how to private message. I hear IGN still gets e-mails from older folks or confused people telling them off for how their game sucks or asking for patches. [e digicons]:dur:[/e]

[quote]Instead, it's far better to make it so while you may not have iron, you've got something equally profound but in a different direction. Perhaps you have a node of fire, which lets you cast powerful fire spells instead. And you end up building armies with flaming copper swords instead of iron weapons.[/quote] Basically what I was getting at and really the way I'd like to see the game unfold. It will be quite boring if every sovereign has access to the same resources, but c