Cerevox

Honestly, the game feels unpolished. All the parts are there, and stuck together, they just feel like they have rough edges everywhere. But most gamers today really only care about polish and shiny gfx, so make of that what you will.

[quote]All BoE's do. They are populated by burnt out brain dead teachers.[/quote] Actually, the texas one has like 2 teachers. The other 7 folks or however many are all either politicians or christan fundamentalists. The majority of the board belives the world was created 6000 years ago.

So, on the original topic. yesterday, the Texas State Board of Education which sets curriculum standards for the next decade for Texas, just removed every reference to capitalism and replaced them with free market, stating that capitalism has negative connotations. This is important because most textbook manufactures just make a Texas andCalifornia version of their textbooks and every school in US gets to pick from one of those two versions, because the Texas and Cal textbook markets are so h

300 cehckboxes. No doubt at all.

No. Any game that advertises itself as having mini games inside it to you keep from getting bored is not likely to do well. And be 'enhance the game' i mean the core game. Like, citys and troops and magic and such. The things that we are actually playing the game for. Mini games are nice and all, as long as they don't effect MP, but i am not buying or playing the game, for the mini games. And, to cover the possibility. If there is someone out there, who is going to buy elemental just

My sov wears the pants cause he has the doom spells. And there will be no divorce in my kingdom. There will instead be a public event called ex-wife and lion. It will be just like a divorce except i keep all my stuff, and i get to sell tickets.

[quote]What is the point?[/quote] The point is that they want the devs to spend time on things that don't actually enhance the game for some odd reason. Thats the only excuse i can think of.

Ya, i support having spouses as real units. I made a thread about this a while ago that supported the idea of having spouses who actually matter and have powers and stuff. Not just some random accessory to drape over the side of your throne as eye candy. Not that eye candy spouses are bad, i just think they should be all dangerous and stuff too.

Lots of games set the stack limit at 9, for whatever reason. IIRC that was age of winders stack limit, and i know its master of magic's limit. TBH though, i think we are trying to avoid stack caps, and i have to agree. Stack caps feel arbitrary and personally, i dislike. I am sure other folks around here will be more than happy to provide examples and such to explain why stack caps are undesirable. Definitely gonna let someone else do the examples and flaws and stuff. I am tired of be

I always play evil. Although i will admit, if there is a really awesome race, i will go out on a limb and actually try neutral every now and then. But good? lolnothx. I like my civilians well toasted, not well educated. Demons are for bargaining/commanding, not defeating. Your prefered terrain should be a overcast, ash covered hellscape, none of this 'rolling green hills' baloney.

Perhaps have the talents interact with each other? For example, if you take both "insane" and "cruel", you gain the special "expert torturer" bonus. And its not that i dislike sliders, i just think they suck up too much time for too little benfit, with the attempts to get them just right. Checkboxs are a simple yes/no. If there are enough check boxes then you can really cutomize your char and do it pretty quick. Although i will admit, i do spend 1-2 hours customizing my new ch

You don't have to dress up as your sovereign, you get to dress up as your soverign. Think about it as a positive and all those regal robes and cermonial armor will feel much lighter.

I dislike sliders. Checkboxs are the way to go. Perhaps some boxes could have secondary extender boxes, but avoiding sliders is always good. Something like, if you choose ugly, you could pick the extender box "So ugly mirrors shatter" for even more points.

Can i do brainwash with my tourture and then marry her? That would be awesome fun.

Lots of topics on this subject. Devs have stated they want a lot of wide open wild space. Although it would be funny if your cities did end up wrapping around the space and pretty much turning them into big parks. IIRC the devs are changing the way resources and walls work. I might be wrong, but pretty sure both those things are gonna change.

When talking with the AI, it should be pretty much point and grunt diplomacy. Anything more is a bonus. But for toher players, having all the bells and whistles would be fun.

Of course the standard disadvantages of putting all your forces in one place apply. Its just, if you think about it, there is really only one objective, not numerous objectives. Kill the other channeler. Everything else is just leading in towards that goal. So if you can give up all your defenses and lose all your mines and farms and half your cities, its a very worth it trade if you can kill their channeler. Unless there are more than 2 opponents, but the basic idea is still the same. <

Age of wonders had a system similar to that. If a unit entered combat, any unit in an adjacent tile would also enter the tactical map in positions that were relevant to which tile they were coming from. I like this system quite a bit as it actually made the tiles feel connected instead of the usual system where each tile feel totally walled off from the others. Removing movement points has always bugged me though. It might make sense for a merge between massive forces to take a full t

Only a chunk of my post was aimed at you. I admit, my posts don't tend to be very well organized so they might be confusing. Ill try and focus down a bit more. [quote]The idea is to have a large empire forced to split their soldiers between multiple stacks to defend their interests. A stack can't be everywhere at once. If your farmlands are burning because your super stack is mopping up one group of soldiers at a time, then that stack will be starving very quickly.[/quote] T

Being able to mark places on the map and send those marks to other players. If anyone has played wesnoth, they could be like the labels you can put on the ground. If you are sending them to a human player, marking a spot with a phrase like "Spearmen go here" would be fine. But for an AI, perhaps you would need special marks, something like defend here or attack here in X turns. Stuff like that.

I don't want to have a million troops crammed into a single square mile. On the other hand, i always felt that having a cap of like 9 units or whatever was kinda silly. If you want to really heap your troops up, you should be able to. The logical counter is the nuke or magical equivalent, as KillzEmAllGod said. Stacks will then have a natural organic cap rather than a hard cap, which is much better to my mind. Want to put all your units in one spot? you can do that, just expect the ot

Indeed. Agree much. Sword to gut should be lethal. I shouldn't have to march my troops through artillery fire for long periods of time to attack. If folks want this, they can get their fix from a ww2 game with a Normandy landing map. TBH, i have always hated time limits in tactical battles. Let it take as long as it takes. X-Com did this, where you could spend a minute or an hour in a tactical battle, but either way, 0 time would pass in the overland map, and it never

I so much! Nothing would make me happier than watching my zombies casually reach out and snack on a convient civilian as they charge the enemy.

Excellent. I have always enjoyed being able to blast at armies on a world map.

Think back on the quest for glory series. Those games were loaded with puns and slapstick humor, and yet they still managed to be very serious and make you really care about the characters.