Not just for royals. There was a big thread on breeding the ultimate war mounts a while ago. Since they already have the genetics code for sovs, it shouldn't be hard to add it for the rest of the critters.(or so this knowledge less person hopes)
TBH, i was thinking there might be small bands living the wastes, or in small spots that were, by some crazy chance, shielded from Armageddon. After all, if all you want to do is eek out a enough food to keep a dozen people alive, all you need is a cave and some shit to grow mushrooms. Plus the sheltered spots would fill up fast. I mean, there are rabbits not just surviving but thriving near Chernobyl, i figure humans could manage to get a couple small bands through Armageddon.<
Huh, fired up mom and checked. ChongLi was right. Casting in combat does not seem to effect casting out of combat. Could of sworn it did, guess i misremembered.
You can go straight with hexes too. Just not north or south. East, west, and diagnols are all straight. But for squares, anything not along a north-south or east-west axis requires a non-straight line.
Having pop controlled by one thing would be best. Having multiple factors is just too complex for too little benefit. If we want water to have a big impact, just set it so that areas near water grow a lot more food.
[quote]If your spellcasting skill is 50, you may spend no more than 50 mana per turn on out-of-combat spells (and 50 pre-channeling mana per combat).[/quote] IIRC, the skill stat was a total for all mana used that turn and did not reset for combat. If you had 50 skill, then summoned a 10 point zombie, you would then be at 40. If you entered a battle, you would have 40 skill points left, if you cast a fireball for 10, then you are at 30. After the battle, you would have 30 points left
Sounds interesting, but it almost sounds like a lot of extra complexity for one group without a whole lot of payoff. TBH, if a race is gonna be subterranean, i would prefer for there to be a true underground, not just a minor mechanic. It would feel like you are short changing the race.
Channelers may be necessary for a full nation, but i imagine there will be many smaller, neutral, groups that will be controlled by non-channelers.
Very little has been declared to be so. The empire = death, other = life is one of the few things that has been. The devs have said it enough times that changing it now would just confuse the crap out of everyone.
Very little has been declared to be so. The empire = death, other = life is one of the few things that has been. The devs have said it enough times that changing it now would just confuse the crap out of everyone.
The death for empire, life for the other side(can't recall their name) is already decided by devs. Although you could probably mod it however you wanted.
Ya. You hear alot about hybrids. I am under the impression that they are in, but i have not seen anything from a dev on that(and if i have i must of forgotten) along with all the other fun breeding things.
Except for the catch, that if you need a big boost of power for something, you kill something to get the boost. You can use the power for anything, but getting the power in the first place is where the evil comes in. After all, if you are being all good and kind and waiting for people to die naturally, while your opponent is out pulling a khorne thing and massacaring people while screaming praise to the blood god, the crazy guy is gonna end up with more power and stomp you silly.
I hate to just toss something like this out, but in that case it seems appropriate. I am sure the devs can figure out a way to make it work. Bam, there, i did it. The way frogboy phrased it made me think that they have already figured all this out and have a system they think will work, and since SD is brilliant, imna trust em. but ya, a horrible slaughter where most of the folks die would certainly help a death channeler more. However, assuming we get a retreat button, that kind of b
To me, it looked like SD did both very complex and detailed unit creation AND detailed combat. They just have not gotten around to talking about the combat much yet.
Nice idea. Too many words to read all of that, but i am sure all of yall had brilliant and clever responses. In the case of limited food though, i would need to be able to prioritize one city over another. As long as i can dictate which cities starve first if i run short on food for whatever reason, then it sounds great.
Would be nice to have hero loyalty. Would add quite a bit of flavor to them, as well as allowing things like treachery. I like the ideas.
Not really. Although i must admit, the calculator thing makes no sense at all. I was sort of thinking about it like this. Living things do their living thing, which generates power for life channelers. However, living things are also sotring up power and building themselves up as they live and grow. An oak tree might not produce a whole lot of power at once, but it will live for hundreds of years, so thats quite a bit of time to generate life power over. However, a death channeler only gets o
It would also be nice if we could reverse spells. There could be an option to cast a very expensive reversal spell that requires some massive ratio of mana, like 2 to 1, but allows you to send the spell back. There should also be a chance of a spell going berserk. If someone dispells a strong spell, there could be a small chance that the total amount of mana simply explodes in the tile that the spell was intercepted in and does massive damage, or summons something totaly random and ho
Some cities might be able to produce militia if they are attacked, but i am going to assume that trained and well equipped soldiers will always stomp all over militia.
Having battles in cities with civilians running around would be great. Perhaps even have random militia/veteran groups break out their old weapons and jump into the fray. You would also be limited in spell casting, since you can't just start blasting. You might knockdown an important building, and if a building does get destroyed you would have to rebuild it later. Having neutral citizens running around a battlefield sounds great. They give a defending force something they need to avo
I like it. [e digicons]k1[/e] . Gives everyone the option to take the method they prefer.
You make the assumption that he bothers to actually hold the city. What if he just rolls in and razes them? Or dosen't bother leaving any defenses, just keeps attacking until he finishes you off? I know in Civ at least i would almost always raze any city i took, typically because the AI was horrible at city placement, but it also meant that my entire army could keep advancing and that if my army got beaten, there was nothing left for the person i attacked to retake. Assuming you have
Smaller cities will be inherently weaker than larger cities though. If someone invades, yes, it would take longer for them to seize all the cities, but you would be unable to defend them all. In order to match their army you would need to concentrate your forces in a few cities, leaving the others exposed. A few large cities are easier to defend. The only tie you would lose a large city would be after your army is beaten, but with small cities you would lose numerous cities before the other p