psychoak

Sheesh, so now I'm an a-sexual slug...

The horse resource isn't really the sort of thing that would perish. Your herd has a minimum requirement, so many stallions, so many mares. All of the extra stallions aren't of any value for breeding purposes and would be separated, but the extra mares beyond the optimal working capacity for the herd would be breeding in the meantime. They'd grow old and infirm, but they'd also more than replace themselves in the meantime. As you'd have to feed the warhorses anyway, th

[quote]So for me, as a player, my archers are going to have daggers. Someone else may not see the point and have their archers only have bows. But I'd give my archers bows and a melee weapon. This way, if someone closes the distance, they have a different weapon they can draw on rather than being purely massacred.[/quote] Yay.

[quote]Not fond of "combat speed modifier" if that means we'll have to calculate DPS rates (correct me if I misunderstand). I'd much rather have the flexibility of a weapons be simulated through abilities. Otherwise we'll have daggermen doing more damage than sledgehammermen on the basis that daggermen stab faster, which might be true against a dummy but I don't think is realistic in an actual fight.[/quote] That would depend on how armor is handled. You've a

Man, I feel so well behaved after not posting my original thought...

Add defense to weapons. Add combat speed to armor, add abilities to everything. I'd love it if I can go batshit insane with things and pump out real monsters with restoring armor, swords that fling meteors, all kinds of goodies. Like a necromancer staff that turns victims into a zombie after draining their life. So much can be designed if weapons and armor surpass the physical.

Blegh, I was hoping you could get away from "worker" units since you're planning to keep track of villagers.

Note, someone bludgeoned with a warhammer is not going to be a slave afterwards. Guys that get a beer bottle broken over their head typically die. Having ten pounds of iron crush your rib cage isn't something you walk away from afterwards.

Different armor types, maces and hammers ignoring leather armor makes sense, although someone that's never seen real leather armor would be surprised at how tough it is, but not plate mail. The heavy stuff is seriously resiliant.

We has an actual population, screw engineer units. Place your structure blueprint and your worker drones automatically transport the resources to the site and build away. Less micromanagement and adds tactical depth by giving a supply chain to raid and a soft target at the point of development with population and resources for the taking. A win/win situation.

A beta testing manual is sort of an oxymoron... If they take a year to put the game out from now, any work put towards that is a complete waste. This sort of thing does need to be documented before release, but it's the final phase of testing where you're refining balance. That way the game is feature locked, and you're working with a completed system already so you wont need to waste time checking numbers that aren't a candidate for the final version anyway.

While I agree with the sentiment, combat on a more descriptive field is always nice...

[quote]that would benefit bigger armies and I for one want to get rid of that. It's much more exciting to have many bands of small units. In RTS terms, your suggestion would end up in one big battle but mine would have many small skirmishes.[/quote] It's a trade off. Large armies move on their stomache. A small raiding party can subsist off the environment in plentiful areas. A ten thousand man army needs an army of caravans supporting it. The

I really like the idea of having separate proficiencies for different weapons. Being able to train specific uses instead of everything together sounds outstanding. You can give your longbows short swords so they aren't completely screwed in melee, but only spend time training them for ranged combat. I like the idea even better if weapons and armor are use trained in combat, instead of just having generic leveling. Perhaps a slightly less demanding syst

If there's a dexterity modifier that attacks the use of weaponry, loading up your archers with plate mail and a broadsword would leave them unable to operate their longbow effectively. You'd then have an expensive and unwieldy unit that sucked at the primary job.

Where did that bs come from? I'm not the guy trying to claim welfare in the Constitution was referring to entitlement programs...

[quote]Warlords I-IV were all right, but Warlords Battlecry II eclipsed them all. I lost several weeks of my life to that game.[/quote] Only weeks?

Cousins are really fairly safe by comparison. Line breeding and siblings are the ones you really have to worry about. Not that it's something I'd recommend doing...

So he posts the same outdated information used in the video to criticize Watts when they've since corrected that climb by over half a degree downward. Did you take an hour to post that or are you just ignoring that you're wrong again?

#1 is a joke, #2 is probably a bigger joke, but the competition is hot. #3 is approaching serious subject material. It's a product of excluding insurance companies from the anti-trust laws, removing our constitutional rights to buy and sell the products we want. Both the insurance companies and the consumers have been given the shaft by state insurance boards that make assinine requirements, limiting the types of products that can be sold, and then banning y

One of my uncles always gets jealous when one of these stories hits the news... [quote]Did you also know that it's a fact that out of ALL the countries of the Entire World, The United States has the HIGHEST POPULATION of "Prisoners" ? Hmmmm, I wonder why that is. Is because our society is Really THAT BAD? It couldn't be because the State and Federal Governments MAKE MONEY by Keeping People In The System could it? No, of course not, they'd never do that...[/quote]</

You keep posting these idiotic videos that are all made by one arrogant asshole who's actually pretentious enough to claim facts from a field of science that can't even get within 50% of the mark on predictions after trying for two decades to make a working model that backs up the AGW claim. Meanwhile, you rabidly attack anything in any way related to a "blogger" that isn't a scientists, and often ones that are simply because they aren't specifically climatologists. Has the hypocr

Apparently you haven't paid enough attention to your wonderful friends in congress. They played up the addiction of nicotine in a major way(psychological addiction has been found to be the primary influence after all), inflated the dangers well beyond what should have been the terrifying reality of smoking, and flat out fabricated the high risk from second hand smoke, claiming it was more dangerous than first hand because it didn't travel through the filter, a lie as mo

Oblivion... I know, it was terrible of me. It's still true though, the optimal method of beating the game is to run through it all.

He specifically lists the subject he's commenting on. Severe hurricanes(not that they were) were blamed on global warming, mild winters were blamed on global warming. It's fairly obvious where he's going with his commentary. If the weather condition is because of global warming, then the lack of that condition poses a problem to the thesis. [quote]People like this are snake oil salesmen, plain and simple.[/quote] Now now, give hi