Oh come on, lying about clothing is terrible. What you're supposed to do is let them know exactly how ugly the sweater is, by lying. "I didn't think it was possible, but there really is a limit to what you can wear while still looking good." That way you get in a cheeseball line for the reality tv show you don't know you're in.
Obviously, it's whichever shard is at the top of the map.
Uh... Total War did it with Shogun on a bigger scale than Elemental is likely to be at... The information requirement is zilch, your troops are actual troops and must be reinforced with actual troops. Other than that, the work load isn't any higher than it would be with an abstraction. At most, they let us control the size and composition of our units and give us modification after the fact. Great versatility for a little more effort.
[quote]Guess you didn't see the (8) next to the name or the 8 figures standing there in a single tile square (with a selection indicator around them).[/quote] A bit of a late reply, but what can I say. I just don't bother checking past the first page of threads very often... There is no logical assumption that leads 20/24 health to indicate that health meter is for a multi-figure unit. It appears to be full, there is no appearance of m
Playable, sure, but are they fun? Does the espionage system in GC2 add anything but a nuissance? You run around neutralizing each others saboteurs, spending a portion of your income that could have gone towards your fleet to do something vastly less amusing. Bigger ships with better guns... Or you can blow 5% of your budget on a slider. Maybe I'm overly harsh, maybe I'm just not pessimistic enough to think people actually prefer
Ok, you do your straight up skill match with no random elements. A simple pass/fail system going by two preset numbers. How is that defense determined? If it's predictable, you've just created a memorization game. It becomes pointless once you figure out the defense levels of your targets, you always succeed. If it's random, you're taking a shot in the dark, it's still luck based, just on whether the difficulty is higher. If it's based on t
This kinda looks like vassalage, just without telling everyone else who's your vassal. It sounds like a wonderful idea, I hate knowing things just because. It doesn't really sound like espionage though, more like something for espionage to find out. I'm guessing that when you try to come up with the how behind your idea to covertly take over a minor civ through espionage, it's going to end up RNG based. :( How is the sticking point, wh
I'm preferential to morale systems. Result based in combat modification combined with static levels achieved through unit quality and leadership attributes. Green troops that get the shit kicked out of them contribute little, and even the best commander will just give them a lot more morale to burn through in a rapid fashion. Elite troops will have substantial morale, and perform excellently in combat, needing to be severely outclassed to be in danger of routing rapidly.&nbs
[quote]Do you guys like my ideas here?[/quote] No, dice roll systems blow. Get lucky, kick ass, get unlucky, die horribly. If I wanted to play a slot machine, I'd hit the nearest casino. Before you guys start arguing over an espionage victory, someone needs to come up with a system that doesn't suck. Until then, whether it's too rpgish or whatever is rather irrelevant. As long as the options for spies all fall into the doma
You kind of have it backwards there. Change that second line to " Oh, dear leader, we've researched 'improved bows'." Then toss that last line, logical fault solved. You give your researchers a task, these bows suck, make em better. The researchers look for ways to make less sucky bows. Maybe they accidentally find out something else along the way, but they still have a direction.
If you could fly under your own power, and shoot bolts of lighting out your ass, would this forum be fun?
Skip the science, it's the worst thing that ever happened to Star Wars. It already sucks the fun out of life, lets keep magic free from it.
Well, if you happen to come up with anything functional that isn't batshit insane, or really really boring, let me know. I can't.
[quote]When will we find a cure four the scourge of selecitve readingitis? I specifically said that such a system would not be RNG-based.......[/quote] Some time after we cure those living in denial? How exactly do you propose to design a system that doesn't get decided on random number rolls? Your thread post is riddled with chance this and chance that, how, if not by random number generation, would you do anything you've suggested?
Then you get to wish in one hand and shit in the other. Massive micromanagement is the only way you'd get targetted, complex espionage out of a spy system without making it luck deterministic. You'll go batshit insane managing the hundreds of spies you have wandering around the map. Chance doesn't level out with a low number, especially in streak prone RNG's. We'd be better off with a spy minigame where you ran around in a building, dodging guards.&nbs
He speaks the truth The damn thing bottlenecks on the processor for most people. The graphics aren't anything special, Demigod looks a hell of a lot better using an upgraded version of the same engine. When I was playing it, I never zoomed in close, it was fugly as hell. The isometric stuff five years back looked better. From five thousand feet though, looks great. Now if only you didn't need a super computer to handle all the number crunch
Frequently, by the Obsidian order, not to mention Spock, who was secretely living among the Romulans... Luck based irritants are not the same simply because a soldier also falls prey to luck. When you have a battle between two armies, your skill guides the overall outcome. You can protect important squads, sacrifice less important squads to do so. In a game like Total War, your survivors gain experience and become stronger. Luck
In multiplayer, things like this are particularly irritating. Cancelled out magic leads to boring, drawn out combats, and maxing power for the chance at an easy win leads to substantially dissatisfying games when it's determined by sheer dumb luck as some tard casts a spell. In single player, it will be less of an irritant, but AI would need to be restricted from doing catastrophic things just to avoid the game hamstringing itself for no reason. It's never good to have game
I think that just ends in either horse being fertilizer.
It's positive and negative, while you can't do a healing spell in a positive manner, you can steal health from something else. I'm hoping for spells like vampirism and drain life in combination with massively powerful stat hits on the enemy. Death magic doesn't need to be a bunch of devestating attack spells, it's the perfect place to have the best physical debuffs, which are just like buffing your own troops when it comes to survival.
Good, I wouldn't know what to do with myself after most of the active community stopped posting. I'd have to go blow something up.
I'm feeling realistic. Multi-faceted technological breakthroughs, you research woodworking and improve the cost of your pole arms, the strength of your bows, etcetera. You guess at what it actually did and go hunting for changes if you want to find out. Randomization is annoying me more and more as I hear the crazy ideas some of you have for it...
Until you find yourself on a desert island with a small patch of weeds to live off.
That's why most viruses need a trojan, or activation by yourself to get onto the computer to start with. The OS isn't designed to just pull them off the internet and install them all by itself. :)
Sova, you're eternally retarded, accept it and move on. The longer you continue spouting nonsense about Star Trek, the more I want to retroactively abort you. I'm more than enough of an "angry white man" already, it's bad for civilization to continue depressing me. Star Trek version of the Forerunners. T'kon Empire Well, one of them anyway, I'd hate to upset you with the knowledge that