Well, first, I wrongly attributed it to denryu. Oops? Reply 71 . It would work rather nicely. I like the food mechanic too. Although people creating undead units and such would have to be damn careful about the balance there.
I suggest you moderate your assumptions until you have clarification. I think you've gone and jumped to the wrong conclusions. What they learned from Demigod. People are morons. In a less politically incorrect statement, people have screwball isp's run by idiots, don't know how to use their routers, have routers designed by idiots, don't know how to use their firewalls, etcetera. P2P gave them so many headaches with Demigod becau
I'd abstract the beasts of burden mechanic, it's just too hosing to resource balance to have it. Any sort of rare mount would end up perpetually consumed by caravans and take forever to get access to.
Necropost much?
I don't know about the caravans using animal resources either, that would be hellish on an automated system. You'd have a massive advantage in mount supplies by sticking to just a few key cities and centralizing as much as possible. A large, decentralized empire would increase exponentially in caravan numbers as it grew. I definitely like the universal weight system though. Although camels can carry a hell of a lot more weight than that. :)
If I weren't masochistic, your constant sadism in posting things to come in the distant future would be quite irritating. I'm really loathing Civ at this point. :(
Automated supply chains are well within todays technology. Build it into the ai management, and your only micromanagement will be protecting your supply chain from attack. Good micromanagement. In combination with Denryu's suggestion of a foraging capacity for the terrain that will allow small armies to exist without a supply line, problem solved. No real need to simulate it when you can have the real thing.
Were you on the Majesty 2 forums and got lost? :) Seriously, it sounds like you're talking about Majesty there. No idea where you'd get that idea for Elemental. Go through the rest of the developer journals, they've been quite informative.
If they have to be supplied, it's very easy to counter even the second type. If you want to be friendly about it, you make efficiency modifiers. For instance, when lacking supplies, they become fatigued and suffer increasingly catastrophic penalties. If you want to be cut throat about it, they start taking casualties when you cut the supply train off and starve themselves out of the picture unless they fix their problem fast. In either
It's kind of illegal, but silencers aren't that hard to make, you just have to thread the barrel and screw it on when you're done...
I find the FF/SC commentary to be of hilarious comedic value. The first tank you build is destroyed by the enemy captain. The pilot dies, is resurrected, and goes on to wipe out the enemy base single handedly before slaying the captain! It can be the next FF tactics.
It's mostly in agreement with me, so I think you worded them just fine. :) You probably did hose the wording on pull versus push. I took those questions to be camp 1 and 3 allocation methods. Under camp 1, you set sliders to send them out. Under camp 3, they allocate based on where the production is at that uses them. A pull economy versus a push economy is whether the resources are sent out on demand or when obtained.
Climber, I still think you're crazy. You can get increased efficiency simply by improving the rate at which a factory performs. You don't need to do anything squirrely like multiply goods. I can't even wrap my head around it. You're taking ore, and using less of it to make a sword, check. This makes sense by burning off less of it, etcetera. You then take that sword and turn it into more than one sword... uncheck. A sword doesn't turn into two swords
That was a joke right? Please tell me you know that's an advertising campaign...
[quote]I think if the system is going to model huge armies then it's going to need to model supply in some fashion. Perhaps each army has a radius of land it can scavenge from and land has a set scavenge value (modified by land type most likely). If you want to field an army larger than that land can supply then you'll need to bring a baggage train with supplies. Those should be slow, maybe expensive.[/quote] Sounds outstanding to me, although I wouldn't worry about the
Ok, Ellestar, when I say actual resources being transported from point to point give you actual resources to raid, that is irrespective of the complexity level of the resources. Retorting with a response that a simple game with a simple economy where actual resources are carried and can be raided wasn't particularly effective. "You suck, Starcraft has college courses" is not an argument against complexity either. That a college offers remedial gaming courses
It would indeed. It would be even better if they had a good morale system to go with it and the untrained mob shit themselves and ran on seeing a dragon. :)
[quote]I tried... I really did. The closest thing to disagreement I can get is that, while I agree with your stance on Starcraft, I do really like that game (but then, not really any more than other RTS's, as they tend to be the same). But I suspect that isn't disagreement and all, and probably just more agreement.[/quote] That counts, the campaign was too boring to play through. Story, check. Cutscenes, check. Fun, che... Skirmish is slightly mo
I appologize in advance for duplicating anything Pidgeon has already said. :) [quote]Say, in Starcraft you have units that can evade main force (mostly flying units or flying transports, but some invisible ones too) that deal lots of damage but have relatively weak defences. Obviously, map design helps too. And it's very cost-effective to destroy the enemy economy because workers cost a lot, and you can't restore mineral gathering immediately. That's just an RTS without
[quote]True. But option #3 as described doesn't give you direct control. So there are no decisions to override. The AI will handle it as it sees fit.[/quote] Which is probably why myself and just about everyone else that's passed positive judgement on camp 3 have added a wish for manual over-rides of some sort. It's not exactly a complicated thing to do. [quote]You have basically agreed with everything I said. Why so hostile?[/quote] <p
[quote]I don't doubt that Stardock has smart people.[/quote] Not intentionally perhaps, but they've already stated that the AI wont over-ride your decisions. [quote]What I am saying is: Everbody is different. And so people will have different ideas about what the right decision is given a specific situation in the game. With little control over what the AI does in such a situation, its decision can only please some people and possibly annoy the re
As long as they need supplies anyway.
I'm pretty sure Stardock is smart enough to have supply lines reroute further shipments around an enemy force.
You have to be careful about that. I'm a right wing crazy with a foul mouth and no manners.
Pidgeon, are we related? :) GW, I'm ok with having teleport casters warp the actual resources out to the troops, if you have to make the teport casters. I want to ignore magic, as in poof, the unit goes inactive for two days while resources are magically transported with no means of getting there. I don't want to ignore magic, as in I researched a badass teleportation ability, outfitted some guys with it, and sent them out with my fiel