Kantok

[quote who="DarkGaldred" reply="27" id="3108339"] How can the lore justify losing the knowledge of spear-making and still make sense, though? It is something that existed a few hundred thousands years even before the middle age. Even some Chimpanzees have been reported to craft wooden spears and use them to hunt. You can convey the feel of rediscovering lost technologies without getting overboard with it. Leather working too, is something that can hardly have been totally lost as it date

[quote who="Beric01" reply="75" id="3097364"] This post is pretty amazing, and unfortunately right on. I would love to see how exactly we're going to distinguish these races such that a casual player, just starting up the game, will instantly recognize that other races are significantly different. It's no easy task, because as was mentioned prior, we don't even have real-world civs to relate to. Just a bunch of humans. We can't even say that one race consists of blondes,

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="33" id="3093929"] [Edit] @ Kantok I'm sorry man, I just dont think we're seeing eye to eye on things. I thought I addressed your points, but we keep just saying the same things over and over to each other. Ive never felt gimped in the game by not using more than the 1-2 champs I pick up in the early game without much recruiting tech. Champions arent mandatory. Does it give added value to using them? Sure, in some ways.&nbs

I don't know how anyone could play with auto-select next unit on. It's infuriating. Tab does the trick, though there should likely be a UI button as well for those that don't know the hot keys.

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="31" id="3093900"] Again, nothing changes for them. Autonomous armies work as they do now. In the game at present, You can even construct them to be *faster* than early game Champions if you wish. But I'm sure you'll agree that the focus of the game is Champion led armies, and there should be strong reasons for giving your army to a Champion's control. Also, I dont know about anyone else, but I regularly sweep a large map with 3 Champ

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="28" id="3093865"] Quoting KnownElephant, reply 27My problem with your idea is that it makes champions sort of mandatory components of any army. Champions aren't always super common and sometimes you want to field a lot of armies (especially if you are an AI player). But more importantly if someone gets more champions than you they are going to be able to field more armies, with more powerful units in them (since they didn't have to get the

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="13" id="3093699"] Exactly. And my champions finished the last large map game with a max speed of 4. If you still think thats too fast, you can throttle the speed at the champion level. Meanwhile units can be deigned with both mount and Scout bonuses, when your Champ only has a mount available. I fear the dev response to this will be to simply remove most of the +speed perks from the units as well, making the game speed ever more g

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="9" id="3093660"] Nothing Changes. Armies are still moving at the same speeds they are now. But they get to bring different types of troops with them. Unless you want to claim you deliberately slow down your army by taking slow troops. In which case, why would you do this? [/quote] No, they're not. My champions almost always have faster base speed. My sovereign can routinely move at a speed of 4 or 5 late ga

Maybe as a high level, rare trait this would be viable, though I'm suspicious it would be game breaking even then. As an always on champion ability it's game crushing. What's the point of roads? What's the point of defending the direct route into a territory if your 5 movement champion can grab a bunch of plate wearing knights and take the long route in 2 or 3 turns? The ability to move freely and quickly around the map is one of the m

[quote who="Neilo" reply="5" id="3093403"]Sure... [/quote] But if I use that my hands will get all covered in dead horse goop. That's less fun.

In your scenario what's the tactical advantage to first strike? If you and I are standing on a field with swords and I run up to you and get the first strike, assuming we're both trained in what we're doing, I'm now in the advantageous position because I am dictating the flow of action. You are reacting to me. As long as I keep you reacting to me and not initiating your own action, I win unless I screw up. It's called an <a href="http:

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="105" id="3093145"] This is something I have brought up too. But here's the thing: Do you WANT dwarves and lizards because you want to see different visuals? Or because you want races you relate to or because you want them to play differently? Don't say "all of the above" since that's a cop out. But what specifically are you looking for? The Empire of Yithril ARE elves. Even Tolkien hated using the term Elves. They were the Noldor a

Allowing queue management within one production queue is the way to go.

Can I borrow a stick from someone? Beating dead horses is fun!

I really would like to see the GalCivII starbase system adapted to Elemental outposts. As long as they were balanced properly and costs increased as the power of the outposts grew you'd have a great & flexible system for expanding trade, military power projection, etc. It would be more to balance, but would be a great addition. The current outpost system for resources gathering makes a great foundation for just such an addition.

[quote who="MrDestyNova" reply="12" id="3092739"]And while we are on this topic, is there a way for trading to create roads to the outposts as well as between the player cities?[/quote] Research economics.

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="9" id="3092689"]I still think factions should have at least one piece of equipment that is stronger than all other equivalents Whether absurdly cheaper, a bit buffed, a bit higher initiative ... something. So that different Factions can have truly unique "unique units" Also, I feel the economies of factions should be able to behave differently ... maybe unique national wonders galore for certain

[quote who="seanw3" reply="70" id="3092365"] There is so much room in the Path system for improvement. Now that I think about it, I am a little worried that no new content was added in .86 to this part of the game. The endgame should be all about turning those basic Paths into proper classes. Trained units are far superior in the endgame. The balance should be by making the Paths more diverse and powerful. There should be at least 12 Paths branching off of those main three. [/quote]

[quote who="Neilo" reply="190" id="3092143"] At the expense of alienating every loyal SD customer, that without which, SD would not exist? I see your point though, it's a shame profitability is the new focus of SD.[/quote] I won't be alienated. You don't speak for every loyal SD customer. And it's a shame that a privately owned company wants to turn a profit? Really?

Even assuming they get the bugs worked out and you were forced to do things in the right order the spell still needs work.

It's not all caravans and it doesn't always happen after a trade treaty. It was a new game started in .86. They eventually went away, though I'm not sure when. It was at least a dozen turns because I checked every turn for that long and then gave up checking. I noticed at the end of the game that they were gone.

So I played a magic heavy game on normal with a caster sovereign. I lost two battles early where I was just over matched by wildlife. I lost one late game where I underestimated Kraxis and sent a second-tier hero and army after his capital. Otherwise I steam rolled with caster heroes surrounded by mage troops and 2 or 3 front line soldiers in chain armor with the flaming battleaxes. I ultimately won via the Spell of Making. A few things about the leadup to cast

[quote who="Winnihym" reply="4" id="3091684"]Yup, I agree that spells would be better on traits than items, but it may be that the engine can't do it that way. So far, the traits all seem to affect only stats, not combat abilities (ie, there's no stats that give a new ability to a unit, just affect the existing abilities). May be a limitation of the engine.[/quote] Most of the hero special abilities, like Crushing Blow, are trait driven.

I've routinely had non-aggression pacts, peace treaties, and alliance produce an expired message 1 turn after I signed them. For example, the turn after researching alliances I signed an alliance with the next three largest kingdoms only to receive the "Alliance with xxxx expired" message on the next turn. However, under the kingdom report screen it shows all three to still be my allies. The two images below are from the same turn in the same game. <p

[quote who="Alstein" reply="53" id="3091822"] Units should start out garrisoned in the city, unless the city's garrison is full. city garrisons should always be up to 9 units. [/quote] This is an option under gameplay options. I think it should probably default to auto garrison, rather than having the units pop out of the city on creation. Overall I voted good largely due to the reasons Brad already posted a few post back. </p