RooksBailey

I realize that a lot probably still needs balancing [e digicons]^_^[/e] , but I'd thought i point out that mana seems to need it bad. In my current game, it is season 205 and I have just under 1000 mana already (889, was as high has 950 before I started casting every spell I had on my cities just to burn up the extra mana - which is still accumulating at 10 per turn). This abundance of mana, combined with the "mana blast" spell, now makes me virtually unbeatable on the battle

I definitely think there should be some type of siege mechanic, be it a magical siege or a trebuchet/military siege. Sieging was such a central mechanic to medieval warfare that I've always felt Elemental is off kilter for not incorporating a similar mechanic into its gameplay. It just seems like a glaring omission to me. The above described situation would seem to be a golden opportunity to address this.

Any changes coming to city development?

Is the MP beta the last beta for the game? I thought there was supposed to be an open beta too.

This is one of the few games that I am keeping an eye on for 2012. It is supposed to come out this month, but seeing how we are nearly at the half-way mark and the last beta for W:EE has yet to get underway, I wonder if the date might slip to March. Still, can't wait! I liked RUSE.

Yeah, Empire and Empire Deluxe. You can still get it here: http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/ Also, Battlefront came out with a remake of sorts (Empires of Steel): http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blog

[quote who="Cruxador" reply="8" id="3077465"]Played for like an hour. Unfortunately this thing is shittily coded so I had performance issues for no goddamn reason and since the demo doesn't allow you to save and restart there wasn't a damn thing I could do about. Finally crashed just now. Haven't even gotten to the point where I'd unpause the game yet either.[/quote] Sorry to hear that. I haven't had any issues at all (and my PC is 4

[quote who="James009D" reply="5" id="3077312"]I downloaded this demo and have been following Crusader King's II's development for a while but, unfortunately, find that I don't really have any idea what I am doing in the game. Are there any YouTube video's that sort of describe how one plays this game? Also, there needs to be more that your King/Lord can do. [/quote] CK2 is definitely one of those monster Paradox games where it takes a lot of playing

Did you guys see that the demo was released yesterday? http://www.fileplanet.com/224596/220...-Kings-II-Demo I just booted up the demo and I have to say I am impressed! The tutorial is impressive and quite detailed (but the intermediate and advanced sections could use some more detail), something that should go a long way in making the game more comprehensible. The U

On champions: One of the things that bugs me is how they are often harvested like a map resource. This is dull. I've been playing some Distant Worlds lately and one of the things I really like about that game is how characters (think champions) are generated during the course of gameplay. So, for example, if you have a successful fleet action, an Admiral character might appear in your fleet. Maybe this would be a good idea for champs in FE?

15, 13, 2 for me.

[quote quoting="post"] ok, so the hot topic it seems is that champions are to overpowered. i can get behind this, they are killing machines mid to late game. My idea is that we take the champions out of the fight. they are still on the battlefield but they enhance an army instead of fight. A generals attributes directly affect the attributes of the army. Magic can only be cast when a general is present The warfare tech tree has battle strategy opti

The proposed dynastic system was what got me really excited about WoM. Unfortunately, it was never implemented in a proper fashion. I would love to see it come back, but for it to be done right sovs would need to lose their immortality so the throne could be inherited in a Total War / Game of Throne's fashion. Right now SD isn't prepared to lose sov immortality, so.... Just as well. The dynastic system I am envisioning would require enough work for a

Good suggestions that would make the tac battles much more interesting. I also would like to see 1) much larger maps where maneuvering is possible, & 2) a morale system that eliminates the gladiatorial need to be the last man standing in a battle.

Sounds like pirates in Sins of a Solar Empire. How fitting. [e digicons]^_^[/e]

[quote who="Alstein" reply="2" id="3061637"]One thing, I'd like to see a sliding table of bad effects to heroes, and the more deaths a hero has, the progressively worse the side effects should get. Also, a hero who is recovering and is killed again should have a high shot of dying. [/quote] I think this is a very good idea. It would serve to make players less careless with their heroes. With the removal of dynasties, I can understand why sovs remain

This happened to me earlier tonight! It got stuck for like three turns. Glad to know it's not just me. [e digicons]^_^[/e]

I completely agree about razing cities...and anything else, from forests to camp sites, etc. It all happens instantaneously and without cost. It is less gameplay mechanic and more map editor. It needs to be changed. As you said, razing should take time, at least one season for small sites (such as a patch of forest) and more for cities, and should involve some gildar cost, albeit I would like to see some materials returned in exchange (salvage). In fact, fo

I still think this idea of sovs and heroes being immortal is a mistake as it takes a lot of the tension out of battles. [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e]

[quote quoting="post"] Wandering monster armies seemed reluctant to attack even undefended cities. [/quote] Yeah, I noticed this last night, too. A pack of monsters that were on my territory just sat there for the most part. Occasionally they would wander one square off my territory, but then they would come back again and just sit there. Good thing, too, because my capital city was completely undefended.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3061019"]I want to show you guys a video of me debugging so you can see why these crash logs you send are so important. http://screencast.com/t/HLvzyPAAivn [/quote] Thanks for sharing that! I know nothing about coding and being a tech priest, so these behind-the-scenes looks are really interesting to me. [e digicons]:digichet:[/e]

[quote who="Malleus_magician" reply="16" id="3061055"] Tactical combat should have more tactics involved. honestly, i just set my guys up in a line and when the enemy gets close i pounce. wheres the tactics in that? i think a good idea here is to make more than just a little path for the combat map, and allow groups of the same side to join in a battle if they are adjacent to the defending party (AKA like the idea in Age of Wonder)[/quote] I agree. While

Yeah, I noticed this too. It needs to be addressed at some point.

I found a bug regarding a city's name: turns out you can rename the cities of an enemy faction.

Wasn't this argued in WoM, too? Regardless, I agree with the sentiment that building placement really doesn't serve a purpose except to encourage the creation of snake cities to grab resources. I'd rather have a Total War system where a city is one square and everything you build goes into that one square. As cities level-up, one square perhaps should be allowed to become two squares, etc. (seems logical). This new system would elimin