DarkGaldred

We definitely need an option to chose which unit type to upgrade to. It could be restricted to the same kind of unit (ie melee infantry, or even axe wielding infantry), but that would at least allow us to chose the exact weapon we want (because the one selected by auto upgrade is not always the one we'd prefer to use when we can chose between a magical and a mundane one for instance), and the accessory slots: If there is a "best" option to upgrade an unit equipemnt to, unit design

Having a hard cap on number of buildings would just promote ICS even more (than it, once the maintenance cost/income ratio has been addressed). I'd rather not have a limit. However, I really dislike having all city walls compare to the great wall of China in Length, and city layouts whose sole purpose is to create choke-points. I'd rather have 1 tile cities (Or 9 tiles without a building limit) and a city screen (or at least the catual city in the background during sieges).

When I eventually removed the outlines, I found the game much prettier, especially the cities. I'd personnally rather have them off by default.

Seriously, how can we defend enclosing ressources in the city wall as strategic? That is just some meaningless exploit. I will welcome not to spend time everytime I need to raze a buidling anymore. It was pretty indeed, but the impact on the game strategy was negative, as it added nothing that was not an exploit (or at least compltely gamey to the point of completely trashing any suspension of disbelief). Same with creating chokepoints with a 503 km long citywall. That just does not mak

[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="72" id="3114180"] Quoting DarkGaldred, reply 71That's a good news, because combat in Fantasy wars was much better than in Civ 5, which is not that hard, though. Sorry but combat is still like civ 5. Engine is not the same as combat mechanics.[/quote] But why would they drop their own combat engine to borrow the inferior civ5 mechanics? That does not make much sense :o From what I recall, Fantasy wars had unit cas

[quote who="ben_sphynx" reply="21" id="3114015"]These seem like some sensible sugestions - it would be nice to be able to make some decent cash out of taxes. An extra note - just comparing taxes to production is a mistake - unrest also messes with ones research too.[/quote] It is indeed, but research is already based on population, as is tax income, so the amount you get is more or less proportional to the research amount lost (except with research e

That's a good news, because combat in Fantasy wars was much better than in Civ 5, which is not that hard, though.

Just play the old Star Wars supremacy instead. The interface is horrible, but everything else is much better than EAW/FC

[quote who="Leo in WI" reply="21" id="3113411"] IMO I agree GalCiv3 made by Stardock would be better, but there is certainly no guarantee, MoO3 just goes to prove that. How many of us on these boards pre-ordered MoO3 expecting just that, only to have MoO3 not only be not an improvement, but IMO (and by my guess most peoples opinion) much worse of a game than MoO2. [/quote] MOO3 was not made by the people who made MOO2 (which were the same tha

Concerning MOO, MOO2, MoM and XCOm, I think what made the MOO series great was Steve Barcia designing it. Same for XCom who owned most of its greatness to Jullian Gollop. These games were great, but a slight change to anything can quickly make them horibly broken, hence why all XCom remakes have been horrible. What would make me excited is someone taking XCom rights from Firaxis, and giving them back to Jullian Gollop, and someone forcing Steve Barcia to go back to designing games. Bu

Concerning the Firaxis reboot, I'll see how it turns out afterwards. All the previous attempts have failed miserably. At least, the game seems different enough that it could be interesting on its own. Naming the game XCom won't make the game bad by itself, but I fail to see how it is supposed to replace the original that played very differently (in the original, you were supposed to lose grunts, and you could play in ironman mode. Here, with 6 squadies it seems much harder to achieve)

I don't see how a sequel to MOO2 could be a good thing. The lore itself was not so original (I liked it, but that's beside the point), so I don't see what else than the name you'd got out of it. MOO, MOO2 and MOM were great games, and they were designed by the same team. You cannot just copy some mechanisms add some other, and hope it will be the same. A game is a vision, and with the guys behind the vision scattered around the world of PC gaming, I don't see how a

I was thinking about something a bit unthematic, like giving -unrest/material (although you'd probably easily come up with ideas to make this thematic). That would make low tax levels a bit more attractive, and help production cities contribute to taxes without them taking such a big hit in their output.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="37" id="3110538"]I think I will make Materials do more production. That is essentially the problem, Grain is just so much better. That should solve many issues. [/quote] As I pointed out in my taxation thread there is another issue, harder to solve concerning grain vs materials : Taxation gains only depend on population (income = population*taxation

It does not work this way : it just make the tax levels between 0 and very high useless, as they provide no benefit. So they could as well not be there, and we'd have 3 taxation levels : no tax, lots of taxes, and really way too much taxes (oppressive). If it were an accurate representation, no one would ever bother with proposing tax cuts, except to set taxes to zero when the county is not going broke in the following season. In any economic course, you'd learn that the marginal bene

Another problem is that late game units too are peasants in champion armor : they have the same base thats than the ones you recruit in the beginning, and equip with clubs... There really needs to be a way to train high quality troops so that fireball is less of an issue.

You get the same symbol on enemy armies after casting spells like tremor, which prevent them from moving. Maybe the AI has cast it on you, but I have not seen it cast strategic spells on enemy heroes yet (only on cities).

Indeed, you can increase tax as you get more -unrest buildings, but it won't fundamentally change the problem : it will usually only make the first tax level as good as zero tax, and you'd be juggling between this one, and full tax (not oppressive). The intermediary levels still won't serve much purpose. It will get a bit trickier with many cities having different -unrest buildings, as there could be some point in chosing an intermediary level, but there are much less situations i

[quote who="feelotraveller" reply="5" id="3110510"] A comprehensive and accurate analysis. Good one. I'm not sure about the diagnosis, just as I'm not sure about what the developers design intentions on taxes are at this point in time (beyond that they want to keep gildar tight in the early game). It occurs to me that there are ramifications with the unrest reduction spells/buildings which are (or should be) available in the later game.&nbsp

[quote who="Hound" reply="8" id="3110433"]I don't really get the group sizes. It's about numbers and you can already train more units if you want more numbers. So why do you need to 'research' a bigger group size? Experience would be far cooler (elite troops) and make more sense at the same time.[/quote] Indeed! The coolness factor of experience far trumps group size. I'd rather have group size be a trade off, with all of them available from start.

My point is not that it is trivial to rediscover former techs, it is more that several clans/villages/tribes would have no reason to have lost that much in the first place (nomad tribes for instance would have no reason to have lost that much knowledge aftet the cataclysm, as they were already more or less self sufficient, and each of their members pretty generalist, same for mountain people, foresters... The only ones to be hit real hard would be the citizens. Even a town smith would have li

Indeed, there are several ways in which taxation reduce productivity (bureaucracy, disincentive...). :) But this particular point is moot anyway, as production and taxation are computed as follow : [code="xml"] production_from_population = population * 0.1 taxation = population * taxation% [/code] So 2% tax is already 20% of prod more or less, if we exclude production from materials . The Gildar produ

I agree with the above : I'd like more choice for unit design from turn 1, no randomness in the tech tree, more consistant champion upgrades so that common does not equal horribly weak, and more items whose benefits would depend on the wielder's stats..

The attached graph represents the unrest generated by taxation. In the current system, the values are as follow: [code="xml"] 1) Current unrest and taxes Taxes 0 2 4 6 8 10 Unrest 10 26 40 52 62 90 DeltaUnrest 16 14 12 10 28 <

Then you'd be dead after the cataclysm, or would have found one way or another to craft tools to kill things : the thing is, the people who cannot craft crude weapons (or get them crafted) in a world with creatures much more dangerous than our own would virtually have no hope of survival at all. If the survivors have a technology level below Cro magnon (who knew how to craft spear, hurl them, and use a bow) in a world that is more hostile, they just cannot survive at all : I agree that mo