LightofAbraxas

[quote quoting="post"] I can spend hours creating defenses of all sort, sending units to control strategic points... all that for what? How do I know, in fact, if the enemy is not just putting together a huge stack that is going to jump around like in a dumb arcade game and destroy all my work in just a few turns? Lucky the AI right now is so dumb that is not applying this obvious simple dominant strategy! If the AI did the game would be already unplayable! <br

[quote who="lord ebonstone" reply="8" id="2789100"]The whole specialist stuff really smacks of GalCiv2, which Elemental needs to be moving further and further away from, not toward. Examples from this idea: -Actually interesting, perhaps tiered ala Civ5/WoW/whatever, specialists. (This allows for real "specialization." I can dip into, say, Combat and Adventuring if I want to focus on Physical Heroes and basic-unit Armies. If I jus

[quote who="Robert Hentschke" reply="41" id="2789112"]Cartoonish, maybe, but more playable IMO. The objects (like trees, mountains, or monsters) are far more visible because they are off-scale and (which is the killer) have the dark border that is used to differentiate objects. 3D objects typically do not have such a bright object / dark border layout so they blend into the background. The cartoonish map is the clear winner in the contrast and useability

[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="38" id="2789065"]Those PAX beta screenshots look so much more awesome than the current game. [/quote] Disagree, sorry. Much too cartoonish for my tastes.

[quote quoting="post"] 4. Right now, we can only build one type of improvement on each type of worldresource. For example, a "ScenicViewBonusType" will ALWAYS produce the same improvement. Even if more improvements are added that uses the same type, there is no way to build them. I would like to see an option added to select which type of improvement is to be built on a resource, if there are several choices. [/quote] <span style="fon

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make a little noise about something that I haven't seen mentioned too much in the forums, but is a big deal for me. I apologize because this is a repost (I hadn't seen this thread at the time), but I wanted to be sure it caught the eye of the devs, if just for a second. Important note : First, I like this game. I think it's a brave concept, and an

[quote who="MOIISKA" reply="4" id="2778879"]To the OP: I am sorry, but Civ 4 does not have a better battle system. Not even close. Ground/Air/Sea is all the same. Exactly the same. It's different, and much better thought out, to a point. If you look, you'll see how it was changed for Civ 5. Civ 5 >>>>>> Civ 4 as far as battle systems go. I love the *potential* of the battle system in Elemental, but it needs a ma

You know, some meaningful strategic choices would really lend this game some depth and replayability. First off, I should say that I kinda like this game. It's different, it's interesting, and it has a lot of potential. But, I have to admit, I was definitely bored after a few games. So... I put it off to the side for a while and played Civ 4 for the first time. <span

"Yes, English is not my mother language. And even not my second language, so I'm sorry if my english is bad" Well, in that case, that's pretty f'ing impressive. So, I'm guessing that your intent in having inns as quest centers is to have quests that replentish over time? I actually think that this is a good idea (if it can be balanced within reason), but again, I think that having different "levels" of quests/locations is a good mechanic to reward the player for pursuing a tech line o

"You just want your adventurer go to the next level of dungeon. Honestly, I hate Adventure Tech and hope it would changed." Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I think the adventuring component is a fun aspect of the game. I'm not sure I understand what your point is, I'm sorry. I'm guessing that English is a second language for you (and I apologize if that's incorrect), so I really don't want to argue about it.

What GV said. I love this tree, and certainly don't think it should be removed. Look at it this way: they're researching the locations of forgotten notable places, resources, and leads on important people wandering the wastes. Imo, there could be more quest types (and more involved) and notable locations, but I would be sad if it got the axe...

Haha, true. I've settled on 30 for my SpellLevelScalar. What do you all use?

I've found that increasing the TechLevelExponent to between 1.8 and 2.0 really stretches out the mid and endgame for me. Cheers! I enjoy a long game, too.

Yep, I mentioned that in Reply #2, RF. So noone's had any luck in locating where the game calculates influence?

Aaand... we have derailed.

StMorpheus: I do agree with you here about units per tile. The numbers were just thrown in there because they were easy for me to multiply. A few hundred units total would be perfectly fine with me, but I think there is a valid desire here for bigger battles.

Also, as many other posts have mentioned, no one is asking for 10,000 individually controlled units. As an illustration, 8 Full Battalions of 100 6 Companies (or whatever) of 50 = 1100 units, and only 14 commands to issue each turn. This is hardly overwhelming, imo. (P.S.) My laptop runs MTWII, which renders many many many units at once without any problems. My laptop is fairly horrible. I don't think this is going to be quite the issue that many people seem to

Epic (adj.)- surpassing the ordinary (especially in size or scale) Princeton Edition Dictionary.

Thanks for heading this up, RX. I would love to see battles that look something like this. Granted, with the tile-based system we have now, it's not going to look exactly like that picture, but I would love 1) More than 12 units in an army. 1.5) Bigger tactical maps to accomodate. They don't have to be huge, but bigger than we have now would be nice. 2) Bigger unit sizes. From 1 (for scouts and garrisons for towns under low threat),&nbs

Alright, I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I think that my ideal combat system would change 3 specific things. 1) Seperating attack and damage would allow for some meaningful differences in weapon types. 2) Normalized distributions. I would suggest a normal distribution for defense scores, and a "skewed" distribution for attack. A system that makes multiple rolls and keeps or averages the highest one, two, or three rolls would shift the probability distribution "above" the mean d

Yeah, I would like to see this as well. Unfortunately, we can't mod new diplomatic functions in, as it stands now (I'm pretty sure that's the case, anyway). I think that there's a lot that can be done to make diplomatic capital a little more unique... maybe we'll see something like this in one of the 1.x patches or expansion.

I think that your sovereign gets a certain percentage of the experience points your units earn in battle. Bonus experience, as in he/she doesn't "steal" experience from them, it's just straight added. Are you sure about the random frequency?

I'm with tamides on this one. It's a personal preference, of course, but I know that for me anyway, conquering 40 AI cities after I've defeated the faction's main army is more work than fun. Also, like tamides said, I don't think it fits with the lore. And, to top it off... I ususally can't think of 40 good city names, haha. As for a reason for why it's bad to city spam, I don't think there is one in the sense you mean. There is no downside because you can found an outpost for n

Alright, what I'd like to see is how to link a faction's current resource level, in this case diplomatic capital, to another game mechanic, such as influence, with some nonlinear function. It'd be a great way to illustrate how to implement a (somewhat) advanced operation in Python, and would be an interesting game mechanic (for at least one person!).

I think I read in one of the stickied posts that it increases your interfaction relationships, but I haven't tested it enough to see for myself. I was thinking of some sort of nonlinear function providing diminishing returns and that caps out at about 4 tiles for ~2000 or so. Increasing the trade value and reducing the income from Scenic Views from (2 to 1 per turn) would help balance this out, I think.