Demiansky

Very good to hear, but why would bandits go out of their way to burn a city to the ground? Wouldn't they grab goods, a few women, light a few fires, then take off? The original colonization handled "native" raids in an insightful way. Instead of obliterating a settlement, they would attack and if they succeeding in killing the defenders, they would kill a few colonists, grab some goods, then flee with their gains. Eventually, if they attacked frequently enough a

Hm. Good job with the multiplier idea. Very good improvement. However... From the looks of it, cities are very, very close to each other. What does this imply? This implied that the player will be effectively snagging every resource that is near them and that, by the end of the game, pretty much every square of the map will be taken by some kind of sovereign faction. What I was hoping was that players would have to choose carefully where they woul

Moving in the right direction, especially in regard to snake cities. But, uhm, I noticed too that there aren't any rivers yet. Is it just me? Not even dried lakes or river beds.

Uh, if they already have range in a tactical battle, why give them range on the overland map? I can see this feature being gamed to high hell. Not only that, but you are also adding an autocalculation feature to the game whether the players like it or not. After all, once archers fire a volley from the strategic map, casualties would have to be calculated against the player's tactical deployment. Not a good thing.

These values are stritctly relative, I think. I personally don't want soldiers easy to build.

Sounds like improvements in leaps and bounds, but still nervous about tactical battles. Either it's very easy to get tactical battles right or they will be woefully undertested.

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="3" id="2673738"]I strongly agree with the thoughts expressed in this thread. to each Basically, one epic battle wins you the game or finishes you off ie. Stacks of Doom = a little bit boring. I think a good solution would be you could only have a certain "customizable" number of "units" on the one square - ie. single unit is considered to be a standalone unit, *OR* "squad" or whatever size of group you have capacity for via Warfare Re

So this is a video of the empire, correct? Isn't only one race in the empire human? I bring this up because all of those peeps in the city look pretty human to me. That, and I'd expect they should be acting differently. Everyone should look a bit more downtrodden in my opinion with perhaps a few elite nobles walking about bossing people around. Just my impressions.

Excellent idea with the guardians. Now we just need an Orion faction and we're set.

Your humbleness, Frog, is encouraging.

[quote who="Ziktur" reply="28" id="2668325"]Great idea! but what happens if your city is undefended, or your defenders are killed in the attack? should these monsters be able to occupy the town for a while, or stay put until driven out? i think there should be some damaging affect the to the city its self during the raid. perhaps generated randomly, a city tile is destroyed. maybe a loss to money, materials, or people? [/quote] Well, I would e

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="17" id="2662532"]As the amount of reclaimed land increases there should be a bigger reaction to it from the "barbarians." The reason for this is as the wasteland recedes, and more land is claimed by actual nations, the small groups of barbarians are gradually forced into smaller lands, and forced to survive on fewer resources. As they are compressed, they begin to organize on a greater scale, and you the players are forced to deal with massive hordes

So from what I can see so far, combat spells are basically going to be like MoM spells. You cast a spell and it takes one round to cast. But will this be the case? So I'm wondering how dynamic combat spells will be. Can we expect to see anything like...: Multi-spellcasts : an attribute of the caster that allows them to cast multiple low level spells. For instance, you might be able to use 100 mana in a tur

[quote who="sonarogre" reply="9" id="2667789"]I like the idea of an Essence limit being partially set by how much of the land is for your king. Not by Empire or Kingdom, but by the individual player. Have a given percentage of something in the land that is the kings and let that determine the Max Essence. You could even put objects in the game that bind sides, allowing them to gain essence off each others essence gains. Take blood oath to a whole new level.

Well ddd, we can reasonably extrapolate on where a certain idea is going. Like in Congress, they don't institute a change and then simply say, "well guys, we'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out!" No, they propose something and then debate about it rigorously. As for Annatar, I was thinking along very similar lines. I envisioned that your sovereign could work toward locking essence into combat fluency in certain ways, which would of course redu

Okay, so from where I’m standing, Essence has never been in a situation where it can actually work very well. The recent incarnation states that essence is used to convert an opposing philosophy’s land (Kingdom to Empire, Empire to Kingdom). Now, the big fat problem with this proposition is that if it costs Kingdoms to change Empire land, it serves as a disincentive to attack the Empire. After all, why burn the most valuable asset in the game when you can attack

So far, I love the idea of cliffs vs beaches. However, I thought it was peculiar that you could build ports on any beach. I thought that perhaps it would be more strategic to have instead ports be built on "cove" tiles which would, essentially, act as a resource tile. Early game, if you wanted a decent port city you would have to search for the right geography rather than just any old beach. Later in the game, however, you could construct artificial coves via engineeri

Uhm, what does it do?

[quote who="Sir_Linque" reply="164" id="2660032"]There's so many dynamic things happening in the brain that it would be interesting to know how to actually replicate that with a computer. It might not be as simple as getting the computing power up to par, or rather the estimates of the computing power required could be way too low, just as with the estimates to the complexity of genetics was. It's also interesting to see if Moore's Law remains to hold up when we can't rely on trans

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="56" id="2660164"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 52 I do like the idea of logistics affecting the size of armies. I also like the idea of being able to go beyond the nominal limits of logistics (Napoleon discovered this the hard way). So for instance, you could have have "Expert Logistics" provide a nominal army unit size of say 8. Every level above that costs N gold per turn where N is how many beyond 8 you have. So

[quote]In the quoted post is one more thing I disagree with you though. I believe using lifeforms and genetics is crucial to reach the next step in effectiveness. Applying genetics to technological solutions will hardly be pointless. Also, I'm not completely convinced (though it's not impossible) that computers will advance so far that we're able to replace life with them. If that's what you meant by making genetics pointless when computers are powerful enough. My apologies if I understood yo

[quote who="Sir_Linque" reply="154" id="2658899"] Quoting Demiansky, reply 147 Designer People: The idea that we can one day in the near future create "designer people" with a broad range of selected genes is possible, but *very* limited. Most genes code for proteins that very active and influence a broad range of other proteins. We'll probably only ever be able to add genes or cassettes of genes to a person's genome that are simplistic and

[quote]Now, for combining all of your troops in one stack. The way the economic and city development model appears to be going you can go one of two ways with city building. First, you can build a moderate number of medium sized cities, each of which is centered on resource. Or second, you can build a couple big cities supported by a large number of smaller "resource" settlements feeding them. Either way you will have multiple locations to protect and go after. Throw in significant advantages

[quote who="larrypeters" reply="41" id="2658912"] Quoting Demiansky, reply 40 For instance, let's say the cap is 500 units at some point in the game. If you stay within that cap there is a small green bar next to your army that represents that all is well. Now, if you go over that cap by say, 100 units, the bar is light green. 500 units?! Over by 100 units?! Is this really how people see this game being p

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="28" id="2657626"]I'm inclined to have some sort of logistical system which limits the number of UNITS (not people) in an army. So level 1 would allow 4 units (a unit could be 50 guys still). Level 2 would be 6 units Level 3 would be 8 units Level 4 would be 10 units and then you'd have refined logistics which would add +1 every time. This way, players who want to go the single big a