Demiansky

Interestingly, our D&D campaign at the moment (now on its 32nd session) is very, very similar to how the player would play Elemental. It is basically just a sandbox environment, with events being determined by reasonable probability rather than just DM discretion. As the characters act in the world and time goes by, the world changes around them. Nations go to war, Dragons awaken from their slumber, an Evil Necromancer rises in the far east, sending r

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="11" id="2567304"] Quoting Scoutdog, reply 10 weakening I fail to see how "to be forced to spend some turns at home" equals "weakening". You may want to say "take some choices away from the player in very concrete circumstances". And difficulty based on just "buffing numbers" is dumb difficulty (sometimes needed). Difficulty on adding extra game mechanics that add to the decission/choices pool on the other hand...<br /

[quote]Most players would move the groups around separately, and then join all the small groups together right in front of their target, kind of an instant super stack. And the AOE spells, at least as i imagine them, won't totally destroy an entire stack. Sure summoning a volcano spell would vanish a whole stack, but i thinking most would be more like the AOE spells weakening the super stack so it can be easily defeated, not destroying it outright.[/quote] I remember I was posting in

Well, there is "what I prefer" and then there is "what I think they should do." After all, what I prefer isn't what it going to help Stardock sell units of their game. I think the strategy Stardock is pursuing right now is what will sell the most games, because they are the professional programmers and publishers, thus they know better than I do on these matters. That being said... I would prefer to see single player consume the vast majority of resources, then

I'm not sure why you are quoting my post, Cerevox, because it sounds like you are arguing with someone else. Perhaps I didn't explain the difference between strategic and tactical well enough. I'm fine with AOE spells smacking an area and hitting everything in that area, but if they are too powerful then you are going to get some violently wonky outcomes. Also, AOE spells alone to control stack size will do absolutely nothing so solve the problem as, I'll mention below.&nbsp

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of balancing against big stacks with doom spells. I'd much rather see big stacks benefit tactically, but suffer strategically. I'm definately averse to capping, as it has nasty side effects. Epic battles need an Epic number of soldiers in them, so capping damages the realization of dynamic and Epic battles (you end up with a whole lot of battles where players are equally matched in number, *snooze*). But that's a minor concern of

Lol, what Wintersong said.

SRW, a masterful summary of multiplayer streamlining options. Keep up the good work! As far as on/off buttons are concerned, they are a win/win situation. Yes, Peace Pheonix makes a decent point. I can understand that a lot of extra development can go into certain options which can distract from developing core game principles, but everything included in the OP takes a trivial amount of programing and helps to bring in a broader range of multiplayer gaming tastes.&nb

[quote]I agree. I'm pretty dissappointed coming to these boards. I was expecting an adult exchange of ideas about something we all love but instead I'm finding open hostility, elitism and trolling, garnished with plenty of fallacious thinking. A lot of people seem to be putting their personal tastes way behind that of whats best for the title, Stardock and the fanbase that already exists. It seems we have some people here who have made a sport of arguing on Stardocks bo

Ratya, some intriguing ideas. Unfortunately, siege battles have never been very workable. Total War sieges made for some nice eyecandy, but they were dismal, tactically. It was waaay easy to game the AI, and is simply got too clunky and awkward. The siege systems I've enjoyed the most were from Lords of the Realm 1 and 2, but they were enjoyable because they were very, very simple. I would, of course, enjoy of more sophisticated siege system if they were workable

[quote who="Climber" reply="18" id="2558365"]So Elemental is destined to have multiplayer, which means it will run in to the same problem that every turn based game has when more than one human player is involved: one player will take longer than other players to complete their turn, leaving the other players waiting. Even if there is a time limit, slower players are likely going to run the clock down to the last second. I personally think that if you do have simultaneou

[quote who="Cerevox" reply="16" id="2558069"]Ya. Having little mini games with no effect, or mini games with effect that everyone can participate equally in are fine. Its just, if a mini game has an actual effect on the game, it should allow everyone to participate on even footing. If its based on speed of turn finish then its screwing over all the slow players and players with large empires. [/quote] Well, I would personally like to see the little guy keep at least a little bit

Thought it might be fun to revisit this idea.

Excellent ellaboration on the idea, Tasunke.

[quote who="Cerevox" reply="2" id="2556097"]I abhor this idea. Mini games are fine. Having mini games that actually effect the real game? terrible idea. It means that the person who clicks the fastest will have an edge. If that is the case, we might as well be playing a RTS instead of TBS. The only thing that should effect the game is the game itself, not some mini games that you can complete to gain extras and bonuses. If you don't like players taking a long time, put a timer that

I think it is odd, too, that the sovereign would lead a normal life. After all, some of the channelers we've already been told of were sons and daughters of powerful sorcerers. Did they discover their channeling ability only after the Cataclysm? Anywho, here are my suggestions: Federalist: 10 percent bonus to economy War Party: 10 percent bonus to war Whoops, got Galactic Civs 2 mixed up with Elemental... wait a second, this feature is just a rehash

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="107" id="2555485"] Quoting Demiansky, reply 103 I'm a fan of the time bank, but it still doesn't give the players something to do while their waiting on Joe S(chm)low. I ellaborated more on my mini-game idea here. Actually it's not a big issue imo. I've played many AoW II. MP games, and I never got bored while I was watching the moves of the other players in tactical battles. [/quot

I'm a fan of the time bank, but it still doesn't give the players something to do while their waiting on Joe S(chm)low. I ellaborated more on my mini-game idea here .

So Elemental is destined to have multiplayer, which means it will run in to the same problem that every turn based game has when more than one human player is involved: one player will take longer than other players to complete their turn, leaving the other players waiting. Even if there is a time limit, slower players are likely going to run the clock down to the last second. I personally think that

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="44" id="2554363"]Fair enough, but how about a "level cap" for barracks training?? I think level 3 for most settlements barracks, a City can get you to level 4 and 90% experience towards level 5, and a "Super Barracks" can train you to level 5 with 90% experience towards level 6. Does this sound fitting? Again, maybe no *total* level cap, but level 20, in my mind, should be the *sweet spot* where things start to come easily for the soldier, and

[quote who="Orvidos" reply="69" id="2555187"]The more I think about the concept of a 'time bank', the more I hate it. I generally don't play multiplayer TBS unless I'm talking directly to the people I'm playing with. If I weren't, I think rushing through a turn in 15/10/5 seconds would utterly ruin the experience for me. Part of the strategy genre to me is 'the mind game' Talking with your opponent, making

I personally think that if you do simultaneous turns, you need to provide as much incentive as possible for players to play efficiently and not soak up time (or disincentive.) On the same token, you want to give people who have already ended their turns something to actually do with their time while they wait. So here is my idea... Players that finish before the last player hits "end turn" take part in a mini-game with each player inside of their own minigame.&nb

So from what I know, the Empire races have a special land type they prefer and the Kingdoms have a special land type they prefer, each one thriving on its respective land type. But I'm curious: if this is the case, won't Kingdoms have an incentive to go to war against other Kingdoms and Empires with other Empires rather than the other way around? After all, when you are choosing a war path, a major consideration is whether the land you are conquering

Good concept, and I think it 's critical that large swathes of forest provide landscape beyond simply trees. I would personally like to see numerous hotspots where certain creatures live, foes and neutrals alike. Perhaps there are sub opponents in forests. For instance, units that roam the forest that are aligned with each other, but don't have specific cities. Once you attack one or treat too far, you end up at war with them. As for Istari's point, perhaps onl

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="66" id="2549441"]I'd love to see Stardock making a Civilization game, A 4000BC to 2050AD, human history game. Firaxis need some competition, and I'm sure the Frog would make the greatest Civilization-like game ever seen, and he would really love the task. Perhaps call it Frogboy's Empires or something. It's my dream for the next Stardock game. That said, I love Firaxis, Sid Meier, and the Civilization games, but we can