ubernaught

[quote]You lack drow and avariel in that list.[/quote] lol...nice, keepin it real eh winter ;)

[quote]As a non-competitive singleplayer type, I very much like the general idea of being a bit fuzzy on how close a rival is to ending the game. Especially if a good intelligence network can help reduce that fuzz more or less in proportion to the intel-counterintel resource totals for you & the faction you want to know about.[/quote] Aye, I agree with your espionage focus, although I love poring over my game graphs at cup of tea time, I think covering them with research-dispeling

[quote]people who's wives hair can be destroyed by a ceiling fan and who have to help take the wheels of their richest relatives new house, dont have the capacity to have valuable opinions[/quote] on the contrary...I bet they would know alot about caravans

Ah the old GC2 cloaking question... [quote]Make it so there is a fog-of-war, but roads in your lands give a base detection level (so you can see somethings on them like armies but a stealthy party of adventures passes un-noticed). Make a "world spell" that increases detection in all you lands. Make quests that have to be completed in enemy lands, and thus a small stealthy band of adventures sneak in to complete it. Make detection kinda like the detection system used in the 4X space ga

[quote]Let us not make every game a regicide, please.[/quote] This is exactly why I'd prefer the choice...because I could choose 'Yes' unless my games were being ruined by a regicide dynamic, in which case I'd change.

[quote]I gotta say that the only option I don't like is both. For cohesiveness sake you have to pick one. They can't both make sense.[/quote] Hi cephalo, can you explain that a bit more please? Why on Earth wouldn't you want the choice? Cohesive integrity, as you say, would surely be maintained if you never chose the one you didn't like?

that was pretty darn funny eh LEADER, watched these yesterday too. Man, that phantom menace one took me deeper than I ever wanted to go into that train wreck but it really did raise some baffling points, especially about how many lines of dialogue were completely nonsensical. The lack of a genuine protagonist really shocked me as well, I'd never even considered that before.

[quote]A "sneaky" Empire would be a guerrilla Empire. It would not have the forces for frontal assaults but it could face on equal foot pure militar Empires as long as it can amploy properly its spies to sabotage the enemy supply lines, poison the wells, perform selective assasinations... and obviously, fight dirty. It would require more skill for the "sneaky" player but I don't think that is something bad except for those without skill that insist in playing something they have no skill on.[

Both. More options = more awesome Though I imagine I'd choose 'yes' more often

[quote]Players get married, have children and those children will grow up. Those children can then be put into arranged marriages with the children of other sovereigns. When negotiating the marriage, one of the elements is whose family does the couple belong to. If they enter your family, you end up with a champion which is quite powerful. If they end up in their family, you have an heir which means that if that player quits (MP) or surrenders (AI) the player with the best claim to the thron

If this happened on total scale I'd quit the internet, it would be heartbreaking to see all the interesting subjects degenerate into personality orientated garbage. Anonymity, even if simulated, is the precondition for interesting conversations in my book. God I can just hear it now : 'You've changed man...' Vomit.

[quote]people would be amassing different types of power (Adventure/Magic/Diplomacy/Military divisions being the most obvious) that would clash in interesting ways[/quote] Absolutely...but don't forget "combine" in interesting ways too :) interesting ally arrangements will only enhance this! Great OP btw

[quote]After all, we are a visaully oriented species[/quote] I think you mean "I'm a visually orientated person." I couldn't give a flying flog for gfx and neither do plenty of people I know. As long as they convey meaning they have served their purpose. Good to see the Kiwi's in the mix...good luck guys.

here's some nothing, well...up to 6 mins at least...then there's...stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1xGASE6meo

[quote]enough ninja for you?[/quote] hehe...though i thank you, that's not quite what I was thinking of, it really is the first person vibe I'm after. Kind of like rpg/fps balance that deus ex achieved. I don't enjoy the 3rd person mechanic, or gamepads for that matter.

no

The maps will be bigger than reality

[quote]And then you got to paint them, read the rules, buy the core book, buy the Codex on your army..[/quote] I think that's all part of the hobby, lots of ppl love these activities

[quote]As to DRM, it really annoys me, especially when I am missold DRM - take Dragon Age. I was under the impression given by bioware themself) that there wasn't any horrible DRM (after the debacle of mass effect I made sure to look to see what DA:O would have) - there was only meant to be a cd check, no nasty online activation every few weeks or activation limits. However in reality you have to be online EVERY TIME you want to play the single player only game (if you use any DLC), as well a

lol...this rules so much

[quote]Dark City (1998)[/quote] Damn that's a good film...

ninja fps/rpg...I just cannot reconcile the idea that we, as a civilization, can churn out 4 call of duties, 3 battlefields, 2 deus exs, two and a half half lifes, 4 quakes, 3 dooms and yet no ninja game...fail humanity...fail

[quote]The A51 entry theme is where it's at for me, but the entire soundtrack for that game is absolute perfection.[/quote] Man...it's just so damn good eh...it's just ridiculous how much the soundtrack enhanced that game. I think I might do some remixes this weekend, separate the pacy from the ambient for some easy listening...man the memory of that hong kong soundtrack just makes me smile blissfully every time I think of it.

[quote]With civs with whom you have particularly good relations you can exchange knowledge but it should just mean an increase on RP/Turn got from Trade Routes.[/quote] Yeah I'm a big fan of this idea...I've posted this before but since its been a while... I'd like tech trading to be tied directly to relations, the better your relations, then the more you can trade. To counter the idea that everyone loves you when you have fifty dragons in your army, there should also be a neg

[quote]if you wanat to have a civil internet community, have everyone go by their first names. Seriously. It's amazing.[/quote] Aye, you are likely correct, though the trade off would be harsh. In my experience anonymity allows concepts to flourish and test themselves without the baggage of social anxieties, where people either filter or exacerbate their opinions on account of the percieved flow of public opinion. Though I understand that this will occur regardless, in the