fimiki

What rankles me is that so many environmentalist crusaders want to have their cake and eat it too. As EvilTesla mentioned earlier, any action we take will have some impact. "No impact man" is a myth. Here are some examples of confused enviromentalism with regards to clean energy: 1) Hydroelectric power is practically 100% clean energy. It does not produce any waste. Yet dams are being destroyed in order to restock rivers with salmon. A

It seems like there are two important ideas when it comes to the strategic purpose of resources. Idea 1: [quote]I want my Nation to be defined by it's resources. [/quote] This idea envisions resources as a way to shape and diversify factions according to the resources they have in abundance. This would promote diversity and keep games original and fresh by causing factions to specialize based on their geographical and diplomatic sit

[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="63" id="2397173"]I think being able to have a "trickle" of every nessessary resourse is a must. Learm from Civ4's mistakes: I've played Civ4 for years, and I can't tell you how really bad it is for gameplay to not have oil, or horses, or iron, and you absoulutely can NOT make a unit if you don't have the resourse. On the other hand, if you get more than one resourse of each type, it's near useless, which gives no incentive to aquire and

I like C, but the problem of managing units of the same name but variable equipment and stats would be problematic, and dealing with the notices and changes could be pretty annoying. My vote is for a variant of B for most resources (and A for ultra "rare" resources should there be a distinction, depending on how the resource system pans out). Reason : Today, and in ancient times, you could pretty much get anything you wanted to for

Yet another guy ready to opine on the economic trade system... For me, a person who loves min/maxing my games, option 1 sounds delicious. The problem with option 1 of course is scalability in the late game: one could spend the majority of the turn rerouting the trade routes as described earlier in the thread as new resources become available or new technoligies require a different organization. Option 3 then sounds like the best option: built it, and the resources

Agreed. If you build a city in unformed terrain you have the oportunity to cancel it when the game asks you if you want to spend essence or not, but there is no opportunity to cancel a city if you are building in improved terrain.

I first heard about Stardock from a friend in college who had purchased GalCiv. It's been awesome watching the company continue to grow and expand into the PC game industry, and I couldn't resist pre-ordering a game that sounds like a fusion of my favorite elements from previous games that I have played. Hope that I'll be able to provide some useful and relevant feedback as the beta progresses. Good luck Stardock!