Tridus

Yeah, I wouldn't want to go that way. Being turn based is part of the appeal of a game like this.

[quote who="aLap" reply="22" id="2237923"] Yes, if you're playing with people on a LAN (or use Hamachi to fake a LAN). Yes, you could fake it, but then latency could be even more of an issue. Good luck with that. Messy, messy stuff... [/quote] Latency in a turn based game isn't really an issue to begin with, unless you're talking about numbers in the thousands. I played Demigod for 3 weeks using Hamachi, and it works pretty well.

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="18" id="2237859"] That is the general gist of the issue. I don't see what the problem is. Why there's this extreme urge to force everyone to play on Stardock's own dedicated servers.[/quote] You didn't own Demigod for the first 3 weeks, did you? I couldn't play, at all, except using Hamachi (which fakes a LAN). The connection stuff was a total fiasco. A lot of that is because of the issues the modern Internet has with two users trying to connect to ea

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="14" id="2237754"] So what you're really saying is that this whole "games are hosted by us, achtung!" is in all actuality optional? Because I just can't really wrap my head around how "all will be hosted on our servers" and "you will be able to host your own LAN games" can co-exist. And if both exists, "our servers" optional, meaning that you'll have to work on both scenarios and make them work properly, what would be the point of t

[quote who="Szaijan" reply="24" id="2008933"]It was mentioned in a Mercury News article a month or so ago... sounded pretty fait accompli at the time. Sorry I don't have the time to look it up right now. It was an overview of Apple moves and was part of the story on their pull out from Mac World, I think. I suppose the fact that moving to Intel processors was an actual user friendly move on Apple's part makes it easy for me to believe they'll discontinue it ASAP.

[quote who="azraelck" reply="9" id="2234784"] And I suggest you re-read both the original post and my own. You obviously didn't. [/quote] And I suggest you re-read the rest of the thread, since the two of you are just talking at each other now. A good chunk of the thread is trying to convince them to change their minds and put LAN/PBEM/Hotseat/Whatever back in (if it's actually been removed, but since Hotseat/PBEM don't actually require multiplayer conne

[quote who="psychoak" reply="25" id="2234043"] This wouldn't mean they're hosting all the content, it would mean you start a game and their server manages your connection and puts you together, instead of having one of you be the host. I believe that's the method Battlenet uses. They could restrict you to only using their servers to play multiplayer, but they wouldn't have to. [/quote] The game creator acts as host in Battle.net games (except for Diablo 2 "closed

Frogboy, this is a form of torture. :P Can't wait!

[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="19" id="2232871"] This is irrational and ridiculous. What for ? If you truly don't care about multiplayer, why limit it to your servers ? Why not allow players to run modded servers ? If you don't intend to spend time on polishing the multiplayer part of the game, it would make perfect sense to let players take care of it. By allowing running servers, especially modded servers themselves. For some reason this smells of multiplayer DRM to me. Are you afraid that

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="20" id="2232627"]This only pertains to your first type of doom stack. The 2nd type where you build an army containing all your best units really can't be stopped per se. Stardock would have to make sure that isn't the only tactic that works AKA make mass cheap units a viable counter to the elite super squad army. [/quote] It can. The second type of stack of doom (only elite units) can be stopped by among other things, the firs

Yeah. I'm hoping he means that for Internet games. Not having LAN play at all is pretty lame. :(

We haven't gotten an answer about LAN play since that first quote was said by Frogboy. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that its gone quite yet. Clarification would be helpful though.

Yeah, those are things I've mentioned too. If I want to put my entire army into one stack, it makes an awfully tempting target for some world altering magic. It's also slow, and gives you only one thing to defend against. Glad to see someone agrees. :)

I don't really get why everybody wants to prevent a stack of doom so badly. They happen in real life too. When you're getting ready for a major push traditionally, you don't send groups of 10 soldiers all over the place. You form up a few thousand and siege the keep. There's strength in numbers. I mean, do you *really* want a game where if you want to bring an army to bear on a well fortified city, you can't do it as a stack? So you line up 200 units, and move them all individually in

Thanks for doing the survey![e digicons]k1[/e]

In terms of multiplayer, you *will* be able to play multiplayer. Since it uses the same lobby code that Demigod does (Impulse Reactor), once they add things like pre-arranged matches to Demigod, Elemental will also get them. (Elemental games are server hosted though, so there should be fewer connection problems then with Demigod's early days.) When Brad says he "doesn't care about multiplayer", he's talking about balance. This kind of game is primarily played single pla

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="2" id="2230798"]I think that you should have to option to conscript/draft units, but at the cost of town approval, unit morale, and the potential of draft dodgers (i.e. the conscription starts to not produce units if you do it too much), with the "damage" getting more severe the more you draft. [/quote] Conscription basically already exists. It's when you make 5000 troops with no training whatsoever. Troops are pulled from your town pop

[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="10" id="2230540"] Incidently this topic has kinda moved a bit beyond the original 2/3/4 camps, Its getting hard to see what model with modifications the actual majority approve of or are arguing for anymore. It could use some major clean up and possibly a repost with an update to the camps or something along those lines [/quote] I don't think it matters. This isn't a vote, Stardock isn't going to do whatever we vote on just because we voted on it

We'll know when it starts going up, because we'll get credit card charges, emails about credit card charges, and a 2000 page forum thread full of "I got mine!" and "where is mine!?" :D We haven't had an update since Boogie's "we're on track for June" and Frogboy's "we're not going to see it in June". When July 1 rolls around, I'll start pestering for another update.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="14" id="2229201"] Why sort through it? If resources are only going to places that use them, which is what 3 will do without any changes at all, you're either using your infrastructure, or you aren't. If you're not using it, junk it or let the storage facilities cap out for emergency production at some later point. If you are using it, the resources are going to arrive anyway, so why bother keeping track of individual caravans? I don't

[quote who="Climber" reply="9" id="2228552"] Climber: Your suggestion above (or any one suggesting an abstract empire-wide warehouse/stockpile) means MR teleportation, which is not well liked here especially when we want caravans handling resource transport a bit more convincingly. The Camp#4 has certain charatistic of MR teleportation and it is not well liked here. [/quote] I know it's not well liked, it's not even my preferred option (1 and 3 are). But it is go

[quote who="Ellestar" reply="17" id="2227712"] Yes, several people in that thread https://forums.elementalgame.com/345012/ - 1st post on 3rd page etc. [/quote] Oy. That's just silly. Calling the greatest RTS of all time not a strategy game is pretty far out there. :P [quote who="Ellestar" reply="17" id="2227712"] Anyway, let's say our empire has 50 resources out of 110. If we want even the most basic overview, we need to know current reserv

[quote who="Ellestar" reply="13" id="2227506"]Now, let's try Dominions 3. Just about everyone here agreed that it's a significantly more complex game, "a real strategy" (while Starcraft isn't LOL) etc. However, can you really do a "convoy raiding" there? Not really, IIRC at best you have some spells and some specific tacics with domain spread. That's because the game is not designed that way. So, the complexity of the game or it's economic system doesn't really matter if you want "convoy raid

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="21" id="2226610"]Quoting Istari, reply 17 Brad has mentioned that the hero's leadership ability determines the size of the army. are all armies lead by heroes HoMM style? I was under the impression you could have troops out on their own MoM or Civ style. [/quote] It could be that you need a "hero" unit to actually act as an army. In GC2 if you can't form a fleet due to logistics, the ships can still travel in a stack, but they

[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="11" id="2226349"]Here is a question my friends and I have: One of the biggest downfalls in Heroes of Might & Magic is that one "General" can hold/lead as many troops as he wants. This leads to the "stack of death" syndrome; everyone has one main hero that carries around 90% of his troops, and the other generals (if they even bother to buy more than one) do nothing but sit in the castle and/or are errend boys, transporting troops or weekly treasure f