landisaurus

I'm actually hoping that this will run on my 2.5GHz laptop. (I don't remember the video card, which tells you how bad it is. I know its an nvidea chipset, but I don't recall what. It doesn't support pixel shader 2) MoM and a few other dos box games are about all I run on it right now, avoiding games like warcraft or starcraft because I usually don't have a real mouse. Of course, if the combat in this is totally real time (they said it can be played turn based)

[quote] Now logic would dictate that the Riflemen would hose the bowmen, but for some perverse reason the archers win! [/quote] Well, some of that is that the bowmen have setup defences and stuff. Really rifles arn't that much better than bows if the archers can find a way to bring the riflemen within kill distance. [quote]Or worse, you send a tank to crush crossbowmen and the tank is scrap.[/quote] Yeah, that is pretty stupid. I can't defend this one.&nbsp

[quote]I've never seen a land-based strategy game that feels like this.[/quote] I hope that is a good. Are you suggesting you have played non-land based strategy games that feel like it? or that it is totally unique

World of Goo was one of those "this is probebly going to be meh" buys for me. I was so very pleased. I bought sins of a solar empire also not expecting very much from it, however I bought it specifically to support stardock because I knew they were working on a then-unannounced psudo-MoM sequel. I've purchased a few indy game titles almost entirely for support of the industry as well. Another better than I expected game purchase was one call

yeah... we are all awaiting those answers. I'm sure we are going to have as noob safe as it can be for unit customization. I hope that there is a system or formula that helps hold balance within the units. Things like having a stat to cost conversion rate is how it should happen. Possibly having time based on what is required in a tech tree to have it. I'm generally really existed to hear. Frogboy's been giving us b

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="22" id="2084414"] I played it! Although, not as much as I would have liked. I think I just had a demo, so I didn't get to fully enjoy its gameplay. Pretty advanced for back in the Windows 95 era. [/quote] Its true! Truely a piece of art. I'd buy a second copy if I could just so I could give it to people, sadly nobody sells it new. On a mechanics level it still almost stands up to

[quote]a DnD setting called Darksun[/quote] I love dark sun, for the record. I played darksun all the time around the same time as master of magic. In fact, I have a pretty bad Dark Sun PC game that I bought at the exact same time as master of magic. I bot both at a computer game sale when, I remember picking them both out of the bin thinking that dark sun was going to be the best one with master of magic being the only other one that didn't look bad.&nbs

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="9" id="2085290"]I agree with you about the leadership skill. It's something we'll have to play with during the beta. Hope you all pre-ordered. [/quote] hell yeah! (said in a really deep and raspy voice for dramatic effect) I had money set aside for this game prior to it being announced. :D I pre-ordered the moment I could! (even applied for a programing job posted on the s

I don't see how its different from an attribute then. There is no point for a 2nd system, which was the point I was trying to make. it just allows you to check what attributes a unit has by the name of the attribute. You would have an attribute called "undead" or "dragon" and then spells would check for it. I'm down for having simple attributes that help define the creature as belonging to a catigory for spells or something, but there shouldn't be a 't

[quote]If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the zooming in Elemental could work similarly to how it does in GC2. If so, well that's pretty much a given. More than a given, really.. We know there will be a cloth map zoom level, where the terrain and everything on it is replaced by an abstracted representation of it all; and we know that we will be able to zoom in and view the actual world itself - we just don't know how far we'll be able to go, or what detail it will be rendered i

I have been waiting for this. (not metal gear solid quote) I still see a grid, though I guess thats because its on graph paper. I guess it still does not give us much info about the combat mechanically. So here 'turns' or stated, but its mentioned that real time be a factor as well. Are turns just going to be set-time frames in an otherwise real-time environment? How is animation going to scale for this? In m

I'd expect that once we create an attribute that let it not be effected by the healing spell, the it wouldn't be any different from adding a 'tag'. you just pick it from the list to add to the unit. The problem with 'tags' is what if you want to mix and match. like having an undead animal alien dragonoid with cybernetic enhancements? There would be no way to do it if there is a tag feature. I wouldn't be able to tell if it should be undead

[quote who="markgil" reply="6" id="2083847"]who's to say that there won't be an MOM2 in addition to E-WOM? who knows, perhaps a company like 1C has already bought the rights and is working on a true MOM sequel as we speak? i for one would be ecstatic to have both! [/quote] Last I checked 1C is working on a fantasy wars sequel. I mean maybe, but it seems unlikely. But I do like to hope. Personally I have more faith in E:WoM than I do anyt

the scope of Elemental is certainly something else. (I was just making a post about graphical scope of ewam involving the notion of zooming in to the point that leaves are apparent) Now is the time to take risks I guess. I mean this game is turning to be something really worth buying. Right now the US is going through a poor economic state, so it would be best to ensure whatever product turned out is one that will have a shelf life through until the next e

[quote]The last I heard was zoom in to see leaves on trees[/quote] that was a very old comment by frogboy, Its the last I heard too, but they have not really been pushing that recently as far as I've seen. It would be really awesome, but I'm not sure how they would do it without having to create several vastly different layer detail for each model. Not just normal drop in poly count, but on completetly different scales with leaf and grass physics. I

[quote]Which, incidentally, is also great advice for when the Tax Man cometh.[/quote] ugh, I still need to deal with him on state level >.

[quote]Do you expect someone to actually edit all the living units and provide each of them an attribute for one spell ?[/quote] no, we expect them to edit all undead so that they are not healed by that spell.

I've not much to add since it really sounds like SD has their own ideas about trade and other echonomics, so I'm inclined to take the side lines until I've at least a sample of what they have before I start helping construct something that might be grossly different from what the game actually is.

lol, thanks! yeah I've seen that. Such a good pic (actually, there are some editing mistakes, but only if you're looking very hard). Where's luckmann, he'd really love it. I hope we can use those in elemental ^_^

[quote who="bleeba" reply="3" id="2081538"]Good post pigeon2! Just amusing myself thinking about invisable walls. It would be funny if faster units actually received some damage from encountering an invisable wall. Horse riders or someone with boots of speed could knock themselves out over such an object! [/quote] I would almost want animation of that (havok physics can probebly do it for us). I wonder if a rider would dismount himself with his lance

[quote]the scope of the world is in the hands of the player.[/quote] or the limits of the machine if 32-bit :P you mention the 'frequency of ... items' So are items going to be present on the world map HoMM style? I kinda assumed they would only be found in dungeons and things like that, but you made them sound different from dungeons and creatures.

If said oracle of all knowing was a bottle neck for everybody's quests, I can see some interesting dynamics based on "do I want to garrison some forces here in hopes to protect the knowledge from others, at the same time giving away its location. Or do I want to take my forces elsewhere to bolster my forces to actually achieving the quest, but letting other players have access to the oracle" Obviously if you're powerful enough though you can probebly stop other&n

[quote]However that being said, powerful artifacts should be difficult to destroy (much like the one Ring in LOTR), but they should be lost if the character who possesses them dies. Then you could fulfill a quest to get the item back, or if someone else managed to end up with the powerful item through capture (or simply stumbling upon it) they could fulfill a quest to destroy it (or risk losing it or having it corrupt whichever hero possesses it). Minor magical items on the other hand shoul

How is this off-topic? Unlike the 'you play too much when' threads, which might pertain to real life (i.e. off topic) this is pretty much... about as on-topic as you get. Shouldn't it have been under the "sins of a solar empire: General" section? Its true. I like locking down stars with 4 of them too. I think I like watching TEC bases fighting the most. Now if only they shot a huge beam from their center :P

[quote who="gambitraven" reply="24" id="2080023"]when ever you get on the highway and say ENTERING PHASE SPACE[/quote] I say "jump drives, at maximum" :P