Scoutdog

[quote]Tell us what you think.[/quote]Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[quote]Tell us what you think.[/quote]Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[quote]I know what internally consistent means. I am arguing that it has little value in game design.[/quote] As I said before, it's not the rules that need to be consistent, it's the explanation for those rules. In any event, the problem with a stack limit is not in the internal consisstency, it is in the explainability and believability. I only even mentioned internal consistency becuase it is closely related to explainability and believability.</

[quote]The problem with this is that it becomes a simple matter to calculate the cost of 50 peasants vs 9 paladins. Once this calculation is done, there is no reason to use the less efficient unit. It boils the entire game down to an equation.[/quote]Unless you don't have the more efficicent unit...... as emmagine said, not every game will have equal resources. [quote]So what is the point of training your troops if it reduces the number of them that you're allowed to field? [

[quote]Will folks still be choosen randomly, besides the lucky dozen handpicked folks?[/quote] I am assuming so.

[quote]Very few games, if any, are internally consistent. It's really an anal criterion to have and it doesn't add anything to the gameplay.[/quote]\From Wikipedia:[quote] In statistics and research , internal consistency is a measure based on the correlations

Bad idea: having a bad idea. (sort of saw that coming, didn't you)

[quote]Complexity doesn't require an annoying, superficial addition that behaves in a contrarian manner. [/quote] I would agree with you, except that there is no annoying, superficial addition that behaves in a contrarian manner open for discussion in this thread. [quote]Raiding party evades detection by normal units, attacks building, and either succeeds or fails based on whether or not you get the shit kicked out of you by those normal units defending the area.[/qu

[quote]Wintersong! did they update to allow for animated gifs? What file type did you use to make that cat avatar?[/quote] Actually, this has existed for quite some time, but the animations stop whenever Bara messes with the forum code: I think the way I've seen it done is to rename the GIF to JPG, then upload it, but I'm not sure.....

[quote]In a lot of games religion is a non-factor so how do you deduct a general rule in the first place?[/quote] Huh? Not quiiiiite sure what you're getting at here...... well, the devs have been rather candid about most everythibg in the game so far (broad stroaks if not the details) and no-one has said a word about religions: it's like the thought hasn't come up.

[quote]You then spend an unreasonable amount of time engaging in and defending against over powered, high risk operations who's effects suck the fun out of the game by adding large amounts of needless management repairing all the one click damage.[/quote] Well, if you personally don't like it, then you can always disable it..... however, 75% of the people who posted on this thread agree that they want more complexity, and that is what decides the optimal level.......

[quote]It's inevitable, every time someone implements an espionage system into a 4X game, it sucks.[/quote] Well, there's a first time for everything, and in my judgement spy systems almost always fail becuase they're not complex enough : the simple tasks and techniques available do not allow the polayer to make "spymaster" a viable gameplay strategy, and thus people find them boring, routine, and useless. An entirely hero-based system would possibly work, but

I just went out of my mind with anticipation. Just a few seconds ago.

[quote]Why does something have to make more sense to be preferable in this situation? This is a fantasy game after all, much of fantasy does not make sense.[/quote] True, but it muse be believable, explained , and internally consistent: Players will expect some sort of reason , be it scientific, magical, or practical, why only nine units can be stacked. A logistics or command point system goes a

Hello, newcomer! Glad to have you on"board" [e digicons]:P[/e] ....... Ok, it's offical: I've been reading too many Star Trek books..... [e digicons]:fuzzy:[/e] (EDIT: that was.... strange........) Oh, and when Luckmann calls your name, remember: giant dog cavalry is superior to the common bear. [e digicons]:dog:[/e]

[quote]I mean, what is the benefit exactly?[/quote] Well, there's the fact that you won't screw up the rabble/elite balance. And that it makes more sense than an arbitrary limit. [quote]in my opinion, damages your ability to assess units in a natural way and likely will lead to the creation of charts that rank "damage per point" or "health per point".[/quote] And is that such a bad thing? I for one enjoy both making charts and reading them, and judging by the

Well, not knowing how training and attack mechanics will work, I can only hazard a guess that it would involve adding the number of days trained to the stat bonuses provided by the weapons. However, depending on how things turn out, it could be some bizzarre, esoteric equation system.

[quote]The units having a lag was therefore old in Civ.[/quote] True, but it doesn't make much difference in the long run: the point is, l ag is old . Brad, did you hear that?

[quote]I think the middle ground is a limit based on production or cost or something, like I edited into my last post after the fact. If you've got say 1000 production worth of units in any combination, and I've got 1000 production worth of units in any combination, then if we're using the designer well and there isn't some really out of whack ability, we should be able to have roughly fair battles even if we use wildly different units. The big units take more to build and thus you can't have

This is not MoM. the channeler does not stay in his captal city casitng spells all the time. If you so choose, you can go Gandalf and make a superpowerful channeler to kill your enemies. Making a lot of poorly-trained troops is not the dominant tactic. In GC2, we devoted pages to finding a way around that game's version of the problem, which involved Huge-hulled starships killing everything they fought. Now we have

[quote]I know, I was talking about the other mechanic. [/quote] Oh, in that case: definately no training limit. Hopefully no one-turn lag, either.

[quote]9 unit limit. That's right, you can have no more than 9 units occupying a single map square. This means "stacks of doom" a la Civilization series are impossible to achieve. Therefore, your ability to "barrel through" the enemy's territory is severely limited by the damage and losses you accumulate.[/quote]Bagh. What mechanic stops you from just making a two, three, or four-square army? [quote]Defender moves first! This means that when an attacker moves his stack of 9 u

Bad idea: breathing in mercury vapor.

[quote]If they impose a minimum one day training in order to make the unit? Then you can't do that.[/quote] Not a one-day minimum training: a one-day lag in the production, as in GC2, civ, and probably a lot of other games with "get it now" features.

[quote]And yes, I don't just want to imply that every trait has a negative and positive offset - I actually say it straight out, which is why they're free and potentially limitless. They're there to change your nation, add fluff or spice, fine tune it or to play on your likes and dislikes.[/quote] Hmmm.... I like the point system better, but they could still be both negative and positive.... a pointless system would be waaayyy to easy to exploit..... just so some were net positive and