Scoutdog

Um. I think we just have a syntax problem on our hands. Me and most everybody else assumed that Kitkun meant the people you mentioned in the second paragraph, and since (s)he did not correct us, we will continue to assume that. The DADT thing was just a (bad) joke on BlueJapan, by an individual who subsequently attempted to delete his/her post.

So really all you want is a "decay" function used by some (but not all) terrains. That seems doable.

[quote]I had?[/quote] Are you not a native English speaker? I'm not entirely sure if that ideom carries over into all other languages...... either that or you're just sarcasm-impaired.

Sigh...... how long until we find a cure for selecitve readingitis? [quote]Honestly I can't stand girls/women who go out of their way to make it known they are female when playing games online.[/quote] We are no talking about women who just say that they are female. We are talking about women who make an inordiantly large deal out of it. You claim you don't like it when men go out of their way to flaunt

[quote]The real point here is that people are debating something that is completely out to lunch. [/quote] Well, Winty had to ask...... I agree that we probably would never model pregnancy, but it's also a matter of explaining why we won't.

Well, by "the new economic model" I was referring to the resource system in general:nthe stuff about needing 10 iron to make a knight and all that. It seems like that would make it tougher to dupe units than standard MPs, hence the above comment.

[quote]I lolled at the parents censoring your gaming habits. for making me laugh. [/quote] Uhhhhh...... you do realise that I'm 15 and live with my parents, right? But seriously, they're hippies, and I'm not entirely sure how they'd react..... they've been bugging me to start dating random girls I go to school with for approximately two years now.

[quote]I never said they should be treated that way. I just this its absurd that women shouldn't be allowed to tell other people they are a women. Hell, most the games I play in, people don't know anything about me except some handle name. But the only way men can feel safe gaming is to work with the illusion that they are only playing with guys? If that is the case, grow the hell up.[/quote] Neither me or anyone else said that. We simply said that it's annoying when women "anomalize"

Yours is a large cat. Mine represents 150lbs of servo-powered Jovian steel, plus all of the sacred shards of magic united into one elite killing machine.

[quote]If the loss of some portion of your Research base is considered a reason to "rage quit" then the "Attackable Caravans" implementation should probably keep those types of folks totally away from the game at all. Imagine your enemy has found your richest caravan route between two manufacturing cities. He waits until it is 3/4 the way there, say 15 turns of traveltime, and then ambushes it, stealing/killing or simply destroying it. It contained the material requirmen

[quote]Umm....please don't flame me for my "noobishness", but I have to ask..... I have never played a game like this... (ie. RPG/Fantasy etc.) so I don't really have any idea what to expect. You could ask, why would I even consider this game? Well it's a STARDOCK product and my experiences with them speak for themselves. I guess I would just like to know wether I'll be "eased into the game" by tutorials or whether I'm fated to staying a fantasy/rpg nub becau

I have a tendancy to use general statements like that out of convenience: it gets annoying having to type "largely", "almost", "usually", etc. all the time, and I am assuming that other people on the forum understand that generalizations are usually false. When speaking to someone who I doubt understands that concept (like trolls), I become much more specific.

[quote]unless they die...[/quote] Even then, I would assume that they would send regualr backups of their notes to other scientists and the channeler himself. We've pretty much agreed that a commodity of information system would be more trouble than it's worth for the vast majority of players.

Well, I could see a "boot strength" variable for equipment that decreases movement buffs...... but that would probably not be used by the player, because the amount of effort required to make them would be more than the potential payoff of higher speed that only works in certain cases.

I think that a more snesible soution would be to have a DELAY in research as your people re-integrate to new labs: for two turns or whatever, you simply don't research on that tech. It's realistic, but it also doesn't unfairly nerf people. In fact, I'd say it's even MORE realistic: if you destroy a lab, scientists don't just magically forget all of their work.

[quote]Without medical or magical means of birth control (and their consistent, correct use), any sufficient mass of soldiers will generate pregnancies, and if some soldiers are female, some pregnancies will be 'in uniform.'[/quote] True, but if they did get pregnant, they would die in short order. I, personally have never been pregnant (I'm 15 and male), but the woman down the street had a baby recently, and belive me: there is no way that someone in that condition

[quote]Definitely less to be sure... [/quote][e digicons]:borg:[/e] , myself.

The OT forum is shared across (almost?) every Stardock site.

[quote]Most of us are human[/quote] More or less......

Bad idea: eating stale breakfast for dinner.

[quote]Why look at the glass half empty? If it is bad for YOU to lose research when you lose a city it would be EQUALLY bad for your opponent. Really, it adds a whole new dynamic to the game, because as you got near completion of a major research project, you might want to call in a few of your roaming armies to protect your research investment (if it was in any danger in the first place.[/quote] That may be, but losing your research on a big tech every time the bad guys come knocking

[quote who="Tamren" reply="8" id="2310057"] Quoting Scoutdog, reply 5Well, my first guess would be "no". Generally, militaries have rules against that, and a pregnant soldier usually becomes a dead soldier very, very quickly. Sure if by pregnant you mean too wide to fit through doors. But there are some situations where drafting women as well as men makes sense. The simplest example is when you have no choice.[/quote] By "pregnant" I mean "going to have a baby in ≈8 mo

[quote]When someone at the front of a group starts moving slowy it will not have any effect if the unit as a whole doesn't get ordered to move faster than that figures top speed. If that did happen then it has an effect on the rest of the unit. Faster members will move around them like water flowing around a rock which slows them as well. Eventually they will drop all the way back to the rear of the unit. This is the tricky part. What are you going to do now? In order to maintain u

[quote]Would playing with gender in the military units affect population growth?[/quote]\ Well, my first guess would be "no". Generally, militaries have rules against that , and a pregnant soldier usually becomes a dead soldier very, very quickly. Also, in the games I am used to playing, population is measured in thousands, millions, and billions: individual births don't count for much, although in the screens we've seen the population is much smaller, on the scale of 10s to h

[quote]-Will we get dwarves, elves and orcs?[/quote] For the first two, I think that the answer is a resounding "no". Orcs might appear in some dungeons, but they would probably be more like trolls than Tolkein orcs.[quote]-Will units be only of one gender? Can be there mixed genders in the same unit and/or units of a different gender than the standard (supposed male)? Would playing with gender in the military units affect population growth?[/quote] Do you consider a "unit" to