If its not too confusing, it would be nice to have BOTH lots of resources on the map AND expensive magical way(s) to enchant common materials -- both "enchanted steal" swords and mithril swords, and then maybe "adamantium" is just "enchanted mithril".
A, B & C are all un-cool. In my own programming projects (you get one guess which language) choices like that mean it is time to re-visit the things I thought I had decided. For starters, separate the potions, magic leaves, etc, from the design process and let any unit or hero who carries them get the benifit (surely you weren't going to have potions for ordinary units and not for heroes, were you?). Having fewer required ingredients means that the A/B/C choice won't h
I also like the idea of many resources, if it is implemented in a way that doesn't cause too much micromanagement playing on a huge-size map. This also goes for optional resources, happiness resources, etc. I think there could be tons of separate happiness resouces, not just wine, but also furs, spices, etc. Ideally each each city to benefit a little from having enough of that resource, but no extra benefit from a surplus, so might as well send it to another city, or trade
I played Parriden, lost sight for a few levels, but later he started gaining sight again (this game lasted a long time and I got more levels than I have seen before). I think in another thread soon after .23 came out, the devs were aware....
FWIW, I'm on ATI, and I don't have this issue. Drivers pretty current (one day older than the OP's. ATI 2600 xt (yes, a bit old & underpowered). XP pro. Intel Core2 Duo. Anybody else want to join in and we can see if there is a pattern to driver version, windows version, hardware, etc?
So I move my sovie to what I think is an empty spot. Then I get a dialog box asking if I really want to attack the Sovereign. I say NO. Combat happens anyway. If he's is attacking me, why ask me if I want to attack? If you ask, why not pay attention to my answer? If he attacked me, why? I'm minding my business, outside his territory, not at war. Its a win for me because I've leveled up and he hasn't. So in that case his AI needs some
"I had always hoped they would add something like this to GalCiv2" They need it more now -- more terrain-types & roads, etc. Less empty space between stars. I think/hope the devs have some common sense about what makes sense to carry over and what doesn't.
They handle this pretty well in GalCiv 2 - the "find" button finds the next unit with remaining movement and no active orders. I'd guess they will do that but haven't gotten around to implementing it yet.
I'm also in favor of the OP general concept. Lots like GC2 except you can see them (at least most of them) on the map before you build. Also like MOM -- darn, almost everything good is like MOM :) I think / hope its a shoe-in. The beta is off to a promising start with mines & shards (if they worked). Why would they start like that if they weren't going to do at least as much of it as GC2 ?
#1 seems too complicated to me, especially for late-game with large map (as many others have said). And I agree with those who don't love sliders. It's much worse if you have to separately make swords at a blacksmith, as described in the OP, than it would be if they decreed that making a swordsman requires, recruits, iron & blacksmith, so the swords are made automagically when the unit is recruited. BTW, in any system I think recruits could be sent from town to town li
Me too, in both .22 & .23, every game. Glad someone got a screeny.
Even if they go with *NO* control over skills gained WHEN LEVELING, you will still have tons of flexibility in customizing your sovereign at the start (at least I hope so -- anyway its a separate question). Your choices then should largely determine the sovereigns subsequent upgrade path, even if you don't control each skill directly. If you start mostly spellcasting, the upgrades won't try to force you to convert him to a Conan-the-Barbarian type (I hope). That ought to
In most games I have played, unit strength is closely proportional to recruit-cost, recruit-time, maintenance-cost and the time/cost to build the building or research the spell that lets you get them. I'd like some variety, like maybe units with low reseach cost and build cost, but high maintenance, or high reseach cost & build time, but low maintenance (think Kensai in Shogun Total War, or war-dogs in RomeTW), etc. Of course, in a design-your-own-units game like Elemental
I just want to put in a plug for an MOM-like system, where some heros are just plain better than others. Start stronger. Gain more power each time they gain a level. Etc. Also harder to get. But, just for variety, maybe there could also be a few heroes who start weaker than most but grow faster, and some dead-enders who start strong but don't gain much per level.
FWIW, in my vision even vassals could have vassals, with no fixed limit on how many layers there can be -- vassals can be very powerfull in their own right. I think it would be fun to start off under the protection of someone else, and see if I can outgrow him without rebelling.
Sounds good. If the devs don't do it the modders probably will.
I like the MOM approach. For those who haven't played it, if you have sufficient magic capability, a spell is cast which eventually brings you back (possibly to a dinky little village if that all he had left -- a tower would be created there automagically). There is PLENTY of death-penalty because it takes a lot of mana, and you are without your spell caster for a long time. There's a bit of mis-understanding above, thinking MOM & AOW:SM were the same. In AOW:SM
I'd like to see the soveriegn on the map, as much like other heroes as possible. I'm not worried about his early death meaning end-of-game because I think one of his kids will inherit, or maybe there will be some way to bring him back to life (there's a thread on that somewhere). Otherwise will cheat-load like a maniac, and I may anyway :)
Actually, I vote the reverse of the OP. Been there done that in AOW:SM. Once I figured out what combination of stats and equipment made a killer unit, it was too much tempation to build everyone the same way every time. Effective but boring. MOM was better - diff heroes leveled different ways. That plus a few unique abilities (like cloudwalking) gave it a lot more variety of heroes despite having fewer of them. More replay value. Of course the m
Slowdown for me too. XP sp3 3gb ram, ati 2600xt.
Still on .23
Quoting Frogboy many pages (and months) ago.... "I don't know if this counts as tech randomization but we are planning to have a pool of techs that are are inserted into games based on whether they make their probability roll. I.e. certain techs would show up in some games but not in others. Not core techs but ones that spice things up in different directions." If they can't stand to have core techs NEVER show up in some games, just randomly have them
"loot owned by a defeated enemy is lost" Not actually the case this time. I won. The king & two pawns survived, with just one pawn dead. Ring missing. edit 09/24/2009 10pm pst - anyway, my main beef was with the pawn apparently being in command of the stack and getting the ring in the first place.
So I built some pawns to help the sovereign take out some trolls. Maybe I moved them out of the city in the wrong order, but one of the pawns was on top of the stack (when I clicked on the stack, I saw, his stats, not the sovereign's. Shouldn't channelers & heroes always be on top of the cannon-fodder ? Then when I took the troll base, the pawn got a ring that I would have wanted to go to the king. Looks like loot goes to the stack leader. I can live wi
But shouldn't moving units be a little more visible than stationary ones? OK, not necessarily visible halfway around the world, but visible a little bit inside the fog-bank.