RavenX

[quote who="Fenrirw0lf" reply="99" id="2771987"]I don't think a lot of people get that raven isn't talking about reworking the whole game for bigger battles, just pretty much giving you bigger unit stacks to make the battles feel bigger. I sign for this. Also I don't recall raven saying anywhere that he wanted it to happen before the vital balancing issues, he just wanted to see it in the game. Most likely it wouldn't happen until one of the expansions. Despite not cha

Well, I started this thread simply to prove a point, and I think that point has been proven pretty well. In the few hours I've been gone at the doctors I've gotten 4 points of Karma just from this post. I think that says something, don't you? Thanks for standing up everyone. I knew all it needed was a push in the right direction and for someone to just put it out there bluntly. Hey Stardock, WE WANT EPICNESS PLEASE!!!! :) I just got back from being poked and prodded at th

[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="8" id="2771294"]You have to remember that those old screenshots are representative of when tactical battles were real-time, but that changed during the beta. Turn-based battles with hundreds of individual units would be annoying to the point that I think most players would just as soon auto resolve everything.[/quote] You're not seeing the "big picture" my friend. You Won't be clicking on hundreds of individual men because those men would Still be in

[quote who="MrCapitalG" reply="13" id="2771303"] Quoting Tridus, reply 9 Unfortunately it does have to be real time for a picture like that to work. TBS combat simply doesn't function with that many things happening at once. You'll have lots of guys standing around while one does something. It will *never* look that way. This is just the old "definition of epic" argument from months ago again. I don't see how just increasing the number of guys on screen

[quote who="Tridus" reply="9" id="2771295"]Unfortunately it does have to be real time for a picture like that to work. TBS combat simply doesn't function with that many things happening at once. You'll have lots of guys standing around while one does something. It will *never* look that way. [/quote] This is what animations are for my friend. I've played plenty of turn based war games where you pick a squad of men and mêlée attack another squad of men. Assuming neith

[quote who="MrCapitalG" reply="2" id="2771283"]Have I missed something, how would this work, to my knowledge this game wasn't total war and unless it were real-time, how would this function? I know I don't have the time to individually move hundreds of units, but if someone could explain how this might work... I kinda like that tactical battles the way they are, but maybe this is something different? [/quote] You wouldn't be moving hundreds of men individually. You'd give o

[quote who="alborrelli" reply="3" id="2771270"]Yes... the people that started the 1 Billion other threads about the "Out of Memory" error also feel that way. And I agree (though I don't have it often). Having said that.. could you (and everyone else) please please please use the damn "search" tool or spend 2 min looking around the forum and add to the already existing threads about this instead of cluttering the forum with so many damn repeat threads just because you're lazy and want th

I've kept a close eye on this thread here: Epic Battles and it's become Very Obvious that a whole lot of people were expecting to be able to have the types of large Grand Scale battles that are in the picture on the side of the box. The picture many of us drooled over when we first saw it. The same picture that was my desktop picture for 6 months

I hope so too. It makes playing games on large maps next to impossible.

[quote who="jenningsj105" reply="106" id="2771186"]First, I agree that there are too many cities with no drawbacks, especially in a downtrodden world. I also think that the current ZoC is just right, especially early on, and maybe a little too fast later. It would seem odd to me to have small cities somehow controlling large swaths of land. Sure, as you gain power and research the right techs, you ought to be able to control more land with small cities, but I don't see ZoC increas

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="2768334"] The continuous turns tactical battles are one big example of that. [/quote] Any chance we could get the files to make that happen and decide for ourselves? [e digicons]:pout:[/e]

Stardock really needs to incorporate this into the Vanilla Game. Excellent work my friend, well done indeed. :) You can count me in for a download!!!

I'd also LOVE to see some Quests with Multiple Outcomes or Quests where the Player Can Choose which path to follow with more than a yes or no, fight or don't fight, answer. :)

Well, the meeting went really well and we had an Excellent turn-out. I'd like to thank everyone who attended for coming. We're all looking forward greatly to the work we'll be doing and would also like to welcome the new additions to the Dragonlance Team. Thanks everyone!!! ~ Raven

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="3" id="2771139"]What version of havok is that? Your program looks different from mine, and I can't open skeleton files in mine. [/quote] Sorry mate, that's classified information. If you want to be one of the "cool kids" you have to come work for us :P LoL, just kidding. I'm not sure what version we're using currently but it's most likely what-ever version they currently have up for download which would be the newest one.

[quote who="SeraphLeviathan" reply="79" id="2770955"] Because I'm certain, "Here I thought this was a Strategy game and not risk, which is a strategy game made for ages 12 and up. I'm a lot closer to "Up" and a lot less closer to 12" is the epitome of flaming. [/quote] Ahh, see, with that comment there I wasn't "Flaming" you. It wasn't even aimed at you really, it was aimed at the frustration many of us are having with simplified mechanics that cause detrimental issues

[quote who="seanw3" reply="1" id="2770942"]I am trying to focus on storytelling as I have no idea how to animate beyond the braod philosophic strokes I learned in college. I will save this for winter break. [/quote] No, no no no. You must learn now, Now I say!!! (because I'm lazy) This way I can draft you to work for us after you learn stuff ;) hehe j/k

[quote who="SeraphLeviathan" reply="80" id="2770961"] BUT, you should NEED caravans to do it. You should NEED roads built. You should NEED a "Network" to do all these things for you. I don't want to load metal on a cart and make sure it gets where it's going. That's why I have Subjects in my Empire. To do the small mundane things for me. What I DON'T WANT is for it to all be "MAGICALLY" sent to where it needs to go with some invisible "Global" system when I d

Updated 9/14/2010 There's been some really good stuff brough up these last few days that I've noticed updating the list here. Good job Everyone. Keep it up. ;)

[quote who="James009D" reply="5" id="2770399"]There should be a way you can edit your race's file and remove the pre-built units. [/quote] We can :) When you play a game and design a unit that unit gets it's own Xml file created and stored in the my docs version of "Units". Every so often when I get tired of seeing the other designs I made I just go to that folder and mass-delete the Xml's referring to the other units I made and *poof* they don't show up in my next game.<

When I saw just the title to this I immediately thought "wtf would I want defeated factions in the diplomacy window for?"...lol. Now that I see still have them only marked as "Defeated" or something, I agree too :)

Now, personally, I think things like "Moving Metal" and "supplies" SHOULD be Handled Automatically, BUT, you should NEED caravans to do it. You should NEED roads built. You should NEED a "Network" to do all these things for you. I don't want to load metal on a cart and make sure it gets where it's going. That's why I have Subjects in my Empire. To do the small mundane things for me. What I DON'T WANT is for it to all be "MAGICALLY" sent to where it needs to go with some invisible "Glo

[quote who="SeraphLeviathan" reply="74" id="2770902"] Oh, so what you're saying is All The Players would come up with a Strategy....damn. All I heard was "hurp-durp." And I heard that because your point is that you just want more unnecessary micromanagement. There is no need to have to personally, one by one, build supply depots to send all your metal to the capital so you can send it to your port city so you can use it to fashion cannons that you then have to transport

It could also come back to "City Specialization". Simply let the player build a bunch of farms, or research structures, or whatever, like we did with our planets in Gal Civ 2. This allowed players to specialize their planets and made planets count for something. Loose a major food producing planet and your empire would start starving. Same should apply here. Loose a major food producing city and your faction starts starving. Loose a important researching city and your research slows down, etc

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="101" id="2770913"] Well this alone will not stop the city spam... because inserting new cities inside your ZOC will each provide 1 gold, 1 material, 1 arcane... and if you have the gold 1 research. The distance between each city will also need to be increased. [/quote] True. That's why I added aditions in a later reply, but a combination of things could. Here's something I said on Pg4: "My problems aren't with getting Gildar from my c