Nathikal

At the same time, using Essence to found cities penalizes those of us who wish to be pure casters, compared with those who wish to pursue a more warlike path. While magic is immensely useful, the issues with this are... Essence can only grow with level. Unless we put our Sovereigns into frequent danger, magic becomes utterly worthless (cities can produce armies, armies can work as effectively as magic, if not more so). Cities tied to essence means that you cannot be a

I've refrained from playing the game since, oh, the release-ish version. Figured there was no reason to play it when the epic 1.1 will be coming soon. I'm hoping that the twitching will stop in the immediate future... -N

I will begin by saying this: Loyalty is not like Morale from GalCiv 2. I don't know about all of you, but the Morale from GalCiv2 filled me with a sort of hatred that I can't explain entirely. Loyalty is a new resource. It represents the collective will and belief of all your citizens in your right to rule, your power, and your desire for their survival. Loyalty comes from having citizens who are loyal to you (IE, generated from cities in general) and some structures will increase loy

No. Never, ever, ever, would I want this back. It's enough to make me stop playing the game. The old system was crushed, beaten, broken, and cast aside way back when because it ended up being just plain annoying. I really can't offer anything constructive other than my hatred of the old system. -N

Looks good, thanks Frog!

-yawn- Still on this? Sad. Attention internet, Elemental wasn't everything it was cracked up to be. It's being fixed, Stardock isn't about to abandon it or their customers, so move on already. It'll be fine, whining accomplishes nothing. Have a nice day, -N

Far from perfect. But we've got every faith that things'll be fixed when they're fixed. I can't speak for the others, but I'm nothing if not patient :D Take your time. I ain't goin' nowhere, nohow!

[quote who="YIAX" reply="11" id="2754402"]well the post kind cleared up what i was lead to believe. I didnt play beta, i briefly read reviews of the MOM like game comming soon. Even the goober at the game store hosed me on its like MOM also. The games not bad its just non iconic MOM play. Anyone reading its nothing like MOM. Its a ill play for 2 weeks then shelve it, as another long lesson in dispointing games that had huge potenti

[quote who="awuffleablehedgie" reply="1" id="2753692"]No. It was not. It never was. you were mistaken. Stardock *attempted* to purchase the rights, but were denied. [/quote] ^This

-checks the box that reads "yes plz"- -nods in satisfaction-

From what I can tell, the main reasons are thus. There is nothing making you keep lower tech boni. Why field 9 when you can field 12? Historically speaking, there have been many times when having a huge army is beneficial. There are an equal number of times when such an army is a hindrance. It should be so that if I am under attack by massive armies, there is a definite means of countering them. That means may not work (I may still lose) but it is to my advantage to have that c

In Gal Civ, I considered rolling a very low score on an attack to just mean that the hit was a glancing one. However, in this game where my sorcerer ends up doing 5 damage when he's lucky (i usually get 1-2 damage), I just get angry. At the very least - cap it. Give a max and a min value, such as 3/4. So if I hit someone with a sword that gives me 100 attack, I should do 75-100 damage. If I cast a spell with 20 intelligence, I should do 100-150 damage. The spell damage...well,

I could've sworn we were promised unique faction tech(trees) ala Twilight of the Arnor. At the moment, everything looks the same. In Gal Civ we could take advantage of different ship designs to make the game interesting. I also favor heraldries, standard-bearers and the like. A number of armies took advantage of symbols and unique designs to stand out. If we take a look at, say, Lord of the Rings... Elven armor was sharp and elegant, usually with feather-like metal cla

I think the main issue is that the world is static, until the players act on it. Thus, while the world changes because of us, it is heavily dependent on players to make things happens. It offers no challenges on its own aside from the eternally growing number of wandering monsters. -N

The idea seems good, but I don't think I fully understand it. Let me see... Could you explain targets in another manner? Your pronouns above made it hard to tell if you meant the ATTACKERS had to spend targets, or if the DEFENDERS had targets that were consumed by the ATTACKERS. Swings are essentially individual attacks? So if I have 5 swings per turn, with each unit in my 10 man group having 5 attack, then it translates to 5 swings carrying five attack?

While I love AoE spells, the problem in Elemental is that an AoE doesn't do anything useful unless you're fighting individuals. If I have 20 int, then that means that a bunch of units can get up to 20 damage...and late game, an AoE spell isn't useful in that dealing up to 20 damage to a bunch of units is not worth putting my sov in danger. Or any other caster. Not to mention, since essence doesn't come back, it's stupid to waste it on making champions stronger when, ultimately, they c

Ooh! ooh! I'll throw some in! As was said above, there is a choice between hammers and swords. Huzzah for choices. What would be nice is if the choices were more than just RAWRDAMAGE and RAWRBALANCE. Give certain weapons either the power to unleash a special ability, or let us train units into using a special ability. I mean, what's the difference between units end-game, aside from their weapons? I have dukes, archdukes, legendarydukes, knights, superknights, observers out the wazoo,

You know what's scary? Now that you've mentioned all of the copy-cat spells in Lords of Magic, I realized it. Like, Justice Barrage or somesuch for the Order tree...and the Fire nation got some sort of fire storm. Both were multi-hit spells covering an area. But aside from looking different (fire threw fire, Order used, I dunno, spiritual strength). What I'd do...is take Elemental to that degree. Not only add flavor text, but make it possible for spells, buildings, etc. to be

Let's see.. I'd like for there to be an option to try and have kids. That is - I have to actually set my Sov in the same city as his wife, click on the "Spend the Night" button, and only have A CHANCE at her popping out a kid. As well as a notice as to whether or not it worked. Thus, I can't have my Sov make babies when he's on the other side of my kingdom. I'm of the mind that very powerful beings should have in-tactical mana regen. Dragons are very powerful beings.

My only qualm with making summons more powerful is that summons are already immensely stronger than normal magic. Not only do summons last longer, but they usually have nifty abilities to make things extremely painful for your enemy. At the same time, I don't know if it makes sense, lore-wise, to have summons be powered just by holding some shards. If I incant a spell to summon a fire golem, I get a fire golem. Maybe the abilities can be magnified, if they draw on the shards,

ROBERT! You get karma! What you said made me figure out how offensive spells can stop sucking. Or at least one method of it. One thing that irks me is how magic affects units. Robert compared two spells - fireBOLT and fireBALL. Instead of having AoE spells effect multiple tiles (at first) have them effect multiple units . So if I cast a firebolt, it deals X damage to a single unit in that stack. If I cast fireball, it deals X damage to all or most units in that stack. I suppos

Let's see.. As Robbie said, magic is a feature that made Channellers strike fear into the Titans, beings who actually managed to seal magic into the crystals. I do play defensively, and I use my magic in less subtle ways. However, I do not like the fact that if I want to fireball some insignificant peasant, he has the slightest chance of walking away. Furthermore, it makes my Sovereign less than useful later on if I want to play a pure mage type, which I do. I have no intention

I like this idea. To add to it - I'd love it if adventuring parties were viable in-game, and continued to be such throughout the duration of that game. For example, if I have one city or ten cities or ten thousand cities, I'd want to be able to sit down and watch adventurers run around and do stuffs. And, using the adventuring tree further, it'd be nice to hire adventuring parties to do stuffs.

Although I see the value in pointing out every single flaw, it's a great way to break morale of the Stardock crew. So, to help remind the world that we aren't filled with hatred of Elemental, let's point out exactly what it is that we liked about Elemental. I, personally, love the Diplomacy tree's additional unit features. Shrill and Drath usually end up comprising the core of my armies, at least until I relegate the Drath to my sovereign's personal bodyguard. I hate using dr

It doesn't even need to be something horridly complex. The majority of functions would come in the form of random events and being able to shat up your nobles. I mean, gods, imagine having to fight off interior demons as well as exterior ones. Some other features that came to mind... Reward your champions - give them a noble title. They can begin alone, or even have two champions marry to begin a noble line under you. These families are naturally loyal to you, and