pigeonpigeon

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="6" id="2258243"]And if I recall if you eliminate the capital in GalCiv2 the race DOESN'T totally die off.[/quote] Capitals in GC2 can't really run away, nor are they really any more powerful than any other city. [quote who="psychoravin" reply="6" id="2258243"]It's the AI that cannot deal with the feature not me. I don't care about multiplayer in the first place. I dab in it but hardly am avid about it. My point is that I never had any challen

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="5" id="2256044"]Is this thread broken for anyone else? It's like all borders and divides between posts have been broken up and stacked on eachother. Sorry for the OT, but it's horrible to read. [/quote] I don't see anything wrong with this thread. Neither in Safari nor in Firefox.

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="14" id="2258228"]"I would actually say that it's more the avid/hardcore TBS players that don't want tactical combat." Are there any other kind?[/quote] That question doesn't really deserve an answer. But I'll give you one anyways: yes . Civilization IV wasn't a success because a small group of avid TBS players went out and bought it - it was a success because many people who enjoy TBS games as much as I enjoy the occasional

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="1" id="2258058"]That's basically what tactical battles are. I am around 80% sure they will be included.[/quote] That's not quite true. For example, what Fenhiro suggested isn't really possible to do in a game like HoMM, or MoM. Yeah, some units will synergize quite well with others, but that's just the tip of the potential iceberg. I personally would actually be very happy if SD implemented Total War-like tactical combat, but I don't expect them to (Frogbo

[quote who="psychoak" reply="24" id="2257332"] Incorrect. ≠ is for math, != is for code monkey. I'm sure someone out there uses it, but most sane people like to avoid three and four digit alt codes when typing.[/quote] Math notation predates programmer notation, and is inherently superior ;) Also, I use a mac and thus ≠ is just alt + =. Most sane people prefer macs (a very sad indicator of the state of humanity considering its marke

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="10" id="2257256"]Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to tactically control all their battles? I don't.[/quote] Yes, actually. I do. (there would of course need to be an auto-resolve, which we know will be in, and has been in almost every game with tactical combat). In fact, everyone I know personally who likes 4X games likes tactical combat. Like Psychoak said, MoM had tactical combat. AoW had tactical combat. HoMM (different type

Yeah, although I think psychoak's word choice and temperament in that post is rather poor (ckessel's description in that respect is pretty good :P), I actually agree with his actual point completely. All he's saying is this. You put in Tactical Combat - people complain about not liking tactical combat. So you add auto-resolve. Then people complain about auto-resolve sucking - it overvalues/devalues units and doesn't use spells intelligently. So they make auto-resolve more complicated

[quote who="Denryu" reply="22" id="2256539"]*poke* Is this thread dead yet? We oughta give it a decent burial, it was a good discussion! [/quote] I wonder if the devs have actually read this whole thread... I hope they have, it was definitely the most productive thread on these forums since before time (Nov 4, 2008).

1: I agree with Paradoxnt's revision - same ultimate effect but a little bit more intuitive. 2: Sounds good to me. 3: This. I love this idea (there was a fairly involved discussion about it in a recent thread). I want this, and I want it to be done well :P If it isn't done well it'd cause more problems than it would solve, but if done well I think it would add so much strategy and get rid of so many common gripes all at once. 4: I think maybe a better way is to have a

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="2" id="2257915"]No it won't because only an idiot would allow that to happen from the weak race to begin with. That's like beating your 8 year old little brother in chess in 5 moves because he's new and an idiot to that tactic. You might get away with it once, but, he'll find out the method to stop it and it will "NEVER" happen again. Only Total Obliteration will be fun . Wiping someones entire race from the map through TOTAL effort of

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="1" id="2257573"]A lot of neutral on multi-screen support, but a few people favored it. Sadly the number of people who "like" and "love" it is one less than the number neutral for it. (16 for vs. 17 neutral, vs. 2 against) I wish it were not the case, so I could wave my finger and say "look, majority. We demand multi-screen support"[/quote] I want multi-screen support [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]XO[/e] [e digicons]X(

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="3" id="2230233"] I really hope that any 'lottery' winners or folks otherwise invited for the alpha will be able to resign and have their spot given to someone who is better suited or has more time. I'm interested in the idea in general, but I might be a low-value participant if the focus is on multiplayer basics or battle mechanics. I also have no idea from week to week how busy I'll be earning money, so I'd feel very guilty if the lottery gave me a spot th

I'd be shocked if there is no way to save a MP game and resume it later. Stardock would get absolutely killed in reviews for something like that (even if the plan is to focus heavily on SP, if they're going to implement MP at all then they can't just half-ass it and get away with it). So like Tridus said, as long as you're on at the same time you should be fine. But should isn't will - we don't really know, yet.

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="5" id="2256191"] There's some kind of typo in the one or both of the last two sentences here. I'm guessing that you mean "Treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a really bad idea." But I wouldn't bet on my guess being correct.[/quote] Oops, sorry. Your guess was right - I think ti's a really bad idea. [quote who="DivineWrath" reply="6" id="2256470"]Perhaps this stuff should be handled by a Dominions 3 like battle sy

I like Landisuarus's above post. Whether or not tomes and the MoM comparison will be directly applicable to Elemental's magic system, the underlying idea is great. Also, having lots of combination spells would be an incredible way to add replayability to the magic system. Let's face it, if there aren't any (or many) combination spells, it'll only take ~5 or 6 large-ish games to see most of the spells. If there are lots of combination spells, it'll take much longer to see everything, a

I really like the idea of being able to adjust all the different properties of spells with multiple effects individually. Being able to trade area of effect for extra power, or boosting everything way up to get large AoE and lots of power, but for a very high cost premium - or even adjusting everything down for a pretty weak version of the spell. And this should apply to all spells with multiple effects. I guess it should actually apply to all spells except any with a binary effect. T

I would actually like 'events' like that. It would fit in very nicely with Brad's description of Elemental taking place in a sort of D&D world where you're the leader of one of the empires that have to deal with those pesky adventurers. Adventurers and heroes showing up and behaving contextually would be really neat :) In Landisaurus's example, that robinhood-type figure could then be recruited by a neighboring, benevolent channeler who is in conflict with the evil one.

Wintersong - do you have multiple personality disorder?

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="25" id="2256034"]Yes, I know, I've experienced the same things. But I would fault that on TW's auto-resolve. In essense what I'm saying is to run the actual auto-resolve simulation, and then instead of displaying the actual numbers, just display the general outcome. That way, there's no surprise for the player like you described, if it shows "Decisive" but you end up losing half of your army. If it shows "Decisive" you know that you pretty m

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="16" id="2255597"]It's an interesting idea. Perhaps rather than a specific auto-resolve result it would just give you a general approximation of what you can expect. Like the TW tactical result summarizes as "Decisive Victory", or "Close battle" and things like that. So you initiate combat, and it gives you a hint of what you can expect, and then if it's a Close Battle you can auto or try to squeeze the most out of it with manual. That way it's not exac

Denryu, now you have to put off posting the results as long as you possible can just to antagonize landisaurus!

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="15" id="2255559"]Landisaurus Casts: NECROPOSTMeteor ("such power, I regret crushing it" - Sturm) - a meteor falls. It destroys (or extremely heavily damages) everything under it. It leaves a creator in the terrain, which has a chance to become an ore mine of some sort (random based on the type of material found in the meteor) > has a limited number of turns the mine can be in use before it become a dead mine[/quote] The size o

Some people will always want to skip it. And I love tactical combat, but sometimes I want to skip it, too. But I think treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a bad idea. In fact I'd say it's a really bad idea. Edit: Oops, fixed a horrible typo.

Hmm... For some reason your avatar doesn't show up in your first post - so your second post had me really confused because I didn't realize you were the necromancer. I'm not a newer member of the forums but my opinion is a resounding affirmative :P I don't really care what types of spells result from the combinations as long as it makes some sense. In fact I'm not sure I'd want specific combinations of schools to result in certain types of effects - the effects could still be as varie

I don't think there should be different spells for auto-resolve vs. tactical combat because I think most people will use some combination of both methods of combat in the same game. And if you allow both types within the same game, then you're better off sticking to one type and ignoring the other, but then that locks you into one of the combat methods. I'd much rather have the ability to give the AI guidelines of what spells it's allowed to use in auto-combat, if any - and mayb