pigeonpigeon

[quote quoting="post"] Having an insanely powerful summon unit that cannot walk past the bounds of the sphere of influence would be handled very differently from one that is so-so strong, but can go 100 spaces from the edge of the influence (i.e. the entire map). The super powerful unit would then effectivly serve role as a defender or bodyguard to the caster and his kingdom.[/quote] I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I'd like to mention that I really like the

[quote who="PaulNick" reply="16" id="2224039"]Your main aim is to invent new and creative ways to horrifically debilitate and kill your opponents, not act as an impromptu Burgmeister.[/quote] Maybe that's your main aim, but it's certainly not mine. Well, it's one of my many aims :) I really enjoy playing strategy games in a variety of different ways. It's actually pretty rare that I win a GC II game via the same victory more than a couple t

So an off-the-cuff comment of mine in another thread inspired Swicord with an awesome idea! Full-blown cooperative magic between channelers and/or heroes. GW Swicord : [quote]The brilliant idea of channelers cooperating for a teleport spell opens up a slew of possibilites for long-term efforts like a Bifrost Bridge between capitals and even short-term alliances to do something like raise a volcano under a common enemy's capi

I don't have much to add, but I'm fully on board with the whole militia idea. I've also been frustrated with gratuitous use of the term 'militia' in most games, and having a true-to-form militia would be neat and particularly suited to this game. That military will draw directly from population, presumably an extremely important resource, would make militias a very nice feature. It allows you maintain small garrisons of permanent defenders, but swell your numbers if you ever need to. Nonethel

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="2222943"] The brilliant idea of channelers cooperating for a teleport spell opens up a slew of possibilites for long-term efforts like a Bifrost Bridge between capitals and even short-term alliances to do something like raise a volcano under a common enemy's capital or take down an offending overland enchantment.[/quote] This is why I love these discussions. One person makes a comment, thought to be relatively unimportant (in this case just a

[quote]On the other hand, I can see how it could become a logistical nightmare to ship the new and improved (swords, shields, various armor pieces) Also, trakcing every individual unit and the huge variety of gear (instead of tracking an army that has 3000 "swordsmen" the program would have to track each unit as an individual with his own unique gear, etc etc) That sucks too.[/quote] Well, one way to solve the problem of having to track every individual unit is to train squads of unit

[quote who="Tiefling" reply="8" id="2223454"] The main difference between option 4 and option 3 is that option 4 gives you direct control over what is used where, whereas in option 3 whatever control there is is indirect, which is harder to handle. Example: I want to train soldiers with swords. In option 4 all I have to do is build a blacksmith next to my barracks. Swords will be produced and stored in the warehouse until I am ready to train my soldiers. When I do the same thi

After sleeping on it, it seems to me like most people actually prefer Camp #1 over Camp #3. Most people who have voted for #3 have qualified their vote with "as long as I can override the automatic distribution when I need to." But really that's the only difference between Camp #1 and Camp #3 (besides non-specific equipment and auto-upgrading). Camp #3 is Camp #1, just with a competent automation system! What scared people away from Camp #1 to being with was the fea

I want basic communication to be instantaneous. So, for example, my channeler can be aware of anything that isn't under fog of war (by communicating with subordinates or whatnot), and diplomacy could be done easily. However, things like trade or gifts would require caravans to set out, unless a substantial effort is made to teleport them (which shouldn't be common - really only for the most valuable goods or artifacts, or if the need is urgent enough). That said teleporting small quantities o

I just spent the better part of the evening reading the past 302 posts... This is probably the most constructive forum thread I've ever seen, though! It's stayed on topic for over 300 posts and has really evolved. By the time I actually post this there'll probably be a dozen new posts... Anyways, I'd have to say that Camp #1 is my favorite, followed by Camp #3; and I don't like Camps #2 or #4. There are really only a few things about Camp #3 that I don't like, actually: <

Haha, I dunno. I've been gone for 3 months though, and largely because I've been traveling in remote parts of the world - and I only recently returned to civilization. But just based on times tamps while catching up on dev posts, it does look like the past couple months have been pretty inactive. It is nice to see most of the same people still (or again) trolling the forums, plus some new faces. It's funny having this conversation in a thread about the developers "getting back to Elem

[quote who="Denryu" reply="3" id="2214257"]I am not talking about myself, but there are some folks here like Landisaurus, Wintersong, Pigeonpigeon, GW Swicord, and others who I think if they are not involved as early as possible you are doing yourself a disservice.[/quote] I'm still remembered, even after all these long months! I feel loved :P More on topic though, I'm not so worried about the loss of the bots. I'm a little nervous about changes to the economic model, bu

I pre-ordered this game a looong time ago (within the first couple weeks of the announcement, I think) but I don't think I ever posted here. I figure this would be a good last post! Just so people don't think I've given up on the game or anything I'm going to be traveling for the next 3 months, so no elemental discussions for me :( On the plus side, the beta should be right around the corner by the time I'm back!

Seems like our discussion is more or less coming to a close, NTJedi :P [quote who="NTJedi" reply="9" id="2090226"] Awesome, if you're using a system with an 8GB setup you're probably running a 64-bit system as well. Hopefully there's more beta testers also equipped with 64-bit systems using 6+ GBs of RAM.[/quote] Yes, I am running a 64-bit system, but sadly I'm not [e digicons]o_O[/e] . I'm a mac guy. OS X is 64 bit, but bootcamp (apple's software that allo

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="16" id="2090558"]I can accept that a settlement might need some sort of 'flag' to be captured, and maybe I'm just being oversensitive to language again, but I have not yet abandoned my hopes for the game to include useful, interesting, *small* population centers like mining outposts, market villages for farm regions, etc. There were no keeps of any sort in the Shire, but it was most certainly a thriving region.[/quote] I am your sidekick when it comes to

[quote who="Jonny5446" reply="11" id="2089748"]If you guys like in depth threads about warfare mechanics... and I'm sensing that you do.. then you'll love: http://forums.el3ementalgame.com/32960[/quote] How did that 3 get in there? [e digicons]o_O[/e]

[quote who="mrakomo" reply="13" id="2089737"]However I very like the idea of the limit of the town structures per the map tile. It really makes a sense. However it can happen, that te population decreases in the city. What do you suggest for this case - shall the already built improvement be destroyed?[/quote] I would vote that it not be destroyed, but become inactive. Maybe if the population decreases you could choose which structures or tiles would fall into disuse?

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="7" id="2089621"]My two quotes ride parallel as trading can wait when compared to more important features. Requesting a new complex trading system may UNKNOWINGLY cost you game depth from other features you may feel are more important such as champion development, building upgrades, battlefield formations, unit diversity, item forging, etc., etc., .[/quote] I still think this is a terrible reason not to make a suggestion. See, if we wait until

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="11" id="2089088"]I was trying to poke you to see if you also would like the option to have more than four improvments per tile. I like the notion because it fits with the idea that true cities in Elemental will be relatively uncommon (when compared to any of the Civs or to colonies in GC2), and, more importantly, giving that basic choice (how dense to make your developments) will mean individual cities can be very different. Down on a flood plain beside a great

[quote who="Solam" reply="6" id="2089098"]Some of you would like to have auto resolve at the max setting right at the start while some others would like to have it scale with experience or something like it. I for one can't see my army right at the start battle out against the AI at the max setting. There would be no advantage to having a hero leading them. What possible gain could I have to bring a hero into battle?[/quote] You are completely and totally misunderstan

[quote who="Coelocanth" reply="14" id="2088427"]With the discussion of Time in the last couple of posts, you may find the following an interesting read: [/quote] Wow, thank you for the read! I've never heard of this theory before, it's definitely different.. and bizarre! But also very neat and rather elegant. I looked up the actual paper and it's an even better read than the article about it. Although it seems that the article about it is somewhat sensational - the paper doesn't

Thank you Jonny, for saying what I've been trying to say for days now, in a much clearer way. You seem to do that often, I'm jealous :P [quote who="landisaurus" reply="4" id="2088537"]The only way I can see 'the middle guy' benifiting from trading realistically, is if there is a 'trade' tech or something that that to dictate the maximum reach of your trade routes. That way, early to mid game, the person in the middle could have tons of trade routes, where the people on the edges

I just noticed something. Right smack in the middle of that drawing it says: "Building Costs: 1) Time 2) Gold". Does that mean we won't need resources like lumber or stone or whatnot to construct buildings? That's a little disappointing given the whole "Rethinking 4X Economics thread." I can understand why it might be tricky (if a player has no access to wood and most buildings require wood, they'd be screwed) but I don't think it's unresolvable. For example, there could be several differ

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="6" id="2088487"]Why assume there's a limit on improvements per tile at all? If we're re-thinking TBS economics, why not let players decide whether to invest heavily in a small region or spread investments over a larger area?[/quote] My assumption is based on Frogboy's image in this post . I used "it seems" to imply that I'm not sure, but it looks like that's where they're heading - at least for now. Also, NTJedi, based on tha

1. I don't usually play TBS games multiplayer, but I do occasionally and I would definitely like the option. Even more so for this game than usual! 2. I want both, but if I had to choose I would choose online over email. 3. We haven't got many details about the persistent multiplayer feature at all... I don't know what they're planning for it. Campaigner's vision of what it will be is interesting, but really we don't know what it'll be like. [quote who="KnutAreMykland" reply