pigeonpigeon

Plab B isn't bad. I really don't like Plan A, though, and Plan C is pretty vague ;). My only problem with B is that it doesn't really make much sense. If a super powerful channeler duels a weakling channeler (because he spread his essence out), the weakling one should have no chance whatsoever. I mean, if superman were challenged by some regular dude to a fencing match with something important at stake, it would be absolutely moronic for superman to agree not to use his powers t

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="20" id="1990543"] - The diagram is kind of wrong, isn't it? Training takes 5 turns, but those 5 turns seem to be able to occur sequentially with the equipment acquisition. So, essentially all of those boxes should be on the same vertical line, and the max is what determines the time to create the unit.[/quote] Yeah, you're right. Either the training should be on the same vertical column as the equipment, or the total time required sho

No, my concern is that channelers who spread out their essence could be essentially (no pun intended :P) locked out of potentially very rewarding duels, or even worse, they would be severely disadvantaged in any diplomatic or quest-related content that might involve duels. It would be a bigger problem in the quest system, because it would make essence-retaining channelers better at questing. Keep in mind that I'm only opposed to that if there isn't some equally significant factor that

Yeah I don't think the champion idea would work very well. For one, it's most likely that the channeler who spread out his power would be able to muster a stronger champion than the channeler who kept all his power to himself - so that would just reverse the problem. And if the champion had to fight the other channeler he'd probably have even less of a chance than his channeler master. And honestly I don't see the balancing being a problem in fatal duels. Channeler

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="23" id="1990457"]The discussion of wounded bears and all that + the fact that we now KNOW that riders and their mounts will have seprate queues for building (not to mention swords and all that), should mounts have their own HP and when killed should the rider become a dragoon? (dragoon is I believe the roman term for spearmen on foot. Not to be confused with dragoons as seen in in Final Fantasy 2 that ride wyverns, aka the opposite of foot sold

What about magic? Will we be able to use magic in unit creation? And to second SpoonGod's question, will we be able to use training (or magic, or enchanted equipment, even) to give units special abilities? Like ambushing, night-fighting, some sort of special attack, formations, etc? That would make training much more interesting. Also, even if the answer is no (please don't say the answer is no [e digicons]8O[/e] ), it seems like training would add attack/defense more than HP.

Ok, point taken. Here's to hoping Apple updates bootcamp to work with 64 bit version of windows before Elemental comes out...

Another important thing to consider when talking about duels is, are they balanced? Can they be balanced? From the information we have now, one of the most major decisions a player will make throughout the game is to maintain a powerful channeler or to spread out that power throughout your empire. Now, obviously a player who chooses to maintain a powerful channeler is going to have a significant advantage over a player who spreads out in a duel. So basically it boils down to this: can duels b

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="1989808"]I'd much rather have a game that, on the largest maps, clearly lasted a few centuries and was led by an ageless channeler. If they have potential to wreck the world, why should mere aging be a problem for them? And regardless of how time is described, if any prominent units age out of a game, it should be the heroes. That would be one way of keeping that aspect of the game fresh even at the tail end of a Ludicrous map. Shoot, if we could get a re

What about an army-based officer (aka general) system instead of a squad-based one? In order to put together an army above a certain, small size, you need to recruit or appoint a general to lead it. Scouting and raiding parties, and patrols, for example could be small enough so that you don't need to worry about it. But anything that could actually be called an army would require an appointed general or leader, really whatever you want to call it. There could be several ways to appoin

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="22" id="1989712"]Actually since programs can use more memory in 64-bit programs it could potentially have a huge impact on AIs but it would largely depend on whether modern AIs are limited by processing or how much code they actually have. If I had to guess I would say the current bottleneck is with space not processing power since very few programs really tax processors. [/quote] I dunno, based on the posts I've read by Frogboy regardin

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="1989696"] Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 5I think enchanting units vs. items could largely be an aesthetic thing. The major difference could be that items would be transferable. Being transferable (and presumably durable) vs. fixed (and presumably killable) seems like a major difference in the, um, major sense of the word. If it isn't transferable, then it would seem like an aesthetic detail of an enchanted unit.[/quote] Well what I m

[quote who="TexasTim65" reply="5" id="1989235"]PidgeonPidgeon,[/quote] There's no 'd' in pigeon! :P [quote who="TexasTim65" reply="5" id="1989235"]Maybe the time tracking could be an option for those that want it or something only related to the Metaverse.[/quote] I am always in favor of any feature being an option if somebody wants it, so long as it doesn't take too much of the devs' time. (Or completely go against the style of the game, such as if somebody request

I'm more in favor of overall squad experience and dropping anything about officers all together. I think having to manage explicit officers on a somewhat different level than the squads themselves would result in more micromanagement than the feature would be worth to me. But based on the squad type I'd like there to be different 'upgrades' to choose from, other than just increased damage/hp. Kind of like the Civ IV system, actually, but better :P I'd also like squads to be retrainabl

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="20" id="1989010"] I think in this 64-bit world, the AI is gonna be pretty state of the art. yeah, maybe. I've only done so-so AI programing, and its mostly algorythims for pathing and such. That is more number crunching then memory. I had one that did different responces, and basically it would go through what was typed to the AI and pick out key words and phrases, then search its own data base for responces.&

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="20" id="1988366"]I don't really understand what you're saying here would you mind providing some clarification? [/quote] Sure, first I'll quote what you said. [quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="18" id="1988298"] Also with a decent reserve system equipment wouldn’t be a concern. Just like in real life the reserves might go for practice with their military unit at some base where their equipment would be kept while they weren’

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="2" id="1988384"]We don't really know, you could be right but since the dragons survived the devastation brought about from the last civilizations to utilize doomsday type spells I think one dragon could handle any type of spell a Channeler could throw its way and dish out damage in kind. As for threatening the dragon in person even with an army at your back there is a chance (in my opinion a very high chance) that the dragon would

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="25" id="1988310"]I've had well over 150+ planets in GalCiv2 on the larger maps and that is a 32-bit program.[/quote] GalCiv2 is a bit of an exception, though. There aren't terrain features or anything to take up space, it's just empty space with stars orbited by planets and the occasional asteroid field. Especially if you set everything to be pretty abundant, the density of habitable planets is extremely high. [quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="2

I'm all for getting some more information about their plans for the magic in Elemental. Even if they only give us a small little tidbit about how they're planning on magic to work, it would be really helpful. It's difficult to make detailed suggestions for the magic system because we have no idea what the overall structure will be. We could definitely be more helpful at brainstorming ideas if we had some hints.

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="18" id="1988298"]Actually it does, I thought an upkeep cost to a reserve system would be obviously but this upkeep cost would replace your one time training cost for new recruits and shorten the time required to get fresh troops. Also with a decent reserve system equipment wouldn’t be a concern. Just like in real life the reserves might go for practice with their military unit at some base where their equipment would be kept while they weren&rs

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="23" id="1988203"]That would be 45 cities each which is about medium small to me in a game like this depending on land mass available. Hell, 120 cities each is probably laughable on some maps you need to remember there is going to be a 64-bit version. I also disagree with your assertion that dragons depending on the size of an army would be irrelevant for two main reasons. First the power level of a dragon could scale dynamically based on map size or some other

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="15" id="1988034"]This is exactly why most nations have some sort of reserve system, so they don’t have to take the time and money to train fresh recruits. I personally find this along with the reputation of a squad idea flawed, replacing X number of soldiers shouldn’t cost or take as long if you have a reservist system. As I said in my previous post you / the AI should be able to set a number of reservists for your army so when a force has lost men

[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="21" id="1988002"]I personally don’t play on small maps all that much so in my scenario we’ll say the total number of cities owned by both players is close to 90 so Player A wouldn’t be able to end the game in 10 or 15 turns. I would guess it would be around 40 - 50+ turns assuming his army is already to go. This would give Player B plenty of time to get the super weapons / units in question on the field of battle and hopefully turn the

[quote who="delad" reply="12" id="1987623"]However, i do have a question for anybody who reads this; should replenishment of you 'swordsmen' squads depend on how many swords you have in stock? What i mean is, say you are producing swrodsmen at maximum rate (ie you produce 10 swords per turn and are producing 10 swordsmen per turn, leaving you with 0 sword in stock). How do you see this affecting replenishment? Initially i was thinking that as long as you can produce swords, it doesn't matter

[quote who="Tamren" reply="7" id="1987459"]Okay forget physics then, that was simply the most convenient example at the time. The only requirement for magic in a game setting is that it makes sense. We don't need to understand how it works, in fact that is the whole point of magic. What is important is that when magic is used and things happen, we understand what is going on and why.[/quote] It's so satisfying to finally come to complete understanding and agreement after a lengthy deb