pigeonpigeon

[quote who="Eplekongen" reply="10" id="1968866"]One suggestion. The wiki logo should perhaps show that we are still in pre beta. Just by adding a "pre-beta" sign on it. And when we enter beta, change it to a "beta" sign. Then when the game is released the new wiki should be seperated between a beta one and a released one. From there every article should go tru a validation prosess, where you go tru all the articles and change what is not up to date. Just remember, there

[quote who="Jonny5446" reply="7" id="1968139"]Secondly although this is the spiritual successor to MoM sadly it's still not actually MoM2 so I wouldn't make any assumptions about flying units; no dev to my knowledge has thus far confirmed that there'll even be any in the game (much as I would like there to be).[/quote] We know there are dragons. And we have screenshots of said dragons which wings. If they have wings for purely cosmetic reasons, I and most people will be extremely disa

I'm more or less with you. But I also like the way that the devs are planning to use Death magic - it's just another aspect of life magic. And it can be used for more than just killing and corrupting and raising dead. It should also be able to heal units (someone around here once gave the example of summoning parasites to eat away dead flesh, for example). But I agree that death magic should be able to do all/most of the things you just said. Or at least things along those lines. But

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="18" id="1967816"] All of your scenarios you've been coming up with have been a lot of fun to read, and would be cool to see in a game - but would be an absolute nightmare to control what is hard to control about a treeman with archers in its treehouse hat. It wouldn't be much different then any other archer platform, except I imagine it would be stronger and slower than even an elephant, possibly having better archer options (li

[quote who="Eplekongen" reply="12" id="1967780"]But how does it work when two opponents are trying to attack each other? wouldn't they just go back and forth over and over again? [/quote] No. Like I said, I don't know exactly how things are resolved behind the scenes. But if two people both try to attack each other, and they are in range, then they will fight. If one tries to attack the other, and the other moves, it's more complicated but still works well. For example if one runs and

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="6" id="1967756"]The game isn't out yet.... how much can we really put on a wiki? Not to be a spoil sport, but nothing is yet official, and won't cleaning up the un official content create tons of trouble later?[/quote] Unless we start over when the game, or at least the beta, comes out.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="10" id="1967518"]The problem with everyone moving at the same time is that it's not a thinking game anymore. You're chasing your opponent down with a superior army that moves slower? No problem, just make sure you move before he does, problem solved![/quote] That isn't how synchronous turns works. Or at least, not when it's done well. If you've played civ IV or HoMM V multiplayer then you probably have played with synchronous turns. All it mean

[quote who="Lock_Hart" reply="20" id="1967272"]This sounds frecking awesome beasts would add a lot to the game, but shouldnt be limted only to super powerfull beings if you keep chopping away in some wood wolves should become a problem and they either need to be extermanated or tamed also bears could be a problem and varuious beast in places would be cool for resource minning, and cities, and towns and cities should of course cause a lot more of a problem as there this huge encoachments

[quote who="Tamren" reply="16" id="1967601"]The word Cavalry means mounted infantry. Take the mount away and what do you get? A footsoldier of course! Taking the two apart should not remove both of them from the equation. "Mount" simply means something you ride on. This can mean almost anything mobile. An Ent with a treehouse on his head could be considered a mount. "Armoured cavalry" is a modern term for tanks an other vehicles.[/quote] Realistically that's definitel

[quote who="Anomander" reply="12" id="1966880"]Personally, and joking aside... I would like to limit fantasy mounts to traditional creatures: Horses, Elephants, Wargs....and any other mythical beast that traditonally gallops on all fours or sixes! For Hero mounts, well thats another matter. Griffons, Dragons, Wyverns...etc etc all would be exceptable to me.[/quote] I vote against limiting anything at all in the game to tradition, just for the sake of adhering to

[quote who="MatBerryman2" reply="7" id="1966931"]I also as a Warhammer player (the new Chaos book ROCKS) feel that if the mounts don't attack, then their only purpose is to speed up the character! So why bother with them?[/quote] I don't think their mounts should have their own attack. As in, I don't think that the mount and rider should attack separately at different times or anything. That doesn't mean the mounts wouldn't do anything but speed up the character - they w

[quote who="Rhishisikk" reply="25" id="1966055"]Luckmann states my case best - include everything, but make sure it balances.[/quote] I'd modify that to "include as wide a variety as possible, so long as the differences are still relevant." [/quote]And yeah, we'll have to mod in the bears, and probably 2/3 of the mounts mentioned in this thread.[/quote] I hope not! There haven't been that many different mounts mentioned. I think there've be

[quote] Simple enough this time. One thing we still don't know is how mounts work in the game. Are they things we get to sit on or do they have armour and attacks seperate from our own? If a bear gets its rider killed with it stay on fighting with the rest of the bear cavalry? [/quote] For the sake of simplicity and ease of access, I think that mounts should attack, exist and die simultaneously with their riders. Mixing things up could be neat, but I think

[quote who="KnutAreMykland" reply="18" id="1965959"]a postapocalyptic earth would have a much higher growth rate then 3% each year. Once a person is in a well nurtured enviorment and with a fertility age of 16, with 1 child each year for 12 years, that is alot more then 3% each year that we have now in our overpopulated world.[/quote] Actually, human population growth has been higher in the past 3 centuries than it ever was any time in the history of mankind. This is due to

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="1966343"]I'm really old in Internet years (just turned 44), but doesn't hotseat = only have one, non-networked PC to play on? I mean how is the seat hot unless someone else's butt was there right up until yours was?[/quote] Maybe it means two people playing on the same computer can both play online with other people, as well? :-\ [quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="1966343"]I still have no idea if I'll want to do much with multiplayer

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="15" id="1965865"] Quoting TheStephenColbert, reply 13Because if bear calvery prevails what's next? This isn't the real Stephen Colbert- he would never mis-spell cavalry. Imposter! Actually, given this is mis-spelled, I blame someone at Stardock. [/quote] But Stardock always misspells it as calv a ry, not calv e ry. The plot thickens!

[quote who="FlyGuy7" reply="4" id="1965817"]To rise something has a maskot, there should be at last a small democratic process, yes.[/quote] ....Unless Stardock comes to us and says, "Decide on an official mascot for the game!" then a democratic process is retarded. If Stardock ever does do something like that, they will probably put up a poll and do it that way. But just because an idea becomes popular in the forums doesn't mean it should suddenly be required to pass some democratic

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="22" id="1965102"] that may be true. But you can get a lot closer than most strategy games do . Even just with a crazy long series of if statements (if this then that logic for programs)[/quote] Key point right there. No strategy game comes close to actually behaving like a human. Getting a lot closer is only one more small step ;). And I'd argue that a crazy long series of if statements* would result in an AI that

[quote who="NelsMonsterX" reply="16" id="1965801"] But it would be nice to have, together with changeable difficulty settings during the game. Now that would be nice. I've often wished I could tweak the AI difficulty in-game while playing GalCiv2, to find my perfect setting quickly and easily. I also forget what difficulty I'm even playing on in the first place anyway! [/quote] If they make AI difficulty tweakable in-game, I hope they include an option to p

[quote who="FlyGuy7" reply="16" id="1965126"] No it's not language barrier that was just something that I had quoted. There he called Horses stupid, ordinary mounts and promoted Bears . Well, that some people like horses should come to mind. If a Horse is stupid, a Bear is no more IMO.[/quote] Ok, now it's obvious that the language-barrier is part of the problem here. You might know

[quote who="Eplekongen" reply="17" id="1965414"] Beast cities? Wouldn't like it, that would mean they were sentient, wich brings us back to the elves dwarves ogres thing that is overused. But if you are talking about animal presence in the form of wild wolves roaming or some dangerous creatures cave, I'm all for it! [/quote] In this game, everything that isn't human or fallen is considered to be part of the Beast faction. Including Dragons. Based on information from a bunch of di

[quote who="FlyGuy7" reply="10" id="1965059"]"Alright, now you're on about halflings and dwarves, and.. I just don't know what to say. I doubt you can realisticly field an army of midgets, even if you could domesticate the animal of choice - and boars. BOARS? Boars are IMPOSSIBLE to domesticate or tame. They're the very reason we have pigs." Seems like just bears are. What anyone else wants sounds nonsese. This guy attitude bores.[/quote] You either didn't read that whole t

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="2" id="1965025"]Why not let the bears wander back off onto their own paths for a bit and focus on subjects that don't stir such intense feelings?[/quote] At the risk of fanning the flames, I still can't believe that light-hearted bear jokes and ubiquitous use of bears in examples managed to stir intense feelings. [e digicons]:\[/e]

Yeah except that movie sucked. I heard that the studio who made it was hoping it would be the beginning of their next LoTR in terms of box office success. Instead it flopped so badly that they canceled the two sequels they were planning. I hear the books are better but I haven't read them.

[quote who="Eplekongen" reply="4" id="1964887"]Oh, so that creepy shaman dude is like, The One!?[/quote] No. The text along the edges of all of the single-unit concept art says the same thing. It's probably just a little piece of general history or something, not specifically related to those units.