pigeonpigeon

[quote who="Elvenshae" reply="9" id="1951348"] ... but I want to do that![/quote] Me too! Besides, while maybe giving certain parameters like what to trade for and min/max values works for certain things (like resources, etc), it would be really limited in terms of tech/magic trading (if it exists) and actual diplomacy. Even for resources now that I think about it, it would be really hard. For example: I want Bear Cavalry but I only have those silly horse creatures in my

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="15" id="1951331"]Galactic Hunter reminds me about a wild hope I have for GC3 that might also be plausible for Elemental (espcially given that the engine work here is engine work for there also). Modern folks have a very hard time imagining an economy without any form of currency. But Elemental will include trade in use-value goods, apparently as an important part of the larger economic system. I'd like very much to be able to design a furiously isolat

I have to say, my biggest question by far is how someone who is as familiar with the english language as you clearly are could misspell "shard" as "shrad" every single time? [e digicons]o_O[/e] More on topic, I'm not sure I like the idea because of mainly one problem: the better a player is doing, the better chance they have of finding more shards (and thus becoming even more powerful) than players who got off to a slower start. It could turn into one real big snowball effect.<

I'd love to see a limited underground in this game. By limited I mean I don't want there to be a vast network of tunnels and caves that essentially connect the entire map, like in a lot of maps in HoMM. But I think it would be really cool if there could be some tunnels or large caverns under mountain ranges or even passages underwater to islands. I like the idea for a lot of reasons. It would add a lot of character to the world, and add tons of strategic options. Tunnels could allow f

I must admit that I would be very interested in a feature like this. I usually don't play multiplayer... Occasionally with a family member or friend, but finding family members with time and finding friends with similar tastes in games and the patience to play through them are getting harder and harder with time... [e digicons]:'([/e] I don't usually like playing with strangers, especially in games like this where you're unlikely to finish a game in one sitting (unless it's a really sm

[quote who="Nezic" reply="5" id="1949605"]I agree with Little0. Even though the idea of envoys with their own stats and negotiation-options is kind of cool, I think it would feel like busy-work in the end and be more of a distraction from the other parts of the game. I think it makes more sense for magic-wielding leaders to speak to each other though magical means anyway. Or maybe you could have a unit-based envoy system to be used until you finish researching the appropriate

@Luckmann, cool idea! But, I think I'd personally prefer a system where the number of buildings in each "ballpark" doesn't give you any bonuses, but the different buildings within each "ballpark" (i think we need a new word :P) would synergize with each other. Like your trade post, which gives a bonus based on what other economic buildings you already have. This would encourage players to diversify their cities even when they want to focus on a specific area. You could still easily build an e

Lots of good points being made. It seems like the biggest worry about a trade system like the one I proposed is that the extra complexity it adds might detract from the game rather than add to it, which is certainly possible. [quote who="Nights Edge" reply="4" id="1942651"]Caravans can be interesting because they give you a new military target and a reason to raid and patrol. But they could also be annoying and fiddly and distract from bigger issues like flooding the world and crushin

I agree about heroes in AoW:SM becoming more and more alike the higher level they get. I only just got the game recently, but all my heroes end up with the spell caster ability, high hp, attack and damage... So I'm all in favor of the game forcing different heroes to evolve in different ways. I'd like some input as to how they change with experience, but not too much. What about a system that uses the personality/specialty of a hero combined with how you use them? If you

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="5" id="1941636"]@pigeonpigeon The problem I have with a straight up counter-spell mechanic is I imagine that all players at all time then would deticate a certain amount of their resoruces to counter-spelling. Then basically it would turn to who ever is able to achieve counter-spell dominance. The conuter-spells would need to be within reason.[/quote] I kind of agree with you... I'm p

[quote who="Tamren" reply="8" id="1942277"] Now it is perfectly possible that when you break the window you find out that the window is really A Magic Mushroom In Disguise That Just Exploded In Your Face. But if that happens I would lay off the LSD.[/quote] How many times are you guys going to make me spit water all over my keyboard?! I need to stop drinking while reading these forums...

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="25" id="1942177"] "Ooh, Spartan! It zeemz vat we haev hear, iz a failure to kommunikate! 'AN pimp'? Tsk, tsk, tsk." - General-Grammartroppführer Heinz von Luckmann [/quote] [e digicons]k1[/e] for making me spit water on my keyboard. The fake swastika was just the nail on the coffin.

[quote who="Vitruvian_Squid" reply="6" id="1942178"] There are many flavours of reality but I prefer the one called "common sense". You've failed to consider the possibility that you can believe one thing and the devs can believe something different entirely. Even if you were always right, the devs may be wrong. [/quote] What he really failed to consider is that "common sense" is an egregious misnomer; it's one of most uncommon resources on the

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="1" id="1942123"] quoting post I don't know about you guys but I have never been very satisfied with the trade mechanisms in 4x games. The best system I've seen would have to be Civilization, but that suffered from the way its resources worked (you either have a resource or not, quantity is irrelevant). Another flaw is that everything was instantaneous; trade would happen immediately, even if it would take my fastest units 10 turns to reach the trading p

[quote who="Spartan" reply="10" id="1942105"]@Pigeon- The abundance part of your comment is not logical to me. I expect each item to only be in the world one time but I agree on the quality (I touched on that with the difficulty level comments I believe).[/quote] By abundance/quality I mean the overall number/average quality of items in the game. Kind of like the "habital planets" slider in galciv, as an example. So you could choose to play a game where items are extremely rare, but c

[quote quoting="post"] I think it would be neat if during the game setup players could chose from a list of relics what ones would found in the world randomly. For example the player gets a list of five defensive and offensive ones and must select say two (2) of each for inclusion into the world at random unknown locations. If the player does not select any specific ones the maybe three (3) of each would be included all randomly selected by the game. [/quote] I would rathe

I don't know about you guys but I have never been very satisfied with the trade mechanisms in 4x games. The best system I've seen would have to be Civilization, but that suffered from the way its resources worked (you either have a resource or not, quantity is irrelevant). Another flaw is that everything was instantaneous; trade would happen immediately, even if it would take my fastest units 10 turns to reach the trading partner. Actually now that I think about it, Colonization does

[quote who="Solam" reply="16" id="1941994"] I do not like having to stay beside my keyboard because I might have to touch space to pause the game. (I play galciv with my mouse only. The only time I touche the keyboard it's to rename stuff.)[/quote] Sounds like a wireless keyboard would be a worthwhile investment for you! [e digicons];)[/e] While a well-developed game shouldn't require the keyboard, I do find that using the keyboard removes or speeds up a lot of the more tedious

1) I don't want there to be a succession system. I did like it in Total War, but there my characters were just people. Royalty, yes, but still just people. In this game my character is going to start out as a dawdling magician and end up with god-like powers. For one, I don't want that character to just up and die some day to be replaced by an apprentice or heir who would probably be a significant downgrade, and secondly with all that power my character should be able to live as long as I wan

I like the idea of a powerful counterspell mechanic. If you can figure out what spell an opposing channeler is preparing to cast, you should be able to counter it, preventing the spell from happening in the first place. This could work in a number of different ways: 1) When you finish casting the counterspell, it cancels the opposing channeler's spell and drains all the mana they had built up for it, and an equal amount of mana from you. The counterspell itself has no other cost assoc

I agree with vieuxchat on both points. Even if slavery is a fundamental aspect of a culture, it doesn't make it OK. In fact, for the thousands of years that slavery has been implemented it WAS a fundamental aspect of the relevant cultures. To say that the morality of a thing is dependent on the culture makes the assumption that all cultures and ways of life are equal - which many people actually do. Personally I think that is wrong and naive. Murderers and intentional criminals follow ways of

What if you start out with your channeler and a small group of settlers? If you only start with your channeler then you have to find an already-populated area to found a city, but if you start out with a small group of followers it gives you the freedom to choose where and when to establish your first settlement.

[quote who="delad" reply="4" id="1935399"]Excellent posts, some food for thought. I really loved the SMAC style of research. I'd have to come down on the side of 'blind/focused/specific' model. Offers great way around the 'blind' V 'min/maxing'. How about including an ability or skill that your channeller can choose at development (gain through levelling or build specific building) that gives an ability to 'see' several choices ahead on a research tree and adds a bonus to researching that pat

[quote who="Asharak" reply="1" id="1934867"] Another possible problem with that implementation: considering that SD has already stated that the different factions will have different tech trees, it would seem likely that they would need to code different bottom-level categories each faction (e.g. just in the area of damage reduction, one faction might be relying on physical armour, another on magical auras of impermeability, another on health regeneration).[/quote] I actually

Overall I don't like mutually exclusive technologies (and to a lesser extent magic), because there is usually not a very good reason for it. More often than not it feels like an artificial limitation and frustrates me more than anything. What I do like are small amounts of randomness thrown in (see the "Specific vs Focused Technology Progression" thread in the Ideas forum). I'm also not opposed to some choices making other things harder. For example if you tend to research a lot in military t