pigeonpigeon

[quote]The bonus of life from maximum experience should be around 10% of the base hitpoints. Currently it seems the ratio is elite soldier with 1000 HPs and a regular peasant 100 HPs.[/quote] You are confusing two very different things. An elite soldier is not an experienced peasant. We have no idea how much 'HP' Stardock intends to add per level, but I very much doubt it will be anything remotely adding up to a factor of 10 times more HP for even the most experienced troops.</p

[quote]I would say this depends more on the weapon Robin Hood is using and which one surprises the other. If Robin Hood has a magical bow of acid given to him by Merlin and using volcanic arrows of melting then my bet would be on Robin Hood. Heck with some basic training and the right weapon even I could take out a tank.[/quote] I think the operating assumption there was that Robin Hood never met Merlin, and didn't have a magical bow of acid and volcani

[quote]For the fellow forumers who do not understand what I really write about pls read Reply #101. I've updated the underline part there, hopefully making the non-selectable grey concept clearer & why it is a better then selectable grey. I do not like to have all spells researched, some tech needs to be phased out. The question is how. When you have a better idea to implement here, let's discuss. As Boogie said, nothing is set in stone, it is just a&

[quote]I like the idea that you kind of have to focus in a certain area. I would also like for archery to be worthwhile, some games tend to focus on melee and cavalry and don't look at archery. Obviously cavalry would on average be better and more expensive, but having some nice archers would be cool [/quote] Really? I tend to find that archers dominate a lot of these games. I suppose it depends -

I'm not sure whether or not I like this idea... It is different, that's for sure. The thing is, I like to have some rough notion what is going to happen. With no indication of what will come out (if anything), it's just random... If there is an indication then what's the point? It just becomes a time-sink when you know the outcome already. If it changes every game, then it would get old trying to figure out all the combinations. I think... [quote]I have to disagree. I think Ca

[quote]It's not only the game design, or the balance, or all the extra variables the player has to take into account when building, researching and planning, it's also how long it takes to make a turn: if building cities takes time, researching takes time, building units take time, playing combat takes time,... then it takes an hour to make a turn, and when you think you need 200 hours to finish a game you go and kill yourself. Or you start taking all the measures you can to sh

[quote]So far I'm seeing a very disturbing trend when the easy most generic way out is being chosen for option after option, mechanic after mechanic. Not good, not good at all. If this trend continues not one feature of the game will have any real "depth" to it at all.... [/quote] I don't see how this new proposal for the research system is an "easy most generic way out." I have personally never played a game with this sort of research mechanic in place, so that more or less rules out

[quote]Assume you want to research Barracks, Weapons on top of Plate Armor. When GREY is selectable, the only economic way to sequence your research is to go directly to the Plate Armor first and hope for freebie Barracks and Weapons. When GREY is non-selectable, you are taking a risk to do the same sequence, as the freebie may never come. This make gamer face a decision on whether they want to do Barracks, Weapons, Defence and finally Plate Armor; where th

[quote]I think it's pretty solid given how things are designed, at least compared to the "taking the best parts of other games and putting them together will create a great game". Things aren't designed in a vacuum and there are lots of things from one system that affect others.[/quote] Of course, I never argued otherwise. My only point is that I believe that tactical combat tends to affect and be affected less by other aspects of a game. [quote]That's false man, sorry to brea

[quote]The crux of the matter is that rivers are interesting and strategic from one major point: which side of the river are you on? When placed between tiles this logic is built into the map system...youre on either on tile x or tile x+1.[/quote] I wouldn't say that's the only major strategic interest of rivers. I'd say river transportation is at least as interesting, and sections of rivers that are too wide to ford would be plenty interesting, as well. (Although I suppose

[quote]I cannot help but think of the archer that took down Smog in the Hobbit. Though I guess he had a magical family hairloom arrow or something.[/quote] He was an excellent archer, had a magical family heirloom, and was quite literally told by a little birdie of Smaug's weak spot. And in the grand scheme of dragons in Middle Earth, Smaug was small-fry. I cannot imagine Tolkien having had any of the more powerful dragons being slain even by someone like Bard... It

[quote]So I feel changes from a "you have XXX gold" to a wealth 'stat' that is influenced by a number of factors to be very unlikely and likely unproductive.[/quote] Not necessarily. A wealth score wouldn't be a major overhaul of the system, really. Personally I like the idea of trade and certain buildings, for example, modifying the gold/population of a given settlement. Although I suppose whether these things modified gold/population or just added additional income would

[quote]essentially this means that such measures are only for defensive purposes, and Im not sure exactly how any "Offensive" or "experience" mechanics would work ... I kinda assume the peasants help fight against the enemy, to defend the city, and are either routed into the countryside, or defeat the big-bad and the survivors go about their every-day lives.[/quote] Oh, I'd be all for something like a Call to Arms for defensive purposes. There was a discussion a while back about how s

[quote]So I have to explicitly distance myself from things I didn't say but others -- who in your opinion I have generally been in agreement with on other things -- do say?[/quote] Jesus christ in a handbasket, man, take that pole out of your ass. I never said you have to do anything at all - I couldn't care less how you live your life. All I am saying is that you really need to learn to forgive people for confusing who has been arguing for what when there have been pages of discussio

Someone did already say this, but I like the idea enough to repeat it: another method of treating grey technologies could be to freeze out their research point cost. If a tech turns grey after you reach milestone 10, then that tech could, for the rest of the game, cost however many research points it took to get from milestone 9 to milestone 10. This way the cost of going back and researching an old tech is still very large (if each milestone really doubles in cost, and techs turn grey after

[quote]Just a thought; as I said, I don't know how this new tech tree display will work, but my initial impression is that it's restricting my access to data that someone will eventually tabulate and publish. So, why not eliminate the middleman?[/quote] There is a "tree view" button on the bottom that I can only assume will display the actual tech tree. I imagine it'd display everything, all techs except perhaps the occasional surprises. As I understood it, this milestone system

[quote]Again, battles are like they are in Dominions because the game is nearly all about battles. Civ 4 battles are like they are because the game is about a lot of things. Elemental is more like Civ in that aspect than like Dominions: Elemental does a lot of things, and it has to strike a balance between complexity in each individual area and overall complexity of the game. So far, Elemental is even more complex than Civ 4 (more complex economy, more complex city building, 2 types of resear

[quote]Misunderstood? Heck, you've been making things up. You argued against points I didn't make -- for example you argue against hard caps ("then a hard cap is unnecessary, and needlessly limiting.") which I never proposed. You argue "...if "the game [is] balanced such that other options are as viable..."" -- well duh... Who here is suggesting things should be unbalanced so that other options are 'unviable'? Do we really have to specify the obvious

[quote]Now, in order to balance that vs staying small and focusing on magic, you could make magical research essence based. Magical development wont expend your essence but it's speed will be determined by your sovreigns essence value.[/quote] The current plan is for essence to determine your channelers' (and sovereign's) strength - both for regular combat and magical ability. [quote]As for spellcasting, a sovreign should only ever really expend essence when imbuing the land o

Rivers on tiles would be so much better than rivers between tiles! As has already been said, they don't need to occupy the entire tile, but a tile with a river passing through it would allow both land and water travel. There is one other disadvantage of tile-based rivers, though - movement penalties. If you want to impose a movement penalty for cross a river, do you impose it when you move onto a river tile, or when you move off of it? What if you move onto a river tile from the left,

[quote]Which is why you've been arguing againt the exceptional suggestion on points that I didn't say, or on which we both agree. And why it's better to ask than assume when unsure.[/quote] I went back and reread your post that I quoted, and my response to it. My conclusion is that you didn't understand my point. So there is clearly miscommunication going on - one of us, or both, has failed to get our point across to the other. Here is what you said:

[quote]I suppose what I mean to say is ... I would like for living dungeons to not only be "places to kill stuff and get exp" but possibly places to make diplomacy with the inhabitants, perhaps limited trade (items, ect), and perhaps hiring mercenaries (what If I want to build a metropolis where humans, lizardman, centaurs, and minotaurs can live? Perhaps I can build a Lizzie ghetto, Centaur ghetto, Minotaur ghetto- with their own locations/population counts, and I can recruit from such popul

[quote]Customizable units + magic = pretty hard to balance units even if they are implemented well. That's why I think another mechanic is needed, even if it will limit a little the player choices.[/quote] I'd prefer to take a wait and see stance on that. We don't even know how magic will work out, and we've only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding customizable troops. Assuming that the only way to prevent all-elite armies from being the inherently superior strategy based on thin

[quote]I don't like it. Not ONE BIT. WE are the ones who have paid to be Beta Testers and have Input into the game. WE are the ones who are on the OFFICIAL forums giving input and ideas. They don't even have the brains (or balls) to come HERE and post, where it Should matter. If they are worried that the game will be "Too Hardcore" then t

[quote]Er...okay...but you can pause the game in the RTS games also. Just think about Kohan: AG for example. The game has companies -> group of units, and it's an RTS. [No tiles of course] So basically the battles in Elemental will be similar to KAG's battles. [There are differences of course, but you got the picture.][/quote] We know nothing about Elemental's combat besides the fact that it's turn-based and encompasses vast armies. Maybe it's tile-based. Maybe