It has been said that a fanboy can't improve a title, since he won't dare to change it. Change and inovation are both based upon discarding existing material in favor of the new and untried. In this sense, you criticysing the game is the best thing we can ask for.
I play Civ4 quite a lot lately, so I'm quite familiar with the challenges of exploration. Due to the lack of decent exploration AI (my scouts tend to scout the coast line, and then die to barbarians), I usualy end micromanaging my scouts. I think that idealy there would be saveral search algorithems and the player will choose between them for each unit as he sees fit. The algorithms would be devided by their purpose (and not functionality). Rough explorat
How many players should/can we allow in a game? I suggest to not restrict the number. Make it 128 (I.E insanely high) and let each player choose for himself. How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game? This should be an optional modul. A player should be able to choose wether he likes big dungeons (a la Birthright) or just a text event. Even better would be to get asked for each dungeon wether you would like to explore it by yourself.</p
Most important thing is for the different kinds of weapons to be really different. Addendum: they must be balanced. Personaly, I like there beeing a tech tree for metals and different tech trees for different types of gear. Then, if you have both say Bronze and Short Swords, you can make Bronze Short Swords.
@Olp33, About designing different kinds of weapons: Go ahead and make a mod. The problem is that you want to see those weapons on your soldiers, and that means designing new textures. Also, there isn't really a reason to use scyths unless you expect your troops to help the peasantry during the harvest season [e digicons];P[/e] . Anyway, the option to equip a unit with different weapons at the same time is a must. Archers *need* to have shortswords, else they will just g
@Wintersong: Aliens is actualy a pretty good word for the subject, since it describes things which are completely non-human. On the downside, I really can't think of many alien species which are not humans wearing masks. @Szadowsz: I didn't mean to snap at you, I just don't see the appeal in bears most the forum goers seem to have. @Szadowsz second post: This looks familiar... Also, humanoid means 'standing upright on 2 legs; having another set of freely moving appendages; hav
Totaly agree with Demiansky on this. Unique features like those he mentioned gives a lot of replay value to games.
Warderin raises an issue I have dealt with in the past. My own example: I play civ4 a lot, usualy in the Fall From Heaven 2 mod. I play on Deity difficulty to keep things spiced up. What happens too frequently is that when there are 3 or 4 empires on the continent (including my own), they will all band on me, even though I am not the strongest one. In reality, or rather, with real players, the tactic you will most often see is everyone banding on the strongest oponent.</
[quote who="WarlokLord" reply="15" id="2084858"]This new intro trailer brought a hearty smile to my face, thats for sure... http://www.gamershell.com/news_70704.html (one of a number of download sites for it...) Glad they have the original narrator.[/quote] Best trailer EVER. Usualy I don't care for trailers unless I can see actual game mechanics, but this trailer is so awesome that it should be saved and shown to your friends.
Portal Star Control 2 Master of Orion 2 Master of Magic Majesty Dominion 3 Space Ops Gysh Civ2 Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Etc. etc.
I'm familiar with the equation, though I do not understand it's implementation for this case.
[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="11" id="2220302"] 3. super hive-mind winged humanoid insects (like in the Empire Trilogy)[/quote] Please re-read the thread's title... Also, the bear faction you described are just big humans covered with fur. As in, humanoids.
I approve heartily of the idea. Problems to consider: the user interface for suggesting such cooporations would be very complicated. This can't be avoided. Therefore, I suggest making two different kinds of cooporative magic: Simple: In the diplomacy screen, you can ask another channeler to team up for a specific ritual. Cost would be 50%/50%, without any complications. Complicated: a special screen made only for cooporative magic. It would be big, complicated
Have you guys heard about Fall From Heaven II? It's a mod for Civ4 that turns the game into a fantasy world, complete with religions, spells and heroes. Get it here: http://kael.civfanatics.net/ (it's really, really awesome) Frogboy, can I suggest you contact Kael (the guy who made the mod)? He is what you might call a 'pro modder', and we know he is interested in fantasy themed strategy games. I'm sure that he can give a lot of quality input regarding how the modding community works
(When I described the ants I was thinking of a book called 'Empire of the Ants' by Bernard Werber. I asked not to mention Zergs because i want original ideas (hey, I can hope :P)) Hmm... Carnivorus fungi, interesting idea. Think I'll steal it. Non-humanoid species #4: Dragons . It is a fantasy gam
A) I dislike the generic fantasy, Tolkin-ish races. Elemental has nothing to do with them, and this is good in my opinion. B.) This is still a fantasy world though, and there's no reson why we won't see non-human intelligent beings. C) The entities I describe here are *not* factions, but rather elements that factions can interact with. Now that the introduction is over, let's start with the bestiary! Non-humanoid species #1: <span style="color: #
Wait, 12 opponents? This must be a hoax! The only reason I play with less than the maximum passable civilizations in civ is that my computer can't handle it. Even thus, I never start a game with less than a dozen civilizations or so. A list of reasons why you *need* a lot of opponents for an interesting single-player experience: Diplomacy - More factions means more options for ganging and backstabbing. Resource Management - With a given amount of resources, the more f
I disagree with your diplomacy settings. I have a big huge army, but I can't attack the small town because I'm only in 'conflict' and can't get a 'war' yet... That sounds reasoonable to you? My suggestion is as follows: Conflict - what you have before official diplomacy starts. All shades of diplomatic options - negotiable through diplomacy. The toll idea is an interesting element to add, to use your example War - you can 'delare war' anytime you want, which is
1) I'm still surprised no one mentioned Dune. House Atreidis'* versus House Harkonnen's* method of commanding troops. 2) At any rate, I think that such a non-polar fame system would be awesome. 3) Machiavelli talked about the methods used to enforce morals, wether they are 'nice' or 'harsh'. Being 'evil' is having no morals. Anyone who follows his own morals cannot be evil, only misguided. Yes, even [insert name of evil dictator]. 4) Also, every time you drag
Just replying to clarify a misconception some of you have about MoM. EVERY spell that has an option to channel more mana into states exactly and clearly what would said increase will do. I don't remember the numbers, but I think Icebolt was +1 mana --> +1 spell power and Fireball was +2 mana --> +1 spell power. The difference was that fireball did its damage to every unit in the stack. Lightening was percing and Firebolt was just weak. Drain Life, for example didn't incr
I agree with Landisaurus on this one, my problem is that more often than not, your options are: Stupid Good: getting an annoying negative bonus. Ambivalent Neutral: doing nothing, getting a penalty and getting hated. Insane Evil: Everyone hates you, but at least you get some loot. The problem with this kind of hardcoded events, is that it sometimes force the player to choose between bad options. This isn't bad in itself, but it is bad when it's forced. In many
SMAC had both hardcoded and specific civics. You chose a leader with an overall agenda (survival, economy pure research), and during the game you could choose your governments outlook on specific issues. I think it's a much better system than '60% science/30% money/10% culture' Civ insists on having...
Why havn't you mentioned Sauron's all-seeing eye yet? Or say, The Hunt for the Horn of Valer (Wheel of Time Chronicles), which is not a building, but a project. The first who completes it gets the Horn of Valer Artifact. Half magical buildings is a great idea. You can turn your stone walls into force filds (insanely hard to breach but insanely expansive), or build half your city in a pocket dimention (doubeling the amount of building the city can support)
I agree with Hiriako. A unit with the ability to buff itself right before engaging would be awesome. Another awesome idea is a unit that raise their enemies from the dead to serve as their slaves. As for mana limitation, well, it's just another resource. Caster units should be expansive. I can see the casters draw their mana from my (the player) mana pool, but giving them some of my spell skill wouldn't work. I would NEVER weaken myself, no matter what I gain. I mean, come on,
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="9" id="1990303"]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