[quote who="Ausland" reply="5" id="3089615"]The problem is that there are buildings in FE that give you bonuses if your cities aren't producing anything. Frogboy has said that he would like to have more of these as well: https://forums.elementalgame.com/418154 [/quote] Civ also has these bonuses. Guess what? When the window pops up you switch it to producing extra gold/research/etc. That's the only time you see
I agree, as do numerous other users. Please refer to the lengthy thread I've had going for quote some time here . [quote who="Ausland" reply="3" id="3089435"]Its not a mental check list, there is a notification on the side that tells you the production queue is empty. Anyway, I'm fine with having options for this, but I don't want it mandatory that annoying pop ups occur
[quote who="Fistalis" reply="197" id="3089228"] Quoting Beric01, reply 193-snip- Did you just go on about realism and then at the end suggest that archers can carry an unlimited amount of arrows? [/quote] No, simply that setting an artificially low limit is unrealistic. 50 arrows to battle is reasonable, is it not? Arrow capacity could be limited by strength and storage requirements, and perhaps be influenced by arrow size and type
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="195" id="3089209"]I guess the fear is that you could have 1 (slow) melee unit of 200 defense facing a kiting archer of only 1 attack ... and thus you get a battle that never ends. (or rather, a battle that takes 50 turns to win, assuming the melee unit has 50 HP ... and assuming attacks cause at least 1 damage if they hit)[/quote] Well, that's taking it to the logical extreme, but in that situation, the archer should win. The
I have to tie in my post about the theory of kiting with the AI in the game. But first, a 1-line summary of kiting: I have a faster unit than you, that can also shoot from range. I win, due to my superior technology and army composition. Now, on to the AI. First of all, if the AI has kiting, the AI should use it! If I'm a general, I'm stupid to allow my enemy's melee units to engage with my weak archers. Therefore, I should avoid it at all costs. AI
I had to comment because I don't want to see tactical combat ruined by "gamey" mechanisms. The initiative system is already pushing that boundary as it is. Combat should "make sense" and work, not be an arbitrary system of balances which are constantly modified when people complain that a certain unit is overpowered. I completely and utterly agree with a previous post: the hard counter to kiting is light cavalry. Run those archers down! This is historical and realis
Definitely a 3 for me. Technology in FE doesn't approach how meaningful it was in Fall From Heaven II. There, you made real choices as to what to research, and critically hampered your performance in some areas to improve it in others. Not having tech at the right time meant life or death situations. Technology is a major part of any strategy game for me. In fact, I'd say it's my favorite part. Tech in FE does not come close to the level of performance I'
[quote who="Lord Cobol" reply="34" id="3081272"] Quoting Publius of NV, reply 30Quoting Lord Cobol, reply 25 Late-game with large maps, most of the Zzzzs will be down below the screen. Gimme popup. Forgive me. Changed my mind. Popups might be ok, but the first thing I would do is add a line saying the queue is empty to the building notification we already get. Next, implement some keys that go forward/backward thru all the idle cities we have. <br /
[quote who="Polistes" reply="27" id="3080350"] They had this feature for E:wom and the general consensus was that it sucked, because if you had 22 cities being idle you would get 22 pop ups telling you that.[/quote] I don't see how that's a problem! If I have 22 cities idle, it means it's time to build 22 things! I also don't see why a feature which is slightly annoying to a small minority of users, but would be tremendously helpful to the majority, should be remo
[quote who="JPRL" reply="1" id="3079336"]Both of these issues can partially be countered by mechanism that examines save games rather than continuous game progress, but it's easy to cheat by "crashing" the game by killing it from the task manager.[/quote] I've done this when games tried to stop me from reloading. Kill task, relaunch game. No record of mistake made, loaded from save right before action.
Any update on plans for the poll? Again, I think this has a lot of potential, and would hate to see it go to naught. Stardock SHOULD have a new poll like this on the front page, updated after every patch, and tracked to see how their actual customers think they're doing. It doesn't hurt to see what people think is the biggest problem. A more collaborative environment, where new ideas are encouraged and built on top of, rather than lost forever, would be good as
It seems like the general consensus is: the ZZZ is not enough. I like the point about GalCiv2 - you tended to still notice it even though it didn't force you to build. But I don't see why a Civ4-like system is unreasonable. It works, people don't tend to complain about it, and it's tweakable if they do.
I'd like to stop z fighting on z coast as well, see here? Okay, I looked it up on Wikipedia, but yeah, your title is kinda confusing, haha. And I can't see what you're talking about.
[quote who="Das123" reply="15" id="3077444"]The thing that is really annoying me now with the game is that the UI doesn't prompt me in a meaningful way when I finish building something in a city. That and the caravan micromanagement. Hope these will be on the cards soon. The problem with the UI is that you have prompts at either side of the screen so you tend to miss both. If there is a setting to not auto-finish turns then prompts should be positioned near the End Turn button
I love the poll! Also the fact that I proposed city development, which is now tied for first, haha. I think threads like this one really give the devs an idea of what the community is feeling as a whole. For example, they can now tell the users don't view multiplayer or graphics as a major issue right now. However, something such as the tech tree clearly is. What would be even more interesting is gauging user interest across releases. Use the same poll options after
You're voicing numerous issues that I have noticed as well. Well done! Particularly the cities not prompting you to build-drives me crazy! Also, while dex does give you dodge, it kind of sucks when you're a bow character and can't increase your damage with dex, like a melee character can with strength.
Got this as well. I quit the game, and restarted it several times, but the issue still came up. Then I ran it as admin. No problems thereafter, even when no longer running as admin.
[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="3" id="3076260"] This issue has already been brought to the developers' attention and is slated to be modified before release.[/quote] And how do you know this, and yet we don't? Clearly yet another example of poor communication to the users, if a topic is brought up and allowed to be discussed, while no one knows it's already being fixed. We need a constantly updated thread on these forums, listing A] changes that are bein
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="2" id="3076054"]You deleted the post? I didn't mean for that at all, I think it was interesting. I also don't want to discourage anyone exploring the possibilities of modding. But you just have to be realistic about the things pulled out of the .exe instead of the core xml.[/quote] Looks like potential modders are sensitive! Be careful, Heavenfall, don't scare away the few we've got! [e digicons]:P[/e]
I find it annoying that I have to restart a game sometimes 3 times. I also don't like how there's 150-attack stacks that start right next to my sovereign. I make a movement mistake (which happens frequently with the current movement system), and my sovereign's toast before I've even founded my first city! Game over. Civ doesn't have monsters/creatures spawn for the first few rounds. It lets you at least get a city started in a decent
This exists in Civ, and I've been wanting for it for a year now. Please make movement exactly like Civ4, and I'll be happy. Specifically, highlight the exact path the unit will take (I might then want to avoid it), show turn markers on each tile so I know how long it will take to get there, and show red on tiles that have enemies along my movement path. Civ4 did strategic movement perfect. It even stopped automatic movement if you approached an enemy unit. Pleas
I dislike the entire concept of diplomatic capital, because it ruins immersion in the game. When using it, it reminds me, "Oh, this is just an AI, and I can use an artificial medium of exchange to exploit it to do something I want." Keep diplomacy to gold, research, cities, units, etc., and I'd be much happier. Even bonuses/negatives to current relations would be fine. As it is, it feels too much like a game mechanic. I might think I'm actually talking to Relias for a moment.
I'd prefer that caravans were entirely automated. They're a hassle to deal with, and yet still necessary.
IMO there are only two reasons, from a business standpoint, to include mutiplayer in any TBS game whasoever. 1) Reviewers are part of the 1%, and will irrationally downrate a game that does not have MP. This will result in less sales, due to an artificially deflated review and Metacritic score. 2) Multiplayer improves the longevity of a game, for the 1%. This doesn't matter. What matters is that that 1% is the most vocal about any game. If they hate it becau
[quote who="rwemack" reply="40" id="3075532"]Maybe if the AI opened several fronts, people would stop complaining/bragging about how their super stack is unstoppable.[/quote] Seeing as guerrilla warfare IS the counter to a stack of doom in military strategy, if the AI can't do it, it's pretty near worthless.