Stalker0

A great discussion so far! As to the OP, automation replacing human labor has been a constant factor in human history for a long time. And so far, humans have always adapted for the better. However, there are signs that this time may be different: 1) We are running out of growth options. In past history we could expand to new lands and new resource pools. But we have found every land, and most of our mining work now is a better exploitation of existing pools....

[quote who="onomastikon" reply="3" id="3391520"] Quoting Stalker0, reply 2 The key to note is that the bonuses from leveling are not insignificant. The bonus you get at level 2 you get at every level thereafter, in addition to the specific bonus you choose. I don't understand this. Are you saying the bonus I get at level 2 (the bonus from selecting city specialization) is cumulatively added at level 3, 4, and 5?[/quote] <p

The key to note is that the bonuses from leveling are not insignificant. The bonus you get at level 2 you get at every level thereafter, in addition to the specific bonus you choose.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="15" id="3386861"] The short answer: Because navies suck. The long answer: Because navies suck. Kidding aside, the implementation of navies would actually detract from existing gameplay. You would need AI to be able to utilize navies. You would need roaming monsters and lairs in the sea. You would need quests and encounter intergration. You would need magical alternatives to sea travel. You would defenses and improvements t

I have a request. I like the fast resolve feature for tactical battles. The option in the upper right corner that lets you play through a battle at high speed. Its a good mix between doing everything myself or using autoresolve and getting wonky results sometimes. However, there is one major bottleneck to me using it. The simulator likes to use magic....a lot! Sometimes my guys will keep casting spells even when the battle is in the bag. I have se

[quote who="sjaminei" reply="15" id="3386517"] Quoting Fallenchar, reply 13 Resoln isn't the best per se, I just happen to like magic. Pariden is equally magicky, but winning is too easy with them being a Kingdom. What exactly makes winning easier as kingdom? I am curious, because I am of the opposite belief (Sacrifice and Blood Rage giving Empire the edge) [/quote] I'm not saying kingdom is easier, but if it is i wo

1) Bug Fixes/AI Improvements. I still feel like this game is me vs the monsters with the occasional other city coming around. 2) Be able to see in the tech tree how much research a tech costs. 3) More easily change city spells (i hate having to go to the details screen to dismiss spells). 4) A way to bulk cast spells that i might case on my whole army or spells like raise/lower land. 5) A rebalance of late game tech. Personally i feel by the time i go to late g

[quote who="jackswift85" reply="52" id="3385666"] Look at all the backlash against the xbone for just having the Kinect read your facial expressions and movements.[/quote] At the same time we have new smartphones that can tell when you are looking at the screen. Bottom line is, there is not a massive outcry pushing privacy. Sure there are a few blips, a boycott here, and a rally there. But overall there is a massive technology push to destroy privacy

There is a lot of elements i really like about the game: 1) I really like the combat system. I am not a big warmonger, but this give me enough tactical combat without boggin me down. 2) I like how you can change the world with your magics. 3) Building armies i find a lot of fun and has a good element of customization while again not being too much. but it has its weakness too. 1) The AI is pretty weak overall. I feel like i

Lately i've been trying the Sovereign "retirement" build. Basically i get the sovereign a few levels in commander, then settle him in a city and paragon my first champion to high levels. Its been decently effective so far.

I'm fine with the system as is. Heroes can represent a significant portion of an armies strength. I already think that killing an opponents main army gives you too much of an advantage and lets you steamroll through cities. At least this way the heroes can try to make an impact in the next fight.

[quote who="sjaminei" reply="6" id="3384426"] It's not chess I doubt leaving it on for hours will make the AI smarter. [/quote] Agreed, Chess is much simpler in AI terms:)

[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="142" id="3384609"] Did we get a Thursday update to this crappy 1-city per AI beta release? If not, I'm going to start taking $1 out of my Stardock savings account for each 1 day I have to wait. Which one should I do?[/quote] Maybe you should stop playing beta versions of a game if you want to deal with bug issues.

Right now, i feel like there is too large a gap between leather and chain type armors. Most of my units use leather based armors for the majority of my games. Further, i know there is also discussion that iron isn't used quickly enough and tends to stockpile. So perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone. The idea: 1) Create a studded leather armor gained a blacksmithing that would exist between leather and chain type armor. This armor would have a

[quote who="merlinme" reply="17" id="3384047"] Spears get five moves for every four which clubs get, which can be significant. Spears also don't lose a move after using their special ability.[/quote] In my experience though, clubs don't need those extra moves. One good bash can cripple or destroy an opponents army. So when the opponents turn is up, there counterattack is all the weaker. That combined with the ability for clubs to use shields means

Another +1 here, it is really hard to see sometimes

[quote quoting="post"] Simple question, I guess. The Heirogamicon says that research and production are modified by population. Is this the case? [/quote] It is...after a fashion. With high population a city gains levels. Every level gets you a boost in money, research, and production, dependent on type. Conclaves get a lot of research, and then a little money and production for example. But that said, the actual populati

[quote who="BernieTime" reply="1" id="3381301"] General answer is that Spears are fine, you just need to build units that take advantage of their perks. [/quote] I would actually counter that a good portion of the boards think that clubs are OP. I wouldn't say that spears are bottom of the barrel, but there is concern about weapon imbalance.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="39" id="3379675"] Eventually (and by eventually I really mean 25 years from now) most of what makes "us" us will be in the cloud at which point you could argue that this enhanced version of us is in effect, "AI" because we'll have vastly expanded our intelligence using artificial means. .[/quote] There are many that argue that writing technically already did that. Most of humanity's progress we can associate to th

[quote who="sjaminei" reply="10" id="3378701"] So when you get high hp stacks and some spell resist they aren't as good anymore. [/quote] Do you mean fire/cold resistance? I didn't think spell resistance helped against elemental attacks.

[quote who="sjaminei" reply="7" id="3378669"] Quoting hakkarin, reply 2 And for reference, I use mage troops with high dodge, that 20 range dodge trinket etc. and they beat archers handily. Don't underestimate dodge and lack of accuracy/initiative from the opposing archers. [/quote] Yeah i think that is a part too, mages are just better than archers. Why worry about defenses when my attacks can negate them? And the ai doesn't use enough resistance g

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="26" id="3378639"] Agreed. I just don't build outposts in games. I'd sooner make the land fertile for 200 mana and then build a new city than make an outpost. [/quote] Its different strokes i guess. 30 pop i don't consider that valuable of a resource, but 200 mana is terribly precious to me, i burn through it like its going out of style!

I don't have any problems with archers as they currently stand. Melee troops may not be specialized to beat archers, but statwise they are still superior. Melee troops have a better attack, better initiative than their archer counterparts. They also get swarming bonuses, and they penetrate defense easier because of their higher attack. Archers have their uses, but they are not the end all be all.

[quote who="RedAsphalt" reply="21" id="3378499"] Quoting Azunai_, reply 4or reduce growth to 0 if a pioneer is in the queue? Simple, minimal side effects, and solves the problem entirely. This is good. [/quote] So in this example it would be a pop 30 cost and 0 growth? It would work for me, still think its worth it.

[quote who="tjashen" reply="21" id="3378381"] Sure, they provide spiffy bonuses. But cities provide more spiffy bonuses, and can produce units. So while I use outposts, I find that I can overwhelm the AI more quickly with cities...[/quote] I don't see this as an "either or" scenario. I don't think anyone is disputing that cities are better than outposts (though defensively the +25% defense, +50% attack upgrades beat the pants off of the fortress defens