awuffleablehedgie

I'm unable to update. Are the servers overloaded or what? I tried talking in IRC but no SD people responded :/

note the "don't use it and pretend it doesn't exist if you think it is too powerful" mentality is pretty normal for single-player developers. Bioware has a similar stance.

I just think Organized should be a default Sov ability. It only makes sense and it gives a certain degree of power to Sovs. That's how I have it modded in atm.

see Gnilbert's mod

I think it's because they would rather invest the money and time in creating the book to be spent in the sandbox mode instead, since the book will lack a certain degree of replayability. I think there is also a bit of fear of what the 2nd and 3rd books will be like, since the 1st wasn't much of all. If the 2nd and 3rd books were awesome, 5-10 hour campaigns with new sandbox content as well, that would be awesome.

[quote who="Raven X" reply="213" id="2773457"] Quoting Serapth, reply 209 No, I havent. I haven't taken the arrogant step as to make demands of the developers, or taken it upon myself to speak on behalf of more than I represent. As I stated earlier in the thread, I was Asked to make this post, BY a Community Of People..., [/quote] A "Community Of People" are also telling you to stop making arrogantly titled posts and that they are offended by it. Why don't y

[quote]All of that is moot though... you are acting as though they picked the deadline and then wen't "Oh S&!*! That's like in another week dude, and we are totally not ready!". That wasn't the case at all. Brad even admitted that if they had waited until February, the launch would have gone similarly (I'm not saying a I agree with that, but there it is) because LACK OF TIME WAS NOT A PROBLEM. I don't get the rationalizing here. There was no 'rush to

[quote]Also, anyone who paid less than 50 for the game, should have to work the difference off in the kitchens or something.[/quote] Not really. They would just be "entitled" to whatever they paid for. If I get an old game on sale for $5 it's going to be judged on a much different scale than a brand new cutting-edge game I get for $50. You're being obstinate and, yes, you are paying for "time". The "pleasure" to be a release-day adopter. But a particular retailer undercutting the MSRP

[quote]Read my post with the quote from Brad. There is no 'probably' about it. They DID think they were ready and they DID pick the time window. I don't believe the 'months in advance' garbage, this isn't 1920. Barring that however, it IS contradictory. You can't have severe time constraints when lack of time was not a problem. That doesn't make any sense no matter how you rationalize it.[/quote] It was self-imposed, yes. They decided to make their

It's 5% (: But it is by design.

JoinUnitArmy is what you're looking for, I think, Bobby. Frogboy wrote a large Dev journal with all the currently hooked-in GameModifiers (though no explanations).

[quote who="DeadlyShoe" reply="177" id="2773070"] It's also Blatantly Obvious that I WAS NOT speaking for the people WHO DON'T want larger unit count Make all the posts you want using your own voice. Saying you are making an 'official request' from the 'player community' is presumptuous to say the least. [/quote] It is signed [quote]~ Raven X and the Elemental Community[/quote] Not, you know "Raven X and the People Who Want Bigger Battles"

It was RavenX who brought up the bacon sandwich analogy, btw. [quote]I don't get it...I really don't. No-one is saying they are entitled to a "better game" because they got the LE Edition instead of the Normal edition.[/quote] This is exactly what you're saying [quote]As long as they live up to the original design intentions and DON'T make me pay another $70 bucks (LE edition here) for it I'll be happy. ...[/quote] [quote]also EXPECT not have to have to Pay For

And... yes you can say you spent 4 on the sandwich and .99 on the bacon. That's exactly what you did. If you were unhappy with the bacon, you'd as for your .99 cents back. If you were unhappy with the sandwich but not the bacon, you'd ask for your $4 :/

No... Jandurin's point of view is perfectly valid. People who purchased LE spent $50 for the "game" itself, and $20 for the extra goodies. Only an idiot would assume that they are going to "patch" the extra goodies and continuously "improve" them, as the game is improved. He's either content or unhappy with the $20 he spent on the extra goodies. Regardless, what was in it was perfectly clear when he ordered the product. And he recieved it. The $50 for the

I'm unable to run Elemental thru Wine. Sorry (:

All the better to get swarms of spies... That said, I believe both Life and Death should start with Imbue.

That's exactly what I'm saying. From a gameplay perspective, removing stack limits is good. Because it enables quantity v quality arguments to actually be valid. Raising the stack limit is good, for that reason. Arbitrarily increasing model counts so you simply "see" more fighting... doesn't really make any it more epic (except, perhaps, when your Champion destroys 80 men with one blow). It is, again, just an illusion of grandeur.

It's not even that. Basically "epic" means... instead of showing, say, 4 models, display SIXTEEN. Then, times all the stats by 4. The gameplay would be 100% identical. Which is why it's silly. Elemental performs only marginally well as it is (on my machine, at least). We don't need further complications. Second, the title is terribly misleading. Only a "loser" would say no, eh? If it was titled "Petition for Larger Model Counts In Game" it would be totally differen

blah blah I'm against arbitrarily increasing the amount of units fieldable simple for the sake of "epicness". That said, I do think being able to put more units into a Stack is beneficial. That is, 50 Peasants or 10 Well-Trained Soldiers. The stack limit forces quality over quantity (when quantity > 12). Then again I'm just a gameplay purist

Again, yes, epic == extra-ordinary. Not "large". Epic poems are, basically, the root of the word "Epic". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=epic Greece, land of the Epic Poems, "poem" implied "Epic" since they used orators for entertainment and history. I feel that Elemental lacks "importance" or "extraordinary elements". Hence why I feel that it makes it not epic. I do not think that making battles simply

Epic does not mean more (as in "bigger". "Bigger battles with more guys in it") If you take something, like a star. And make it bigger. Does it magically become more epic? What if you make it REALLY REALLY REALLY big? Does it become more epic? If you take a huge massive star, and compare it to a star that changes colors rapidly, which is more epic? You can quote as many dictionaries as you would like, but the feeling of "epic" is focused on the "unusual" and "surpassing the or

Well, all respect I had for you, Raven, was just lost. Wow. 4 whole kharma. Aren't you *amazing*. Just because you got 4 kharma, you must be right! Who could possibly argue with four kharma... it's like. Whoa dude. ... I'm with Tridus on this. Having thousands of units on a screen does not make an epic game. It's just clutter. This game has enough stress on good computers as it is, thousands of animations (poorly done, may I add) is not going to make this game better.

I am all for reputation and charisma going hand-in-hand

Pioneers should NOT cost food. Level 1 CITIES should have a -1 food modifier (except for your capital, which should naturally produce +1 food or whatever). That way, if you lose a pioneer, you aren't out 1 food for the rest of the game :/ Caravans should not give food, but give gold instead. The "Cheaper Pioneer" perk drops the food cost for level 1 cities from 1 to .5.