[quote who="xGhost4000x" reply="86" id="2546414"]This sounds awesome, however throw in family trees for Heroes so if the Gov dies his first born takes the Gov title, even without your consent, then the only way you get to choose is if he has no children. [/quote]Or if you assasinte the child, causing you to either be able to pick another governor, or to risk civil war... [e digicons]}:)[/e]
[quote who="FarAway Galciv" reply="119" id="2546336"]I like the notion of trying something new. The Civ model is fun, but... been there, done that. I also really like the notion of limiting the number of cities. It reduces micromanagement, it adds more character to individual places, and it makes players evaluate trade-offs--I LOVE computer games that make me make tough choices and live with the trade-offs, rather than having enough of all things. I wonder ho
In Empire:total war (ETW) the auto-resolve is so good that there hardly is any point inplaying out the battles. I therefore do not play them, which makes the game very very dull. Also the campaign map AI of the total war series is very poor, even the developers do not like it. in ETW the developers said that they made the AI so accomplished that it took everything into account like a human would, which resulted in the AI being letargic and completely frozen most of the time. So in the la
[quote who="Sparhawk4242" reply="82" id="2546393"]Just let us for one moment take a look how other games (e.g. CIV 4) solves similiar situation: - each cities cost a certain amount of money to support and each add. building increases this amount => this reduces the risk of spaming of cities in the starting phase of a game - later on there is the corruption in CIV 4, but I don't think that that concept works... So how about the following:<b
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="81" id="2546391"] Quoting Shurdus, reply 79 Quoting vieuxchat, reply 77The problem of limited tiles for cities isn't still taken care of. Cities are spammed because : You need more resources You need more gold, then you create more cities for the roads that are created You need to control a chokepoint on the map You need to expand your zone of influence So, if for all of those
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="77" id="2546357"]The problem of limited tiles for cities isn't still taken care of. Cities are spammed because : You need more resources You need more gold, then you create more cities for the roads that are created You need to control a chokepoint on the map You need to expand your zone of influence So, if for all of those reason the player has a better way to achieve that, he won't spam cities. Wh
Agreed, what Elemetal should avoid is having an end game like Civ where any half decent player would agree you have won, only you have to sit out turn after turn of tedious combat in order to actually have the game acknowledge it. It would be awesome if this game had a mechanism to prevent the game from going into that stage where you have to battle it out although nothin can stop you any more.
Tridus, you are probably right. Then it may be just as simple to just give us a number and be done with it. :)
KillzEmAllGod, there is a feature in the options in Civ IV where you can make it so that these popups do not appear. Also you can build wealth or turn on the governor and the city will never bother you again. @vieuxchat, I like the idea of the city slowly growing. Having just one monstrous city as an empire... That is brilliant. :)
[quote who="Leomund" reply="51" id="2542865"]That would then mean then you'd have to fit it somewhere else and thus lead to having specialized cities for different things instead of lots of mega cities that are just clones of eachother as happens in late game Civ. Kudos![/quote]As a deity Civ IV player I can say that in order to win on deity you need to specialise your cities. You cannot win on any difficulty higher than emperor on Civ IV if you clone cities. Show me a saved game on dei
Wintersong, that is actually not a bad idea at all. Not having access to all the numbers would definitely prevent the game from being 'gamed.' However, it is a bit screwing over the players who want to get in-depth and play this game all-out since without being able to quantify factors it can be hard to choose what to do.
BoogieBac, that is where a clear tooltip would come in handy. the game could use a 'civilopedia' where the mechanics are explained and where the ins and outs of building X are explained, and if you mouse-over building X in the city itself it should tell you in advance what it will do. Building X may be efficient in one town but not in another because of the mechanic. Where would the frustration creep in then? If you can tell in advance what a building does because the mouse-over tooltip expla
Scoutdog, what you propose is decent enough - or at least it's face value is - but why would a city become counterproductive? I can see where buildings would remain empty due to overbuilding so these buildings would be a very bad investment. It is unclear to me why these buildings would drag the entire city down.
Awesome. :)
If some one could hide in the corner and burn through the tech tree without being detected or stopped, does he not deserve a win for his gamble? He would be pretty weak otherwise and people would come and look for him if a player seems to be missing. If he can [b]still[/b] pull off a tech victory, he deserves it in my book. Then again, I am unsure if the 'more buildings = more research' approachs is desirable. If there are no more people willing to learn new skills, then more schools
In the end I am not sure if it is all that bad if the system got 'gamed'... If you do not want that then that is fine, but I love microing in Civ IV because this sets the men apart from the boys for sure. Instead of artificial levels of a city, why not have a sliding scale where the town would slowly grow rather than increase 8 tiles per time? Under the surface in the equations, the game could still have 5 levels, but in those levels the new tiles would be fed to you one or maybe two
That outpost, hamlet, village, town sounds so much like Civ IV... Speaking of which, Civilization V was announced today and is planned for this fall... ouch for Elemental. :/ On the bright side, what they are planning to do with Civ V sounds horrible.
Is using the avatars on civfanatics.com - where they would get significant exposure - acceptable? Or is that prohibited? Does it require a sig or something promoting elemental?
Making the game nothing more than a spreadsheet is of course pushing it, but there is some truth in what I say, or at least there is to me. Let me tell you about a friend of mine who was a huge fan of Europa Universalis. He would tell me with a passionate fire about how everything interacted and how things worked. He would constantly say 'look at how the AI responds when I perform action X' and 'my people really respond when I do Y'. Then he wanted to demonstrate something - I forgot
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="2534730"]The ones shown above aren't specific to any environment. But there are creatures that are specific to environments but they don't tend to be Fallen creatures as they were bred explicitly not to be stuck to an environment. But for instance: This non-Fallen (natural creature of Elemental) appears only in swamp areas. Incidentally, it has not been named yet so feel free to suggest names. <br
Can and will. I dislike any campaign that tells me what I can and cannot do. I want this game for the sandbox exoperience and I will ignore the campaign. I would not want any campaign that tells me I cannot build building x this mission, or that I cannot train unit x because I have 'learned' enough for this mission. I want to mess around with each and every feature. In the end, becoming a solid player is very much intertwined with knowing how the game mechanics work. In the edn, all y
Umderdroths look like demigod's unclean beast. :) And do not forget dire badgers!
Uhuh, that is some very much detailed fantasy blaaaaaa that I am absolutely not interested in. Amazing though to see that you guys put so much thought into this for those who care about that stuff. Getting really excited to see beta 1-g here. :)
In reply to the magic vs might empires, it seems not only very, very dull to me that a magic empire can only get som many building improvements, and on the other hand it seems even more dull that you need magical beings defending you when you are under attack. I can see where it would be fun to let some empires rely more on magic than others, but an over the top difference like this is not needed. Just let some nations research faster than others and it should be fine. Also give some nations
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="10" id="2523708"] Bring on the plooping terrain icons, [/quote]Plooping! :D That made me laugh out loud, while I am at school in a computer room. Everybody stared at me. :P Anyway, I think some sort of upkeep maybe should be in order. That way you should pick carefully who you want to charm and soft-caps the number of creatures that you can charm. Charming should not become a major way to get raise a large army quickly imo, it should be just