kingtiger_522

[quote who="dragoaskani" reply="1" id="2757792"]Nice, organized, and boring. Done to death, I like this approach, but then again my machine doesnt slow down even by turn 500 on large epic game speed maps, with 9 ai's.... [/quote] Couldn't agree more. Part of the challenge in Elemental is choosing how to build up your cities. By shaping them properly, you can move around your territory much more quickly, and have an easier time defending them. Not to mention, it lends the wo

Absolutely, a GREAT idea. This makes it worthwhile to actually build up a city, as opposed to... well, the way it is now.

I agree with everything being said here. The way the system currently works, trade and infrastructure are at cross-purposes--if you send out your caravans to build roads in the right places, they typically go places that don't generate nearly as much income. Maybe what would work is to keep caravans, but only for inter-kingdom trade. Your own cities would automatically generate a road between them that covers the shortest possible distance, and trade would occur along it automatically. I

[quote]I suggested using noble titles and governorships to help make them more interesting, but it would also mean providing some bonuses as army leaders and commanders. Attacking to a single squad seems a little limiting. I'd rather they affected the whole army they are marching with. [/quote] I don't see why they can't do both. Also, the governorship thing could be interesting--make it so you can assign them for cities for champion-specific bonuses. It'd give the ones poorly suited

I couldn't agree more with this arguement, mainly since the current system defeats the point of improving your units' stats and equipment. Why bother advancing if you have no guarentee that it'll actually help anything?

Why don't we just have it so we can attatch a champion (or your sovereign) to a similarly armed squad (archers to archers, etc). The way I see it, champions are (fundamentally) just substantially more powerful regular units. Being able to designate them as squad leaders would be the simplest way to greatly extend their usefulness.

[quote who="SilentScream" reply="105" id="2721990"] Quoting Tasunke, reply 73Sawing logs??? Snoring.[/quote] Either that, or his wife has some sort of lumberjack fixation. One of the two.

Booyah! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

An idea I've been toying with for a while is the concept of a research system in a game that more closely mimicks technological progress in the real world (realism isn't a huge concern for some people, but I've got my reasons). What this would basically do is take most research decisions out of the player's direct control, and instead use a slight amount of randomness directed by overall events to suddenly unlock "breakthroughs." For instance, if a city is repeatedly flooded year after year,

I agree wholeheartedly with this idea- archers should never be without some sort of weapon in case the other guys get up close and personal. As a means of balancing it out, I'd suggest a reality based option: big armor and heavy weapons make it that much harder to pull and fire a bow. A suit of armor could weigh something like a quarter ton, and those bows weren't designed for lightweights either. In game, this'd translate into accuracy, range, or damage penalties for heavily encumber

Champions

Although I think that there're still a few tweaks that could be made to the tech tree, fundamentally I think it's a good system. [quote]I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of randomness in the research trees, as I don't think it reflects the concept believably. Research is normally a directed, focused and ordered thing, and while occasionally discoveries are made that are not exactly specific to the purpose of a particular research, I'd not go so far as to say that researching for somet

... is it just me? or does this sound a lot like the current build? lol. Most games I've played, I never actually cast a single spell [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Ultimately, I'm with wintersong here: in the full game, magic should be an integral component in gameplay. If you dislike it you can choose to ignore it, but doing so should put you at a fairly severe disadvantage. After all, just because you pay no attention to magic doesn't mean that everything else works better...

Speaking as a player who takes his time, I think the concept needs a little work. Maybe if you made it so that a player could pick 1 minigame during their off-time, get 1 bonus, and after that just play for fun. That way, even the slowest player would have an opportunity to get the same bonus as a speedy one. On the topic of the proposed cash game, I think it'd be better if you make the stakes unlimited. It'd be hilarious to watch a player's empire crash and burn because he burned thr

[quote]As long as silly is serious, I'm all for it. Silly shouldn't be "lolrandum" stupid-silly, it should be in the context of what is serious. I.e, silly shouldn't downplay the seriousness.[/quote] ... I'm almost positive that that made no sense whatsoever. I APPROVE! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

Trying to get my city to level 4, but it requires more houses and I'm all out of tiles. I try to delete some unnecessary ones, but the game keeps on freezing Here's the .err: http://pastebin.com/aqepx7e0

part of the function of houses seems to be spreading the city; you have to have buildings adjacent to a resource to build an improvement on it, and houses fulfill this function nicely.

Tried to load an autosave, but it took forever and ended up stopping at about 99%. I'd include a screenshot, but it happened before I installed Jing, so...

When one of my scouts operating on autoexplore entered another faction's turf, I got the standard message screen, but... it won't go away! I haven't gotten around to researching any diplomatic skills so I can't buy passage, and for some reason when I click on "turn back," I just get the same message again... until it finally just goes away after I click on the war option a few times (war was not declared).

I did use a customized faction, but since I wasn't in .251, I can't be of much more help.

yeah, i've had exactly the same problem, except I've only gotten the dynasty one once (the two crashes were consecutive) here's the .err: http://pastebin.com/zKmbesei and here's the crash report: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5138303/ElementalClient_109603589.csv

[quote]A permanent stone fortress, though, a castle -- that's not just digging in, that's a direction for city development.[/quote] Not necessarily--look, for example, at the Great Wall. Huge stone fortifcation, but no city. Also, sometimes its important to hold a position where having a city would absolutely suck (think narrow mountain passes). You'd want to have an impressive, permanent fortress there, though.

From my perspective, while the large-scale spells'll do a lot to negate the "superstack" strategy, I'd have to say that the tactical battles are probably an even greater deterrant. If combat autoresolves, then of course the guy with overwhelming numbers of troops will win. If you take it to a tactical battlefield, you've got a great opportunity to negate that advantage--if not entirely, then to the point where you can make him pay for each victory.

Gonna throw in a another vote for USA network (BURN NOTICE!!!) +Bones Come to think of it, I'm pretty much obsessed w/ crime dramas... except CSI

alriiight... just got my preorder [e digicons]:grin:[/e]