kingtiger_522

My 2 cents... Seems to me that it'd make sense to have some sort of restrictions on player customization, limited by race, faction, etc. It does occur to me that you should be able to continue customizing your appearance in game-- you are crazy magic, after all :). But for convinence sake, it could be something you can turn off from options, for people who'd prefer to rule over their pathetic human subjects as their giant spider overlord. Each to their own [e

[quote]Naturally, it will again be disturbed…[/quote] [e digicons]:cylon:[/e] BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [e digicons]:cylon:[/e] Seriously though, soon as I get my hands on the campaign maker, I'm making a campaign where the end goal is to use whatever this thing is to destroy the world. Again. [e digicons]XD[/e]

Recently I found something online that I really wanted to purchase (hint: name starts with an E). But I'm lacking the cash. So I think about my options for a while-still in highschool, no job, no more auctioning off organs on Ebay-and finally decided to try and turn in a few of my old xbox 360 games that I'd already beaten or come to hate. I settled on bringing in 3- Too Human, Project Sylpheed, and Overlord. The first and last were actually good, so I was expecting to get about 7 bucks

There were 2 things I actually liked about the demo: the unit design (aesthetic choice) and that auto-grouping feature- very useful for the strategic map.\ Beyond that... I really, really dislike the changes they made to the economy, and the gameplay overall seemed to lack depth, but the number one thing I despised was the little conversation sequences. For a second I thought I was playing some rediculously old game, they were so crappy looking. And, totally unrelated to age,

[quote]Quoting tejondour, reply 25 BTW, for those worried about the grind, why not take another page from MoM: troops gained experience just sitting in a garrison. 1 point per turn, no matter what. Fielding your troops would allow you to level them up much faster, but if you built up a sizeable army and just sat on it defensively, you weren't totally pooched in the late game. Every game since MoM should have done that IMO. Troops garrisonning a city don't just sit o

In addition to stand-issue loyalty, it could be cool if you're heroes would occasionally go do their own thing. For example, someone from their past could suddenly approach them and ask for help, and they'd need to take a leave of absence to deal with the problem.

I'm gonna throw in a vote for silly here (kind of pointless now, but oh well). Pop culture references are pushing the bounds, but adding a dash of the funny in here and there can greatly enhance a story, like how action movies have funny bits (but hopefully less so). It's part of human nature to use humor as a coping mechanism-it's why we mock people we don't like, and why some of the funniest people I know have some of the worst lives. It's what we do. Finally, there's precen

[quote]Have the Mechanized Wild West, with Steam Tanks and Mechanical and/or Biomech engineered steeds, with a Shamanistic Indian Tribal outlook wielding elder magics and RIding magical beasts.[/quote] I was thinking of posting the same thing... lawlz. A steampunk wild west might be the coolest thing ever

[quote] Without these buidable structures, road is as adv to me as to my enemy.[/quote] That's actually how it works in RL. It's the reason that part of the preparation for a defense is to start blowing up roads and bridges leading to the place you're defending. Something you also see a lot is the wholesale destruction of roads behind retreating armies, to deny them to the enemy (that could actually look pretty cool w/ magic) [e digicons]:D[/e]

[quote]Guns would be more expensive than Bows (probably) but would require little to no training, so overall troops Time would mean Gun units could be produced faster. However, even a little bit of Fire or Water magic can turn these troops some-what useless (or dead).[/quote] Actually, it seems that virtually all ranged units would be of, um, limited effectiveness in the middle of a storm or when they're on fire (I know I am [e digicons]:grin:[/e] ) . So musketmen would basi

Something that just occured to me... maybe it would make sense to apply a penalty to units in enemy territory? This isn't an uncommon feature in RTS' that have territorial boundaries on the map (rise of nations), but just subtracting health is a bit simplistic. As supply lines get longer, an army can suffer from a number of things before people start dying (poor morale, tighter rations, and lack of sleep, to name a few) that reduce effectiveness. Maybe there's a way to represent that?

This actually sounds like a great idea, but it seems they'd be overpowered compared to most regular units. A man with a gun can kill just about anything, and it seems that even a dragon would be brought down pretty quick (making assumptions for realism here). There'd have to be a strong downside to unlocking and using guns, maybe a penalty to magic?

This really makes a lot of sense to me... if you don't know that something exists, it's somewhat difficult to research it. You see an adaptation of this is alot of strategy games--over the course of the campaign, new research and units become available. This works a lot better, since the thing's you're encountering are the things you need to know about. It'd also be cool if it wasn't obvious what would be unlocked. You couldn't see the option to begin research until you've run across

Haven't read everything said thus far, but here's my two cents: Organically grown roads are a good idea, especially if they scale based on city size, research, etc. That said, more control is necessary for multiple reasons. If, for example, you want to restrict movement to a certain city, you should be able to choose existing roads and shut them down. This could be useful if you want to slow an enemy advancing down one of your roads towards your city. Second, th

Something that occurs to me is that maybe, rather than just picking talents and weaknesses, you have a system where you slot one talent and one weakness in, and use the resulting trait- different combinations would yield different results. For example, if you combine "lucky" and "stupid" you get "Fool's Luck," meaning that while you're really stupid, you're also nigh-immune to negative events. This'd also allow to combine seemingly oppostie traits. For example, if there was a