I was allied with Pariden, and when Tarth declared war on them nothing happened to bring me into it. No auto-war, no popup, no nothing. I should have saved the savegame but I just kept going--it took me a few turns to even realize it happened.
The Defend ability (I think that's the name, it's the one that adds the defender's defense to three adjacent units) expires when the protected unit moves. This makes it very hard to use, as often I would like to use it on lighter, faster units, which come up more frequently in the rotation and thus expire the ability more quickly. You basically have to carefully watch the action bar on the side and get lucky--the enemy must move after your defender but before your defendee. <
Hard to come up with a good title for this but here goes: When you have an army on a multi-turn path, they move when you hit end turn. This is good. When said army reaches the end of its path, there may be remaining movement left for that turn. This movement is lost. Because of this, I rarely set destinations more than one turn out but for the longest of paths. This makes the game (somewhat) more annoying to play. Instead, when you hit end turn, armies should move. If any have
Pretty simple: when you win a battle, if there are no enemy armies left on that square, your army should move there. I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be the case. It would make clearing out monster lairs in woods/hills/etc twice as quick but ten times less frustrating. (10x is an estimate, but I think it's accurate.) It's more realistic--what is the point of fighting battles but to win the battlefield? It's more rewarding--gives more of a sens
Holding ctrl to select multiple units on the main screen (e.g. moving out of a city) causes the mouse to become slow and stuttery. This has been the case since WoM's initial release. It's quite frustrating and comes up every time I need to leave a city. This must be unique to my hardware/software because I seriously can't imagine this being problem for lots of people and still being unresolved at this point.
Actually, let me elaborate. What was happening in my case was that I would move my units, end turn, load the previous-auto-save, and the units would still be at their new place. By repeating this I could move my units all across the map in one go. Bending spacetime. A wormhole, if you will.
I think this has been true in some form or another since FE, but it's still true in the latest LH.
Fair enough. (I guess if you're not going to use this kind of engine for trading and combat, then what the heck are you thinking?) Any details? Or just those words?
Yeah, I read a couple of those, and they seem to all be about programming details. (Well, what did I expect from a daily log?) I just haven't seen anywhere on the website where he talks about plans for the gameplay. I'm not saying I absolutely need to know this stuff (I didn't back and won't be playing it until it comes out, in any event), it's just quite a contrast from, say, everything I've read about Jon Shafer's game where it's all gameplay all the time.</p
[quote who="Sinperium" reply="42" id="3366592"] He is basically working on the engine right now but also has someof the ship combat done. The game will be somewhere between Sins and GalCiv in concept. Will be interesting to see.[/quote] OK. Are there any posted plans for gameplay? I think I saw something about procedurally generated ship designs. (He really seems to love procedurally generated stuff) but that doesn't really say much as far as gameplay.
This looks really awesome. The fact that it's all procedurally generated is sweet. I have a question, though (maybe this isn't the best place for it but here goes): what about gameplay? Has there been much discussion of that? I looked at the dev logs and he seems to be really good at what he does (making an engine to generate and display an awe-inspiring universe), but I couldn't find anything about what kind of things you'll be doing in said universe.
[quote who="The_Biz" reply="28" id="3321161"] it depends on the game chess is not a complex problem for current technology, so any advantage would be too much in Starcraft-like games, it's not even hard to write an AI that can beat humans with something like 10% advantage. I think with enough effort, an AI with just 2% advantage can compete at the highest level. but that is ONLY because of the advantage, and SC is a game about turning advantages into e
[quote who="VicenteC" reply="21" id="3318890"] ...[/quote] Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Obviously you can design your games to be easier or harder to make a guess at #1. Chess is pretty simple, I think, compared to all the wacky variables that you have in a computer game, but still incredibly deep (and difficult!). And like you said, it's taken a ton of work. Do you hold out hope for the future?
[quote who="The_Biz" reply="20" id="3318723"]there is no reason an AI shouldn't win a civ-like game with 25% cheaper everything. I don't think it's realistically possible to play on a level playing field atm, but 5% advantage should be enough. Anything below 25% is just bad AI imo, with varying degrees of badness, and that's where every 4X game is at right now I was impressed with Gal Civ II's AI, but it was still bad - just less bad than the rest [/q
I think I saw this once before, many versions ago. The link is to the savegame. Here's the pic:
Here is another example of that: Kraxis troops and monsters in the same tile. Here is the savegame: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10090435/kraxis-monster%20sharing%20tile.EleSav
[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="15" id="3316752"]Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by purpose-written versus general, mainly.[/quote] You're right, I didn't think this through. For "general" I meant "able to solve an arbitrary problem" which was rather silly of me since that's what computer science is all about (in some sense). Of course AIs are purpose-written, it would be silly to do it any other way (at least if your goal is to have one play a game). Mostl
I'm confused what makes a "good" player, then. Is there some Platonic form of "good FE player" that we haven't realized? How can we tell when someone is "good" except by comparing them to everyone else? If the best FE player isn't "good", then what possible use is the word? Also, I'm not debating that computers are better than humans at many tasks (especially repetitive ones), or that AIs are playing a different game--the Overmind was using API hooks that Blizzard made
Hm, do you have any links as to what kind of AI you're talking about? What I meant was that it seems to me that all of the tasks you mentioned would be better served by a purpose-written AI rather than a general one. But I don't really know what you're talking about, so I'm curious!
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="3316439"]Depends on the game. In Galactic Civilizations II, I had the AI "play" a few virtual turns into the future where it had the human player controlled by the AI. Then, based on what it predicted, it "reacted" to that and effectively pre-planned. It was a ton of effort though, not something I really want to do again given that I'm not sure most users even noticed the quality difference (except maybe the really good players). <
The more I think about it the more fun I think having random crafted items would be. It wouldn't disrupt game balance too much, and it would add a minor element of excitement and surprise. I know lots of people like to have everything balanced and don't want a situation where their hero suddenly becomes powerful because of a random item drop, but I'm not like that. It would add that little rush you get after finishing a quest or defeating a lair and you wait to see what you get ou
[quote who="LORD-ORION" reply="1" id="3315623"]Solitaire Settlers of Catan[/quote] [quote who="DunmeriSpellsword" reply="5" id="3316050"]The AI in tablet risk. It actually makes good decisions and doesn't make pathetic mistakes like sending armies after a lost cause.[/quote] (There's also a Race for the Galaxy (card game) AI that's quite good.) I think board/card game AI's are a heck of a lot easier to design, because the game rules are limited by what
There's been a lot of complaining about AI in turn based strategy games. For good reason, I think--a TBS game doesn't have the ability to tell a good story like an RPG or flash some showy graphics like an FPS or become an e-sport like an RTS, so unless you're patient enough to play with other people, the quality of the AI is really the limiting factor on the enjoyment one can get out of a TBS. (Excepting the possibility of a very well done player vs environment kind of setup, whic
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="23" id="3315004"]I would want a very simple crafting system. And have it be champion based. Get rid of the Path of the Governor and create a path of the Enchanter. If you have an enchanter, you can give him items and that enchanter can create magic items based on special ingredients from killed monsters, mined metal and crystals, mana and based on his magic paths. Also, special building could unlock special enchant
I really think that FE hasn't realized its full potential yet. We'll see what happens with the expansion, of course, but I would really like things like item creation, flying units, more complex tactical battles, a more fleshed-out city-leveling system, even an underworld (if you must), put into FE. And, more importantly, have the AI be able to use them intelligently. Or, at least, put up enough of a fight that the player is required to use them intelligently.