moondoggiee

I'd like to also be able to siege a city and starve out the population. Well there is a problem with the concept of pillaging a city without first defeating the city's defenders. Realistically, raiders would be slowed down by the slaves and gold they were trying to make off with. This meant that the city's defenders could easily catch up with the raiders to do battle. In other words, it is not feasible for you to be able to pillage and sack a city without first defeating the city defe

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="17" id="2443781"] Lol, this is a very good point. While you grow early on, you might feel coerced to keep your sovereign nearby for fear of another sovereign plopping a city between your own cities and using it as a means of splintering your transportation and trade.[/quote] Yes, true. That was one of the problems with Civ. Enemy AI would rush in and plonk cities down in between your cities. If you build your cities too far apart, the enemy jus

Hmmm...if we are talking about Call to Arms ONLY for defensive purposes then honestly, Empire Total War already has done a similar system. They are called militias. Militia's only take to the field if enemies attack the main city. Beyond that you cannot direct militias in any manner. And they do not cost any upkeep at all. They are just there. And if i am not mistaken the amount of militias you get are determined by population or happiness. My point is, TW has already done it

I loved MoO2 Tech system. It meant that not everyone could get every tech available (unless the race had the creative trait) and diplomacy, subterfuge and conquest was needed to get techs you didn't have. Instead of random techs, i thinking more of special techs or secret techs. These are 'one off' techs that dont lie on the path of normal techs. If you spend time researching this tech it meant you would be delaying the progress of your normal tech tree. The player would then ha

[quote who="Rishkith" reply="3" id="2431484"]If rivers are on the tile they don't have to be a static size. You could program in that every time a river joins the graphic depiction of the river gets wider.The smaller rivers could be ignored by foot traffic and the larger ones you then have to either build a bridge or go around... as people used to do.[/quote] That's a great idea. Yes rivers should be on tiles rather than in between. The size of the rivers should then var

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="92" id="2429338"] Perhaps you aim to be a major economic force with 10% of your population trained as truly elite soldiers, and very little else in the way of military might. The economic force would be necessary for this strategy in order to support such a large number of exceptional units. On the other hand I might want an army consisting of 40% of my total population trained as mediocre soldiers. Why not? This set up might be much easier to maintain ec

While this idea is innovative, it doesn't fit in with my idea of 4x empire building games. The Call to Arms system sounds a bit more in line with God sims like Populous, Black & White where players don't want to be burdened with stats and management details. At best i believe a Call to Arms system is more of an alternative method of raising an army rather than becoming the primary aspect of warfare in 4x games. Something a bit like the Crusades system in Medieval Total War

I am more of: i don't care how unrealistic it is, as long as it is fun and rewarding to play.

Preventing monolithic armies is highly dependant on the depth of the tactical battle (on top of balancing the cost/maintainence of high end units). Yes, the Total War series is a great example of how to encourage non-monolithic armies. Battles are not determined merely by the total power of units but positioning and tactics. Fielding a few elite units against a large army of medium units will end up with the elite units being flanked and slaughtered from behind.Knowing which units to

What i would like to know if the devs consider steamrolling battles using hordes of the same unit type to be a problem? Take for example the historical Battle of Agincourt, where an army of 5000 British knights,men at arms and archers defeated 30 000+ heavily armoured mounted French knights and their men at arms. The powerful British archers and careful positioning and use of terrain allowed the British to pull off a victory against a vastly superior foe.In fact, histori

Well personally i don't care what algorithm that is used. All i need is a UI that tells me before i attack what is the most likely outcome of the melee attack (by giving me the centre of the bell shape) I don't want to waste my time sending my peasants to attack the dragon only to realize it is impossible for me to scratch it. I don't want to be forced to have to mentally calculate the odds in my head by comparing my units attack power with the enemy's defense etc.

Well i don't mind the HP system making your troops more survivable as they gain experience. Cause its no fun at all seeing your experienced army you spent time to groom get totally decimated by a fireball spell. If we make an elite troop equally as vulnerable as a green troop then that really sucks the fun out of army management.

It would be great if prestige also drains population from neighbouring cities to your city.

Luck is fun. There should be some element of randomness but yet not too random so as to make strategies pointless. Having 10 000 swordsmen swarming and slaying dragons is also fun. I don't exactly see that as being a problem or fun-killer. I prefer something like Damage inflicted = (ATT + 3D6) – (DEF) This means that certain units that have very low attack will have absolutely no chance of damaging a high defense target. in addition, ther

Well i like the idea. But i think it should be noted that back in acient times when advanced communications technology did not exist, technology was not so easily transfered. Only civlizations that came into contact with other civilizations (and usually trhough warfare) was technology often transferred. I also like the idea of getting research points if you conquer a city of a civilization that posseses technology that you don't have.

Orange Box: Good value package. The gem in this is Portal. Hillarious mind boggling game. Oblivion: A bland game IMHO. Hated the way enemies scaled. Plus after a while, most locations tended to make me feel like i was just going through the same repetitive monster smashing...just that the monsters looked different. If you want a good action-RPG, try Enhanced Edition Witcher. Fallout 3: Oblivion with guns. If you like Oblivion you will like this. EVE Online: never

I love the idea of fully customizing my units. However i can understand that not everyone may enjoy the tedium of twiddling unit designs. I guess the best is to provide an AI designer that will auomatically design 'default' units for you as you unlock new technologies. Plus one other problem with fully customizable units is you may end up with every faction designing exactly the same army makeup with just very minor variations. That would make fighting and combat real boring a

[quote]Meh, the fun of large maps is trying to put together a huge, and stable, empire.[/quote] He he! Agree. That is part of the fun. I loved doing that in Rome Total War. I have no problems with having governance penalties. Just that i hope it doesn't artificially limit your ability to expand. Example, i've conquered 50 cities. Uh oh, thats my limit. Oh no, there just this one annoying enemy city with important resource patch there but i can't conquer it because i've

[quote]Meh, the fun of large maps is trying to put together a huge, and stable, empire.[/quote] He he! Agree. That is part of the fun. I loved doing that in Rome Total War. I have no problems with having governance penalties. Just that i hope it doesn't artificially limit your ability to expand. Example, i've conquered 50 cities. Uh oh, thats my limit. Oh no, there just this one annoying enemy city with important resource patch there but i can't conquer it because i've

I was thinking about something similar. Given that you would be able to design your own units in the game, i figure, being provided the ability to control coloring should be there as well. If not all armies would look the same with steel armor and shields. I prefer just having simple controls to choose the primary and secondary colors and maybe ornament colors. Then all your armies would at least have roughly the same color scheme.

I'd go for option 3. Although personally i don't like having caravan being attackable. I prefer Total War style of handling trade routes. There is basically a route and an associated trade value of the route. Raiders can disrupt trade by standing on the route and needed to be removed. Once removed, trade resumes automatically. Simple, easy and no micromanagement neccessary.

Awesome. I'd take Chuck Norris as a hero. His class would be Ranger.

[quote who="DamnedChoir" reply="82" id="2397521"] I personally would also like the option of being able to form an empire /without/ a certain resource and with another, and I don't really like the idea that EVERY Empire should be dependent on, or require certain resources. That sounds a little too linear to me, like civ. It'd be nice if you could have a rich trade empire that's mainly about wood, and leather, and silver, and copper, and doesn't have gold or iron, except from i

Agreed on the comment on Fantasy Wars and Elven Legacy. That is a series did the terrain system perfectly for a turn based tactical combat game.

Games that do multi turn/day battles. Romance of the Three Kingdoms series. Total War series. It works just great on these games. It forces attackers to attack instead of 'camping' and 'sniping' enemies. And it allows defenders the strategy of fighting a delaying battle to hold of the enemy until reinforcements arrive. Of course, both games mentioned have very deep focus on tactics and tactical battles, which is why the time limit system works. From examples of what i have see