Nick-Danger

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="2" id="2777999"]I really like the ideas in this thread. Best regards, Steven. [/quote]What the reasonable and polite Mr. StevenAus said!

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="3" id="2777936"]...I do vaguely remember catching scraps of talk about some folks (maybe not devs?) thinking that requiring the sovereign for settlement-founding was somehow making the sovereigns less fun or something? Like it was demeaning for a mighty mage-monarch to be bothered with something as tedious as founding settlements? The paucity of talk that I caught and my solid dislike for the change make it hard to remember the specific 'explanation.'...[/quote]

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="102" id="2777088"]Well yeah....the combat system, tactical battles, the magic system, the AI & UI fixes/polishing should have priority. Like I've said the eco system is boring and simple [subjective opinion of course], but it's in a much better shape than those other gameplay elements what I've mentioned. [/quote]You're preaching to the choir about that stuff. Rishkith's point (and the others making it) is that the economy should have been

Agreed. What you describe is how it was in early beta. Cities could only be placed in revitalized land. We had to strategically choose to invest valuable essence or wait for revitalization to naturally spread (or place at adventure sites that popped up as they were revitalized, but my guess is this was an 'unintended feature'). I don't remember seeing any word from on high why it was changed. The game lost a lot of its lore and an important strategic ch

[quote who="Raven X" reply="15" id="2776705"]Chief, did the hotfix do anything to Sov Creation? I notice now I don't have any hair choice options for almost all the races. The only ones I can pick hair for are my created "Undead Race" and the Ironers have 1 hair and 1 hat choice. Aside from that none of the other races have hair choices. I'm not sure if the update did this or if one of my mods suddenly started causing a problem. Everything was fine with the first 1.08, but I just tried creati

So if it's a duplicate quest it doesn't trigger -- that makes sense, and I do have 2 active quests so that fits with your explanation. I'll finish up my active quests then revisit this location to test. Thanks for the explanation! :) [e digicons]k1[/e]

[quote who="DeCypher00" reply="213" id="2776451"]TBH, I just stole a few posts from another forum I frequent, haha...[/quote]Good posters copy, great posters steal ;)

My sov has twice moved onto an Odd Hut that doesn't 'trigger' despite being of my level. You can see by the 'white' tint to the hut it's not been visited/triggered (locations are darkened once visited/triggered) despite twice moving onto the hut. Not sure if I'm missing something or if it's a bug. Another half-dozen or so huts of appropriate level worked ok. <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5475789/un-triggerable%20hut.png" alt="un-triggerable hut" width="279" hei

With all the recent improvements, and big changes coming in 1.1, this game is really starting to show its potential. Nicely done SD!

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="2775757"]...I think I would quibble on your definition of "broken". The game is working as designed, it's just not to your liking...[/quote]Semantics aside, I think it's more than that it's "...just not to your liking...". And while I think many game features are working as designed, the design of some game features is not well thought out and/or implemented, and could use improving to get the game to where it can/should be. For example -- food

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="339" id="2776151"]Also I must state that making an 'official' thread on behalf of a community that hasn't endowed the OP in any way with any authority is just arrogant, as are the remarks to many who disagree in this thread.[/quote]If anything here is arrogant it's defining something too narrowly, assuming the narrow definition is the only possible way a thing can be, and then insulting those who stray beyond said narrow definition. Some here are

[quote who="Bellack" reply="48" id="2775522"]I think the term 'EPIC' means something different to each one of us.[/quote]The wisdom is strong in this one [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Obviously you took the book to school instead of eating the pages ;) [quote]I don't agree that Lore makes a TBS game epic. CIV4, DOM3 and Total War are what I would call an Epic game. The reason is scale.[/quote]Scale is a good attribute to base 'epic' upon. For Elem

[quote who="jamotide" reply="47" id="2775489"]That is what happens when someone uses a word in a completely inappropriate context...[/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] Kids these days... Buy 'em a thesaurus and they eat the pages...

I gotta agree with Rishkith. The poll included "additional campaigns" and "more quests" but nothing on the economy.

I want to add my /signed here. The ability to have battles as represented by that pic would add a lot to the game. Those who think it can't be done, or would somehow 'ruin' or 'hurt' the game, underestimate the skill at SD. I'd also like to thank Raven X for bringing this up. You put a lot of effort into this (and other things) in your attempts to make the game all that it can be, and have gotten a lot of unmerited crap for it here. Just remember -- 'an insul

[quote who="lord ebonstone" reply="261" id="2774112"]OK, I didn't realize you wanted real-time Total War combat, RavenX. I though you just wanted a bigger tac combat field and cooler animations. I don't want Elemental: Total War of Magic. It seems that most of us don't want that. You idea is idiotic, and I'm pretty offended that you had the gall to speak for the "Official Player Community." It makes you sound arrogant and pretentious. [/quote]Thank you

[quote who="Raven X" reply="93" id="2773603"]There's a new poll? Why do I always miss these things? lol[/quote]Obviously you're too busy flamebaiting and posting on your sock puppet account(s) [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

[quote who="wayninja" reply="2" id="2772347"]You can revitalize land through essence? Or do you mean that was removed in beta?[/quote]In early beta it took essence to revitalize the land before cities could be placed. The revitalization would spread out at a constant rate. City placement in 'green' areas cost no essence. If we found a good city location outside the green we had to choose to either wait for the green to spread, or spend essence. When adventure loc

[quote who="katalist" reply="1" id="2772330"]Its epic to me personally and thats all that I care about (:[/quote]That's cool. I'm curious tho -- what exactly about the game is 'epic' to you? Serious question :)

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="5" id="2772419"]Is Elemental epic? It is.[/quote]How? Seriously, how is Elemental Epic to you? Does it matter which sov wins, other than that it's your sov? Does the fate of the lands or revitalization or anything else depend on your sov winning? How is it any different from a game of chess or solitaire or twiddly-winks? Could Elemental be more? Should it be more? Or is it enough to fix the broken/imbalanced

With all the talk of 'Epic' lately, it got me thinking (ruh roh...). Was Elemental intended to be 'Epic'? If so, is it? First, what's 'Epic'? Lord of the Rings is Epic, right? Civ4 or MoM games aren't, at least not compared to the Epicness of LOTR. I think Elemental is supposed to be Epic. Civ4 and MoM didn't have lore as Elemental does. Evidence for Epic includes: -Those nasty Titans screwed up things and putting them in their place

[quote who="Tridus" reply="9" id="2771295"]Unfortunately it does have to be real time for a picture like that to work. TBS combat simply doesn't function with that many things happening at once. You'll have lots of guys standing around while one does something. It will *never* look that way...[/quote]I'm going to respectfully disagree with you (yet again! ;) ) Imagine a WeGo that's essentially Total War but where there are automatic action breaks (turns). That's the 'blueprint

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="68" id="2769935"]Well yeah, put me into that "I voted for extreme micro" group...[/quote]I wouldn't have minded the 'extreme micro' option if there was decent automation possible as Djohaal and others have mentioned (assuming the automation would have to be researched/setup -- build roads then get caravans then set up repeatable routes, then protect the routes, etc.). With a good UI and a well-designed game, 'extreme micro' would take a modicum of time/effor

[quote who="MrManNo1" reply="39" id="2769823"]...how, exactly, would a TB We-Go work in a tactical simulator? What happens if they just move the unit away from where I wanted to attack them?[/quote]Assuming both units are in combat range at turn's start -- it would depend on unit movement speed. If you're faster you should be able to attack before they move. If they're as fast, whoever has initiative would 'go' first (I'm assuming there'd be initiative). If they're faster, t

[quote who="awuffleablehedgie" reply="38" id="2769809"]...The problems with increasing the stack limit is that units over the stack limit randomly get deployed on the battlefield (bad)...[/quote]That's something else on the List -- we need the ability to setup on the tac map, like in Total War. Give us 'side' on the map and list our units then let us place them in our starting area. It's a no-brainer, and would fix the 'some of our units placed across the board adjacent to the e