Nick-Danger

[quote who="karmat" reply="13" id="2433742"]@ Nitro Cruiser - thanks for info, about to start[/quote]If you can do a clean install (they call it a custom install). I did that with my vista ultimate -> win 7 professional upgrade (boot with win 7 disk, and reformat OS drive). That way you have no leftover possible problems. And clean installs are a good thing to do every year or so anyways. My custom install went quickly and without event. No driver/etc. p

[quote who="Sarudak" reply="159" id="2433552"]I don't see how removing the options would make the game more fun OR more realistic.[/quote]Agreed. Better a 'soft cap' (where grays are still choosable, but the non-gray choices are so tempting/better that we'd need a great reason to choose the gray) than 'hard cap' (unchoosable grays).

[quote who="Shadowdragoon" reply="145" id="2433017"] Quoting mrakomo, reply 143PurplePaladin: Bad idea. If I have the blueprints for tanks, why shall I produce "men with club" units? And if I have something I may sell it, why not if I can make a profit. If you don't like the tech brokering, I think the solution in GC2 was good (you can disable it). i think even Civ4 have the disable techbrokering, so only researched by "you" techs can be traded, not recived by trade ones.[/quote]C

[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="140" id="2432978"]In reguards to trading techs, I hope you will concider not going the Civ route, where, you can trade a Tech to another civ, and in just one turn, bam, the natives are making tanks. Even worse, the natives then trade their new tank technology to every other civ on the next turn, and, bam, the entire world goes from spears to tanks in two turns.[/quote]A similar 'problem' with civ4 is how people will research techs they don't really want

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="121" id="2433035"] Yep, here it could be also flag bearers and so on, no need for them to be much better than a normal soldier (so it's intereting trying to take them out asap).[/quote]Flag bearers would be interesting, as rally points, morale source, etc. How much control will we have over our armies? Absolute (like civ4) or partial (like many civil war games where units/generals are given orders but don't always follow them)? If partial

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="69" id="2431980"] ...And if youre playing long enough, guess what...you're going to get all the techs eventually anyways .[/quote]Given the number of techs you anticipate making available, and their research cost, and our anticipated research capacity, what percentage of techs are you shooting for us having researched in a 'typical' game (assuming tech numbers are not unlimited, and given that some techs would only arise occasionally in a game, etc. etc. etc

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="129" id="2432697"] ...I've been pleasantly surprised: actually choosing the tech AFTER spending the RPs is gonna be FUN![/quote]It's an interesting angle -- with research you never know exactly what you're going to get. "The best laid schemes o' mice an' researchers Gang aft agley." (apologies to Robert Burns)

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="122" id="2432651"] When you are deciding which general field to study, the green yellow and red just corrrespond to the techs that you get to choose from when you reach your next breakthrough in that general field. The greens will definitely be available, the yellows represent hihger level techs that have a fair chance of showing up, and the red ones are very advanced techs that have a very small chance of showing up. A breakthrough or milestone is when

[quote who="Sarudak" reply="118" id="2432589"]Fundamentally Stardock would rather make a game that's fun than one that is realistic.[/quote]Hopefully it won't be an either-or choice (skilled devs can provide both), but if it devolves to that I agree that fun factor > 'realism'.

The red/yellow/green idea is interesting and adds a dynamics. The 'cost increases depending on when you research it' seems gamey -- defenses costs more to research because I learned barracks? Granted the time required is offset somewhat by increased research capacity (generally) but this feature seems counter-intuitve (as research in 1 field often applies in part to other fields, especially in similar fields such as the 'warfare' category) and more designed as a 'game' feature.&

[quote who="Raven X" reply="27" id="2428758"] Quoting Tormy-, reply 26but it works almost perfectly on x64 Win7? It doesn't brother. I'm on Win 7 Pro 64.[/quote]Same OS here, crashes very early, every time no change from last patch. Hey, if it worked perfectly for everyone we wouldn't need beta!

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="116" id="2431735"]well, the presence of an elite or proffessional soldier (especially a hero or royal family member) could inspire the Militia and Peasant forces to higher (morale? hp? attack power?)[/quote]That is what leaders did in Squad Leader and ASL. By themselves they couldn't do as much as squads or half-squads (they could man machine guns/etc. tho). A leader's role was mostly influencing squads. They could add or subtract (not all leaders

One other problem with rivers in tiles is it may require a hex based map instead of square based. Otherwise it may be hard to get the river sections to join up when they're 'diagonals'. Hex maps have an 'east-west' problem but it's less a problem and rivers on hexes look quite natural. Oh well, as the idea is nixed, it's moot. Too bad tho. It'd be nice, and I've liked hexes better'n squares since Avalon Hill came out with them in Gettysburg(?) and

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="114" id="2431651"] Have you not been reading the blurbs I have quoted? Many, perhaps most, were not you.[/quote]I'm only referring to your reponses to me, where you quoted me, then argued against things you made up. I'm not referring to things you said to others. [quote]Maybe you never proposed a hard cap...[/quote]Maybe? Two sentences later you say... [quote]I see now that you were never arguing for a hard cap...[/quote]So no "maybe

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="112" id="2431612"] If I have misunderstood what you're saying, correct me.[/quote]Misunderstood? Heck, you've been making things up. You argued against points I didn't make -- for example you argue against hard caps ("then a hard cap is unnecessary, and needlessly limiting.") which I never proposed. You argue "...if "the game [is] balanced such that other options are as viable..."" -- well duh... Who here is suggesting things sh

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="5" id="2431613"]If you want to impose a movement penalty for cross a river, do you impose it when you move onto a river tile, or when you move off of it? What if you move onto a river tile from the left, and then turn around and head back left? This would have to be dealt with, as well.[/quote]The old Avalon Hill wargames generally assessed the movement penalty when moving from a river hex to a non-river hex. I'd look some of their games up for quotes bu

I think it's worth considering. [quote]The only advantage that I can see for presenting rivers this way is that if you want to assign a penalty for crossing a river to attack another tile[/quote]The defender's 'defense behind a river' bonus can be applied if the attackers are on one of your river squares, so that shouldn't be an issue. Ships being able to travel down rivers, assuming the river is of sufficient size (and smaller rivers/creeks can exist, just not being nav

I've been thinking about how solicitating player input can lead to a 'design by committee' and its attendant downsides. Often the best games/etc. are those where one or a few creaters have a strongly held vision and religiously stick to it. Trying to please (most) everyone leads to network tv shows ;) Upon reflection I'm thinking that the devs have a good idea of what they want, and that player-solicitated ideas won't change that (thus no real 'design by committee' -- well

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="109" id="2431090"] I have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]Which is why you've been arguing againt the exceptional suggestion on points that I didn't say, or on which we both agree. And why it's better to ask than assume when unsure.

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="107" id="2430990"] Customizable units + magic = pretty hard to balance units even if they are implemented well. That's why I think another mechanic is needed, even if it will limit a little the player choices. And again, even if only 5% of your armies can be elite units, that doesn't mean you can't have a pure elite army, it means that not all your nation armies are elite. You can have an elite strike force while having more modest defenses and thi

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="97" id="2429783"] You just argued my point for me. If done right, other options would be viable anyway and thus no 5% cap would be needed.[/quote]You're incorrectly assumed things I didn't say -- such as 'unviable' options and hard caps -- then when I point that out you claim ownership?!?! It's desirable to pick apart suggestions to look for loopholes. It's another thing altogether to make incorrect assumptions then argue against them.

Diplomacy is another classic game, still going strong after 50-some years. No dice, no luck, just cunning and negotiating and betrayal -- 'social engineering'. Simple rules but complex strategies. A strong diplomacy aspect in Elemental multiplayer would be nice.

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="92" id="2429338"] If I can have at most 5% of my population trained as 'exceptional' troops, why would I ever not train 5% of my population as exception troops (not including the beginning of the game, where this problem tends not to be relevant)?[/quote]Because hopefully the game would be balanced such that other options are as viable, and folks have different ideas of how they wish to proceed (as we're demonstrating here). If done right it'd

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="84" id="2428350"] I was responding to multiple people, and not just you. You are not the only person in this thread who is making comments that I think are worth responding to...[/quote]Except you quoted me each time, not anyone else, in these situations. Anyways, back on 'off-topic'... [quote]With fully customizable units, what determines which unit templates require 'exceptional' population and which don't?[/quote]Let me try this from anot

[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="22" id="2427633"] SL had a comp version : steel panthers.[/quote]Steel Panthers was close, but not quite it (maybe it's just me...). The Vassal Game Engine lets us play SL and similar 'board games' over the net, but lacks the moderation/adjudication to alleviate some of that burden from players (plus hidden initial placement/etc. considerations). Some melding of Steel Panthers and Vassal would be perfect. [quote]And the calculations were