Nick-Danger

[quote quoting="post"] THE NEW BETA IS COMING TONIGHT. A few notes about this update: The random video card overheating issue has not been addressed. As long as you don’t have an ATI or nVidia card you should be fine. Otherwise, please be prepared to replace your video card. We do expect to decrease the severity by Beta 3 (late Winter).[/quote]And my friends laughed at me for buying an Acme Rocket Video Card from Wile E. Coyote. Looks like I have t

FFH2 is quite well done, almost a new game. Their improving on what is already a great game is quite an accomplishment. Frogboy, have any of you played the old Avalon Hill wargames like Squad Leader, or ASL? Some great work there too, especially for the 60s-70s. They've not be well translated to computer, which is unfortunate as the computer would make a great moderator for games like SL.

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="80" id="2426791"]You missed my point again.[/quote]I mentioned exceptionals, you argued against it. In doing so you made several points. I assumed all your points were on topic and therefore in support of your objections, and treated them accordingly. I now see you added in separate points, as shown by... [quote]I'm also against the 'exceptional' people idea...[/quote]Your "...also..." point -- the 'exceptionals', my original point --

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="71" id="2426296"] Appart from limiting how many ubber units the player can recruit, the game could force how armies are composed/formed: - 0-1 Heroes leading the army - 0-1 Elite units - N normal units - Whatever That mirrors how armies (or taks forces) are organized in real life and it's used also in some games (Warhammer comes to my mind). This allows small elite armies that are good for hit and run str

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="73" id="2426310"] Words can have multiple meanings or be used in different contexts. Either way, I think we both agree that game mechanics that encourage armies of all 1 class of soldier and mechanics that encourage all 1 type of calibur is not good.[/quote]Agreed. [quote]My original post was referring to calibur, which, given that monolithic is a geological term, can be used to describe soldiery in a variety of ways. If you'd like to com

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="67" id="2426118"]Perhaps "exceptionals" as you say, could be a constant 5-10% of your total population (perhaps based upon your level of prestige, or even the amount of power you give to warriors vs merchants, so that a class system that rewards the warrior class will attract better soldier immigrants). With this constant, this also keeps tally of the number of living humanoid units in your armies as well. Therefore, if 5% of your total popula

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="54" id="2425415"] No, you completely missed my point. With a limited number of exceptionals, once the dust has settled the superior choice will be to use up all your exceptionals, then all of the next rung below them, and so on down the chain.[/quote]Game design that allows one to simultaneously use units of various skill levels, preferentially using the best when all else is equal, is to you not good game design?!?! Unlimited exceptionals, leadin

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="52" id="2425249"] ..."do I train all my exceptional units or train all these rejects?" does not present a meaningful choice because one is inherently superior to the other.[/quote] You make my argument for me. A large army of 'rejects' would only be inferior if exceptionals were not significantly limited in number -- which is why I propose limiting their number. Second, it's not the either-or choice you present. The "best

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="47" id="2425006"]Nick, your idea for exceptional individuals is an interesting idea, but perhaps there is another way to go about it than just having a "pool" of them waiting to be tapped. What if, instead, those exceptional individuals would be your experienced units that emerge from many battles and many victories?[/quote]I like this :) Exceptional units shouldn't be easy to acquire, and adding 'in the field' experience to the vari

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="40" id="2424531"] But that forces you to field armies of troops of all sorts and quality. The best strategy would be to train all your exceptional recruits first, and work your way down the list... That's a little better than when the best strategy is just to mass produce your most powerful troops, but it's still not even remotely ideal. I don't think it's worth settling for that when it seems perfectly well within reach to have a combat system that allows a

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="34" id="2424154"] 2- I'd like to see recruits have differing potentials -- anyone could become a 'peasant' troop, many could become 'normal' troops, some could become 'skilled' troops, but few could become 'exceptional' troops. Training would bring out these inherent skill levels, not increase someone from one skill category up into the next -- ie no matter how much I train or what resources I have access to I'll never be a Michael Jordan or Muhamma

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="8" id="2422641"]I think the problem is not so much researching powerful units or stacks limits, but allowing to produce an infinite number of powerful units once they become available. In medieval times heavy plated mounted troops didn't compose 100% of all the armies because they were finite (they were Knights after all).[/quote]Two points: 1- Frogboy(? - or someone) mentioned that troops don't just appear out of thin air -- if you want a large

Add me to the 'can't test because of random constant crashes' list. Beta 1A was so bad I gave up trying for 2 weeks (after submitting reports, of which at least 1 is still 'open'). Beta 1B is no better. Never got more than ~100 turns in before a crash, often crash at startup, tried various ways to get around crashes only to have crashes at other times, never had a save successfully load without crashing, etc. And yes, I'm not complaining. And yes, I realize i

[quote]I would also like to see Mobility be taken into effect somehow in combat. [/quote]ICE's Arms Law had an interesting feature -- heavy armor made it easier to hit (couldn't evade as well) but if hit you took less damage. Light armor was harder to hit (evasion) but if hit, you took more damage. This would fit in with mobility. [quote]I really would like to see a morale system where leadership can matter.[/quote]Avalon Hill's Squad Leader had a great leadership/

grrrr...

triple post editing grrrrr....

Good game design balances risk and reward. Without real risk there should be no reward. If we're going to set out with our sovereigns to accomplish certain tasks (ie -- rewards) there must be commesurate risks. Sovereign death incurring 'game over' is an extreme penalty -- the ultimate penalty. Some of the proposals seem to be removing all risk -- automatically removing a sovereign when endangered, etc. The devs need to be careful that they don't over

[quote who="auboy105" reply="21" id="2392897"]I think the best solution to the biggest disagreement on this game would be: Sovereign can die: Yes Sovereign can grow very powerful over the course of a game. Losing this powerful sovereign would be a huge risk but a risk that could be worth taking. The risk: If the sovereign dies an heir successor takes over. This heir is like the sovereign at the beginning of the game. Weak. Brand new. You have to sta

Thanks! it was 0.23, updating now.

sorry...