Tasunke

OK John Hughes ... I will say that a Sovereigns EGO will require his pompous and illiterate Ass to manage the city, even if he has a better Champion. I suppose the only case that should NOT happen is if your sovereign picked non of the negative mental traits (cruel, blunt, insane, murderous, arrogant) AND your race has egalitarian. In Rome Total war, a governor's Management skill determined the governor ... even if someone with a lower

Experience cannot be bought. I will start off by saying that I COMPLETELY DISAGREE that levels or "veterancy" can be paid with pure money. It will take LONGER training AND will take LOTS OF MONEY because you are paying special tutors, instructors, other champions, ect. to visit your troops and give them advice and training WELL INTO OVERTIME. (probably from the aristocracy, which is why you would have to pay the fools anyways) Training with a Tutor/ extra Training sho

So is it a bonus amount of global food that becomes available with Roads stemming from City w/Food to cities w/o Food? Or does being connected to a "food hub" allow each Housing building to require 1 less food?? //I suppose the first way would run more smoothly, I simply had the impression that it was the second method @ Rising Legend- Yes, its more realistic that way. Cities do not rely on a monolithic caravan in real life (or real fantasy life) its man

Governors are cool. Make it so that Champions have similar City-Related traits (or weaker versions) that the Sovereign has (or possibility to have weaker versions of all traits that Sovereigns have access too), and make it so that only the highest level (or highest Fame/Prestige) Champion's traits effect the city. Sovereign trumps all, and when Sov is in a city only his traits effect the city. Perhaps Academies (or royal acadamies), if in a city, can slowly have a positive effec

I also agree with Dsraider (only this level of detail when it comes to battles ;) )

Yes, being able to give places of the map "Pet Names" visually seen by all players (or team-only/alliance only) and graphically separate from "map names". Alternatively, having "Legendary Battle" flags automatically pop over sites of close battles or huge battles would be cool as well. (but not as cool)

also, Frogboy's response was well-said, pleasant to read, and not at all a surprise. I am surprised that people found it at all confusing.

Finally, caravans in detail . Caravans (to me) will always be a blatant abstraction on a time-scale that is impossible to use caravans on realistic terms (as far as speed). Yes, I understand military movement is under the same concern, but military movement is a game element that is Integral and has to be abstracted somewhat, since military action is extremely important while caravans are the unsung heroes that just aren't important in games of this scale. How many WWII games

Food created locally MEANS self sustaining cities . Having to set up caravans or trade orders in order to bring food from Tile X to Tile Y, or caravans actually taking their time to reach the city (mechanically speaking), is like using Storage Wagons in CIVILIZATION: Colonization. Imagine playing Colonization, and having City A use food from City B each turn. Imagine having to build 10 storage wagons and constantly having a train of food

Well, I suppose that would be interesting, however Im not sure if people wish for the RNG to run their empire. I think that most people would prefer simply having to control X cities in an alloted time frame (MP) rather than having cities randomly building things. This would also keep people at size X (the Size 1 city less than the point where you are not in control of building orders) for an inordinantly long period of time, until they have fully maxed said cities. It also does not a

Aye, catapult/ballista variation on large walls of large forts would be nice.

Agreed. It is better to make one good game than two great games, or better to make one great game than three great games. The point is, Great Systems (of complexity) working counterintuitively to limit each other, will lead to a game falling apart. Its better to have one contiguous style during the game rather than to make each piece a work unto itself with all inherent complexity. That being said ... I've really been looking forward to a well made RPG + 4X hybrid, and I think

Three cheers for Myles!

I believe Making of History had a similar "Transport Pool".

Yes, the new system reduces the need for cityspam and house-spam, and instead allows for a larger countryside of improvements to support your one or two strategically important cities. Afterall, the location of your first city STILL MATTERS ... its just that city snaking and city spam are no longer needed. It fits much better into the (cities cost increasingly more to maintain) because we don't need Civ like city spam anymore.

Yea ... only the Guilds (if there are any) and the Nobility will have any real power (choice) over their lives ... and the Nobility is really just the entourage of the Champions (with the Champions being the most powerful nobility). I control the wood and the stone, I say your going to live here, so start building houses here! Alternatively, you could decide to have your royal agents direct all housing personally, and "independent" or "rebel" housing is destroyed via fireball,

Or just simply crowns. What I meant is that during the high age of rebirth the Sovereign would be the most important figure, so either the people would name the currency of their Sovereign, or the Sovereigns would have the people name their coins after something important to the Sovereigns. This could be either Shards or Dragons (probably Shards) so my examples are Draginol Dragonill Shardii Shartan Shakril Dragoon(s)

Mardero is a Hero, Wilboman is a Hero, Rosier is a Hero, Messhaber of Dis is a Hero ... although for Elemental I would prefer the name Champion. in FFH Champion was the name of a unit, and here its the name of our hero's which I think is fine. I'd actually love it if a particular Champion was able to defend a city vs X attack in some "survival quest" wether it was a barbarian army, demonbears, or the undead. Then said Champion becomes "Hero of X city" (example: Hero of

Here Here for unit variety. Its the one place I know I will want variety possibility. (one reason is because you don't HAVE to have variety, its all about trying different tactics and counters). Still .... 600 deathknights and 400 recurved Longbowmen vs 1500 sturdy peasants and 500 ninjaAssasins ... make for an interesting battle no?

Yea ... the reliability of real life food caravans to transport food is about 600% better than it could be in any videogame. Why? Cause over the course of any ONE turn hundreds of caravans are moving back and forth just for the sake of providing food. It doesn't make any sense in a game with local food for a Desert trading center to form into a massive city, yet thats what happens. Why in Ancient China was the Capital (wherever it moved) always so massive even though all the y

Even if you had 1 turn = 1 month, you would need 6 turns of winter and 6 turns of summer to make it "long term" meaningful. Whereas I don't mind the "happenstance meaningful" of fighting during the winter in Rome Total War. But yea, if your going to make turns/gamespeed bullshit long you might as well do it right. Which is having only 2 seasons, at 6 turns a piece.

Actually, by adding complexity you can add "non decisions" and lose depth. Depth is all about the scope of the game, and it really more streamlining the mechanics to meet a certain need (the style and feel of the game) and less about reaching certain "realism" or "complexity" quotas.

In my opinion, 1 turn per month IS so slow, and 1 turn per day (or week) would be downright impossible (unless turns take 5 seconds or less). 1 month per turn would be so damn slow that ... I would still play the game (grudgingly) and if it was decided to play any slower I would contract some serious player apathy. That being said ... if enough things were added to make the months interesting, I could be attracted for one or two fun playthroughs ... the rest of which would be

The Total War series managed to contain a meaningful Dysnasty System, while only a couple people died of old age (well maybe I tended to win the game early, but still). And they used a 2 turn per year system, where 1 turn = 6 months. Abstracted into either Winter or Summer. Now im not saying that we need to copy their system, however if a 70 year old man can die of old age in Medieval2 Total War, and it comes as a Suprise to the gamer ... then there will be no disbelief if some family

Sovereign