Tasunke

If chilrden are kind of rare, then it makes child-based diplomacy more vital ... and having your child die more aggravating

[quote who="Randorama" reply="99" id="2695500"] It might be cool to be able to send your young children to another country for a time. Might be cool if you fall in relation to another country they then use your child as a bargaining chip. In medieval times kings would often keep children of other lords under their "protective" care to ensure the loyalty of other lords and such. The same could happen with other kings sons and daughters as well. This is a good idea.&

Your talking about a completely different world. Raw sandbox is no place for carry-over advantages. However ... if its a campaign that has multiple stages (and each stage is a new map), then a LOT of carryover can be justified. For instance, in the original Empire Earth, etc ... wouldn't it be nice to bring the soldiers you managed to keep alive with you to the next map? Or at least your top 3 unit's levels. (or your hero's levels) in the

Well, if we are keen on having a squad share the HP pool, and not lose any soldiers ... Then I'd say keep same attack and defense of a single unit (5 and 2) ... pool HP ... and give it 3 attacks instead of 1. (or +2 attack speed) either way ... it needs to have 3 attacks of 5 instead of 1 attack of 15. And it needs to have only 2 defense still. Or maybe a +1 "coordination" defense bonus. But not a defense multiplier! nor an attack multiplier.

dude. Three 5/2 soldiers should always be three 5/2 soldiers. Not some giant 15/6 soldier.

Permanently as in you can merge new soldier-citizens into the ranks (with mergable units ...) If a single soldier loses all 10 HP, he dies permanently ... why shouldn't a company (10 soldiers) that loses 10 HP turn into a group of 9 soldiers? I mean, you "could" try to justify that the damage was spread out amongst the unit ... but at the extreme end, if the company of soldiers has 1 HP left, then really it should be decimated ... reduced to only a single soldier.

If groups worked normally, it would be basically impossible for this to have balance issues. (and, at face value this assumes same-template soldiers)

NEVER should an achievement change any portion of how the game is played, or how strong/weak your position is. The only exception (if any) could be secret, hidden minigames ... or easter eggs.

[quote who="Tyrrell" reply="2" id="2703675"]Wait, is there some way for me to take my three individual forward observers and make then into a single unit?[/quote] Not yet.

first, lets assume that it will always take X experience to reach level N. So a unit's experience total will always determine its level in a universal fashion. Now then, example is unit A and unit B are merging. unit A has n1 soldiers and unit B has n2 soldiers. unit A has Z experience and unit B has Y experience. (Z(n1) + Y(n2))/(n1 + n2) = experience of the new unit C to clarify, you multiply unit A's experience by the number of soldier

I don't mind "kill a billion enemies" achievement ... but yea "die 150 times by cliff diving" is retarded. At least, its retarded if its something people GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to do, instead of some inside joke about a level's difficulty.

Oh, personally I think that if a unit of 6 loses 10 HP (and each have 10 HP) then the unit permanently loses 1 member. Although, with this system it "should" be theoretically possible to "clump" smaller units together as long as the total soldier count is less-than or equal to your largest possible unit. (if max logistics, then 22 soldiers in one unit) That would be 22 separate attacks, and (assuming 10 HP each) one would permanently die each time the unit suffers a total of 1

The fix is rather simple ... you just have sparse tiles that border the Clumpy tiles (separate the clumps from the empty space) ... So you have a tile that "blends" the clump of forest into the barren space by having thinner forest, that slowly thins out from one side to the other. Mind you, this approach sounds (and probably is) quite time consuming, and hurts the ability to make random maps. Alternatively ... you make "tiles" bigger, with a small clump

I'm rather certain that you could make a better version of the "frogboy meme" picture. Look to your own profile pic for inspiration. Notice the lack of ears showing ... as only the center of the face isn't covered by the Frog-head exterior. Also, the "mouth" of the frog-head in your profile pic is more circular and continuous, while in your "frog boy pick" it is choppy for the sake of un-needed detail.

@Killzemallgod Okay, so your original premise is that Autoresolve would feel like an option. In other words, if Autoresolve would "feel" like an option then it should be reliable. Your next assumption, that if its an actual option then you don't NEED to fight the battle yourself ... makes sense. You wouldn't need to fight the battle yourself (Under obvious WIN conditions!!!) if the Autoresolve is reliable and a VALID choice. Now ... your skip in logic, where your brain

I'd rather that rings be more useful (actually worth my time) than be some crappy +0.25 combat speed. Granted, a character probably shouldn't get more than +2 combat speed from any combination of rings. That being said ... like minded rings shouldn't stack. Or rather, the largest bonus on any ring is the one thats applied. Example: you're wearing 2 rings, one gives +1 combat speed, the other gives +2 attack and +0.5 combat speed. The net effect is +2 attack and +1 comb

[quote who="KillzEmAllGod" reply="13" id="2703269"]Brad said he wanted it to feel like autoresolve would be an option that meant you wouldn't have had needed to fight the battle yourself because the AI was stupid and lost all your units for you.[/quote] That sentence .... its horrible. Separate your ideas/ what you want to say ... and actually connect them together in a way that can be understood.

The default should be 0. It can be raised higher in multiplayer. Honestly though ... I think the parameters need to be different somehow, like based on combat rating, or based on "odds to win" For instance ... you could set "all auto for 10-to-1 odds to win or better" and you could calculate that based on combat rating, numbers, spells available, and current mana

Sure it'd be hard to make all 20. But it'd be pretty easy to make a couple new factions and share them.

Honestly, I think 2 rings per hand is reasonable. One on the index and one on the ring finger. Therefore 4 rings, 1 amulet (neck), and 1 pack Although ... multiple packs isn't always a bad thing as long as similar boosts don't stack. For instance ... if you want a "Ninja" type you could give them a "Wall-Climbing pack" + Invisibility/Stealth Cloak

[quote who="_PawelS_" reply="14" id="2703144"]Hmm, I think the quote background should be a bit darker...[/quote] perhaps

Okay .... I'd say my favorite movie of the hour is Memento. Seriously, good movie.

Yay! its fixed now. Thank you stardock. :)

[quote who="goodgimp" reply="9" id="2702959"] Quoting Pantasd, reply 1 its the final countdown Now all we need is Gob and a magic show![/quote] Gob + Magic Show ftw !! xD

only if the badge looks cool, and its witty or an inside joke. Other than that, no.