SeanenG

To be perfectly blunt, I think that the fact you can describe the process as 'copy the approach of ' /at all/ sums up one of the major things that went wrong with the design of Elemental, because the enthusiasm and nostalgia for those old games led to repeating a lot of the same mistakes. (However, this thread /has/ gotten me to go back to playing RTK again.) Personally, the advantage of having battles on the world map instead of on a separate tactical battle map is that it doesn't t

Is this /not/ implemented? I've seen bandit camps, spider's lairs, and ogre dens in the game, which spawned one or two roaming units of that type and had a 'leader' unit of that type on the tile itself. But the only place I can say for certain that I've seen them is in the campaign mode, so they might not be randomly placed in the map generator?

You know, in all seriousness, Koei's RoTK games do several of the ideas in Elemental better than Elemental actually does. The tactical battles you mention are one example. I'm not a fan of the rock-paper-scissors approach, but having tactical combat on the world map, a single unit per tile rather than a big stack of doom, and the offset square/hex grid are all things I prefer to Elemental (and now Civ V is doing all those same things). And having units with different special

[quote who="TTemplar" reply="311" id="2753371"] Additionally you can trade with and open standard/trained units inventories. However when trading an item with a trained unit the item simply disappears. If giving standard/trained units items wasn't an intended feature it should probably be disabled. Plus auto explore is really bugged. Sometimes the auto explore button will toggle of by itself and the you can't take it out of the mode properly. Also if you tell a unit to m

[quote who="moi-meme" reply="41" id="2750020"]Also note that people asking for a real bell curve are absolutely not aware of the consequences. They would become shocked that a unit with an attack rating of, say 6 would not be able to scratch a defense 8 unit, and would thus vocalize strongly against the bell curve...[/quote] This. So much this. I've been having this same conversation with people for years. Not all of them are ignorant of statistics, but a lot of them are

[quote who="arstal" reply="24" id="2748729"]I disagree with the concept that 2 rings/1 ammy is lame. I suggested in IRC that this should be a moddable stat, even if it's not used in the base game. Mods will use it. Maybe even allow it to be racially set. One other suggestion from IRC today- polearms. they were very common. Make them a branch of the warfare tree, generally +def -combat speed + attack. Warhammers should get mov

[quote quoting="post"] 1DN should be used exclusively when it is logically defensible that all possible outcomes aught be equally probable . . . which is in thermodynamics, or nearly never. If anybody thinks 1DN rolls are a good idea, Speak now, or rally behind me in this crusade against the misuse of random damage, and all other occurrences of 1DN. Robbie Price [/quote] They're absolutely a good idea. The problem is you're basing 'h

Just something I notice: There are 5 different Technology Paths, and only 4 different Victory Conditions. Adventure, Conquest, Diplomacy, and Magic seem to each map directly onto one of the victory conditions, leaving Imperium as the odd one out. I guess that means there's not going to be any sort of 'Culture' victory, like there was in Gal Civ?

The last screenshot with the trade screen catches my interest. What exactly is 'Perceived Value'? Obviously, this is some sort of estimate of how much the trade is worth - a number of games use this same model. My question is - and I acknowledge that I'm probably splitting hairs, here - perceived by whom ? Is it my perceived value? His perceived value? Is it mine on one side and his on another? Some abstract number based on how many gold it takes to create that item? I

[quote who="SavageBananaMan34" reply="3" id="2668035"]However, what I think is the best is to make the scaling very subtle - certainly nowhere near proportional to the zoom distance. So when very far out stuff would seem smaller yet nice and visible, and when zoomed in close stuff would seem somewhat larger - but in reality when you're zoomed in closer while the model is larger on your screen, it's absolute scale is somewhat smaller than when you're zoomed out. Am I getting t

Personally, I like the first option, where the units get bigger as you zoom in and smaller as you zoom out. Keeping them the same size as you zoom in just makes me feel like the units are shrinking.

[quote quoting="post"]Originally, Elemental was going to have continuous turn combat. That effectively meant real-time. Ultimately, after playing around with it, we decided to implement turn based (simultaneous turns based on combat speed) with tiles. (1) WINNER. TAKE. ALL. This is the part where we want to hear your opinions. We do ask that you keep an open mind on what we ultimately go with. My opinion is that the attacking player h

Can we have an option not to have quotes with our units? Because I'm sure it will be fun at first, but after doing it for long enough it will come down to 'think up another quote for your 101st new unit design' or 'sigh as the random quote generator assigns illogical or redundant quotes'. I just want the option to say 'No quote for this guy'.

NOTE: Quoting hates me, and I don't know why. [quote who="austinvn" reply="149" id="2556286"]You really need an "intercept target" option so your army actively tries to catch an enemy army, avoiding the frustration of sending them to a fixed spot on the map where the enemy may or may not be by the time they get there (come to think of it, it doesn't need to be a separate option: "intercept" could be the default behavior whenever you order an army to the same tile as a visible enemy ar

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="57" id="2554810"]Having a text details window is interesting, but we're in the 21st century. Since you provide a graphical battle view, why don't you propvide a graphical battle replay?[/quote] That would be pretty sweet, but I wouldn't want it to go as far as a 3d rendered replay of the entire fight. Just use a cloth map of the battlefield. After all, historical battles are traditionally represented with a map of the terrain and colored arrows sh

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="74" id="2555223"](face palm) Guys: Listen. Carefully. Rather than talking about how much you "hate" this or that suggestion why not offer your own?[/quote] Okay! Well, here's mine. Simultaneous turns in the style of Diplomacy (the board game). In Diplomacy, each turn is divided into two phases. During the first phase, players can discuss and negotiate with each other, and everybody secretly writes

Organic roads, certainly. I don't want to have to waste my time telling the game where to put each road, when all I want to do anyway is build roads from one city or outpost to the next. And as for upgrading? Well, just think of the similar case that was mentioned in another recent thread, of houses. All houses in all your cities automatically upgrade whenever you have the proper city size / technology / whatever. Why on earth would roads ever operate any different? If manually upgrad

Yes, absolutely. With no exceptions. Soverign Death = Game Over. Inheritance systems or resurrection spells or any other half-measures on that front would be a waste of design resources in order to placate a fraction of the potential playerbase, and is a poor idea for game balance besides.

For some reason I feel like any reply I make in this thread is just going to be lost in the shuffle (which is odd, because the thread is on page 8 and I've seen threads on other forums go into the hundreds or thousands of pages.)[e digicons] Even so, it reminds me that Stardock are my favorite game developers. As Yahtzee (of Zero Punctuation) has commented a few times: ' I don't play games because I want to extract my own fun, I want to play

I do notice a bit of a difference between these histories: [quote quoting="post"] · Mason. (provides construction bonus in cities he’s in, gains access to unique tech) · Warlord. (increases combat effectiveness of army he is with, gets special equipment) · Merchant. (increases wealth produced in city he is in, gains access to special improvements). · Bard. (increases moral of any army he is with, heroes easier to recruit)

After reading the thread, I'm not really sure where to begin, so I think I'll just toss out some thoughts here. In general, it seems like the proposed system (all your stuff goes to the ruler whose daughter/female descendent is married to your eldest son) is both a little too simple, and a little counter-intuitive, and could stand to be more complex. After all, this is something that only happens once a Soverign dies, and how many soverigns will there be in an average game? On the oth

[quote who="endofdayz" reply="189" id="2439790"] The thing is, this is a game. If I have no forest around me and I get the optional forest defense tech, theres no gun to my head forcing me to research it. The thing is, as soon as you start ladening the game with all these layers of complexity, you are starting to move it away from "fun" into "tedius". Does the desert kingdom knowing how to fight in the forest make sense? There are arguements I could make saying yes, but thats not the poi

[quote quoting="post"] ~snip~ And one of the most consistent concerns I read is that the hard core beta testers who post the most will influence the game to become too hard-core. There is nothing to fear. ~snip~ [/quote] I'll be quite honest about this. What I don't like, reading the discussions here, is the seemingly large proportion of people whose opinions are "it should be like '. Master of Magic, Dominion, a couple others

Hrm. I'm not so sure what I can add to this. But it does give me a slightly different idea - you could avoid having players eliminated from the game with a continuous 'historical' mode with a scoring system that's a variant on King of the Hill. You wouldn't win the game instantly, instead you'd try and maintain your position as the dominat economic, military, technological power, and so on. You'd get points either for being the 'best', having the biggest empire, the most money, etc, o

Whoa. Hold up. You just said yourself. Your units aren't channelers, magic is out. So have I missed something, or where are we getting the idea that normal units are going to be running around with magic weapons that deal elemental damage? Heroes and Channelers I can see, sure, but your entire army? That's a pretty big thing to have. Maybe for a rare elite unit. So it's not like 'elemental damage' was ever likely to be a primary factor in distinguishing one unit