Finneglot

So far, I believe the dynasty system will be only a way to milk the AI or allow the AI to milk itself - as originally intended. There is little evidence so far the Devs will develop any of the ideas brought forth here, as you can see by the recent reinstatement of Sovereign 'near-immortality' and by statements excluding all offspring of inheriting the throne. I'm really curious about what will Stardock do with this mortal rabble beyond merely establishing routes to steal unfortunate Kingdoms/

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="57" id="2517472"]If fallen are magicly twisted humans in essence, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to cross-breed with men, geneticly they could be rather close. Morphological differences don't necassarily denote genetic incompatability. Look at the variety of dog phenotypes that can be interbreed. [/quote] It is hard to apply classic genetics when you are in a world of magic and magical manipulation. Genetics imply in evolution and evolut

[quote who="GambitNC" reply="34" id="2515733"]Quoting Finneglot, reply 8Inter-species marriages should be verbotten! Das ist verbotten! Frankly, some factions should be at least infertile when crossed - unless you use evil arcane magic to create hybrids. Just for the record. It is spelled "verboten". And don't forget. I also wanted "infertile" to be a trait (not just ugly). For a reason! [/quote] D

Inter-species marriages should be verbotten! Das ist verbotten! [e digicons]:banhammer:[/e] Frankly, some factions should be at least infertile when crossed - unless you use evil arcane magic to create hybrids.

I fully support this idea.

Adding something else to the discussion, without commenting on the points raised above... I would like quite a bit to see terrain changes during the course of the game - but not only changes made directly by the player or the AI while in, say, terraforming. However, these changes could be tied to what the player or the AI do indirectly, id est, as in environmental damage or overexploitation of resources. One simple example would be farming. Everyone knows that if you don't pay

I believe fist and foremost the meaning of "big", "large" and "humongous" nations needs to be clarified. What each one of you mean by large Empires? Large in terms of absolute population? "Large" in terms of population density? Large in territory?

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="59" id="2492441"]From all I remember, all population growth is only based on Prestige (aka people coming from the wilds to join you), which by itself seems a bad idea to me. I0d prefer that during the first X turns (where X is not 10 in roman numbers...) population is solely based on Prestige but after those turns, people coming from the wilds decreases slowly to 0. During those same turns, population can continue to increase in two other ways:<b

[quote who="ubernaught" reply="80" id="2492385"]Hah, I believe the Devs already secretly considered some Lich King - one of his perks is the ability of reconstructing himself forever until you destroy his phylactery. Hell yes! But impotent. [/quote] I was going to make a very, very crude joke right now, but I believe you can guess what it was :P

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="8" id="2490791"]Forceful is exactly what is necessary. In theory you are right, but this balance is never, ever achieved in strategy games. You are treating unit design like a free market, which works well when an individual has perfect information and is capable of behaving perfectly rational in their own best interest. Assuming that players will have this, you also must assume that the per capita benefits of fielding non-elite units will match

Hah, I believe the Devs already secretly considered some Lich King - one of his perks is the ability of reconstructing himself forever until you destroy his phylactery. Actually FaultyLogic, your idea is fantastic in many overpowering ways. The death of a King or Emperor is akin to the death of a mythological creature: it throughly affects the world equilibrium. And being powerful individuals, they will hardly go away without leaving a mark. Perhaps a powerful Emperor that dealt with

Putting it simply: your system is forceful and arbitrary, Demiansky - also, it is not needed. There is already a way of controlling how far your army modernization can go and that's called 'price'. By economical reasons, you will not be able to field vast swathes of superbly equipped peasants, unless you are fond of going bankrupt over and over again. A dragon armor is very expensive and it is nearly impossible to equip all your grunts with it. Even top-notch full-armor is already expensive,

Well said Red, I think you sketched the principals.

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="75" id="2489507"]Quoting Finneglot, reply 74... Without proper guidance, we are shooting in the dark. I have a sneaking (and confusing to me) suspicion that the devs might want us floundering about with just a few details from inside their sanctum. After all, the more info they offer to help us 'shoot accurately,' the less likely it is that one of us will mention a fun target that they hadn't considered yet. Mind you, I'm sort of trying to

Problems so far are the indecision of whether the death of a sovereign will mean game over or not, whether the children of the sovereigns will be able to inherit his/her channeler's trait and whether it is possible to be the head of state without being a channeler. Without proper guidance, we are shooting in the dark.

Well said Ephafn, although I admit being a bit reluctant in your EU III example of tech-taxing for bigger nations, as it often lead to small nations having extremely advanced armies and strongholds while bigger nations are left behind fighting with sticks and stones. It is a fine balance to be made and Paradox failed at that at first, as usual. With that said, I believe a more refined system can be made for Elemental, using more variables since technological advance isn't directly rel

[quote who="Ynglaur" reply="68" id="2485510"]Just curious: how do games in the Europa Universalis series handle succession? Do they have a good model? [/quote] In short, the previous system was based on marrying unspecified members of your royal family to other royals of friendly nations. This gives you a relations' boost, a way of claiming the crown of that given nation anytime and a dim chance of forming a personal union possibly followed by inheritance later by the death

[quote who="red1939" reply="24" id="2429734"]What's much more important, for me, is the lack of special abilities/skills! Screw INT, WIS, CHA, PENSIZ, whatever. If we create too many attributes, the balancing will be a horror, not to mention the hardships with selecting proper units. So here's my proposal: ATK Attack defines the unit's ability to deal damage. Let's take a phantom guardian. He is very fast (in terms of attack speed), and he's attack can be blocked (by any

[quote who="drrob" reply="116" id="2477559"]@red1939 Very detailed and thought out ideas. I hope the majority of them are implemented. On a side note, if "worst nightmare" doesn't get added as a quest, I would hope that "Summon a valcano with a demigod that spawns demons to attack your enemies" could be the high level Chaos spell on the tree, cause that sounds totally awesome.[/quote] I cannot agree more. +1

Agreed on everything Red, except: [quote who="red1939" reply="59" id="2473077"]1.4. Charisma should determine the 'quality' of his offspring, not the diplomacy, as diplomacy is basically useless in the multiplayer.[/quote] Brad said explicitly he won't sacrifice the singleplayer for the sake of multiplayer (in general terms), therefore while I consent on 'quality', diplomacy bonus cannot be overruled and in fact, I believe it is a much more natural following of Charisma.

Climber's idea is interesting, even if a bit flawed - nothing a polish can't fix. Why is it good? First and foremost, it provides an event after the death of the monarch. The nation could have one more chance to redeem itself by finding the rightful successor for the throne; Second, it is not a bland event, but an extremely dynamic one. Every other nation could take part in this treasure hunt and hell yes, I can imagine the enemy's agents leaking through the b

Hahahaha, well done.

Very insightful, Wintersong. Thank you. Your questions are also extremely valid and unless answered will throw us in fairy land of vain speculation. Remember also what Frogboy said: not everything is set to stone, so rulers could be turned into mortals and the channeler trait could be inherited - it will depend on what is best.

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="6" id="2468754"]Quoting Finneglot, reply 5... This can become a game on itself, screening magically the King and Queen to see all their traits, then play them out to see the chances of breeding a children with characteristics X, Y and Z - or better, choosing the right sperm and ovule to give the right characteristics. ... This business of disliking something as a 'game in itself' has never really happened to me, but then I've never been able to have fun pla

Now I see where this is going. Things will be very interesting indeed!