maybe I should have said no leveling up and only auto-resolve instead of no quests/monsters it's been so long since I've played single-player civ (AI sucks)... in multiplayer we turn off almost everything when I play FE I just feel that the skill selection and tactical battles are such a huge focus and these are more common with tactics/role-playing games than with 4X it's just semantics though. I agree that civ
you're comparing different genres... turn off quests and monsters and compare FE to Civ :)
don't care about reality :) but it wouldn't hurt to have an actual incentive for maintaining high population... the game already seems favored towards leveling up and then not caring at all about population
if they were useful, that trait would be too strong for 1 cost game might be more fun if they bumped the power on these and made it cost 2 or 3
Ive been playing on insane/insane as of now I'm just starting with pioneer and making a new game if I'm trapped :( even if you can expand, that city has a chance of being destroyed as some uber unit you can't possibly kill decides to wander into your lands im still new to the game so don't take this as strategy advice lol
it might depend on what level you are... I got the "young" version of units sometimes I wish the game had actual documentation grepping through XML is too much work and it doesn't even have the relevant info for something like binding
better UI EVERYTHING needs to be quantified instead of "build a mine to get gold" how hard is it to quantify that? instead of "increases swarm bonus" how hard is it to quantify that? instead of just having colored text to indicate change (i.e. toggling tax rates) there should be parentheses that quantifies the compared value and why isn't there spillover? the document
is it a bug? I don't understand just trying to right click anywhere with the unit see video: http://www.twitch.tv/biz2/c/2321986
is the game in a sort of "finished" state with the release? or is it like Fallen Enchantress where there'll be an expansion / refinement in a few months which I should probably wait for instead? I already bought the game. Just trying to figure out the best time to dive in
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="19" id="3361152"]Ahh... ohh yes.... the almighty cloud... the only possible future for 10.... or has it been 15 years already? Besides, AI is usually limited by man hours, not calculation power.[/quote] calculation power saves man hours or do you think optimized C code that runs on a wide variety of client-side configurations writes and maintains itself? single player
I hope gamers get used to DRM, especially for strategy games the whole idea of releasing games that must run on personal computers is too last millenium there are so many advantages to doing things like AI in the cloud, but gamers cry about DRM too much :( I'm dealing with a similar question, but it isn't about digital rights management - I just can't afford to buy machines so that pirates can utilize cloud AI
execution isn't fundamental to RTS though it's just a major part of the games in the marketplace, all of which are real-time mass micromanagement games "macro" just means micromanaging production instead of units the core concept of strategy in real-time has nothing to do with micro/speed the only reason to play RTS games (in terms of strategy) is the resource-management decisions (and the tactical ones to a certain degree)
people often focus on why AIs will never be perfect and how how hard a lot of problems are. it's not about solving NP-hard problems and finding the best solution - it's about finding a competent course of action that can present a challenge to the player, and making sure that challenge fits within the design parameters of the game. In a symmetrical game, how well the player is challenged is what determines "good" versus "bad" playability. For AI purposes, "good" and "bad" are
Yes, in general, RTS AIs can get an edge with APM, but I'm really just talking about the decision-making at a high level - the part that actually relates to strategy SC AI is easy to write because the game is extremely simple. The AI I wrote that beat the Overmind was less than 50 hours of work. Now that's nowhere near enough time for a good AI, but it barely scratches the surface of what's possible. It's just sad that professional developers do so little when they hav
[quote who="pomalley" reply="22" id="3319942"] Quoting The_Biz, reply 20there is no reason an AI shouldn't win a civ-like game with 25% cheaper everything. I don't think it's realistically possible to play on a level playing field atm, but 5% advantage should be enough. Anything below 25% is just bad AI imo, with varying degrees of badness, and that's where every 4X game is at right now I was impressed with Gal Civ II's AI, but it was still bad -
there is no reason an AI shouldn't win a civ-like game with 25% cheaper everything. I don't think it's realistically possible to play on a level playing field atm, but 5% advantage should be enough. Anything below 25% is just bad AI imo, with varying degrees of badness, and that's where every 4X game is at right now I was impressed with Gal Civ II's AI, but it was still bad - just less bad than the rest :)
Strategy has nothing to do with scale or graphics. The old developers understood that... The reason RTS is dead is because the games simply lack strategy That's why better RTS games came out 10 years ago than today (SC2 is basically a game from 15 years ago in design). resource management works well, and it doesn't get better with stronger PCs Better PCs will probably hinder progress when the reality is that they'll be used for graphics or millions of units while e
[quote who="Mmrnmhrm" reply="14" id="3263402"]What he wants in his games seems to be every trend I am disliking in modern gaming. The shift towards tight, focused pieces of entertainment consumption. [/quote] if I was a professional game reviewer and was forced to play new games instead of whatever I'm finding fun, I'd want the same thing But honestly, that's exactly what RPS and its readers value the most. If you can't see why they view Half Life 2 as the
the game has too much stuff in it and there's a massive learning curve. to review it properly would mean spending 50-100 hours with the game. otherwise you can only answer whether it was fun initially, not whether it has lasting value (which is why people even bother learning how to play 4X games) anyways, most reviewers don't actually play strategy games properly before reviewing them (it would just take too long, and they would actually have to be strateg
honestly, for strategy gaming, it'll probably be FTL. That game's weaknesses are pretty minor. The AI issues with all these empire management games are much bigger issues. They have lots of other neat stuff, but in terms of pure strategy they always fall short.
So this game seems to have lots of stuff in it... How good is the documentation in the game to figure out what all the stuff does?
Just trying to determine if the game is worth my time. How long will it take to learn every last detail about the rules? How long before I'm fully aware of the costs and benefits for my choices? Is it as simplified and well-documented as Civ4 or 5? In these games I'm making fully-informed decisions within an hour, and there is absolutely nothing that is a mystery. I'm not saying I can't play games more complex than that... but in terms of ac