You assume it means you cheated on this particular game. The code goes much further to detect if you have ever cheated on a game in your life. Does this ring a bell? UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT, B, A, START
I think I'm might be in a minority in wanting more focus on cities and economy, but the concept of "loyalty" would really go well with a deep set of luxury goods that your cities/minors can produce & trade. So in the beginning, you don't need much to keep people loyal and productive, but as the sorcerer king gets more intimidating maybe you specialize a city in producing Wine, it can easily produce enough to boost the loyalty of X cities, and would have to specialize deeper t
This may be a bit of a tangent, but I'm frustrated with how Cities work in 4x in general. Specifically that they each have their own unrelated growth, food, and production. I would love to see Food, people and production are resources that as shared/transferable between cities and a rate of population growth that is governed by something else. 4x games favor city spam because every time you build a city you get free resources rather than spreading your resources out over a
Or make them dependent on heroes. Where to found a new city you need a hero to appoint "Lord" and each hero can only be Lord of one or maybe two cities. Similar to a feudal system's fiefdoms.
I'm sad to hear bandits spawning was axed, though I could see how it would be difficult to implement. If the bandits are too easy, then there is no drama to them spawning, it's just a chore to "manage" them with a few units. If the bandits are too strong, then they raze your city and salt the earth? Well there goes my favorite conclave...If they are strong, but don't attack cities, it's still not that exciting, because they aren't a real threat. You can let them trash a mi
@tjashen, I'll update on my retest this weekend. @Primal, I like what was done with the faithfuls. That's along the lines of what I'd like start creating for specailists/master craftsmen. Though at my current rate it might be some time till I'm ready to implement that.
I completely agree that this is a problem with 4x games. Once the player takes a strong lead they have won because only willfully bad playing will reverse the lead. This eliminates the threat of failure, and thus the drama/fun. So what we need to think of are ways to either remove/reduce the player's lead or add additional avenues of failure while not punishing the player for success. My thoughts on reducing player lead: AI players create a coalition against l
This makes me sad, because I'm pretty sure I tried that without luck, so I made a mistake, or may be going crazy. I'll go through with the plan to reset to vanilla install and just try that change. In the mean time, I was slowly plugging through adding follower costs and citizen bonuses to all the improvements... there are quite a few of them I might say. The balance of which is going to be no easy task. With respect to Primal's q
1) Building my stack of Doom out of custom units, enchantments, fortress upgrades, and the combination heroes/normal troops to offset each others weakness 2) Leveling sovereigns down the path of my selection, trying different builds to get a different "feel" when I play the game each time. 3) Building an Empire - Specializing cities, stacking improvements and the feeling of an "empire of doom". I actually yearn for a little more control/granularity on this.
@tjashen It's a relief to know that it's the game being frustrating and not me missing something. I might experiment with city hubs to see what I could do. Any ideas on how the Dead should factor into this mod? It would be awesome if "Enslave" could affect the "followers" resource instead of population, but I don't know how that would work. @Primal - A spell, or something you have to produce like the "Produce growth" option could work, but would be a pain to cas
I tried that one too, no luck. I think my next step will be to reset to a vanilla install, and retest everything a big more systematically to make sure I didn't make a mistake anywhere. That way I can feel confident it's not a simple mistake I made somewhere.
I'm going to put myself in the firing line and actually defend Gazing. What he is really challenging is this assumption 7) Regardless of how many workers I put on making DLC, it will result in 15k/month. or as Gazing put it: "You have shown no [or zero] causation between the number of employees and the expected revenue." From the System engineering side that Gazing is talking about, you have a resource that produces widgets at a rate. Which i
Well, if we used immigrants/followers/bandwagoners/lost puppies to increase growth on a per turn basis then it would result the one man working at the new merchant house to add Y total population over Y turns. Having improvements add growth once (not putting the per turn tag) seemed like a nice idea, but result in any growth addedwhen I tested it. Which led me to my convoluted solution. That said, this is my first attempt at a mod, so there is a large room for me m
No luck that way either. I am considering a convoluted method: Rename Food resource display to be "Jobs" Create a new resource food2 to be displayed as "Food" Change cityresourceeffectsdef so my new resource Food2 is created from grains and the original food resource now named "jobs" is not Add +10 Growth to all cityhubs Change improvements to subtract x food2, subtract x "available followers" and add x&nb
I think "Population" is a bit magical. I can add any other resource I choose through either [code="xml"] Resource Lumber
Also, I'm going to adopt "Followers" as my resource name if you don't mind.
Thanks for the details, this follows pretty closely to what I've been doing. I've added "Immigrants" as a Resource, that I had the Tower of Dominion give some per turn, and then added them in to be given in every lair that grants fame, with the intention. That part worked as I expected, and I included a food cost as well per building, with food now being a global resource. So far so good. The problem became cityhubs. I can't get them to accept another resour
I was recently thinking of making some changes like this myself. How far did you get with this proposed mod? The part that is giving me trouble right now is affecting population without using Growth.
Thank you for the explanation! It seems a pity to me that it moved from the more complex system to what we have currently, though I can see the reasons why. I'll see how much I can put back in for my own enjoyment, though I suspect the AI will run into problems with any large changes. Also, Cardinaldirection: Thanks for the point at Pandora, I may try that out sometime.
I may have partially answered my question in that I found some of the forum posts I was looking at on housing were actually in the War of Magic forums. Still, I'm curious if the move for fallen enchantress to avoid that economic ideas was based around criticism or design issues that limited it.
I've always been a bit of a builder, and recently I had the desire to have all my cities share resources. Why not be able to direct my kingdom/empire to ship more food and materials in the capital or to my new frontier town? It would be more interesting to me if I had a choice of which city to grow and which to use as feeders. I considered making a new modded in resource, lets call it "citizens" and being able to build housing in cities to direct which city grows. Food would be globa
There are elves in the game, you just don't see them... cause they're sneaky.
I just bought all these on Steam. I was less excited about the loot pack to be honest, but since I'm frustrated with companies that release games too early, without listening to users, the way Stardock gave away FE to everyone who bought elemental, and the very open forum communications are a shinning star that I would almost throw money out to encourage...In other words, I'm a fanboy, take my money. Oh and FE:LH is also a fantastic game that does scratch a very specific
Without checking patch notes to see if they made any changes on this; I vote for 1 horse farm supports up to X units of horseman. It would drastically increase the strategic value of horse farms because you would need more than one, and would pursue additional horse farms based on how many units you want to field at once on horses.
Don't even start on the idiotifcation of strategy games that is making the compatible for the console market. [e digicons]>:([/e] Sooo Angry!!! To me that's an attempt to maximize cashing in on title, or just a bad idea that somebody needs a good smacking for. I haven't enjoyed any stragegy game on console since C&C Red Alert. /End tangent I conceed to your point about not all games getting more complex, but perhaps we ca