Andorfiend

It's magic, baby!

256? Ha! Killed by an 8 bit turn counter on a 32 bit os. [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

As an aside I can actually see how higher quality housing could lead to feeding more people with the same amount of food, since things like pest proof food storage and a ice cellar could reduce spoilage and waste. On topic. In MoM(and Civ for that matter) a city would generate food based on 3 factors. The production abilities of the tiles under it's control, IE grasslands produce more food than mountains. The food related improvements in the city such as

[quote who="Nemesis7884" reply="86" id="2656818"]i would like to get a preview on the differences of the spellbooks... moreover, i kinda liked the system in mom where you could spend points to buy "more" of the same spell books and get access to higher level spells - therefore there was a tradeoff between pure specialization and jack of all trades...like to see that too in elemental [/quote] Even more critical to my way of thinking was the impact your spellbook choices

This is why I like turn based games. I do not want my time/dexterity/attention to be the key resource in the game. Dom3. ... I love that game. Yes, it has one hell of a learning curve, but it also has such an information rich interface that you can learn everything about it. That's key, I think, in any game that models that kind of complexity. What, afterall, would be the point of tracking experience and wounds and equipment by individual units if you couldn't drill down far

Humm. In MoM there were spells that could change the mana type of a node. Do the same options exist for shards? Even better perhaps than spells would be buildings you could construct over a node to retune it's type. Just my 2¢

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="41" id="2647256"] Your archers will engage first and keep firing until the enemy closes. Of course, if you're all archers and the other guy had mounted warriors, you'll get murdered. [/quote] Unless the archers are on top of a muddy hill. We call that scenario 'Agincourt'. [e digicons]:troll:[/e]

[quote quoting="post"] Randomization vs. Richness. I won’t lie to you, we have a trade off in front of us and it’s a big one. We can randomly generate the battlefields in tactical combat OR we can have it pick from a series of pre-made tactical battle maps. The randomly generated ones won’t be as interesting but they’ll more accurately reflect the local terrain. I’m preferring the pre-made ones because we can add some spectacular strateg

[quote quoting="post"] 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 has the onus to finish the battle in N turns. After N turns, the attacker morale starts to go lower and lower at which point the defender can come out and make mince meat out of them. The question is, what should determine what N is? Or should we allow retreating

Some thoughts... Man does that map make me miss MoM. I just found out about this game while checking the MoM wiki. [e digicons]|-)[/e] If this is a post apocalyptic world unlimited growth seems counter-intuitive. Soft food and/or population limits seem sensible. Particularly with a dynastic system in place population growth tracking seems like a no-brainer. I'm not keen on these "snake-cities." There was mention made of espionage options. I'd suggest cities