Wilson999

[quote]For 1.09, I am lobbying to have something put in that goes way back to an original concept that got lost and that is, using your citizens as a resource (population is still a resource, it's just not used for anything). This way, we could begin migrating back to the original concept tha tyou can build multiple buildings in a given city as long as you have the resource (available citizens) to make use of it. This encourages fewer cities and makes players choose between using their popu

@Keemossi - Yes, I agree with everything you say really (except play style preferences). But for diplomacy to be it's own rewarding route to victory, it would have to be more complicated, and it would be tricky to balance with warfare. And that's just if you're looking at it from a single player perspective :) @Lord Nova - Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd like to see.

When I play GalCiv 2 I quite often have the same issue as you Gormoth. I tend to be more building/researching by nature, so often the AI gets ahead of me in combat technology. I tend to do some research into weapons, get some decent ships to get my strength rating up, then ignore warfare techs for a while until I fall behind again, and repeat that process. I would like other ways of keeping enemy civs off my back that aren't military power. On one hand I agree with people that say the

I agree that I'd like to see some changes to the AI in this area. There should be more factors at work in a decision to declare war than just relative strength. If people want a more violent game, you could have a tickbox which changes it back to how it is now. I want to see more shades of gray as it were. There should be long term tribute agreements that guarantee security. Right now if an AI asks me for money, I won't pay because I know they'll just invade in the next few turns anyw

Is someone from Stardock planning to make an official response to the RPS post? It seems like it would clear up a lot of things. Also, I'm impressed at your ability to remain calm and have a sense of wry humour about it BoogieBac, all this must be very frustrating.

RPS is a good site, and one slightly dodgy post doesn't change that. They're reflecting the mood around the release (whether or not that mood is justified is neither here nor there), and there are people in the comments arguing against the idea that the game is broken or unfinished.

This is a good review, plenty of detail. I don't agree with everything (unsurprisingly due to the sheer quantity of commentary, which is a good thing), but you make a lot of of good points. I'm reasonably confident things will improve over time as they continue to work on the game, and reviews like this can only help that process.

This thread might help you: https://forums.elementalgame.com/392272 It goes into more detail about editing the xml so it works. It isn't especially difficult, and you don't need any fancy applications.

I'm not sure that you do. I didn't have that tech, I just used X after I captured it. Perhaps that's also a bug? I didn't get an option to raze it as I captured it, but that obviously doesn't matter when you can just remove it after you capture it.

Yeah, some unique/special starting equipment would be cool. I'm sure not going to spend points on a spear or some leather bracers. I'm not completely sure how you'd balance it though. The idea of linking the equipment to shards is neat, since it wouldn't be as OP in the early game, but would still be worthwhile. Something like that to keep it balanced.

@dragoskani - That worked great, thanks! A case of RTFM I guess. But I wasn't sure if the manual would actually be accurate, so that's why I didn't turn there first.

I'm not a big fan of the AI focusing so much on relative strength. I can see why they would declare war on you because you're weaker than them if the AI was trying to simulate other humans playing the game, but if we want AI designed to immerse us in the world it should only be the aggressive civs who act like that. I'd like to see more variation in AI 'personalities'. A good kingdom should try to ally and make treaties with its weaker neighbours, not just declare war on them because they're

@Wylaryzel - Yeah, we were at war. But even when you're at war with someone, I don't think you should be able to set up new cities in their area of influence. I expected a 'raze city' option somewhere in the city details screen, but I couldn't find one. @hermes33 - I know I'll still get the resources, but I won't get the extra bonuses from the fancy buildings in my big city if the resources are closest to this new outpost will I? Cheers for the info about razing needing

I've just been playing a game where I've been aiming to build a big city with a wide area of control. This was going well, until some enemy pioneers came into my land. They harassed some resources, which was ok, but then they built a settlement right next to some old growth forest and fertile land, in my area of influence. I quickly conquered the settlement, but I don't want it (since it will take the resources instead of my big city). Can I get rid of it in any way, and surely it's a

I agree that it would be nice to have groups of soldiers treated as groups of individuals rather than single units. I'm also unsure about the way attack and defense currently works. It's ok, but there's quite a lot of randomness there. It doesn't matter much early on, but if you have two heroes fighting each other, and both have say 50 attack and 50 defense, unless they have around 50+ HP, one of them is going to die very quickly. Surely you should get say a tenth of yo

It wasn't actually a review was it? I don't know how they define their 'game diaries', but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a serious review. And I think he'll be doing more diaries of Elemental, so he might give a better impression in the next diary. The maths might seem to be an odd thing to focus on, but I think it makes sense in a game like this. After all, if the maths feels off (even if it actually isn't) it does make the game less fun to play. Also, I'm pretty sure the '+25%' thing wo

@Spitz - Yeah, the system you describe is the one I would like, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm sure it must provide some advertising value, and it isn't giving away too much game. If someone is only going to play it on a LAN with friends, they probably weren't going to buy it anyway right?

I'd be interested to know how many sales would be lost if you allowed one serial key to let two people play over a LAN. And only for the first unique serial key, so basically you get one person who can play without having the game in a LAN match (LAN only, not internet games). Kinda like the 'spawn' disks you used to get with games, that would allow one person to connect to a multiplayer game per person who had a full disk, but a little less generous since you could only have one extra person

I would also like to see a useful and powerful diplomacy tree (not more powerful than any other tree, but stronger than in most games like this). But as many people have pointed out, multiplayer is an issue (especially small vs large kingdoms). One option is for diplomatic strength to give penalties to other players (AI and human) if they go against what the strongly diplomatic kingdom wants. E.g. if you turn down a trade deal offered by someone with high diplomacy, you suffer product

I'm interested to see how diplomacy works with multiplayer. Can high diplomacy civs force less diplomatically advanced civs into deals? I would have thought something like like will be necessary, or other human players can negate your tech simply by refusing to deal with you (they might damage themselves with such a policy, but the high diplomacy player would suffer worse).

@bilskis - Realism can be autobalancing, but it requires high levels of realism. Most games can't do that, so there are mechanics in place to simulate it. I would guess the limit on buildings represents a lack of population/skilled individuals until the city grows in size. You could theoretically build as many gardens as you like, but if you don't have enough decent farmers, they're worthless. I would agree that specializing cities should be an option, at least to some degree. I very