Mortenart

[quote who="Kantok" reply="142" id="2997869"]I wholeheartedly disagree about the need for the game to allow you to precisely plan the development of your cities. There is nothing in life that you can precisely plan and expect the plan to go off perfectly. That's just life. I imagine it would be doubly true for a leader of a nation. Especially one in a nearly destroyed, wild world like Elemental. Planning is a part of a strategy game (or put more generally planning is a part of

[quote who="Alstein" reply="18" id="2997069"]It should be a tradeoff between boosting stats and special abilities.[/quote] Exactly.

[quote who="larienna" reply="16" id="2997062"]But by taking a look more closely at the screenshot. It seems that the available upgrades only increase stats. I thought they were all special abilities. Instead of boosting stats, why not only suggest special abilities. They could be minor and passive abilities, but still it would be much more interesting than simply raising stats in s specific pattern.[/quote] A mix of the two would be best, IMO.. Which I guess is how they have it.

[quote who="tanafres" reply="13" id="2997046"]This is a big step up from the current system. That said, a skill tree or grid with advancement dependencies with which you could map out your hero's long-term growth, with associated goals that you could look forward to attaining would be another big rpg-centric step above a randomized list selection.[/quote] I would rather have an 'ordered' randomisation - a 'trait tree' would become too repetitive. The random e

Most excellent... [e digicons]:blush:[/e]

Great stuff! [e digicons]:moo:[/e] Will a completely random set of traits to choose from appear at every level up? It would make the decision more interesting if the ones you don't choose have less chance of appearing in subsequent level ups - or 50% less chance for the 1st subsequent LU, 30% for the 2nd and 10% for the 3rd.. something like this - so you have to make your decisions wisely..

[quote who="marionesi" reply="131" id="2996691"]I certainly would not like that how my cities specialization path depends too much on randomness. i.e. I have a city in a position that makes it an ideal research-focused city, but as I level it up I never get a research building option.[/quote] The randomness should be biased towards the type of city it is - if it's by a river, there should be more chance of getting a 'river-type' building. Weighting is very important

[quote who="Goontrooper" reply="124" id="2996580"]Think about famous cities in the real would and in fantasy literature. The things that make them memorable are their atmosphere and unique buildings, not having 4 copies of the same thing instead of 1. My ideal strategy game would allow us to create unique buildings that developed histories and had gameplay impacts. -You build an extra giant wall, and for 100 years no enemy is ever able to breach it. The wall becomes famous and your

[quote who="Mjesko" reply="84" id="2995594"]If the disbanded unit returns the population as rebels it would work, too, and the production time for military units could be removed, too, because they already reduce the population, as suggested here: [/quote] Yes exactly, I was thinking this. A disbanded military unit would probably be a tad unhappy at being sent straight back to the fields, to pull up potatoes. It would be good if units could have a morale rating, modified b

"Disbanding units returns the population to the nearest city" Units could be used just to move population from one city to another - and would promote the use of 'population farms' to boost more prestigious cities.. What a dark future that would be...... [e digicons]:cylon:[/e] I think that disbanded military units should reappear as farmers/workers in their city of origin, to prevent this from being

[quote who="AlLanMandragoran" reply="66" id="2995301"]One queue is simple and elegant and meets the dev design focus.[/quote] I agree. When each city was doing two things, those things just got lost in the accumulation of 'stuff' to remember. One queue is definitely the way to go, I think.

[quote who="Leea25" reply="59" id="2995207"]I would beg Stardock to follow the successful and popular pattern of their previous games, and not make FE a game which could easily have started life as a Civ-style game. I LIKE WoM, despite it's flaws (and the fact that it crashes a lot on my machine), please don't just bin it and all it's ideas.[/quote] I would have to say that I am in favour of FE becoming more Civ-like. Civilization was a worldwide hit for a reason (ok

[quote who="larienna" reply="28" id="2994855"]Second, you want to give the players a reason to have low taxes, else they will just raise the tax until there is no unrest. My suggestion is that having low tax to a point where no unrest is generated could give extra bonus somewhere else. A quick suggestion could be that it raises the research level or population growth, etc. [/quote] A very good point, please someone take notice... &n

[quote who="IronKaiser" reply="53" id="2988766"] Quoting Mortenart, reply 51 Erm.. where are the horses...? In the resource bar in the upper-right hand corner. [/quote] Ah yes, thanks :) By the way it was worded, I expected to see them in the screenshot..

There is some cheating going on in the above picture. You can probably tell that I've given myself a bunch of free resources (including horses which isn't normally possible for Empire players). Erm.. where are the horses...?

[quote who="Tridus" reply="5" id="2979510"]No, the game is pretty much as bad as it sounds. It's playable, but in the sense that making a game out of installing Windows is also playable. There's very little fun to be had. [/quote] Sadly true.. [e digicons]:S[/e]

[quote who="Gwenio1" reply="23" id="2975137"] Quoting Mortenart, reply 21 Oh and I still can't get my units to retreat from tactical battles - they just gather in those ethereal white tiles, with no exit from the battle. I attack a bandit with my Sovereign and the camera suddenly, inexplicably leaps to a random part of the world - why is it still doing this? These are problems that existed in the first release version of WoM -

Oh and I still can't get my units to retreat from tactical battles - they just gather in those ethereal white tiles, with no exit from the battle. I attack a bandit with my Sovereign and the camera suddenly, inexplicably leaps to a random part of the world - why is it still doing this? These are problems that existed in the first release version of WoM - why are they still persisting? There still seems to be no polish at all to the game. It's

I'm really wanting to enjoy 1.3 - but there are just too many bugs and shortcomings. Black boxes where there should be icons, random game freezes.. I still have no idea (apart from having to check the roster each time) if a city needs more housing to grow.. The landscape is so dull and barren, it really doesn't inspire me to want to explore. Huge labyrinths, towers and libraries suddenly appear just metres from my cities, to provide yet another d

[quote who="aeligos" reply="10" id="2974494"] Quoting Mortenart, reply 9 Hi, thanks for your work on 1.3. Looking good, but a question and a bug.. How come I can't zoom in to ground level any more? The game froze on Winter 164, when I clicked Next Turn. Oh and is there a way to rotate the camera? RE zoom: i had to re-click (or unclick) the zoom limit function in game opt

Hi, thanks for your work on 1.3. Looking good, but a question and a bug.. How come I can't zoom in to ground level any more? The game froze on Winter 164, when I clicked Next Turn. Oh and is there a way to rotate the camera?

Great stuff! As I just mentioned in another post, I would like such traits to affect the way a champion or Sovereign behaves within the game - and not just affect their abilities and bonuses. Not sure if this would be possible, under the current developer goals - but it would add another amazing layer of intrigue and immersion to the game. Perhaps some traits could have unforseen negative repurcussions - eg the Headstrong trait could give bonuses to attack and initiat

[quote]I would like the Dynasty system to actually matter thank you.[/quote] Me too, I have pushed for this from the beginning. And yes, a surrender option would be better than auto vassalisation. But vassalisation need not remove the succession mechanic - the next in line would take over the throne, but become a vassal of the conquerer. If vassalisation is refused by the conquerer or the vanquished successor does not surrender, he could attempt to continue the

[quote who="larienna" reply="74" id="2906341"]"Death of a sovereign will cause the rest of the faction to go over to the faction with the best dynasty connections" Why not make the player the vassal of the conqueror to keep the player in the game. [/quote] Yes, this would work better than what is currently proposed, I think.

[quote]Shouldn't the son (or daughter..) of the slain sovereign succeed the throne.. or at least have some say in the matter..? I agree, but probably it's simpler for them to do it this way, at least for this version of the game... Not perfect but better than having the enemy cities disappear! Overall I think these changes will be quite good in terms of gameplay. Way to go froggie![/quote] Isn't it easier to just replace one sovereign with