[quote who="Kalin" reply="83" id="2789889"]The easiest way to make the three different is to start giving negatives on the appropriate item instead of just having all bonuses. Something like this: Range Weapons: +ATK, -DEF, -MOV(ASPD) Melee Weapons: +ATK, -MOV(ASPD) Mounts: +MOV(ASPD), -ATK [/quote] I don't know, that feels like forcing the rock/paper/scissors model by changing the wrong stats. Having a bow or sword d
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="304" id="2789635"] lol ... shows a weaker game imho ... Graphical User Interfaces are definitely a plus in games like this ... plus I'm guessing if you simply change the .ini file you will show up as *MOD* on the MP ladder games ... and thus be prevented from playing them. Or, yanno, u have to change the .ini file BACK to what it was before, hopefully not showing *MOD* ... and then your back to square one (reduced functionality)[/quote]</
[quote who="Robert Hentschke" reply="31" id="2788952"] You build a unit that looks like a generic weak bandit to the enemy and can enter the enemy's (or ally's = ) ZOC without causing a diplomatic incident. Since the AI would not have lots of roving patrols to intercept such "bandits", this spying would be about as powerful as magic since you can travel through their whole territory practically with impunity. More restrictions are needed, such as the unit really turning neutral
With regard to the AI not knowing about the strength of enemy cities, have you thought about adding espionage units to the game? Most 4X games have espionage just for this reason - because neither the AI nor human can make a coherent strategic decision without it. The human can use caravans for this, but that's a side effect trick. With magic in the game, it's reasonable to have units with cloaking ability (and of course those units would be able to see other cloaked units). They'd be quite w
[quote who="Raven X" reply="291" id="2788066"]This is a pretty useful thread Tridus. Thanks for starting it. I've been looking for non-review info to try to figure out if it was worth wasting my bandwidth to try this out or not. The retarded dumbed down combat always turned me off of the Civ games. I liked some of the other concepts behind the Civ games, and I like Alpha Centauri back in it's day, but the combat of the Civ games has by far always been it's weakest area if you ask me. <br
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="289" id="2787991"] In Civ 4 there is an option for "automated workers to leave existing improvements alone." Is this not the case for Civ 5?[/quote] Civ V is an advanced game that brings the operating system into play; this option can only be turned on in the settings.ini file in your "My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 5" folder. :)
[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="301" id="2787216"]I will say this: I'm amused by all the posts I'm seeing in various Civ 5 forums saying things like, "This will be an awesome game once they fix issue X, Y, and Z with a patch/expansion." But that's O.K. because it has Sid Meier's name on the box, so of course it deserves a top rating. If only Elemetal were so lucky. [/quote] Been playing Civ V lately. Yeah, both games need work. The difference is, with Civ it's like gettin
divvu80, WhiteElk, don't get into an argument with GaelicVigil, just see his posts on other threads to see why. It's likely to get the thread locked. Back on topic, yeah SD should just give Kael a job. He's the kind of game designer that would have prevented this whole debacle. He's also good at taking input from thousands of people who all want to see their dream mechanic in the game and condensing it down into something consistent playable.
Oh joy. Yet another boxartgate thread.
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="272" id="2784100"] True, the problem is that the Civ engine is very limited. Example: The FFH2 mod is decent, but it's been made for a bad game engine. The EWoM engine is/will be perfect to create the "ultimate" fantasy mod.[/quote] It all depends on Elemental releasing an SDK like Civ does, which includes the core game C++ code to be modified however the modders want. With that you can add any mechanic you want, even if it's totally alien to the game,
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=361727
I don't think we need an extra size stat. It's not so much size that's the issue as much as whether the defending unit is strong enough to bother the moving unit or not. Generally bigger units are stronger anyway. A simple calculation based on relative strengths should do it. Also, I think the same principle should be applied to the flanking rules. For the same reasons as above, a peasant should not be able to flank a dragon. Flanking should not just be an on or off bonus either. I re
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="18" id="2783970"] Sadly this statement perfectly defines everything that i despise about the civ series. Then with civ4 they give us this wonderful unit experience platform which you cannot use because of unit attrition and yes, the old spear chuckers killing tanks motto rolls on happily in civ4 so that none of your experienced units are safe or can live long enough to gain all those wonderful experience options!!! (unless you love reloading of course)
[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="233" id="2782777"] Exactly my point. Elemental has been brutally criticized for things that reviewers gleefully overlooked in Civ 4 and now Civ 5.[/quote] That's because those problems are occasional frustrations that distract you from a well designed game. They are relatively minor and the gameplay is so enticing you're frustrated if something delays your play at 3am. The problems that Elemental came out with were serious in that they affected a
Any word on when some APIs for the AI would be available?
[quote who="scratchthepitch" reply="714" id="2782570"]Thanks to the annoying behavior of the likes of Firbolg, FadedC, falconne2, and Rebell44 I will never be using your service or buy any of your products. [/quote] I did what now?
[quote who="VR_IronMana" reply="364" id="2781456"] Same for the "don't do this before bug fixing" comments - which...is a given, and was never stated that this should go in first or else.[/quote] I wasn't talking about bug fixing. There are some serious gameplay overhauls that need to be done and these will require lots of QA, re-balancing and AI changes. I'd say in the very least they have 6 months of more important work to do, more likely even longer.
[quote who="Melamine" reply="693" id="2781445"]Apply the parent/grandparent situation: If non-tech-savvy users are likely to get hijacked, then the system needs to accommodate them. Most credit cards have fraud protection (if your card is stolen or cardmember account hacked, you are not liable for any charges incurred, if you report the issue within 60 days or so). Valve's customer policies are inferior to those of the major banks? Ouch. [/quote] This is just an a
[quote who="metalfacekevin" reply="358" id="2781173"]A thread of this length should not be ignored. This is obviously a big issue for many, and Stardock should respond.[/quote] Part of the reason the thread got so long is some of us who aren't too keen on the devs looking at this before the long list of more important things that need fixing or improving in the game started arguing. I stand by my opinion that increasing the number of men on screen in turn based combat do
[quote who="Melamine" reply="687" id="2781381"] I disagree. I know several people who have had Steam accounts hijacked. It is a common practice and the thieves are quite clever with their phishing and hacking methods. [/quote] If someone's careless enough to have their Steam account stolen, they've got more problems than losing access to their games. This can only happen if you either don't know how to secure your account or computer, don't check for malware, don't recognise
[quote who="Melamine" reply="679" id="2781149"] Other scenarios include your Steam account getting stolen, Valve deactivating your account, or Valve otherwise removing your access to the game. Should another company ever acquire Valve, they may make changes to your account per the Steam subscriber agreement, or via an updated agreement. The above scenarios are unlikely but possible, and represent flaws with the service.[/quote] All of which are much less likely than you l
There is no reason you should be finding this AI remotely difficult even on the hardest level. Study the game mechanics and develop a strategy. Check the forums if you need help.
[quote who="Fiachna" reply="3" id="2763301"] I followed the development of elemental fairly closely, despite not participating in the beta, and got the impression that Stardock had similar plans for elemental. [/quote] Has there been any follow up since the early days indicating they still had that in mind? So far I haven't seen any indication that anything more than a Python API will be provided for gameplay modding. Most of the best posts in the Ideas section cannot really
[quote who="kenata" reply="19" id="2778527"] Personally I feel this to be completely balanced. From my POV, the idea is choice, not see how many summons you can get out at a single time. In the early game, you summon familiars because they are easy to get to and are easy to get out, but as the game progresses, you will trade your old familiar for a fire giant. While it might make sense to rebalance the familiar a bit, the decision as to whether to keep your lvl 10 familiar or trade it fo
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="2778171"] Your sovereign is the powerful Channeler who generates +1 mana per turn. Each time you capture a shard (which in v1.1 willl have 1 seeded near where you start) it will provide +1 mana also as well as amplify certain spells. When you imbue a champion, it costs -1 mana to maintain. When you summon a creature, it will cost -1 mana to maintain. Thus, if you want an army of spell casters, it comes at the cost of having your sovereign be