falconne2

[quote who="Civfreak" reply="11" id="2776955"] See the cool thing about this system would be that you could have special abilities for these types of cases. For example, you could have an ability that allowed you to ignore zone of controls which would make sense for a Dragon like in your example.[/quote] Although ignoring ZoC can be a special ability, it doesn't resolve the scenario described fully. A peasant shouldn't have ZoC over a giant, but a dragon should. It's all about re

[quote who="Goontrooper" reply="3" id="2775420"]Good ideas here. I've been pushing for this sort of thing since Beta, and there seem to be plenty of other people that would like to see this aspect of gameplay expanded. I also enjoy the Majesty series, although I think that they are less of a 'Fantasy Kingdom Sim' than an 'Adventuring Economics Sim.' I actually thought that Elemental would be more of a fantasy kingdom sim, which is why I was rather disappointed with the end result s

Yes I suppose abstracting the flanking is a simpler mechanic. It just felt to me rather more strategic than tactical, since it's rule based. I was also wondering if you'd be able to develop flanking units that never take any damage because they don't actually have to attack, but I suppose that will be solved once the balance is fixed and there aren't so many one hit kills any more, leaving more time for counter attacks. As for separating chance to hit and attack/defence, I think that

Good ideas. I've mentioned something similar with regards to flanking in another thread, which I think can be added here. It has a pre-requisite that the combat mechanics be fixed such that the "chance to hit" stats are different to the weapon attack and armour defence stats. There would be an attack skill and a defence skill stat and the difference should determine the chance to hit. If a hit does occur, the weapon attack would be compared to the armour defence to do a damage roll. A soldier

Yes it's similar, though addressing the issue in a slightly different angle. I think both mechanics can co-exist quite easily. Your method is about the AI of inns setting up quests based on clearing up the world and possibly other motives, that give NPCs and adventuring players something to do. The kind of bounties I'm talking about are set by the human and AI players themselves, based on goals they want achieved. The reason I like that is that it gives the missions and quests some context an

You sure they didn't start replying before you saved your edit?

Now we must play... the most dangerous game !

[quote who="Carewolf" reply="42" id="2773478"] That's even worse! Parsing can be slow, but once parsed objects are supposed to be faster, otherwise the parsing is pointless. Don't be alarmed though, string operations are pretty fast nowadays, and unless this is checked for thousands of objects several times each second, it doesn't matter, but here is how it should look with fully parsed values: [/quote] I may be wrong, but I think that part of the code is sh

[quote who="1SuperG" reply="30" id="2773915"] My point is that if you want to play Civ, go buy it. It's one thing for Stardock to notice things and do things diffrently in their next game, it's a whole nuther to re-write a released game to make it more like another one. Appreciate what they have created for what it is and isn't. The more 'customer demands' worked into this game the less I feel it actually had a solid plan/roadmap to begin with. [/quote] The suggestions here

[quote quoting="post"] Hey!! Microsoft!!! Why in the world is there no "Install updates and restart the system" option? [/quote] I know this isn't the main point of your rant, but you can script that you know. I've done it before. The Update service can be accessed as an automation object that can be used to download and install updates and it will also tell you if a reboot is required so you can script the reboot action too.

At the start of the game, it makes sense that most of your gold income comes from fighting monsters, like a plain old adventure game. Right now, by about turn 100, things going well, you are probably making a profit of 40-50 or so gildar per turn from your cities and the creature economy becomes less important. However, it's not insignificant. I don't think that's appropriate – as you grow from a band of nomads to a proper kingdom, the gameplay should change accordingly

Can we sign against the petition now? Multiplying everything by 10 does not create an "epic" feel. Time would be better spent on enhancing tactical battles, improving combat mechanics and adding more special abilities and varied spells.

Edit: whoops, wrong thread

[quote who="1SuperG" reply="6" id="2772867"]Ok, in all seriousness, I'm having trouble keeping up. In one thread you state CIV is a COMPLETELY different game and really shouldn't be compared to Elemental (which I agree with) and now here you're on board with ideas people have extracted from watching CIV movies. There is no way in hadies I'm going to presume to understand your job Brad, but while I think it's great that you want to put some ideas from players into your games I think

[quote who="GaelicVigil" reply="11" id="2771638"] Elemental offers something fresh and new, not seen since Master of Magic. There is real tactical battles, quests, role-playing, marriages and dynasties, heroes and villains, fantasy stories, rich modding tools, and so much more. I'm willing to invest in new, fresh ideas, even if the road is a little bumpy and less trod. I am done investing in worn-out repeats.[/quote] How about AoW:SM, HOMM3, Dominions 3, Civ 4,

[quote who="MOIISKA" reply="28" id="2772209"] True, though with the support the SD has and will put into this game, I am sure they will make some radical changes that will significantly improve Elemental. Firaxis, will not change Civ, and even mods like FFHA2 are still stuck with the Civ engine. [/quote] The Civ mod SDK comes with the C++ source of the core game, so you can mod it how you wish. It's true you're still stuck with a TBS on a tile map, but I don't th

Well I've read through the rest of the replies in that petition and I don't see anywhere any discussion on how the game mechanics can be changed to make the "bigger" battles more exciting. As far as I can see, the people signing it are happy to see the current combat system retained and these "epic" battles are basically going to be much longer versions of what we have now. I'm not in favour of quantity over quality. I don't have a problem with it being done, but I think there are far

Just replying here in response to Raven X's petition thread... while epic battles are cool, does it make sense to work the economy towards this until tactical combat is improved? Right now it's boring enough with a few units, but having to do the same thing with dozens more cookie cutter troops will be very tedious. Once the combat model is improved to add actual "tactical" aspects, this may become interesting. Even then, I'm not so sure. It's one thing to have an epic battle in Total

I never saw this poll. I'd also venture that most of the people who are dissatisfied are not active on the forums so wouldn't have seen it either.

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="17" id="2771226"]As I said you don't know what you are talking about. Please ignore this falconne2 character. Strategy is strategy there can be limitations to it or not. If you use exploits or things the ai cannot or will not use then you are gaming the game not playing strategy. If you can't get it through your head that playing against an AI is DIFFERENT from playing against a human and that STRATEGIES are DIFFERENT and must be played DIFFERENTLY then there i

double post

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="14" id="2771205"]If you have to use facepalm pics it shows what a child you are. Growup![/quote] You shouldn't even be playing strategy games. Strategy players get satisfaction by the amount of brainpower they have to use to win. When you're playing chess with your little brother you aren't trying to get satisfaction by beating him, you're trying to teach him to play. The game is for his benefit, not yours. The AI isn't your little brother, it's not lea

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="12" id="2771190"] Wrong you don't know what you're talking about. A strategy PC game is different from a strategy board game you MUST play against a human. Therefore the rules are different and one must adapt to THOSE NEW RULES of strategy not try to impose the old ones. If the ai doesn't spam cities then the human player shouldn't spam cities. Everyone obviously eventually figures out what the ai does and doesn't do and should play the game from that stan

[quote who="sagittary" reply="52" id="2771162"] Quoting Sethai, reply 50 Total War only has a handful of combat stats. Attack, Defense, Morale, and one or two others. Victoria 2 also has a handful; Attack, Defense, Discipline, Morale, Movement, and Teamwork (or something). All these stats are also broad and generalized while addressing factors other than pure equipment; they measure skill and mood. But they mimic combat far more accurately and satisfyingly than Elemental at the mome

[quote quoting="post"] have started to notice a problem that I have not seen mentioned by others. [/quote] You must be new here :) Seriously though, if you put the title of your post into the search box, you'll see it's been discussed to death