Ahroo

[quote who="Hawawaa" reply="15" id="2754014"]Well in my book 60s are average games, 70s are good games, 80s are excellent games, and 90+ is damn near perfect. But I don't care cause I know for a fact that we got tons of free updates rolling out to us so who cares. [/quote] 61-75% is Fair "A decent effort that, but for a little more polish, coulda been a contender." 76-89% is Good "Enjoyable, well-made and entertaining--just falling short of true greatness."</p

[quote who="hairrorist" reply="14" id="2753954"]I'd suggest simply ignoring Ahroo. He is clearly either mentally challenged, or somehow emotionally invested in how this game is reviewed. 1.07 invalidates all reviews... [e digicons]8(|[/e] You remind me of Derek Smart's sycophants that were shocked and outraged that Battlecruiser was poorly received.[/quote] I suggest simply ingoring you. You clearly can't read or comprehend posts. R

[quote who="SapSnark" reply="12" id="2753843"]Have 1.07. For me: Loading saves from 1.06 works. Performance ~turn 200 much improved. Sovereign's children regen mana fast in battle - not Sovereign, and not fast outside of battle. All cities received MANY more build tiles. Spells are sometimes useful (do good damage).[/quote] Build tiles are the same, it's just that walled in resources no longer take -4 blocks anymore. And yeah the

[quote who="charon2112" reply="10" id="2753808"] Quoting Ahroo, reply 82-3 years is just insulting. They waited about a couple of months before they finally reviewed Mount&Blade Warband. Another game that was in the same boat as this one. They also did the same thing to another game, I think it was GTA4? Where they reviewed it but didn't give it a final score till they threw in the multiplayer and finished the game. And rerwrote the review and scored it the next month. I don't see wh

[quote who="pmaura" reply="6" id="2753705"] Quoting Ahroo, reply 1Who is tom francis and why should I care about his opinion? Where's Dan Stapleton or Desslock? The game has been released far, far too early And so was your review. That’s the game Stardock put in the box, relying on a day-one patch to get it to an acceptable state. But the game’s requirements don’t include an internet connection to play, and even if they did, the optimist

Who is tom francis and why should I care about his opinion? Where's Dan Stapleton or Desslock? The game has been released far, far too early And so was your review. That’s the game Stardock put in the box, relying on a day-one patch to get it to an acceptable state. But the game’s requirements don’t include an internet connection to play, and even if they did, the optimistically named ‘day 0’ patch wasn’t out when they a

Or just wait till the patch comes out that fixes the performance bugs. Should be coming today if you're hopeful, more realistically maybe this week. I just play the game on the cloth map while I wait.

The whole genre being rare thing makes sense. Honestly I never even heard of the genre until now. That's what got me so interested in the game because it was deffinatly new and exactly what I was looking for.

Opinion, next. Anyways I never did it. But you should do a smaller or medium sized map or something. With 2 AI's. One a kingdom, the other an empire. One of them will be your friend the other will be your enemy. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah you can just gear them up. The only thing that sucks though is their boobs stick/clip out through "light" armor. Such as the lowest 2d rags you start out with. Or chainmail. And I've noticed that the enemy soverign's wives aren't always human, but you never see a non-human champion running around. Or maybe it's because only empire factions can see those champions? I dunno.

[quote who="KlausBreuer" reply="11" id="2753148"]I agree with Cree (hey, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!) - it would certainly be Most Useful if we could upgrade our old troops. You know, the ones with all their experience, which we've had running with us for years?[/quote]Yeah Yeah. I would at the very least like to be able to upgrade the troops I use with my soverign. Maybe make it an early-mid research option. And the second you learn of squads, you should be able to merge yo

Yeah saving and reloading is a bit wonky. I saved one time and reloaded after someone died in a battle. Between the saves I had a kid that was born. It was a girl. When I reloaded to an earlier save, to "go back in time" if you will, she didn't exist. So everything was working perfectly until we had the birth again, except this time it was a boy. Now things started to get weird, I opened up the dynasty tree and the girl from the previous game existed in the new one. It messed up the whole dyn

[quote who="father_nurgle" reply="11" id="2751523"]One, the thread hadn't been bumped for 6 days, it took you about 10 minutes to read it and type your message, and I happened to post in that window? I should have guessed. Also I said thread, not my post. (BTW it is your, not you're.) Two, I thought you had to kill the sovereign to win, not their city? At least, that is the case in my experience so far. Three, the two sand golems was a different g

[quote who="father_nurgle" reply="9" id="2751403"]Troll, or didn't read the thread?[/quote] One, you're message didn't exist when I was reading the topic and typing the message. Two, you killed off a faction on turn 12. You can do that with just your sovereign if you run into the AI that quick. They have at most one unit with 5 health guarding their cities. If anything at all. While their leader is off roaming around nearby. That's not a sand golem problem that's just a game b

Unless you can finish off entire factions with just your sand golem and a soverign I don't really see the overpowered ness.

[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="12" id="2751175"]If attacks always hit, I promice you, Champions will die far more often than the one-hits are doing now. I agree one-hits should be very rare, but always hitting/doing damage is going to leave dead or damage armies/champions even after the smallest of battles; which means constant healing; retreating; or reloading saved games after every single battle.[/quote] That's a big no. You're assuming they woudln't do anything to c

[quote who="CreeDakota" reply="4" id="2751201"]Disbanding is worthwhile and i am glad it is in the game, but an option to upgrade or requip your veteran units is needed. Additionaly being able to train your veteran solo units into squads and parties would be great too.[/quote] Yeah, nothing like getting a few level ups in a unit only for them to be completly outdated afterwards when you discover higher squads or better gear. I noticed there was an "upgrade" option when designing

I still think King's Bounty got the combat system right. I never felt like I got completly screwed in that game. The attacks always hit, and have some variance on how damaging it'll be. Usually it'll say before you even attack the target you'll do 47-64 damage so you know before hand if it's even worth it to click the attack button. You'll never miss at all. But there's still enough of a chance for something unexpected to happen to where it won't get stale. Plus there's always crits. Missing

Or better yet you could probably take it one step further and give each faction it's own look. The wraiths could be in a colder climate with more snow. Kraxis could have the same kind of land kingdoms get except tweaked to look a bit more depressing/evil since they're an empire of men. Maybe late autumn grasslands instead of lush spring green. The defualt look could stay for those magma/golem looking people I forgot the name of.

[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="2" id="2750810"]I'm not sure, but I do really like the fact that you can miss in this game. Not only is it fun, and more realistic, but your champions would take 1 hit minimum every attack if you could not miss [/quote] It is so not fun nor realistic. If a squad of troops runs into another squad of troops to do battle you're telling me none of them hit anyone? And 1 damage a hit isn't so bad when you know what's comming. Instead of putting

[quote]Just like you can only build 1 Labor Pit, why not impose restrictions to how many farms can be built? Quite simple, and even more awesome, make it so you can't build farms on swamps or hills. I think with these restrictions it would ensure that you won't have uber auto-sufficient cities. Also, concerning food. One of the factors that makes it so that food is a little out of whack... Population doesn't consume food. Usually that serves as a really good "food sink" and forces you to keep

I thought the war branch was too bloated. Armor, swords, maces, bows, walls, barracks, squads, sieging, packs, etc. You could go the whole game without discovering something as simple as walls or bows since you're too busy leveling up in swords and maces just to get to the next armor upgrade. While diplomacy, magic, and adventuring were heavily lacking... not many choices or any branching.

Nope... that's where monsters and things spawn I think. And it kinda doesn't make much sense to cut down all the forests. The world was destroyed and everything, everyones trying to put the green back into the land. As far as them limiting citysize goes, it's not much of a problem. You can always get rid of mountains, or raise land from the waters to get more spots to put buildings on. The only dumb limit is the 50 squares thing. It doesn't make sense "sorry not enough space in the city to bu

[quote who="Sethai" reply="4" id="2749390"]yeah, i've still no idea who's bordering me. the factions aren't as synonymous with their colous as in gc2 (which i don't mind, so long as the info is somewhere). i also have no idea how well i'm doing because there's no faction comparison screen. and despite being quite far along, i've no idea even what shape the game world is or where the other factions becuase i'm boxed in by other civs and