As of .86, I would give FE a 55/100. The core mechanics are fairly sold. Graphics are good. There's a lot of balance that needs to be done. UI is poor. Music/sounds are poor. Replayability (tech tree / city & empire management / tactical combat / character development / magic system / questing and story-driven elements) is poor. I really don't feel that FE in it's current public beta is all that much better than WoM 1.4
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="20" id="3111419"]ejaculating bars of gold[/quote] [e digicons]:(O[/e]
Sorry, but I agree with the OP and DexCisco (and others) on this. All spells that are not insta's should fired off the NEXT combat turn, modified by initiative. Requiring multiple turns is ridiculous and unnecessary in this kind of initiative-based combat system. It's the easiest to implement and most elegant solution to the problem.
How about integrating this with the outpost mechanic?
Just DLed and played a few turns and really like it so far.
My thought is that if Derek continues down the current design goal - including randomness in the core game systems to deter gaming said system - he's going to find that he no-so-randomly designed out the elements of strategy, immersion, and replayability from the game. It will become an exercise in frustration. A little randomness based on previous player strategic choice is fine and could be fun, but the wholesale randomness like we're seeing now will not be fun as feat
The next one had better be good then [e digicons]:P[/e]
More flexibility in the current build queue? Yes. Two or more build queues? Absolutely not.
The devs are developing themselves into a corner by starting out with such small numbers in the game.
Great idea. You should elaborate the OP to make the function a bit clearer.
Funny this thread got bumped again, because I was just researching where the ResearchPerPopulation and ProductionPerPopulation default values were set in the xml (took me forever) but I re-stumbled on this along the way. It really is a great mechanic that could lead to some interesting possibilities.
If you're altering core game files you'll need to add the -localdataonly tag to the exe shortcut target path, otherwise your changes will be overwritten as soon as you start up a new game.
SMAC is game that demands utmost consideration when dealing with faction differentiation.
[quote who="seanw3" reply="64" id="3104871"]I don't want to reward high grain tiles with production.[/quote] I don't know. I kinda address that with the growth limiter. Also, upon reflection I would probably change it to .01 per population. So at 800 (lvl 5 city) you would get 8 extra production. EDIT: Now that I think about it more the less I agree with you. Production (or anything) based on population only has somewhat to do with
I believe creating a shortcut with the -localdataonly tag added to the location might solve the problem.
Quite frankly I haven't been able to make it that far into a game in any build, and have noticed very little slowdown around turn 300 (about as far as I've gotten.) Anything that decreases wait time is ok in my book. I think you should push the technology, not let the technology push you.
I think this is a good and simple way to spice up those early game improvements, without being totally overpowered. I like the idea of the populace affecting output in my cities. Obviously the numbers could be tweaked, just wanted to test this out, and it works. What do you think?
I think forging magical (mundane) weapons *should* require a certain level of proficiency in both the Warfare and Magic tech trees. Magic crafting ought to be viewed as a highly skilled endeavor that should not be a simple matter. Magic-minded individuals should be able to "summon" weapons and armor on-par with their Warfare minded counterparts. I still feel like the Magic tech tree is completely horked at this point because of these and other issues
I don't really see the need to add this (OP) to the game.
I just hope the devs realize that Act II+ improvements, overall, need to have serious labor costs and need to have a significant effect on a city's output. The "+20% here, -10% there" stuff in the current version is simply not fun, nor epic. @seanw3 hopefully I'll have a chance to try out your mod, and mess around with some ideas of my own next week sometime, before the new beta release shows up [e digicons]:P[/e]
Excellent post. One point I would like to bring up is the use of alternative upkeep costs (negative modifiers) on improvements. For instance: [quote who="seanw3" reply="27" id="3102383"]University +20% Research, +2 Intelligence for trained units, -3 Gildar per turn. Same situation. Except this is not a wonder, its in the chain of extraneous research buildings. There could probably be half as many. The maintenance cost should once again be reduced and labor s
I see HF answered this in another thread. [quote who="mqpiffle" reply="4" id="3103381"]Add a unit stat Unitstat_IsFreeWill. Default is 1. Make this unit stat a multiplier in the CharmTarget game modifier. If the spell takes effect, permanently set IsFreeWill to 0 (not sure if this part is possible.)[/quote]
Add a unit stat Unitstat_IsFreeWill. Default is 1. Make this unit stat a multiplier in the CharmTarget game modifier. If the spell takes effect, permanently set IsFreeWill to 0 (not sure if this part is possible.)
Yeah the current implementation of this feature is fine for this game.
[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="18" id="3103367"]And Miami is actually a quite snaky irl iirc. [/quote] So is Seattle-Tacoma. A downfall to creating a city that is too snaky, which often gets overlooked, is that snaking out a city will potentially eliminate other nearby city-building sites because they will then fall within the 8(or 9?)-tile city distance limit.