How about something like The Elder Scrolls series. Same world and lore, different 'feel' and rules. Some of the same stuff, some new and innovative ideas. Elemental 2: Fallen Enchantress.
[quote who="Alstein" reply="17" id="3048969"]Whether a champion is defeated, captured, or killed should be RNG, maybe with modifiers based on promotions (bloodlust might mean they are more likely to kill champs instead of capture or defeat)[/quote] Good idea here. Perhaps "Normal units" cannot kill champions, under any circumstances. They can only drive them away. Champions can gain skills that would allow them to potentially capture (Kidnapper) or kill (Bloodlus
I agree with Murteas. Champions should be few and far between, which seems to be the case as the game stands at the moment. And yes, a high level champion may very well be able to take out a powerful army (and a lower level champion a smaller army) - or at least decimate it - before slinking back to the fortress, badly beaten and broken, needing time to recuperate, but somewhat martyred in return for a job well done.
You already have the masses rattling their cages in fear, Frogboy. That must mean you're doing something right! I say, give me the best you've got!
I think trading with resources would be simple and useful, if not necessary. IE: I need metal and I have plenty of gold. My ally needs gold and has an abundance of metal. We trade one for the other. Why is this so difficult or unsavory?
[quote who="Das123" reply="5" id="3046436"]With regards the video, will there be any zones of control on the Tactical Battle map to stop the horsemen breaking past so easily? It appears they could just waltz past without an issue. Having at least a movement/initiative penalty would be good to force players to play formations. Even better would be adjacency bonuses etc.[/quote] The way I see it, mounted units should have an advantage on the turn they plow into a fray (perhaps via a 
[quote who="Vaul_Darkhour" reply="39" id="3046200"]One thing I don't understand is how you can develop and reach conclusions about the AI before all the AI is actually working and hooked up (AITraits)?[/quote] Agreed. This seems like it might be an important step in the process.
Could that be a little HF influence creeping in?
Bwing me...a shwubbewy!!
...but WHICH ear is missing? I need immersion, dang it!
Just noticed that Kul has the spell 'Wither' twice in the spell list on his Unit Details screen.
He probably eats health bars for breakfast...
[quote who="Campaigner" reply="33" id="3030198"]So you want the traderoute just to make it realistic? I believe that shoehorning in realism will make a bad game. If your suggestion would get implemented and people would start complaining, then what is Stardock gonna defend their designdecision with? "It's realistic" No. I simply tend to like strategy games that involve certain strategic decisions to i
In fact, building roads could be as simple as a button on the city screen that says "build road to", and it shows your gold cost, materials cost, and upkeep cost, and VOILA! a road auto-magically appears.
I agree, defending little caravans that are traveling throughout my kingdom was extremely tedious in WoM. However, there should still be a road building/trade route system, with implied caravans (see Civ !V, Civ V.) Roads could still come under attack by bandits and such, but with the right mechanic it's much easier to rebuild a damaged road than it is to micromanage those caravans. IMO, if you are willing to build an outpost way off in a dim forest or burning desert
I hope you need to set up a trade route to the outpost to really make it useful. Setting up an outpost in the middle of nowhere and having it contribute in full measure to your economy without connecting it to your capital seems a little whack. Otherwise, I like the concepts of the other base economy mechanics introduced so far.
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="5" id="3028460"] Quoting Heavenfall, reply 4Nope... if people don't like FE, it's going to be the last game they make. Yes, if EFE is not successful then Derek will be fired so he can begin work on his own Fall From Heaven mod for Civ V. Jon Shafer will be fired and he will go back to Firaxis to start working on Civ VI. The cool thing about Civ VI is that it will use tetrahedrons instead of hexes. [/quot
IF they bring back the dynasty idea, a lot of things would have to change anyway.
What if the spells were divided into the various spellbooks, in a collapsible list? On the character (unit details) screen, anyways...
Has anyone read Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell ? Something like the Raven-King's Palace would be an awesome wild-land.
[quote who="ZehDon" reply="57" id="3026548"]I'd like to add that the way the Champion dies should have some degree of impact on which trait he/she receives upon death. If they're killed with Fire Magic, perhaps they gain a weakness to Fire Magic? If they are killed by a normal unit, perhaps their healing rate drops? Something along those lines, to make it more predictable. [/quote] Yes.
This is exactly the kind of content that gives me hope for this game.
Pretty much what 'bama said...
[quote who="theratster" reply="36" id="3024279"]Just to comment on Brad's comment concering when you start in a good location it gives you a great advantage over the AI, and when you dont vice-versa (paraphrasing). This describes every version of Civilization released. While I would not call the CIV AI good, it was adequate (in all versions). Any early advantage (if exploited) has the pssibility to become overwhelming, in every game (strat
Death trait suggestions: Crippled: Unit can only use one arm/hand. -10 strength. Lame: Unit can only move 1 tile / round. -10 dodge. Blind (loses an eye): -10 accuracy. Mangled: -10 charisma Drain Bamaged: -10 int. edit: There ought to be circumstances where a champion can die outright, however, without a chance of resurrection. Like if they get struck dead-on by a ballista bolt or a super-massive fireball. Maybe if they