FadedC

I commented somewhere else that MoM isn't really a strategy game as much as it is a fantasy empire building simulation. There's no concept of AI or balance at all so your guaranteed to win. But there are lots of cool things to do, cool spells to cast, crazy fantasy races with wacky units. There are just a ton of ways to play. None of it makes any difference in terms of whether you will win or lose (you win no matter what) but it's fun to see them all in motion. Obviously the game atte

Are there any mods that are highly recomended for GalCiv? I haven't played with any yet.

If my understanding is correct, Civ 5 being on steam does mean that I'll be able to download it again at a later date if in 5 years I feel like playing Civ 5 on a new computer but I've lost or scratched my CDs (similar to Impulse). If that is correct (and it may not be), then it's kind of the best of all worlds for me because it means I can buy in the store and get the (hopefully) cool manual while still having my constant floating copy of the game on the internet without worrying about

[quote who="ferang" reply="1" id="2766898"]I would suggest listerine [/quote] I was going to suggest valium myself.

[quote who="Qyth" reply="158" id="2766748"]Couldn't you turn that win option off? [/quote] I guess I kind of liked having the option to win by a space victory. I'd just prefer if it were possible to fight a war in the equivelent of 1940 and finish it in time for it to help your economy in the modern era.

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="34" id="2766625"] As for Brad's track record, Galciv (and Galciv2) definitely had great ai, but these games were even simpler than Civ. For instance, you need zero map analysis in space, and so there are basically no chokepoints. Now in Elemental or Civ, you have impassable mountains, and thus mountain passes to handle for instance. So even with his track record, there are many tactical difficulties in EWOM that he hasn't coped with in Galciv. I'm stil

My only major issue with Civ 4 was that I felt that you didn't get enough time to really do stuff in the modern era. Whenever I tried to fight a war in the modern era I wouldn't even have time to finish it before someone launched a space shuttle and won the game.

[quote who="marlowwe" reply="168" id="2765761"] Considering that the name of the game has 'civilization' in it, I'd imagine ANY civilization would be a key part of the game. And if a civilization is not a key component of the game, then what the hell are we playing? From a designer's point of view how can a Civ game be good when you can just cut and paste different Civs in and out without it affecting the whole game dynamic? [/quote] Well you could cut and

[quote who="marlowwe" reply="159" id="2765482"]I just found out that one of the civilizations (Babylon) will be sold as an 'extra' if you pay more money. Charging for a key component of the game? What a joke. I hope Civ 5 crashes and burns [/quote] Well, I hate the idea of buyable extra content too. With that being said, I'm not sure if the ability to play Babylon is really a "key component of the game". The game has plenty of empires already, far more then you can have in any s

[quote who="Ahroo" reply="29" id="2764410"] Also Civ IV still even to this day isn't balanced. The AI is ridiculously stupid. Hi, I'm going to declare war on you during 1800AD. I know you have gunpowder units stationed in all your cities, but I don't care. I think my elephant and catapult with some archers will do just fine! *Loses his "stack of doom"*. Oh hey this was purely just a misunderstanding! Can we call a ceasfire? What? I'm supposed to give you gold or so

[quote who="killer105" reply="10" id="2764408"] Quoting James009D, reply 8 Hmmm, I missed this in Psychology. I suppose this also explains the rumors that Blizzard was considering making player use their real names. I kind of thought that was a good idea, too. Anything that limits gift is a good thing. [/quote] I understand why they wanted to do this, but it was a really bad idea. Many of us don't want o

[quote who="Archonsod" reply="30" id="2763326"] A lot of people also thought the world was flat. Generally, I find the more people support something, the more wrong it's likely to be. [/quote] Most people believe the world is round now, by your logic they must be wrong. The vast majority of people believe in gravity too, which of course must mean that if you drop an object it will actually go up.

[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="5" id="2763923"] Quoting the_spyder, reply 2 I haven't purchased yet. Still waiting on fixes ... As of 1.07, most major issues have been resolved and the game is really fun. If the game had Sid Meier's name on the box, it would be pulling 8's easily. [/quote] I'm not sure that I agree, my impression has been that most of the issues that cause crashes and slowdowns have been fixed, but that the ga

Interesting, sounds almost more like a Japanese RPG then a German RPG. I'd be interested in hearing more about it too.

Torment was definitely an A+ in terms of storyline and giving you a lot of options in game play. I'd give it more of a C- for combat though, very few of the fights were fun or challenging and combat heavy areas were just like filler to the much more fun roleplaying/exploration parts. It's funny that a lot of the classic RPGs really had poorly designed or poorly balanced combat. Fallout, Arcanum, Plansescape none of these games really had good battles at all but they made up for it by

I remember playing it in college, or perhaps just a demo, and thinking it was by far one of the wierder games I'd ever played. Never really got that into it though. Still I'd always wondered what exactly that game was, and hey now I know.

[quote who="kenata" reply="77" id="2760343"]I am so tired of people complaining about the stack of doom. I have been hearing this debate for what seems like 10 years and have come to one conclusion, SD has gotten it right with fleets/parties. It shows they have learned a lesson from all the great 4x games of old. In MOO2 (the greatest 4x game imho), two fleets fought with a combination of arms, whereas in the Civ series, stacks fight one unit at a time with real cap on number of attacks/defen

That was my experience in AP as well. I actually liked it when it was really difficult, even though all the back tracking was a pain. But I lost interest once I got powerful enough that it was no longer challenging. The difficulty level was much more consistant in legends.

Somehow I ended up doing much more backtacking in armored princess. In legends whatever continent you were on had pretty much it's own "ecosystem" of troops that worked well together so you ended up using orcs on the orc continent, elves on the elf continent, etc. In armored princess though you were always bouncing around between unreleated islands and the fights caused so much attrition that you had to refill after each one. This meant I often had to back track to multiple islands to refill

[quote who="Qyth" reply="26" id="2759125"] I always wanted more of a war game experience in Civ, and this one sounds like it will deliver. As far as the AI goes, it always cheated so bad that I don't doubt it will handle it. [/quote] Well but handling unit formations intelligently is not something you can handle by cheating. If the AI can't keep a solid line with melee in front and archers in back, then it will be pretty obvious and take a lot away from the game. Granted it sh

I'm really looking forward to the whole one unit per tile thing too, and having actual battle lines that stretch accross the map with archers behind infantry rather then the "stack of doom". The way city defence works sounds really cool too. One of my big complaints in Civ 4 was how your enemy could just hide a massive army in a single space in one part of the map and it was hard to gtet a realistic sense of any kind of army build up. Combat not being autmotically lethal will be nice for keep

Well I'm going to state a slightly different opinion. There isn't anything I would point to say "this needs to be removed". But if the designers decide that in order to make the game really good they have to cut out a certain feature, then I'm inclined to say more power to them. I'd rather have a few features which are really cool, which work together really well and which the AI can understand and use effectively then lots of features that don't work together well and which the AI can't hand

In many ways I liked the Legends Campaign better then the Armored Princess one. I also liked the summoning system from legends better then the dragon system from armored. I can't really remember if there was anything from Armored that I actually liked better, other then maybe the flying mount. So if your craving a new campaign that badly, picking up legends might be more reasonable then buying crossworlds.

[quote who="tetleytea" reply="8" id="2758348"]An expansion is fine. King's Bounty's biggest weakness isn't the engine--it's the replayability. There's only one campaign. It needs more campaigns, more mods. More monsters, more items, more altar types, new skill sets, maybe even a new class. And item sets need to be associated with the campaign: the problem is, items have sets. It's harder to achieve sets if you have too ma

Yeah my issue is that I never finished Armored Princess because while it was amazing early on, I thought it really bogged down closer to the end. As a result I'm not so interested in an expansion that just adds more stuff to do after the main quest is finished. If they ever added a completely new campaign though I'd be all over it.