[quote who="Nesrie" reply="110" id="2721273"] Quoting LeeOO, reply 109 Quoting niteshade6, reply 108 Looking over the article again it does appear that there is still an unexplained math error. What nobody has addressed is the fact that the +88% is being applied twice. So he's still receiving twice as much research as he is supposed to. That is exactly what I was coming here to ask. In all the forum posts I have read he
Looking over the article again it does appear that there is still an unexplained math error. What nobody has addressed is the fact that the +88% is being applied twice. So he's still receiving twice as much research as he is supposed to.
[quote who="Archonsod" reply="103" id="2721131"]To be fair, 90% of the alt-tab problems tend to be Windows rather than whatever you're running. Another quality "feature" by Microsoft. [/quote] ? I almost never have problems alt-tabbing, and in the rare cases when i do it's always consistant to the program I'm running and not a randomly created windows error.
By the way I agree.....space is boring. That doesn't mean that space games are boring or anything like that, just that space as a geographic feature is by it's very nature kind of big and empty. That's why most space games just have you move between solar systems rather then moving around space by space through the empty void....because there aren't any exciting things to find or terrain features to run into. But in a game like Elemental or Civlization with stuff to explore and fun thing
Anyone who has read some of my previous posts know that I've been somewhat more pessimistic about whether this game would be ready for release. With that being said, now that I actually go and read the article that has created so much of a stir, it's really not that awful. He actually says a few positive things about the game too, and his primary complaints appear to be simply a matter of poor documentation rather then game bugs. I'm more worried about seeing bigger AI and gameplay problems,
Well I have to think about Civilization where if you wander around for say 20 turns without founding a city you put yourself at an enormous disadvantage because your essentially giving every other player a 20 turn head start. If elemental's AI is anywhere decent it should be almost impossible to come back from something like that.
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="34" id="2720177"] Quoting niteshade6, reply 33 Quoting Cruxador, reply 32This game will definitely beat the AoW:II. It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals. Interesting, what do you view the goals of the first AoW as being? I've alwa
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="32" id="2720104"]This game will definitely beat the AoW:II. It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals. [/quote] Interesting, what do you view the goals of the first AoW as being? I've always viewed it as just being an incomplete version of the second game.
Flying units, while cool, are traditionally extremely difficult to balance if they are able to fly in combat. The fact that they are immune to melee attacks is such a huge advantage. This problem becomes compounded when you try to teach the AI to deal with flying units. As a result I'd never blame a game for not including these. It's better to not have a feature then to have a feature and have it be poorly implemented. Much easier to deal with are units who have limited flight like in
[quote who="Soulfire777" reply="5" id="2718745"]Master of Orion was one of my favorite games of all time, and I was a HUGE Lord of the Rings / Dungeons and Dragons fan, so I was sooo excited about the Master of Magic game and I could not wait for it to come out. When MoM finally came out, I really loved many aspects of the game, but the AI was just so horrible that I was not able to enjoy PLAYING the game for long after I started learning HOW to play it. It was awesome u
If you aren't sure then there's nothing wrong with waiting a bit and reading the reviews before buying. I have confidence that it won't be horribly buggy or anything, but I have far less confidence about the AI given the relative lack of testing it has received. But because Stardock has a good reputation in that area, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it will be at least passable. But on the flip side even the best companies have had cases where they have let me dow
Most people on these forums are pretty nice, but every internet forum will have the occasional rude or immature person. It's better just to ignore them and to recognize that they don't represent the rest of the group. Regarding MP, it does sound like Elemental will have less focus on multiplayer and more focus on single player. I think it's generally good for games to focus on one of the two, if you try to please both crowds equally your more likely to please neither.
[quote who="Archonsod" reply="26" id="2719481"] Quoting niteshade6, reply 19 Isn't AOW SM the most recent version of the AoW series? I'm pretty sure it came out after AoW. Either way they are both gigantic improvements over AoW 1 (which had lots of promise but was a giant disapointment). Yup. AoW:SM was pretty much AoW II with two additional races and a new map level. IIRC it was released a year after AoW II.<br /
[quote who="Grove12345" reply="17" id="2719240"]I just played some AOW SM based on this. And i only played like 30 minutes but i like it. Reminds me ALOT of MoM. Infact nothing else i played comes close. What about AOW 2? I read reviews at Gamespot and they seem to be better than part 1. Why AOW SM? and not AOW2? [/quote] Isn't AOW SM the most recent version of the AoW series? I'm pretty sure it came out after AoW. Either way they a
[quote who="sabbath519" reply="67" id="2719126"] I think AI is something that should be evolving naturally as time goes on, so it really is a cause for concern when any modern game has worse AI than its predecessors. Elemental should (in time if not already) have better AI than GalCiv2, otherwise I'd be fairly disappointed with Stardocks performance in that regard. [/quote] Well it depends, it's not uncommon at all for a newer more complicated game to
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="19" id="2719049"] GalCiv II and Sins of a Solar Empire didn't come with campaigns at all. [/quote] Didn't GalCiv II come with the Darklords campaign?
[quote who="sabbath519" reply="64" id="2718933"] I think part of the reason GalCiv never reached the same influence as MOO is that, if you look at both games objectively as a quick example below: MOO1 10 races, GalCiv1 6. MOO lot of varied techs with more flavor (I won't count exact techs since I don't know off hand) GalCiv had a lot of generic laser 1, laser 2, etc. techs. Tactical combat in MOO no contest vs. GalCiv combat. So it's hard to get the same acclaim wh
[quote who="Raven X" reply="20" id="2718750"] Quoting father_nurgle, reply 15 Quoting Raven X, reply 13 If they Are that "rare" then getting one and being able to steam roll the map with it isn't really that big of a deal. I disagree. It will feel like you have wasted your time and effort building a kingdom if you get "lucky" and stomp the map with a dragon. Unbalanced is not fun (well... i
Darklands is the name of the game with the German adventurers, it was a pretty cool game using choose your own adventure style choices that would succeed or fail depending on the skill of people in your party. Combat was real time but with pausing and was a bit more basic. There was also a somewhat interesting religious system where you had to learn about saints and pray to them for various effects depending on the skill of your priest. As much as I have a soft spot for it though, it
[quote who="Twohawks" reply="1" id="2692116"] Yup same thing when ever i get him... however game is not fully balanced yet.. easier way to win make archer squads and do same thing no dragon needed.. point is its known that the dragon and bows (although bows seems more like a bug) is over powered for when we get it and may be all together.. [/quote] hehe I guess the archery thing is one way in which the game really is like MoM. Archers and spellcasters were so broken in
As rude as he is, psychoraven does make the interesting point that as much as MoM is an influential game, nobody has ever really made a really succesfull followup to it. AoW is the closest, but regardless of which is better, it never atteined the status in gaming lore that MoM did. There are other fantasy strategy games that made it far bigger then MoM ever did (ie HoMM). But they don't follow the civilization meets magic formula that appealed to so many. It kind of raises the interes
[quote who="gamecat_uk" reply="51" id="2717427"]I like informed opinion rather than just "THAT GAMES CRAP COS I SAY SO". I never said MOM is crap or rubbish is any way, I just said I found it "paled" compared to AOW:SM. MOM is a fine game for its time. AOW:SM AI'S could actually use pioneer units perfectly well. AOW:SM AI's built cities all over the place, really.. you should give it a try especially with with all the patches. In AOW:SM the city placement was
[quote who="the_hunger" reply="46" id="2716730"]I never bothered with the HoMM series before now, except the demo for no. 5, which I didn't care for. However, i am presently playing King's Bounty, which has been fun so far. Could someone briefly tell me the major differences between KB and HoMM5? The trailer for HoMM6 doesn't really tell much about the game. P.S. I had high hopes for Disciples 3. However, nearly every review I've read has been negative. 
I actually liked having a way to finish off an enemy and end the game quickly when you knew you were going to win. In MoM you generally knew you were going to win if you survived the first hour or two of gameplay. But it would still take hours and hours of boring battles against endless enemy units with horrible AI to actually finish winning. Being able to circumvent that would be nice. Of course if it's too easy to just wipe out the enemy then that's a problem too. I still
[quote who="igoraki" reply="40" id="2716269"] Quoting Tormy-, reply 39 Yep, let's hope that it will be much better than part 4. or 5. If it will be as good as part 3...I will be a happy gamer. Well,Heroes 5 was more or less copy of the Heroes 3 + 3d graphics,but still you dont like it ? Heroes 4 was much more innovative and i really liked that. Not the most interesting game to play vs AI,but its reall