Tiefling

Camp 3 sounds good in principle. I am a bit concerned however that I might end up with piles of resources where I don't want them.

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="12" id="2217206"] So, late game Camp #1 (where EVERYTHING is a resource that gets shiped around) has you managing up to 110 types of resources (and possibly up to 9 resources on TURN 1!). [/quote] So this will actually give you something to do during turn 1? Great! In other turn based strategy games the first turns are usually very boring. On the other hand -- there wouldn't be much managing to do, would there? Unless

[quote who="Climber" reply="18" id="2217026"]Tiefling, pls note "20 cities * 15 resources" there means natural resources (e.g. ore) PLUS sword+2, ring of invisibility and you name it resources as I've described above clearly in my post. [/quote] Exactly my point. You wouldn't have iron ore AND sword+2 AND ring of invisibilty in every city. You only have access to iron ore where it is mined and you would only ship it to where you can make swords. Ideally you wouldn't

[quote who="Climber" reply="12" id="2216957"] Quoting ckessel, reply 13 That's actually a perfect counter argument to camp 1. Can you imagine doing that for 20 cities for 15 resources? That's 15*20 sliders to adjust... And you can't set it and forget it since priorities will change as research happens, as towns are founded, as treaties are made, fronts of battle change, etc. I am amazed so few people think of above, this is the first impression I get from the OP&rsq

If "Sophisticated" was implemented, it would seem to be fairly straightforward to turn it into "Simple": 1. Instead of sending a natural resource from its origin to the nearest town automatically, allow a player to pick which town to send it to. 2. All resources have to be used in their town of origin and cannot be transported anywhere else. It looks like you could have both systems in the same game. You would have to implement the more complex one first though... :)</

[quote who="Sarkos" reply="7" id="2216537"]I like the simple model. I'd rather be able to refine items (and people) by the sovereign's magic rather than through sending a bunch of iron ore to be beaten into plain swords then off to Friendly the Alchemist's Magical Sword Shoppe and then off to the Sword of Doom Factory (TM) to get set with Gems of Annihilation from the magic gem crafters shop [...] [/quote] As far as I understand it, the "simple" option does not solv

The "Simple" version as described here seems flawed somehow. When my city already has access to iron, and I come across the crystal resource, it makes sense to assign it to the same city, so I can build stronger units. There's no point in splitting my resources and assigning the crystals to another city. And so for any additional resource I gain - say one that gives me mounted units or bonus to armour, it makes sense to assign it to that one city. Since cities with

If I understand correctly you have to make a choice anyway whether you want to have a powerful channeler or give up some of your power to found new cities or create powerful heroes. More cities means more units per turn and more units and powerful heroes means a more powerful army. So there is some sort of balance already between a powerful army and a wimpy channeler vs a smaller army and more powerful channeler. If there are too many additional restrictions placed on building

[quote who="CapnWinky" reply="1" id="2076230"]The "Load" button?[/quote] [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Well said! If you look at it the other way, I think it would be very frustrating if you had the upper hand and wanted to finish off an opponent and the game would constantly help him in some way to stay in the game...

[quote who="Tamren" reply="4" id="2075442"]Whats a CiV style killer stack? I never got into the combat portion of that game much but I didn't play it for long.[/quote] Good question.... In CivIV you could stack as many units as you liked. However, combat was always one unit against another unit. One unit could only attack once and it had no control over which unit in the target square it attacked. Units could defend multiple times. So if you had heaps more units in a s

So... was the OP's complaint actually about large stacks of units or the fact that the AI was bad and couldn't handle them?? [e digicons]o_O[/e]

[quote who="Tamren" reply="23" id="2065678"] It doesn't matter how much space the unit takes up or how many figures there are in each unit. The limit is 9 per stack. Put 36 paladins into a city and suddenly all other units produced must camp outside in the rain. How come you can't fit more than 36 soldiers in a city big enough for 120 THOUSAND people? Killer stacks are the result of limits placed on the game engine. [/quote] I believe that the four soldiers per un

[quote who="Tamren" reply="15" id="2065535"]Stack limits are simply an arbitrary measure of how many "units" can fit onto the same map tile. In MoM map tiles are squares of nebulous size, the unit limit is 9. It doesn't matter if that means 9 dragons or 9 units of spearmen, they take up the same amount of room on the map. The whole reason the limit was included at all probably had to do with the limitations of the engine. With our modern computers it might be possible to up that limit to the

[quote who="Nathaniel Richter" reply="3" id="2064944"] I believe that is what your channeler is for. i.e. You see a massive stack coming your way. From the map view have your channeler cast a spell to slow/stop movement of units within area. You then start unloading on it with splash damage spells. This basically makes huge stacks

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="18" id="2011274"] Quoting NTJedi, reply 17Hopefully some units will do more than just X damage in Y time during a battle. What about battle skills or traits of units... such as: 1) a swamp insect biting an enemy unit causing him to be diseased ? 2) or a vampire who drains life from an enemy unit ? 3) or a demon who takes bodily possession of an enemy unit? All those are pretty