What about replacing the 50 by a ? You could then provide other end conditions like when you leave the current state based on actual game parameters instead of turn counter. Eventually, a python function could be called inside the element, although it might be slow. The point is a fixed-turn counter cannot scale. What if you change th
I've jsut launched a new game after a while and updating to the latest version, and found creating the sovereign and its nation absolutely terrible. There is a clear lack of consistency between the panels, and various tabs are unclear: When creating the sovereign, check boxes are on the right of the item to check. When customising the nation, they are on the left. Pick your side please! Creation of a custom sovereign also happens to be tricky. When you customize the ap
Any news about opening map creation to modders through scripting (like Civ IV map scripts?)?
Having a text details window is interesting, but we're in the 21st century. Since you provide a graphical battle view, why don't you propvide a graphical battle replay? (Think Dominions) You can auto resolve, and if the fight went badly, you look the details in a graphical window rather than in a hard-to-glance text details window. This replayer could be really interesting not only for those who want to see why an automated battle went wrong, but also if you want to look back
Damn. Why call a MALE Morrigan? She is a goddess of war and lust. Why not call him Aphrodite or Venus?
[quote]What you talk about is indeed facing the consequences of my actions, but I want to have my actions not only influence that one instance. Whatever I do with the elves, I will have to face the consequences with the elves and the area surrounding it. Never will anything I do there ever influence the dwarf city. It will not influence the overall story even, just the detail of the elves.[/quote] I understand what you say. [SPOILER] The Witcher has some consequences o
[quote]What I hate about these games with supposedly good stories - like DragonAge:Origins - is that the decisions you make influence a tiny sphere around you, and that other missions or instances hold no relation to that whatsoever. The only thing that carries over might be that some character eyes you funny, but that would be it. The story does not change dramatically based on my actions.[/quote] That's not always true. In The Witcher for isntance if you decide to save a witch in Ac
[quote]I'm surprised as all strategy games have arbitrary limits on some level (be it unit or stack sizes, minimum city distance, number of unique buildings and units etc.). Without these abstractions the games would be unplayable and not fun to play. [/quote] They have limits, yes, but not hard limits, which is what I meant by arbitary. For instance stack sizes: In dominions there's no limit. except you need commanders to lead troopss and they have some leadership, but this can
Hard limits on number/size of cities is a big no to me. For instance, suppose you are here: 1 Unlimited city + 1 medium city + 1 small city + 3 villages Someone destroys/conquers one of your villages. Does your small city shrink to village size? The limit can be circumvented by building more and razing/letting others raze/steal your cities. So, from a gaming perspective, I think it can't work. Furthermore, I dislike the idea of arbitrary limits. Population shou
[quote]For example, how about a "dragon egg" quest that works like this: Due to a random event (or possibly the fullfilment of a quest?), a faction you´re at war with, "steals" the egg of a dragon, which then gets placed within a particular city of that faction. The Sovereign of this faction threatens to destroy the egg, if the dragon doesn´t do his bidding. So the faction orders the dragon (maybe still as a neutral unit and not under direct control of that faction) to rampage the
It's fun to see many people remember fondly Morrowind cities. I don't. They all looked bland and void to me, with zero characters you could interact with (dialogues are the weak part of Morrowind). I preferred Arcanum because its citizens had day/night schedules, they would talk to you... Baldur's Gate II's Athkatla was nice too, with its many inns, quests and events waiting for you at every other corner.
Arcanum cities: -Tarante, with its museum and its fake two-headed cow and clever orc, the thugs waiting for you at night near the university and the train station which wouldn't let you in if you were a magic user. -Shrouded hills with its bank robbery quests and the stupid thief at the bridge which you could get around by either helping him, talking to him or fighting.
Yes, pch are good in the case of something like the main of the game. Just be careful with them for libraries.
Precompiled headers have bad side effects sometimes (like making your headers unusable without including the pch because you forgot something, and it doesn't show until you actually try to give the .h to a client of your framework). Your incredibuild is awesome because you have a lot of cores to run it upon. I counted 45 cores being used and then there's a crollbar. That's a lot of machines and must speed the process a lot indeed.
[quote who="Ynglaur" reply="46" id="2477942"]Finding a value in a list of n size is a logarithmic algorithm, so long as the list is sorted. Not going to cause a real performance problem. [/quote] What would you look by sorting? In hashtables or tree maps, access is neither logarithmic nor linear but constant. Insertion is slower, but it happens once in a blue so it's rather irrelevant.
[quote]Defeat Bogus the Troll and his band of marauders.[/quote] +1 :)
I'm also in favor of a morale stat. That morale be checked per bunch of units is good, but each formation can make a morale check on its own based on the average morale stat of each of their members.
Now on quest content/nature: Depths of Peril (I think it's available on Impulse now) was nice in that quests could be failed because that other covenant had beat you to it. Particularly annoying early on when they managed to recruit that mercenary... However, this made the quests pretty generic. Although I love the game (I rate it thousands of times better than Titan Quest for instance), I think the 'can be picked by another player' thing makes the quests system a bit limiting. To fee
I think it would be good to have separate threads for quests and quests coding mechanics. I'll only talk of the latter: XML is nice but limited and can be PITA to write. In writing a scenario for Fall from Heaven, I found that Civ's requiring about twenty seveen thousand billions of xml elements in every single quest entry, most of which were never filled, is evil. The xml should be limited as much as possible. It should ideally contain preconditions (like already solved
[quote who="Nights Edge" reply="20" id="2472492"]Can it be written: DisplayName="Blunt Attack" Icon="Icon_Club.png" Description="The blunt damage this unit will deal when attacking." /> [/quote] +1. It would be neater indeed. I wonder if there's any typing restrictions (integer/float/string/array) with regards to what you can put inside an attribute. If
As I said, I think succession is a bit limitating for the role of dynasties. When successions do happen, it's important to know who each member of the family supports. So I think each character should be given an occupation, like governing a city, commanding an army. If they aren't given anything to do, they may become unhappy, turn into mercenaries or generally upset thier father/liege so he would want to build or conquer them a new city to rule... Each city could also have a governo
[quote]Does "Base Attributes" apply to just to the Sovereign himself or all troops that will be produced? I hope you meant the troops. Choosing +10% Strength should enhance all troops you control. This is competitive advantage you hold for this game, gamers are meant to exploit it as best he can.[/quote] I hope not. This is Channeler's customisation, not faction customisation. The faction should be customisable too, but it's something different. Regarding non numerical/un
Nice list, although the Strength etc. system doesn't really look original. Very nice to get more traits/perks in-game. Hunter seems weird. Game food resources are probably the first thing men used for food in history. Requiring a channeler to be a hunter for his civ to harness game looks strange to me. Diplomatic == shrewd? What's the difference? Naturalist looks bad as it doesn't provide any benefit in the long term. Stubborn: If you provide a checkbox
[quote]I believe all of us want to have a very expansive list and still have a reasonably balanced multiplayer.[/quote] No. I am not interested at all in multiplayer for this game. Looks like it would be far too long to play (same as civ in my book). anyway, number of design points would clearly be something tuned, particularly against ai's (who could get more points than you for instance).
Dynasties shouldn't be much about successions because if your sovereign dies, it's game over, so your own succession is out of the game, and making a mechanism just to milk the ai's sounds bad. However, using vassals or satraps to keep control over remote parts of a big kingdoms sounds good, anf one could corrupt a satrap in order to gain him and his land to one's kingdom. This would be less likely with the monarch's son of course. Regarding lines of inheritance, it should be