LDiCesare

[quote who="Denryu" reply="178" id="2402481"]My point is it should be a player decision of whether to flee or not. Routing as it is implemented in games means the unit loses morale and splits. Since I am the sovereign, I think it would be lame for him to rout without me giving the order.[/quote] If you're not using auto resolve, routing of the sovereign should ineed be manual UNLESS there's a spell that causes routing or some such. If you're utsin auto resolve, he's probably going to

In medieval and ancient battles, most victors didn't suffer many losses. People died en masse when they started routing. Some units like the hyspapists of Phlip II of Macedon lived very old and took hardly any loss over all of Philip, Alexander and the diadochi wars. In the battle of Gabiene they took no casualty, but surrendered/betrayed Eumenes because their wives and children had been captured. If battles were deadly as the OP would like, I doubt we would see such 60-year old

[quote who="kryo" reply="3" id="2401784"] Does anyone get different behavior in either case? It's been reported that the camera also goes off-map if you've had units die as well. As to the OP, are the scouts autoexploring? The tab function *should* only cycle through units with available moves, AFAIK.[/quote] No, the unit wasn't autoexploring.

[quote]On the other hand though, If you can't use an assassination strategy, that means you have to mop up every enemy AI city as their sovereign pops up in every one, watching his death animation ten times or so as you mouth his final words that you have long since memorized. There's nothing wrong with a decisive battle in my opinion. Killing a leader or a general has decided the fate of nations throughout history and fiction. I really don't see why the AI couldn't handle that con

I think quests with different endings/options are quite likely, given that Galciv already proposed random events with good/neutral/evil choices which had both short and long term consequences.

[quote]First: Sovereign cities should not be disbanded on death[/quote] Yes, that's an annoying thing in hte beta but I hope it's temporary. Cities are disbanded, but units are not, but they become 'neutral' and are impossible to interact with (fight). The loss of all cities would more or less force one to conquer the cities before killing the enemy sovereign, and if the sovereign actually scarificed some of his power when founding a city, the city shouldn't just disappear. Pr

To me one of the most interesting things in RPGs is quite the opposite of your point 1. Making a character with fun skill sets, like low intelligence characters in Fallout or Arcanum, and role playing, which leads to sub optimal decisions but which are on par with the character's role, like not killing everyone in order to loot them (self-assigned constraints like "Izchak the merchant must survive, even if all the rest of gnometown is dead" or "thou shalt not kill"). RPG elements incl

Using tab to go from one unit to the next, my scout is always ignored. Guards, even inside ciites, and sovereign get selected. I also think units in cities shouldn't be selected when tabbing to go to the next unit.

I tried rotating the map a little and realise that the rotation is the exact opposite of what I want. When I move the mouse to the rightt, to me I'm dragging the cloth to the right but it turns the other way. I realised that it depends on where your mouse cursor is. When you're in the middle of the map, it does weird things because to me I'm in the lower part but to the computer, I'm in the upper part. Rotation should maybe be slower if you're near the screen center? Also, if you move

[quote]If you have surrounded the sovereign's army with OH MY GOD! actual tactical maneuvering? no frikken way man! .... then yes, yes you can finally corner and kill the dude.[/quote] That a general flees when his army routs is perfectly correct. That you can decide to make the game tedious in order to defend, and require to make TACTICAL moves on the STRATEGIC map when there are TACTICAL battles seems wrong to me.

[quote]I think that if your sovereign dies you have failed. Game over. I don't understand why that concept strikes fear in the hearts of gamers.[/quote] In part because I think it's not fun nor 'realistic' that a kingdom disappears because one man dies. Because I want to play a nation, not an individual. IMO, RPG's are better for that, (I still play NetHack and adom). Because I think it leads to assassination strategies that are not fun. Because I think the ai will not be good at it.

[quote]If you feel you are outclassed, and have decided to mostly hang close to your border of the battle-map, you can choose to retreat, leaving the scout to near-guaranteed certain doom[/quote] But then your opponent should, if clever, systematically do the same and avoid fights when you have the advantage, which means you need to play a war of positions just so you can finally corner an enemy and force him into battle. That can mean pretty long tactical maneuvering on the strategic

It shouldn't be easy to flee a battle, nor automatic in my opinion. The ai would have to be able to handle it to begin with, which is not going to be simple. If the borders of the battle map have a distinctive advantage over the middle of the battlefield, I'm afraid it will be somewhat weird. More importantly, how do you handle auto battles? Would the ai decide for you that it needs retreating? Can you tell the ai that this or that unit should retreat if things go wron

[quote]I support the "sovereign escapes if within own border" idea.[/quote] Same here. If sovereign gets out of his home, he is at risk and should die, not flee, otherwise he'll just trick people into attacking him (if pillaging is available for instance, he won't need to actually attack).

+1. It's indeed annoying.

[quote]The idea is that if sovereign is defeated in combat and there is no channeler against him, the ennemy army doesn't know how to really kill him.[/quote] I don't like it. If he was killed by a troll, he's probably been eaten after all. If he dies, he dies, no matter who kills him. [quote]Again, the mortality of a sovreign should be proportional to the size of his empire. (...) I also suggest not to make sovreigns uber-units expecting that would

[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="137" id="2397743"] If my channeler... a being with the unique power to bring the world back to life simply dies... well, that's anti-climactic and disappointing. But if he dies only in a combat against another channeler? [/quote] This still lets him go kill trolls as if they weren't a threat, which doesn't sound consistent with the ability for him to be killed if he takes risks.

[quote]As I posted somewhere else, the mortality of a sovreign should be proportional to the size of his empire.[/quote] I wish there were more suggestions like this one. I also said somewhere that I thought a bonus to defense should be awarded to sovereign inside their territory. Considering sovereign death = game over, you can either try to gamble yoru sovereign, which probably meanss sending him on errands/wars, away from home/power base, or try to keep him safe.</p

Option C for me. I'm not a big fan of unit design in the first place, but I think the game must avoid building units late because a resource is missing. If something is missing, then the player must be informed and be able to change orders and adapt. This will lead to micromanagement. I don't like strategic resources in Civ because they can break a game and it's not fun when you can't build things, so option A is not very fun either. Option B would be fine, but it should not b

NetHack Nitpicking: The amulet of life sacing doesn't help if you're melting in lava on the Fire elemental plane, does it?

[quote who="Sycraft" reply="79" id="2393842"]Well, perhaps offer three levels of Soverign combat as a choice when you make the game: 1) Sandbox mode. Your soverign can't die no matter what. That was for the people who really truly don't want it, they can have it. As the name implies, it makes it real easy. Some people like that though so ok. 2) Standard mode. Your soverign can die, but cen be protected as you've talked about by hiding it in cities and so on. I'd say more

The C rand() doesn't warrant same results if run on different machines, even with the same seed. Problems like this caused lots of problems in Civ IV when trying to run MP games on different OSes (usually Vista and XP). Regarding custom map scripts, consider Civ IV again. Some players designed new map scripts, for instance PerfectWorld. This map script was totally different from the in-game scripts, and redefined random because the game's default random isn't random enough for

Duly noted that sovereign death = game over is not negotiable. But will it be moddable? Regarding evade or hide: Those are kludges. They all try to prevent the sovereign form being killed, thus rendering a 'hunt the enemy sovereign' strategy worthless. Hiding renders it just plain impossible, no matter what skill opponent uses. Evading is slightly better but far too random. The Evade skill looks pretty bad in terms of defense. I think one might want to use it if he plans to ga

[quote]The game yo want has a super powerful unit with no downside to using him in combat. THAT isn't fun - there's no strategic choice[/quote] No. Downside is not necessarily losing the game. Losing corporeal shape and being unable to fight anyumore is an option. Needing people to call him back (MoM, dominions), is another option. In the Lord of the Rings, if Sauron is not the closest thing to a channeler, and doesn't get physically destroyed, then what is he? He still keeps

I loaded immediately if I remember well. Initial seed + list of changes for a map editor where you start by clearing the whole map is not going to be very useful, since the list of changes will be all. Also, it precludes using custom map scripts unless there's version management integrated, and we must hope that the random functions used work equally well on all OS's in case you want to reload your game on another computer.