lamperti

Not sure how to move a post. Let me know if I really should, and how to do so, and I will move this.

I guess this isn't bothering that many people. Or perhaps I should have posted this in the Ideas section instead of the general section. If anyone else is bothered by the movement selection system, please post, as it won't change unless a bunch of people comment on it. (For me, I could get used to it, but I would much prefer not having to, and to have the system feel more natural.)

Does anyone else feel like something is kind of off in the basic process of selecting units, and deciding where to move them to? I want to mention this before it's formed in stone, but the process of clicking on a unit, and then clicking on where you want it to go feels wrong to me. I have played many games of this type before, and I feel like the basic process is you left click on a unit to select it, and then left click on the location where you want it to move to. Rig

I quite like both of the pictures that Yotix linked to above. The first one is simple, but I quite like the style, and the second is a just a character concept, so it's showing equipment and character more then exactly what the character will look like in game. Also, for the first picture, they have mentioned several times that shadows and perhaps other elements will still be added to the look.

One of the issues I have with games where you design units (Usually space ships,) by putting together things you have researched and/or built is that you find yourself needing to create a new design everytime there is an incremental change in technology. I.e. I have just researched shields that are +5 instead of my shields that are +4, so I need to design a new ship type, (Or multiple ship types,) with the new technology. This can lead to micromanagement, a difficulity in unit uni

Not trying to be negative here, but this really sounds like it might be putting a cool technology before the gameplay of the game. Like the last poster, I have trouble seeing how this isn't just going to be eye candy, that doesn't add to the game play. It sounds like cool eye candy, but having a fun game is much more important.

Mom had things like mithril and Adamantine (sp?) that made a city special. It sounds like the are going to be other kinds of resources that will make the cities in Elemental special. The presence of a certain resource that allows a city to produce a certain type of unit would make cities special. For example, the presence of horses allowing the production of cavalry. A city without the horse resource near it would not be able to produce cavalry. This is a simplif

I had a thought about this question that no one seems to have raised yet. How does this concept relate to the different factions? The way factions/races were differentiated in MOM was by what kinds of units and buildings they could build. If the kinds of units and things you can build are more controlled by the presence of resources on the map, how does this relate to how one faction is differentiated from another? I liked the cities of different races in MOM, and how

This persistent world idea sounds really interesting, but to echo what someone above posted, please don't let this kind of development interfere with the single player game. I read somewhere, and hopefully the developers have numbers, that in games that include both single player and multiplayer, the percentage of people that play single player is much higher then the percentage of people that play multiplayer. This means that the single players are really the target market for th

In MOM you didn't have any control over how your heroes changed when they leveled up. In AOW they gave you the ability to distribute points as you chose. I found a problem when I played Aow, which was that after a few levels my heroes started to all seem the same. In MOM this never happened. This was because when I leveled up a hero, I thought of certain things as being important, so I often strengthened the 'weak' parts of the hero, which tended to make they all the same.&n

There really is a challenge here for the game developer, as it's interesting to see how very different peoples views of this topic are. Some people really don't care about the tactical at all, and I think that the option to autoresolve will be useful for them, but even among the people who do want to control the tactical battle, we have a serious range of what people want as far as how much of the tactical battle they want to see, and how long they want it to take. I've just been

The screen shot, if anyone is curious, was in the Game-spy preview. It doesn't show up on the media page, just in that preview. @Iwarmonger, I'm afraid I don't see any difference between what you are describing, and just real time with pausing. If play is continious until you pause, where does the concept of a turn enter into the picture. I do have hopes that the system that stardock will implement will work well, I'm just hoping that they don't appeal to th

I just looked for that screen shot, and it's not in the media section. It must have been in one of the reviews. Anyone remember where it is? It showed a battle grid that looked a lot like a MOM grid.

I liked the one screen shot we saw of a battle scene. Maybe I will look at that again, and see if there is any information to be gleaned from it.

@Shadowgandor, Thanks for that link. That looked like realtime with pausing, which I am familiar with. It looks similar to Baldurs Gate, which I am playing right now. I also just got MOM up and running, and played a bit last night. I admit that the battles might seem slow to some, but I still really like the control it gives me. What I don't like about the real-time stuff is that I have to be watching what is happening all over the battle f

@Iwarmonger You make it sound like you understand what the phrase continuous turns means. If so, please clarify. I'm afraid I really don't.

I wish people would stop saying that real-time with pausing is the same as turn based, or that they want the battles to be resolved quickly. The first is just not true, and the second devalues the tactical game. Real-time with pausing is not the same as turned based. It's a completely different feeling. Turn based allows, and enforces thinking about each move, which is what I want to be able to do, real-time with pausing has me sitting there hovering over the space bar.&nbsp

I am also worried. This part that worries me is the real-time stuff. I loved MOM's tactical battles. I really want completely turn based battles to be at least an option. It does seem like they are putting more weight on the strategic map then the tactical map.

I think I was more saying, that the decision as to which way to explore with my initial units, or whether or not to conquer a certain lair, let to my second city being in a certain location, which influenced which direction things kept growing, rather then anything about the eventual exponential growth factor. MOM also had a great, gradual mid game. Where it fell apart, a bit, was the end game, I guess.

One of the things I loved about MOM was the feeling of being dropped into an unknown hostile world with just your starting city, and just one or two units. This involved the random map generator, and the lairs and wondering monsters, but I loved the feeling that the beginning of the game could be very challenging. I might need to restart a couple of times before I managed to succeed in starting a workable beginning of an empire, but that was great, because it made the feeling more

It sounds like it may be too late to ask for this, but I really prefer strictly turn based tactical battles. As someone mentioned above, I don't want to be spending my time thinking about whether or not I need to hit the pause button. The system that MOM had worked very well for me. I would really appreciate it if it was an option, at least, to make the battles strictly turn based.

I've preordered as well. Big Mom fan, this looks very exciting.