Psiborg

I'm also not bothered at all by this. Yeah, it wasn't the best idea for a publicity stunt, but GOG is the *best* digital distribution platform in many ways as it does give us everything that PC gamers have asked for: No DRM, reasonable prices and great titles. The only thing they don't have is current titles but they are filling a wonderful niche! A bad PR stunt is hardly enough to drive me away from GOG. That's nothing! Draconian DRM schemes? Buggy/unfin

I also picked (and pre-ordered) Elemental over Civilization 5 deciding that's where I'd prefer to invest my TBS energy (and money). However, while I love the *idea* of Elemental, the reality unfortunately fell short by such a HUGE margin that it just isn't that much fun at this point. I haven't tried to return my copy as I also hold out the hope that eventually it will grow into the game we all want it to be. But, in all honesty, it is nowhere near that point right now. So

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="2753014"](I'm up north on vacation typing on an extremely slow connection so bear with me) I don't think people yet fully realize the completeness of Stardock's fail on Elementa's launch. I'm going to write more about this but not only did we think v1.05 was ready for everyone but we felt v1.0 was too. That's the level of disconnect/poor judgment on our part we're talking about. If the game had come out in February, it would

I can verify this bug too. I'm just waiting until Day 0 comes out tonight and will check again after that. Finger crossed.

Truespace3D is now being offered for free and it seems to export to both .3DS (3dsmax) and .x (DirectX). These two file formats are very common in 3D and it's possible that Elemental may support them. If so Truespace3D may be your answer, it's

Who am I kidding, I'm going to buy this game! So, I've jumped on the bus now, too. May as well enjoy the ride through Betaville. [e digicons]:D[/e]

Yup. Great game! It slipped under my radar for a while too but was great fun. The dialog translations are horrifically/humorously bad but the game itself is solid and good fun. I really liked how the turn based tactical battles are implemented (and it's got the hex grids I like too ;-P ). Recommended.

[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="23" id="2159896"] TBS games with simultaneous turns (NOT like in Aow:SM) have all the advantages of SP turn-based games, including ability to take your time planning moves. And they don't suffer from typical drawbacks of TBSes (having to wait for your turn, A-B-A-B turns and artifacts. The reason turn-based games weren't popular in multiplayer was (aside from lack of the internet at the time) that RTS'es c

Personally, I really don't care about multiplayer for TBS . TBS games are long and epic and coordinating that kind of time commitment with others just isn't going to happen (for me anyway). Also, I like to take my time to design units and tweak my strategy. Any form of time pressure is not something I want in my turn based gaming. Multiplayer is very good and fun but I'll stick to genres that are more suited to it: FPS and RTS. As usual, just

Magic Missles in the GalCiv tech tree?!?!! Sounds like April Fools to me ;-)

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="20" id="2118691"] Psiborg... there was one RTS game which did the Real Time battles correctly. Take a look at the original Stronghold from Firefly Studios which allows the adjustable game speed. When playing make sure its not Stronghold:Crusader so make sure it's the original Stronghold. Here you could adjust the game speed to super super slow, allowing you to give unique individua

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="6" id="2118341"] Quoting Psiborg, reply 1... Damn, wish I'd seen that before I posted. Could have saved myself some typing ... I'm glad you didn't because I'm hoping for someone to explain to me how this "continuous turns" stuff is not just some euphemism for 'RTS click fits stuffed into a TBS turn.' Can you tell us why the "ala The Corporate Machine" reference assuaged your general worry

[quote who="Tamren" reply="3" id="2118328"]There is a flaw in your case. Games are not about what is better, only what is fun. Arguing for TBS over RTS is like argueing for black and white over colour.[/quote] Yup, you're right. But I wasn't arguing that one was better than the other. I agree, they are just different. I was arguing that I prefer one over the other and stating why.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="21" id="2118132"]Elemental is a turn-based game. Not an RTS. Even the tactical battles are turn-based , they're just continuous turns (ala The Corporate Machine).[/quote] Damn, wish I'd seen that before I posted. Could have saved myself some typing ;-)

I’m assuming most of you have already read Brad/Frogboy’s excellent GalCiv2 post: A Case Against Multiplayer . If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do as there is no point repeating what has already been said. I would like to extend the concepts of that post beyond multiplayer to include real-time gameplay too. &

Until the beta comes out, all we can do is conjecture. Even so, that can be fun in itself. So, I'll just give my trusty magic 8-ball a spin here and throw my best guesses into the fray: Although the OP made several points, it seems to me that his key concern is about variety. Variety of races, variety of spells and variety of special abilities. One of GalCiv2's strengths was the differentiation between the races (whether you played as them or against them): T

Wow! I've tried all sorts of docks and bars and alternate desktops but nothing quite so elegantly simple and useful as this. What a fanstastic idea! And to offer it for free as an incentive to install the Impulse client? Well done! Tnx!!!

Biggest Fear: That they get temped away from tactical TBS precision in favour of RTS eye candy a la Total War. Give us cool tactical combat - but please keep it firmly turn based. Realtime with pause is *NOT* the same as turn based. Most strategy has gone RTS and there are so few pure TBS left. Please don't compromise on this! Pretty please... Cherry on top... Whipped cream... ??? Biggest Hope : That they

[quote who="Ephafn" reply="20" id="2106862"]What's funny about this thread is that there may not even be a grid in tactical combat. With all the reference to Total War Brad did, it wouldn't surprise me if combat was simply done a gridless mesh, with no restriction whatsoever. (Note : The screenshot with the dragon getting hit by lightning, which show the combat being done on a grid, shouldn't have been released according to Brad, so it's not much of an argument in favor of the grid

My apologies b0rsuk if I did not paraphrase you well. I was just trying to quickly sum up the general issue where movement costs would be different depending whether you are moving orthogonally or diagonally, without getting into the specifics. I do realize that you were suggesting representing these different costs as best fit integers (7 and 5) rather than as floating points values (sqrt(2) and 1) to ease certain calculations. But, regardless of the numeri

Interesting replies. I assumed that the octagon comment was made in jest as they obviously don't tesselate. In 2D they are really just squares with the corners cut off but function identically. B0rsuk's comment about keeping a square grid but calculating movement based on real distance (e.g. moving on a diagonal costs sqrt(2) per square) is interesting but I agree with him that in a grid-based game this is too confusing for players. In a grid game we all assume 1 g

This is really a question for Brad I suspect as it's tied most closely to the AI. Why does Elemental (and GalCiv for that matter) uses a square grid rather than a hex grid? Hexes seem to make a lot more sense as they approximate distance more consistently. Square grids lead to unequal movement speed as you effectively move faster along a diagonal than you do vertically or horizontally. In addition to inequities of movement, there is also the visual component. R