Chalkbot

These sound like good suggestions to me.

[quote who="keli2" reply="10" id="3221409"]Quoting ins2, reply 8 But isn't that like saying that if I go to buy a shirt in a store in RL I need to fork over the money and also give them the wool and yarn? The whole purpose of a store is to be able to buy things which are unavailable to make given your resources - think of it as a trader, and money is the barter price for the materials and effort put into the construction of said item... But If I nev

If this system was implemented, wouldn't you have to rebalance the higher level spells to account for the fact that you could gain access to them very early?

auboy105, Yes, I want to be able to play against them. That part is fine, so I don't want to take them out of custom opponents. The part I was reporting as a bug is that they can select the sovereign I selected within the same game. So if I was playing as Barack Obama, they could also select Barack Obama.

auboy105, Yes, I understand that, and I like that feature. It was one of my favorite things about Galciv 2 to play against a hodgepodge of my finest creations. One thing that never happened in Galciv however, (at least for me) was to be playing as the same faction as one of my opponents. The game should not allow the AI to select the sovereign that you have selected in any given game in my opinion. It doesn't make sense, and it is also not very fun or interesting as proven b

I was actually just about to make a thread about this topic. I will post my suggestion here. In addition to the better event handling that everyone above mentioned, I would also like to suggest that destroying improvements not be so simple as walking over them. It's cheesy (in the sense that it's abusable against the AI to camp their improvements and bankrupt them) and frustrating when defending against many waves of attackers, they ALL walk over your clay pit o

This isn't a very big bug (and maybe just a feature I don't understand), but thought I should report it just in case. I started a new game, and made a custom sovereign. I did no ther customization other than setting the difficulty to challenging (random opponents). Once in game, I ran into an enemy civ right away using the sovereign that I'm using, that I just created for this game. We both had the same name and everything, he killed me, since he had found a better w

I had a start yesterday with no tiles able to be settled as well. I didn't take a screenshot or anything, because at the time I was unaware that this was unintended game behavior. It took me a good 10 to 20 turns of roaming to find a spot (and it was mediocre), and then I was so far behind I got crushed shortly thereafter.

Yes, you are right. The resources shown on a tile is actually a total of everything produced by all the surrounding tiles. So you *are* getting all the resources, it's just displayed in a different way than you might be used to seeing it if you're coming from a game like Civilization. This is why you (generally) don't see large variances in adjacent tiles because they share so many common tiles in their totals. This system functions the same, but basic

Ahh, that makes more sense, mechanically. I would still prefer to see them stay, and if the player decided to build their faction equivalent, it would simply replace the existing one. Nobody is going to conquer a stone castle and tear it down to make room for their wooden fort.

I'm curious about the reasoning behind non-faction improvements being destroyed upon changing hands. Wouldn't those be desireable to factions that didn't possess the means to build them themselves? Or are we talking about something like a Kingdom taking ownership of a slave pit and destroying it for the sake of going against their beliefs?

Also, I'd want the ability to divorce if a more powerful potential wife came along or you needed to marry to fulfill some dimplomatic arrangement. This would require mechanics supporting alimony and child support. Or perhaps you could simply have the ability to convert to a religion that accomodates polygamy. Adoption should also be an option for same-sex marriages, as well as offspring with a high number of negative traits as a result of inbreeding. <p

It sounds like something is ahand and afoot.

Why is auto-play different from auto-resolve? Is it too much work (cpu cycles I mean) to make auto-resolve simply auto-play the battle in the background, thus always generating the same result?

I don't get it. Are the forests made up of individual tech-trees?

Also, what happens if there is some special resource like a mine or a shard in that area? Do you lose those tiles for building?

So, maybe I'm missing something here, but the "Which consoles do you own?" pie chart seems a little fishy. Since the percentages total to 100%, it implies that everyone surveyed owns EXACTLY one console or no console at all. I would assume there are a fair number of people that have more than one, right? Maybe that is so incredibly uncommon that it was less than 1%? Hmmm.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="9" id="3097385"]Every other RPG and adventure game in history has some sort of limit. Deal with it.[/quote] I don't think anyone was complaining about the item limit. In fact, most of us agree that it is an improvement. What we were trying to address is that the system is still not ideal. Some people feel like discussing potential improvements or pitfalls on these forums is what we're all here for, and "Deal with it" is sort of the

Ughh. I don't like the sound of having to Micromanage my items every turn to get the most benefits. I'm not sure how to solve that without making the game less fun. I know somebody is just going to say "don't do it then" but I'm not satisfied with that solution because, 1. It is now the optimal strategy, and 2. The AI SHOULD be programmed to take advantage of all options available to it, including swapping equipment every turn. Therefore, I&#3

4, 13, 14

I can't speak for the other folks, but for me personally it's not about how realistic it is or how well it fits with the lore. The only thing I care about is if it adds fun or has the potential to add fun. Currently the answer is certainly "no" for tech research adding fun to the game, and I'm a bit uncertain about whether or not it could be tweaked to do so (maybe?). The alternative; a resource driven system, sounds way more fun to me. That is t

I agree that research in it's current form seems unecessary and doesn't really add anything to the game. I think it would be much more interesting to work toward material, building, and population requirements in order to attain certain things. It would even create another dynamic in the game, forcing the player to make choices about outfitting a larger army now versus saving those resources and spending them on a better one later. Spending your resources on building up a city (

Can anyone confirm whether or not Brad's Friday slipstream patch addresses this issue?

[quote]+ AI handles magic *much* better strategically[/quote] Frogboy, Does this patch note apply to when the player automates the battle as well? Something that has been an annoyance is that every time I auto battle, my sovereign decides to use ALL of my mana in the battle, even if the foe is so greatly outmatched that a single spell or no spells at all would make the most sense. Is that the sort of fix this is, or are we t

This bug is reproduceable. When using Windows 7, if a user has any value selected other than 100% (tested on 150%) under "Control Panel>All Control Panel Items>Display" Fallen Enchantress becomes unplayable with only part of the screen being used for the game graphics and the cursor displaying in the incorrect location.