LeBlaque

" Yes I intend to test MP under Beta 2" - LeBlaque Perhaps we should consider adding our MSN ID's so we can hook up there?

Thank you, Brad. It is really nice that you take the time out of your busy day to throw us these bones and answer some of the questions you've seen on the forum.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="5" id="2641519"]It was my idea if I'm not mistaken. I am just happy it got in! [/quote] Your idea, my idea, Sid's idea.... whatever :P. I think the key is to get something in the Title Header, like "Big Hooters" or something, to attract attention and not let the idea get lost in the morass of dozens of threads. EGADS! man, you've never heard of Pirates!??. Check it out. I'm sure nearly everyone on this site, including Brad and

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="2" id="2640711"]Actually, I think all the triggers to make quests based on this idea are in...I'm going to go make some right now Thanks for the great suggestion! [/quote] Well how about freein' up a comped Elemental game or some Karma?![e digicons]*_*[/e]

Reading another thread and a poster mentioned Treasure Maps in passing. Remember the Treasure Maps in Sid Meier's Pirates! ? That was a cool little feature that was relatively simple but fun! I wouldn't even mind if Frogboy "copied" the concept. I hope they can have treasure maps in E:WOM... Would that take the "6 hours of Engineering" Brad discussed? You could also extend the hidden treasure concept to finding different pieces of the "map" was actually a "re

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="21" id="2639312"]sry but can i ask why? See post #4...if you blow your spot in the retail calender, then you have to wait for the next opening (which would be post-Christmas). [/quote] And I suspect given your varied distribution contracts you can't do a "Digital Download Only" version via Impule and wait for a later distribution of the Retail Box Version ala an early European release and a later U.S. release?

I think reply 26-28 best captured my intent while offering some alternatives that seem well thought out. However, despite my belief such a system would help address the issues identified, for all intents and purposes the true intent of my post boils down to this: for me a more challenging and realistic (there's that word again in a fantasy realm) tactical battle would be more "fun." From what I am reading from the majority of posters herein they think it more fun to control

Why not change each tech tree to having it's own specific set of research buildings... Examples Baracks and Armories do what they do but also produce Warfare RP's. Each building type provides RP like you said, but you still only research one line. When you research the warfare line, your Warfare RP producing structures all produce at full capacity, but all of your other structures only produce RP

[quote who="Tridus" reply="12" id="2634076"]Your idea is pretty good, though. To expand it a bit, what if we removed the Civics tree entirely? The other four are all focused on different ways to play and win. In that sense, those four work well, and they don't really depend on each other (warmongers don't need to do much with diplomacy, and mages might not care for adventurers). [/quote] Radical, but absolutely worth thinking about. I would, however, think there are some "C

[quote who="Tridus" reply="10" id="2634017"]You see where I'm going with this. Town count, size, population, and resources are the limiting factors on warfare, research, defence, and so on. All of those things are economic and improved in the Civics research line. If you're playing on a large map, rushing to do anything other then build an economy is going to end badly. (On a small map, you could theoretically rush build an early army and go kill someone before they can react.) [/quote]<

[quote who="CampbellDH" reply="9" id="2633243"]Maybe make heroes rely on their own spell abilities early on but allow the manufacture of items that allow the sovereign to channel through them. Also maybe heroes could operate on a different spellbook than the sovereign. Unique spells based on background and specialty. For example a priest of set hero could have different spells than a pyromancer. Quests could be used to either recruit specially skilled heroes or give

I want to see it before totally committing one way or the other. John you probably wouldn't see it in E:WoM beta unless they committed to this approach at release, but if you haven't played any of the Combat Mission games, there are some good demos that will demonstrate the WEGO very well at battlefront.com. <span style="font-si

Having read the recent discussions on tactical combat and the variety of topics that are being opined, I started thinking about a game concept that might address some disparate issues. This is a Brainstorm (or BrainFa--), so that is the spirit it is offered in. Here are the different points of view that has led to the subsequent idea: 1) A good AI will never compete well against a good player-- ultimately I will crush the AI in most tactical battle

As a very big fan of the Combat Mission series, I am also a strong proponent of the WEGO concept. However, in my opinion, there are multiple commands required in WEGO that might not otherwise be required in a traditional turn-based or RTS game. In effect, the AI must be able to respond to the changing battlefield dymanics, as you pointed out, over the course of the execution phase based on the varied commands that were given. IF, by example, a unit of archers were commanded

What about extending your idea to beyond the military? That is, a techology has to be used in some capacity before you can research the next updgrade. In other words, just THEORETICAL research is insufficient in many instances, one must apply the technology to move onward. By example, the first level of FARMING tech must be used by building a farm with that tech prior to the NEXT level of farming technology becoming available. This might preclude Civ-Like tec

Whoops dbl post.

Thank you for this post and reading all these ideas. My apologies if this is a repeat of other posters (I only read half the predecessor posts). WINNER TAKE ALL- It’s a strong personal preference of mine that two men enter, one man leaves. (Your heroes will tend to escape though). I can see your point to limit rinse-and-repeat battles; however I think it needs to be looked at from a different perspective: instead of

I'm not sure anyone saw my previous post, but after reading the last page of posts I'm more convinced that Stardock should implement TBS like Combat missions. Where you program the moves and actions of all your units and then submit your turn. ....After both sides put in their orders you can watch the result of the tactical battle for that turn. Little video showing how CM looks when playing the turn. I thought this migh

Not being a BetaTester (yet) I apologize for the potentially elementary question: With regard to essence: Is essence an infinitely available resource or one that is finite? That is, can the essence pool continue to grow throughout the course of the game or is it a fixed amount for the entire game (e.g. 1,000 essence points maximum shared among all throughout the game). Either way, I could think of some neat game mechanic applications, particularly with regard

What is everyone's thought now on formations, etc. with regard to Tactical Battles now that we have confirmed that tactical battles are turn based (Post by Frogboy): https://forums.elementalgame.com/382811 There are some important point being brought up in the post with regard to tactical battles, not the least of which is managing multiple units on the battlefield that might ultimately result in tedium. I, for one, don't w

Posted a prior MP idea with respect to losing MP Players taking over an AI's faction if other Players were willing at this post: https://forums.elementalgame.com/382415 However, giving this MP concept more thought, I think it even more important for existing players to have the opportunity to take over the AI's side in a Player vs. AI tactical battle. One of the more tedious (and boring) aspects of MP gaming is watchi

Let me restate my primary interest here because it is clear I didn't do it properly the first time: In sum, do people feel that the feedback provided by Brad&Co. on Elemental has been sufficient with respect to WHAT they are implementing from the beta team? Is there evidence of this? The purpose of comparing Stardock to the EVE developers was that it appears that EVE goes to great lengths to incorporate some player ideas and

I found the following artricle especially interesting: http://www.gamesradar.com/f/what-all-developers-should-learn-from-eve-online/a-20100517113116512049 <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif

Elemental is a fantasy strategy game. In it, you’re in that D&D world you and your friends used to play in. You’re in the land of the Elder Scrolls. You’re playing in Britania, Middle Earth, etc. But with ONE big difference: You’re not an adventurer anymore. You’re the King (or queen). Your attitude towards adventurers (who are IN Elemental btw) may change forever once you see them accidentally unleash a greater demon to rampage

The concept of trust is more how much loyal you are to diplomatic relation. If you only use relations, you could have a situation where player A backstab everybody except player B and that player B consider that player A is very thrustwothy which is not the case since he has been betraying eevrybody else since the beginning. Okay I'm beginning to see how Trust could be independent from Relations as a game mechanic, such as AI-A and AI-B ha