VicenteCartas

This would be nice to have.

This game doesn't have the replayability of TW: it's heavily scripted, with a small map, and you have to play it in a very concise way (or you are going to get butchered at the end of the game). You have to use the first book to recruit armies and conquer the map while holding the advance to other books and once you are ready, open quests little by little until the end of the game. This game is a pitty: it's full of good ideas but the overall product is pretty bad right now :( The goo

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="8" id="2465288"] Well, no matter how astute of a player you are, you will lose track of certain units from time to time, and in some cases, you are always going to want certain units to dodge a cavalry charge--- like the fire mage. Perhaps you can set "temperments" for your important units. For instance, you could tell your fire mage to be either evasive, moderate, or bold. If he is evasive, he flees in the face of any enemy and, while bold

[quote who="Climber" reply="4" id="2463298"] In RTS, they say you 'command' your units. But this is really a marketing BS, just a nice way to cover up the incompetency of AI pathfinding. In my OP example, if the RTS AI pathfinding is otherwise smart, why wouldn't the Fire Mage reverse its path when it see that itself will be slaughtered by an enemy Orc warrior if it keep moving forward?[/quote] The mage shouldn't reverse unless I tell him to reverse. If I am managing

[quote who="Raven X" reply="33" id="2464470"] Quoting Bellack, reply 32 Actully it does absobe some of the energy of the hit hence the protection. Those must be way newer rules then what I played with. We always ran 2.5 Edition. My buddy Tavis, our GM, had litterally EVERY book that was ever printed, even the old "Myth Dranor" boxed campaign . [/quote] I think he refers that a failure (in 2e) could mean a deflection or just that

Which is interesting is that you can Reflector the game and look at the whole source code, interesting to learn some tricks here and there :)

I forgot Fantasy Craft too, from Crafty Games, although it departs more from 3.5 than Pathfinder or Trailblazer.

[quote who="Bellack" reply="32" id="2463804"] Ok so it is still basically 3.5 so I can use resources from both Pathfinder and 3.5 without having to change the game much? [/quote] Pathfinder goal was to be retro-compatible with 3.5 and other OGL material. But it didn't achieve it really (although it's pretty easy to convert from 3.5 to Pathfinder). There are also other 3.5 "fixes" around appart from Pathfinder (Trailblazer for example, from Bad Axe Games).

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="28" id="2463621"] That's not true. I have players who played gnomes. Not my cup of tea but I see their role in the gameworld. It's not even so much which classes are "older" (half-orcs, btw, were in 1st edition, and beat out Draconians, tieflings, and several types of elves) but half-orcs and gnomes are certainly more established and have a bigger role in people's campaigns.[/quote] Gnomes are not a very pretty race I think (even if they have their

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="26" id="2463525"] Well, it was dead simple to multiclass in 3.5.[/quote] I'm going to disagree here, 4e is the first DnD where multiclass works. In 3e, to allow spellcasters multiclassing in the end they had to add classes that would increase caster level (or nearly no one would multiclass and lose higher level spell slots, also related to the unbalance of magic in DnD). [quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="26" id="2463525"]It was balanced to a

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="23" id="2463224"] I generally found 4.0 easier to run, but it sacrificed so much character creation depth that I found it intolerable. Also, the level of material staggering between supplements was just insane. I mean really, Half-orcs in Player Handbook 2? [/quote] Character creation depth? What was the depth in creating a 3e fighter? ;) About the material, well, it was easy to do your own half-orcs while you waited for the official ones (alt

[quote who="Bellack" reply="18" id="2462736"]I hope this is for the 3.5 rules and not 4.0 (shivers with horror) [/quote] Why? (curiosity, I like both editions a lot although I find 4.0 superior in general)

Story-driven games vs sand-box games, the endless RPG debate :p

[quote who="Thoumsin" reply="23" id="2457125"] Can be the .net too... i have the 3.5 version ( released 15 month ago )... and soon will have the 4.0... the 2.0 will be 4 year old next month... if so, why NEW game ask us to upgrade at he last version when themself use old technology... [/quote] It's not .NET either. Maybe the game only uses .NET 2.0 features (generics, yield, nullables,...) but .NET 3.5 introduced several big improvements in JIT compilation (the most importan

[quote who="SpoonGod" reply="17" id="2455019"] When you're talking about a computer generating completely natural language in response to user input, you're correct. Assembling three or four sentences, each of two to four clauses, into a paragraph is completely doable. Make each paragraph on a different topic, and there's your backstory. The idea is solid. That being said, writing the clauses would take a RIDICULOUSLY long time. This would be seriously amazing as a

[quote who="pslblog" reply="12" id="2449808"]As somebody who first saw D&D as an expansion of minatures combat rules put together by a Swiss Pike formation enthusiast, my view of avertive armor is somewhat jaded, I admit. THAC0 stunk as a way of arbitrating individual combat in 1976, and it stinks today despite the modifications and changes it's added. It fails to describe fencing, archery, SCA combat, real mideval combat, and anything resembling firearms. [/quote] <

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="9" id="2449653"] You are about one edition behind, my friend.[/quote] Two editions behind. 4th edition is two years old already :p

[quote who="pslblog" reply="8" id="2449548"]A lot of people have problems with D&D because armor exists to allow you endure damage, not elude it. In D&D, THAC0 means "To Hit Armor Class 0", a collection of mistakes that means a catapult can hit a castle wall with the same facility as an individual sparrow, so long as they are both Armor Class 0. There are a variety modifications that attempt to make sense of this essentially flawed premise, but they all essentially fail be

[quote who="Vaul_Darkhour" reply="8" id="2447620"] well considering the whole concept of the game is based around the cloth map --> polished graphics engine and the ability to scale the graphics to suit, a request for clarification over the support for SM2 cards I believe is reasonable. My card is a ATI X800GT and is less than 3.5yrs old. I don't play games that require a constant update of video card requirements and I'd rather not pay for another card that, by Stardock information,

If you are going the C# route, there's plenty of material out there to learn. Two free books: http://www.charlespetzold.com/dotnet/ - .Net Zero by Charles Petzold http://www.csharpcourse.com/ - C# Yellow Book by Rob Miles There are plenty of other great books (paying). "C# in Depth" and "CLR via C#" are two explendid books for learning C# well (but they aren't for n

With C# (do yourself a favor and use VS 2008) you should use SlimDX or XNA if you want to load a mesh from a file. There are like a million of tutorials out there for that.

Not sure how the things you are talking about work or expose their data, but if you are into GUI, you should really try to make sure you understand the concepts of OOP and the language you are using (I suppose you are using some OOP language as you mention C++ and Java) and read about the MVC (Model View Controller) and related design patters. MVC shows a good way of dividing UI stuff into more easily to maintain and understand blocks.

While fan input is nice and interesting, there are two shortcomings: - Fans (specially hardcore fans) don't represent the majority of the game target. - Fans contradict themselves, throw ideas that aren't viable, ... Developing a system is a long road between "the idea" and "the execution" where things change a lot. The team needs clear ideas and objectives, giving too much weight to forum/mail/whatever input outside the team would make the development process infinite

[quote who="jeffaflord" reply="15" id="2445262"]I like your idea, the same stories get old over time but the programing behind it would take some serious thought and time, not sure where to begin, mabey text options linked through a database. If this game is set up with an online community the stories could get very deep , again I like the idea. [/quote] Not only programming, but just raw writting (you need a looot of texts) and localizing the game (although I

[quote who="Jafo" reply="65" id="2444972"] Well, the place to install programs is "Program Files", I've always installed games off the OS drive...and in a folder called 'games'....reson being that in most [not all] instances you don't even need to reinstall the game when you change your OS or its install. That helps massively when you have add-ons to games such as GTR2 numbering in the Gigs.....so far, 15,270 files or 6.297 gig.... [/quote] But we