[quote]I actually like the idea of having a tunneling system that can connect your cities at great cost however.(to allow supplies and commerce during a seige.) And this needs its own thread.[/quote] Now, speaking of tunneling systems. Way gates through other worlds is another option. I mean just as it is possible to burrow through the ground under a city (I can't help but think of the giant drills from cave wars) it could be a super project to open a g
landisaurus
does EA not do much DRM? I remember being frustrated when I lost a Sims expansion CD at some point in my life, and so I turned to alternate ways of getting it (since I still had my CD key) and I found it to be quite frustrating to get around the CD check (it was the most up-to-date expansion, so I couldn't start on the older discs). Though, that may just be because it was Sims... which has its own problems with CDs.
I think I talked about mount powers somewher in a different thread. Spider mounts could give poisoned attacks and allow better terrain handling (spider climb after all) Giant bird mounts could actually have a second person hanging from the feet dropping bombs on people Boars could get massive hit point bonuses Bulls could get a bonus on turns they move and attack (charge!) snake mounts could constrict enemies preventing movement.
[quote]As a weedy whimp on the back of a bear doesn't make the whimp anymore powerful, but the bear can still throw a tantrum and rip some people apart (as long as someone is pointing it in the right direction.[/quote] Thats true, but a weedy whimp isn't going to survive on the back of a bear. I mean, honestly... you'd have to be pretty tough to tame and control a bear. If you are a weedy whimp, you might as well not be on a bear at all. [quote]IIRC, 'flying'
[quote]Please watch out for a problem I've noticed with expanding maps - automatic flanking. On a set map, you can hold an 'edge' and have one side secured. If the enemy appears, fully developed, on your 'secure' border, you're going to get pwned before you can re-allocate your army[/quote] see thats why I want to support opening new worlds rather than expanding maps. Because that could be a problem for sure. (on the other hand, you don't exactly build very secure boarde
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="10" id="1966178"] That seems to assume that cities can only produce one thing at a time, which I doubt will be the case for Elemental. GC2 supports 3-part production, and I'm hoping that the tile-based approach to city building in Elemental means that no two cities need be equal in terms of what they can produce.[/quote] I do make that assumtion. Mainly because I don't see much of a separation from MoM, AoW other than you could buiid som
Mounts would be a much more significant part of the game if they got their own attacks. However, if mounts include things like dragons and such then it may be the only option to perserve the power of the mounts. That being said, you could also have mounts that just grant aesthetic bonuses beyond movement... for example a boar might be +attack or charge. Bear might be a HUGE bonus to attack. Flying disc might add bonuses to magic. Fire hellsteeds might
[quote who="bleeba" reply="8" id="1965944"]I like the idea of fleshing out seiges. Any enemy army standing adjacent to the outside walls of a walled city should lower or stop food, material, and trade going into the city. This there seems (by reading some of the descriptions for how materials like metal will be distributed from city to city) a mechanism in place already for a city to store materials and food. Cities prone to seiges could try to expand these capasity (larger
[quote]Riding (originally Equestrian, but defeats the point): The ability to make a saddle specific to a movement type. For example, bears are large. The same saddle tech that grants bear riders grants rhino riders. So, you need: 1) mount resource of animal 2) ability to train it as a mount 3) proper tech for the rider to stay on: easy for a horse, not so much for a skyshark. And YES, I know I'm probably missing and/or over-generalizing
[quote]The 'sticky' and 'global' talk is because you have to hit the toggle every time you start GC2 if you want to see turns, and the change is only visible in that little box at the top of the main map. [/quote] YES! They should be able to make the talk thing much less of a hastle to always access.
I think this should be an option. And I think there should be duel-screen options (like 1 screen = 1 player, other = other player) and have some actualy fun cinematic views for the 2nd player to watch durring battles and stuff ^_^ Also, there should be hotseat online play. thats my 2 cents
I voted for him!
So whats going to happen to me (the player) if we get disconnected from the AI Bot servers? [quote]we're still quite a ways from being able to program such an artificial intelligence.[/quote] that may be true. But you can get a lot closer than most strategy games do. Even just with a crazy long series of if statements (if this then that logic for programs) [quote] And the AI work won't just be in how they play the g
[quote who="FlyGuy7" reply="12" id="1965076"]You see? Not only Bears can look cool. The armor is also very nice.[/quote] I don't think anybody ever said that bears were the only cool creature. though Big-cat mounts have had enough center piece from warcraft 3 and WoW. Not to mention Amazon Sabertooth riders and other similar archetypes. They are pretty fearsome for sure. It makes me think of Tigertron from Beast wars ^_^ Bears have less spot
See now, I'd say the victor is the 3rd party... the necromancer riding puppies! Honestly, a vs. contest (especially between those two) is a little silly. In a fight who will win... a pink space pony or a bear.... well, that's pretty one sided. Especially a bear with a armed soldier on top. Sure the ponies could possibly retreat to space, but that still is losing in my book (retreat = defeat. It even rhymes)
Well, the skysharks are up on the avatar page. I'm sure stardock understands that people all want to see their own fantasy creatures. Everybody knows that you can't just listen to the "loud" members of forums, since usually the happy ones are the ones that make the least noise. However, I think its pretty clear that everybody loves a bear. Look at winter song's image, a horrible bear with a gun protecting a little girl. Be
One of the sharks is from a surfing california ad. The other is from what appears to be a screensaver. I created the sad guy being about to be eaten by a shark a long time ago, but didn't post it because I wasn't sure if it was public license or not + not many beyond myself seemed particularly excited about sky sharks. Anyway, for more avatars for those who have none! I proudly present the only thing that might almost be as scary as an army ri
I had planned to stay out of this, but I want to voice my opinion because I relized part of it seems to particuly address me. I only support the bear idea because everybody seems to like bears and they are pretty cool. I don't think it causes harm, so why is there a problem? I like bears, who doesn't like bears. Also, I have plans for sky shark and pink ponies avatars, thank-you-very-much. If you want something other than bear cavalry, just ask. I'm
[quote]How about simply representing the fact that cities can't feed themselves[/quote] Now, I always felt that should happen. Like when I've basically blockaded a city on an island (capturing every other part of the island) and I just don't quite have the man-power to take the last town, but do have the man-power to keep the previous owner away (this happens ALL the time for me in Civ games) I should be able to setup a blockade that does something. Something that takes fo
I really like the fact that more mana is used to channel spells over great distances, and at the same time I like the domain/influence idea of AoW. I think we should have a mix of them, like free casting in a wizard's domain with strain of mana (increase cost) for those outside the influence based on distance from caster. I like pigeonpigeon's discussion of different levels per mana input. I think the whole channeling of extra mana to give more effects was cool in Mo
Luckmann posted a picture somewher on the forums (I've forgotten where actually... shame on me, I should have copied it for reference). The point it is that it was more bear cav, so I had to create more bear cav avatars from it. 2 more, or MOUR! as a bear might say. <img src="http://landiscasner.com/images/stuff/sandbear.png" alt="" widt
[quote who="Ephafn" reply="20" id="1963654"] Quoting Wintersong, reply 19And maybe not as a mount but as a weapon, but we should not forget about dogs: That made me think : will there be non-mount animals? If I remember correctly, Frogboy has written than non-sentient creatures couldn't be part of your troops by themselves. But will it be possible to have animals with handlers? And if yes, will the handlers be able to release the animals during the battle?[/quote]</
Personally, I like being able to deticate certain amounts of CPU to pathfinding. I know that makes it hard for things like multiplayer games, but I like to do it. I can think of very few games that allowed for that (baulder's gate being the only one I remember notably changing anything). I figure I should be able to adjust it the way I do my Chess AIs. Or at least have an option for a 'custom AI' that has different settings. The game tha
So now we have to consider these players in work. We can then assume that the AI diplomats will work just like humans, no SoaSE like missions per se, because they will be acting like humans do. So, it makes me wonder just how robust this AI is going to be. I mean they would have to come up with a quite a bit of different responces if they are going to act even remotely like players. Especially if you are going to have diffrent personalities.
[quote]For every 10 points of Karma, you get access to a special forum section where the devs posts pictures of the game and they also send a cookie to your home by FedEx.[/quote] its true. I just got my cookie. It tastes so good! It has a kind of chocolate that doesn't use milk (for those lactose intolerant) but still tastes like chocolate. [quote]By 'special forum section' he meants the Drengin porn.[/quote] hey, special is spec