[quote who="Lonemessiah" reply="80" id="2862318"] Considering that over 650,000 phyiscal copies have been sold, plus many more through digital means (over 1 million through steam has been estimated though they never seem to release figures) it is already nearly at half the figures of CIV 4 and this is within 15 weeks of launch. CIV4 in this time had just about reached the 1 million mark, meaning that CIV5 is actually doing better than CIV4. [/quote] If you want to go by numb
troglyte
[quote quoting="post"] --- Ideally, with these changes, the following can be achieved: Cities level 1's and underdeveloped level 2's that do not grab a strategic location or resource are expensive endeavours that can be afforded only by rich empires with a solid core, in late game. Early to mid game is a scattering of kingdoms separated by stretches of wilderness. With less than normal number of civilizations in the game, the situation will last even long
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="31" id="2862463"]I'm nice[e digicons]:pout:[/e] [/quote] What are those two appendages on either side of your mouth? Are those mandibles? I'm not going to give the game a rating either, cause I'm also nice. It has a lot of potential, but it has a lot of issues. I think after 1.3 things will be a little more clear.
[/quote][quote who="bootrick2010" reply="3" id="2862542"]I wounder if you left a path in the middle one tile wide if the ai would jsut suiciide units into it.[/quote] Yes they definitely would.
[quote who="Mortenart" reply="75" id="2862029"] Succession is the one ground-breaking thing that could hurl this game from averageness to greatness. Be bold in your decisions, don't accept the middle ground.[/quote] I don't really get 'attached' to my sov, but there's one problem I see with this: With the length of games sovs are going to be dying off faster than I can replace them. Most games I don't remember to get married till I'm over 100 years old,
I verified and it said "Elemental: War of Magic is not installed correctly, please look for an application update." The I clicked update and whatever it downloaded was so small I didn't even have a chance to read it, and then it said done. Lol
[quote who="gyrate" reply="8" id="2861992"]I don't see how Civ fanboyz couldn't be the worst. They are backed by 2k which I believe stacks the deck using shills. These people are there 24-7 to post immediately if you post a dissenting remark.[/quote] Holy crap, come to think of it I posted my experience of trying to get the game up and running and all the problems I encountered. I was quite civil and didn't even comment on the gameplay. My post was deleted 2 hours
[quote who="kenata" reply="20" id="2861384"]Recently, I thought about making a thread similar in theme to this one with my own thoughts on tactical combat. In truth, I still might. Yet, I felt like I should take a moment and give some insight as to where I stand. Any improvement to tactical combat starts with the units themselves.[/quote] I agree that many changes need to be made along the lines that you have suggested. I tried to keep the focus narrow for th
[quote who="tetleytea" reply="9" id="2861302"] Hexes are superior to squares, this is common knowledge. Maybe in game design. But as a coder, I would take squares over hexes any day. Your map is a 2-D array. It's not rocket science. Adjacency is really easy to determine: if abs(x[1]-x[2]) <= 1 and abs(y[1]-y[2]) <= 1 and (1 != 2), they're adjacent. Pretty simple stuff. And you're coding pathing and AI algorithms
[quote who="alaknebs" reply="18" id="2860312"] at risk of contradicting my own point above (on it not being their turn to do anything...).. flank should have no meaning until you are actually locked into melee. imagine 1v1... walking around each other just to get a flanked 1st strike when the whole map can be seen... boring waste of time. whole idea of flanks is the concept of being locked into combat.[/quote] Between the lost combat points spent moving around back of th
I like the spell, I just wonder how it's going to tie in with the lore of the game. (Shadow world?). Seems to me someone has some writing to do.
[quote who="alaknebs" reply="15" id="2859402"] so it gets more inaccurate if something (a hill tile even) is in the way.. that's better than a ... "can't shoot".. shooting next to someone right next to you is fine as long as they aren't actually engaged in melee.. friendly fire is probably a pain... so forget it. also get rid of silly things like... suicide atk to just change someone's facing to give you more flank bonus [/quote] If the obstacle is high enough they shouldn
[quote who="Gwenio1" reply="61" id="2859786"] Regarding immortality: Considering that Morrigan the Mad tried to gain immortality and failed , it should not be possible to gain it through normal means but instead be a special event (quest).[/quote] You have no proof of this [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e]
I'm glad to see some great obvious talent on board. What we need in this game is some depth, and some meat. Civ 5 was smooth smooth spoonfuls of pudding. Elemental right now is like, a leg of a cow that's just been hacked off, and it still has the hide on it. Regarding Hex vs Square - Take some cans of beans and push them together. They naturally make a hex. It works with cans of soda too. A hex is the true way of breaking down a round world to make sense of it. The bee
I would support succession if there was option of your sovereign being able to ridiculously prolong his lifespan. It would have to be a high level spell to cast, and possibly require upkeep too. That's why that mad duke always stays in his special tower! Maybe your sov can be immune to old age as long as he's hiding out in a tower. For non-magic builds I would suggest there being something more or less equivalent available as a high level quest, where you can discover some magical place or it
I used to cheat, but I found it more rewarding to take my medicine and dig up from the bottom of a miscalculation. I only reload if I made a critical error like clicking the wrong button, etc. It's fun being hurt sometimes. I don't know maybe that makes me masochistic? To each their own I guess.
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="10" id="2858925"]I don't really want D&D rules for combat, they are actually not that great, in my opinion. I would prefer more Final Fantasy Tactics, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Brigandine ideas of combat, than dungeons and dragons. Or, there was a game created by Lucas Arts called "Gladius" that was pretty much all tactical combat, it was the best tactical combat in any game I have ever played, it had magic and everything, fantastic combat mec
[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="6" id="2858750"] This is how it works in Age of wonders. There are also bonuses for high ground and, when you aim and there's a friendly in the line of fire you get a hit chance percentage over the friendlies' head. Imo they could just copy TC from AoW and improve it, but Stardock seems to like to do things wrong first and then redo it over and over...[/quote] I think they can do better than AoW TC if they put their effort into it. It is a really goo
[quote who="alaknebs" reply="8" id="2858871"]thing about archers are... they shoot upwards. so.. it's not inconceivable to hit the enemy with your mates closeby. just difficult if it's really close.[/quote] I think there's a threshold. The farther an archer wants to send his arrow, the higher he must arc it. The higher he arcs it though, the more inaccurate it becomes. They can shoot straight in front of them if the enemy is close enough. But archers shouldn't even be allowed to use t
[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="4" id="2858494"] I would prefer if the ranged units could hide behind other units or obstacles. If they stand directly behind another unit, this unit should not block their line of fire.[/quote] I suppose it makes sense that a friendly unit would cooperate with the archer trying to get a shot, but if the unit is engaged with an enemy that might not be possible. If the archer is firing across the map and a friendly unit is directly in f
Right. So, there has been a lot mentioned about improving tactical combat, but I haven't seen a lot of actual discussion. This thread is dedicated to improving the tactical combat system. General Mechanics: 1. Allow units to set a facing direction at the end of combat. Add a flanking bonus for attacking units not on the front. Say +15% from front flank, +25% from side, +50% from rear flank, and plus %75 from back. 2. Give an attack bonus when a unit is surrou
[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="25" id="2857252"] If we still have problems after that fix is in then we will adjust. But I think we can fix this without making caravan management automatic (and hiding it). In fact I'd like to improve the caravan mechanics by making it more interesting and strategic, not deemphasize it. [/quote] How about giving each caravan a driver (a character who can gain levels), and a small escort of body guards. Allow caravan battl
[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="20" id="2856861"] The other major part of the balance, as others have already noted, is that you have to defend all these cities you place. The primary reason not to ICS in Elemental should be that it is to dangerous to do so. You dilute your military resources and you are exposed to more forms of attack (making protected areas all the more valuable). [/quote] Except if everyone is doing the exact same strategy of expanding,
[quote who="Maksim42" reply="19" id="2856686"] The other alternative is to make a preceding tech show the potential Darkling resource, so you know in advance whether it makes sense to go for the "Diplomacy with Darklings" tech.[/quote] Another option would be to make the resources discovered this way to only visible/usable by you. Then if another faction researches hidden resources the same resources will be usable for them. [quote]I think unique armor looks would make a