Ha! Funniest thing I've heard all day.

But it (strategic depth) should be higher on their radar.  I can live with the UI and even the AI at this point (1.11) is servicable.  The lack of strategic depth is the biggest turn-off and should be the focus of their energies.

Ah shucks... I'm going to have to say something just to get it off my chest.  EWoM is not a 7 nor will it be an 8 when 1.2 comes out.  Gal Civ 2 in it's final state is an 8 out of 10 and you're saying that EWoM 1.2 is going to be as good as Gal Civ 2?  No freakin way!  As a point of reference, I'm suggesting Gal Civ 2 is an 8 based on games like Diablo 2, Civ IV, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, and others being better than Gal Civ 2 and would fall into the 9 or 10 out of 10 category.  Fair enough?

Lord Xia gives this game a 6.5 for its blandness, unpolish, and gameplay mechanics that still need work.  He must be the nicest guy on the planet.  Here is some basic stuff we still need before we can start talking about 7s and 8s.

Polished and helpful UI like Gal Civ 2 or Civ V

Unique heroes/champions with skill tree advancement like MOM, HOMM, Diablo 2

Item types (common, uncommon, rare, unique) purchasable, dropped by mobs, found in quests, craft-able like Diablo 2, WoW

Balance like Starcraft

AI like Gal Civ 2 or Civ IV

Diplomacy like Gal Civ 2 or Civ IV

I think Lord Xia has asked for tactical battles like Final Fantasy or something.  I've never played Final Fantasy but agree that tactical battles need work.

Go read Lord Xia treatise for the rest on this subject. 

Trojasmic, if they do all of that, I'll give the game a 9, or even a 10. I think GalCiv 2 Twilight is a 9, actually.

But yeah, I'd give Elemental 1.1 a 5/10. After all, Sword of the Stars vanilla was just a 7 on metacritics.

While I refuse to compromise my rating scale by giving n/10 where n > 10 I have to agree with the previous comment. Although there are a couple more things it would need to be a 10/10. Such as a magic system as interesting and complex as dominions 3, in fact racial differentiation like dominions 3 too, ALSO sovereign customizability on par with Dominions 3. (Why do I never play that game anymore?) A 10/10 is a high achievement. I don't even know that it's possible for a game to please me that much but I will keep hoping (on a side note perhaps it's for the best as such a game might cause me to stop living life and play endlessly)

That said if you grabbed any 1 of the thing on that list I believe it would push the game up to a 7 or an 8 (depending on which one and how well it fit in the game)

I like your vision for the game. Skill trees for heroes would be fantastic.

The item types idea is great too.

Personally, I'd rate Elemental a 6 out of 10 at the moment.

It needs more flavour and immersion (among other things) but the potential is staggering and they've obviously hired the right people to make it work.

Every move that takes the game closer to the original MoM seems to make it better imho.

I have to say that one of the most interesting tactical AND strategic portions of the original game was control of the Mana sources.  You had to clear off whatever beasty that was inhabiting the mana source and THEN you had to use a spirit or a ghost to actually link the mana to your global mana pool.  An opposing wizard could send a countless horde of spirits or ghosts to challenge your controlled mana source, wrenching from your control.  I feel like the shards should be more dangerous and more powerful, and should take a measured decision to see whether you have enough power to take over.  MoM always had kind of a slow start for me, because it took a while before you could build enough of an army to actually capture a node.  This and the global mana system made it incredibly important to hold the nodes and always be wary of someone sneaking in to steal one.  The same went for the goody huts as well, or the portals to the other plain of magic.  You had better come loaded for Bear if you wanted the contents of a dungeon, otherwise it was going to be game over.

I think what Brad and Jon mean is more for the game as it stands now the biggest changes need to be UI and AI based.  We have a number of changes in the works to address more overarching issues such as strategic depth, gameplay flow, system redesigns and general 'fun' levels of playing the game.  

We all agree that 1.1 is not the ideal end game we want from Elemental, however, for the game that 1.1 is the things that could probably use the most work are the UI and the AI.  Basically I'm trying to say: don't worry, we don't think that the game is perfect aside from some usability issues.  

Wow, thanks for the reply. That's good to hear. Honestly, I think that (for me at least) a few "little" changes would go a lot further than one would think. Like having charge bonuses for cavalry, mechanics for charge protection from spears, more use of the [TroopCount] attribute in spells. Casting penalties for armor, strength requirements for some weapons, etc.

Anyway, I'm excited to hear the changes coming in 1.2.

That last statement is a pretty powerful one. Especially if you are speaking to people who have experienced SD expansions in the past. The difference Twilight made to GalCiv...are you talking even more radical than that? If so, whoo hoo!

Twilight certainly helped make GalCiv better but GalCiv didn't need nearly as much work as Elemental needs.

The goal here is for Elemental to become the definitive 4X fantasy strategy game of this era. And it has a ways to go to get there.

I stand corrected.  According to Metacritic, Gal Civ 2 Twilight is a better game than Civ IV BTS, Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Heroes of Might and Magic.  World of Warcraft only has a 93 score so Gal Civ 2 Twilight is as good as WoW (last I heard 11 million people were playing WoW.  How many are playing Gal Civ 2 Twilight?  Must be close to 11 million).  1.1 is a 7 and 1.2 will be an 8.  You can scrap all my ideas, but please don't scrap Lord Xia's treatise and everyone that commented on it.  Sorry for causing a ruckus.