[quote who="Nights Edge" reply="20" id="1957884"] Think big cats would probably make for pretty bad mounts with their twisty flexible spines.[/quote] Well, I think the idea is that those who ride them are either thin and flexible themselves (not actually putting much weight on any 1 particular part of the back) or you have an especially large cat and you find a place that is mostly stable (like on the head/neck or between the shoulder blades if possible. I've seen a l
landisaurus
Alright, I brought a few more. <img src="http://landiscasner.com/images/stuff/bearknightdesert.png" alt="mour bear" width="100
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="18" id="1957834"] I want it to be exciting to be able to include a new mount in my army. It should be a Big Deal (it adds significant versatility to your military). I also want each game to play differently, so I want different mounts to be easily available each time. In order for it to be a big deal, it needs to be difficult to gain access to lots of different types of mounts. [/quote] They did say that having fantastic beasts in
its true. Stylized art ages much better than 'realistic' art. I forsee more games going that route in the future as our graphics continue to improve. Because there will come a day that nobody will be able to achieve the highest end of 'realistic' graphics available to the gaming market, so few will try.
[quote who="Spartan01" reply="20" id="1956488"]Examples of Cute = Candy floss trees, Cartoon scout, the classic fairy tale castle...all plopped into a warm and fuzzy landscape. https://www.elementalgame.com/Screenshots/Kingdom_Scott_City_1280.jpg * all we need is a series of gold floating coins for the Scout to walk into and its perfect. Ping, ping, ping!!!![/quote] UH? what does that have to do with coins? Your strech of lo
This might be strange in multiplayer, though would be kind of neat if it let players who had died but still were watching the game for some reason come back.
You know, I was just thinking about that too. Though, I was thinking about it in terms of marathan game vs. short deathmatch and how much time scales would be different. Sure, it seems strange to imagine building an army and taking over a neighboring town only in a matter of days, but at the same time what bigger scale do you want? Master of Magic's 1 month thing had its flaws too. A unit can only move the distance of 1 city in a month (since a city took up a
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="15" id="1956266"]I'm opposed to a time or turn limit for battles (unless it's an option, of course). [/quote] That seems like a very easy option to have. Its simply a check box that sets a game to ignore the turn limit. I feel that it would be both an upgrade to MoM (that didn't have any relation to how much time a battle lasts) as well as have the option for a classic mode (because there is no reason to change what isn't broken). 
If we have multiple world (like MoM) I feel that there should be netraul planes walkers from places players might not be able to reach (like higher or lower planes) that have the other mount resources. so that way you can trade with them to get it, but of course you'd have to make them very happy (give them lots of money and do them favors)
Man, that makes me want to play dungeon keeper.... If only they would make a sequal to that game *shakes a fist at EA for undoing bullfrog* so do you mean something separate from the regular map screen? Perhaps something you could do why waiting for other players to do during long multi-player games (it takes a long times for gamel like HoMM and Civ 4)
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="24" id="1956289"] On the other hand I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to incorporate shards into cities, especially if they confer a bonus to said city. I'm just afraid that would lead to every shard ending up part of a city. I think that maybe shards should make it very difficult to settle nearby terrain. It could take a lot more essence to make nearby land fertile due to ambient interference of the shard, for example. This way if you want
I'd have to say that having a serious art style is the way to look serious. And by that I don't mean by having a dark gritty warhammer 6th ed+ style of art, I mean an art style that have a lot of thought and emotion behind. This does! Waspartan said [quote who="Spartan01" reply="16" id="1956242"] this'll be one of the better fantasy wargames, let down by mainstream 'cute' fantasy gfx! [/quote] I have no idea what you mean by
In MoM there were pretty clear places that made better cities than other thanks to mister cartogapher (or was it surveyer... the guy that told you the max-pop of city locations). I think if you made an option that was like some sort of great-wilds world map option to create a map full of "wilderness" that was so rough terrained and crazy (its hard to clear cut a forest in this game mode) that you'd actually end up wasting money if you blanket it with cities.
[quote quoting="post"]I personally hope theirs no multiplayer or at least Not much work done for it *I want fluff and depth to this game* I hope its like AoW2 where were like a grand hero *Kinda like AOW1 where you can pick through several 'classes' but aren't bound to any one in particular* And i hope we can cast all kinds of awesome spells and terrain effects and finally i also hope that its got alot of rpg elements like mixing heroes 3 AoW2 and galactic civilizations all in one.
he said in his post that you can pick whether or not you include any particular unit and that some people may be happy with only ever using the official stardock content. So thats pretty obvious to me that it means we can pick if te get it or not.
I am so happy to hear there is going to be a "what is in the game" options menu that will be really expansive with AI that adjusts to it.
Well, the 1 reason that horses win out over camels and elephants is because you can put horse shoes on horses. It allows horses to better deal with rocky and rough terrain, where elephants and especially camels are not able to opperate. War camels are still nothing to thumb your nose over, and even less war elephants (they well mess you up). [quote who="FlyGuy7" reply="19" id="1955853"] Quoting psychoak, reply 16 About the bear, let me s
I did it by the way. Get your un-official bear cavalry medalions here >> link
Alright, as promised! (ok, so according to my clock its 5 min late, but *SHUSH* I mad made an error and thought the 27th was friday, but then "rushed" home from my thanksgiving feast when I found out I was wrong ) Here it is, BEAR CAVALRY! And, MORE BEAR CAVALRY <img src="http://landiscasner.com/images/stuff/bearknight.png" alt="MORE BEAR CAVALRY" width="100" hei
I think there isn't anything wrong with turtling. And making the shards/nodes stationary won't prevent turtling. It might encourage compition over resources encouraging conflict, but turtles can deal with that just as they can in every other game where there are stationary resources on the map. It doesn't matter if it is gold, minerals, crystal, or magic... turtles find a few good sources of the stuff and then setup camp. Turtles won't come out
Wouldn't it be simple enough to say a battle should be x rounds long, after that the troops would collapse from fatigue. So the armies retreat back to their respective tiles, however the battle is still active, and after next end-turn they are right back where they were with minor health and mana repair (since they would have rested up for the night). players have the chance of bringing in reinforcements as need be. It would be realistic from a seige point
[quote who="ZimatDeltaHalo" reply="12" id="1955339"]The more copy protection/DRM measures that are on a game, the less likely it is that I will buy it. This does NOT mean that I will pirate it instead, for those who come onto the forum and accuse everyone of piracy for not supporting DRM. Most of the people I know agree with this stance. Online activation is where I personally draw the line. Because I already have heard the "most everyone has the Internet" ar
In master of magic there were some very strange tie situations. In master of magic units could fight each other, both give and take damage in such a way that BOTH units died (the attacker and defender). The ending result seemed to often be a bit random. Usually it was defeat, but occationally it would be a victory. Sometimes, the only unit remaining would be a summon creature that disappeared after the battle which would give victory but no reward or s
non-combat heroes? Well, it would be interesting to have a court or something that you could put people in, or have a grand viser that leved up. It seems like pretty big feature creep, but I love talking about these kinds of ideas. It sounds like the same direction MoM's fame system, except perhaps a little better. The more fame-infamy you have the more powerful your council members can become, thus indirectly better rewards. A famous channeler will
Yeah, master of magic always asked what you wanted to name any new towns and many games have had it sense. Missing that feature would be mind blowing, and probebly added in a patch if somehow overlooked. You almost MUST be able to name nows if you are in charge of managing many self-placed cities.