KellenDunk

KellenDunk

Joined Member # 3375312
8 Posts 283 Replies 10,410 Reputation

[quote who="Denryu" reply="15" id="2398299"]Quoting Nights Edge, reply 14The idea of Sovereigns only being vulnerable on attack is interesting, I reckon it probably has some tactical implications on top of making players feel secure. Armies with a Sovereign in might jink for position or try to slip past the enemy's main forces to go after softer targets. Not sure if that would be good or bad. Some alternative ideas: A lives system, including buying lives back. <br /

119 Replies 286,039 Views

[quote who="Black-Knight" reply="24" id="2396651"]Quoting KellenDunk, reply 23 Unfortunately, "a chance" tends to translate into "reload until I get the result I want" in this kind game. (and most computer games, really) Not if it's seeded in such a way that you will always get the same result within the same game, no matter what. *At least for things like this* If the sovreign dies while attacking, a player can always reload, if the death hapens while the AI

39 Replies 25,271 Views

[quote who="Zaisha" reply="20" id="2396479"]Quoting Raven X, reply 19 An idea that comes to my mind is a losing kingdom deciding to open a door to the underworld to make a deal with a demon. There's a chance the Demon ends up going to war For the kingdom that set it free. Or, there's a chance the Demon goes to war On the kingdom that summoned it. After it destroys them it sets about rampaging the lands until some army or hero put it down and send it back to hell. U

39 Replies 25,271 Views

BK I'm pretty sure the armies and towns aren't going to disappear.. Although I'm pretty sure that the towns need the protection of a sovereign to survive. Towns not already conquered by you are likely to choose a new sovereign (They need someone to keep their territory habitable) and the Family tree seems to be where they're looking at going for deciding whom they choose to ally with.

39 Replies 25,271 Views

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="43" id="2394346"]Quoting Frogboy, reply 42Some good ideas here. We're digesting them now. Good to hear Brad. Please consider implementing an additional Sovereign system also, because the one what we have "now" won't be very popular amongst many players. [The proposed dynasty/successor system for example sounds very good, as an alternative.] Either way: The key of this "secondary" Sovereign system must be: Play on after the original

51 Replies 169,570 Views

Clearly a button to continue playing right on the victory screen is the solution. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "Congratulations you've won!" [stats] [keep playing] [next] \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

39 Replies 25,271 Views

I like C as well, especially if you can design units via equipping them with things that break the rules. I think making sure we have the ability to create rulebreaking units is important to unit diversity. If we're only deciding attack/defense and hitpoints then the idea is just to make the best we can. For example creating a unit with a "first strike" like ability that allows them to attack first whether they are defenders or attackers. EDIT: <p

123 Replies 359,530 Views

[quote who="arunodayt" reply="4" id="2394463"]If you didn't pre-order within the deadline, you can't get into Beta 1. You will have Beta 2, though, when it's out. And as Frogboy himself said, it won't have bugs that make your hard-drive crash or install rootkits on your system. he was joking, of course [/quote] Yes he was joking of course it will have rootkits and hard drive frying bugs.

9 Replies 16,874 Views

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="32" id="2393034"] A grey area to me was Highlander death by beheading. When I was a kid I thought it was any beheading, but later I was told it had to be a Highlander that did it (special effects and lightning show, I guess, is a requirement), and not just anybody who happens to bring a sharp heavy blade to their neck. So I would say it is also reasonable if another channeler, powerful hero, or immortal monster has to be present to

238 Replies 566,450 Views

[quote who="auboy105" reply="21" id="2392897"]I think the best solution to the biggest disagreement on this game would be: Sovereign can die: Yes Sovereign can grow very powerful over the course of a game. Losing this powerful sovereign would be a huge risk but a risk that could be worth taking. The risk: If the sovereign dies an heir successor takes over. This heir is like the sovereign at the beginning of the game. Weak. Brand new. You have to sta

238 Replies 566,450 Views

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="32" id="2392233"] . either it's an empire building game or a role playing one. In the former case, I don't want to lose the game because I lose one unit. In the latter, I don't want to have to micromanage tons of cities and units, and I'd rather not lose everything on an unlucky roll, although I might live with that. [/quote] Sorry this one is both. ALthough the hide option is actually quite cool. If you really want

51 Replies 169,570 Views

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="12" id="2391464"] Yes, what I am saying is that the current system encourages you to create every unit with a shield. yeah... that was my point. It won't stay that way. [/quote] I can't see why anyone would expect it to.

24 Replies 19,872 Views

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="6" id="2391375"]I'd vomit fish with excitement if Stardock took a swing on a dungeon keeper like game. (Startopia? It was the same game, except you weren't specifically evil, and it was in space not in a dungeon.... and you had to pay to open up areas of the map, which solved the problem of digging towards the opponents as fast as possible and basically end the game in 10 min if its fair multiplayer) [/quote] No you couldn't do that in

33 Replies 111,658 Views

[quote who="ozmono" reply="8" id="2391373"]Quoting Raven X, reply 7 Quoting KellenDunk, reply 6I can't imagine that it will remain "can hold a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other" because that seriously limits the potential for variety in units. Why would you ever make units without shields, in that situation? Well, if you have foot-knights, I.E. foot soldiers in full plate. If armed with a sword And shield they would have higher defense then when armed wi

24 Replies 19,872 Views

I can't imagine that it will remain "can hold a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other" because that seriously limits the potential for variety in units. Why would you ever make units without shields, in that situation?

24 Replies 19,872 Views

I think we can have a system that has all the requirements of a PBEM game without the need to actually PBEM. With saved games stored on stardocks server it could send a notice through your impulse account when your turn has arrived. You play your turn, it saves the game to the server and notifies the next impulse account.

33 Replies 17,011 Views

An interesting development. I wouldn't mind a resurrection spell, but the resurrection gambit would have to be hugely expensive and maybe have a significant chance to fail. This hiding thing allows some players to play his like a normal civ game or almost exactly like MoM...

51 Replies 169,570 Views