[quote quoting="post"] Thus far i am still really enjoying the game. i loved Civ 4, even bought the xbox ver of that game and loved that.[/quote] No you didn't. If you mean CivRev, then maybe you haven't played Civ 4?
[quote who="Gene1966" reply="9" id="2773134"]I think eHandel forget what his/her first game was like with auto-turn enabled I did not even realize the turn count had ticked over 50 w/o having built my first town. [/quote] I'm really not trying to make fun of you, but that's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.
[quote who="Satrhan" reply="156" id="2773396"]Yes, I'm sure he meant 'Its got units fighting' by that[/quote] No, clearly he means "It'll be just like the scope of total war and whatever else you envision!" by it.
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Rune_74" reply="203" id="2773382"] Oh wow, come on....[/quote] Did you have more to add, or was that it then? If you actually have an argument, feel free. But you can't have it both ways. Either 'epic' was promised and therefore will be delivered, or the recent quoted statement is true and that isn't the direction they are going. Pick.
[quote who="Satrhan" reply="153" id="2773376"] Brad Wardell: It really does draw from a lot of different games. I'm more of a game player than a developer--I develop games so that I can play them (and hope others want to play them too!). I would say that Elemental will be a lot like Master of Magic and Civilization in terms of the strategic elements and a bit like the Total War series for the tactica
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Raven X" reply="196" id="2773358"] Quoting wayninja, reply 187 Quoting Frogboy, reply 140 Yea, we're not going for epic tactical battles. MOM is our influence, not total war. That's very odd, because I Specifically Recall him saying, many, Many times, that he was going for a mix of MoM meets Total war, only with TBS battles. He said that more times than I ca
So, just re-quoting what was already posted magically increases reading comprehension? Thanks, that IS helpful!
It's actually "Adventure Theory", and it's a real thing. I think I saw an advertisement for it during Judge Judy.
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="140" id="2773239"]Yea, we're not going for epic tactical battles. MOM is our influence, not total war.[/quote]
Elemental Forums
[quote who="awuffleablehedgie" reply="184" id="2773165"] Read my post with the quote from Brad. There is no 'probably' about it. They DID think they were ready and they DID pick the time window. I don't believe the 'months in advance' garbage, this isn't 1920. Barring that however, it IS contradictory. You can't have severe time constraints when lack of time was not a problem. That doesn't make any sense no matter how you rationalize it. It
[quote who="awuffleablehedgie" reply="41" id="2773183"] Also, anyone who paid less than 50 for the game, should have to work the difference off in the kitchens or something. Not really. They would just be "entitled" to whatever they paid for. If I get an old game on sale for $5 it's going to be judged on a much different scale than a brand new cutting-edge game I get for $50.[/quote] They would be entitled to whatever they paid for it? I'm not sure
From the title, I thought this thread would be about a post-industrial era boxer....
Seems like we are doing the same thing here that was done pre-release. Assigning arbitrary dollar value amounts to products that are nothing more the speculation. Can we get some more idea on content before we all decide we are getting the deal of the century? I for one believe that if it's true that the expansions really are worth 20 dollars each and they are free, then I will just about get my moneys worth when all is said and done, which I believe is exac
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Firbolg" reply="179" id="2773117"] It's actually not contradictory. The possible release windows were not dictated by Stardocks internal finances but rather by the way that retail distribution works in the industry. When releasing a game that's going to be on shelves in major retail chains you have to essentially schedule months ahead of time when you will release to ensure proper shelf space and distribution channels. And unless you're Blizzard or a major publisher wit
Well, to rub salt in the 'AI has no concept of naval invasion' wound, there are no military naval units military units or naval battles. That was enough for me for them to be 'obsolete'.
Yes. And using this logic, I purposefully overpaid 200 dollars for this game. So I think stardock should give me a $200 game. Also, anyone who paid less than 50 for the game, should have to work the difference off in the kitchens or something. What were we talking about again?
I was wondering similar things too. There is also a few summons (familiar at least, possibly others) that have essence, but nothing to spend the essence on. The summons right now seem like they were cooked up by 10 different people.
[quote who="Bellack" reply="17" id="2773090"] Hey Wayninja, do you know if CIV5 is going to have that Advance start feature? It was pretty dame cool in Civ4[/quote] I don't specifically know. From what I've seen almost all the other options from Civ 4 are in there so I don't know why this wouldn't be. In other words, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
I think first and foremost we need a good search engine to eliminate ridiculous amounts of duplicate posts. Then we can focus on the game.
You don't need to settle near resources or specialize, you should plant cities everywhere you can, there is no penalty not to do so and even if you don't have food to rank the city up, you can still gain from it. I'm not sure how you are getting overwhelmed, can you elaborate? Good starting techs are adventure (forget what empire is called) as they can give you some early resource to help pump out pioneers.
While I'm definitely looking forward to this, I really really wish this was not taking precious writing time away from ADWD, which it undoubtedly is.
[quote who="Jandurin" reply="14" id="2772996"] Quoting wayninja, reply 12 A simple example, but you see where I'm going.... Ah yes. Like in Monopoly with the short game rules. With a bit more premeditation. That's actualy a fantastic idea for MULTIPLAYER games. It would make them much more streamlined and get rid of the slower early game (which isn't really conducive to a multiplayer experience).[/quote] <
[quote who="Jandurin" reply="36" id="2773008"] Anyway, it's a silly argument. The interesting question is, if you returned the game, could you just return the 50 dollar game and keep the goodies for 20? That's neither here nor there, but it occurred to me.[/quote] This is really getting silly now. Is that a serious question? Try taking half a bottle of soda back to walmart for a 49 cent refund and see how that goes.
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Raven X" reply="175" id="2773011"] Quoting wayninja, reply 174Sorry, you need to get me a link... I'm sure I read that Brad said that there are no investors and he was beholden to no one when he released the game. He was blinded by 'passion' and thought the game was done. You make it sound like they had no choice but to release even though they knew it wasn't ready... which is direct contradiction to the 'apology'. You're right, it is contra
Elemental Forums
Sorry, you need to get me a link... I'm sure I read that Brad said that there are no investors and he was beholden to no one when he released the game. He was blinded by 'passion' and thought the game was done. You make it sound like they had no choice but to release even though they knew it wasn't ready... which is direct contradiction to the 'apology'. " (I'm up north on vacation typing on an extremely slow connection so bear with me) I