I need this functionality too. I only want to show my taskbar on my secondary monitor. I can't just swap which monitor is the primary monitor because I NEED the primary monitor to keep being the primary monitor for all other functions, it's only the taskbar which needs to be on the secondary monitor.
I need this functionality too. I only want to show my taskbar on my secondary monitor. I can't just swap which monitor is the primary monitor because I NEED the primary monitor to keep being the primary monitor for all other functions, it's only the taskbar which needs to be on the secondary monitor.
Stardock Forums
As a recent Start11 adoptee, this one is a major problem for me too. My main reason for getting Start11 was to split out the individual task bar buttons for each window because I despise the grouped window behavior. Start11 has done that, the windows are now split out on the task bar but the job is only partially done, the right click menu treats it as tho the windows are all still grouped! Please urgently change the Close menu item to close just the selec
Stardock Forums
I have the same problem with the Close menu item not being there, Close All is pointless. However, this was not the thread I meant to post in about it.
To a certain extent you can blame hardware manufacturers and consumers for both signing up for this mantra that bigger numbers, such as higher resolutions, are always better, regardless of the actual use case for the monitor.
Sounds good, the AI could do with some love. I haven't played in a while now but would like to have another play, perhaps when 1.7 is released to the. Asses.
Sounds like a fun time, glad to hear about both the patch and the new DLC.
Elemental Forums
Most of my complaints about LH come down to a lack of realism. Now obviously we are talking about a made up computer game about a made up fantasy world. How realistic can it be? Well, rather more than it is I think. So many parts of LH just don't seem to make much sense. Look at EvilSalmon's recent post about his disappointment in the game. Most of his complaints are actually about a lack of realism. My sovereign has been traveling for years and decides to start a sett
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="6" id="3458915"]heh. Was thinking of the exact two games when I wrote my comment....that, imo while civ 4 is a better game than civ 3, the one major miss civ 4 had was the removal of building upkeep. I still spool up civ 2 from time to time to get that city building challenge. Ah well....I seem to be in the minority on this one as most 4x games being released these days do not include building upkeep... [/quote] It's worth mentioning that I
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="2" id="3458423"]I really miss building upkeep costs. Having to plan out your economy around what buildings you want to build in what cities was always an interesting challenge to overcome. [/quote] I totally disagree. I much prefer the Civ 4 model to the Civ 3 model where the optimal build for most of your cities if often nothing (or just troops) because the maintenance costs of buildings means that only a few cities should have each. That is just bo
I'm a bit puzzled, Gazing didn't even post again, not sure why he deserved another telling off. In any case Gazing had half a point in that Brad's analysis, while interesting, is obviously very simplistic and is missing the key feedback relationship between number of employees on the project and the income earned from DLC. I suspect that was deliberate on Brad's part, he was just trying to give some idea of the bottom line numbers rather than a detailed breakdown of ho
Elemental Forums
I'm a builder. In any game I like building up my stuff (in FE that would be heroes, cities, empire) and cleverly outgrowing the enemy. But for this to really be fun there needs to be a challenge along the way. Some AI should be trying to take advantage of my early game military weakness (because I am investing in economy/growth for the long term) while other AI should be likewise building up stronger (through expansion, investment or conquest) so that when I reach late game there is one (
[quote who="smeagolheart" reply="96" id="3426136"]I'm cautiously optimistic that this will be it: Worlds of Magic[/quote] I did the first kickstarter, it's going to be interesting to see what they come up with. They say the right things most of the time but there are some bits which really puzzle me such as using the D20 ruleset for tactical combat. If they pick the right concepts from D20 then maybe that will work but otherwise it seems like a really bad idea for a strategy g
My vote would be no. I think the work required to bring WoM up to scratch would be far too great and I really wasn't that fussed by the few features it had which differentiate it from LH.
Seems the sort of thread where if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. I still have a LH wishlist but I'm impressed with how much Stardock have improved the game and the AI, and continue to improve it. Many companies wouldn't.
I agree that the random number generator may be working fine given the fairly small pool of available items and the fact that much like the birthday example it is statistically much easier to get a duplicate of any item rather than duplicates of one pre-determined item (however, it may also be broken because on a moderate proportion of games I've had 3 or 4 of the same item after picking up less than 10 items, I don't know exactly what the available pool looks like but it needs to be
I agree with merlinme. (Having agreed with merlinme in the past I find I just can't stop now)
Mmmm. I don't know why anyone would leave population in their city, it is so much better to have them queued as pioneers all of the time except for the rare occasions when you want your city to level. Yes I know it is an exploit and Stardock's answer is that they won't fix it, the player should just queue pioneers. To me this is the wrong attitude, it is so blatantly overpowered and in any case unavoidable (in that whenever you queue a pioneer for legitimate or semi-legiti
Like merlinme said I don't think diplomacy needs to be a zero sum game, at least not for a single round of diplomacy. If you are scary enough then arguably it should be very less zero sum (eg I can imagine Umbar giving you 1200 to declare war on Altar and then Altar giving you more money to declare peace!) but the AI needs to have enough memory to not get repeatedly sucked into it, even after the 'will not talk to you' timer runs down. So if Umbar paid you to declare war and then
Well said merlinme. I actually agree with some of what willie said in that I think the AI still lags behind the quality of the rest of the game, but there is no doubt that Stardock have made significant progress and also little question that willie is being too vitriolic to be taken seriously by Stardock.
Monsters move first solves the most obvious problem of monsters missing the AI, but the underlying problem still exists and will be visible with the AI struggling to target each others armies. It would still be a worthwhile improvement though.
[quote who="Primal_Savage" reply="3" id="3408278"]Right... But I didn't know the bonus transferred to human player.[/quote] I have never liked the AI getting better settle spots for their capital (and sometimes later cities I believe). It inevitably means that the favourite cities I have built end up being overshadowed by captured enemy cities. Maybe it is just me but I would like my cities which I have invested time into building up to end up the best, rather than the optima
Elemental Forums
Just posting to say that I agree the pathing around neutral territory is incredibly irritating and causes me multiple mistakes every game. Each mistake wastes two turns too because the units will move the wrong way trying to find an alternative path, then you need to spend a second turn moving them back to where they were, before you can manually move them through the neutral territory. Chokepoints are also unbelievably annoying, particularly since in 1.3 the AI seems to stop moving a
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Apheirox" reply="29" id="3406413"] Quoting Mistwraithe, reply 26Personally I think OP is correct that unrest as it is implemented is a poor mechanic for providing tradeoffs for/against ICS. I disagree - I think unrest is an solid way of handling ICS in this game.[/quote] You then go on to make various comments where you talk about why unrest as implemented in LH doesn't work very well to limit ICS. So I disagree that we disagree ;-).</
Elemental Forums
Personally I think OP is correct that unrest as it is implemented is a poor mechanic for providing tradeoffs for/against ICS. However I think the Civ 5 example isn't all that much better because Civ 5 global happiness has a multitude of problems to it. You have to go back to Civ 4 to find a game that really nailed the trade offs with expansion by making it expensive short term, even crippling if done at the wrong time, but a winning strategy in the long term if you could pull it off well