Borg999

[quote who="Ashnal" reply="24" id="3324567"] You're kidding right? We have four different victory conditions, only two of which require the application of brute force (Conquest and Master Quest) [/quote] All of which rely on the power rating. Ever try a diplo victory when your power is lower than the AI's? Ever try a magic victory when all of the AI's are piling on you? Fire is useles? What about firestorm? It can turn a deadly AI stack into a strong

[quote who="Star Adder" reply="31" id="3324629"]Funny huh? Frog answers the Q about the beta but is afraid to stand up and explain his decision to abandon his self proclaimed bill of gamers' rights by forcing steam dwon our throats! [/quote] He explained it in another thread about a month agao. It was mostly about the reliability of cash flow, which can't be ignored by a company that want's to stay in business. Other distributions methods were i

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="15" id="3324339"] A suggestion: Could you release update 1.3 before the LH beta please? There should be some time for that update to be tested and commented upon, so that the results could also be merged into the LH beta... Otherwise, what is going to happen is update 1.3 will not get any attention from the player base, as everyone will focus on LH. It's all fine and good for those who are going to convert to LH anyways, but there a

[quote who="willie sanderson" reply="21" id="3324281"] Yeah tell that to Master of Magic. People still play it TODAY even (I know I do). If a game is GOOD/GREAT it will always have value. Changing core design around doesn't help to save it...just take a look at Age of Wonders. lol [/quote] Well I can think of three great games that have undergone big changes from the original design. GC1 to the final chapter of GC2, Alpha Centauri to Alien Crossfire, and Civ1 to Ci

[quote who="Star Adder" reply="18" id="3324201"] drop the element base in magic, and just have a pool of magic instead. Errr, nope! Because that would be changing the most important game core mechanic and hence turning this game into something else it was not supposed to be. This is NOT an AD&D game. End of story. [/quote] Which is why I said future release. Eventually the game will get old and tired, and people will move obnto something else

How do you get to participate in the beta?

[quote who="kangon" reply="11" id="3323978"]the decision now on what magic schools to take is far from a no brainer, as is evident with your post. You want a good dd spell take fire or death. you want spells that help your city produce more go with earth. want more gold go with air want to help your units on the tactical map go with air, life or earth, want to hinder your enemy on the tactical map go with water or death. and so on and so on. Very far from a no brainer, this a

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="8" id="3323943"] Quoting mqpiffle, I don't want just 1 big pool of spells to choose from, mostly due to most spells would be neglected and ignored with this concept. Sincerely ~ Kongdej [/quote] How about a pool of useful spells, making the decision not such a no-brainer.

Well my comment is about tactical spells, not strategic, and I remember only haveing access to one spell out of the gate, haste. IMO, the fire bolt trumps that. [quote who="mqpiffle" reply="4" id="3323915"] Quoting Borg999, reply 2 But a low level fire or earth sovereign is much stronger than a low level life or air sovereign. My suggestion would remove this issue. And what's wrong with one teleport spell, instead of two, for example?<br

[quote who="abob101" reply="3" id="3323893"] Well I could be mistaken, but aren't they different effects... One teleports the caster and his army, the other teleports all unstationed units.... quite the different outcome in most cases. [/quote] That's another issue. I think the number of units that can be teleported should be scalable with level. That would eleiminate the need for two different spells, and make leveling up more meaningfull. IMO, l

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="1" id="3323885"]If you'll also recall from your AD&D days, your mage was very weak in the early going, as well. [/quote] But a low level fire or earth sovereign is much stronger than a low level life or air sovereign. My suggestion would remove this issue. And what's wrong with one teleport spell, instead of two, for example?

I recently created a new soveign with life and air spells. Needless to say, he was very weak in the early game. making those spell types unattractive, at least at the lower levels. I remember back in the orignal AD&D, a magic user could choose from a pool of spells of any kind. Thus when a MU made it to the 5th level, he could chose his first 3rd level spell, which could be fireball, lightning bolt, or cone of cold (among many others) His choices weren't restricte

I understand that the LH beta was planned to start in March. Will the beta for LH be open? If not, how do you get to particiapte in it?

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3322573"]Agreed. The change has already been made internally to have it based on their personality and will be more picky about when and how they build it. So they won't build it as early but when they do it'll be a lot tougher to conqeur the city that does it. [/quote] Great. Thanks!

So, one of the AI's declares war and attacks. I barely defeat his stack, and he offers a cease fire, he waits one turn and declares war again and attacks. I defeat his second stack, he offers cease fire, waits a turn and the declares war and attacks again, and then proceeds to go through this cycle two more times in a row before I save and shut down for the night. It's a well known stategy. Offer a cease fire and wait a sufficient amount of time so that your enemy lets his gua

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="6" id="3322112"]I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable. [/quote] I think that would just lead to early game wars. No need for any other type of diplomacy, no need for city development, etc. There's a group of people who want a civ like game, and there are those who just want a fanatsy empire total war. Not sure if this g

[quote who="willie sanderson" reply="3" id="3322075"]Game is WAD no need to change anything. Just chalk it up as a loss and start another game. Just be sure to keep track of all the games the AI BEAT YOU. [/quote] I've seen all of your post, I seriously doubt you truely believe that there is no need to change anything. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

I beleive there is a mod available that will allow you to do that.

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="1" id="3322045"] I thought of suggesting a "safe passage treaty" integrated into the diplomacy screen, but the way the diplomacy mechanics work currently, the AI would probably want a small fortune for it....making it a useless option. Non-Aggression pacts and Alliances allow you to do move through their territory, although they can be hard to get unless you plan ahead diplomatically. [/quote] Thanks, you're righ

Right now, if you can't pass through another factions territory within 1 turn, you are asked to leave. The logic behind this, of course, is to prevent the human player from declaring war when at AI's doorstep. However, there is already a amechanic in the game that requires that you be outside of the AI's territory before declaring war, so the request to leave the territory is unecessary. In my current game, I'm boxed in and can't expand b

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="86" id="3320420"] Quoting Borg999, reply 78 I know this won't matter in about a week with the release of 1.3, but... In my current game (with 1.29frog), the AI is using ships...but I didn't purchase the map pack. Hmm, no, the AI doesn't cheat, not at all.... I have confirmed that I have at least most of the contents of the map pack without purchasing (Ok I confirmed it some days a

It's seems really good! i'm looking forward to 1.3. Jumping the gun here, but some thoughts on diplomacy: Multiple trade agreements should have an additional +1 bonus to relations, to reflect the economic ties between factions. So two trade agreements, an aad'l +1, 3 trade agreements an additional +1, for a total of +2 (above and beyond the base +1 relation adjustments). Breaking agreements, or unprovoked attacks/war should carry bigger dipolomacy penalties

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="5" id="3319778"] Quoting Borg999, reply 3 Well, they can always put caps on the damage to prevent a spell from becoming OP. What I mean is, let the spell damage be boosted by "Mage Level".. or the amount of magetraits a character have, so each trait that you put in one of the ones available from path of the mage lets you deal more damage. Putting a cap on the damage is a bad move I feel, because that would just "Wor

Well, I'm not a modder, and I don't play one on TV, but I would buy a spell DLC in a heartbeat if there were a good variety of spells. SD, whatever you do, don't follow Kalypso Media's (Tropico 4) example and release a DLC containing a single building, a single scenario, and one new set of sovereign cloths and charge $5.

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="2" id="3319774"] I propose making the caster's level the factor that increases spell damage directly, I would prefer if it wasn't the caster level, but certain traits made in a different manner than the current traits, so mages actually were better at mage stuff than assassins. (They are kind of right now too, but I don't like the scaling one bit... ok meaby one, but the 7 other bits I dislike! ). Sincerely ~ K