Akka

That's the same slippery slope as DLC, which leads to let companies develop the barest of bone of a game, and making gamers pay for the rest of the content in little bits. I don't fear this from Stardock, which is probably the most dedicaced and honest company in the video game world, but your idea simply sucks.

[quote who="Spyndel" reply="17" id="2746684"] Addressed above. Few other tactical games do this, for good reason, IMO.[/quote] Damn, sorry. I parsed through the thread to see if the point had been already made, but obviously missed it. Doh, and I hate when others do it :-/ That being said, after reading your reply, I really don't agree with your point. I don't see how not using the "attack and retaliation at the same time" has any link with high-attack/high-de

Err... There is a very simple way to fix the "glass canon" problem. Just make it so that the attack and the retaliation are done at the same time. So even if the unit is destroyed, it still inflict damages on the attacker. I don't see the need to add another layer of complicated mechanisms when a very basic solution exists. It's actually the system already used by MoM a long time ago, by the way.

[quote who="Serkon" reply="86" id="2746524"]It stings when you see a game like MOM still delivering a more 'fun' experience. You cannot help but to compare these two similiar games to one another and when the much newer game drops the ball on what we feel have become fundamental concepts to the genre, thanks to the pioneer games like MOM, heck yes we aren't happy.[/quote] I think that what stings the most is that, as the developers admitted themselves to love MoM and to wan

[quote who="Wauthan" reply="69" id="2745904"]This thread is getting seriously weird. If MoM was somehow resurrected using todays technology everyone would hate it. The balance and bugs where horrible in the last official patch and the concept was almost cartoony in simplicity. Face it, you don't actually want MoM. You want something new. Something better. And definitely something different since you all obviously played the game until the floppy discs shattered, and thus already know each and

[quote who="Baleurion" reply="63" id="2745713"] If they just straight copied MoM at least they would START OUT with a great core gameplay experience, which they could THEN modernize and build upon. Sometimes its pointless to reinvent the wheel, especially if the wheel turns out to be a hexagon that rolls chuggishly.[/quote] I'm... afraid I have to agree here.

Rather disappointed. There is potential in it, but as for now, the game simply is lacking. The problem being, it would require to be rebuilt from the basis to become really shining, and I'm not sure that even Stardock is willing to basically redo the whole game. The UI is very bad, lacking clarity and intuitiveness - there is still basic gameplay features that I do not know how to use, and I'm far from being a newcoming to the gaming scene. It's clunky, not easily readable and

[quote quoting="post"]Anyways, I keep hearing people mention other RTS games like dominion and MoM etc. I would be interested in trying a new game while I wait for Elemental to get polished.[/quote] It seems that, despite hearing people mentioning MoM, you still haven't played it. Just do it. Honestly, despite its age, it's still by far the best of its kind. Nothing comes even close to it. It HAS flaws (very unbalanced mainly, but also very bad diplomacy), but the good is so m

I also share the OP's thoughts about MoM. But then the problem is : basically, the more I think about it, the more I simply realize that I wanted "MoM 2.0". Basically a graphical upgrade, rebalancing and maybe adding some perks. I'm not sure that I do EWoM justice, because I've a hard time judging it on its own merits and not just comparing it to the "MoM 2" I wanted to get.