[e digicons]:'([/e] [quote]Nothing yet...[/quote]................
Maccilia
[quote]I almost feel like a ten-year old on Christmas Eve! Same with us working on it! It's been a good 9 months since our official announcement, so we're pretty excited to see some press coverage on what we've done in that time! [/quote] Yeah but ur like the 10 yr old that hid under the christmas and got to open all of their presents early u know whats coming [e digicons]:X[/e]
just preordered cant wait to get into beta [e digicons]:D[/e]
Will we get any new favor items or favor item buffs for somee of the least used favor items? Edit: also when we get modding tools will we be able to upload maps for other ppl to play online somehow (i.e. a competition in lobby downloads ect)
or an automatic upgrade button that u click pick pay and get the new swords
[quote]Setting up some sort of ambush system wouldn't be much effort since you can have hidden and stationary requirements that are triggered by the enemy moving past.[/quote] This works too either way i dont want forts to just sit there and shoot it gets kinda boring. ambushes on the other hand even stationary ones within X spaces of a fort where u have to place them [e digicons]}:)[/e] could be very interesting
20. always have a way out
[quote]If you deplete movement with an attack, then armies can be perpetually stalled by suicide runs of single squads.[/quote] I'm not suggesting that every turn the fort produces a new unit maybe something like every 5 turns. also while the units are "outside" the fort it would just be a building no sightline no attack no buffs just a building. this would be useful because the forts would not be rendered useless once an enemy passes them but you would have to make a strategic d
banned for being a hypocrit!
[quote]- Split your army and leave enough army behind to avoid any defenders coming out and raiding your supply lines and getting a fight in two fronts.[/quote] the reason most castles are unable to do this is they have their own attack one that is not determined by units in the castle. what if the castle could sacrifice its attack or buff in order to send out a few units that could only move say 10 spaces away from the castle but moved 5 spaces per turn that way the instant someone p
yngmon the only identity contained within the thread is language a form of communication for conceputual thoughts. your only identity is your name. nothing in your profile reveal who you are.
banned for having no avatar pic
[quote] Maybe it's a "oce you're in, you're in" system[/quote] maybe maybe not [e digicons]:P[/e] im not saying town at war causes ppl to leave im saying. oh no our sovereign wont protect us from raging beasts we should go to the other kingdom where they have nice beast free towns. Edit: also the main point of the thread is not siphoning my idea: could there be a safety stat that determines population growth instead of linear growth. heck u could even ba
also mana locks would be a cool addition to the gates each turn u have to pay a certain amount of mana to open or CLOSE the gate.
[quote who="Campaigner" reply="1" id="2343459"]That can lead to turtling (which is boring and must be abolished.) [/quote] [e digicons]8|[/e] What? turtling is fun especially in sp. on a more serious not a strong empire should be able to crush little empire np but this might help prevent the steamroller effect if the person gets careless............but idk might add a layer of drudgery late game " oh nos i was so busy pwning ppl my safety dropped and i have o pop".
I recently noticed several posts (not threads) about population as a resource (e.g u need people to become soldiers) and that the main population growth came from survivors of the cataclysm not people born in your towns. If this is so wouldn't the "safety" of an area be important in determining the amount of people that want to live there. This could be an interesting mechanism for the overall gameplay. Example: your opponent has more of X (mana troops resources) but all of X is being sp
I would say yes for this idea if only for one reason THE REASON: the public/gaming industries overall perception of the game may in fact be more important than the actual gameplay. I speak of games like Demigod. Even though the crashes and gameplay are not that bad and the game was just released, after I read the forums and reviews, my impression was that the game was on its last legs and that the community is dying. I think that same impression is becoming a self fufilling proph
whoops my bad sry [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
Also just found this. Still think the houses are proportional?
yeah check the stats bar and tabs. Even though the devs hinted at the leveling and abilities of units this offers a nice glimpse into exactly how it will be implemented. Items [e digicons]:drool:[/e] Spells[e digicons]:drool:[/e] and Actions? what would those be used for? any ideas
[quote who="grimunk" reply="5" id="2338661"]I used to use Heaven's Wrath. It works well for accelerating your levelling, but if you use it on cataract you should be shot. [/quote] Why?
Ive found that a good way to counter a minion erebus is timing if u attack in between waves the erebs army wont magically reappear also if u r in a wave for gods sake dont use aoe attacks it just feeds teh erebus minions.
Op i agree that the number of games is way more imp than the win/loss or ladder ranking.
also if something ive noticed about the fortitude flag is that if your team loses the flag u lose 15% of ur existing health. this can make a huge diff because its the equivalent of dropping 700-900 dps nuke on all of the other teams dg's
Has anyone stopped to think that this isnt the only game that stardock(and frogboy) has ? (I couldn't keep reading past the first page)