NagaPrince

Though game mechanics that aren't hardcoded prevent Stardock and developers from making substantive expansions and DLC when the community can easily do just the same. I support em' too. I know Mega Events are meant to do foundation-rattling effects upon what would be a "stable" scenario, but I'm just asking for what I think is better for them, and the overall games balance and fluidity is that they take time to fully reach their mass when triggered.

Strategy games multiplayer as always been difficult to overcome for many players, I mean, my Heroes-5 Hotseat game with my brother has lasted a week now. We played 5 games, 2 HOMM3 after nearly a decade break and lost them all till now lol...

I liked Events and Mega Events, but wish they were much less dramatic and more incremental, more natural than artificial. I'm not asking for Event chains for every random pop-up, but they have within them variables that'll slowly, or rapidly, decrease or increase then chances of the events affects expanding/elevating. Like when companies balance MMO's, maybe increase or decrease certain abilities and item spawns by small increments rather than increasing the "Warriors Atta

More people will be disappointed if it has Tactical Combat than not, because so much of the game will be revolved improving and balancing out that sort of game mechanic. I think they're going to abstract combat so that its similar to Europa Universalis's abstracted warfare. You can decisively influence from a broad scale of technology, leadership, terrain, etc. Now which brigade you want flanking which, etc. It would be the best way to approach this. Plus with tactical-based c

I have this funny feeling the tactical dimension for space combat will be on the strategic map itself. If an enemy ship is in an asteroid belt, adjacent to planets, or in a nebulae, they'll be granted bonuses, and they'll be ship classes providing and negating abilities too.