[quote who="Maiden666" reply="5" id="3552627"] there's too many stats intertwined, esp. considering what moral and food does. for a human player that's too much to keep track off esp. when there are global changes. actually, this would be a field were a computer AI could easily declass a human mind because the process itself is entirely mathematically. IMO if the AI would specialize his planets to an near-optimum under the harder difficulty settings, this would be better than sim
ddd888
in any game only early game matters, the problem in gal civ 3 is that early you do need both manufactoring,food, and maybe some morale be that from traits, research or building also you cant totally neglect research (while you can nearly neglect gold income tbh seems not balanced atm you can pretty much ignore it or put at minimum) after you do that there is no much room for change, early game in the middle late game instead things change
[quote quoting="post"] They run straight towards the enemy at close range.What is point of thrusters if all ships just head towards point blank range, It's not logical Jim. [/quote] your post is not logical if faster ship could kite, who would have the best tech would instawin every fight its game, it doesnt have to be hyper realistic in every aspect
[quote who="joeball123" reply="1" id="3546531"] I'm surprised I have yet to see the best argument against cargo ship sensors. Multiplayer. You see, I personally consider multiplayer to be the worst possible reason to make changes to a game, if you lack any other reason for the changes. [/quote] yeah the logic, if you lack any reason... BUT the most important of them which is good real play
1) agree but i dont happen to find it so important i already crush ai at tough with each base race, i think you overrate specialization, you still need some basic production on most planet, some food, some morale the specialization you can really have is just 3 4 tiles really on the average planet, most of the times not worth for the challenge ai offer 2) for military see point 3) for the rest i agree, if you really want to micro things, too often in these cases it would be be
ok its not a super early tech but seems too good to have a invulnerability shield and a great offensive power all in one, how are you supposed to counter them?
well i dont know DF and the reason is what you say... too much rough at start, ui too unfriendly etc but yeah i agrre that is (or could be, if the promise is mantained, i cant know) depth more than complexity
[quote who="Xerberus86" reply="18" id="3459786"] Quoting satoru1, reply 17 @Xerberus86 Complicated != complex ? if you refer to distant worlds then yes its quite complicated, what not everytime has anything to do with complex, but the amount of features which are in the game and the things which are going on are huge. in terms of scope, features and overall immersion is this game just unbeaten or what do you mean?[/quote]</p
lol well not everybody went to make facebook/android games... but yeah, surely casuals bring more money than hardcore
[quote who="Island Dog" reply="9" id="3459605"] Quoting ddd888, reply 8 i wouldnt want to say it but im gonna pirate this 100% civ 5 made fun of players with that crappy multiplayer, after 2 expansions its still a joke and its not tolerable one day companies will eventually learn We don't take pirating of any game or software here lightly. It's the quickest way to get a ticket out of our community. [/quote]
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="7" id="3459603"] Quoting Alstein, reply 5 I just have doubts whether the Civ5 engine can do this well enough to be worth my while, especially with GalCiv3 and other games providing good competition. I'm going to wait and see what reviews are like for this game before plunging- this is not a pre-order after how Civ 5 was. I'm right there with ya on not pre-ordering it. Civ5, while fun, was a beautiful step
i wouldnt want to say it but im gonna pirate this 100% civ 5 made fun of players with that crappy multiplayer, after 2 expansions its still a joke and its not tolerable one day companies will eventually learn
well ppl who does review cant really play games for 50 hours b4 writing... i have to say in the first couple of hourse my first impression was something like 9+, it seemed really nearly perfect, so polished, so deep, so everything ofc reviews reflect this initial shining of the game
i dont know how you can consider warlock a viable game its completely unplayable and unfun after the first game, it has so many flaws it hurts his city spam was so retarded, the research was like 20 years old, the spell system was completely unfun and shallow, only units were someway decent but completely unbalanced i really didnt follow the patch if something changed later but i couldnt ever finish the second game, the game was totally broken and so bad designed
[quote who="razzafazza" reply="106" id="3456760"] 1. proper use of dispel when i thought i had the enemy with a dominate =/[/quote] yeah they spam dispel... even though sometimes on things not useful... [quote] 2. proper use of damage spells to finish off badly wounded troops of mine the AI couldnt reach otherwise [/quote] really? i dont remeber EVER something like that, and instead i remember MANY situations i had a dange
tbh i dont recvall at all aow1 and 2 from some point of view the tactica ai is pretty impressive at first, i hardly saw games where the ai keep the troops withouth uncovering them, and/ or charge like this but its pretty straight forward, basically it seems to do well a couiple of thing just ignoring many others... also the strategic ai is very weak and very exploitable dunno if you guys tried this, i just had 1 stac
[quote who="Tattyhat" reply="99" id="3456634"] Cheating AI, here we go again. Can no one program AI anymore? It seemed to be so much better in old games that run with only 48/64k.[/quote] its just impossible to make ai with the level of actual players when we played with 64k we were 8 years old with no background now i play videogames for 30 years, ofc no ai can match me and never will thats why i s
well dunno i find second campaing map to be quite hard also i played in the usual strategy way so a slow advance toward the campaing goals... which was wrong since when you conquer the dragon city you have like a plasma cannon against stone age men... maybe i didnt read carefully but the goal should be something like "conquer drake city at all costs, even losing your whole empire, then with the drakes youll get it back sooner or later" also the subquest of elves town &
yeah maybe cause im at campaign second map dunno on first was ok second map is absurd, nothing really matters but drakes and other lvl 4 summons, NOTHING you get to fight all game long against super fast and flying units and lvl 3 4 orcs that literally kill your champions in 2 3 hits all the champion gameplay is running back and try to be as far as possible from EVERYONE, its just unfun, i had to reload so many times
[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="89" id="3455931"] In AOW2 you could make very powerful melee heroes by using items and enchantments. Without super high defense and double strike though, you couldnt be a one man army. I think the main issue in this new game is that attacks always do damage. [/quote] surely this is one thing but in general i think its pretty unalanced in the melee side, melees in general should be the most tanky type (well maybe apart some roguish kind thi
[quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="86" id="3455844"] Quoting ddd888, reply 83even though i still think melees are so much underpowered... also champions are not that fun cause of that, basically you cant really play them, there is no chance to make them tank, while they do have abilities and cool skills, like the rogue has backstab, sprint and other cool tools,.. they are unplayable cause melees are so bad and so weak they cant do nothing apart staying bac
yep the problem is they are not much more good than any other troop, and since the game is over when you lose them (in campaign at least) the risk is not worth
even though i still think melees are so much underpowered... also champions are not that fun cause of that, basically you cant really play them, there is no chance to make them tank, while they do have abilities and cool skills, like the rogue has backstab, sprint and other cool tools,.. they are unplayable cause melees are so bad and so weak they cant do nothing apart staying back and cast some spell
yes i agree the only downside is that huge enphasys on tactical combats and the lack of a good old strategic feeling but ... tactical combats are so good... i mean they are just awesome, interface is super, combat is fast and easy but also very deep, there are tons of units and with good traits, rpgs elements are huge and well fitting the whole, and ai seems pretty smart... they didnt really advertize it but seems good, and never dumb its just perfect &n
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="72" id="3455341"] I'm having some serious issues keeping my melee units alive. They can go in at full health, attack, then get counter-attacked. [/quote] did you try outmoving enemies? if you attack from behind they dont counterattack (also you get a bonus) a cool trick i found is using unicorns (They can teleport behind) to first attack and turn the enemy and then charge/attack with o