i ment modability not enjoyment btw
Allright, I hear you. Of course, Im just saying that it doesnt look good according to what the developers said in the interview.
i ment modability not enjoyment btw
There's a difference between mod friendly and unmoddable (which is virtually impossible). Mod friendly would be like Civ5 and Skyrim who release mod tools and source code and allow modders to easily access the inner-workings of the game. There are multiple reasons why this isn't feasible for every game, including smaller companies wanting to protect their code/systems they worked hard on developing, especially if they are using third party stuff they aren't allowed to share. There are other games that aren't mod friendly like Diablo 2 and Sims 3, which have all their data files in encrypted packages and don't release any tools to work with them, but both of those game have huge mod communities and hundreds or thousands of mods because people took the time to break the encryption and make their own tools. It just depends which modders are interested in a game, a few really good coders can break open a game for a larger mod community to do amazing things with.
Depends on your point of view. There is probably going to be a lot of DLC for Warlock, and I'd bet if we had any mods tools most of that DLC is going to be stuff modders could do rather easily. Just look at the Majesty 2 DLC stuff, some of it is really simple stuff that just makes your heroes slightly more powerful. Based on the low initial price for the game, I would guess they intend to make most of their money from DLC, and giving players tools that allow them to compete with said DLC is probably the most counter-productive thing they can do. That isn't even touching the subject of pirating the DLC, with mod tools it can be as simple as changing a 0 to 1 in a DLC file that allows any player to use it without paying for it. Sims 3 has thousands of dollars worth of DLC (seriously...) and anyone can rather easily find it for free because the same tools modders developed to create new content was used to remove all the protection from the DLC.
I like the last one; you simply cannot settle a city within 4 hexes of any other city. Thus, every city can grow to Medium and have 18 empty hexes around it, reserved for it. If it grows to large, it cannot build in another city's 18-hex zone; if to cities grow out another ring, then sharing within that third ring can begin (so if you still honeycomb your cities with 4 hexes between each, when they finally hit large, you won't have a lot of room to build). On top of this, when building a settler, your city stops growing; it's population growth goes to 0 for the two turns the unit is being built. ICS might still be a problem, but I think both of those will slow it down to something manageable.
Not directly right,You are allowed to build cities close together (3 hexes between) but it's never better to have lot's of cities with small radius.
Right, but a good player will plan this tiles in and know which towns have to grown and which towns haven't to grown.1) Cities don't "share" their radius, they can block tiles from other cities.
They will not grown, when they have no food for growing, right? 4 Fields for a small town means 1 farm, 1 manasource, 1 money building and 1 research building. more do not need a small town, and the town himself is a small defence position.2) Blocked cities will grow in population (waste of mana/food) but it can't build buildings. Also space isn't used well: a blocking larger city will fill it's tiles slower because the larger cities grow slower = a loss of resources due not been able to build so fast.
You need the mutipler only in towns who should grown over 5 people size, because you need it for your income/growth. The small towns do not need a multipler, they are self running. The problem is, it is to cheap to build settlers, that 5 small towns are build fast and you have now the income for the army who conquer the world.3) The cities with smaller radius are worse than the cities with larger radius because of the multiplier buildings. The more you have flat bonus Craftsmen Districts, Farms, Mana Farms with the multiplier buildings the better.
NOt really, you get a movement bonus for every culture tile. How faster you expand culture, how faster your units are moving and your empire can expand, gets more money, more mana, more special fields, more research and so on. With buildings on bad field like swam/hills, they loose even there movement penality. And later when your large town need this field, you destroy it and build it know from the large town.4) Warlock seems to have pretty much unbuildable terrain. Therefore optimal distance between cities might be 5 hexes, even 6.
There is a mechanic that stops infinite city spam in this game: Other wizards and wandering monsters
Honestly, this isn't some kind of AAA full-on empire simulator. It's a Wizardy tactical game. I think any kind of anti-ICS mechanic would just end up plugging the game up.
If you manage to get like 25 cities out, then guess what? Just go kill your opponents and start a new game like a big boy. This isn't SimCity
I dont like managing 25 cities. I prefer if the game has some mechanism that limits my expansion so that Im not forced to spam cities in order to win.
If I dont spam cities but the AI does then I will be wiped out.
I dont like managing 25 cities. I prefer if the game has some mechanism that limits my expansion so that Im not forced to spam cities in order to win.
If I dont spam cities but the AI does then I will be wiped out.
I dont like managing 25 cities. I prefer if the game has some mechanism that limits my expansion so that Im not forced to spam cities in order to win.
If I dont spam cities but the AI does then I will be wiped out.
+ only buidling cities 7 hex away from each other... so they eventually connect when the cities reach gigantic proportions... isnt enough!?
I was not aware that the game prevents me or the AI to construct cities closer than 7 hexes from eachother.