Way to insult anybody who disagrees with you, guy!  After all, who cares about respecting different tastes and perceptions?  Or even approaching reality? 

Diablo, indeed.

Limboldt has some valid concerns. Let me explain how I see them:

Sometimes an AI goes on a quest. That can leave what looks like an available quest on the map, but it is in actuality taken. My perception: minor UI issue, fine for release.

Who died at Stardock and took with them the knowledge of GalCiv2? This was a standard feature from then that I have asked for several times. My perception: Bothers the hell out of me. Had better be fixed before release.

Your own inability to plan for getting a new unit is your strategic and tactical mistake. My perception: Learn from your weakness and become strong. This is an important game rule and should not be changed.

This was fixed recently. Not sure anyone else has this issue. Please report pics if it persists in the latest version.

Never seem this reported. Please post pics and computer specs if this is happening.

You want to ride your troops through foreign lands and their cities? No one and I mean no one would let you do that in this time period. My perception: Go around or take the city.

I posted about preventing rush strategies with more city defense. The devs added it within a day. More defense is probably coming too. My perception: It's still too easy to rush. Won't be noticed, except by skilled users. Up the difficulty or play my mod that increases city defense.

There are several pregame settings to control monster density. If you personally need more to make the world feel alive, increase the settings.

Yes they do. Take some time and read about them. Try out each one with the multitude of different game strategies. My perception: You might be missing some of the nuances of each faction and how to spell it.

Faction power is a good indicator of how strong an enemy's economy and military strength is. But you also need to be scouting those near you to gain intelligence about them. 

Overall it seems like you have a few personal tastes that are not quite met and most of them come from not being challenged. The vanilla game is designed for less experienced users. Mods are where someone like you can have more fun. Come release day I will be releasing a hardcore mod for advanced users. It increases AI difficulty, adds content, livens the world, makes the world more dangerous, gives character to lairs, improves diplomatic strategy, adds more differentiation to factions, makes city defense immensely strong. That is just the stuff you mentioned, but the mod does alot more. You will probably like it considering your major problems with the current beta. The vanilla version is not the end of the game. It is only the beginning.

Could you be more specific?

I keep a tight handle on game ideas. Most people that make suggestions that sound good don't have a good grasp on what is possible with the current game. The ones that are good make it into my mod. Like more summons and city defense for example.

It was the Humble Inn directly beside my Capital.

I did not journalize exactly what happened when, that is correct, my primary aim was to get an feeling what changed in the last month.

But there were two quests that run strange I remember: One with an assasin sword, I got the sword directly and eqiuped it and when I killed the last person I was told to get the sword, when I entered the location again nothing happened, when I changed the weapon the sword disappeared.

On the other quest I was told to gain Crystals. I killed a lot of these "Crystal-beasts", returned to the location and nothing happened, the quest was still active in my quest log without further explanaition.

I do not see that as strategic aspect, the game could have also placed the tamed animal under my army as second army instead directly in front of an enemy army. Yes, I want challenge, but also I expect of a prime software game product gaming comfort for the player.

But ok, of all my points that one I would declare as a minor aspect.

OK, you try to come me with that realism-thing...

One scout. I send one scout. Should be possible for him to pass a citiy.

I see your point, and yes you could also say the AI placed its City intelligent so that I can not get in his territory at all, but on the other hand that is exactly what such a deal comprise: travelling with armies through other people lands. I do not think that political aspects prevent me from crossing cities, I think it is only bad programming. Elsewise their would be another Treaty like "Travelling with armies".

And I had this problems in earlier version, that I could not pass my own Cities using my streets, because the maximum number of units was positioned there.

I played challenging with dense monsters.

But this is not what makes a world vital.

In Civ for example you can smell politic, interests, aims, intrigue, betrayal, plans.

I have no Idea what is going on in this world of FE. Anyway not what is promised in the intro.

OK, as long I can run easily into their cities regardless what they think or how many points they have, perhaps you may be right that I am to barbarian to have been thinking about the nuances


 

I would not mind if allies could pass through towns, but I think as you hinted, the code for being in a town is probably linked to passing through it. It's something you might champion for the expansion. Alliances do need some incentive. 

I also see what you mean now about the lack of political intrigue. There are events and quests I want to add when we have more control over diplomacy with modding. That will have to wait a bit I think. For what we can do, I have a much more intense diplomacy system. It makes diplomacy something you have to focus on as a primary strategy, not a side note. Since most people will be at war, he that can manage peace has a huge advantage. It be a fair criticism that we don't have much complexity in the diplomatic sphere.

That`s right, It`s like with Endless Space, not everything is possible.

Perhaps it is mainly my frustration that this should really be the finished game that will come out in some days.

I already bought Elemental and waited a very long time for a full game and I expected a thing that feels more like a finished game after all that time.

Civ 5s Diplomatic system is not robust, that is right, but in the Civ-games you most of the time know where the others stands, what are their aims, in which direction the world is moving. They speak with you, try to involve you in battles, comment your actions, they show precense, they PLAY with and against you. The role of the other fractions, or lets say the manner they act, react or deal with you is for my taste a little bit to pale.

For example I get funny comments in FE, like "the time of cities is over", or he "has shinies, lets take the shinies from him", or sth. like "lunch is coming my way", but sometimes there is missing action appropriate to this. When my Level 20-Hero is running around, five Level 1 -Mites will definetly do not get any shines and it is not Lunch-time. And when the time of cities is over why nobody attacks my undefended cities?

But that is what gaming is all about:

Feelings, illusions,

We all now that everything is only based on algorythm and scripts and most games when you learned them to play very good or played them to often, you know what will happen when you do x or y.

Master of Orion 2 had a very good illusion, but It was very easy to bribe your opponents with presents.

In Civ V for example you have town states. When you know that another Civ has close relations with such a state he will react when you show interest as well or attack this state.

When you are war with another Civ there is a real WAR.

In FE, I declare war, conquer a city and often nothing happens after that.

Today I conquered a city of an opponent who had stonger units then me.

I conquered his city with a wild army of tamed beasts and champions.

In 2 hours he sent TWO units and talked not one time to me, threatening, supplications, anything.

I left the city alone only with two units in it and conquered two more cities.

Nothing.

Hello? Anybody there in the Lands of FE?

Yes Civ V is in many aspects "only" above average, but playing and the illusion is altogether fun and vital.

In older versions of FE (did not try this out in 0992, but I saw there are new options for this in the game) I often

asked stronger AIs to give up after conquering some towns and most of the time I was succesful.

That are the reasons why I say: Give me a more vital world, meaning a more vital, active AI and "political Acting and Evolution".

Well I for one welcome someone to talk about the lacking diplomatic feel. My personal opinion is that since there are only two or so people designing the diplomatic system, they have lost perspective. It's frustrating because as I look into the xml, I see loads of potential for diplomatic interactions. But many of them are not fully implemented.

Now, there is credence to the fact that diplomacy is not the main focus of the game. I seem to remember that Derek has mentioned that his design is for simple, but meaningful interactions, as opposed to a Crusader of Kings focus. But even within that spectrum, some opportunities have been neglected. Alliances and Non-Aggression Pacts don't even work as of the last patch. Someone needs to tell us that will be fixed by 1.0. During war it is too hard to get peace because the AI is looking at your power score. Not how the war is going. Nor do they have a goal for each war. It's not a city they want, it's genocide. It would be so much nicer to have the AI go to war for a resource or city it thinks it can win. The AI is sophisticated enough to do this, but we are looking at a rough draft of that. And once war is over, it's not over. Empires don't go to war forever. Hell, we seceded from England and are now great allies. So why does going to war in FE cause a relations penalty that never goes away? It should be there for maybe 20 years at the most. After 80 turns, who even remembers?

I could rant about ways to improve diplomacy, but I know Brad handles most of that and I am going to start the topic after release when he has time to talk about it. Here is a short list of easy changes:

More refinement of relations in different stages of the game: +1, 3, 6, 9 to relations with like minded Kingdoms or Empires over time. Results in a realm war, not total war.

More of a logical cost to peace, based on relations. 0 to -4 should be 200-800 gildar. A tidy sum, but affordable if you want to buy out.

More options for peace: Offer a city or outpost, offer tribute, offer non-aggression pact, offer free movement in ZoC. Need 8:1 ratio of Faction Power to get some of these, but it adds incentive to do so when your enemy is broke or broken.

Close borders: -4 relations, causes historical checkerboard of allies. Requires 10 tiles of touching border.

Enemy of my enemy: +6 relations, causes the historical checkerboard of allies. Allows for immediate war to supersede border conflicts.

We are at war: -10 to relations, goes down by one every turn, simulates war weariness and economic strains for diplomacy.

You declared war: -6 relations, goes down to 0 over 80 turns.

Your faction power is higher: Moved to percentages that matter instead of being one point above your competitor. Anything less than +25% power is a foolish time to lord it over someone. Double power is the only time one should declare war. Unless it is for a specific goal that is undefended. 

Buying a declare war: Needs double faction power or checks to see if that faction is someone that they should want to declare war on.

Quests that can manipulate relations added to random events. Diplomatic victory should be mostly based on Star Trek:TNG type quests where you settle diplomatic disputes and gain favor with powerful factions. Even ones that might not seem your natural allies.

I agree that diplomacy is very under-developed, as I mentioned above.  But let's be fair, Limboldt: who can forget that in all Civ games (except the fourth), an AI who liked you a lot would suddenly do a hairpin turn and tell you they hated you, and immediately declared war?  Calls for help during war to allies often went unheeded, and you yourself could supply a single unit without hurting an allied relationship.  And diplomatic options have been pretty modest in the Civ titles.  And for all that Civ leaders play a bit differently, I never felt they had the sharpness of profile in this respect that I can get out of SMAC and FE.  Kraxis doesn't play like Magnar, who doesn't play like Tarth, who doesn't play like Pariden.

That said, I do feel this is the real weak point now of FE.  (More could and should be done with spells, but what's there is pretty good.)  So much can be added along those lines.  Like Seanw, I've thought long and hard over it--but sadly, diplomacy is probably the single element most players (and all too frequently reviewers) overlook in a strategy game, and that's probably why it's left to last to get right.  (If ever.  I don't thing AoW ever got that down.)  You can get by with poor diplomatic options and strange AI choices, as long as you have a solid mix of combat, a good UI, depth to the game mechanics, an interesting assortments of rules that allow each opponent to play a somewhat different game, etc.  It's pretty clear to me that FE is at that point. Could it be better?  Certainly.  But given Stardock's record on all but one of its previous games, I expect there to be significant improvements to the core product before it ever acquires an expansion.  In the meantime, I at least find much to enjoy in what's here.

That is what I feel about the whole Elemental world.

Someone had the plan to make a big big big game and had to realize that time, ressources and possiblities will not last for the whole package.

But we still see the switches he impelementd to control all this.

@Mmm  Please remember we want to keep an environment where people feel comfortable giving their opinion on the game.

@Lim. I'm sorry you don't like the game.  If you bought War of Magic prior to release, you get FE for free.  

I think there may be a language issue here.  It appears there are certain features that you think a strategy game should have that FE doesn't have and therefore you don't feel its "finished" as a result.  All I can say is that those features you mentioned are ones that I certainly agree would be nice to have but they were never planned.  

The other things you mention we'll just have to agree to disagree.