[HoneyBadger]

Endoperez, Edi, you're both blowing this thing way out of proportion. Yes, each nation might have different ways of going about magical labs, temples, etc. but-except for two nations, Pangaea and Man (and yes, your vision of a temple for Pangaea makes sense at 200 gold, but 200 gold temples to Man patently flies in the face of your very same vision)-they're all the same price, and they all do generic things. You don't have the Mictlan temple, you don't have the Agarthan lab, you have temple, lab. You use the presence of those two buildings to your advantage depending on your particular strategy-which includes which nation you decide on. They may represent different things to different people-which is what I was trying to illustrate above-but they're otherwise almost totally generic, and each one has to be capable of the same thing, plus national things, depending on the choices the player makes. Not that my argument about the nature of labs and temples has any real relevance, since they're already in the game. I just wrote an example for purposes of comparison-as perfectly valid a comparison as yours, Endoperez.
Edi, comparing adding one building which can be purchased by every nation in every era, to the gameplay of Space Empires 5 is patently ridiculous. You even state that you don't know about SE5 in your argument, and "afaik" you've never played it, so why are you even making it a part of your argument??? It's the moon being made of green cheese and the world being flat all over again. You've never been to the Moon and you've never seen the Earth from space, so you're going to argue about it with an astronaut? I haven't played SE5, but I've played a LOT of SE4 (infact I've exchanged emails with Aaron Hall on one occasion, he's a very nice man-SE3 is why I know about Shrapnel Games in the first place), and SE4 had dozens of buildings, hundreds if you count mods. SE5 certainly has that many and probably more, it's something I've researched extensively in preparation to buy it, and it IS micromanagement-hell, in a good way, mind you. (If you want to argue that, because I haven't played SE5 either, I don't know what I'm talking about, well you can, but you'll be undermining the base of your own argument, and as far as you know, maybe someday the Earth WILL be flat and the Moon WILL transform into green cheese.)
What I'm talking about is 1, as in a total of 3, specialized buildings, in addition to fortresses (which ARE distinct from one another). It wouldn't require any more programming than adding temples to the game right now would, because forges wouldn't be doing anything OTHER than what temples do, or labs, already. Ok, that might be a significant amount, considering all the units, but NOT every unit would be affected.

As far as construction being a little different from the other magic schools-it already is because of the ability to manufacture magical items in place of spells. Construction in the game represents technology combined with magic or fantasy elements, and if you haven't noticed, even without the presence of "working, everyday magic"(I refuse to believe that there's no magic whatsoever in this world, I think just maybe the server goes down a lot). I'm for making Construction more a part of a nation's life, more powerful and diverse, and the overall "intelligence" of our little computer people, more intelligent. If there's a discovery that would be blatantly obvious to a society capable of creating flying metal suits or iron dragons or even chainmail, crossbows, folded steel-or bronze for that matter, then they should be able to utilize it. I'm not talking big things like gunpowder or steam, I'm talking ancient-age, at best Greko-Roman, technology and it's equivalent, up through perhaps a handful of 13th through 16th century inventions. These are already present in the game, in the Arbelast(spring steel crossbow design, as compared to the Roman Arcuballista), which as far as I know was invented around the 14th century A.D. during the Cruisades. Certainly, the stirrup wasn't invented until a couple of centuries A.D. and they have to be present in early age or lances (perhaps not light lances, but definitely lances) would not function the way they do. I'd like to give nations the ability to create field artillery (not castle-smashing catapults/trebuche/mangonels, I'm talking scorpions, ballistas, Greek-fire throwers, and the like) and field fortifications-again not improving castle defenses, I'm talking ditches, rows of stakes, pitfalls, small-scale motte-and-bailey, etc. Eventually, I'd really like to see the ability to build bridges-and for those bridges to become another strategic element-into the game, but I think that will have to wait for a long time. All of those ideas, plus "magic tech" would be connected somehow to Forge, just like holding a dwarven hammer is somehow related to making a blood-soaked parchment more efficiently, as someone stated earlier (I expect the dwarven hammer allows for a cleaner kill, ala 19th century slaughterhouses).

By the way, not to complain too loudly-and I have NO complaints against Kristoffer or Johan or Illwinter itself, mind you-but I swear that, for all the often-vaunted "community of acceptance where you can have a voice and where your ideas can make a difference", I'm really finding that there's a great deal of stubbornness and opposition to any "new idea" that doesn't have to do with a gripe that goes back to Dom2 or even Dom1. I'm not some crazy person who's espousing adding 25 new buildings that each represent 1 unit for 1 nation, I'm trying to open up possibilities, make the game bigger and more fun. I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. I'm also NOT saying that this has to be done RIGHT NOW. I am fully cognizant of the size of Illwinter's development team, and atleast somewhat aware of the pressure they're under. And please NOTICE I'm also not saying that I'm RIGHT. I'm just making a suggestion that makes sense to me, as far as furthering the enjoyment, usefulness, and sense of the game-as in the way the game works making sense to me-and for all my troubles (creation is hard, and more hard the more complex the creation is-ask Kristoffer) I get something like a 500 word lecture on why I "might possibly be wrong because Ars Magica has something to say about how mages conduct their lifestyles" and other arguments which are plain contradictory, or at best personal interpretations which don't have a lot to do with the reality of the game. To me, what you have to say is more knee-jerk reaction and less intuitive, wise critique. I appreciate your trouble, Endoperez, it was an enjoyable read and you're an intelligent person, but I'm just as familiar with Ars Magica as you are, and I have always based my personal impression/interpretation of magic on-and compared Dom3 magic with-Ars Magica. There's no discrepancy between us. It's a good system. I just ask that you think about your arguments a little bit more as they pertain to Dom3, if you're going to argue against me.

Edi, what you fail to realize is that I'm your friend when it comes to being a watchdog against micro-management, NOT your enemy. I've certainly played as many or more strategy games per year that I've been alive, as you have, and a great many of those years I've spent designing games and systems and helping others design games and systems. I work with computers and complex systems for a living, infact. I have enough experience to be able to give a fair guestimate of the dangers and the rewards of adding or subtracting a given game-element.

And Edi, I'm intelligent enough and emotionally stable enough to understand and consider another's argument, without that argument being served with a gravy of sarcasm. If you have an opinion, please share it straight up. I'll give it more weight, I promise. I do agree with some parts of your rant that aren't hostile though, to a greater or lesser degree, but I also think that you could have made the same point without being extremely negative and off-putting.

If people have new ideas that might benefit the game (or even might not), I personally feel that those people should be encouraged and guided, not made to feel that everything is impossible (and not just impossible, the word used was "stillborn" which I consider not only negative but a tad repulsive when used to describe an idea I've invested a lot of time and effort into, for the hopeful benefit of everyone.). This is especially true in a very small community such as ours. We barely have a large enough population to sustain the production of fresh new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and discouraging the growth of that resource is just plain counter-productive.