But Aren't Pointy Sticks All Alike?

I worry about this also... How everything seems to be leaning towards more and more generic...

Well, we gonna have elemental/magical dmg types [fire, ice etc.] and resistances as well. We had a long discussion about this a while ago btw, because many ppl were worried of the simplistic [civ4 style] system. So basically you will be able to mod in swords which will do ice dmg for example. You can mod in armors, which will offer ice resistance. etc.

Hell, I think that we will be able to mod in new dmg types or resistances as well, so even physical dmg types can be implemented imo. [Slashing, piercing, blunt etc.]

Yes, I remember the debates from a while ago, I just didn't see any progress or decisions yet. And while I think modding is nice, I am not interested in learning all the interesting things that I could mod into the game; I want modding to be for new exciting races, new graphics, or radically new rules.

I could mod many things into GC2, and I still didn't like the way that each unit was, basically, the same.

I am interested in the way the basic ruleset of the game will differentiate between units. I find the combat in CivIV to be more interesting, so far, than what I see under the hood here, because CivIV has unit types.

Think of it like this, if you want: You can make an RPG with classes (like D&D, or Dragon Age): these classes are disjunctive and each member of the class has special abilities. Many MMORPGs are like that. Or you can make a classless system, like e.g. Arcanum, or the HEROES system. If you choose the latter, you will need a robust and differentiated way of assigning abilities and attributes, for balance reasons. I think Elemental is in danger.

I think Elemental is in danger of going the latter path (classless system) but with the mechanical paucity of the first.

Ok so you mean the following? -> [Example] Pikemen should gain bonus[es] vs. mounted units?

BRad already said he doesn't want a system where you would be screwed if you don't choose the right counter. All your army is bludgeoning ? And the opponent don't have anything to protect against it ? Too bad.

So instead of damage type, weapon should have special abilities or bonuses in some situation

Sticks, lances, spears should get a bonus to initiative and when you attempt to do someone fall.

Maces should have a bonus against shields.

Etc... each weapon should only give situational benefits, then you can't be screwed.

Have to reply since I can't subscribe to thread.

Yes I know that we won't have physical dmg types in the vanilla game, but we can mod those in, if we want. However, we gonna have elemental dmg types and resistances as well in the vanilla game. It's been confirmed IIRC...as for bonuses, I absolutely agree...hopefully we gonna have those in the vanilla game. I think that the devs haven't said anything about this so far.

What we ended up doing is weaseling on the issue entirely and deferring it until the combat phase of the beta (beta 4).

As a result, code-wise, every type of weapon and defense has potentially many different types of attacks and counters.

Then, when the combat beta comes up, we can decide which types of attack types and counters we actually want to have in there as opposed to looking at it theoretically.

I would also like to see some differentiation along these lines.  I don't want the situation where you're screwed if you built the wrong kind of unit, but I do want to see the game encourage combined arms.  The game should encourage well balanced armies - a core of infantry, cavalry for rapid response and charges, pikemen to protect against enemy cavalry, archers in the rear, skirmishers for harassment, etc.  That's only possible if different equipment imparts different bonuses/penalties.  Polearms should provide bonuses against cavalry, armour should slow down the combat speed of troops, etc.  Otherwise, armies will just consist of one unit type.

It's still early in development though, so I'm optimistic that it's the direction things will go.  Tactical battles aren't even in yet, so there probably hasn't been much motivation for them to hurry on implementing this particular aspect.

Edit: Ah, Brad beat me to it.  Sounds reassuring.

@Frogboy

you do not have an internally combat system already?

grrr pigeons

Since you have played StarCraft II and have experienced the soft counters (Protoss Stalkers vs Zerg Zerglings.) Zerglings beat Stalkers cost for cost but after Blink (teleport half a screen away) is researched, Stalkers can beat quite some Zerglings IF your micro is up to it though Stalkers still can't beat swarms of them.

Though I don't know how to incorporate such softcounters in a TBS....

Having a rock paper scissor susyem would be a bad choice. I mean, not really bad, but too easy, too cheesy. I would like instead of hard/soft counters to get tactics counters : fatigue, terrain and morale. Pikemen would be good because hey get a bonus in attack as high as the number of squares needed to reach the pikemen (fast = damage), but in close combat they would get a speed penalty. Instead of just "pike good vs cavalry", the pikmen would organically be good against it because they deny their movement bonuses.

Oh, I'm not advocating that, I actually disliked that part of GalCiv2.  I just want different types of units to have different roles on the battlefield, and that's only possible if there are somewhat more sophisticated distinctions between them.  The example you give is a good one.

We do.  The system supports lots of attack modifiers and defense modifiers and such. We just don't include any so that we can see what ones we would actually want in there.

In my mind, combined arms is crucial to the game's success.

In Elemental, how you set up your armies should matter.

So somehow, between now and later, we have to make sure there are very definitive mechanics for archers, swordsmen, calvalry, siege units, magic users, support units, etc. 

Otherwise, tactical combat becomes just a matter of throwing identical units at each other.

I like this approach.

Ohhh...

That's awesome. Negative charge modifiers. Effectively, an "inertia modifier", applicable for both Lances and Spikes. Cavalry with Lances would also have damage bonus if they move a lot.

You would have to choose the lenght of such weapon to determine who has First Strike.

Hum.. How about macemen and swordsmen.. what would be special about them..?

Then come wizards. Do you use them as troop-support, or as Agent of Death in their own right? Should a wizard be the equivalent of a machinegun?

Most likely, a lot of this will appear once tactical combat is also going to appear, because its going to matter more. The stuff we have right now is a a skeleton, there's a lot of details to be fleshed out.

Personally I think it'll be done with things like weapon modifiers and abilities, but we'll see. Don't worry, the final product won't be as simple as it is now.

Swordsman are the "basic" unit. They do everything, but not at a high level : they move fairly well, don't rout easily, etc. Their weapon would get a bonus in to making bleeding damage. And a bonus to instant kill (use efficiently you don't need a strong power to get your knife through someone chest)

Macemen would get a malus in damage, but damage would be less lethal (and the system need som ekind of vital/non vital damage) and so you could capture units. Macemen also have a shock effect.

Those kind of options ...

@ Brad: That seems fair enough! Thank you for clearing me up.

@ Vieuxchat: Certainly I was not advocating paper-scissors-rock; more along the suggestions that were given here (e.g. mace is good vs. shield, spear is good while defending, etc.) -- only wanting to point out that implementing this would require flags flagging a unit's or a piece of equipment's attributes as belonging to a class.

Devs already said that you can add how many flags as you need on items.

What I hope is that it will be in use in the vanilla game, and properly used.

I still say that maces and hammers should be able to ignore armor in some way ... just from a weapon variation.

But yes, Combined Arms being a mechanical interest in optimizing gameplay ... I like this more, even though I still think weapons should be diverse

Honestly though, with the weapons currently available, I think the melee (sticks n bladed) seem to currently be of an interesting (enough) diversity.

Different armor types, maces and hammers ignoring leather armor makes sense, although someone that's never seen real leather armor would be surprised at how tough it is, but not plate mail.  The heavy stuff is seriously resiliant.

Indeed, reinforced leather armors were good in resisting slashing damage [swords]. Personally I would like to play Elemental with a "physical dmg" mod, which offers slashing, piercing & blunt/crushing dmg types. I know that we can mod these in, the question is the following: The AI will be able to use these new dmg & resistance types properly?

It would be easy to AI if you set the damage with some "stance". You need slaves ? Use blunt damage. You need kills ? Use slash and piercing (piercing being the most effective way to kill someone).