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

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.

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.

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.

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.

grrr pigeons

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.

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.

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?

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 ...

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.

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.

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).