zigzag

To what extent are the tactical battles obviously rule driven? ie. Do units move in uniform increments of squares/hexes? What sorts of formal elements call attention to the game as a game with its own rules (and not a simulator which strives for realism)? etc. (RTS's are just as just as rule driven, it's just harder to see what goes on under the hood.) [quote]Simultaneous Turns is superior. [/quote] Simultaneous turns != continuous turns.

Why did the Elemental team choose this over a more conventional turn-based system?

One unit per unit. I believe it's a square based system, but there's no grid. Large units are larger (they have a larger radius). http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/a/age_of_wonders_ii_patch-289399-1253168962.jpeg

Just pre-ordered. :-D

It would be done so that it wouldn't give away intelligence on your enemy for free, right?

[quote]So what about "Ubermensch" (supermen) that happen to be in your army? You know, Fredrick Neitzsche style.[/quote] Artists don't make particularly good soldiers. ;-)

[quote]Most of the worthy games were already mentioned, so I will bring to your attention a game that is maybe not that VERY hardcore, and by many treated as a fail game, the Star Wars: Rebellion! Apart from it's dated graphics and a few little issues, this is the only game that feels like controlling an Empire/Rebels, with all of awesome crafts, troops & heroes. Just check it out.[/quote] Yeah, it's awesome aside from the terrible UI, terrible AI, and balan

Starcraft. Unique sides. Competitive balance. Unmatched polish. Excellent singleplayer campaigns. Largest multiplayer community.

It worked in X-com because you only had a dozen squaddies at a time. Try micromanaging thousands.

[quote]So your argument is,if its something used just by few games or unused so far,its not good ? You dont want any new idea to be implemented ? You basicly want all games to be copies or mix of those games you named?[/quote] Yes. [b]No[/b] new changes. Maximum four players and clunky interfaces. [e digicons];P[/e] But seriously, these examples demonstrate only it's not absolutely [i]necessary[/i] (although it still might be a good idea). Obviousl

Why not just increase the defense for units that can squirrel around and not get hit? Or create a special ability that does this?

[quote]It is not TBS nor RTS for tactical combat. It's continuously turn based instead. Check out a discussion in the General area too.[/quote] Ugh. That's horrifying. I thought continuous turns meant 'simultaneous turns'. Not Diablo with a pause button. I'd have to reconsider the zone of control/attack of opportunity debate. I'm not sure either work in real-time. As for the rest, generally, I think that the number of attributes should be kept to a minimum where special

But it's a TBS, not an RTS. Why should the amount of time matter? If I spend more time nervously clicking on a unit's profile, why should that decrease the in-game length of the battle?

Here's the argument in a bit more detail: (1) It adds unnecessary complexity to the game. Fantasy TBS's get along fine without it. (Play any one of MoM/AoW/HoMM/Dominions/Battle for Wesnoth, if you don't believe me.) (2) It creates a non-magical alternative, cheapening the value of that magic.

A couple thoughts. - The turn limit should be higher, unless units have very high lethality. - No 'zone of control system'. Enemies moving through (out of) a square adjacent to an enemy melee unit should give up an attack of opportunity. - Attacker and defender should attack simultaneously (if possible), unless one unit has 'first strike' and the other unit does not also have 'first strike' or 'negate first strike'. Generally, cavalry should have 'first strike' and pol

Nope. Want more movement? Caste a haste spell.

[quote]Building a new improvement in your city takes L turns for the labor plus S turns based on the supplies needed. So a fancy estate that increases the prestige of your city may take 10 turns to build due to labor + an additional 2 turns to get the 4 stone needed to construct it. Improvements also have an up-front cost that is the labor (in turns) X A for the labor cost per turn (typically 10.0). So that estate would cost 100 gold to build because it takes 10 turns of labor.[/q

[quote]I’ll be posting some greater detail as to how a Call to Arms system might work.[/quote] Can you post an executive summary?

MoM and AoW have six or seven meaningful statistics, depending on how they are counted. HoMM and KB have a few more. None of these have particularly shallow tactical combat mechanics. The total number is deceptive because none of these progress beyond a ATT/DEF/(DAM)/RES/HP/MP/MOV/(INIT) system. Special abilities add most of the flavor. All of the games mentioned above can comfortably handle the examples raised at the beginning of this thread. Elemental combat doesn't need to reinvent the whe

Ever wonder why they never made a video game starring Rambo's enemies?

Repetition should be eliminated through environmental mechanics, not research mechanics. Elemental should have a dynamic enough environment that it's impossible to theory-craft a perfect progression through the tech tree. The contingencies of a particular world should mean that certain technologies are more/less viable than others in that world (although not other worlds). I agree that situational techs can be fun. However, any random techs should be additions to the mainline tech tre

Well, if true, there goes any chance of my developing a social life in the next five years.

[quote]... what about basically the same system, only with the branching visible one level inwards... [/quote] Players should have the option of aiming for [i]specific[/i] high level technologies.

[quote]although I may be losing the audience here...[/quote] Actually, you lost it after 'blind tech progression'. :-p I think the problem with the system you presented is that it eliminates the sort of determinism required for strategic decisionmaking. If players pursue particular lines of tech progression, then they should be appropriately punished/rewarded for that choice. Random elements should be additions to non-random core mechanics.

How random is random? Predictability isn't always a bad thing.