alexwilber

Ooh, I had another thought: [quote] Controlling the length of a tactical battle. We believe that users should have a lot of control over how in depth they want their battles to be. Should a tactical battle finish in less than a minute or should they last 2 hours? How do we make it so that players can control this?[/quote] How about having an option to vary the level to which armies are abstracted to single units? For example, for quick battles each ma

[quote]Combat Speed . Your combat speed determines how many “moves” / attacks you get during a particular turn. In the begging of Lord of the Rings, what makes Sauron such a bad ass is that he can attack so many units at once. He has, in game turns, an incredible combat speed.[/quote] I was about to post to comment on this, but found that Tridus and Nathikal have expressed themselves better than I was likely to. Essentially I strongly agree that a

It would also be good if participating in the majority of quests was genuinely optional. What I mean by that is that the player who doesn't like quests and mostly ignores them isn't at a significant disadvantage. Rather, focussing on quests is one of a number of possible strategic avenues. For example, player 1 might be busy paying exorbitant fees for heroes and expending a lot of magical power on equipping them, but in return get very powerful magical artifacts and allies from the qu

[quote] Complete it as in the OP, recruit the mom. Tell the mom where the egg is instead of getting it yourself. Might not get to recruit the mom, but get to see an opponent torn apart by a dragon. Vieuxchat's suggestion; you get it but the egg breaks, now mom is pissed at you. Keep the egg for yourself The egg hatches, and you get a better dragon for yourself The egg hatches, and it's a weakling The egg doesn't hatch,

[quote who="Denryu" reply="159" id="2476465"]Good news, thanks for the clarification. So since I am assuming that a "army resistance to ice spell" would indeed lower doamage from ice spells but would not afford any protection to a fire spell, there will indeed be damage types and resistance but just not at the unit design phase. Is that correct?[/quote] Sounds like it, which would be great news. I think that's all that most posters were hoping for.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="79" id="2473188"] A damage TYPE means (code-wise) means that there is a corresponding counter to it. No strategy game that I'm aware of does this.[/quote] Well dominions does. I'm a bit perplexed that you say it doesn't.

Frogboy: Having to carefully give frost resistance to all your units does indeed sound infuriating. However, how about still having multiple damage types but: - Magic resistance kits for units give resistance to all magical damage types, without exception (so no hassle) - There is still room for particular magical creatures (or units under spell effects) to have resistances or vulnerabilities, e.g. undead immune to cold, troops under Barkskin vulnerable to fire <p

Actually, this also reminded me of something I wanted to write before about Channeler design. I hope you won't mind me including it here, since I think those threads are kind of dormant now. I think the modified plans for channeler creation following the discussion here sound much better, which is great. However, all the options are essentially still bonuses to various stats, with attached thematic labels. I think there is room for some more thematic goodness, to really add to the exc

I also very much agree that it would be far preferable in my mind to have different kinds of damage. Having multiple distinct classes of things (damage types, units etc) leads to many more strategic possibilities and interest. I think having a wide variety of possibilities does not create confusing complexity, so long as it is all intuitive. For example, it would be intuitive that perhaps nature magic (if there is such a thing) might allow me to cast Barkskin on my troops to make them

Looks fantastic to me, good work. I wonder if it might be worth including poison as another damage type. Also, I wonder if it might be worth having armour protect against the different types differently (as in Dominions). Hence: Armour has full effect against Cold (though could be half to my mind) Armour has half effect against Fire Armour has no effect against Lightning I think this ad

Dominions 3 is a really fantastic game. I really hope that Brad takes some of the elements from it which I think are very well done (e.g. the damage system would be a good solution to the current debate). Also I think a lot of the people who are interested in Elemental would be likely to enjoy dom3 so I recommend looking into it. The forum at Shrapnel Games is very helpful (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138).