I like NTWs system, though I'd tweak it a bit. Basically, make every possible action available at any time except troop movement. Troop movement can only be done on your turn. So everyone should be occupied with something til their turn, and then they manage armies and you're pretty much good.
This is a small thing, but I think it could help with that "soul" stuff you were talking about. Aside from actual in game rewards, include cosmetic ones. Maybe the hero gets a special insignia on his armor or cloak. Maybe he gets a feather or a special banner to carry in any armies he works with. Maybe he just plain gets a medal. Giving a player control over that could be useful too, but my point is that these little cosmetic differences do a lot to make the game world feel personaliz
I will harp once more on my problems with emphasizing speed as a particular attribute. Mobility and speed are different things, and speed in most games usually does become relatively unbalanced. As has been mentioned, people who fight in heavy armor are trained and conditioned for it. They are not substantially slower in combat than people wearing less armor. However, they do maneuver slower and don't get into the places they need to be as quickly. Thus the difference between "speed"
Real world experience does not teach anyone new abilities. People do not magically learn spinning attacks by getting better with their weapons. In fact, more experience suggests simpler techniques rather than flashy fiddling. Pikes are vulnerable once you get in their range. But yes, they are superb weapons otherwise. That's what I mean; focus on how weapons interact with one another rather than any abstract RPs or any overly complex damage type matchings. Pike's are not as useful aga
If you noticed, I did make reference to other posts. Saying I didn't "read any of it" was an exaggeration. I was simply indicating that I wasn't going to go cross reference my opinions with others for a detailed an analysis of how my thoughts differed from theirs. I have perused this thread, saw some interesting ideas and seen some worriesome ones. So, technically, I lied when I said I didn't read any others in an attempt to avoid hearing how some idea had already been debated and 57% of peop
1. Too many absolutes. Even if they're dealing damage, they'll be losing morale with ten of their comrades dying. 2. Size should not automatically increase number of attacks. If the dragon is using its tail as a club, then that makes sense. If it's rearing up and attacking with both claws, then that's fair. But size should not arbitrarily give more attacks. A small thing that is skilled at using two weapons should have such a bonus, even against a large opponent. 3. Reach is a
I didn't read any of the previous posts, so some of this may have been mentioned. I will haphazardly arrange my thoughts by vague categories; it may not be very organized, but at least you'll know what I'm talking about. 1. Victory Conditions- This should be about breaking enemy morale. Destroying an entire army is somewhat unrealistic and rather silly. Also it makes investment in an army somewhat haphazard; all of it could be swept away in a single poorly arranged combat. Someone men
Perhaps not just extra time but also extra cost. Cost for importing materials/hiring freelancers etc. And additional time for the transit period.
Same boat as that earlier guy. I'd totally have preordered were I not flat broke. Any inclination on when the next entry point to the process might be?
I think this for battles at least; At the beginning of every battle, give the player the choice to have the sovereign lead the army from the front or direct from the rear. If they choose to lead from the front, they are susceptible to death. If they lead from the rear, they will automatically escape whatever it was would be lost. Benefits to either could be created, though obviously the sovereign leading from the front should be much more useful (perhaps to the point that lead