lwarmonger

Continous turns are just that. Turns that are taken simultaniously and continuously until one pauses. Once you pause you can issue orders. It is an unusual concept but not unheard of. If you play paradox games, those run in continous time, not real time. A bit different from continous turn based, but somewhat similar. I think you'll see when it comes out that continous turn based tactical battles will be a perfectly all right system once they get thing

Yep. I guess for this to work you'd need some kind of initiative mechanic, with armies from neighboring tiles being involved in one titanic battle. Such a thing has been executed before, but my guess is that it is unlikely to be done here. Not enough medieval battles lasted longer than one day to justify it (now if this were civil war time frame then absolutely).

[quote who="Ron Lugge" reply="21" id="1939794"]As far as multiple weapons go, don't forget that it's possible to train a given force to use multiple weapons as part of one singular doctrine. For example, the Roman's had a light javelin called a Pilum that they would throw at the enemy just before they closed to melee range (from what I recall, the tip was made of a soft lead, and it would penetrate an enemy shield and then bend, rendering the shield useless, and prevent the enemy from r

Interviews and statements by Stardock do seem to indicate that terrain will change based on who occupies it and what their alignment is.

[quote who="Tamren" reply="8" id="1939576"]Its possible to crosstrain troops into different weapons. The problem is the skills and experience for using one weapon will atrophy if not constantly excercised. It would make a lot more sense if we could train all of our recruited soldiers a bit in many different weapons, then pick the ones that excel and form them into specialized units. Plus it would allow us to differenciate between different weapons in terms of how hard they are to l

Units should not be able to switch weapons after creation (at least not easily). Why? Because training is going to be an important part of unit creation. Units would only be trained on the skills and doctrine necessary for the weapons they are equipped with. A swordsman would not have the necessary training to form a pike phalanx, while a pikeman would not be a good longbowman. Changing a units weapon should not be possible unless it is taken back to a city, demo

I agree completely that Stardock is a solid company that really supports and listens to its customers, however no morale is a game breaker for me. The second I hear that morale is included I'll be wipping out my credit card and ordering, however I have made it a rule not to purchase games that represent troops of this era but don't represent morale. That means a large number of RTS's are out, and has saved me a great deal of time and frustration since I implemented. I am wil

[quote who="lamperti" reply="13" id="1939468"]I wish people would stop saying that real-time with pausing is the same as turn based, or that they want the battles to be resolved quickly. The first is just not true, and the second devalues the tactical game. Real-time with pausing is not the same as turned based. It's a completely different feeling. Turn based allows, and enforces thinking about each move, which is what I want to be able to do, real-time with pausing has me s

Normally weren't weapons and armor seized and either used by the taker (if they were of a proper size and better than what the taker had) or sold? Given the way that the aftermath of most battles went the only piece of the pie that the ruler gets is his allotted share of the ransoms for prisoners. Gear just tends to be walked off with.

I loved Seven Kingdoms AA... unquestionably one of the best (and most underrated) RTS's ever made. Too bad its successors didn't live up to the original though.

Sanity is relative. We should call them "rationally challenged."

Hmm... I guess my playing style is such that I generally don't upgrade designs until my previous designs are hopelessly obsolete anyways. I'll send my guys into combat with Sherman style spaceships while my enemy is fielding Abrams simply because if it was good enough for them to start the war with it should be good enough for them to end it with too!

Isn't that the way it worked in Galciv 2? I've been playing a game over the past few days, and the more advanced my weapons get the smaller and more powerful they become. I don't see how advancing tech wise in galciv is bad for you in any way when it comes to your weaponry.

Personally I think this might be best applied to the field of the military and magic. Over time an infrastructure is built up to support a certain national specialty which gives a nation a specific advantage in the field of warfare or magic. This is both realistic and enoyable, as it enables you to get a feel for the nation that you are playing. Changing from one to another should not be easy or quick, as a nation that could quickly change its specialty from one thing to ano

I like the whole doctrine idea as it gives your nation some flavor with its soldiers that it wouldn't have otherwise. Kind of like the British Ship of the Line, the Spanish Tercio, the Roman Legion or the Macedonian Pike Phalanx, these options would give you a feel for your nations "competetive advantage" in the field of warfare... and give us more of a feel for what our countries military tradition is like.

But life isn't a system where you can go in, a nation state can learn the system and then beat everyone else indefinately. It isn't about luck, but about the difference between crass calculation and the art of war. A player can be very good at a system that takes these things into account (we call these players Gudarian, Manstein, Zhukov, Patton, to name a few WWII examples), and an organization can be very good at implementing systems to maximize its advantages and take adva

But not at the cost of morale. Morale is an absolute must in a game like this, and not having it would be a real game breaker. To be quite honest, lack of confirmation on unit morale being represented in the game is the only reason why I am holding off on the pre-order.

Well, the difference between regular knights (heavily armored mounted warriors born and raised in a warrior tradition) and peasants should be huge... but so should the cost, both initially and ongoing. A knight consumed far greater resources than a peasant on a daily basis. And if the shock effect of the knight can be blunted, then those peasants are a much better deal in terms of cost. Personally that is one thing I really want to see. The situational strengths of s

Perhaps it is better to think about this in a different way. Instead of thinking how things are in a game, think of how things are in real life. As a commander leading men into combat, you have access to two types of information. Quantifyable, and not-quantifyable. I can count how many tanks and infantrymen I am going to be able to put into the field with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and my scouts, satellites and aerial observation can also usually get an idea of w

Ok, I probably should have said "most games that I have played that do have multiple layers do generally have options not to have them." [e digicons]:blush:[/e]

Total War is combat done quite simply and intuitively. If one wants simpler combat than that they should probably be looking into shallower games than Stardock customarily puts out.

Well, most games that do have multiple layers do generally have options not to have them. This is one thing that shouldn't be too hard to option in, but not have in all games as it is largely a map generation thing.

Most fantasy games and worlds approach things from the premise that humanity is the most common species and dominates by virtue of its numbers. Most games don't stay true to that initial premise however, and by end game you have next to no regular humans in your armies. I really don't think that human masses should become obsolete, but that is exactly what having huge quantities of nonhumans in your armies will do.

Yeah, Rome's system was fairly lacking as you weren't connected to the characters at all. This is something I hope VV will solve, much the way Deus Vult solved a lot of problems for CK.

Agreed. Having characters come alive in a strategy game is not something that is easy to do, but has the potential to be great fun, especially if the character is given some, but not all control over character development. That was one thing I really liked about Crusader Kings, was that you had a stake in the development of your dynasty. I really am looking forward to EU: Rome Vai Victus, as I want to see characters in your court have their own agendas while you squabble w