vieuxchat

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="302" id="2633035"]Hehe, funny stuff. I bolded out some parts of your post, because those are the main "problems" with the WEGO system compared to the real turn based or turn/tile based systems. Quoting vieuxchat, reply 301So it's just a matter of taste ? I think that a We-Go system really adds to the usual You-go-We-go System : Less direct total control over everything in the battlefield (which can be a good thing. After all i

So it's just a matter of taste ? I think that a We-Go system really adds to the usual You-go-We-go System : Less direct total control over everything in the battlefield (which can be a good thing. After all if you're the sovereign you're not every citizen of your kingdom) Less chess-like reading of the game : you can't just count how many squares an opponent can travel to know exactly where to put your units. You have to evaluate what will your opponent do, so you hav

Or we could even create some group to keep going the gathering job. The only problem is a way for several persons to change the initial post. In fact I'll have some time in vacation and if some other people can help me gather things I can create a new post that I would update on a weekly basis. Maybe an RXG (Raven Xavier Group :P) : A Scribe : Someone to create the post and keep it clear (I can do it) Some Scouts : Some people to gather ideas and give them to

I just bought frozen synapse, a game with a bego system. And that's just the balst it seems to be. When you say the execution phase is automatic it's like saying that the attack of your units is automatic once you've clicked on the enemy. Whatis interesting is choices, decisions made. And in the planning phase you have a lot more decisions to do. Frozen Synapse for the win !

Shadowrun ! The mom's system is the one created with shadowrun (the p&p rpg) I finally remembered it :) And that's by far one of the most clever rpg system. Why re-invent the wheel ?

No it's not. In almost any TBS you say 'do this" and your unit do it. Your unit won't try to take cover before killing its target for instance. You still can do it, and micro everything, but your unit is like a "puppet". With indirect control and just "orders" they feel more alive, with their own agenda but trying to please you. In close combat the game was real time but slow enough to be like a WeGo system. Moreover a WeGo system is better to handle ambushes. In classic TBS if a unit

Well, that's just an idea. You could replace it by "You say what you want, and your soldiers "try" to do it". Sometimes I dream of a "Fantasy Combat Mission" with the tactical depth of Fantasy General, and graphics and mood of the Witcher.

Raven, I don't know you, but I'll miss you on the forum. I don't have time nor enough dedication to continue the awesome gathering job you've done, but know that I'll be looking forward for your – hopefully safe – return. Take care of yourself. PS: No need to say I hope we'll be battling each other (or against stronger forces :P) in a MP game of EWOM some day ;)

I played a game loooong time ago : UMS. Universal Military Simulator. You gave orders to your units, and the comp would do the job. And that was a real blast to play. That worked really well and I didn't feel at all effects you describe (like being unable to think if you don't see upfront what your units are doing). Yes, it need a little time to get the hang of it, but the outcome is so great. You add some "mindreading" to the game, instead of just playing advanced chess.

Why not indirect control ? Like in majesty : you don't give direct orders but give "goals" : you flag units you want to be dead fast, units you shoudl ignore, pincer flag (units that coudl pincer th eflagged unit will try to do so) burte charge flag, hit and run flag, etc ... Youwould only control your sov and heroes. Eery other unit would choose what they do thanks to your flags (take high ground, flee, help that unit in battle, etc..)

[quote who="Ziktur" reply="259" id="2632028"]i like bob's ideas on retreating. as i often plan on retreating after meeting an objective, i dont think the morale penalty for retreat should be too steep. i would much prefer to have to move my armys to the edge of the map or rally around the sov/champion or commander. before retreat is possible. i hate it when its just click the retreat button and see who didnt make it out. this way you could make tough decisions about which units cover your ret

And what about a system lik ein king's arthur ? You have Victory locations on the battlefield. If you control more Victory locations you start leeching morale from your enemy.

Yes, that's it. Frogboy explained in another interview that they will do it to let people choose how they connect to impulse::reactor. So if you already have a fb account you'll be able to connect through it. If you don't have a fb account you'll be bale to connect with a twitter account, or an impulse account. You have the choice. Moreover impulse::reactor doesn't need anything else to work. No third party software. The only thing a game designer need to do is to let stardock

But it doesn't get rid of the "you enter battle, your opponent flee, you enter battle 2, your opponenet flee, you enter battle 3, your opponent flee, etc." But ! You can get rid of with : a fleeing unit MUST have remaining movement points. So if you scout too far and finish your turn with no movement points, then your unit won't be able to flee.

And what about the system of king arthur : when you have a battle there is victory points on the battlefield. If you control more VP than your opponent you start gaining morale and your enemy loses some. That's a very good way to create active battles. But once you "know" a map, then you will be able to win whenever you want (or almost) So I vote for random generated maps and NO for losing morale after N turns. And I stringly disagree with WTA : if there's so much risk

[quote who="ddd888" reply="128" id="2629268"] [quote]Quoting LeBlaque, reply 109I'm not sure anyone saw my previous post, but after reading the last page of posts I'm more convinced that Stardock should implement TBS like Combat missions. Where you program the moves and actions of all your units and then submit your turn. ....After both sides put in their orders you can watch the result of the tactical battle for that turn. Little video showing how C

You may mute the music, but some games really shine if you let it on : planescape torment without music ? No way.

Neither. I'll try to create some kind of fellowship of the sov, with lots of heroes with powerfull abilities. My sov will be with them when they need, and otherwise at home.

The more I play games, the more I think music and sound are the most important part for immersion in a game. Even before visuals. Will there be "contextual" sounds and music ? Like you have lost a huge battle and your ennemies start taking your cities oe after another and the music score change for a dark composition.

Yes, those ideas are really good. Almost no micromanagement and lots of options. [e digicons]k1[/e]

It depends on how many mana costs any spell. At the moment a new city costs 5 essence. You satrt with 10. And teleport costs 5 mana, while mass heal costs 2. Some spells don't cost any mana at all (like reign of fire or a name like that) So 10 essence is a goodstart I think with the actual values, because you can save essence if you build new towns on the revived land. So with a bit a tweaking in the life spreading speed you could just spend the first 5 essence to build your first cit

you have 40 essence, you have 40 mana. You use 5 essence, then your essence (and mana) is at 35. And that's a good point in my opiion. If you want a great wizard then you'll have to spare those essence points (so less cities for instance).

[quote who="psychoak" reply="22" id="2621140"]Multiple problems. First, detaching essence from level up nukes choice in what kind of character you're building. If you want to be a tank from hell, you go crazy on beefing the hell out of your character by physical stat boosts instead of essence. If you get essence separately, you've made no such sacrifice and no longer need to choose between them. This is bad. Building a character is only a m

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="8" id="2620960"]So do you mean that you can place points into "magical research" upon level up (instead of essence) and then redistribute after level up? Or do you mean start the game with 10 points -> maybe you are stuck with your choice from then on ... with possibly a chance to increase essence. // In any case, I think we seem to agree that an essence "stat" as amount of essence gained per turn is favorable to gaining e

I wasn't clear enough : I think that's a good idea, and it would add an interesting option in the usual pacts/treaties/etc .. that would be a real way to be sure your allies will remain ... allies. Sometimes reality is a good teacher.