[quote]I think that makes sense, many monstrous creatures (dragons) should have a high overland map speed, but I wouldn't want to see them with high tactical speed.[/quote] Why wouldn't a dragon have a high tactical speed? I can't imagine many creatures a dragon couldn't run down. I actually think a dragon is a good example of a fast creature with a slow attack.
This would be a good fix. I find that I get impatient waiting for the combat to finish, so I have a tendency to just hit the autoresolve button. I then kick myself when that results in a unit or two dying.
I'm still the only one? Nobody else is having trouble running down creatures in the wild? Am I missing something?
[quote]Would #2 From here Work? https://forums.elementalgame.com/394258 Lee[/quote] It would be better since it moves closer to simultaneous moves. It at least eliminates the huge discrepancy between being on offense versus defense. In particular, I don't think it is ok that every ranged unit and spellcaster gets to take multiple shots at a target before it can do anything. I mean, that basically means that your sovereign can be elimina
[quote]But they really didn't want the overland speed to affect tactical speed.[/quote] I can understand that. They are not always related. At the farthest end of complexity, it would be a separate stat. Since we need to combine stats to keep the game manageable, what makes the most sense from a design/logic/esthetic viewpoint? A. Combat Movement is more closely related to overland movement. B. Combat Movement is more closely
I guess I am wondering how on the fringe is this idea. What do people think? Are any of the devs considering this? What about the multiplayer community? This would really streamline the downtime for that, yet still preserve (or enhance) the turn based tactical nature of combat. For me, MP without it is basically unplayable. If it comes to down to it, what about people in the modding community? I
I guess you would just total up the attack, defense and mana. For other stats, what do you think about taking the best stat from any of the party? It's either that or average it. For APs, it seems like taking the leading stat would be best. I guess this method would reward stacking a spellcaster with a few fighters. Multiple spellcasters would lose out on APs and casting opportunities.
Does anyone have an opinion on option number three? After some more thought, I think this is the way to go.
Another way to go is to greatly increase his reputation, so that you can't marry him until much later.
[quote]Aside from being an all around bad game mechanism, linking movement speed with attack speed and casting speed is simply ludicrous and anti-intuitive idea. Not sure who came up with that idea or how they came to a consensus on it.[/quote] No, I can see why they did it. The concept of having a single pool of APs that you can use to move and attack is really good. It's simple, it's elegant. I think the devs knew what they were doing there. I just think t
I don't mind that they released it early. It means I get to play, and they got some cash. I just hope they keep the development going as strongly as they do now. If that is the case, then I will be happy. Also, it wouldn't hurt if one or two of my dare-i-say brilliant ideas that I have scattered around the forums eventually made it into the game.
I like this idea. Assuming the healing works just like other squads, then nobody dies unless the entire unit is wiped out. It seems like a good way to help keep your sovereign and favored champs alive.
First off, I love this game. I love stardock. I love the developers. I have been literally obsessed with this game and the forums. Thanks to the devs for the hard work and this lovely game. With that said, now it's time for some light hearted mockery of some design decisions. I really don't understand how equipping a shortsword will allow my characters to move faster and cast more spells. Without a shortsword, I can move 1 square, but with it I ca
One major gripe with squares is that you can move/shoot farther in some directions. There is a pretty simple fix for this. Every other diagonal costs two movement points instead of 1. Once you start doing that, all your range calculations start to resemble a circular perimeter. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Also, since this game uses action points, they could just have diagonal movement have a 1.44 cost multiplier.
[quote]Simultaneous turns in tactical combat, which essentially means a D&D-like combat system (Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc) was actually the original planned implementation of tactical combat in Elemental. But, according to SD, they didn't like how it came out, so they changed it to turn based instead. I partly think the time it took to make the change ended up stinging them a bit, since it left less time to make a real smooth turn-based combat system.[/quote] Is there
[quote]Why do you want to turn one of the first real tactical turn based games in the last decade into yet another RTS?[/quote] Just to be clear. I am not advocating an RTS style. I would hate that and I agree that is not the right direction. What I am talking about in a turn based combat system that is resolved simultaneously. So, each individual turn would look very much like it is today, with the exception that they are all resolved
I think your other thread would be a great improvement. I would greatly prefer that over the current system. One thing I am looking for is to maximize strategic decisions divided by time. I also want to maximize time spent making decisions versus time spent watching/waiting. This will be critical if you ever want to play multiplayer. If you look at the possible systems in that light. Simultaneous turns really maximizes thos
There seems to be a thread like this over in the ideas section: https://forums.elementalgame.com/392880 Maybe if we combine the threads, we can get some more momentum on this subject.
Ok, so am I on a boat out here by myself? Nobody else is excited by the idea of a tbs tactical battle game that has simultaneous moves? Nobody is thinking ahead about how painful multiplayer is going to be while the other guys ploddingly move their units one at a time? Wouldn't you rather be planning out the entire battle field while your opponent is doing the same? If you are interested, please give a shout out. We w
Really? I'm the only one that has this problem?
In some ways I like the combat the way it is. I like the idea that a weak attack char could still damage someone with really high armor. I also like the idea that combat is dangerous, and it's possible to get instakilled, even when you are decked out in godly armor. The problem I have, and it sounds like other people as well, is the frequency of such occurrences. I would enjoy it if the frequency was much lower. It leads to being able to make bet
Instead of issuing a command to move to a location, you could issue a command to move towards an enemy unit. This would resolve some of the issues of two units passing by each other on the map. It is a bit frustrating to try to attack a monster, but you end up moving to where they were as opposed where they ended up. (I'm not sure if this is a result of me mis-clicking, but I think it is more of a repercussion of the simultaneous movement.) Also, this
Sorry, if I have missed threads related to this. I would appreciate any pointers if I have. Tactical combat would be greatly improved by simultaneous turns. By this, I mean both sides input their commands to each unit, and hit execute. Everything is resolved at the same time. This would be a vast improvement over the current system. As it stands now, going first is too huge of an advantage. Your spell caster/archers get to wipe out a substantial p
I just wanted to say that I think these ideas are pretty cool, but I'm wondering if they are getting too complicated. I'm really a fan of keeping it simple, so what I am wondering is if these two adjustments would be enough to keep it interesting. 1. Doubled attack power for all units that are not being attacked themselves. 2. Can't move more than 1 step through an area of control. As a side note, number 1
[quote who="Zukaza" reply="455" id="2709666"] Quoting rwemack, reply 451combat goes for X turns, and then suspended until the next game turn. I like it ! I hope it will be cool... And in addition it'll make the combats close to real one. The only question is X? How many of X combat turns/general game turn? Maybe - 24 - like hours/day?! [/quote] I guess it should be user configurable, but I was thinking something really short like 10, so other