xthetenth

I was thinking something a bit more like gladius (or final fantasy tactics I think, I don't remember those games' mechanics all that well), where you have a continuous series of turns based on the characters' initiative, but in this case without deciding your turn while paused unless you manually pause. I'm not sure though, an ATB system would be very interesting (FF8 was the last squaresoft rpg I played, to be honest, I had no idea they ever stopped using ATB).

[quote]Rome Total war worked a bit like this. Units got tired if you made them run too much and this would make them fight worse. Problem is the endless chases still applied, and no matter how tired troops got they always ran at a minimum speed.[/quote] I'd like to see extreme fatigue drop a unit down to one move a turn and incredibly low initiative judging by what the screenshot of a battle looks like (I'm assuming it's an initiative based system), so they don't get to move very oft

I think the units get to move based on initiative considering that queue on the bottom, it looks like it shows when each unit's going to get its turn, a system I like considering my experiences with that type of system.

[quote who="Ron Lugge" reply="9" id="1935911"] looking glasses are something that I think would be very tricky in a nonindustrial magic-based world, and magical alternatives would be much more likely, which I thought I covered (in the last sentence as an aside, mind if I fix that? Tricky and difficult, yes. Impossible, no. All you really need are lenses, which were produced as early as the 13th century.[/quote] True, but one would guess that the

[quote]Weight is balanced by speed. But weight has its advantages. Even if they don't have spears, heavy infantry are resistant to cavalry. To understand why just run into a waist high concrete barrier at full tilt.[/quote] And this is why light cavalry shouldn't have nearly the shock heavy cavalry does, they don't have the mass of heavy armor and a flippin' 'uge courser (I know they weren't that big, but they were strong ), they have maybe a hobby horse and not nearl

[quote]You cannot sell more copies of the game than there are customers who possess the systems required to run it![/quote] Well, you could use atari logic, but well, we all know where that wound up. [quote]The only reason games have bloated system requirements is because of shitty, inefficient code, because people with bloated, inefficient systems code sloppily, as it runs fine on their bloated, inefficient computer.[/quote] Or maybe it's because some idiot in marketi

I think it'd probably be a lot easier to play and enjoy your units' abilities in full turn based. I've gotta be honest, though, I want a bigger scale more than any turn system differences, it looks awesome, but I want MOAR! That aside, I think it should actually be an easy option of a checkbox that lets you pause between turns (like in KOTOR, interestingly enough, but this game would appreciate it). It shouldn't be that hard to implement, but I won't say it's easy because I haven't tried impl

[quote]I'm not sure about the premise of your second part, however, that there are no "sensor equivalents". [/quote] What I meant was is that there is no item which the entirety of a unit's LoS capability is derived from. I'm all for using magic (looking glasses are something that I think would be very tricky in a nonindustrial magic-based world, and magical alternatives would be much more likely, which I thought I covered (in the last sentence as an aside, mind if I fix that

I think an answer would be to have light cavalry be able to mop up routers, something where if the enemy routs the first n slowest routers will be killed/captured by the light cavalry and everything fast, maybe being able to send units off the field to try and catch up with routers based on their relative speeds. So if there's a pesky small stack out there, you can hit it with something that'll get it to rout and cut it down with your light cavalry fairly easily as it doesn't have the numbers

It's a very neat idea, and something that should be needed for a lot of the best items. For example, I see magic items as needing a specific gem being added to function properly, so you might add a sky stone and a sword to make a fancy air elemental sword. In contrast, more mundane stuff would be better as a simple procession from resource to item to whatever it ends up being used to produce. Not that I don't want fancy metallurgy to be possible, but the stuff it makes should be very nice.</p

[quote]I didn't mean to sound like I wasn't supporting the idea of modifiers and tactics[/quote] and I didn't mean to sound like I wasn't supporting the idea of well-defined counters, be they soft or hard, I just suck at tone. [e digicons]:P[/e] I'd say make all the modifiers readily apparent or not there. If it isn't relatively apparent, it isn't very likely to be important or obvious. For example, the flails, you could have a guy swing a flail around every on

Well, I had this idea in a seperate thread, and I really like the way it's working in my head, so maybe it'll survive a few minutes of public scrutiny. [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Anyway, the first half of the idea is based on movement speed being altered by a number of factors. The idea I had is somewhat similar to how it works in Oblivion. You load somebody up more and they move more slowly. The strategic implications of this are bigger than the tactical, though. You can

[quote]I think people are misunderstanding what I meant when I said I was pro-RPS as far as making the game fun without being overly complicated.[/quote] Fair enough, I think I'd agree, I think we're promoting a rather similar thing from different viewpoints. I do think that viewing it from a perspective of representing reality and greater detail through the statistics and modifiers is conducive to more intuitive design than having gameplay statistics represented with objects from rea

[quote]By the way, does anyone know if Windows 7 going to come standard as 64-bit? Will it even come in 32-bit?[/quote] It will come in 32 bit. As long as there are 32 bit programs that won't run right in 64 bit mode, microsoft will make a 32 bit os for the companies that use them (keep in mind most of these programs are proprietary) until the profits outweigh the costs of losing those companies. Also, win 8 will have a much better chance of doing so, because it's possible it'll be b

I think that there's a scout hero in one of the screenshots, and I'd love to be able to design a unit early with a horse and not much else to go scouting using a ton of moves (and the high LoS that should go with it).

[quote](AKA: Once it's available, we'll find ways to make (good) use of it.)[/quote] The correlary of this of course is that in the future, video games will require more complexity than windows, and I shudder to think at the bugginess that will result, and go unfixed, just because the bugs affect too few people.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="23" id="1934954"]I do know I'd like to avoid flying units but that's personal preference.[/quote] Somebody doesn't like archers? [e digicons]:P[/e] I understand completely, having something be completely invulnerable to the majority of units in a game is pretty annoying, and hard for the devs to balance right.

The other problem with RPS is it's too simplified and that simplification removes tactical depth. Can you imagine how unfulfilling tactical combat in sins would've been most of the time in galciv 2? "You hit for 0 damage because you were stupid enough to arm your ship entirely with missiles" "He hits for 1 damage because he got lucky and picked mass drivers" Sure, spying can even things out some, but those are not fun battles because the system is so hard RPS. The balance between stro

I think it's going to be a tree for metallurgy and a seperate one for weapon design quality if the tree's going to have enough complexity to warrant that level of detail, or maybe I'm just projecting my bias on how I think it should be done, in which case, that's a suggestion to give the player a choice between a long, research intensive metallurgy tree with a lot of levels that provide a small bonus to most things, or a tree that lets you focus on one thing for a fairly large gain that is le

[quote]Master of Magic was kinda strange because everytime you built a new building, old buildings would rearrange themselves. I wonder if there is a way that we could keep this from happening.[/quote] Urban sprawl! I'm pretty sure that's how it's going to work for the most part, because Brad mentioned that you'll get to control the growth of your cities as you upgrade them, so the new buildings will probably be build in the new sections of town.

What I would want to see is a menu in options for screen layout, where you can set up various picture layouts that supports mutimon done a bit like fences (if anybody here is familiar with that) where you have the main view and then can lay out other windows, so on a single screen I can make a second window in a corner, zoom it out to the map view and lock it to my main screen as a minimap, or define a locked all the way out zoom for a second screen so I always have an overview handy and larg

[quote]I have preordered and played this game since beta two a year ago.[/quote] Seriously?! I could've sworn you were on the forum in beta one... Odd. [quote]...on second thought... maybe I want them to come on in...[/quote] And I'm all up for them going in as long as you're also there, keep you distracted [e digicons]:P[/e] . Also, how the hell could you have given a 10 to the sound without the advent voices, which are some of the most astou

It's cool, eets has shown up on this forum, so he'll take care of them. I think I'll find some inspiration on the list of things Mr. Welch can no longer do in an RPG, so look out. Plus, this game deserves a new in joke.

[quote]Just as computers 5 years ago couldn't approach the 4GB limit, computers these days won't come closer to touching the 64 bit memory limit -- sorry![/quote] but hypothetically, when we have magical space computers that use something other than transistors because transistors have hit the limits of physical possibility, you could have a map about the same size as the contiguous US... in on-screen size, not display size, and have an accurate representation of a fantasy world the s

[quote]But detailed statistics will probably be necessary for the tactical battles, though a lot could be made through graphical representation of the units.[/quote] I'd say a simple version of the stats outside battle because your scouts/pickets have to stay undetected so they can't get all that good a look at the enemy, but can get a general impression, while in battle such things as training and equipment are more apparent as swords are drawn, marching orders are reacted to well or