Demiansky

[quote who="Tamren" reply="10" id="2442071"]Heh, see what I mean? This is where it spirals out of control. I get what you mean with the running in circles. Basically you are talking about the classic rock-paper-scissors balance model with cavalry>archers>pikemen>cavalry. In a real time strategy game like the total war series people protect thier archers with the pikemen while thier cavalry attacks the enemy archers. In a turn based game this is not possible. Cavalry can si

So with the above post in mind, I'll present a few possible starting conditions, race stats, and backstories: The Stronghold of Kahlon: Before the Rending of the World, the Stronghold of Kahlon was a reclusive, self-reliant, but determined city state of survivalists in the rugged wastelands of Kahlon. They cared little for the extravagencies of the other civilized nations, and while it gave them little advantage in the great race of culture, the Strongh

The more I think about the sovereign starting out the game alone, the more it doesn't really make much sense to me. Mechanically, it is perfectly sound, but from an immersion perspective, I just can't make sense of it. After all, if we are to assume your sovereign didn't spring into existence the moment the games begin, then he must have been wandering the wasteland like everyone else. If he was wandering the wastelands, it's likely he also ran into a few others--- o

Yeah, I'm a bit bothered by this too. Its an interesting idea, but can become a royal pain when your empire gets larger or your sovereign is simply overcommitted. Having to zigzag across your empire to found minor cities doesn't appeal to me much. It might be a better method to allow the sovereign--- through an early spell--- to imbue settlers with essence and then let the settlers do the work.

I love the idea Red, and was thinking of something similar along those lines. However, I'm concerned that should too many icons appear next to units in battles or unit manager screens, there may be far too much clutter. To remedy this, I think there should be two "levels" of icons, primary and secondary. Primary icons will appear everywhere: next to your unit on the battlefield, in unit organizers, and on unit sheets. These would include attributes that need de

Oh my, now we're adding encumberance modifiers based on armor as well. And I think I may have been taken too literally. I don't mean that units will literally chase one another in circles--- that's just silly. What I suspect will happen, though, is that scores of specific units will be matched against scores of specific opposing units, causing a quagmire of battlefield crisscrosses and confusion, The point of my system of integrating subtypes into pre-existing stat

Hm, yeah, I've always wondered how unit sizes will scale up under certain circumstances. You can basically create 1 soldier at a time if you want to, each with its own gear and training. I'm wondering how exactly they will all be mashed together when a battle begins, and into what sizes.

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="13" id="2441392"] Well, tech and magic in Master of Magic became pretty closely linked, unfortunately. There was no tech research in MoM. You built infrastructure like temples and libraries, but didn't research techs, only spells. [/quote] Tech was represented by development in cities, which was an interesting twist. Call it development, tech, or what have you--- the more development you had in MoM, the more magical growt

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="22" id="2441294"]perhaps something like average attack value, average defense value, average strength value, and numbers. A melee/ranged ratio, and a footmen/cavalry ratio. Seperate indicators should notify of outliers (and outliers would not be included in the average) like a Dragon, Sovereign, or Groglock [/quote] Right, which is why I suggested a "volatility score." It would basically take into consideration the risk of a unit havin

[quote who="joasoze" reply="15" id="2440828"]I would like to repeat that the calculation of such a percentage is not possible! Far to many variables combined with the crazy choices you as a player will make during the battle. This is not gonna happen in any game of this kind. Take Kings Bounty as an example. It would be nigh impossible to make a sensible number. And that is a turnbased simple combat system. It just cannot be done. There are skills, spells, random events (some skill

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="9" id="2440885"]I'd like the mechanisms for spell research to be different from those of tech: +Tech buildings different from +Magic buildings. Automatic tech growth from population, no automatic magic research. We might use units to do the magic research, but Dominions proves that it can become quite tedious and heavy on the micromanagement side. If it turns out to be unfun, the beta is there for changing that. [/

Well, I like the idea of the two mechanics being separate. It allows for a society to be, possibly, inferior in tech but highly magical (or the other way around.) The question in my mind, though, is whether both spell research and tech research will be motivated or propelled by more of less the same mechanisms. For instance, if your tech is high, does that also imply that your infrastructure is also attuned to propelling magical research?

[quote who="Tamren" reply="4" id="2439459"]I really don't like summing up attack and defence as a number. The game then becomes all about stacking force multipliers so that your total weapon score beats thier armour score and they take damage. It makes all other detail meaningless. Who cares if the enemy has swords? All I need is my +99 kilt of ultimate power and I am invincible. The problem with implementing anything more is that you have to go all out. Having 4 types of weapon da

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="65" id="2435654"]Well, once a peasant army is mobilized by a defensive Call-to-Arms, whats to stop *most* of them from being riled up enough to continue on to the nearest enemy city? [/quote] Well, once they cross into the border of the enemy kingdom, they might start disbanding when they figure out what you are trying to do :-)

Interesting. I'd be willing to give it a shot. I've also been making impromptu strategy games with my friends since I was a little kid. Often times, our D&D campaigns become empire building games as well, if their characters decide to pursue a life of politics of large scale warfare, so I'm no stranger to this kind of quasi-loose strategy game idea. Pick me and I'll also add some role playing flare to my playstyle :-)

[quote quoting="post"]This is something I might be the only person on Earth that cares about this, but I'd like to see a difference between people who are killed in combat and those who are merely permanently disabled and have to live the rest of their lives out on a farm. As far as I know, here is the history of this concept throughout PC gaming: Close Combat Close Combat II Close Combat III Why do I want this feature? Because in games t

[quote who="Ragnar1" reply="63" id="2434585"] Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 61 I just now read this whole post. I'm glad to see this last part. Hopefully that will appease Pidgeon's objections. I think this is a pretty good thing to add the the game. I see this as simply a more fleshed out version of the Civ IV draft abilty, but one that everyone has throughout the game. I think your last point is key: the militia units shoul

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="58" id="2433350"]Yes, yes, I think this is a good point to end on. While Call-to-arms is probably best used as a good defensive mechanic, the best strategy is to lean away from initial over-exaggerations, and state that Drafted Armies will not be superior to trained and maintained proffesional armies ... but it WILL add extra defense to a nation that is willing to sacrifice its population in that defense. To manage that properly is best left to the dev t

[quote]I'd like to restate, though, that I do like a more localized city-based Call to Arms for sieges - if someone is attacking your city, I'd love to be able to mobilize its population to fight in its defense. It shouldn't be anything huge, although if it's a massive city then expect a pretty large turnout. Lots of advantages to that, including not having to keep troops stationed in every city to prevent the odd wandering enemy archer or whatever single-handedly conquering your cities. I al

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="5" id="2432292"] So I feel changes from a "you have XXX gold" to a wealth 'stat' that is influenced by a number of factors to be very unlikely and likely unproductive. Not necessarily. A wealth score wouldn't be a major overhaul of the system, really. Personally I like the idea of trade and certain buildings, for example, modifying the gold/population of a given settlement. Although I suppose whether these things modified gold

[quote quoting="post"]All these items, and so few choices of what to do with them. Do I really want my scout to keep a ring of +HP? No, but I have no choice to trade it, bank it, or sell it. I'd like to see a vault repository for special magical items like MoM had. You could store some items in a vault until you decided to give it to a hero or someone. I'd also like there to be some kind of open market or Trader's Guild. Where you

[quote]Your argument is still valid nonetheless (an elite soldier is still a person, made of the same stuff as a peasant and so if he is disabled or struck by lightning, then realistically he should be just as vulnerable as the peasant in those scenarios). The question to ask, however, is - would that be fun? I know for a fact that something like the current system in this regard will (or at least can) be fun - it's been done often enough before. Take HoMM for example - that has the exact sam

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="48" id="2431751"]For call to arms to work, there will first be an absolute value of militia based upon population (maybe modified by relative/absolute prestige) ... at any time when an enemy or monster enters the influence range of a city, a Muster can be called, or rather a "Call-to-Arms". This will be the basic militia which is determined by only economic factors, and will be a relatively small force (1 out of 10) ... so 100 militia for 1000 citizens. Now, if you

[quote]In terms of affecting my equipment score by, say, building an additional lumber mill... So if I want to affect my equipment score, I can't just shuffle around what I have now? Let's say for some reason I decided to train most of my professional troops as pikemen; as such, I'd rather my peasantry not all show up wielding spears. But if I happen to have lots and lots of lumber mills lying around, I'm screwed? I either have to destroy lumber mills, use it up, or obtain an equally large qu

[quote]u lol'd at my detailed explanation? /sarcasm[/quote] Sorry, bounced in briefly then sprinted to work :-)