Demiansky

[quote who="Sarudak" reply="109" id="2425832"] Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 108 That seems like a pretty good solution, Demiansky, I like it. Edit: credit where credit is due. I just noticed that Sarudak had a very similar idea earlier in the thread that I somehow missed. Lol thank you... No one took notice of my idea. The key point is I want these abilities to be customizable with scripts. Something si

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="17" id="2424960"]A lot of those calculations that are derived based on city numbers can be influenced by the size of city though. A small cattle farming comunity of 1200 will have a far smaller impact on your overal city count (which shouldn't merely be a base number but an average of sizes, territory covered and buildings created) than a massive metropolis of 100,000... which would enable players to have good reasons to have small farming and mining villa

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="104" id="2425233"] Why not? I don't get it...Example: X unit has 1000HP, 10 DEF, 1 ATT, no magical dmg type/resistances/immunities. Well, in a different portion of my post I said he'd be a really tough creature with a very powerful but very slow attack. If he only had 1 ATK, then he would hardly ever deal any damage at all to anything except units with very low defense. And he'd be completely worthless against any unit with 10+

[quote]In a case of him vs 1000 very weak zombies, it depends on how the combat system works. The 1000 units could be treated as a single entity (army of zombies), in which case he could kill dozens or hundreds at once. Or it could be 1000 zombies, in which case he probably kills a few at a time (in this system each of the 1000 zombies is distinct, they just happen to take up the same tile). Basically, is it 1000 zombies with 1 HP, or 1 group of zombies with 1000 HP?[/quote] <

[quote]First monolithic means "of a single stone".If army is made of various kinds of units, it's not monolithic. You're arguing an army shouldn't necessarily be made of the best available units.[/quote] There is such a thing as a monolithic strategy--- in this case, building the highest calibur units every chance you get. You know what we're talking about. Juggling around definitions doesn't prove a point.

Nick, your idea for exceptional individuals is an interesting idea, but perhaps there is another way to go about it than just having a "pool" of them waiting to be tapped. What if, instead, those exceptional individuals would be your experienced units that emerge from many battles and many victories? Sure, you can throw any old unit an ax of uuberness and a suite a full plate mail, but perhaps they can't get anywhere close to tapping into its ful

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="10" id="2424962"] Hey man, I'm right there with you, but units with more than one hit points generally makes for a more interesting combat system. If you can believe that characters in your roleplaying game can be hit with a swarm of meteors and survive, it's not a long stretch to apply it to other individuals as well in a strategy game. And what's more, if you assume that a hero can have many, many hitpoints, why can't a

[quote]I think its relative. Robin Hood with 100 HP when fighting something with 100 HP (an adolescent dragon or something) is probably on equal terms, they each get one attack for one of the other. But against a 10 HP soldier, Robin Hood is the far superior unit and would get to attack multiple times. So even if they both have attack 2, Robin's superior skill is going to win him the battle.[/quote] Yep, in a 1 on 1 fight you are totally right. It also works in game without tact

[quote]We are thinking of relabeling the stat "Strength" or something like that rather than HP since it does lead to confusion.[/quote] Awesome ;-) I appologize for climbing to the top of the tallest belltower in Elemental Ville and shouting at the top of my lungs.

[quote]That's just silly. Can you imagine reading a book where an experienced battalion of troops goes into combat walking like freaks and overall doing really bizarre things to minimize contact with their metal armor in case of a lightning strike, something else in case of a fireball, etc? I'm sorry but that'd would lend any fun. And what about someone wearing leather armor? What's an experienced leather armor wearing soldier going to do to make him more resilient to lightning than the green

[quote]Well, you could think of it as if your prestige is low enough, many people will leave your kingdom for a more prestigious one. So even once you make that decision "Ok, now my population is coming from regular old births," if your prestige is low your overall population growth wouldn't be particularly high, even if your fertility is. If your prestige is high, those born in your kingdom would stay there, and perhaps other would migrate from other kingdoms.[/quote] Yeah, this was

[quote who="Tridus" reply="91" id="2424881"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 89 Correct. Attack and Defense are related to equipment. What we loosely call HP here represents the overall "strength". Instead of HP we should probably just call it "strength" or something since it's just causing confusion. Good idea. Terminology is important. People hear "HP" and think a specific thing. Since this stat is actually doing something

Well, if it doesn't matter then why have them come in from the wilderness at all? And besides, living in a city with a lot of prestige doesn't generally make you more fertile or virile. Having extra food, sanitation, and medicine do (or magic spells.) If we are expected not to wonder about these things, there's really no reason to have a backstory at all, because it is the duty of the backstory to give context and believability to the game.

[quote]Will my level 3 swordsman be able to survive a lightning bolt that would kill his level 1 counterpart? I hope not! No amount of combat experience is going to increase your odds of not being fried to death by a bolt of lightning...[/quote] Well, this is the same problem that we have with almost every role playing game ever created. If a bullet hits you in real life, it doesn't matter how experienced you are, you won't be fighting very hard for very much longer. But b

[quote]Instead of HP we should probably just call it "strength" or something since it's just causing confusion.[/quote] Ah, so hypothetically a strength score of 10 might yield 10 life points and 2 attacks and a strength score of 20 would correspondingly yield 20 life points and 4 attacks. Alright, that works, and I appologize for making such a ruckuss. I've had a lot of enthusiasm infused into this game, it I thought it had all just flown out the window. If we've le

If that's the case, then I appologize, but I'm having a difficult time getting a clear picture on what the combat system is. If "hit points" aren't actually just what it classically is in most games (meaning your ability to take more damage), then I'm sure you can understand why it might be confusing. So as has been established in another thread, HP is not just a unit's capacity to take damage, but also it's ability to deal out extra attacks.

[quote]Robin Hood is going to kill off a lot of enemy units per round because he will get multiple volleys per round.[/quote] Will these number of volleys increase per level? This still isn't quite clear to me. I guess what I really am itching to know is whether a swordsman will carve through a level 1 spearman faster relative to all of the other units in the army fighting around him (assuming that they have not gained any levels.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="85" id="2424837"] I understand what HP represents, but assuming that a better unit can't swing a sword better to kill units faster is utterly bewildering. And once again, I don't ever see a soldier doubling or trippling their base attack score without spending the entire game in constant combat. Master of Magic had a perfectly good way of allowing non-hero units of gaining attack power, defense, and HP without throwing the game into disarray.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="82" id="2424828"] Making a unit stronger with HP will have the same effect as giving it more attack or defense... but only if you auto-resolve every single battle. But aren't there going to be tactical battles? Isn't that a major focus of the game? If an elite unit can't kill stuff faster or bigger monsters faster you are losing a collosal aspect of experience gain in its relevance to tactics. This makes the assumption t

So I just learned that, when units gain levels and experience, they only gain hitpoints. No improvements to attack and defense scores. Only hitpoints. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm going insane, because this seems like a severe mistep. Basically what this means is that a unit with experience from 100 battles won't be able to carve through a formation of units as quickly as a complete greenhorn with a gear that is better in only a minute increment.

[quote]HP is and always has been an abstraction anyway. In Borderlands you gain HP when you level. You don't suddenly become more impervious to bullets, but your general combat skill has gone up and they use HP to express that. It's a pretty common thing. A direct hit from an axe will kill most people, but in D&D your character can get enough HP to survive it by gaining levels, because HP represents more then raw ability to take a hit. It's also your ability to move so the hit doesn't cri

[quote]You take your elite soldier who has 1 attack and 1 defense and give him 1000 HP and he's going to be able to take on a LOT of 1 attack 1 defense peasants.[/quote] This response seems to have glossed over pidgeon's point. Making a unit stronger with HP will have the same effect as giving it more attack or defense... but only if you auto-resolve every single battle. But aren't there going to be tactical battles? Isn't that a major focus of the game?

So we already know that the prestige of your cities attracts people out of the wilderness and bolsters your population. What I'm wondering though, is what roll standard population growth takes place... you know , via the old fashion way. Once there are metropolises sprinkled across the landscape, shouldn't we expect that there simply no appreciable amount of people left wandering the wilderness? And if this is still the main means of gaining citizens, doesn'

Hm, interesting in the sense that resources become a bit more fluid, and less micromanagement is required by the player.

[quote]I believe the debate on whether “10000 swordsmen should kill a non-breathing Dragon/Drake” or not, depends on the fact that the battle should lasts 12-24 continuous turns (or whatever finite timeframe) at most. You can say that 1 out of these 10000000 swordsmen must have a chance to kill it because of a lucky strike. However, time is finite (say the battle last for 1 hour or 2 day in game time), you can easily assume that the lucky strike of low tier unit does not happen wi