Heavenfall

Because it costs developer time, however small. I've signed the petition, for no other reason than to let developers know this is a function I value in games.

Frogboy, in CoreDifficultyLevels.xml there is a tag that determines the health of the AI sovereign called 1.0 I have never seen a sovereign have more than his basic health on higher difficulties. Almost always this results in a situation where the enemy sovereign is the weakest target, because all the units had their health boosted through 1.00

Woah... that looks pretty awesome. Can't have too many fantasy RTS games, I always say.

I sent a PM to Kael, hopefully he can stop by and shed some light on the rounding issues.

Maybe this will better visualize how I achieved the numbers. (for 1.19, taking into account rounding from above post) (5 att 6 def) http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=eP2yzUv0

If I change the script so that all square roots are rounded down, and all half-damage attacks are rounded up (5/2=3) then the number I get is 85% on 5att vs 6 def (edit: in 1.19). How did I arrive at this number? I ran through all the possible attack rolls. For example, for 5 att I would run through 25 attack rolls, each resulting in a certain amount of damage. Then, for each possible attack roll, I also measured each possible defense roll on that particular attack rol

My numbers measure the total amount of damage dealt, vs the total amount of damage mitigated. If you are attacking with 5 attackpower, and the target unit has 6 defense, 87% of all the possible damage you deal will be blocked. The remaining ~13% will deal some damage. I don't know how rounding works either, I haven't done any of it. Does it round to the nearest integer, or always up? Don't know.

I don't understand how that value is in any way interesting to look at, but it's your topic.

I think you are overcalculating the value of armor. In your spreadsheet, you are not correctly taking into consideration that armor that reduces damage to 0 does not get saved for other attacks. It goes without saying, that when you reach higher than 100% mitigation, your calculations are wrong. In addition, it is easy to further disregard the calculations because you arrive at erroneous results - staffs CAN damage 6-armor targets, as we see in-game. Logically, a staff can roll max at

I would recommend utorrent.

Yeah you're right, they're not the same. Anyway, I think now that you understand how I see tactics/strategy, you can understand why I see basebuilding as a part of - but not all of - strategy in rts games. It's a point of view, of course, but then what isn't.

These are the numbers I'm getting. Would be cool if someone could check the calcs. This would be for 1.2 (1.19 beta) [quote] Weapon Dmg Armor Defense &nbsp

Alright then, let me present my definition. Strategy is planning for a war, and tactics is executing engagements. In that sense, holding a chokepoint is very much a strategic decision because it affects not only the next particular engagement but all the possible engagements that can and cannot happen because of it. I may be cutting my enemy off from the rest of the map, for example, and thus it represents a strategic decision rather than a tactical decision. A tactical decision would be prim

I think your definition of strategy and tactics differs from what we've talked about in this thread then, TorinReborn. Units are just another form of resources, to be applied or not applied - and whatever you choose is a strategic decision. At least the way we've talked about it in this thread.

Dsraider this is why we are constantly complaining about the AI not using shields or helms. It is essentially stuck on easy-mode. Edit: I don't think you are calculating average damage correctly. Are you using the method described here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/403879/get;2872856 Edit2: These are the values for attack and armor mitigation averages in 1.11 (rounded to 3 decimals) edit3: Actually,

impinc, I may be mistaken here but isn't there a lot of room for simple quests for/with materials? For example, you could have a quest that just sends you to find item X (let's say it's three dragonscales). Dragonscales obviously drop from dragons. These particular dragons wouldn't actually spawn from the quest - rather, the player would have to search the world to find them. Then they could be turned in, and the player could face a choice of what piece of armor he'd be interested in.

That is a weird video.

Well,, let me volunteer then. I like having strategic elements in RTS games, but I dislike basebuilding. I think you wouldn't be "hard pressed" to find many more players with similar opinions playing games like Dow2 and CoH.

[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="25" id="2884020"]I think people (such as the author of the complaint quoted in the OP) confuse 'strategy' with 'tactics.' 'Strategy' inherently requires more than ordering units around, it requires a grander scheme to have a robust production capacity and not stay limited to the units you start with. Tactics are the battles. If you dislike basebuilding, you dislike strategy; if all you want are battles with no economy or bases, you want a tactic

I haven't heard anything about the single player campaign, other than the fact that every faction will be playlable - not just spesss merhines. Yeah, steamworks may not be perfect but it's a hundred times better than Games for Windows Live. Anyway, Dow2 already required you to be logged in to steam (and GFWL) so the only real difference is they just removed one system that kept failing.

I would say the main thing is the game has been balanced a LOT better. Each unit is still strong or weak against other units, but nothing stands out as imbalanced (ie - there are no units that are strong against everything). There was a major patch that rebalanced the energy vs requisition production in-game, so energy is a lot more rare now and therefore striking down enemy generators is a very viable tactic. Introduction of 2v2, 2v2v2 and FFA 6 player games are new modes. Wrecks can

Woah... nice. You may want to consider putting a shirt on them as well (in the vanilla armors, those are the ones that have attachmenttype skinned).

I'm playing the beta (it's multiplayer custom games only at the moment). It's basically chaos rising with IG. The imperial guard have a ton of cheap turrets and artillery. Some of the strongest artillery can wipe a tac squad out in a single strike. Each race also has a super-vehicle in tier 3, and those are beyond insane. You can make custom badges now, that others see. They can choose to not, though. A nice little thing is that you can import your ranks from D

I think DOW2 successfully replaced basebuilding and focused on tactical elements, and that it ended up a better game than it would have if the reverse were true. At the end of the day, basebuilding does add great value to strategic gameplay. Maybe a game that focuses on strategy isn't for the author of that blog. If you enjoy tactical elements more, then stick to games that focus heavily on that. Since both are available, it's not a matter of WHICH IS BETTER. It only matters how they

There is absolutely no need to do that. It was only a suspicion.