pigeonpigeon

[quote]2- I'd like to see recruits have differing potentials -- anyone could become a 'peasant' troop, many could become 'normal' troops, some could become 'skilled' troops, but few could become 'exceptional' troops. Training would bring out these inherent skill levels, not increase someone from one skill category up into the next -- ie no matter how much I train or what resources I have access to I'll never be a Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali. Combining these 2 ideas, I'd like

[quote]Hm, I think we've reached the point where we've cut out the 97 percent of the stuff we agree with on this topic, and now we're pretty much both quarreling over the scraps in order to claim the title of the rightliest in the discussion. We've officially moved the front to extreme scenarios that are very unlikely to exist and would most certainly result in a player making bizarre decisions. Like you said, there will never be only 5000 archers

[quote]If I understand correctly, you sum the ATK and DMG of all units in the group and compare it against the other units DEF. And what if there are couple of units on the opposite side? Should we sum their DEF too? [/quote] Since when was he summing over all attackers? I was under the impression that would be the formula for each constituent of the attacking force... Well I suppose it depends how combat is worked out. If it's entirely gr

[quote]My aim, which has been frustratingly overlooked by people offended by the dragon-one-shot sideshow, is that no unit would ever be 100 percent antiquated. This leaves the option open to adopting strategies under the right circumstances to produce lower calibur soldiers in outrageous and exceptional numbers. The vast majority of the time, I would expect that the resources necessary to procure and court a dragon is much better spent getting that dragon

[quote]And this is a perfect illustration of my point. You are basically left with very little reward for strategic creativity--- your strategy is already set for you. This is a perfect example of a rational player being forced to build a monolithic army.[/quote] Well yeah... This is almost always a problem, and my point was merely that limiting army sizes severely exacerbates the problem. The solution, IMO, is just to balance that initial training and production c

[quote]Oi, once again, I don't think we're properly understanding what I mean by randomness (I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I'm a biologist and have to confront people's statements about biotechnology on a regular basis based upon gut feelings and prejudices rather than technical discourse, so my patience is already a bit exhausted.) I'm not suggesting that there should be randomness in the game that swings so violently that nothing is predictable. Not even close. As a

[quote]Why do people keep bringing up spearmen versus tanks? I can envision a ton of actual scenarios in which a man with a spear can take out a tank. ..[/quote] Really? I can't. Not unless the spearman is carrying explosives with him...

[quote]If melee units were strongest, then flankers, then ranged then ranged, it still made sense to build armies like 4 melee, 2 flankers and 6 ranged units, because the flankers and ranged would attack the enemy melee units and kill them faster than lone melee units (getting 3 attacks agaisnt 1 unit).[/quote] But, come end-game, is there ever a reason to make an army out of anything besides, to use your example, 4 of the strongest melee units, 2 of the strongest flankers, and 6 of t

[quote]Several magic resistances add little extra versatility (and even less when they are a weird case in the big picture) and add a lot of complexity (for little gain).[/quote] Well it appears we are at an irreconcilable impasse here, because quite frankly my imagination isn't wild enough to imagine a world were a small handful of magic resistances (whether implemented as stats or as traits/modifiers) hardly adds versatility and adds a lot of complexity. I mean, I could prob

[quote]yea, I think anything using randomness should have a nice ... high bell curve, so that 60 times out of 100, the events will meet at 50% probability ... of either damage, attack, or defense range. This just means that out of the hundreds of permutations, 60% of them will be in the middle range (45-55% likelyhood) or so ... I think its hard to explain comparing percentages to other percentages, but its like 3 + 4 vs 4 + 3 ... they both arrive at the middle, but through different avenues.

[quote]I would also like to be able to define the goods carried in a caravan. If I am stockpiling swords in city A to build a unit there, i don't want some of them automatically sent to city B, thus delaying my unit build.[/quote] Sadly, it looks like we won't be able to stockpile anything anywhere, except food. It's been decided by the Powers that Be that local (and even global) resource storage isn't fun, so instead training/production/construction is going to be a matter of u

[quote]Do you really think that wedge formation would be so great? I rather say that the power is in numbers, experience & power, than in some artificial formations. They just doesn't seem to fit and make any difference.[/quote] In terms of realism, you are completely and totally wrong. Formation was one of the most important factors in combat. Pretty much everyone knows what a Phalanx is, even though the word has very few uses in the modern world. The Macedonian army kicked ass n

[quote]Having lots of magic damage types and resistances, as you describe, creates a more boring version of a rock/paper/scissors type of effect, where the winner would come down to who has the correct resources and magic research to counter the other person. (The way elemental seems to be developing, this could come from a number of areas, from someone capturing the correct magical node, getting enough of the correct resource, researching the correct advance, etc.).[/quote]

[quote]These situations in HoMM didn't resolve usually like you say, the 200 Dead Knights would obliterate first the Footmen and then finish the poor Paladins. In that game low level units had the problem that they would lose damage power too fast compared to better units.[/quote] [quote]Anyways, with 1000 foot-soldiers, you would flood a good portion of the battle-field with your troops, and your 50 paladins can move about the battlefield at will, striking the 200 dread-kni

Yeahhh this system kind of takes Demiansky's worries about the system brad briefly laid out and makes it a very, very large problem indeed. It exacerbates the 'damage ceiling' effect to the point where your some of your basic, poorly trained units won't even be able to affect some medium quality units, some of whom in turn won't be able to affect some high-quality units, and so forth. No # of low-end troops would be able to scratch even a single well-equipped, well-trained high-end 'buildable

[quote] I want to see 5000 archers be able to make a dent in a Groglock and, given enough archers, even kill it. It's not unknown that lowly defenders have killed great beasts in fantasy--- as a matter of fact, it's a staple of fantasy (think of the Hobbit and the defenders of Esgaroth). [/quote] For one, Smaug wasn't defeated by a horde of lowly defenders, he was defeated by Bard, a singular archer who was literally told of a missing scale in Smaug's armor by a l

[quote]A single magic damage and resistance offers a trade-off between versatility and complexity. It succees separating magic from non-magic attacks, it's easier to understand, to test, to balance, and to be aware of it.[/quote] I single magic damage and resistance annihilates versatility for pretty much no meaningful reduction in complexity. It really is not hard to understand that "hey, my fireball's only going to do half damage against that thing with 50% fire resistance

[quote]Erm...what turn/round? We won't have turns or rounds in tactical combat. [e digicons]o_O[/e] [/quote] Yes we will... If we didn't it wouldn't be called continuous turn-based combat. Frogboy for example said to think along the lines of combat in Baldur's Gate, but in the context of army combat rather than party combat. It's just that if you choose the appropriate settings then you have to look closely to be able to see where the turns start and end, because it flows

[quote]I don't know about fantasy-ish, but even the Romans had paved roads. Think more cobblestone or flagstone than asphalt.[/quote] Yes - and I'd rather that they be called cobblestone or flagstone roads, or just stone roads than pavement. I'm aware that those are all technically forms of pavement, but when I hear pavement I think asphalt, and asphalt was not used for roads until modern times. If I were watching a medieval fantasy movie and noticed a paved asphalt road, I would

Completely agree. Reduces city sprawl, makes the world feel more alive (especially if accompanied by lively graphics on the 3D map), and forces you to protect your borders and not just your cities. In many games, if someone is invading your land the optimal strategy is to hole up in your city; either they attack your cities despite your defensive advantages, or roam around/leave. If there isn't much damage that can be done outside of attacking a city, then there is little reason

I'd like to emphasize one particular part of your post: rivers. They've recently been mentioned in some other threads, too in a different capacity as well. Rivers should be Important! In my opinion, only cities near rivers should be able to grow to 'maximum' size. They should also provide bonuses to trade, food, and maybe some other things. Additionally, 'caravans' should be able to deliver resources via rivers (although they'd be boat caravans in this case) if applicabl

[quote]The real problem with resistances as a generic stat is that it flattens magical variety. Every elemental damage type would require equally powerful attack spells for example. The spells would even have to be identical except for the damage type (think Final Fantasy Fire Ice Lightning- which is caused by it's heavy use of elemental damage types and resistances.)... [/quote] Why? I literally have no idea why that would have to be the case. Give me one go

[quote]Forgetting about your unfortunate comment of case A, in case B you are saying that you don't understand why people dislike the mechanic of several damages/resistances or you don't understand why people propose mechanics that achieve similar (but not the same) results in simpler ways?[/quote] I don't understand why people dislike several damage/resistance types - correct. They are not difficult to understand and result in a much more versatile magic system (and magic is central

[quote]While many people may not consider Monolithic Armies a problem, I think it hurts the strategic breadth of a game.[/quote] This sentence doesn't make sense with the rest of your post. If you cannot have monolithic armies, if armies are limited in size, then everyone will end up with maxed out armies composed of their most powerful units. This is why armies in games like MoM, AoW, etc always end up being composed of your strongest units. If you only have 8 spots, you will fill al

[quote]Let's say, for instance, that a mighty Groglock (completely made up monster) has 20 defense rating, and a poorly trained archer has 5. The archer must exceed 20 defense to do any damage. When an archer rolls, they have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a 5.[/quote] That's silly. So if a swordsman has a defense rating of 5, the archer would only have a 1/5 chance of even hitting it? [quote]Now, the actual chance of that archer hitt