pigeonpigeon

[quote]Depends on what you mean by damage type, I guess. [e digicons]:)[/e] The game under that scheme is only interpreting one type of damage, it just has modifiers in some case. That's not a bad way to handle it, since its relatively striaghtforward and easy for modders to start changing things around.[/quote] An apple wrapped in an orange peel is still an apple :P. The game only interprets one damage type, until it needs to differentiate between them. The "fire" tag on t

Hmm, I like it. I just came from the thread with that post from Frogboy and I liked the idea of having soldiers build roads, but this seems even better. I wouldn't call the highest tier 'pavement' though, that doesn't seem very fantasy-ish :P And one other thing: I would actually like to see road upkeep and/or construction be fairly expensive. In Civ IV, for example, the entire map would end up covered with roads/railroads - pretty much every tile! For a game that progressed into the

[quote]Why not just have soldiers build the roads? It worked for the Romans.[/quote] Heh, I like this idea :P Soldiers could build tile improvements in general, not just roads... Like forts, watchtowers and things like that (if such things make it into the game).

[quote]A grasshopper can't kill a man. A million grasshoppers still couldn't kill a man. How would the million archers kill the dragon? It would depend on whether they can penetrate the dragon's armor. If they can't. They can't. While the battle system in Elemental is still something to be fully fleshed out, I'm of the opinion that when a unit rolls their attack and defense that the minimum should always be say 10% of their max value. I.e. if the dragon's arm

[quote]You can "fake" damage types by using attributes on spells and units and resistences, rather then actual damage types. (Like if fireball is tagged "fire", you could give a dragon an ability "immune to things tagged fire", and achieve the same effect we're looking for without actually having a damage type. [/quote] But you still do actually have a damage type there - the information is just encoded elsewhere. If a fireball is tagged "fire" then it does fire

[quote]..and one more thing: What about the multiplayer tactical battles? Will it be possible to pause the battle whenever we want? If it's not possible: bad. If it's possible: bad again, because it will be annoying if a player will pause the game in every second.[/quote] Solution: auto-pause at the end of each 'round.' Possibly make all orders be given during that time, and when everyone is ready they press the ready button. When everyone has pressed ready (or after a time limit if p

This post makes me happy, except of course for the section about resources. I'm really excited for Magic: Total War combat! [e digicons]:grin:[/e] I'm not looking forward to finite, discrete resources sans storage. I would rather Civ IV's resource system than that, and that's saying something. [e digicons]:'([/e]

I really like this idea.

[quote]Depends on how you define major city. The Dragon Lance world has at least a dozen good sized cities, and more if you consider smaller but important race-specific areas like Kendermore or Mt. Nevermind. There are also many smaller towns and villages scattered all over.[/quote] You're trying to tell me that there being a dozen good sized cities in a whole world counts as a fantasy world being littered with big cities everywhere? Ok then...

[quote]for naval battles, the sovereign should probably be able to ride a shark or a sea-horse, assuming that he didn't have a proper flying mount (like a griffon or a pegasi)[/quote] IMO naval battles should just include boats, and if they exist then water-dwelling creatures or amphibious creatures. Maybe also flying creatures. But we already know there will be no naval tactical combat, so I'm more of the opinion that units that can participate in naval combat should be

[quote] What I am afraid of is, that all magic ’s will be more or less similar except for minor details (graphics and +-10% in stats). This effectively makes your choice regarding the type of magic insignificant and you can as well say that there is just one magic school ingame (because all are so similar).[/quote] Where do you get the impression that the magic system will end up like that?! Magic isn't even remotely in the beta at the moment and the devs ha

[quote]Make up your mind man. [e digicons]:borg:[/e] (this smiley is equipped with his sarcasm detector) Carrying as a basic statistic elemental resistances is unnecessary. Even carrying elemental damage types within an attack is unnecessary. I can think of several other ways to figure out if something is immune to a particular spell that are far more versatile than just elemental immunity. You could have creatures with immunities carry a list of t

[quote]If you know "Fantasy General" or the newer "Fantasy Wars" or "Elven Legacy", you will know, what a good TB Game looks like. These games are always superior to any RTS game considering the demand of a challenging AI. Total War series fails here with every part of the series although the game and its engine is great.[/quote] I thought the AI in Elven Legacy was pretty poor... It wasn't easy, but the difficulty didn't seem to stem from the AI as much as simply being greatly outmat

[quote]Think about your favorite fantasy worlds - how many of them contained lots of nations each with more than a small handful of major cities? That is cheating. Because most fantasy worlds that come to mind don't really have the time to deal with minor cities. Middle earth has in theory a bunch of small towns dotting the landscape, but we don't really hear about them because they are... well, not major towns. Places like Lake Town or even Bree wo

[quote]But on the other hand, you're absolutely right. It can easily be that 'fire resistance' is a rare and difficult thing to get, and you can't produce amulets of sufficient power or sufficient quality to protect your troops. But in that case the amulets themselves are worthless, because you spent extra turns and extra resources building a unit that still got destroyed by a volcano. May as well not have had the fire resistance at all.[/quote] No, you missed my po

[quote]It's not really just a matter of 'catering to someone new' by making the game simpler. Quite the opposite, I'd say. Because the thing about newbie traps in a game is that they look like good options, but experienced players know better. So the game may actually have 100 options, but you, as an experience player, will realize that some options are better than others, and you won't use the worse options. So for you, the number of meaningful options is less than

[quote]I always explain it as being somewhat like Chess: you move a unit, then your opponent moves a unit, then you move again, and so on. Still not clear on whether movement points refresh at the end of each move, or if you need to move all of your units/click end turn to refresh them.[/quote] That's not continuous turns... That's turn-based. It's just each unit's turns are tracked separately. When it's one of your units' turns to move, you know precisely what will happen when you cl

[quote]The dragon in both.[/quote] [e digicons]:dur:[/e] I am so happy that you guys are staying strong on having rare creatures like dragons be crazy powerful. I know a lot of people have complained about fantasy creatures being too rare, even if they're individually powerful enough to make up for their small numbers. Personally I think the result will be a much better fantasy feel than most fantasy games have ever pulled off. Now if only you'd come my way RE t

[quote]I'd also add balance, and difficulty learning the game for newer people to this sort of thing, to the potential problems mentioned in the first paragraph.[/quote] Catering a game so that its friendly enough so that someone new to the genre won't have any trouble figuring it all out in short order is a great way to guarantee that the people who would otherwise actually stick around and play the game for years to come will quickly get bored and lose interest. Obviously yo

[quote]But yes. Having this sort of gameplay stifles player choice. Am I going to specialize in Fire Magic if I know that my opponent can just start chunking out troops with Amulets of Fire Resistance? No. I'm going to spread my research out so that I'm not focused in one area that can easily be defended against. End result? Everybody uses all the elements more or less equally. Boring.[/quote] Not really... Sure, split up your magic research so that you can dabble in all

[quote] Pigeon : I guess your opinion means that you don't play much games with global resource storage then..? Global resourcestorage is a tried and tested way. The popular RTS games use it as do Age of Wonders and Master of Magic (beat THAT!) [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [/quote] I play many of them, because that's all there is. The only exception that I've ever found is colonization (without leavin

Depending on how turn-based vs. real-time the combat ends up, I'd rather it not be grid-based. If it's heavily turn-based, then yes - grid based is the way to go. If it's more like Total War combat, then grid-based would be a huge limiting factor in combat strategy, versatility, and would require all sorts of arbitrary abstractions that would be handled naturally in a free-coordinate map. Also, I don't think we can look at that screenshot and say "tactical combat is grid-based, end of

[quote]The answer here is to do exactly as MoM did. Excess production = Gold. It makes sense as well, as it is simply the wealth of your nation as a whole. The stuff doesn't disappear it makes your nation wealthy. [/quote] The reason I'm not a fan of that approach is that it turns gold into a jack-of-all trades resource. If you're rich, who needs resources! I'm assuming, of course, that you can reverse that conversion (ie, that you can turn gold into resources, perha

[quote]You don't place an order. It's for extra metal. And they go to the towns delivering "Stuff" no matter what. [/quote] By placing an order, I meant queuing up a sufficient # of troops/buildings of sufficient cost. Not explicitly placing an order for a resource. And.. So caravans will be hopping around cities delivering resources based on build/training queues, right? It won't be random... (like it is now with gold and food, for example)

[quote]I do think it's possible to have your cake and eat it too in terms of the economy. For example: I don't think you have to have a resource inventory in order for distances to matter. The way we are looking at having distances matter in economic terms is through the caravan system. The caravan delivers goods from another city. The distance of that city will obviously matter because the caravan has to obviously travel there. These caravans are automatic, requ