ChongLi

High men, barbarians and nomads are radically different in terms of play-style, even if they seem similar conceptually. All of the Myrran races (Beastmen, Dark Elves, Draconians, Dwarves and Trolls) are completely different and all are unique and interesting to play. Hell, even the hated Lizardmen and Klackons are fun to play if you adopt strategies suitable for them. They are both extremely strong early game and grow quite fast, not needing very many buildings. Gnolls and Orcs were the most

[quote]If you could fly under your own power, and shoot bolts of lighting out your ass, would this forum be fun?[/quote] Yes. What about flying or shooting lightning bolts would make a forum not fun? Besides that, I do not think science sucks the fun out of everything. The Star Wars example had little to do with science and more to do with bad writing and retconning than anything else. A better example of where science is fun can be found in the SciFi, Cyberpunk and St

Magic is magic. There is no reconciling it with science. You can create rules to artificially restrict magic, but that is not science.

The religion mechanic in Civ4 is really lame. If they can't come up with a better mechanic than having silly expanding borders that wrap around a city and then take centuries to flip it, don't bother with religion.

To me, if you are commanding 1000 men with one click of the mouse, it really is no different than 8 men. It's just a graphical abstraction.

[quote]No, you're right you can't. But that's exactly what you've been trying to do all along... It's the only reason I bothered responding in the first place.[/quote] Why didn't you say so? [e digicons]|-)[/e] [quote]Also, we won't have to wait or 1000 units to take their turns, because units will function as groups, and each group will have its turn. And its continuous turns, which I think means that it more or less plays out like real time, but with turns running in the ba

[quote]Did you actually look at it or does your MoM point of reference completely rule your existence? Not once has there been indication that regiments will be faked as single entities. References to units and production have been indicative of the opposite. The screen shot does not indicate that they are single entities and will regenerate to full strength as they heal. It suggests the opposite, as the health indicator for those eight shows 20/24 hea

[quote]I'm just hoping we don't have multi-figure units to begin with. Making a pretense at formation combat and actually doing formation combat are two different things. I prefer the latter, real regiments of individual units.[/quote] Guess you didn't see the screenshot? [quote] You got your games messed up again: EWOM will ikely not have units called great wyrms, great drakes and sky drakes. That's MoM. It is likely that the game won't ev

[quote]Well, basically all an "endurance" system means is that you have two different health-realted numbers: your HP, which decreases when you take damage, increases over time, and kills you if it reaches 0, and an endurance number that stays the same until you take a certain amount of damage, then goes down a little and stays there until you take that amount of damage again, and so on. When your HP recovers to the point where you lost an endurance "point", it stops healin

[quote]FPSs are not totally skill-based. In fact, I can't think of a single game that is.[/quote] Quake and Unreal Tournament series are. As is tetris, super mario bros and many other console games. [quote]It's not a matter of "just go play something else". How wpould you like it if somebody told you "since you don't like a sepearte life/death system, just go play MoM"?[/quote] I apologize. It's actually a pretty stupid thing to say "just go play som

[quote]Ugh... more RNGs...... they make me nausious..... praying to the Big Roulette Wheel In The Sky is no way to go through a game...... but in any case, one of the more annoying features of Civ was the multiple individuals that rose from the dead as a unit healed..... hence my hope for an endurance system......[/quote] Oh, this didn't happen without a healing spell (or regeneration in the case of trolls), unless the unit was stationed in a town. In that case, it's assumed the figur

[quote]haven't there been more recent ones where they showed a much more chaotic looking battle? or am I imagining it? If this is obviously the route they are going, I don't see the reason for the big debate? Saying that they get 8X the benefit is misleading. If you gave a great wyrm 8 +1 dmg buffs, it had a much more drastic effect than giving a squad of spearmen a single +1 buff.[/quote] It depends entirely on how many shields the defender has. A defender with no

[quote]Could be. We know nothing about how numbers will work here, and decimals would make a lot of sense at the lower training levels..... plus, we son't know whether that attack is buffed or penalized in some way, or if attack even behaves like the rest of the stats. It's also possible that unit number is some sort of "engurance" system: if you lose health to a certain point, a unit dies, and you can't heal "past" that point.[/quote] "Engurance" is not a word, but

[quote]..... with all attack, defense, speed, and HP values cumulated as opposed to being kept seperate. Probably like in GC2 fleets, where there were individual ships but all the stats were added intoa single total.[/quote] I doubt it, take a closer look. The unit is 8 figures and has an attack strength of 12. Do you honestly believe that each figure has an attack of 1.5?

[quote]I think you misunderstand the game mechanics of MoM. giving +1 atk to a squad of pikemen didn't give you +8 atk. It gave each figure +1 atk true. Each figure in a stack rolled to hit, and had a 30% chance to hit. modified by + hit modifiers, or - hit modifiers. Then as I recall, it's attack strength (swords) were rolled off vs the defenders strength (shields). It was not an attack made at the sum total of the attack of each individual figure, it was one at

[quote]Except for the fact that large groups of people are a challange to control. If that horde of players on the football field were still under the coach's control, and were used to conduct various plays (I am referring to American football, since I understand the terminology better), I imagine it would be quite interesting. Besides, a balanced system would make horde combat optional , so you could still use your few elites all the time if you wanted to. And by "justify" I mea

[quote]I am well aware of that. I am discussing them as well, although the mention of common-sense explanations appears to have dreailed the discussion. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm off topic. In any case, I feel I've presented my arguments, and that you have yet to come up with a coherent response. Therefore, I will reiterate them: A unit cap eliminates the chance to create a vast, untrained horde-style army, since your hord cannot a

[quote]So, you don't care if macemen spontaneously appear on the tops of trees whenever you attack a swamp creature, or if farms produce nothing but research points?[/quote] How is that any more unbelievable than somebody throwing fireballs out of their fingertips? The only difference is what expectations you bring into the game. I've played plenty of independent games that shatter your expectations and for the most part it's a refreshing experience, but that's not what we're tal

[quote]As I said before, it's not the rules that need to be consistent, it's the explanation for those rules. In any event, the problem with a stack limit is not in the internal consisstency, it is in the explainability and believability. I only even mentioned internal consistency becuase it is closely related to explainability and believability.[/quote] Games don't need to be believable or explainable but jus

[quote]Unless you don't have the more efficicent unit...... as emmagine said, not every game will have equal resources.[/quote] How does this add a choice to the mix? You use the most efficient units available, there's no strategy to it. [quote]Ummm...... maybe that it makes them stronger? [/quote] But if you can have less of them, then what have you gained? It's like trading a hundred pennies for one dollar. Not only is it not interesti

[quote]9 peasants can't. 50 probably can. Considering the relative cost of arming and training 50 peasants compared to 9 paladins, both should be options. The only case where it's not an option is if you put a 9 unit stack limit on.[/quote] The problem with this is that it becomes a simple matter to calculate the cost of 50 peasants vs 9 paladins. Once this calculation is done, there is no reason to use the less efficient unit. It boils the entire game down to an equation. [qu

[quote]While the ai could be beat in MOM using human EXPLOITS it was far from dumb as stones compared to todays ai's. AOW doesn't even have an ai really. Try to diplomatically become an ally with one of the races in MOM and then try to go place full stacks next to its capital where the tower is, just try. MOM had at least a challenging ai if you didn't exploit the hell out of it. It also built counters for your castles in the sky or flying invisible units given the time. I played 100's of gam

Umm, we're talking about games here, not statistics and research.

[quote]True, but it muse be believable, explained , and internally consistent: Players will expect some sort of reason , be it scientific, magical, or practical, why only nine units can be stacked. A logistics or command point system goes a long way to providing that reason, in a way that the hard cap cannot.[/quote] Very few games, if any, are internally consistent. It's really an anal criterion to have and it d

[quote]Well, there's the fact that you won't screw up the rabble/elite balance. And that it makes more sense than an arbitrary limit.[/quote] Why does something have to make more sense to be preferable in this situation? This is a fantasy game after all, much of fantasy does not make sense. I guess if you're used to table-top wargames or something you would prefer point values. I don't play them. [quote]And is that such a bad thing? I for one enjoy b