incorrect ... demon-leather would be created from the Skin of a demon :) ... Humans and Demons can both wear "Cow leather and Demon-leather ... but it would probably be weird for a Demon to wear demon leather, he might rather want to wear human-leather.
only one true method of winning "perfectly" but plenty of ways to win. I am assuming its alot similar to Fire Emblem, but on a larger scale.
I dunno. Did you like fantasy wars? I have not played either, although if there are better made turn based-combat games in a similar setting I would like to know. (that are still in retail, aka not-early 90s available thru daemon tools) Its kind of like Star Trek movies ... it seems like there are soo many of them, and then when you want to find a decent one you realise how few their truly are.
well, the population could injur a semi-random number of occupying soldiers each turn of non-stable occupation, which can potentially lead to soldier deaths (although hopefully not killing off unique soldiers and high-level platoons).
nevar!!!! no playable races for you :3 ... but yea, if you can mod-in armors to be wielded by lizardmen and dragon-men, then I will approve :)
hmm, same could be done for controlling a colony of giant spiders ... could be very visceral and creepy in that case :) (laying eggs in the bodies of dead adventurers ... all that fangs, dissolving flesh, eating, fangs, poison, ect)
I would certainly prefer direct control.
Er ... I would much rather your Family Members and Heroes act as possible leaders (and yes, it can be a rare event for a hero to emerge from a leader-less army with a stunning victory). These units, asides from their combat stats, would have leadership-based stats (to some extent) hopefully both in running an army and in running a city (so that they can be a general, governor, or both ... of course they are only ever generals "during battle" technically, while they are a governor as long as t
still, we are assuming the rather consistent Medieval environment. Im not exactly sure what he is getting at ... but somehow training mastery in 3 different skills somehow greatly boosts your over-all effectiveness? Not sure. However, one way to take the Idea from the "lawn analogy" is that you can only train a regular soldier to be "only so good" with a basic barracks ... compared to the colliseum training galactica stadium 2000 ... or Metropolis Barracks.
Carbon : creation magic ... make stuff and throw it at thine enemy!! (oils, poisons, poisonous oils, perfumes) Sulpher : stink-magic ... it destroys things with its powerful stench, directly opposed to Carbon magic Hydrogen : binding magic ... can stick things tightly together, or blow them to smithereens ... can make soldiers "magnetically" attracted to each other, and then release the magic to blow the soldiers apart. <
Well, apparantly the game already has the best Mercenary in the world using a Prestige based system of aquirement. Namely, an Elder Dragon!! although I would like to think the path to aquiring human mercenaries being under "civilization" while Dragon is under "adventure" :3
oh, was Neitzsche an artist AND philosopher? warrior-philosopher? ;)
I do not approve of Gaussian Attk-Def to achieve a damage roll. This has an even greater weakness than having damage = attk-def (according to a roll OF COURSE) because it could have many instances of extremely low damage from many hits ... unless you mean to take the number of Attk-Def, make that the mean, and derive a gaussian around that, which I suppose is okay. However, that seems like extra work, and WOULD NOT PROVIDE VARIANCE TO WEAPON TYPE. At least not on the scale I would currently w
Probably heroes .... Heroes are those that rise to greatness for country under times of extreme duress ... while Adventurers are those that actively seek to test themselves, and surviving Adventurers are probably slightly more common than heroes, although heroes will be stronger and more loyal, Adventurers will have specialty skills, and the lucky adventurer could be even stronger than a hero. I tend to think of hero as natural aptitude, while adventurer is an inclination to "want" to
and yet ... being best with a longbow ... why need be best at anything else? Sure, if your wielding a sword, you might need to develop defensive and offensive capabilities, but these are all in the same skill-set since its how your body-movement and sword position will outmaneuver your opponents. The stronger and more built you are, the bigger the sword you can wield, which can increase reach and stopping power, but reach only has certain advantages, where-as skills in avoiding anothe
yea, Brian's strategy, of completing your kill upon Carl to take Carl's cards, was ... well ... a good strategy in Risk. Its perhaps more evident in 6 player games of Risk however.
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="17" id="2442395"]Thanks for the video. I just realized something after watching this. Creating 3D models for the units will be hellish hard. I mean how will the equipments [various armors & weapons] fit on the very different creature models? Like if someone creates a creature [..as a basic civ unit], which has 2 heads, 4 arms and a huge body for example? [/quote] which is exactly why I suggested such creatures should only be allowed to wield weapons
surely having Taverns, Brothels, and other such things will increase your chance of gaining the attention of mercenaries. Whereas a Tavern or Inn would attract individual adventurers, Large Beer-halls and Brothels would be more likely to attract a whole company of Mercenaries.
Is damage going to be something more in-depth than Attk-Def? I would rather it be something more-so, but alas. (even if its just a multiple or divisible of the Attk-Def score. Like an axe would have a lower attack but do 1.5x the damage, while a rapier would have a higher attack (than a sword) although have 0.7 or 0.8x the damage. (bad rapiers would only do 0.5x the damage, and really good axes would do 2x the damage) just an example of a possible alteration of damage score ... to make someth
I would rather a unit encountering resistance to "stop moving" as opposed to losing their turn or auto-directing to someplace I may not want them to go "like right into a dragon", or "on the other side of a mountain range, going more backwards than forwards, in relation to the destination. to me, penalties for running "into a brick wall" only encourage movement micromanagement. Kind-a seems prone to mis-clicks ... at least devastating in multi. At most game-breaking.
banned for failing Astronomy
nothin but net
Banned for making me choose between horses and dragons .... bad Ryat, bad!
Banning ryat for going off topic before I did.
banned for becoming an enemy to the horselords. March yonder! On a completely unrelated note ... wouldn't the russians have the best elite bear cavalry?