Tasunke

So essentially, a low level Hero would do nearly 50/50 vs a squad that cost the same resources of investment ... however a High Level Hero would be a creature far beyond its material value. So basically, regardless of stats, an extra 2.5% to hit and an extra 2.5% chance to dodge per level, stacking with stat bonuses.

I guess what I'm saying is that level should count towards "your cost" ... only its not really costing resources, just time and effort. Also, I believe in each level taking the same amount of experience, only your experience is determined by how much weaker or stronger you were than your opponent. (not necessary, but I think its a cooler system) Anyways, I prefer to make a combat system not based (entirely) on the results I want, but how I think b

Heh. Yea, plenty of arguments. I for one, think that the game "Elemental" would do with global Gildar, Food, Mana, Knowledge, and Arcane. As far as metal and materials ... honestly it doesn't matter. Its not, to me, the availability of resources, but just how simple the "rest" of the game is. If I were to make a mod, I'd probably prefer to have local mana (on a character by character basis ... not global), although I'd probably keep all the other resources globa

It seems like false advertising cause it is false advertising. I'm not saying "remove it from the box" ... but instead of the caption being "command awesome battles" the caption should be "if your good at modding you might be able to make an RTS version of battles that might look something like this" ... or if your in marketing "Elemental is a platform where you can make all sorts of fantasy games: like this one battle that used to be Elemental, but is no longer anything like it. You too can

By "Global Mana" I'm gonna assume you mean "we will make magic more like Mom" :)

well, I'm trying a more "fair" (from my POV) approach to squads .... and in my vision squad sizes are 1, 4, 10, 20, 40, and 80 soldiers in number. Obviously there are advantages to having 80 soldiers, but its not an all-powerful choice either. Sometimes having Faster, Stronger, and more Heavily armored small squads is the better choice. And ... Heroes .... even an unarmored, poorly armed high level/ high stat Hero should be able to do some damage while being killed by a

A unit with a horse could cost +0.2 maintenance, a unit with a warg could cost +0.1 maintenance. A Faction with "horsemasters" trait could use horses with only +0.1 maintenance instead of +0.2 A Faction with "warg-masters" trait could have +1 runspeed on all wargs the more expensive "nomadic" faction trait, could add +2 runspeed and +1 attackspeed to all mounted units

Here is a Simple look on Wargs So ... on global you build a Kennel, Dog Yards ... gives "warg" resource If a city has an Adoption Agency, allows "mutt", costs 5 gold, 1 warg ( +5 HP, +3 run speed) A city with an Adoption Agency may build a "Breeders Guild" gives access to "prized warg", costs 30 gold, 1 warg, 5 metal (+15 HP, +5 armor, +3 run speed) A city with an Adoption Agency may build a "Dog Park" <

Here is a simple look on Horses ... So ... on global, you build a pasture to acquire horses ... Only cities with a Stables have access to horses. ... gives access to basic "horse", costs 10 gold, 1 horse, 5 materials (+5 HP, +5 run speed) A city with a Stables may build an "Animal Training Compound" The Animal Training Compound ... gives access to "war horse", costs 20 gold, 1 horse, 5 metal, 5 materials (+10 HP, + 5

[quote who="hairrorist" reply="4" id="2757538"]You can buy a version of MoM on Good Old Games (gog.com)that is windows compatible for $6.[/quote] You may have just GREATLY increased gog's profit margin right there xD

well, at some level I agree that (given same cost) small (numbered) units should overcome large (numbered) units ... and medium (numbered) units should be weak against large, yet cost-effective vs small. Yet, at the same time, I feel that large numbers of peons should have somewhat of an advantage in all cases if you assume infinite morale. Also ... when a hero levels up, cost is kind of thrown out the window (and the hero should be rightfully badass). B

[quote who="brainiac74" reply="7" id="2766200"] Quoting vieuxchat, reply 6It's an old work on the tactical battles. So it's no longer up to date. Really? I kinda wish they didn't use that image on the retail box art (cardboard sleeve) then. The caption next to this image says "Wage War Create custom soldiers, engage in tactical battles and conquer your foes"... sort of implying that the tactical battles would look something like this. If battles that

I'm not too keen on archers getting "re-rolls" ... although the main body of the theory is sound. Its actually quite similar to X + 1DN vs C on basic principle. For instance ... in a D20 system, each point in "attack bonus" or "AC" (within a 20 point spread) increases chance "to hit" or "to miss" by 5%. When beyond a 20 point spread, however, there is only a 5% chance to hit (or a 5% chance to miss). using the same D

I still agree with food being global. The rest of the resources being global is ok. current :total: situation however ... kinda too simple. I mean, I don't mind a completely "global" resource system ... but I guess the way we get those resources, and the way we spend those resources, is kinda too simple.

Sounds good. I personally hope its ( X + 1DN vs C ), where X is the constant variable "attack bonus", 1DN is the random factor (where N is a constant), and C is the constant variable "defense" ... and then a separate damage roll (based on weapon used), preferably either a smaller 1DN or a Gaussian. while a "Strength Bonus" adds to base damage (where even a roll of 1 damage would give you "strength bonus" + 1) ... at least for melee weapons. <p

I believe they are sword fighting over a top-less, and otherwise scantily clad lady ... hmm ... where do I find THIS kind of LARPING xD

other kingdoms? yes. Hired Champions? unfortunately no.

certainly

You meet a girl. Date her, form a relationship with her. You win over her parents (or convince her to leave her parents). You might want to have a trial run of living together for about a year or so. And then, you decide you want to get married. You ask her to marry you, go through a period of engagement, and have some sort of wedding (in many cases you let the family/parents plan the wedding if they are into that sort of thing). And that ... is a pretty good guide to how you

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="79" id="2761048"]We'd prefer if people stopped attacking things period (except in the game).[/quote] Could you clarify on attack? I hope nothing I have said was construed as an attack.

I'd rather it just have a solo Attack Value ... and then a unit has X number of attacks, where X is the number of soldiers. so basically you take the Attack Value of the attacker (not multiplied or stacked), and you take the Defense Value of the Defender (not multiplied or stacked) ... and then you roll attack vs defense X number of times. And you total up the damage. // I mean, not that I agree with the current way attack, defense, or damage are dealt w

[quote who="Peter Ebbesen" reply="3" id="2756479"]How about a button in options/gameplay or in the interface when choosing whether to fight or to autoresolve battles that said "USE MAGIC IN AUTORESOLVED BATTLES: YES/NO"? Tactical battles are mostly mindless tedium right now but autoresolving often have channelers wasting valuable mana on opponents that would have been squashed by troops, leading me to fight battles manually that by all rights should have been autoresolved (since th

I feel that X + 1DN vs C .... is stronger than 1DN vs 1DN This isn't necessarily even a gripe vs 1DN, I just think 1DN is stronger when its rolled vs a static value. Of course, it would be easier to do this if weapons didn't affect the attack roll (only damage roll) ... of course that would mean separating attack from damage. Regardless, even if Weapons did infact affect the attack roll, I think X + 1DN vs C would probably be stronger. &nbs

Obviously these thoughts are nice material to "chew on" while working on the Macro of the game. Honestly, I think the strongest design philosophy for this game (at least for me) is to focus on creating a TACTICAL BATTLE GAME. Just create a really fun Tactical Battle game that is fun while using Heroes AND giant squads of 80 soldiers. (and stuff in between). Once you have a really good Tactical Battle (a simple system at its core, that stil

Well, my current view is a variable attack roll vs a static defense. both can be increased by various stats (strength for attack, dex for defense) ... and I also think that Dex bonus should be different, with say, for instance, Dex bonus being (1/(Armor Penalty + 1))*(Dex-10) as an example. In this way, various armors have associated Armor Penalties ... so that at first the Armor simply gets "higher" while also having Armor Penalties, and then later Armor stays the same value