citywolfdreams

@Sethai - I think that we agree in general, even if we disagree on the minor points. The reason I used this example is more because it fits into my (admittedly simplified) example from the original post. @Austinvn - I don't think that this example was poorly chosen: actually I chose it specifically to make the point that weapon properties do not (and should not) always be positive. As you pointed out, having an impact weapon can be a big detriment in situations where you W

[quote]Assuming a good selection of special abilities, initiative based turns, and the above features Elemental would have better TC than any of the Age of Wonders games. Even with just the easy stuff it would be far better than it is now. It is also worth mentioning the Tactical AI in Age of Wonders: Shadow Magix is totally brain dead and the greatest weakness of the AI for that game, but TC against the AI is still fun. It is better to think of these things sooner when lots of cha

I agree with the OP completely. Plus his AI point is very good - programming AI tactics is much easier for abilities that are "always on" rather than things that have to be used and then recharged, unless they are so good that it is always best to use the ability immediately. But if that's the case, then it's a pretty stupid ability to give them since it's not really a tactical CHOICE, just a tactical power up.

Here's another possibility I thought of for difficult terrain (ie, terrain that costs extra action points of movement and/or has other penalizing effects) that would enhance the game: landwalk effects. What landwalk would do is that units which have the appropriate landwalk ability (ie, forestwalk, hillwalk, swampwalk, etc) would ignore all negative effects and extra action point expenditure from that type of terrain. For example, a unit of rangers could have forestwalk which me

[quote who="Sethai" reply="30" id="2892430"]the arguments about realism are pointless, and it is unlikely that any specific requests made here will make it, however i think most people would like some implementation of the following ideas - mechanics that favour maneuvering: being attacked from the flank is not the same as being attacked from the front - mechanics that distinguish weapons by their type as well as their quality, and make certain weapons (spears

I'm going to disregard Femmefatale48 going forwards from this post since she sounds like she's trolling. I do admire Derek's work based on what I've seen of it, and no brown-nosing is intended. Don't get me wrong, I'd be willing to brown-nose a little if there were profit to be made, but why would I brown-nose somebody who can't advance my career, finances, or romantic interests in any way? That doesn't even make sense - do people actually DO that? (Somebody

[quote who="Sethai" reply="19" id="2891112"] either way, i'd rather someone criticise my actual ideas and say why they're flawed rather than my philosophy that combat mechanics that bear a passing resemblance to PEOPLE HITTING EACH OTHER will help people use the tactics that make sense to them, instead of gaming the system and working out that maneuvering and using terrain are basically pointless because of the lack of mechanics. [/quote] Because we're trying to limit our su

[quote who="Archonsod" reply="17" id="2890529"] Good ideas. Only problematic one is terrain. I'd agree it should be more influential on the battle, the problem is it's a fine balance to strike. Making it central incurs a risk of a player losing a battle purely because the terrain disadvantaged their army or handed their opponent an advantage, which if the player has no control over it can make it seem arbitrarily unfair. [/quote] I agree; it would be lame if eith

Stuie, you raise a very good issue about the movement and action points exploit. One easy improvement to the AI could be the following rule: don't move right next to the player's melee units UNLESS A ) you have enough action points to still attack after moving next to them, or B ) The player has significantly more artillery than you. This would stop easy exploitation of AI units ending their turn right next to you without attacking.<

I started a thread about tactical combat ( https://forums.elementalgame.com/405229 ) which turned into a discussion about ways to improve both tactical combat and how the AI behaves there. One of the respondents pointed out that this related thread would be a good place to have the discussion, so I am posted a link here. (Apologies if this is not standard forum protocol - I'm new. :-)

Well Stuie, based on the current maps and weapons, there aren't too many tactical choices the AI can make. Even if they do fix the problem where the AI chases a weak unit in circles while your archers kill them, the outcome of the battle is still basically a back and forth slugfest. That's why I feel better terrain and weapon design need to happen at the same time as the AI improvement. I have an idea. It sounds like a lot of us are unhappy with the combat AI.

Sethai, I think you might be greatly misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're talking about swamp and forest terrain always being on the left and right, so it's impossible to use the terrain. But one of the points I made was that terrain should NOT be on the fringes of the battlefield like it is now - it should be flat in the center. If you're on a forest tile when the combat starts, then there should be forested areas all over the combat map, not just off to the sides.

First of all, I want to say that I have been one of Derek Paxton's biggest fans ever since Fall From Heaven came out. That mod was genius. Derek basically took an existing game and made a mod so good that playing the mod was better than the strategy game itself. And not just ANY game - this was a SID MEIER game. So Derek, if you're reading this, I just want to say that I'm a great admirer of your work and although Stardock's launch of Elemental was suboptimal, they cer