So far all the post I read about regarding weapon are about its damage types like cutting, and blute. But what about the weapon Range for both melee and range type weapons? Also how many different types of weapon are available in the game? what are the weakness and strength compare it to other weapons?
Weapon range? Well I when I was figuring this stuff out I divided them into melee, reach and ranged weapons. Reach weapons are just melee weapons that can you can use without being within striking distance. A ranged weapon is a missile attack.
The distiction between those doesn't get very complicated because of how combat movement works (AFAIK). In a game like Total War it can be important to have pikes that are a foot longer than your opponents. But in a game like Elemental where movement in combat seems to be tile based, it doesn't matter how long you make your weapons. 2 foot, or 24 foot you will only get to use them against units in adjecant tiles. In such a case "reach" becomes an important distinction because it allows you to hit first and hit without getting hit in return.
As to your second and third questions. As many as you can find silly names for. And whichever weapon has the highest number attached is the strongest.
Not a very complicated system, which is why I advocate the addition of damage types. It would still be based on numerical scores yes but it would add some variety and a method to distinguish weapons from each other.
Well Brad basically already said no to damage types for weapons. I just hope weapons aren't meaningless in the game. Historically weapons had advantages and disadvantages and I'd at least like to see pikes give advantages versus cavalry, axes be hard to parry (maybe mitigate opponents defense a little), large shields give better defense against archers, etc. Also it would be nice to see some disadcantages put in which I can't remember ever seeing in a game like this. Pikes are unwieldy so changing facing and moving through dense forest are more difficult for instance. Having things like this would make things very interesting and would give us reasons to make diverse armies.
Also like the idea of reach but that might be too many numbers for weapons in this game.
[quote]Well Brad basically already said no to damage types for weapons. I just hope weapons aren't meaningless in the game.[/quote[
well, we have club, spears, and sword in the game skeleton of a game called the beta. They seem to be the same for the most part. Why would they bother making the at this point 3 if they were the same. They just don't have "slashing" or "piercing" as a damage type. The weapons will likely still carry a big impact.
I really don't like summing up attack and defence as a number. The game then becomes all about stacking force multipliers so that your total weapon score beats thier armour score and they take damage. It makes all other detail meaningless. Who cares if the enemy has swords? All I need is my +99 kilt of ultimate power and I am invincible.
The problem with implementing anything more is that you have to go all out. Having 4 types of weapon damage is meaningless, unless you can match them against 3 types of armour. And get rid of straight hitpoints in the bargain.
The most basic basic example of this would be to split all the base stats (damage, armour etc) into multiple parts. Only then can you add meaningful detail. Hammers are great against plate armoured knights but useless against an ent. A halberd can be used as an axe, a spear and a hammer. But each halberd is heavier and more expensive than all of those weapons combined. If your enemy has crossbows that can defeat your heaviest body armour, then ditch the armour and bring a bigger shield. Lack of archers to defend your castle? Put some swordsmen on the walls and give each man a bucket of rocks. Gotta stop a siege tower with nothing but peasants? Get them to dig a trench.
This is what REAL "deep" strategy looks like. And with such a simple combat system we can barely touch on things like this. The best we can do is add modifiers like "armour piercing" or "first strike". But they are horribly "dumbed down" from the absent mechanics they represent.
I would agree with you, except you are creating a strawman argument that assumes that there will be no more depth to combat than the soldiers on the field. With a host of spells, heroes, monsters, and the possibilities of subtype elemental damage, the battlefield becomes fairly complex. Add 4 weapon types and 3 armor types and we soon have a system so complex that every battle becomes immensely tedious or a ring-around-the-rosey as the units of both sides chase each other around in circles trying to exploit one another's vulnerabilities. Being able to identify what is what on the battlefield would be a true chore, and keeping track of where you and your foe's subtype of weapon and armor classes once the battle starts is even more taxing. Not to mention you are likely to end up with a strategic sesaw effect after you've discovered what your foe is fielding, running back to the drawing board constantly to re-equip or redesign your soldiers. This was aggrivating enough in Galactic Civs without tactical battles.
The only way I'd be okay with a mess of subtype damage is if there are no armor subtypes and if those damage types play a broader role in combat rather than an explicit role (for instance, placing your axmen, who are high damage low defense, on a part of the field you mean to break quickly rather than selecting each axmen and using them to branch out and hunt a separate, specific unit type that they are good at killing). This should add some strategic depth and prevent information overload. It may even be meaningful to eliminate actual subtypes all together and instead allow weapons to alter defense score as well. Spears might add little offense but high defense, swords might give decent offense, axes might give high offense but lose some defense, etc.
This would still add strategic variability and it would be a lot easier to assess on the battlefield.
I really don't understand that concept of "too many numbers" or "too many variables" for weapons or units and such.
If we play those games on computers, and not on board like some play with their Warhammer Armies, it's also because we prefer to focalise on what's really interesting (tactics, strategy) and not on memorizing hundreds of rules before we roll the dice.
My exemple for armies and combat (though the combat system in E:WOM will probably be different and with a lot more player-control) would be Dominions. Here you have units with a ton of stats (HP, force, resistance, encumberance, protection, morale,...) and they have weapons which have also stats (damage, attack, defense, length; for melee, and damage, precision, ammunition, for range weapons). Sure, that seems overload for your 'conscript' troops (as opposed to heroes and commanders that you can customize with all kinds of magic helmets, armor, trinkets, shields and such...) but do YOU, the player, really care a lot about it?
Some people do. Reading some Dominions forums, I am amazed as I read to which depths of micromanagement and knowledge of the rules these guys go (mainly in multiplayer). As for myself, I usually watch quickly which are the stats of my nation units at the beginning, choose 3 or 4 kinds that I will use ( ex with Ulm: 1 pikeneer from 4 proposed, 1 plate-armor/axe from 4, 1 cavalry, and crossbowmen) and that's it! I don't need to know exactly to which extend my pikeneer with length 4 is better than AI's lizardmen and their swords. I just need to know that more protection is good against arrows, that X does that and I fiddle a little.
That's why I love the motto "Easy to understand, hard to master".
You CAN have tons of stats and abilities but you don't HAVE TO master them. There can be the casual or not-so-bad player who takes a nation, takes a look and play, writing strategy as it comes, and there can be the micromanagement-frenzy guy who spent last night trying to see whether Ulm pikes against Pythium swords gives 75% advantage or only 65%...
well, lets take a look at what we already know, shall we? we are going to be starting with equipment based Attk/Def scores, each of which will be "randomly" selected. If the attack score exceeds the defense score, the attack will prevail.
I think a good question would be about "damage." Sure it might be easy to simply take damage to equal attk roll - defense roll, or some multiple/equation thereof, although I would like for their to be a "damage" score as well. in damage dealt, we can start to have some "real" difference between weaponry, instead of just its Attk score.
Now you have more than just one variable, and its kinda fun too. Do you focus on weapons with high ATTK scores or high DAM scores? how do you get something with a good bit of both? In this case, swords would have a higher damage score, maces and hammers would have a higher attack score (armor piercing), and axes would be somewhere in-between.
Personally I think this allows plenty of further opportunities for all sorts of fantasy monsters, diverse weaponry, and diverse spells. Think about an attack spell that ignores armor? now you have a damage score already in place, and it can directly attack the HP (although I suppose you could use attack in this instance, but only if armor was ignored completely)
I dunno, I would just prefer the two to be some-what separate. I think it allows for more flexibility, adds more depth than excess repitition and befuddlement, therefore its a good thing to add in my humble opinion.
A straw man argument is an argument presented to distract attention away from another issue. "Simple combat systems suck and here is why" Is not a straw man argument. The irony of this is that intentionally or not you just used one of your own.
We are (or at least I was) only talking about weapon damage types as they apply to unit vs unit melee combat. And by extention armour types as well because without them the former would be meaningless. All these things you mention, spells, heroes, monsters don't add anything in regards to men hitting each other with sticks. Heroes and monsters are just stronget "units". And magic is another thing altogether.
Anyway, if you are fine with adding "elemental" damage to the game like fire, ice and lightning. Whats wrong with blunt, piercing and cutting?
Sure, if you ignore things like encumberence and measure protection as "none" or "immune". If body armour granted immunity to a damage type then yes that situation would happen. But body armour is a tradeoff. How much speed are you willing to sacrifice for protection? No matter how good your armour is made it is still more important to get out of the way. Units will never "chase each other in circles". Either combat doesn't occur at all (as in a successful retreat), or the faster unit runs down the slower unit and a fight ensues.
This remains true, unless you make something truly ridiculous such as a 60 foot tall solid titanium golem. But we call those units "broken" for a reason.
Only if you do a poor job of distilling that information into a UI. Let me give you an example:
That gives you all the info you need at a glace to determine that sending light infantry with swords against heavy infantry in plate armour would be a bad idea. Sure you would have to dig through menus to find all the nitty gritty details. But... your going to do that anyway right?
But that is no different from the system we have now. Axes are great against shields because they destroy them. But if axes deal the same type of damage as swords, you just have a sword with a "shieldbreaker" modifier on it.
Oh my, now we're adding encumberance modifiers based on armor as well.
And I think I may have been taken too literally. I don't mean that units will literally chase one another in circles--- that's just silly. What I suspect will happen, though, is that scores of specific units will be matched against scores of specific opposing units, causing a quagmire of battlefield crisscrosses and confusion,
The point of my system of integrating subtypes into pre-existing stats is so that there are fewer stats that we must juggle in order to assess the battlefield situation. If we are to add in all of these extra attributes, it must be done ellegantly otherwise it becomes overbearing.
If we were dealing with a battlefield like MoM, where you only had a maximum of 9 units each, your system would work beautifully, even with magic involved. However, I am led to believe that there will be many, many more units on the field than 9.
As for having axes or swords over a unit to represent its weapon type, that's a very good idea, and I mentioned it as well in a different trait thread. So let me ellaborate on my previous post.
I'm fine with different weapon types, but I don't think there should be "damage" types, per se for weapons. Instead, I would give units a "trait" that is represented as an icon near the unit on the battlefield (as you mentioned, a sword, spear, ax). These traits would modify effectiveness against certain unit types. Armor "types" I think are unnecessary, because if you have a high armor rating, it already implies that you have to wear more or better armor to get it anyway. Whether armor is considered light, medium, or heavy can be easily construed by how high a units armor rating is. So rather than having an extra icon type that represents armor type, you can interpret armor type by the armor rating score that is already there. So instead of axes being good at hacking through "plate" or "chain" armor, it adds a bonus proportional to an opponent's armor rating.
So the benefit of an ax wielder might be that it negates 25 percent of an opponent's armor, which is simple to understand, and you only have to look at one stat of an opponent's unit to know how to use your ax wielder effectively. You get the same net effect as you wanted originally without the mess of extra stats.
Heh, see what I mean? This is where it spirals out of control.
I get what you mean with the running in circles. Basically you are talking about the classic rock-paper-scissors balance model with cavalry>archers>pikemen>cavalry. In a real time strategy game like the total war series people protect thier archers with the pikemen while thier cavalry attacks the enemy archers. In a turn based game this is not possible. Cavalry can simply move around anything it doesn't want to fight. Even thought it contains infantry, cavalry and archers. MoM does not balance them in that fashion because of the limitations of its combat system.
Again with the damage types you really have to go all out on it and its supporting systems. As I said, different types of damage are pointless without different types of protection. Otherwise the benefits can only be represented in incidental ways like the axe bonus you mentioned.
I would hesitate before giving axes a blanket bonus like that. Unless you give them a similar disadvantage.
Right now, they are meaningless, since all they "offer" is: +ATT value in the current beta. It would be cool, if we would be able to mod in physical dmg types. Hopefully magical/elemental dmg types are in [I think that they are implemented already in the internal builds?] + resistances and immunities.
Uh oh, you do realize that Elemental combat is not turn based, right? Sure, in a turn based game its a lot easier to keep track of extra variables, but I'm highly confident that Elemental battles use real time pausable like the Total War series.
As for axes, I would ideally give units armed with axes a defense penalty to compensate for their armor cleaving advantage.
Considering we can turn stacks into armiers and they actually fight together on the battlefield in tactical battles, I hope the battles are more the total war series then previous TBS style battles. If that's the case then we should only have to worry about calvalry running around and picking off lone units, and not the classic calvarly is faster and stronger then other units and can run around with impunity.
Heheh ... have you ever played a Total War game with an all-cavalry army? It takes, I would say, more intelligence than "I have one unit which represents 1000 paladins, I annihilate you now" ... but it certainly can be rewarding. It doesn't always work, but with enough experience in moving your various cavalry wings just so ... it can lead to a marvelous slaughter of the enemy (with plenty o' prisoners ripe for ransom or execution)
I suggest weapon types grant the unit "abilities". For example: spear gives first strike, halbred gives a chance to fend off an attack, sword or axe can cause a bleed effect, blunt weapon can stun, etc. This will add flavor and weapon research can produce better weapons that increase the frequency of ability procs and/or the magnitude of the effect.
I despised the way in which Total War handled Cavalry. It was far too cheap and far too effective. Not to mention you could give them flawless commands instantaneously no matter how tired they were or how disoganized they became. A few Total War mods put cavalry where they were supposed to be (expensive, tactically critical, and impossible to spam).
I would have personally liked to see a system in Total War that took discipline into account. The more your soldiers fought and were commanded to charge, the more disorganized they would become which would invariably result in an inability to take any other orders other than "retreat." The more discipline your soldiers could maintain, the greater ease with which you could give them consecutive commands and have them carry them out decisively. Have a regiment of peasant rabble? Once you command them to charge, don't expect them to follow any commands. Have a contingent of elite Companion Cavalry? You can order them to charge, withdraw, encircle an enemy regiment, charge again, etc.
It is turn based. At least what we have been told is "continuous turn based" which is NOT the same thing as real time. The inclusion of the word "turns" means that players will not be able to act at the same time.
As for the axes, your penalty doesn't make sense. I have an axe in my hand and suddenly my armour is less effective? Did I use the axe to smash up my armour before I put it on? A penalty to parrying would make more sense because an axe is an unbalance weapon. If you were also tracking unit encumberance you could just make the axe a heavy weapon and that would be enough.
The damage dealt, and how quickly its dealt (as well as spell-casting), is turn based ... while movement and tactics are real time (my understanding)
how the fuck would that work:o?
have you played ... oh I dont know ... NeverWinterNights, NWN2, Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate 2, or Dragon Age:Origins?
if I must explain further, all attacks are done at the start of the round "which is a certain amount of time" and if you are within their range at the start of the round, and if the attack hits, no matter where you are at the end of the round, the damage will be dealt to you at the end of the round. Sure, it means a retreating unit can die while running away, but thats really rather acceptable.
It's a good system yes, but imo a real turn-based system would be much better in a game like Elemental. I am really wondering that how is this continous TBS will work in action [..in singleplayer and in multiplayer as well]. Ah well..we shall see, once we can beta test tactical combat.
Yes, a sword can deflect a weapon better than an ax and axes, being less balanced, would leave your vulnerable after delivering a broad a sweeping blow.
As for continuous turn based, I still don't think units will be moving "one at a time," so my point is till valid.
I think your original point kind of got lost in there. What was it again?
But still the problem is whatever we say now is based on speculation. Were going to be talking in circles until we get some concrete data to work on. "Continous Turn Based" can mean a lot of things.
If it's like Baldurs Gate or Dragon Age, "Continous Turns" means nearly the same as "Real Time". In real time your units attack once every X seconds and in Continous Turns once every X turns, you are just changing second for turns (and both sides take actions at the same time).
Maybe you have examples where "Continous Turns" mean something different.
Lol, okay. Yeah, my point was that it might be easy to keep track of many attributes amongst your units upon arranging them on the battlefield, but once the fight starts, you can very quickly lose track of who is who and who has what tactical advantage because your units will be criss-crossing the battlefield in pursuit of the units whom they have an advantage against. When any kind of simultaneous unit movement is involved, you have to update unit paths very frequently. In total war, this was manageable but you could easily get lost in the quagmire with a handful of units with minor stat diversity.
In a strictly turn based system where unit 1 moves, then unit 2, then unit 3, things are easy to keep track of because you've given each unit a new order each turn.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
