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?
I see what you mean now. Only a certain number of "actions" can be performed per "turn" and someone other than the "players" controls the passage of time. But even then there are a number of ways you can configure it. The players don't always have to act at the same time.
But that is like any other game. Learning how the system works is something that becomes reflex over time. You don't need to go looking for information because after a point you already know. Of course you have to draw the line before things become overcomplicated, but there are games that take complexity to the extreme and people still play them. You might favour simplicity in the system but the little details are what make the game interesting.
I really don't understand why stardock ditch the 3 deffences 3 attack types like in galciv.....
Warder
Personally, I'd like to see simultaneous turns like the game Combat Missions. Each player issues orders for their units and then the turn plays out. This would make a tactical multiplayer mode more feasible, plus you could better use maneuvers like feints. If unit stats were available from hovering over a unit, it would make custom weapon types manageable I think. This system along with fog of war would make for a very deep tactical battles. Unfortunately, with the large strategic component to this game, I'm skeptical about the depth of combat they'll be able to have.
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 something "easy to land and light touch" or "hard to land but heavier punch". Just a thought.
Perhaps roll a gaussian around attack and a gaussian around defence (gaussian being a bell curve which returns the mean more often then anything else, has a 66% chance to give somehting within +/- a predefined range.)if attack exceeds defence then you hit, then role another gaussian attack - defence for damagethen you can have differnt weaponds have differnt responceses to hit and to damage, so maybe the to hit gets gausian *1.5, or best of two gaussians to hit. and to damage gets worst of two gaussians to damage. For example. GC's three attack types three defence types was fine because there was no tactical element every ship could hit any opponent every round, and it was automated. At any level beyond 1- 10 units vrs 1-10 units actaully tracking all the damage types and defence types would be overly burdensom, and unnessiary. If you want to have say slashing damage, peircing damage and blunt damage for example you can get most of the game play effects from + to hit - to damage, increases effectivness of armour- to hit + to damage, reduces effectiveness of armour- to opponent defence if light armour, + to opponent defence if heavy armour Now you don't have damage types and have only 2 armour types heave light. All weaponds are classifed not by how much of each type of damage they do, but by there +/- to hit, +/- to damage, and effectiveness of opponent armour. The goal achive directly desirable game play effects without unnessisary and unclear variables/ clasifications. at least that's what how i would like to see it. Robbie Price
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 wish for.
Im not asking for damage types, im asking for attack and damage to be at least some-what separate.
I do approve of a gaussian attk - gaussian def to get a "sucessful hit", although it seems we disagree on how to deal with damage. Having multiplier modifiers, like x 0.7 or x 1.5 should be enough of a disparity between "axes, swords, maces, hammers, rapiers, spears, bows, and crossbows" without distancing ourself too much from "high attack roll = good" -all the while still keeping a simple system.
Cause having simple actors would "I hope/think" allow for a more complex battlefield mechanism, where tactics and wing-strategy/formation strategy would come into play. I mean, how you organize your troops, when to signal the charge, or the temporary retreat, or the dash to the hill, or the "fighting retreat" ect, ect ... should both have an effect (basically boiling down to where you place the troops, and when you click ... having both factors provide equal battlefield-changing effects)
The gaussian is semetric... with equal probability of high and low rolls, so I really don't understand where you're getting the high change of exremely low damage from? The standard in these games is uniform from 0 to def or 0 to attack. Meaning that if your attack is 12 then on average you can expect about 6. but you have equal probabilty of getting 12, as you do of getting 0. (sometimes it's done as low - high so you have equal change of each value between low and high.) a slightly less painful method is the 2d7-2 method, it gives the same range, but 0 and 12 are about 7 times less likely then getting 6. I would prefer a more flexible system that says One weapon might be attack(6) +/- 2, and another could be 1.(attack(6) +/- 4). on it's to hit. and some simulare shifted gassian comparison for damage rolls. Where the modifier could depend on light vrs heavy armour, or mounted or not.I think 'when you click' mechanisms will be highly surpressed in the final game, i belive the intention is to have most of the battle be simulation where the user is content to watch, but can interup to change battle plans when they see fit(the goal being that they won't want to often because there is no need). Also that the final will be 'continous turn baced' which I interprite to mean that you won't be able to stop mid action, or give instrutions which matter when you tell them, they still will 'wait for thier turn' in a sence. but we'll see.
Well I was agreeing this is good. It's just that from what I've seen I don't think that this is the way the game is headed. I love lots of numbers myself and if done right it can help make things more realistic and interesting. I sure hope they add more than what they have now but I can't see them going all out like Dominions. They have always gone with simpler combat systems and the game they are using as the main model is MOM which isn't number heavy.
Another aspect of this is that, yes the computer handles all the details but all the numbers still have to be presented and digested by the player to make good choices. I love Dominions but it is a bit intimidating.
My preference is to have a number heavy system but I just don't see that happening.
Dominions battles have alot of stats, but the combat isn't exactly what I would call "complex."
In elemental, it seems like terrain will have a large benefit in battle, like greater range/ better footing up on a hill, ect. Also (hopefully) there will be formations, morale, and endurance. Even with a few core "stats" the battle system already looks far more complex ... from a fun perspective. (aka you have alot of control over it, glass ceiling and so-forth)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
