Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Same as CoE2 in the order of battle.

If it was changed, it would have to be changed so that each classification of units would go separately in a turn based fashion, but you would have to include all of the steps (spellcasting/ranged/melee) in every phase (see my previous post on classifications), which would lead to a lot of repetition and possible error chances. I can ask Johan about that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Fear attacks target morale and if fear damage is greater than morale, the unit runs away.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

:cry:

COE2 combat was godawful, frankly.

That's hardly difficult. See Emperor of the Fading Suns (circa 1995), combat worked exactly like that - indirect, direct, melee and psychic phases per turn for all units possessing a particular kind of attack. That alone would improve on COE2 combat immensely.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Difficult doenst play into it much. That might not be difficult but it would be time consuming. The developers are still doing it as a fun hobby. We will have to see if Johan wants to.

Personally Im not seeing much problem with it. The game could be made more micromanaging but Im not really missing it even though usually like a high level of MM

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Keeping MM to a minimum is a major selling point for me.
I'm playing dominions for years now and I'm sooooo tired with it's emphasis on MM. I'm looking fwd to playing casual CoE3 games that don't take forever to do a turn.

That said, an initiative based system for combat, resolved automatically, will only enrich CoE3.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Look if they are developing it for fun, that doesn't mean people cannot still comment about it. Especially if it turns out to be a bad game.

And probably it is going to be one of those shrapnel super expensive games again. Which I would not be that interested in.

At least dom3 had interesting combat mechanics. That isn't really used anywhere else.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Im not stopping the commenting. Suggestions and requests are fully expected and appreciated. Im just explaining so we dont get into long arguments about what should be done and why which might derail the whole project.

And again, no one has said it will be a Shrapnel game yet. If you have some reasonable suggestions feel free to post them

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Heehee. Im too slow. Edi has already started a new thread in the beta forum about the combat suggestions. With a long and well written explanation of what has been brought up so far

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Desura could be an option to release the game through. It support both Windows and Linux.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

Desura looks to be shelfware/marketing style.
Im not sure that Illwinter is ready yet to go that route but I will mention it.

Re: Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log
 

The issue of the combat sequence has been raised. We'll see what the answer is, though likely as not I'll only learn the results after the 13th, since I'm out of the country from 4th to 13th of January.

Like Gandalf said, anything that has a label of "lots of work and requires lots of time" is unlikely for exactly the reasons he listed.

A sequential 3 phase combat with spellcaster, missile and melee phases would probably only alter combat sequence mechanics (basically the order in which who does what they already do now) and I don't have any objection if the current system is changed to something like that. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome from a personal point of view.


However, anything like adding an initiative system would require some or all of the following:

- unit structure changes (and making them to all 650 (as of now) monsters)
- significant AI rewriting for 17 (as of now) separate AIs
- complete rewrite of the existing combat sequence code aside from damage mechanis
- significant rewrites of magic mechanics and spell structures, if magic initiative was to be spell-based rather than unit based
- integrating unit initiative of spellcasters with spell initiative of the spells they know
- since weapon and spell mechanics are essentially identical, initiative for weapons? And same problems there as above.

And then you would need to debug the whole shebang, which would be definitely be a non-trivial and very time-consuming task on top of all the time consumption that goes to the bullet points above.

Yes, there would be enrichment. But at what cost in time and effort required? Going "This would be awesome" is easy enough but making it a reality is another thing entirely.