|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Diversity and complexity are quite simply not always better, its the old issues of absolutly no absolutes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The pertinant questions about diversity and complexity for this specific system are what we are interested in though. It should be obvious to everyone that the proposed system adds both, the question then comes down to how much value do those additions contain. This is where the differing opinions come in. Thanks for your answers HJ, I accept them for what they are, but they still don't quite give me enough specifics to be able to provide anymore feedback on the system. My main concern really is how will the new system be divided among the existing units (national and independant). If there are no changes to the existing units, other than to reclassify their weapons and armor, there will be holes in all the nations. You are right to say that adding more imbalance isn't necessarilly a bad thing, but at some point it is, it makes certain nations completely untenable in certain situations, and that holds for both SP and MP. I actually play very little MP myself, so most of my concern with any addition to a game lies on the SP side, and as I've said before, I don't see this system adding much to my game playing experience, honestly, I can see several ways to implement it that would really annoy me. Thats why I posed those questions, I need more information on the specifics of the implementation before I can really decide if I think the system adds enough to the game play to make it worth while. Furthermore, I still think that if we concern ourselves more with unit (weapon) diversity than with immersion or combat realism (which are unimportant to me for the most part) then the mechanism already exists in Dom to tweek units and weapons to achieve more diversity. I understand and appreciate the arguments about greatswords being less effective against skeletons than mauls, but to me its a reletively unimportant distinction that doesn't need a major rework of the weapons system to solve. Personally I don't think it needs to be solved at all, as the existing mechanisms seem to work fine, but minor tweeks to the existing system seem more reasonable to me than a total change of that system. Anyway, glad to see more people voicing their opinions on this subject, hopefully the pros will come up with a balanced, interesting, and workable system that everyone can get behind. Its the job of the cons to ensure that that is the end result though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I have to go, so only a short answer this time around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I don't think I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of the system. Even if I gave you all the stats for all weapons and armour, it won't be me who is going to do the coding and implementation, but the devs. We can discuss the nature of the system (will weapons only do one kind of damage, e.g.), but anything more detailed than that is impossible to ask from anyone else apart from the people who are actually making it work. I also would like to address the "not adding enough to gameplay" argument. Well, not every addition has to be groundbreaking. If it adds to the gameplay, even a little, it has my vote, since it's going to make it a little bit more enjoyable (all caveats included). The strenght is in details, litlle things, that add up to be more than the sum of the parts. Hopefully... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
As to additions to games... I agree not everything has to be ground breaking, but any addition should add more gameplay than it takes away entertainment from being too complex or adding to micro, or whatever. I'm not saying that that is necessarilly the case here, just that I can envision that being the case, in which case the addition to game play had better be closer to ground breaking than not. Again, this is a fine idea, just that it hasn't been demonstrated how this improves game play outside of adding more numbers for people to crunch. Sure sometimes thats fun, and sometimes it adds to game play, just to me, as this system stands right now, it doesn't sound like more fun, and it doesn't seem to add much to game play. Obviously others have a different opinion from mine, and that's the entire point of this thread (now) to discuss those opinions and see if common ground can't be found. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
frankly, you already have this rock - paper - scissor effect in dominions. But many players (well initially, when they play more they start to see the details) dont see the triad. Some examples, which are totally overlooked when you discover the game, but which will be taken into account when you have played a bit: - shielded infantry have an added bonus again missiles. - flails and/or morning stars (dont remember if it is both, but I think so !) have a bonus against shields. - against low morale units, it is better to have a longer reach weapon, even if it does less damages. On the contrary, against high morale units, shorter weapon, doing more damage will be more useful. Thats just some examples on top of my head, but if you play Ulm, each infantry type differ slightly, but differ from an other, and will perform slightly better against a specific enemy. Perhaps you gain an overall 5% efficiency, but when you repeat the process on several subcomponent of the game, then generally you have more chance to win than your enemy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So the various damage types would not IMO be detrimental to the game. Many players would totally forget about these rules, as they already forget about some game mechanisms, and this dont detract them from enjoying the game. Then, when they know better the game, they start to take into account more and more parameters. [ October 08, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Pocus ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Thanks for that post Pocus, it got at what I was trying (unsuccesfully I think) to say about the existing mechanisms existing in Domintions to handle the issue of diversity. I do think that the nubers on the weapons could be tweeked a bit to change your 5% to a 10% or something if that 'feels' better to most players, but for the most part those tweeks are not needed.
Something else lost in this discussion is that we don't even know how much has been changed stat wise in Dom2, so there may be more diversity 'built in'. I conceed that if the more critical issues are game immersion and combat-mechanical realism, then larger change would be needed. However, I again question whether it is that important to make those changes *simply* for those reasons. The overall effect on gameplay is almost zero if you limit your efforts to addressing the Last two issues, the first is purely cosmetic, and the second is problematic to me in being able to pull it off without upsetting balances too much, or adding too much extraneous information. Besides doesnt The Operational Art of War allow the user to customize all that kind of junk to his hearts content (or am I thinking of some other war game?) I don't think Dominions should bog itself down with those kinds of details as they don't feel like they belong in Dominions. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I don't really see a need for the SPB division for weapon types. I've read this thread all the way through, and while I initially thought that yes, it'd be cool to have, I changed my mind. The current system works quite well enough for me that the SPB division is not necessary. The added complexity increases micro-management more than I'd care to see really, and it also increases the coding effort required of the devs by quite a bit, with very little return on investment gameplaywise when you compare to some of the other stuff that has been bandied about as suggestions.
In the bigger picture, this issue is more of a nitpick while other, bigger things would probably require less work to accomplish and have a greater impact on gameplay without increasing the need for micromanagement. I'd rather that those got first priority. Edi |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [/quote] Hehe, I'm glad I'm allowed to argue what I want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yes yes, it all opinion, its all personal preference, nothing wrong with discussing or arguing the merits of various ideas. I don't think anyone has said that it is a bad system or bad idea, just that it doesn't seem to fit into Dom all that well (in terms of advanceing gameplay in a *meaningful* way). However I do not think that this addition would increase the tactics at all, it is in effect a much more strategic level implementation. Though before we go down that tangent it helps to define what we mean by tactical and strategic. However, I don't think that increasing tactical options in general is always an improvment to a strategy game, the tactical options need to be meaningful first off, that is to say that the number of reasonable choices must be increased, not just increasing choices while there remain only a few viable selections. I am not yet convinced that the addition of such a system does increase meaningful choices. I think its more likely that such a system creates more of a rock/paper/scisors effect, and in extreme cases that is a bad thing. I think the take home message that most of the people who are against the inclusion of such a system want to have heard is that simply increasing complexity is not a substitute for increaseing tactical or strategic diversity. Complexity for complexities sake is almost always a bad idea, if you need proof of that take a look at MoO3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
If I were your student and you gave me meaningless repetitive homework that was more busywork than anything else I'd complain too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
It is important to make a distinction betwen tactics and strategy - there is a very real distinction.
Tactics is about how to win against an opponent on the smaller scale - i.e. if I get this combination of attacks, placed at these locations, then I should be able to defeat 3 of his guys for every 1 of mine I lose. The current discussion is about adding a new tactical element (or increasing the tactical importance of certain factors). I think Warcraft III is a game with a lot of tactics, but next to no strategy. Strategy on the other hand is big picture - i.e. assuming we have roughly equal losses [or whatever set proportion], where will I attack such that he is forced to open a hole in his defenses, etc. Risk is an example of a game which has strategy, but no tactics (i.e. you can't change the effectiveness of your armies in any particular battle at all). This change would add to the tactical options, but would not, by definition, add to strategy at all. Maybe the doubt being articulated by several people could be explained as a desire not to turn the game into a primarily tactical exercise, but maintain the emphasis on strategy. Right now I think Dominions has a pretty good balance between the two - enough tactics that you can plan killer combinations of troops and of spells, and yet a certain amount of strategy - it's not just about fielding the largest, most effective army - it's also what you do with it. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Damage types could open strategic options that are currently unimportant. Choosing which indy province to fort, in order to use the local troops to suppliment your national troops' range of damage types, is one example... and labbing a death-mage province to recruit mages who can summon skeletons, when faced with an opponent who relies too heavily on archers (cough *Man*), is another example.
Damage types would also increase the difference between leather (low pierce protection) and metal (high pierce protection) armors, allowing specific counter-strategies versus opponents who attack with massed cheap leather-wearing units, or opponents who attack with only piercing weapons (spears and bows). I would say... it increases strategic depth. Oh, and the more I think about it, the more I think dual-typing is necessary. For example: Bow: Pierce XBow: Pierce Spear: Pierce Javelin: Pierce Lance: Pierce Mace: Crush Hammer: Crush Fist: Crush Flail: Crush Pincer: Crush Hoof: Crush Sword: Slash Claw: Slash Scythe: Slash Whip: Slash Shuriken: Slash Dagger: Pierce/Slash Halberd: Pierce/Slash Spike Whip: Pierce/Slash Spike Tail: Pierce/Slash Bite: Crush/Pierce Ballista: Crush/Pierce Mattock: Crush/Pierce Spike Club: Crush/Pierce Axe: Crush/Slash JotunSword: Crush/Slash For dual-type weapons, the more effective damage type is chosen. This should reduce problems introduced by a new system, while keeping it streamlined and straightforward. It would also make certain units more flexible than than other units... Historically, halberds were an excellent weapon due to their flexibility, and this system would recreate that effect. Currently, a halberd is just a different-looking spear. -Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
To be serious, what I meant was if we want damage types and specific armor versus them, we have to incorporate them into the spell system of Dominions. For example, we might need: Physical (for respect of the original discussion): Piercing: self explanatory; Slashing: also self-explantory; Bashing: for small bludgeon weapons; Crushing: for large heavy physical objects ("Earth-Quake", "Gift of Heaven") Magical: Lightning; Fire; Cold; Life-draining: undeads, "Hand of Death" and variants; Magical: unclassified spells such as "Astral Fire" (or maybe "Nether Dart"?); Mental: "Mind Burnt" and related; Chemicals: how about "Acid Spray"? It'll be more complicated to my taste... And also, Dominions has a system to deal with these magical damage already. Fire resistance, for example, grant 100% (in Dom 1) or 50% (in Dom 2?) protection to Fire. Some armors grant it. The question is why we need different number crunching for different physical damage. A simpler and more compaitible system could be to separate the weapons into "Edged" and "Blundgeon". Some creatures or monsters, e.g. Skeletons, Abominations, because of their lack of vital organs, might have "resistance" and 50% damage to edged weapons. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
The other types of damage would be characterized according to the devs' perception. It's not like there are no templates to go by: many RPGs, many TBS, many other games as well. If you cast a spell called "Iron chef's swirling blades" that spell will do physical slashing damage, as blades "materizalize" and do damage. As for the rest of the spells, those that negate armour would of course do that. As for the armour piercing spells and those that actually get stopped by armour, I guess you can work them out the same way as fire protections work in DomII. The question in SPB would be do you have a basic protection value, and the resistances are added to it subtracting from all damage that goes above that protection value, or do you just take into acount resistances, and there is no basic protection. If latter is the case, then you would need to attribute protections to all specific types of damage, and characterize them as well (and also rework the current system more thoroughly). If former was the case, then you simply subtract that basic protection from damage, unless otherwise stated, and specific resistances diminish the damage of a certain type that goes over the protection value.
Examples: scenario 1. You have 8 prot. and 25% resist piercing, and the damage dealt is 16 piercing. 8 is stopped immediately (as it is now), and 25% of the remaining 8 is also neutralized, hence the actual damage received is 6. If that damage is armour piercing at the same time, you would stop 4 at once, and 25% of the remaining, hence resulting damage would be 9, unless AP means that it halves resist as well, in which case it would be 10 or 11(depending on rounding up or down for unclear cases). If it's armour negating, you receive the full 16. If there is no specific resistance specified for that damage type, but it's not armour piercing, you would stop 8, and get 8. scenario 2. If you have no basic protection, and have only 25% resist, the damage would be 12. If it's armour piercing, it halves the protection, hence the damage would be 14 (only 12.5% would be stopped). Armour negating again gives full 16, as well as if no specific resistance for that damage type is specified. I think I favour scenario 1 a bit more myself. Well, in fact, I would favour an even more complicated scenario, where each weapon can do more than one type of damage etc. , as I described previously when I was talking about Siege of Avalon system, but out of these two, the first is more appealing. Of course, these scenarios don't take into acount the random dice, but it would work the same. And you can of course have a third scenario, where you would simply have different protection numbers for different damage types that would behave as a current system, i.e. no percentile values, but different basic protections. That would also be ok. As for the kinetics argument, that giants should do crushing damage in addition to e.g. piercing because of the impact, methinks that's already factored in with addition of strenght to the equation. Against the same level of protection and using the same weapon, a stronger unit will always do proportionally more damage, since the damage = weapon damage + strenght, and that, in my view, covers the difference in kinetics. After all, it's not like the hoburgs fly around when hit by a troll anyway.... Not that I can't think of a system that could incorporate things like that as well, but, since people already have problems with this one, I'll stop now.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ October 09, 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: HJ ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well. In most cases it would just be a minor modifier, but in a few it could be an important and interesting advantage. It would be possible to implement in an annoyingly wrong way, though so far Illwinter have done a great job. I can just imagine a rock-paper-scissors idiot designer making an annoyingly silly Version, though.
PvK |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Anyways what is the difference between strategy and tactics? Strategy: The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship. Tactics: The science and art of disposing military in order of battle. If the tactics part will be upgraded and enchanted via the various weapon damages and protections, the strategy part will change too, it will be more diverse, and complex. Sometimes complexity is not better, but in a game like this, it is improving the gameplay. Of course IMHO, since we are subjective, and it is all good. However, if the devs could make a system like this, what works "perfectly", I see no point that why do not implent it to the game. All of your opinions and examples were about the same thing: This is a good idea, but not necessary, and I agree with it. We must step over this, and let the devs think about it. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Yes let the devs weigh in (again). I have the feeling though that their opinion will still be that its an interesting idea with some merits that is just too cumbersome to bother adding in.
Thats my impression of the idea as well. Well I also don't think it would add much interesting gameplay, but for now I'll stick with the 'its too big a change to bother with' sentiment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Ok, time out... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Btw, it's great to see so many like-minded people with regard to rock/paper/scissors model. On other forums I usually get shouted down for saying that it's not a God-given-model-to-end-it-all. Cheers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ October 09, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: HJ ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Hmmm I agree. Not necessary, but a good idea. If the devs can add it, I will be happy with it.
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Yes, but add this system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
PvK |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I see that you changed your avatar for a one which fit nicely with dominions. Does it means that the famous PVK will turn his attention toward dominions, and lessen his activities in SE IV forum?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - ... |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
This is the first time I see PvK with avatar. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
Not bad though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Heh. Ya, I didn't bother with an avatar for a long time. I was browsing Mr. Gervais' icons emporium and saw what I believe is the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail, and couldn't resist. And hey, space emperors can wear great helms if they want to; theirs probably have life support systems and HUDs (cue Darth Vader breath sound effects). I am a big Dominions fan, but I'm sure I'll stick around the SE4 forum too. Needless to say, I'm very happy Doms found a home at Shrapnel.
PvK |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I don't really like this idea.
Dominion units already have more numbers than your average RPG character. I don't relish having to grapple with a piercing, slashing and crushing damage and the corresponding armor types. More, if the unit has multiple weapons and armor. Not to mention items, special abilities, spells and afflictions. Pidgeon-holing weapons into different 'damage types' doesn't strike me as particularly realistic. Arrows are different from spears, swords are very different from whips, etc. And, as far as I can see, the only differences in armor are already modeled in the game, that is, strength, weight and cost. Any differences in armor versus the different damage types would be largely invented, and not realistic. It seems a bit too gratuitous an attempt to inject a blatantly obvious scissors-stone-paper model into the game. I don't like it when games designers do this, I much prefer subtler approaches which give you more choice, and are also more realistic. There shouldn't be a 'best' counter. The game already features certain variations in the way damage is dealt and the way that it's recieved, apart from the raw numbers. The pikemen moral check, the flail bonus against shields, weapons with a double attack, armor-piercing damage, the knight's hoof attack and so on. I like these, I think that they add more flavor for less complication than damage types could ever do. It would be nice if there were more of them, and they were better explained. I feel kind of mean for attacking Saber Cherry's idea, especially since he liked my idea about castle resources. Oh well. Sorry. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
No hard feelings. If you don't like it, you don't like it... your idea about resource priority is good regardless of whether your puny mind can grasp the more subtle complexities of damage types http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif -Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Dont worry Saber, I like your idea! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
sure, Spec Ops #18 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
But they're so flavorful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Please explain to me why an army consisting of pikemen, archers and lance-wielding knights should be penalised as being unbalanced, cos my puny mind can't grasp it. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Heh, don't worry Sandman, Sabre is just testy cuz his/her/its idea wasn't accepted by everyone immediately as being the greatest thing ever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
And no, I don't care if you are male female or neither, just as I don't care which one you think I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Honestly, I don't quite think it's a wonderful idea myself. It fits in the Category of ideas that could work out well...or could work out poorly and would take a while to implement either way.
As I hope Saber Cherry doesn't actually have a saber. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If the being known as Saber Cherry is armed I might need to start running. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
He is so long here, hes almost a celebrity around these forums. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
The more I think more about the idea, the less I like it ...
In fact the distinction between "crush" "slash" and "pierce" damage is quite artificial, weapons apply kinetic forces on a more or less large area, that's all ! Additionnaly it's not very applicable to weapons such as giant's swords, animal bites, elemental damage (unless you add resistance to elements as specific armor values), etc...The concept does not work well either to simulate shield defense. Overall I prefer the way Dom manages it now, with some weapons/damage types being "armor piercing" or "armor negating", others having bonuses against shields (flails), but with a single damage value, and armor having a single protection values with armor pieces just adding to one another. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
For normal, human-wielded weapons, you can (making broad generalizations) also say this: Crush: High momentum, low kinetic energy, area impact. Slash: Mid momentum, mid KE, sharp line impact. Pierce: Low momentum, high KE, sharp point impact. There are exceptions - a lance acts as though it has high KE and high momentum, for example - but these categories work pretty well for normal weapons... and the ones that don't fit perfectly could still be dual-typed. Monster damages have to be shoe-horned, or a "Generic" damage type could be used for things that just don't fit very well. As for archers, pikeneers, and knights being unbalanced... yep:) Faced with skeletal hordes, you'd be toast, unless the archers had backup maces (like crossbowmen sometimes do) or the knights used blunt secondary weapons. Faced with death-by-zombie, you'd better hope the archers and knights had sword backups, because stabbing and shooting zombies has little effect, regardless of what you may have learned playing DOOM. Facing that army with living people, I'd use swordsmen with tower shields... another strong anti-pierce unit. Their only fear would be cavalry trample, and DOMII knights don't get trample:) Virtually immune to arrows, and hopefully able to get inside the pike killing zone by deflecting the piercing tips with shields (pikes are long and clumsy, while shields give better leverage), 2 parts of the army would be rendered ineffectual. The knights would have an upper hand based on the hooves, secondary weapons, and heavy armor, but tower shields should be helpful versus lances as well. And at any rate, knights are expensive. Arioch: I have no saber, but having mastered neko-fu, my hands can crush, pierce, and slash. If only I could make them length 5, I'd be a perfect warrior... but I don't really have to worry too much, as my powered battle armor and Awe +10 keep me pretty safe:) -Cherry P.S. Even though from my descriptions, it sounds like I want my swordsmen to slice through pikeneers like my knife-fist does through the butter that composes mere mortals, I seriously want the modifiers to be moderate. As in, overall, the tower-shielded swordsmen would be able to face down 20% more pikeneers or archers than before, due to the pierce-bonus of a tower shield, assuming that a tower shield gets a pierce bonus. [ October 13, 2003, 19:38: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
LOL PDF you must be kidding.
I think a spear is causing totally different damage, than a hammer or a sword..... Example: Plate mail: A pierce weapon -like a spear- can cause lot bigger damage, than a hammer against someone whos wearing that kind of armor. Just think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif These are valid damage types even in real life. The system would be very useful. I really like to see it in Doms II, if it can be added. [ October 13, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
With enough force any damage type can defeat any almost armor type (and a weak enough hit can fail to almost any armor type), but it's a matter of degree. Weapon and armor types are signifigant factors, but complex ones.
There are historical accounts, for example, of a battle where the knights' fine chainmail was so well and tightly made, that swords couldn't get through it, and the knights had to be bashed. However, many other examples of chain mail have wide enough rings that they are relatively easy to stab through with a pointed weapon. Bodkin arrows were developed with very narrow heads for penetrating armor, although they make a smaller wound on an unarmored target than a wider arrowhead which probably wouldn't make it through a breastplate. Weapons and armor evolved throughout history to counter each other. However the details of such things are quite complex, and therefore difficult to model well. There are many exceptions, work-arounds, and details to consider. At the scale and level of abstraction of Dominions, it might be best to leave well enough alone. Judging from the quality of the existing work, though, I imagine Illwinter could do a good job of adding such details, if they felt it was interesting and worth the effort. PvK |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
All armors have their weaknesses of course. Chainmail is good against swords, plate is good against blunt/crush/blugeoning weapons, scalemail is good against piercing weapons like a spear. Also Illwinter should add different armors like mithril chain etc. The possibilities are endless! This would enchance the gameplay. I am supporting this idea with full heart! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ October 13, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
(j/k) |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Hey DominionsFAN...if I find some plate mail will you wear it while I beat you with a hammer? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think you could still be fairly effective...especially if you just knock down the person with the plate mail.
But I agree that applied moderately this idea makes some sense...the question is whether Illwinter wants to make a whole lot of unit changes and rebalance the units or if they think time spend working on Dominions 2 improvements is better spent balancing with the current gameplay and adding new features/units/etc. [ October 14, 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: LordArioch ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
(j/k)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Grin, yes, like the enchanced sword which makes any attack ignore all factors and be decided by a coin flip. PvK |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
(j/k)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Grin, yes, like the enchanced sword which makes any attack ignore all factors and be decided by a coin flip. PvK</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we are talking about this..Illwinter should add various weapons and armors from different materials. Combining it with this system would be awesome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The game will be lot more tactical than -> lot better gameplay. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.