|
Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Dominions has a lot of unit types, a lot of weapon types, and several armor types. This yields a large variety of armies to be fielded... and yet... so many of them can be so similar! Take the 2 barbarian classes, for example - greatsword and maul. The greatsword has slightly higher defense and attack, thus is universally better. But is that realistic? Could there be no situation where a maul is better than a greatsword?
In certain D&D games (like Baldur's Gate) and some strategy games (like Warlords: Battlecry) this is handled by assigning a damage type to each weapon. For example, pierce for bows, spears, pikes, and rapiers; slash for swords, daggers, and claws; and crush for hammers, flails, maces, axes, and fists. These would be especially nice to differentiate units of nations like Vanheim, which has a bunch of similar-seeming human infantry, varying only slightly in stats despite their different types of weapons. To make these damage types relevant, of course, there would need to be different armor types or armor bonuses. The simplest would be similar to the AD&D style: each armor has a base protection, and gets a bonus to each of the three damage types. So full leather might have a base protection of 3, with +1 versus crush and +3 versus slash. The final protection would be 3 versus piercing, 4 versus crushing, and 6 versus slashing. Plate armor, on the other hand, would be relatively flat, with maybe a base 12 and no bonuses. Furthermore, certain creature types could be assigned bonuses - skeletons (longdead) could inherently have a +5 pierce and +2 slash protection, soulless a +3 pierce protection, and things with no bones like vine ogres might have a +4 crush protection. That's just one possibility, a simple one, which would make choosing armor types and weapon types a much more interesting process. Going against Ulm, for example, you'd want armors most protective against crush and pierce, since they have no standard slashing units... but Ulm could counter by recruiting independent swordsmen. Suddenly, there would be a REASON for Ulm to seek out independent swordsmen! The Warlords: Battlecry style assigns a damage reduction percentage to each damage type - so skeletons would get maybe 70% pierce protection, 40% slash protection, and +50% extra crush damage. This would be more in line with Dominions "Wards" - a creature could get little armor icons in the ability list, displaying the percentage increase or decrease in damage from each source. Well, I'm not going to try to force any specific game mechanics on everyone; I'm just trying to make suggestions about how I would probably implement a "damage type" feature. But I think the presence of such a system would make army design a much more thoughtful process, and add greatly to the game. -Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
In NWN [RPG] there are 3 damage types: Slashing, Piercing and bludgeoning.
If we would have 3 different weapon types with different armor types, that would be awesome! Example: Scalemail armor: 5 prot against slashing, 7 against piercing, and 2 against bludgeoning. etc. -> More strategic than just 1 damage/armor type. [ October 07, 2003, 17:09: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I do like the idea. In roleplaying games it is a nice feature that unfortunately slows down battles a bit. In computer games time is no problem.
I wouldn't mind seeing this feature in Dominions and we have given it some quick thougth. The main problem is that it would take a lot of data editing to implement. Above one thousand units and perhaps two hundred armors would need differentiated protection values and above three hundred weapons would need damage types. Still, I do like the idea. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
-Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Kristoffer O,
Anything we can help with? Some actual work would keep this group from bothering you with new ideas every 2 hours.... |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now. Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date. Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
-Cherry</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nice post Saber. The idea is not new as you already pointed out, but is a good one that add realism & interest, without added micromanagement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I vote for you if you are candidate in California... mmmh no way? Ok I will give you my stars vote then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now. Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date. Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe if you could give them the game manuals to proofread? Or has it been done already? And yes, this would be nice, but i can see the work what it takes, just for armors and weapons and then for units with inherent bonuses... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif [ October 07, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now. Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date. Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This system what Saber has mentioned should be implented in a later patch? I really like the idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Ok ok maybe in an official add-on not in a patch since this will be a huge update.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I've got nothing against this idea per se, but it does seem to be adding a bit more complexity for complexities sake.
What is the true value of making this addition? I've reread Sabers post a couple of times, and I'm passingly familiar with the mechanics of such a system from other games, but I just don't see it as making Dom a better game. I see it adding another level of micro that I personally don't want. Now I have to keep track of what units have what weapon, and unless the gfx for a unit with a maul vs. a greatsword, vs. a mace is really easy to see... well its more of a pain than anything else. Yes I do realize that you can select all 'similar' units easilly enough, but still, I don't see that this adds that much to the gameplay. Anyway, different nations will always have use for independant units, if for no other reason than that they don't have enough resources to produce only nationals. As cash tightens up this can change, but the location of the recruitment can also be very important. I don't want to see this mechanism further complicated by making the 'optimal' choice of HI a necessary (or more necessary) evil. Maybe I should rephrase my concern like this. Dom is already a game with a near overwhelming amount of information to process, do we really want to go down the road of increasing this? Its a question that has to be dealt with quite seriously I think, as there is such a thing as too much, and it can begin to detract from the overall quality of the game. The key conecpt for any massive additions (like this would be) is what is the benefit to game play vs. the cost. In this case I think the benefit is small, and the cost is reletivly large, to me its adding micro for micro's sake, and that is simply not a good thing for a game like Dom. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Great idea!
There is also another similar system in a relatively unknown RPG called Siege of Avalon, which attributes points of several types of damage for each weapon. So, for example, a sword would have 1-10 slashing, 1-4 piercing and 1-2 crushing. The armours have protection for all types of damage as well, so an armour could have something like 8 prot. for slashing, 3 for piercing nad 3 for crushing. Therefore, if you hit that armour with the sword, you would do 1-2 points of damage from slashing, 1 damage from piercing, and no damage from crushing, resulting in 2-3 damage overall that went through the armour. The system is a bit more complicated than that in fact (you have invulnerability rating on armour expressed in numbers, i.e. an amount of damage that it would stop completely, and a protection rating expressed in percentages, i.e. the percentage of damage above the invulnerability that would also be stopped), but that's the basic jist of it. And yes, I know this would be even harder to implement, but this is a suggestion thread for ideas, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Also, we have nations with very litle variation on their weapons(Caelum would have mostly piercing and slashing on couple of units, Man slashing and piercing), just send units that has resistance against the nations most common weapon type and *BLAM* the nation is pooped. Cool, and even nice idea, but no micro for micros sake. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).
These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.
Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Do all the units have descriptions this time? |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Uh huh, I dont think that this would add that amount of micro...In fact this would add lot more strategical diversity, which is always better.
I think that this sytem would be nice to have, and if the devs want to make an addon pack or something similar, this might be a great addition in it. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
I agree that diversity is a good thing, but with 1000 units how much diversity is really reasonable to expect? Actually its not so much the units themselves, but the weapons we're talking about here. And I maintain that you can tweek the existing values of those weapons (especailly resource cost) to give you this added diversity, rather than adding a more complex system that in my mind adds only more complexity. The proposed system may not infact add any more micro to the game, or more precisely no more than any other system that further differentiates the units, but it does add more complexity and requires more logistics (perhaps) that don't really make the game that much more interesting. I can see what the appeal of such a system is though, it makes for more of a rock/paper/scisiors approach to armies. That's not necessarilly a bad thing, but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy. It think it moves in the direction of trying to add more 'arbitrary' realism to the mechanics of the game, and that is not always a good thing. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I like the idea as stated, because it suits my taste and my style of play. I like long single player sessions, and the more I have to think in game, the better it is for me, and the longer the appeal Lasts.
My point of view stems from the following: What I see now is a lot of pretty much very similar units: when you add the large random dice bonus to the stats, all the units perform pretty much the same. Apart from them looking a bit different, it doesn't matter all that much which ones I build when compared to the impact of how many of them I have. The idea proposed would add to strategic variety of units, and importance to each respective unit would increase, depending on the situation. I don't see how this would increase micromanagement, since you'll again build them and stack them the same way. What it will add is that you'll have to put more thought on composition of your armies. Which is a strategic element, and has nothing to do with micromanagement or interface. And I don't think I'll face only a single type of oponent, since they'll have the same diversity in weaponry and armour included as well. Moreover, you can still just simply compose your armies of a single type units, or add a little of each type, if you don't want to exact a very precise control over it. But it will be different if my flail-armed infantryman hits someone with leather armour or an undead unit this turn, although they might have the same defense/protection stats, his effectivness will be different. This will also add to the uncertainty of a victory a bit, as sheer numbers might not mean anything if you face good counters. I am not too fond of rock/paper/scissors setup actually, such as one found in AoE e.g. or any other similar game, as I find it oversimplified. I enjoy the shades of gray when I play, but distinctive shades, not just uniform blur. Lastly, we can argue as much as we want and still never reconcile our views, but it's up to devs what they want to implement or not. Hence, no need to take this discussion to heart, I hope. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ October 07, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: HJ ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Furthermore, this would not result in additional "micro", assuming you are using a common abbreviation of micromanagement. It would result in additional strategic descisions, and would alter some behaviors - like relying on only one type of unit for an entire army. This is currently quite acceptable, but if physical damage types and physical damage resistance were present, fielding such a homogeneous army would become quite risky against an astute opponent. So, yes, there would be more factors to consider. But micromanagement? Sorry, no. This would not require additional clicking, just additional awareness. I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised. -Cherry P.S. Quote:
[ October 07, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage. Example: You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.] You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.] This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed? If you ask me, this idea is great. Period. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif PS. Saber you might want to change crushing to bludgeoning. It sounds lot better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif [ October 07, 2003, 22:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
NO ****! I LOVE this idea as well!
If you really want to add something in a patch, add this system if it is possible! |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
"I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised."
You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude? It doesn't bother me though, whether or not you are rude is a non issue since you can articulate your arguements quite clearly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyway, it is a matter of personal taste to be sure. I really don't give two (well you know whats) how well the combat system models reality. All I care about is how well the combat system works as a game mechanic. Often times I have found that the most well meaning suggestions and critiques that focus on improving this area of immersion in the game by 'improving' some game mechanic by making it more 'realistic' only serve to add more complexity and create more division than they are worth. I suppose my real gripe with a system like this is that it caters more to the power gamer crowd. It adds a new level of complexity (diversity as well, but its not the only way to add diversity to the units, weapons, or armor) that only makes the game more difficult and less approachable to the average or novice gamer. (I should note that this system won't affect my enjoyment of the game at all, it may in fact improve it, but I do like playing devil's advocate, especially when it comes to adding complexity). Given that Dom is already quite complex this addition may be nothing more than another drop in the bucket, but it could also be the straw that breaks the camels back (gotta love those idioms eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) Now to look at your three main reasons for wanting to add this system: Diversity: Yes, if done correctly it should add to diversity, I don't think there would be any more or less issues with balance than with any other system, if the system is implemented correctly. (further note below) Immersion: This is a matter of personal opinion, the system wouldn't increase my immersion in the game, and for some people it might be too much, for some people it probably wouldn't be enough. Combat-mechanical Realism: Well it would improve that, but again, not everyone cares about how realistic the combat mechanics are (assuming the existing mechanics are not flawed, which they are not), and you can start down a slippery slope if you make this too much of an important aspect of the game. Next you'll need to redo arrow flights, charging impacts, formations, facings, ... Basically you start down the slope of trying to make every aspect of combat as realistic as possible, and that's a lose lose situation I think. Of course it is possible to only implement small systems, or systems that only look at one (or a few) aspects of this, but the trend can become dangerous. Some further notes about diversity and the implementation of this system. Firstly, will all nations have equal access to all weapon types and armors? If not, then some are seriously weakend with respect to others. This in and of itself isn't so much of an issue as completely balanced nations would be pretty boring (AoW suffers from this somewhat), however, lest we want to create a situation where some nations are superior to others based on this system (not hard to imagine I think) great care needs to be taken to balance this system appropriately. I'm not saying that can't be done, just that its not going to be a simple process. Furthermore, if some nations (or indeed all nations) are forced to look for independants to recruit to fill their holes, then, outside of scripted maps, there will be even more 'luck' involved in starting postions. Again, that's not necessarilly a bad thing, but it depends on your point of view. Finally (cuz this post is getting too long) let me say that I'm not against your idea, I'm more looking to make sure that all aspects of it have been thought out, and those aspects are not limited just to the technical details of its implementation, but also the effect it could have on players of all ilks. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem coping with the added complexity, but some certainly would, and for what this idea adds to the game, I'm not sure that its really worth it. There are simpler methods to improve unit, weapon, and armor diversity (basically changing the existing values, expanding the ranges that they encompass, and tweeking the effects of length and other things) without adding a completely new mechanic. The simpler methods may not give you exactly what you want from the combat realism point of view, but they should be able to addaquately create more diversity among any races set of units. And no, I'm not taking this discussion to heart, I've been in the minority many times on discussions like this, all I want to do is present an opposing view point, and get everyone to think about the best way to effect a change (assuming the change is needed or desired). Heh, for you AoWers I was a staunch proponent of surrender (with some tweeks), so maybe that will explain something http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage. Example: You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.] You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.] This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No not agreed, but that's ok http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again. All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed. Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it. Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant. If you do not like it, that is your personal problem. The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added. Just my 2 cents. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage. Example: You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.] You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.] This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No not agreed, but that's ok http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again. All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed. Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it. Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I think that this system is lot more strategical, than the current Doms I 'system'. This system can force you to make better strategic/tactical decisions, IE. use the right units always, so you surely wont stick to 1 unit style. This is a very good point in it, agreed? You must always attack with a proper army. Yes I know that we had something like this in Doms I., but that is too simple if you ask me. With at least 3 weapon/armor types, the tactical palette is lot bigger. That is the whole point behind this system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ October 07, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Mortifer ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
I understand your point. I don't want Illwinter to make the game less accessible to new players, or add complexity for complexity's sake. But I feel that as long as the protections make moderate changes rather than huge changes, they will be a wonderful addition for obsessive strategists (Dominions' main following, I would think) without excluding anyone. By moderate, I mean that if you completely ignore damage types and have the worst-case army, you'll tend to need 20%-30% more troops to win battles compared to an army designed perfectly to take advantage of the enemy's damage types and vulnerabilities. Keep in mind that an army's power is generally a factor of the size squared, so a 20% larger force is 44% stronger, assuming a broad front. So, I would say that as long as the damage type system isn't ridiculous or severe (like the way physical immunity and super-high-defense heroes unbalanced AOW1) then it would be present in the background, averaging out to have little effect, in a newby game; while in a competitive veteran game, it would be used cruelly and viciously, with much treachery to be gained from fielding armies of different armor and damage types than expected. I played a demo of Empire Earth (or was it Age of Kings?) where the damage types (Infantry versus cavalry versus spearmen, or something) were tweaked to an insane degree, so that it was pure rock-paper-scissors and if you chose the wrong troop type, even a 300% numerical superiority (thus 900% relative strength) wouldn't save you. I thought that was stupid, and it made me not buy the game. So, yes, a poorly done or overly severe damage-type system could destroy a perfectly good game. But that's true of spells, too - it only takes one new spell, or new site, or new racial theme, to utterly wreck the game balance... yet I'm not asking Illwinter to stop putting in new spells:) Well, that's that. Now, I'll just cross my fingers and hope something along these lines sneaks into a patch someday:) And if I have to whip out the Holy Grail to make you heathens either see the light, or be blinded by my glory, don't think I'm chicken! -Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Just my 2 dollars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Sigh... Hey its all personal opinion anyway, no one post is any more or less pointless than any other. Besides I think I made it clear that the system is a pretty good one, just not one that I feel is needed or necessarilly a boon to Dom. If this system or one like it finds its way in I won't be disappointed (unless its butchered in its implementation), quite the contrary, I'll be happy that there was some discussion about it before hand so that any potential kinks and balance issues could be addressed beforehand. Some of the worst additions to games are those that get trumpeted by the board crawlers, who no matter what they want to think about themselves, are not representative of the total pool of players enjoying the game. Anyway, lets not get off on a tangent here, and lets not get snippy with each other. If you got a question or a comment about the system all the better, if all you want to do is bash on those who have a differing opinion, well that's fine too, I can handle it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
There is a certain amount of this kind of thing already in place in Dom I, you know. Of course it's not to the complexity you're talking about, but for example flails (or is it morning stars) do extra damage to targets with shields. And then there is that whole thing about long weapons and morale checks. So what weapon you're wielding does make a difference.
I do like the sound of the suggestion, in terms of realism. But I'm not sure it would be worth it for a couple of reasons: 1. You have to field a diverse army anyway. Practically speaking the only times you'd use this is late game when you're fighting only one opponent who has only one troop type. Early game you're tussling with independants, which are differently armed in each province - you're not actually going to not attack until you've built up the correct 'counter'. Middle game you're fighting perhaps mainly one human opponent, but you can't afford to give yourself a liability by having 90% of your force armed the same way, just in case some other player figures it out and attacks you with the kind of armour you're not prepared to handle. Finally, in the end-game, when you've got fewer nations so you know who you're attacking and such, it would only work against enemies who have the same kind of armour on all their units, unless you have UNGODLY intel about what troops they are fielding. So maybe Ermor, and Ulm, and perhaps one or two more nations - and that's not counting for them hiring mercenaries, or raising independant troops, etc. 2. In practice, in most realistic situations, it wouldn't make that much difference - I mean, if you have skilled 'maul' troops against less skilled swordsmen, and the armour such that the swordsmen had the advantage, it's still very possible that the 'maul' guys would win out, since they are more skilled in general. I think it would only change the outcome of about 1 in 100 battles. Having said all that I think it would add great flavour to the game, and as such I'd probably be in favour of it - but I don't think it would have a very profound effect on gameplay - and if it were overdone to the point that it did it might very well mess up a good thing. And I think we all agree Dominions has a good thing going. [ October 08, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: st.patrik ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
GURPS uses a system like this but I've gradually decided I don't like it. The problem is that what makes a weapon/armor interaction cutting, piercing, or smashing is scale sensitive. If weapon damage refers to kinetic energy then the injury increases first with the depth of penetration then, once the vital organs have been reached, with weapon area. A mace that goes through the target does more damage then a arrow, right? When a Jotun swings a mace at a sprite he _will_ go through it. So it's a piercing weapon. Sometimes.
When a human attacks someone wearing plate armor she wants to use either a piercing weapon like a pick or a blunt weapon like a mace but not a sword. Why? Because a sword, unlike a pick, doesn't concentrate the force enough to penetrate but is more expensive and harder to use then a mace. Why doesn't it penetrate? Because the armor is optimized to resist a human wielded sword. A Jotun is still better off using a sword instead of a harder to use pick or less penetrating mace. A Rimtursar would probably be rambunctiously happy with a mace, unless he's fighting another giant wearing giant armor! Then getting penetration becomes important again and a spear carved from the trunk of the world ash looks good. Yes, I am neglecting that you must hit small things faster then big things if you don't want them to be simply bounced out of the way. Anyway, the distinction between piercing, cutting, and smashing has more to do with impact velocity and target depth then weapon shape. Lastly, Dominions already has more weapon variation then most RPGs. While gilding a lily isn't necessarily bad it's usually wasteful. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
On the other hand, a battle axe of base damage 9 crush damage, -1 slash damage, or -9 pierce damage (base 9 crush, -1 slash, -9 pierce) would do crushing damage versus a skeleton, for 9 damage (since slash damage would yield 9-3-1=5 damage). In this case the axe would be superior to the greatsword. However, when soulless (+3 crush, +5 pierce) approached, the sword would become superior to the axe, as soulless would have a higher crush resistance than slash resistance. This time, both the sword and axe would deal slash damage, yielding 9-1=8 for the axe and 9 for the sword. So, yes, every system has its flaws, and a Jotun axeman should always be able to cleave through a size 2 opponent regardless of his damage type. And, yes, if the system was made complex enough, it would model that fairly accurately as well. Still, either way, a Jotun would do more damage to skeleton using a maul than when using a spear… period. And either way, the Jotun would probably kill the skeleton in one hit. Just as one would expect. Personally, I want any new damage system to increase realism and depth without adding stupid artifacts that detract from the game. But just as importantly, I want to rein in the damage system so that it can accomplish that goal with minimal added complexity... And I tend to think that as long as the values are moderate, a simple +X protection for 3 damage subtypes on units/armors, and a single, specific physical damage subtype assigned to each weapon, will be adequate to increase realism, depth, variety, and strategy without particularly adding any unwanted negatives (like Jotuns not chopping people in half because they are using the wrong weapon). There always has to be a balance between maximizing realism and allowing people to understand what the heck is going on, so I'm not really going to promote the much more complex system that I mentioned above, even though I personally think it would be more interesting and realistic. And I'm not going to suggest that Illwinter buy a mechanical engineering finite element analysis package to model impact effects on different armor alloys from different weapons of different masses at different velocities and angles at various temperatures for every single weapon strike, even though that would be *really* cool, because then mere humans could no longer predict the results of their actions and choices. But it seems that the original, simple proposition, or one similarly simple and effective, would improve the game without creating unwanted side-effects. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any realistically accomplished damage system will not perfectly model reality, but if a simple method is identified to move the current system into greater congruence with reality, it should be taken advantage of - and not scorned, because it is only an incremental improvement, rather than a single leap to perfection. -Cherry |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I also think this is a rather good idea, but for slightly different reasons. I think it would encourage combined arms, just to make sure one isn't caught with one's codpiece down, as it were. That would mean units that might otherwise fall by the wayside would have more usefulness as recruiting them into existing armies would help make sure one always has at least some of the most potent counterforces available for whatever they run into.
I tend to agree with St. Patrik in that, during the early game, one goes up against the diverse independents, and that during the middle game, one couldn't over-specialize their troops with this kind of system without becoming more vulnerable. However, I do think that those are things that would go along with what I said above to help insure a useful place for all kinds of different troops. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
So let some year passes before posting again, I'm sure you will get at Last some wisdom (if you are capable of learning behavior). |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
WOW! This system sounds damn cool! I would be very happy to see it in game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
I have a question. The AI will handle the troops properly if we will have a system like this? I mean you will have to build different troop types than, because of the various weapon damages. So if I build troops with good slashing protection, the AI will know that he must build troops with piercing attacks? If the AI could handle this situation, than I say do not even hesitate to add this system! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Yes, I love this system too. If the AI can be scripted properly to use it well, it should be added indeed.
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Hi,
OK, I just waded through all this and I have ONE thing to say: TOGGLES!!!!! Please, please, please, PLEASE make this an option that we can select at game start. (Or a global option. That would even be better.) Normally I'm a more is better kinda guy and have played these systems many times in CRPGs, RPGs and wargames, but I find myself in the camp that its swatting the coolness of a gnat with a sledgehammer made for Cthulhu. (Who is six miles tall, as I recall.) But if, in their wisdom, the wonderful people of IW decide to put this in, if they make it optional, then we all get whatever we want. Those who want it, can play with it. Those who don't, don't have to. Personally, more options that ARE optional are better than all of us having to play a game in lockstep. Thank you, I feel SO much better, V'ger gone |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
I've played the warlords series, age of xxx and other TBS/RTS that implemented this system.
Some implemented it very badly some better. For example, the age of XXX system is horrible. both shallow and extreme. really turned me off and is the main reason I stoped playing them. OTOH the warlords implementation is more subtle and added depth, diversty and increased the fun factor in the game. buttom line I agree with saber, this system can add a lot to the game if it's introduced subtly. If the devs don't have the resources/inclination to do so carefully then I prefer they leave it be. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Warlords or Ages series are pure strategy games. Dominions has lot more RPg elements than those games.
I agree, this system should be added, if the AI can learn, that how to 'use' it in a proper way. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Aristoteles said
Quote:
Now, warlords battlecry and, soon to be released, warlords IV are also strategy games with even stronger emphesis on RPG. |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Hmmm...I think you cannot compare Doms to those games, since those are very different.
[Just a side note: Warlords 4. will be the worst in the Warlords series IMHO. - Its got some horrible design..] This system would be very good to have, as I said before, but ONLY if it can be implented correctly. The biggest question is the AI. It will use it properly or not. [IE. Make the right decisions with this system - like do not attack an army with swordsmen [[slashing damage]] if that enemy army has got high slashing protection etc.] [ October 08, 2003, 14:54: Message edited by: Mortifer ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Initially they planned to make a MOM like tac battle for warlords-IV. I was really excited.
Then they opted for that strange battle resolution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
Questions: 1) How will the different armors and weapons be spread among the nations? Potential problmes I see here are either giving all nations access to the same sets of numbers (boring if you ask me) or risking imbalances in certain nations that cannot handle certain attacks or defenses very well. Furthermore, if you want to provide for more coverage of attacks or defense you will increase the number of units that each nation has by roughly 9 units!!! That seems just insane to me, but it wouldn't kill anything, just make the game more annoying by having to keep track of those ~9 new units. 2) What kind of scale are we talking about for the effectiveness of the three new damage types? Potential problem, if its too big the game really becomes rock/paper/scisiors, if its too small, then its game play value is diminished (other than for the imersion quality, which is not really high on the list of why to add this system I think). 3) If the nations are to rely more on independant troops to fill their holes (assuming they don't get coverage for each area) how is the starting position imbalance addressed? Outside of scripted maps I don't see how this would work. It might be fine for SP, but I can see the MP people taking issue with this potential problem. 4) Not so much a question as a clarification... There are three new damage types (and the corolary resistances to them) call them S, P, and B. How fine of a matrix would be involved in determining the varing levels of S, P, B and rS, rP, and rB? Would we have 9 different units comprising all the combinations? 18 units? 3 units? What? Moving to a completely different direction in unit creation would fix this somewhat, that is buying the base unit with money, then buying the base equipment for that unit with resources and equiping your base units in a similar fasion as your commanders, however, I expect a solution like that would be fairly unweildy for the Devs to want to implement. That suggestion would definately add to micro too. Ok that's enough questions for now, like I said, I'm not against this idea per se, I just want to explore it further so that when/if it (or something like it) is implemented its been thouroghly thrashed out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
How about the various magical spells and attacks? The armor negating ones (e.g. lightning) are fine. But how about the ones which are affected by protection or only armor piercing (1/2 protection, I guess): various forms of fire, "Geyser", "Cold bolt", "Blade Wind", "Gifts from Heaven", "Acid Rain", "Magma Eruption"? How about monsters? Life drain of undead (armor piercing only), breaths weapons, crushing of Water Elementals (also armor piercing only)? Also, how much piercing and slashing should we assign to the monster and animal bites and claws? Piercing for longer claws and slashing for shorter? The problem is classification of damage to piercing, slashing and bashing are only good (to a limited extent) for melee weapons. It fails (badly IMHO) if we want to use it on wider circumstances. Using a single protection number may be rough, but it's at least simple and approximate most situations equally well (or bad). |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Since we're discussing it, here are some possible answers, if you don't mind:
Quote:
And the notion about annoyance to keep track of new units is exactly where we differ. I'm not asking for new units, but if they were added, for whatever reason, I would perceive it as anything other than annoyance, unlike yourself. It seems to me that some people simply don't want to learn new stuff and new tricks in the game system they already know well. Btw, I'm a new player to the Dom series, although not games in general, and I don't find this addition overwhelming at all, with regard to previously stated assertions that it would make the game less newbie-friendly. Quote:
Quote:
Btw, I only play SP. And I don't want to get into another discussion on how SP improvements ruin the MP game and vice versa. I'll just say that I liked it better in the old days when all games were SP, and hence it was gameplay that counted. Today, most games don't have gameplay or good AI, since that's going to be covered by other human players anyway, so why bother coding it. Me not like that, in short.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Quote:
[ October 08, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: HJ ] |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23° angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15° but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ... |
Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.