[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by licker:
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.

Well, I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. I do not think there is ANY way, other than adding physical damage subtypes, to achieve the same end result, and I won't think so until one is described. I want the differentiation between the large numbers of units to be more realistic and engrossing, giving each unit, weapon, and armor a unique flavor, instead of simply "A maul is identical to a greatsword, but more clumsy" and "A skeleton is damaged just as effectively by arrows as by maces". Seriously, have you ever *TRIED* destroying a skeleton with a bow or spear? Not that I have, but if I was attacked by a skeleton, and there were an icepick, crowbar, and glock 19 nearby, I'd pick up the crowbar.

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.

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.

I'm not claiming that I described the perfect system I just think that damage types would be nice, and if you have a better/easier/simpler system that would achieve the same goal, I'd love to hear it!

[ October 07, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]