Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[HJ]

All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework....

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Edi:
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

Yes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
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.

[MStavros]

Hmmm I agree. Not necessary, but a good idea. If the devs can add it, I will be happy with it.

[licker]

Originally posted by Mortifer:

Yes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
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. [/quote]

Hehe, I'm glad I'm allowed to argue what I want

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

[licker]

Originally posted by HJ:
All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework....

LOL!

If I were your student and you gave me meaningless repetitive homework that was more busywork than anything else I'd complain too

[st.patrik]

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.

[Saber Cherry]

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