Manual for demo?

[Endoperez]

You have tried the tutorial, haven't you? The documentation probably came with the demo.

[Michaelangelo]

I've tried the tutorial, it explains 'how' to play the game (mostly), but there isn't much to explain the factors that go into the game. The descriptions and unit stats explain some, but there seems to be a lot missing. It's hard to tell what many spells do, nothing to explain what certain effects mean and do and how they affect the game parameters, etc. Is that the kind of detail the manual provides, or is everything hidden behind the game engine?

[Hullu]

Manual provides an immense amount of information. Most of the things you need to know. How attack/defense/whatnot stats work, quite detailed descriptions of all the spells, etc.

The game is playable without the manual, but it really helps and makes it all the more interesting when you have some more information

[Cainehill]

Of course, the manual _doesn't_ say much of anything about the aging system or a couple other mechanics, not to mention saying nothing about all the various bugs.

[Gandalf Parker]

Hmmm what manual discusses bugs?
Besides, bugs are more temporary in this game than manual changes.

[Michaelangelo]

I've actually thought for some time that a game that documented the bugs would be quite interesting, especially if a designed feature of the game itself was to 'fix' the bugs by solving puzzles or completing certain sequences of events in the course of the game. It could even work in a game like Dominions. For example, you could have troops that had faulty stats or abilities that could be corrected via training, (which could include battles, training courses, etc). Kind of like an experience system only more quirky because you never know how your troops will behave until they gain training levels (and experience). But I digress...

Rumor has it, if I'm a good boy, I can expect my manual (and game) on Christmas morning.

(Edited to fix a spelling issue)

[Amhazair]

Michaelangelo said:
Rumor has it, if I'm a good boy, I can expect my manual (and game) on Christmas morning.

Have fun

[Gandalf Parker]

Michaelangelo said:
I've actually thought for some time that a game that documented the bugs would be quite interesting, especially if a designed feature of the game itself was to 'fix' the bugs by solving puzzles or completing certain sequences of events in the course of the game. It could even work in a game like Dominions. For example, you could have troops that had faulty stats or abilities that could be corrected via training, (which could include battles, training courses, etc). Kind of like an experience system only more quirky because you never know how your troops will behave until they gain training levels (and experience).

The problem with that is the definition of "bug". Your example would be a perfect example of what the developer might have done on purpose, and what the players might post as a bug. Something that I call "opinion bugs".

You might have meant what is jokingly reffered to in programming forums as "feature bugs". Where a bug that accidentally got in is later justified by some stretch of logic and called a feature. But those also are redifined too late to get into a manual.

By the way, many sites do have a bug list altho it doesnt get in the manual. Sometimes it does get into a readme file. In our case we have two of them. The stickied thread here in the forums where everyone can list things they think are bugs, and the text file at the illwinter site where the developers list the items they fixed (which means they might have agreed with us that it should be tweaked)