Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by licker:
I've got nothing against this idea per se, but it does seem to be adding a bit more complexity for complexities sake.

[snip]

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.

Amen(or Ooom) to that.
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.

[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.

[Psitticine]

Originally posted by Nerfix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.

All the units have descriptions this time?

---

Man, do they have descriptions!!!

[HJ]

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.

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Psitticine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nerfix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.

All the units have descriptions this time?

---

Man, do they have descriptions!!!

---

Pythian Legionaires didn't have, Atlantian Great Mother(sp?) and Dwarven Smiths of Vanheim lost their descriptions when they became prophets, and i think few other units missed their descriptions too, so:
Do all the units have descriptions this time?

[Mortifer]

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.

[licker]

Originally posted by HJ:
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.

Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing. How does that change anything? Just because you have more units to look through before you make your final selection does not mean that there is *better* strategy in the game.

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.