Wow, that looks really really good!
And -1 to cover from obstacles. I like the way they work now.
Wow, that looks really really good!
And -1 to cover from obstacles. I like the way they work now.
My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/
Cover from obstacle is good in absolute it adds tactical depth, but I don't think adding it to the game at the point in time is wise. Maybe for DLC ?![]()
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
About the obstacles mechanics. If we wanted to make them block ranged attacks or anything similar it would be a lot of work on other mechanics as well. You know, such a mechanic is not a single, independent thing, it always affects other things. Right now we wouldn't like to take more time on development just to add the single mechanic. Sure we can think about it after the game is released.
@Chaos Blade: That was our first thought. Right now it doesn't work this way, but if we won't find any big problems we may maybe it will, it's just not our priority right now.But I'm sure we'll get there in some timeI don't think it would be a good idea to add a lot of trees to the battle area. It would be hard to see anything there, and the battle would be longer than it should, which means boring.
If you did this, (which I think would be nice) You probably should take into account units in front of each other. So you could stick your mage behind a warrior, etc. Would add a lot more to the strategy. Do I want to try to peg the mage with an arrow at a 20% reduction in hit probability or go for the warrior. I can see where this could get complex. Are spells subject to same penalties etc...
based on D&D mechanics the answer is: sometimes
there is cover and concealment, both work sometimes, sometimes just one works, sometimes none work.
in china the standard was to have your cheaper lighter units screen your heavier units, so a general came up with the idea to have his heavy units screen his lighter units, this meant less casualties for his army overall during the first engagements, which gave him a slight advantage later, which he would then have his lighter units fill gaps in his lines, and have them flank the enemy with their better mobility. in southeastern europe a similar standard caused nations to favor looser skirmisher formations (to reduce casualties), and heavier denser heavy infantry (for a bigger punch for bulk of the fighting). and that new standard led to heavier skirmishers (to punch through the enemy skirmishers) and lighter heavy infantry (to swarm the enemy heavy infantry) with some heavy ranged weapons for extra punch during their charge.
all of that was due mainly from the principle of units in front of one another provide cover to those behind them.
Changing the subject, I updated the first post with some screenshots from a new Fire Plane battleboard![]()
My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/
I like those fire battlefields! they look awesome.
And as for the decoration of the battlefield, that is cool, it be great if it worked like so, but as long as it works I am ok.
That lava geyser thing looks a bit strange to me, but other then that ten thumbs up.
The Wiki.
Actually they are not lava geysersThey are pillars supporting the stone bridge placed above the battleboard, you may spot it on a couple of screens. Plus you may see the similar bridge on the top-left side of the first screenshot.