Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Draconians, Insectoids, & Orcs: Any Last Thoughts?

  1. #31
    Ah, yes, I've seen the idea of footbows for flying creatures before - there are a couple of D&D 3.5 races that use it (the raptorans probably the most recognisable). It's certainly an interesting idea, although personally I have my doubts about how viable it would be for shooting in directions other than mostly down.

    Voulges are kinda similar to what I have in mind, but I think the closest would be a double-headed partisan with a six-foot shaft (or whatever the equivalent would be for a winged draconian). A classical voulge, I think, would be too heavy for flying infantry to use without unbalancing themselves in flight - you'd end up with the weapon swinging the user as much as vice versa. The important design characteristics would be enough length to stab down at someone below while being balanced enough that you can swing it without losing your balance in flight - giving it two heads both helps in maintaining this balance, and when you're fighting an opponent in the air, it means that opponent needs to defend against the possibility of an underarm or an overarm strike, rather than just needing to watch where the head goes. (Okay, the butt of any polearm is still going to be dangerous due to being a solid piece of wood, but putting a head capable of cutting on it would make it that much deadlier.)

  2. #32
    hmm what if no lizardman unit can swim right after recrutment and/or draconians able to fly at start only in battle ( so no over water and mountains at start, to tired to swim/fly for hours) but adding perk system similar to warlock master of arcane?

    you train lizardmans as normal and dont have too much advantage on start and later you get building that train units to full potential so they can get perk which give full flying and swimming?

    perk in warlock looked nice except they werent usually sounding something special (like +10% life/spirit/elemental/whatever-type damage) and if unit built in city it get it automaticly but can be bought later for price (nonsense part that unit dont have to be in city that provide perk or other connected by road for perks like silver weapons, non training kind). unit not needing to return to appropriate city for upgrade also problematic.

    lists of unit were pretty short (dont know what is current max number of units per faction on backers forum) so maybe add building that provide additional training to further improve units? some perks would be only availible to certain races (like lizards and dracons above), types (swordsmen, archers, siege units) and even specific units.

    ok maybe should rename term "perks" in D20 friendly/appropriate term for start. feats? Any suggestion improve this idea or actually use it?
    Last edited by Spellcaster; 09-08-2013 at 07:44 PM.

  3. #33
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,662
    Well, taking Spellcaster's idea and shaping it a little... Make Swimming and Flying a Feat to be gained at base level +X level. This way it's in the unit automatically, no need for a building.

    In this way we can abandon the ill-conceived combination of Lizardmen and Draconians. The low tier Draconians will only be able to fly after they have gained X levels. The higher tier Draconians can have Flying from the start.

  4. #34
    I could see that as one possible solution.
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  5. #35
    maybe add building that add feats or levels anyway. otherwise there is possible problem in late game of just recruited unit being too weak so this add some minimum competitions to them. i guess builders are at disadvantage against rushers since theoretically they just build and explored but most resources arent in army, its just garrison i guess and some explorers all just constricted and no battle experience, while rusher would be more aggressive and have more combats to train army to higher levels. and easier replacements are done for lost troops in late game.

    thematically even in fighting cultures it could be explained that war training was relaxed in time before game but during it get back to full war mode in way of war training facilities. at start you have just conscripts but as game progress you had time to train forces to more than 1 day (here is you weapons attack there) to few weak or months (giving better staring basic troops and time to start gaining top tier elite units). or since player usualy start with just one city with just few buildings, they are just some backwater place from whole empire just established and so no competing wizards in city to take control in it. but since its just established there is not yet infrastructure for full war scale training and recruitment of units.

    so if not giving feats directly than get few levels. barracks are just place to recruit basic level troops (place to store weapons and troops sleep), training field get +1-3 levels (better to rename it to something, and numbers are of course variable) and finish it with things like war school/academy that give most levels. maybe training field give levels to basic troops only and top tier training place give to best troops, middle place give them to all. it also give feat student of war or something (for units that were in academy) so they cant be trained again, while this that allows training of rest.

    so training fields, combat pits (well like in dungeon keeper 2 i guess), war academy are basic versions. maybe renamed for thematic reasons in some nations (doubts for nomads and barbarians to have academy for example, but they would surely also train they're elite troops)

    ---------- Post added at 06:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

    of course some rules in d20 will be changed in game, but aren't level one heroes in game pathetically weak (example of wizard having as few as 4 hp) to level 20 demigods (wizards say reality is what he say). as game progress there come need for low level monsters and ruins to kill creatures and relatively safely train troops that way but thats extinct species case in late game unless some rare random events add them, unless players goes conquers the world victory type and attacks players. of course that is theoretical since someone is attacked and IF his units survive they can get levels.

    and game wouldn't be too much strategic and will have some repetitiveness i guess unless units gain special abilities to not become obsolite. so this kind of feats can make units more interesting and especially preserve low level units if they have interesting and useful abilities in late game. no need spamming paladins and doom drakes, since by that time units from start got trained enough to use some other needed abilities to survive them and inflict pain or gain new useful role. they just complement starting units better by feeling weaknesses and adding additional punch to army. of course they will also get better with time in combat and/or supporting training buildings.

    so no having separately spearmen and pikemans since spearmans got later batter weapons and training to practically be spearmen. pikeman is level n spearmen who got bounus to cavalry + other abilities and/or was trained in or visited city with more advanced form of forge that provide better weapons (no need for mithril or adamantium, i mean as wooden spears->metal ones->pikes?, dagger->short sword->long sword for example, short bow->long bow and ->/or parallel are small/simple crossbow->crossbow->large/siege crossbow)

    in warlock were perks gained by levels, special one gained by building and some units started with some. from silver weapons and protective amulets (that would be represented differently in this game) to special trainings like university education (+10% power/damage) and masters of war(+1exp per turn) that are sounding like real feats. there were more equipment type perks in game represented in mostly as +x% damage type or +x% damage prot. type and +sight range, movements or path-finding. with civ5 instead mom style and weak non special spells mostly it had good idea at least but could be beater.

  6. #36
    The builder/rusher distinction is one that can be overstated. Players using builder races generally do still want to expand early on, for a number of reasons - to build the economic base they need to upgrade their primary cities, to pick up cities of other races, and so on. They have less tools for, and less reliance on, a strong early game than rushers, but they still want to establish a strong power base - and stop other players from conquering that power base - in the early phases.

    The Warlock system is an interesting one, but it did have its flaws - not least being that if you had the resources, you could throw dozens of perks at a unit and turn it into something insane, including perks that made little sense to be combined (for instance, you could have several levels of equipment on a unit, each providing its bonuses as if the others weren't there). If a similar system is adopted, I think there'd need to be some kind of control there.

    Given that we're talking about this based on the D20 ruleset, then I'd suggest using feats and body slots as the limiting factors. Feats are things that are developed through training (which could include things like the ability to fly long distances) - the number of feats a unit has is limited by level (with the starting level of a unit depending on its tier and what training buildings are in the city). However, at any given time, a unit can only have one type of armour, one type of magical protection, and so on - if you add an equipment upgrade to a slot that's already filled, it replaces the old equipment. Weapons might have multiple slots, but instead of piling on the bonuses of all the weapons that a unit has, it uses whichever weapon provides the best bonus against the opponent (thus, a unit equipped with adamantium weapons and silver weapons might use silver weapons against lycanthropes and the like and adamantium weapons against other units - they do NOT get both the adamantium and the silver bonus against the same target).

  7. #37
    of course some rules in d20 will be changed in game, but aren't level one heroes in game pathetically weak (example of wizard having as few as 4 hp)
    In D20 they are really weak at level 1, but I think I remember Aaron saying that heroes and champions would not be starting at level 1 in WoM. So I don't think that's a concern.
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    i said that as exaggerated of example of difference in starting units level 1 and ones on top level 20, wizards looked for that reason best.

    normal non hero units are still going from level one, so +level/feats/equipment buildings help to bring them to medium level when they start to be useful more from cannon fodder. i guess lev. 1 unit are for that reason pathetic since they are just peoples i rounded hour ago and gave weapons and will fight in hour from now, "medium" level like 10 (if start is 1 and max 20, but can be smaller level or higher depending on how they are made), are trained troops finally useful, and top 20 level are best of the best all that training can get them, improvement only through equipment is available.

    if we go scale 1-20 how much levels should all building in city give? Maybe 25% (5), 50% (10), 75% (15)? i guess 50% is most "balanced" on how much can building provide at most.

    there is also problem on what levels give, especially hp. it have to be changed or level 1 wizard have d4 (1-4 hp) and level 20 have 20d4 (20-80 hp) i guess or and to some hp sponges level 1 have d10 hp (1-10) to level 20 have 20d10 (20-200hp).
    have i made some significant error in calculations and understanding of hp gain per level? not d&d,d20 and so on player.

    problem from d20 and other games is still what this hp represent, as body harm, divine favor to not die and so on. usualy in d&d we have game master who oppose to player appropriate creature depending on strenght of party and location of adventure. here are often battle between level 1 and 5 or 10 bowmens, spearmens andsword mens even without dragons, wizards and heroes.

    and hp is just one variable influenced by level. there are also feats gained by level and equipment, how much spells wizards cast (spell slots or mana least important) and max level they can learn.

  9. #39
    Archmage of the Outer Ring jamoecw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxynnic View Post
    Ah, yes, I've seen the idea of footbows for flying creatures before - there are a couple of D&D 3.5 races that use it (the raptorans probably the most recognisable). It's certainly an interesting idea, although personally I have my doubts about how viable it would be for shooting in directions other than mostly down.

    Voulges are kinda similar to what I have in mind, but I think the closest would be a double-headed partisan with a six-foot shaft (or whatever the equivalent would be for a winged draconian). A classical voulge, I think, would be too heavy for flying infantry to use without unbalancing themselves in flight - you'd end up with the weapon swinging the user as much as vice versa. The important design characteristics would be enough length to stab down at someone below while being balanced enough that you can swing it without losing your balance in flight - giving it two heads both helps in maintaining this balance, and when you're fighting an opponent in the air, it means that opponent needs to defend against the possibility of an underarm or an overarm strike, rather than just needing to watch where the head goes. (Okay, the butt of any polearm is still going to be dangerous due to being a solid piece of wood, but putting a head capable of cutting on it would make it that much deadlier.)
    also with double weapons you have to be careful with the wings.

    the voulge isn't an inherently heavy polearm, it typically weighs about 5 lbs. which is only slightly heavier than the pole arms of the same length aside from the poleax. though it is often seen as a heavier weapon, as its use is for cleaving (though most people expect weapons to be heavier in general).

    partisans don't do well with slashing, though bills, glaives, voulges, bardiches, halberds, and poleaxes are made to do so.

    footbows wouldn't do well for other flying units unless they are running from them as they have trouble shooting in front and above, though below and behind are really good. i figured foot bows would be different and would make sense, but for if they are supposed to be used to fighting other flyers instead of things on the ground then i'd definitely go with traditional bows.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jamoecw View Post
    also with double weapons you have to be careful with the wings.
    Hrrrmn. Valid point, although any weapon with a long haft used for slashing is going to have a similar problem. Thumping your haft into a wing isn't going to be as bad as a spearpoint, of course, but it's still not going to be conducive to steady flight. Meanwhile, the spear phalanx or pike block... just isn't going to work in the three-dimensional aerial battlefield as well as it does on the ground.

    What we might need to be looking at is using a relatively light armament for fighting air-to-air - sword and light shield, for instance. For attacking ground-infantry, a yo-yo type weapon could be employed.

    Alternatively, a light, relatively short polearm could work, probably with a light cutting blade (I'd be more inclined towards glaive-style than voulge-style - I know weapons are often lighter than most people expect them to be, but when attached to even a 6-foot pole, there's a lot of momentum - minimising that is probably going to be an advantage in flight), a spear point for stabbing down at a target below you, and a hook for the possibility of pulling your target off balance in flight.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer