Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

I think a linear progression makes some sense in gameplay terms, and there are plenty of arguments for this in design terms, as opposed to just the consideration of pure material properties.

e.g. say copper is ~20% more dense than iron, that just means you use 20% more iron to make the same weight ...

There would also be strong arguments to say the superior rigidity and hardness of iron would far outweigh the density benefits of copper in creating a weapon design useful for fighting.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

Indeed- it works well in Dwarf Fortress because the gameplay emphasis is on crafting and preparation, not tactics. Thus, it behooves the player to learn about the different material properties to create a variety of interesting and effective weapon/material combinations, instead of just spamming Ubermetal Weapons.

In a game where you're more worried about the actual fighting than the making of the weapon, a linear progression is an acceptable break from reality.

I am wary of avoiding any 'simplification', but I do think as monk12 says that the gameplay emphasis isn't on crafting/construction, and therefore I don't want to make learning about material properties unnecessarily complex. However, I might add in requirements for different volumes of different metals to create the same weapons, and different crafting requirements, but in terms of damage/combat, I think the progression will remain linear.

A few slightly more serious questions than my last one:

I've tried reading through as much of this thread as possible, but it's hard to keep up, so I apologize if this was asked before. Have you had any thoughts on traps like pitfall traps, spike pits, swinging log ram things, and so on?

Also, since this is a strategic game, terrain is going to do a good bit of tactic dictating. But would these have any numerical value? (For example, an enemy charging up a hill would get fatigued faster and hit the defenses with less force, or a force wading through a stream being much easier to hit than a similar force moving through a field)

My questions might be worded poorly, but it's just that once I get started thinking about this game, my mind wanders off and I lose my train of thought.

No problem . I have considered traps, and they're certainly a possibility, but a long-term one. I think I'd be most inclined to put them in for cities than camps, but I think it would be nice if you could quickly throw up some basic traps.

Yep, moving up a hill will slow you if you enter combat immediately after, and going up a z level will take more stamina to do so. Wading through a stream has a chance of your movement being unsuccessful each turn. I'm hoping to also add effects based on snow, sand, weather conditions, etc. Similarly, you can see any z level below you but not the ones above, so that's a huge incentive to reach the high ground by default (both for you, and for the AI).

also, would having archers attack from a hill give them a range bonus, and archers attacking up a hill have the opposite?

Yes for attacking from a hill heading down (since I'm actually going to the effort to model projectiles in an 'arc', so aiming at something lower will get it 'further' than aiming at the same level), not sure about fighting upwards, since targets will likely be out of sight. I'll probably just leave it to whatever projectile function I dream up!

[Dariush]

Short weapons are kunais, daggers, stilettos, knives, and sais.
Slashing weapons are scimitars, shortswords, sabres, katanas and longswords.
Long weapons are pikes, spears, halberds, ranseurs and naginata.
Heavy weapons are clubs, warhammers, flails, maces and axes.

Why are you going with such exotic varieties (many of which are subtypes of other types, e.g. katana is a Japanese variety of longsword), but don't use more common types like a basic two-handed sword?

warhammers will be best at pulling foes off horses

I'm pretty sure warhammers weren't intended for that, but rather for piercing armor.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

Short weapons are kunais, daggers, stilettos, knives, and sais.
Slashing weapons are scimitars, shortswords, sabres, katanas and longswords.
Long weapons are pikes, spears, halberds, ranseurs and naginata.
Heavy weapons are clubs, warhammers, flails, maces and axes.

Why are you going with such exotic varieties (many of which are subtypes of other types, e.g. katana is a Japanese variety of longsword), but don't use more common types like a basic two-handed sword?

No particular reason (and I'd argue a katana and a longsword are reasonably different things!) - I just think the variety is interesting, and allows for different groups and civilizations to have different martial preferences.

warhammers will be best at pulling foes off horses

I'm pretty sure warhammers weren't intended for that, but rather for piercing armor.

That also, but pulling off horses/attacking horses is also a major function of the warhammer, I believe. But yes, they do have a bonus to armor penetration.

[greatorder]

That also, but pulling off horses/attacking horses is also a major function of the warhammer, I believe. But yes, they do have a bonus to armor penetration.

talking about horses and weapons, don't forget to make spears and pike effective against horses AND their riders, as they were used for both, IIRC.

and a thought: will pikes, being so long as they are, be able to attack units several tiles in front? I can remember that they actually used their length for something like this:
P=pikeman
A=archer
-= pike


P---
   A
P---
   A
P---
   A
P---

so the archers were protected (from cavalry, at least) and the archers were still able to fire.

[Lord Dullard]

Halberds/bills were also used for pulling cavalry off their horses a lot, methinks.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Those big, nasty billhooks are for pulling and knocking off balance, after all.

[greatorder]

random fact: billhooks were modified onto that bill weapon for use as a weapon!

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

and a thought: will pikes, being so long as they are, be able to attack units several tiles in front? I can remember that they actually used their length for something like this:

Halberds/bills were also used for pulling cavalry off their horses a lot, methinks.

A very interesting idea. I am currently intending to have them extend by one square, and just in front of the direction you/AI last moved (but this may be changed). They should definitely have horse effects too... but I'm still working on the specifics for each weapon class.

In the mean time, a significant screenshot update. It's been a while since I uploaded any, and a *lot* has changed this week, so:

http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2012/03/06/the-benefits-of-invincibility/

Not to engage in self-trumpet-blowing, but I think things are actually beginning to look like a real game, at long last!

[Leatra]

Hell yeah for the neat looking UI!

I'm curious about how are you going to handle horseback fightining. When you are not riding anything, maybe there should be an indicator to show how many moves the guys on horses can make until you can make one. Being able to magically know the speed of every horse doesn't make it such a nice idea though. Maybe it could be a little vague like "5-9" depending on... one of your skills. Hell, it could work for all creatures and not just horsemen. It could work like a skill to not only predict their speed but their strengths and weaknesses as well... I got a little carried away.

[Ivefan]

so the archers were protected (from cavalry, at least) and the archers were still able to fire.

Not really. The cavalry would get a few losses but the pike density is too thin to actually protect the archers. better with a stake wall in that case, or putting the archers behind the pikes.
And thinking of that. what about mixed weapons units? First row is sword/shortspear and shield with the second and third row is pikemen and the rest behind is pikemen ready to fill in the holes but while they wait they can throw javelins.
Right, so this will need lots of training but it's damn efficient against anything other than archers

[Leatra]

Maybe there should be a way to create custom formations. There was a feature like this in a game called Theocracy but I don't know how this could be applied to a roguelike.

First, game shows you a list of soldiers you command. You click the ones you want to add into your group and assign a commander. Then, you drag and drop until you have the formation you want. It looks like this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That one above is a one man army!

I don't think this idea can be applied to a roguelike though

[Mephansteras]

Game is starting to look really good!

[varsovie]

so the archers were protected (from cavalry, at least) and the archers were still able to fire.

Not really. The cavalry would get a few losses but the pike density is too thin to actually protect the archers. better with a stake wall in that case, or putting the archers behind the pikes.
And thinking of that. what about mixed weapons units? First row is sword/shortspear and shield with the second and third row is pikemen and the rest behind is pikemen ready to fill in the holes but while they wait they can throw javelins.
Right, so this will need lots of training but it's damn efficient against anything other than archers

In this case the wall might be dense enough to frighten the horses (they don't charge in walls!), and there should be at least three consecutive rows of pikes. And anyway, when the enemy is at 15m, do you think archers would stay in front? It look like a tercio formation, and I like it. http://forum.milua.org/archive/TactiqueUk.htm

[Rowanas]

Hmm. During the early renaissance, arquebusiers were put in blocks on the wings of pike formations, rather than being mixed in. Two handed swords would be mixed into these arquebus blocks to prevent opposing pike formations from mashing the edges, and forcing enemy cavalry to try and avoid the pikes while still hitting the guns. (Like a simplified version of the Prolangado in varsovie's link)

Looking back at ancient pike formations, the classic phalanx generally didn't combine arms with archers because 1: Combined arms weren't really a "thing" until the likes of Clausewitz. 2: Phalanxes had to be homogenous in order for any man in any rank to step forward to take the place of the man in front, and archers would've stuffed that right up.

I can't think of any army that used anything like what Ivefan describes.

Also, I know that this is waaaaaay off topic, but.. artillery? Please say yes. I've always been of the "over there, over kill" mindset, in which massed artillery plays a huge part. You've mentioned siege engines, but not artillery specifically, so I'm hoping for a definitive answer.

[Ivefan]

I can't think of any army that used anything like what Ivefan describes.

Because it's not really feasonable. The required coordination, dicipline, regiment cohersion and weapons training would turn because of cost and time.
Romans, diciplined and rather well protected units, and they used pilums(javelins at times. But they were professional soldiers and required upkeep.
Longbow men? Got replaced by arbalests due to the demands of archery training even though longbows are 'better'.
Pikemens. Rather unwieldy and clumsy but great in a defensive stance.

[Nighthawk]

artillery

YES.

Rows upon rows of catapults and ballistae, lined up...
"FIRE!"
*THUNKTHUNKWHOOSHTHUNKWHOOSH*
*Smashing sounds and screams*

And epic battle is not complete without artillery.