PDA

View Full Version : Emotions and Critical Strikes


Darathor
07-19-2009, 07:46 PM
On the features page, it says that emotions will be in-game, but how will they be implemented. It said on the page units have fear, does that mean they cower and slowly back away like in bfme2? But as for cheering, it makes the game feel more realistic and cool, though when will your units cheer? And what bonuses will they get exactly?
I hope the fear one doesn't make your units cower and do nothing like in bfme2, it was really aggravating and annoying.
Also, will critical strikes be in-game? If so, what units will have it and how much of a chance will it be to get a critical strike?

Joseph Visscher
07-19-2009, 11:29 PM
On the features page, it says that emotions will be in-game, but how will they be implemented. It said on the page units have fear, does that mean they cower and slowly back away like in bfme2? But as for cheering, it makes the game feel more realistic and cool, though when will your units cheer? And what bonuses will they get exactly?
I hope the fear one doesn't make your units cower and do nothing like in bfme2, it was really aggravating and annoying.
Also, will critical strikes be in-game? If so, what units will have it and how much of a chance will it be to get a critical strike?

Units cheer when they defeat the enemy in a battle., currently units do not cower or become fearful, they'll just fight to the death, this may change though.

Our combat system is quite advanced, basically there is 4 main combat attributes: Hit Rating, Damage, Defense Rating, and Armor.

Hit Rating are the odds of making a successful attack,
Defense Rating is the opposite and counter of Hit Rating by lowering the odds of the attacker.
Damage is the damaged caused on a successful attack. There are multiple types of damages from slashing, crushing from calvary trampling and ogre clubbing, simple fire damage from fire arrows or even magic damages from spells of various elements.
Armor is the opposite and counter of Damage depending on the type.

[unconfirmed] There may also be damage absorption stats where unit's armor type can actually cause more damage rather reduce. Such as ice or fire damage on steal armor.

Darathor
07-20-2009, 08:34 AM
Ah, ok. I'm glad that they cheer, it adds some realism to the game as well as making the game more unique and having "flavor." It sounds nice that if you slaughter your enemy that your troops celebrate your awesomeness and skill at strategy and tactics.:D

nickson104
07-20-2009, 10:32 AM
Ah, ok. I'm glad that they cheer, it adds some realism to the game as well as making the game more unique and having "flavor." It sounds nice that if you slaughter your enemy that your troops celebrate your awesomeness and skill at strategy and tactics.:D

One of my favourite things about Mount And Blade... Fending off waves of enemies breaching the castle walls... then as your blade cuts down the last enemy a cheer goes up from your remaining troops.... its just awesome... XD :p

zach12wqasxz
07-20-2009, 11:30 AM
i think you have a morale system like in total war, where if your getting owned then your troops run for there lives(but then usually get slaughtered). but if your fighting near your city then i think they should run to the city and hide behind the walls. you should also have a like town square type deal where all your remaining men from a lost seige can make there "last stand" and give them fighting bonuses and stuff. in the total war series when the enemy is in the town square its ten times harder to kill them, you should make it like that in the game

Puppeteer
07-20-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure if I like the whole morale system. Fleeing would become irritatingly annoying. I'm their commander, not their adviser. My orders are not optional.

Aametherar
07-20-2009, 03:11 PM
I'm not sure if I like the whole morale system. Fleeing would become irritatingly annoying. I'm their commander, not their adviser. My orders are not optional.

I agree, perhaps we should be able to chose leader style, democracy emperor, god, etc. for diff bonuses on various things including morale, as well as actions taken on retreating troops giving you reputation for diff stuff...like killing those who retreat. Sacrifices to instill terror, etc.

szebus
07-20-2009, 03:24 PM
I'm not sure if I like the whole morale system. Fleeing would become irritatingly annoying. I'm their commander, not their adviser. My orders are not optional.

Hmmm... You may be their commander and not their advisor, but still they have fear, at least humans and I don't think cheap units would give a sh*t about you're social status.

Maybe some units what have a higher social status as higher LVL'd units, would fight until death or retreat order, but this is for humans.

Aametherar
07-20-2009, 04:00 PM
That is true I don't think i've ever seen an orc run from the battlefield, elf perhaps, but not orc. Elves seem to be good at running and hiding.

Kire
07-20-2009, 04:59 PM
I agree, perhaps we should be able to chose leader style, democracy emperor, god, etc. for diff bonuses on various things

Yes this would be very very lovely =), i also liked it at empire earth (it was far far away so i could mixed a game name =P). This would surly add some fun factor to game and gaining like titles -Kire the emperor or God Kire or King Kire ....- =P. But dont know how would democracy work... Asking parliament or people if you can attack player or to gain some money or create units ?=P
It would be also nice for role playing factor.. if one soldier is brave in combat and you like him you, as king, would give him title, but would not change stats.

Aametherar
07-20-2009, 05:05 PM
Yes this would be very very lovely =), i also liked it at empire earth (it was far far away so i could mixed a game name =P). This would surly add some fun factor to game and gaining like titles -Kire the emperor or God Kire or King Kire ....- =P. But dont know how would democracy work... Asking parliament or people if you can attack player or to gain some money or create units ?=P
It would be also nice for role playing factor.. if one soldier is brave in combat and you like him you, as king, would give him title, but would not change stats.

Democracy could work the way it does in Galactic Civilizations for example. The better you treat your people the more they support your actions. They judge your leadership, and you get production bonuses for example from happy workers, where if they hate you they can rebel or run from battles more. Putting more power into the hands of your units by living in a democracy could give the greatest benefits as well as the greatest possible negative affects. An example of them not liking you is cause you tax em too much or declare war on another player and lose, or are just always at war getting them killed etc. I'd imagine it being more the type of government a turtle player would chose.

You could even have a religious based government...I'd go to war with you though ^_^. God Aametherar commands you to bow to the orcs.

Darathor
07-20-2009, 06:59 PM
I don't like having my guys run away. It is in the TW series because it's realistic and has instanced battles. It would be way harder in an mmorts because it would be hard to calculate the number of units the unit that is under attack is near and how many are coming to aid them. It seems too complicated and unnecessary. Also, it would mess up a bunch of strategies, like sending a small force as a diversion, it wouldn't work as well if they ran away almost immediately when confronted with a vastly superior force.
For governments, if implemented(not sure if I want them) I would like to see few detractors, but make the bonuses unique. I don't want to choose a government but be limited in something and be beat just because they have a different government. You should only win because of you being a certain government only if you utilize all its advantages, not because its advantages exploit your opponents government weaknesses.

Joseph Visscher
07-20-2009, 07:29 PM
I'm not sure if I like the whole morale system. Fleeing would become irritatingly annoying. I'm their commander, not their adviser. My orders are not optional.

Righto!
Gameplay over realism, having your units disobey you and flee is realistic but very very annoying to most people, that alone turned me off that game.
Only special situations you will lose control over your units, such as confusion spells.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-20-2009, 07:51 PM
Or like in BFME, the Nazgul screech. *shutters*

MrBlack103
07-20-2009, 09:03 PM
It was fun to use, though.

Aametherar
07-20-2009, 09:11 PM
I think i'm the only one here who's never played BFME. I also agree gameplay above all else!

zach12wqasxz
07-20-2009, 10:12 PM
i think having a morle lvl thing would even out when your slaughtering broken troopls

Aametherar
07-20-2009, 10:17 PM
Honestly I agree that having troops flee is annoying, knowing you have the advantage and watching your troops all start breaking and fleeing is annoying. I more like the idea I put up of capturing higher lvl units after the battles over based on actual kills then ransoming/sacrificing. Maybe you didn't kill them but captured them, it'd be more an aspect of mmo mode, not affecting in battle at all with stuff like fleeing.

szebus
07-20-2009, 11:33 PM
I think i'm the only one here who's never played BFME. I also agree gameplay above all else!

No, You are not.

I more like the idea I put up of capturing higher lvl units after the battles over based on actual kills then ransoming/sacrificing.

The same way, when you're units flee, they should be considered captured, at least some of those who flee.

Josh Warner
07-21-2009, 12:16 AM
Honestly I agree that having troops flee is annoying, knowing you have the advantage and watching your troops all start breaking and fleeing is annoying. I more like the idea I put up of capturing higher lvl units after the battles over based on actual kills then ransoming/sacrificing. Maybe you didn't kill them but captured them, it'd be more an aspect of mmo mode, not affecting in battle at all with stuff like fleeing.

morale is just another way to win a battle. If one player manages it well using various support units/fear units and the other doesn't, the first guy should win. It's another aspect that the player has to control. And while it's frustrating to see your army start to panic and break when you know if they continued to fight would win - that's the reality of it. Soldiers don't see that big picture, they see something big and scary in front of them or killing their friends, and they want to get away from it. I personally hope morale is here in some form for in battles as long as there are counters to it like everything else. Expensive and slow training units that increase morale/decrease how fast it goes down etc for example. So if you build them early without know what your opponent has, your army will be weaker, but if your opponent has units that lower morale and you don't your army will rout, another way to reinforce small scale gameplay, scouting and skirmishing to see what your enemy can bring to bear.

[COLOR="Navy"]Units cheer when they defeat the enemy in a battle., currently units do not cower or become fearful, they'll just fight to the death, this may change though.



Well, I hope that changes! if not oh well, I just think it adds another layer to gameplay that can be fun when done right, personally not a fan of activated 'fear' or 'confusion' but maybe the countering system will make it work.

Darathor
07-21-2009, 06:28 PM
It's as Visscher said earlier, it's gameplay over realism. I would get very angry and frustrated if my army started to flee even though I know if they would have stayed I would have won. I don't want to lose because of my soldiers stupidity. I want to lose because of my own stupidity if anything, at least then I know that I can improve, and I don't hate the game as much then.

nickson104
07-21-2009, 06:49 PM
Perhaps if such a system were implemented, higher leveled troops had a higher base morale and so less chance of fleeing? Another advantage of having trained troops rather than a untrained mass

Darathor
07-21-2009, 06:55 PM
I still wouldn't like it. If your kingdom had a peaceful disposition, and were attacked by a warmongering one, the attackers would have a huge advantage that not only would their troops be better, but wouldn't run away. The defenders would have all their peace-keeping troops destroyed as they run away like idiots. They would run and die, why not fight and maybe win?

Aametherar
07-21-2009, 07:15 PM
I still wouldn't like it. If your kingdom had a peaceful disposition, and were attacked by a warmongering one, the attackers would have a huge advantage that not only would their troops be better, but wouldn't run away. The defenders would have all their peace-keeping troops destroyed as they run away like idiots. They would run and die, why not fight and maybe win?

Silly elves, you would have production bonuses etc. and therefore be able to build larger armies as well as have higher research levels etc. :P

Darathor
07-21-2009, 07:41 PM
Foolish orcs, that scenario was already described, the smaller but better army would triumph over the larger but inexperienced army, unless some skill differences are involved.
And also, as for technology, wouldn't the warring nation have better war technology than a peaceful one, who would be more focused on their economy and diplomacy?

Josh Warner
07-21-2009, 08:10 PM
It's as Visscher said earlier, it's gameplay over realism. I would get very angry and frustrated if my army started to flee even though I know if they would have stayed I would have won. I don't want to lose because of my soldiers stupidity. I want to lose because of my own stupidity if anything, at least then I know that I can improve, and I don't hate the game as much then.

You say you want to lose only because of your own stupidity, not the game - controlling morale is just another aspect of the game, if you can't handle it how is it the games fault and not your own? If your opponent has units that cause fear/reduce morale and you didn't scout/bother to build units that increase yours/prevent fear or focus down his morale/fear causing units, you deserved to lose, not the game's fault at all.

Joseph Visscher
07-21-2009, 09:37 PM
fear & morale and such doesn't fully fit the story of dof either, Elves fight for their Great Forests and their livelihood, Orcs simply want blood! Rendarg!!! Fight to the end for no defined reason! Humans are noble, have honor and pride.
Players' control over all of their units increases the contrast between new players and hardcore players. When you let the game control more aspects of the game that is just less you can get better at.
A good player will know when it is some to retreat, IT IS YOUR ARMY AND YOU CHOOSE THEIR FATE OR VICTORY.

Aametherar
07-21-2009, 10:13 PM
Joseph wins. that's a valid point and I have to agree 100%

Josh Warner
07-22-2009, 03:01 AM
fear & morale and such doesn't fully fit the story of dof either, Elves fight for their Great Forests and their livelihood, Orcs simply want blood! Rendarg!!! Fight to the end for no defined reason! Humans are noble, have honor and pride.
Players' control over all of their units increases the contrast between new players and hardcore players. When you let the game control more aspects of the game that is just less you can get better at.
A good player will know when it is some to retreat, IT IS YOUR ARMY AND YOU CHOOSE THEIR FATE OR VICTORY.

You seem very set in stone on this one heh, I'd disagree with the more control thing though in this sense, I don't think it applies. Normally I'd say yes, the less automation the less normalization. Thus raising the skill ceiling. however, morale? it's another level of depth. Much like a second health bar, if you let either one run out your army dies, you must balance both. Part of that is ordering a fighting retreat or at the least ordering a retreat to a specific point instead of a panic-ridden retreat in every direction in order to regroup before panic sets in, or using abilities that bolster morale, or simply killing the units that are causing all this fear and panic. Handled well morale is a great mechanic, poorly, yes it's a frustrating one. There are some games where morale seems arbitrary and stupid, just as there are some where it feels solid and right, where a strategic retreat to a safe point and leaving behind a small portion of you army to be lambs to the slaughter and slow them down so your army can recover it's morale and fight again without panic and fear killing them, or again taking control and adapting by making your own morale units to bolster your troops, or knocking out his fear units.

I sort of rambled on there, sorry, I really feel that done right it adds a lot of depth and adds more that a player has to look out for and adapt to.

The one question I have to ask though is, somewhat off topic, you mentioned the difference between new and hardcore players - where do you draw the line for the skill ceiling? How much better are we going to be able to be in the grand scheme of things. I know games where I could easily take on new, relatively competent people without breaking a sweat at 3-4:1 odds, and others where 2v1 is literally impossible short of a severe case of stupid developing in one or both of your opponents. Can't really think of a good way to put it. Typically they don't punish new people, when it's like that, the latter games. A game that does for example, company of heroes, if you screw up and lose a squad early. You've lost the game right there, and it's easy to lose one if you get caught out of cover. Other games are very forgiving to tactical mistakes and played on a more strategic level, it's based moreso on army composition and well timed activated abilities and a little bit of positioning to go with the composition of your army. Where the skill lies in creating the right units based on what your opponent has, using your abilities correctly and to go in line with the first - scouting, lots of scouting. In order to make the right army composition you must know what you are going to be up against.

Jean=A=Luc
07-22-2009, 07:57 AM
tldr but TW-like morale system doesn't really fit non-TW-like games.

Darathor
07-22-2009, 10:49 AM
I said I only want to lose because of my own stupidity because then I can improve. However, if my enemy has all these moral reducing attacks and spells that are very effective against a relatively inexperienced army, I can only use ranged hit-and-run tactics(which hardly ever destroy the enemy) and, while they are good at times, I don't want to be pigeon-holed into doing one thing. There should be many ways to defeat an army, if their morale reducing casters are behind lines and lines of infantry and archers, then I can't get to them before my army crumbles in panic. And they would most likely have their casters surrounded by dozens of battalions every moment if they are smart in any way.
Morale has never been in any rts games that I know of(besides the TW series but those are completely different) and if say, Age of Empires 2 had it, it would have been a horrible game, same thing would happen if Bfme or bfme2 had it, I would have hated it and it would've made them terrible games.
Overall, morale would be a horrible mechanic in this game and most rts games, it is frustrating and can turn off many people from the game.

Puppeteer
07-22-2009, 11:51 AM
I'm all for a couple of spells that might cause fear for a short period of time, but the idea of a morale bar is 'too much too far' for my liking.

wou129
07-22-2009, 03:00 PM
I said I only want to lose because of my own stupidity because then I can improve. However, if my enemy has all these moral reducing attacks and spells that are very effective against a relatively inexperienced army, I can only use ranged hit-and-run tactics(which hardly ever destroy the enemy) and, while they are good at times, I don't want to be pigeon-holed into doing one thing. There should be many ways to defeat an army, if their morale reducing casters are behind lines and lines of infantry and archers, then I can't get to them before my army crumbles in panic. And they would most likely have their casters surrounded by dozens of battalions every moment if they are smart in any way.
Morale has never been in any rts games that I know of(besides the TW series but those are completely different) and if say, Age of Empires 2 had it, it would have been a horrible game, same thing would happen if Bfme or bfme2 had it, I would have hated it and it would've made them terrible games.
Overall, morale would be a horrible mechanic in this game and most rts games, it is frustrating and can turn off many people from the game.

Bfme has morale in some sort of way in my opinion

Darathor
07-22-2009, 04:17 PM
They cower when charged and under certain spells, however, they don't run away when overmatched.

Josh Warner
07-22-2009, 05:24 PM
tldr but TW-like morale system doesn't really fit non-TW-like games.

I expect this game to be very similar to TW in the tactical sense, obviously not the strategic.

I said I only want to lose because of my own stupidity because then I can improve. However, if my enemy has all these moral reducing attacks and spells that are very effective against a relatively inexperienced army, I can only use ranged hit-and-run tactics(which hardly ever destroy the enemy) and, while they are good at times, I don't want to be pigeon-holed into doing one thing.

How does morale pigeon hole you, each type of unit should have several ways to counter it, this isn't rock paper scissors. Also, what's with the inexperienced army vs experienced army - that won't be fair morale or not. And morale doesn't even need to be effected by how experienced units are, balance > realism.


There should be many ways to defeat an army, if their morale reducing casters are behind lines and lines of infantry and archers, then I can't get to them before my army crumbles in panic. And they would most likely have their casters surrounded by dozens of battalions every moment if they are smart in any way.

That's why there are several counters to everything in a decent game, counter fear reducing abilities with the opposite. Also what makes you think fear has to be a ranged activated? Why couldn't morale units only induce fear when in melee so they can be targeted and killed, make it so when there are no morale factors in play armies regenerate it very quickly as well.

Morale has never been in any rts games that I know of(besides the TW series but those are completely different) and if say, Age of Empires 2 had it, it would have been a horrible game, same thing would happen if Bfme or bfme2 had it, I would have hated it and it would've made them terrible games.
Overall, morale would be a horrible mechanic in this game and most rts games, it is frustrating and can turn off many people from the game.

What're you basing that on? Not many granted, but units running away due to specific mechanics is just a dumbed down simple version. I much prefer an in depth morale system to click x to cause fear for y seconds as well. Morale is under your control in that situation, unlike nazgul screech for example which in my opinion is FAR more annoying as it's NOT under your control.

I wouldn't say on the battlefield level that DoF will be radically different, they've said units will carry over experience and such for MMO mode. Instead of a turn based strategic mode it's ALL done in the real time of battle. The MMO aspects make this quite a bit like TW except all in real time.

Blanket statements like 'it would have been horrible' are silly, you have no idea how it would work. I understand your aversion to yet another factor you have to learn and adapt to, combined with everything else that already overwhelms people in an RTS, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad because you don't care for it or understand it.


Bfme has morale in some sort of way in my opinion

It has a far more annoying and noob friendly 'morale' system.

Darathor
07-22-2009, 09:24 PM
I expect this game to be very similar to TW in the tactical sense, obviously not the strategic.
I have to agree with you here but, the TW series is supposed to be realistic this is a fantasy game, in fantasy games people seem to have more courage than in real life in most cases.

How does morale pigeon hole you, each type of unit should have several ways to counter it, this isn't rock paper scissors. Also, what's with the inexperienced army vs experienced army - that won't be fair morale or not. And morale doesn't even need to be effected by how experienced units are, balance > realism.
Sorry, that was a scenario stated earlier when I was arguing with Aametherar about how having morale increase with unit level, sorry that I got that mixed up.

That's why there are several counters to everything in a decent game, counter fear reducing abilities with the opposite. Also what makes you think fear has to be a ranged activated? Why couldn't morale units only induce fear when in melee so they can be targeted and killed, make it so when there are no morale factors in play armies regenerate it very quickly as well.
Then still, you can't engage the enemy in any fight where your enemy gets in melee range, so hit-and-run tactics would still be the only viable tactic unless you just get hordes of archers.


Blanket statements like 'it would have been horrible' are silly, you have no idea how it would work. I understand your aversion to yet another factor you have to learn and adapt to, combined with everything else that already overwhelms people in an RTS, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad because you don't care for it or understand it.
I was merely saying that those games would have been worse for me if those games had a morale system like that. I don't find those things enjoyable, they seem to detract from gameplay, they might make a game have more depth, but be less fun. Many people I know don't like those mechanics and if DoF had them I would be much less likely to buy the game.(the I is in italics because that's just me)

P.S. Thanks for basically saying that I'm might be not intelligent enough to understand these things and that might be why I am so averse towards those mechanics.

Josh Warner
07-23-2009, 05:42 PM
I have to agree with you here but, the TW series is supposed to be realistic this is a fantasy game, in fantasy games people seem to have more courage than in real life in most cases. .

So you're point is that it's more realistic for a fantasy game to have more courageous and brave units? :p I see what you're getting at, I imagine you see my point as well here, though. And I don't think TW has morale just for realism either, it works very well.

Then still, you can't engage the enemy in any fight where your enemy gets in melee range, so hit-and-run tactics would still be the only viable tactic unless you just get hordes of archers.

You misunderstood what I meant, they don't start lowering morale unless they're in melee, and they don't instantly make them run, think before they're engaged your units stay at full morale, as soon as units start dying you lose a bit, kill some gain a bit (maybe, personally I'd prefer a system that's sustainable by combat unless you're losing horribly, or at least prolonging if you're not getting completely slaughtered) and once these units enter melee they slowly cause morale to lower, my favorite way would be slowly and temporarily lower the maximum morale, or if it lowers the actual morale level then cap how fast morale can drop, with or without these units. I didn't mean as soon as they enter melee your units flee, I apologize for the confusion.


I was merely saying that those games would have been worse for me if those games had a morale system like that. I don't find those things enjoyable, they seem to detract from gameplay, they might make a game have more depth, but be less fun. Many people I know don't like those mechanics and if DoF had them I would be much less likely to buy the game.(the I is in italics because that's just me).

A morale system like what, I hadn't given any specifics other than there actually being one, that's like saying I wouldn't enjoy a game that has mana, I only like games with activated abilities balanced by cooldowns not cooldowns and mana. It's an absurd notion - there are so many ways to create a functioning morale system.

P.S. Thanks for basically saying that I'm might be not intelligent enough to understand these things and that might be why I am so averse towards those mechanics.
Either the mechanic works and you can't figure it out/choose not to and give up on the game, or the mechanic is broken. I've yet to come across a game that doesn't function well because of a morale mechanic, I haven't played every game ever, but quite a few, and I can name several that use them effectively. Kohan and TW are two great examples of functioning and good morale systems, imo. I'm sorry you got defensive and thought I was calling you stupid, I'm just struggling with such a sweeping hatred of a mechanic that can work well, work okay, work poorly, or not work at all. It's success and functionality is decided by the dev team, not a stigma associated with it because of dislike carried over from other games.

I respect that you can have an opinion, but yours is far too generalizing. Whether it be from a, or a few bad experiences - that I can't know, but I DO know, it's not the mechanic itself, it's how it was implemented that you just didn't like, which is understandable. It's not understandable however to just dislike any game that chooses to use the same type of mechanic as I explained in the other part of my post, it's... unreasonable.

Darathor
07-23-2009, 09:12 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not if functions, I just don't like the idea that a combat strategy can be made to shoot for the absence of actual combat, slaughter=/=combat. It's like in World of Warcraft, the epitome of pvp combat is characterized greatly by abilities that create an absence of combat, it's just annoying that combat is mostly based off of the absence of combat in pvp.
My initial excitement has worn off now, I really just didn't like the idea because of above reason and because no rts game that I like has morale mechanics like that(by that, I mean where your units run away(this applies to my previous post)).
It still is a turn off for me in a game, but now that I've relaxed, if it is in DoF it won't be as bad as I previously thought. Still, I think that it would be better if it didn't. Sure it adds more strategy in a fight but it would be annoying to have my soldiers run in their stupidity away from a fight that they could've won.

Also, my empire will be like the Soviet Union in World War 2, if you retreat, you die by my hand.

genroxbro
08-04-2009, 07:00 PM
Hi,
I have two main menus created, one is public and one is for registered users - they are set up so registered users can access public pages for editing. I did this by selecting specific items from the menu lists rather than setting display to "All" or "None". However, there is no displayed menu on the lost password and lost username pages, and I cant figure out how to add either of those to my hidden menu so I can set the menu display for those. I was able to set the displayed menu for the Login page, but the lost password and lost username pages are separate from that, I guess. How can I add the lost information pages to my menu, or how could I otherwise display a menu on them?
Thanks so much,
Sarah
_____________________________________
Website I designed for payday loans bc (http://www.paydaytown.com) company.

Tbeaz161
08-08-2009, 01:32 AM
Wow I really love all the little details in a game, cheering is just such a great touch and im looking forward to seeing ym army cheer while standing in the burned husk of my enemies domain. I have to be honest i forgot about the game for a bit but now that the new site is up i just cant wait! I hope Reverie is happy knowing the pain and anxiety we are all going to feel waiting for this one.:)

wills370
08-28-2009, 03:24 PM
I think the moral idea is brilliant and it has been hinted that there will virtually be a duel between your mages and there with spells and counter spells galore while your armies fight it out. Therefore there should never be a impossible situation where your army crumbles even if you have to hold the line while you force the bulk of your army into a flank while your mages duel it out on the other. Should be some exciting and dynamic play. Cant wait :D

doom132
12-01-2010, 10:13 PM
That is true I don't think i've ever seen an orc run from the battlefield, elf perhaps, but not orc. Elves seem to be good at running and hiding.

Elves never run from battle if it has a slight chance of victory but if its one elf versus an orc army he wont run he'll tactically retreat:rolleyes:

Feweh
12-01-2010, 10:36 PM
I always hate games that have a Morale system or Fear system.

For example it became ridiculous in some Total War games when one of my Unit Troops would suddenly start fleeing because they lost a few guys.

Even if mages or what not could cast Fear and force units to flee or run it's really ridiculous and ruins game play even. As someone said... i'm their commander not their adviser.

Aothane
12-01-2010, 11:46 PM
depends on the implementation, a fear/morale system can certainly add depth and dimension to battlefield tactics. In Warhamer: Mark of Chaos the basic idea was that horde type units would typically have larger squads with less resolve. They made excellent diversions which could 'lead' the charge for stronger frontline units, or otherwise stealth/surge in from the sides to pincer, disrupt (e.g. archers, siege machines etc) or isolate specialised squadrons from their support.

it is a very neat aspect to wargaming in general, of course so much can go wrong if the morale system is not properly calibrated. For example where half the army can be made to flee because of an overpowered leader ability, spell, a specially acquired item or such..

likewise with the original Dawn of War in which units would lose accuracy and thus their average damage output as the squad's morale was reduced over the course of battle.

Henry Martin
12-02-2010, 10:06 AM
I always hate games that have a Morale system or Fear system.

For example it became ridiculous in some Total War games when one of my Unit Troops would suddenly start fleeing because they lost a few guys.

Even if mages or what not could cast Fear and force units to flee or run it's really ridiculous and ruins game play even. As someone said... i'm their commander not their adviser.

I loved the morale system in total war and any other game that uses it. Like Aothane said if its not done right its going to cause problems.

For the last comment you said, Generals/commanders had/have to deal with morale all the time. If you read history general/commanders did things to keep morale high and only a foolish one didn't pay attention to the mental state their men were at. Not all armies are like WW2 soviet russia, who killed their men if they retreated.