Ha ha, that confused the hell out of me .. seeing Bluestalker's avatar I briefly thought I'd written a meaty well considered post and then drunk too much to remember it!

Oh wow, I totally thought that was you, too! It should be illegal for two people to have the same avatar, it's like identity theft!

Looks good, and better than anything that's gone before but naturally and as usual I'd like more detail! MOAR!

e.g. different training for different effects, special abilities etc, see ideas post https://forums.elementalgame.com/332690

cheers,

kul

Brad has already stated that the picture wasn't the full representation of the unit creation screen. While I'd also love to see a really detailed screen where I could put on pauldrons, arms, hands, boots and legs, the question remains: How will the Tactical Combat system work? Will there be benefits for having less armoured units? Will there be movement/attack speed/dodge speed stats? If it's simply HP and Attack then you might as well keep it simple, as sad a panda that makes me.

Luckmann has a good point. Also if anyone played the RPG "Evil Islands" you had a bunch of base weapon/armour types and you would put better and better building materials into these base blueprints to make the product better/different. So you find a longsword blueprint. Putting in stone will make a pretty crude looking implement, but put in something really sexy like Meteroite Ore into it and it becomes an awesome tool of destruction.

So, as for resources: why not have a bunch of different materials be on the same level so that if you have no access to metal deposits, you can hunt demons for their bones which might not do as much damage but could be enchanted better: make up lack in damage with slight magical kick. Or have the bones come with a slight magical attack as standard.

We already know that SD intend to have us improve weapons in small steps, so what about having a few base models of weapons that have different stats. So for example: We have a one handed axe that does more damage than 1-handed swords but have slower attack speed. Also having 1/2handed weapons would be nice (but that's most likely already planned). So they are different but not better than each other. Player can use personal preference to decide what sort of weapon he wants to follow and tech up.

Problem: this also limits the player: going for one handed axes would exclude other types of weapons.

Maybe as you research One-Handed Axes there would be milestones where new axe types would be unlocked to give a bit more flexibility?

Brad,

Thanks much for continuing to feed us info

You asked for comments, so:

1) It'd be great if the list unit "slots" were moddable so if we wanted to add 10 more slots for left wrist armor, right pinky finger armor, back-of-the-right-shin armor, etc we could.  Question: you mention "you just get a person", is that the only base unit type that allows design?  You've told us about dragons and stuff and I imagine those aren't just "a person" plus gear.  Can non-person units be designed, and will the architecture support them being modded to have different gear slots?

2) I'd also really like it if training "levels" could be moddable to give a modifier to practically any stat or characteristic (giving special abilities could be done through gear, if necessary).  Questions: Do all "a person plus gear" units gain the same benefits from training?  How are you handling the degree of training or "levels"? Are there xp tiers and each turn of training gives a certain amount of xp?  Can units gain xp in battle, and is it the same stuff as they get from initial training?

3) Unit production types of bonuses:
a.) Downward Multiplier on "quick build" additional cost (e.g. hero that takes 10-20% off quick build premiums)
b.) Multiplier on effect of training time (e.g. special building or city enchantment that doubles effectiveness of training in that city; or negative enchantment that halves effectiveness of training in that city)
c.) Special that makes training impact additional statistics (e.g. city enchantment that causes training to add +1 more attack power per turn)

Etc, having every modifier-source (including initial game setup picks) be able to apply every type of modifier either positive or negative is of course preferable.

Thanks again,
Keith

Its important not to pidgeonhole weapons into specific roles. For example if you made an axe for you channeler he would be able to split wood to make his campfire. However to drive stakes into the ground to set up his tent he *must* have a hammer and all he has is his axe. If you at that point say "why can't I use the flat side of my Axe to hammer pegs?" and all the game can come up with is "durrr hurr?" then you have a little work to do.

Therefore we should avoid labeling things as "one handed" or "two handed". Instead one handed weapons are simply weapons of the correct size and weight that you can lift and wield them with one hand. Two handed weapons are much the same. Its impossible to wield something with both hands if you don't have enough room on the grip for both of them. A spear would be no trouble but there would be no such thing as a two handed butter knife.

"Is the weapon one handed or two handed?" Is a trick question, the answer is "I can".

Does unit customization mean race distinctions weaken?

I mean we all have a stereo type sense that dwarf are good at axe, hammer; elves are good at bow, drows are good at magic from MoM1.  I am not sure if it's a good thing if the unit customization could be extend to a level where the race might be irrelevant.

Or am I worrying too much?

Well, there is only one race humans with two flavors regular and fallen each having 6 factions that are all a bit different. 

When custom content goes in I'm sure you could add racial modifiers. Balancing them could get annoying however.

Well, thanks. But all human?    Does that mean there is no elf, dwarf, orc, troll... units to produce?

Doesn't sound too good.

IMO the whole elf dwarf orc mix is stereotyped to the point of blandness. I guess at this point most of us are tired of bow using elves, axe using dwarves, evil orcs and regenerating trolls.

Sorry, but I kind of disagree here. Somewhat it's those stereo type that make a fantasy game what it is. 

That is not to say I am against the flexibilities. But what if we have boar-riding elves that regenerate, fire-breathing knights that stalk, or fairy that wield war club that also drain life? Doesn't that feel "a bit" wierd?   Or simply put it this, to remove the stereo types, we could actually call the red dragon "fire-throwing flying giga machine"

I put some exaggerations here, but hope someone could get my points.     

I raise the drows of Eberron as an example of "doing it right" instead of "doing the same". I'd also like to bring forth his eminence David Eddings who rarely (ever?) uses other (major) species than human (although often a multitude of actual races) in his settings.

Dwarves & Elves in themselves doesn't define fantasy, nor does Fantasy need these crutches by necessity. The reasoning behind their inclusion or discrimination may differ (such as "they're tiresome & bland"), of course.

Then does every pixie happen to be tiny and fragile? What if there happened to be some mutant fat fairies that is savage and possessing ogre strength? Or like you've mentioned, do knights have to wear heavy armors? Comparing to a regenerating boar-riding elf, it's simply a level of difference. And the debat could keep on and on until all the "stereo types" are overthrown.

You are certainly right. What left here is my curiosity how the Dev is going to present the diversities that should exist in a fantasy strategy game without employ some of the old-school fantasy elements?

In this context, I'd once again like to voice my request for not having set hero classes and/or heroes - I'd love to be able to recreate Knight-Ranger Sarathian Sol, of the house of Sol.

1. Read some David Eddings.
2. Burn your Tolkien bibles.
3. Fantasy doesn't necessarily need diversity (although like any setting, it can certainly benefit from it).