Phoenix-TheRealDeal

Dest, and welcome to WFG's forums. glad to see we have yet another fan of our game in-the-making.

Yeah, that last be a fact, too.

Thanx for the head_UP, Jas.

OH! That is just freekin' gorgeous.

Welcome to Wildfire Games forums, Vallon.

I think thatyouguys have pretty well covered the 'discusion' of the RPS paradigm and I still like it in its last version... so I don't really have anything to add. Well, one minor point: Yes, the Slinger is pretty weenie in that he is nearly naked and rather unencumbered... but remember that what he lacks for in armour may be made up for in speed.

Don't you be "crawling back to PD" feeling like you are a chatised whelp, because every word you've EVER had to say about the making of this game has been importqant to it... and that continues to 'go without saying' again.

Neat! I like what you've done with that.

I still like Jason's rendition of the RPS model best. While at first it looks like Stu's rendition is 'simpler', once graphed-out it looks quite a bit more complex than first meets the eye. Also, I find better 'rationale' in Jason's. For example, I can find weapons-handling 'justification' for each bonus-countering in all but one juxtaposition. Frex, why would, for one pairing, the Infantry Javelinist accrue a bonus against the Cavalry Javelinist? Well, first we can presume that each unit has basically pretty much the same range in throwing... there is only so much strength imparted by the arm, and the speed of the horse is not going to add appreciably to that (if any)... so while the movement of the horse itself presents a bit more difficult of a target the mere fact that the infantryman has an opportunity to 'plant his feet' upon throwing makes him a more stable launch platform that I think gives him a bit of an advantage against the cavalry unit... once either are in range of the other. So, that 'makes battlefield sense'... and I can 'find that' type of rationale for all but one. I cannot make all those same 'connections' based upon Stuart's version. The ONE that is giving me a bit of difficulty in 'appreciating' is the Infantry Swordsman in opposition to the Cavalry Javelinist. I'm not to sure about what to do with that one; maybe it is OK... as long as we all recognise that the ground-pounder swordsman must close quarters with the horsed javelinist in order to reap the benefits of his bonus... and that under normal circumstance, I would think, could be rare. Without meaning to belabour the issue, what Jas has come up with is darned near 'perfect' in concept, methinks. It's true that it departs from the typical AoK/AoM 'model' by some stretch, but it does make more 'sense'... and it is something that I struggled 'mightily' with for a long time trying to get that *depth*... and then had to personally settle for the more simplified version that I'd submitted--not having been able to 'put it all together'. Hey, Stu! Ya think we oughta promote him to Co-Lead Designer, too? I mean like first the Tech Tree deal and now this? Well, outa here again.

I'm in here for just a sec becuz I am still on LOA, but couldn't pass on looking at this... another hurculean effort by the boss to resolve a dillemna that I boggled down in. OK. That's what I did a lot of when learning to play AoK.... and despite my fat-fingering, etc., I did learn to play the game. I must admit that I rather like the depth.... though I haven't had time to really study the proposal, nor will I have soon... I think it is 'impressive'. And that's not meaning to take anything away from Stu's counter-proprosal (which ya'll can work on). Oh, Stu, you've got Cavalry Spearman having a countering bonus against Cavalry Spearman 'up there'. That sorta looks like one of my miscabobbles. Out here..... lookin' a lot better than it was.

dittoes. Hey, Atilla... one of my fave historical persons. He was quite a bit 'more' than the Romans ever gave him credit for being.

???

Dnas, and welcome to WFG's forums.

Now that's an interesting thought that hasn't been done before. You could use Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series of books ("Earth's Children") to do the research for it.... and do it as an RTS.

Now that's an interesting thought that hasn't been done before. You could use Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series of books to do the research for it.... and do it as an RTS.

Both... wrt to designing a full featured game because you are not going to know who will prefer one or the other, or do both, as we see in this thread.

ROFLMAO @=> Tim.

*wonders if Michael 'constructs' buildings to watch them fall down and go ker-plop*

Boris, I have to agree. Michael, now that's a real enough possibility. In my experience over the past 4+ years on forums it has occasionally been that females do not disclose thier gender while wanting to participate but at the same time being sensitive to the fact that the boyz often have a tendency to 'discount' or otherwise 'beat up' on them in a sexist manner that is, as Boris infers, not becoming to us. And for my part I alwys enjoy the fact that the few that are around bring thier perspective to whatever it is that is being discussed, or in this case, worked on, as more often than not it is another way of 'looking' at things.

Voluntarily deleted my two posts to this thread as having been in poor taste and potentially offensive to female members of the team. E.O.S.

Well David. Hey, I don't apologise for being an American, nor need you apologise for being a Frenchman. And, if anyone give ya a lil hassle about that around here, why you just refer 'em on over to ol' "real" for a little attitude adjustment. I'm glad you are a teacher; the world is always in need of good teachers.

Paul, and welcome to our forums. Thanks for all the help you've given Tim... he's really put it to good use.

Dancing bananas, dancing bananas, oh, daaaaaaaaaaanncing baaaaanaaaaaaaaaannnnnnasss... Has a nice ring to it when you sing it to the score for Waltzing Matilda. and, welcome to WFG's forums, DB.

Gorgeous, ain't it?

8 is fine and it all looks good.