BTW, you got to be a knight in old times because of your high birth. That was pretty much the only qualification. A mounted knight wasn''t necessarily better in combat than a footman, but he did have quite an advantage over someone on foot anyway, because he was on a horse.

Anyway, I don''t know how I feel about the system of progression. I like being near the end of a game and being able to wipe anyhting with one blow. And it sort of makes sense - after swinging a sword for years, you are going to be better at it, right? The increase isn''t linear, though - there is a limit to the prowess one can attain. You may be much better with swords, but you still won''t hit all the time and you won''t kill with one shot.

The game I''m working on right now has mostly non-lethal weapons - like a net launcher and other stuff that a gorilla could make a hit with, so it''s rather a moot point for me.

I like food.

So basically what you are saying is that to use what they have been using for years, the storyline must say "You are here to prove yourself as a knight, you have not had any experience at all" .. that outghto make the system work


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

The General would lose!?! I don''t think Voodoo ever saw Gladiator .

----------------------------------------

I'm fat, you're ugly. I can lose weight.

------------------------------------

"We are the music makers, and the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka

Ugh! You people! For voodoo''s purposes, I would say that everyone in the army should be on similar scale. Tactics are a rather cereberal department, so as in liife, the most impressive generals would be excellent in both departments. It''s really all about the kind of game your out to make.

======
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

"Question everything. Especially Landfish."
-Matt

A not-so-wise man once said: "The general is not the one who goes charging off into battle. He is the one who is sitting in his tent on a big hill directing the battle sipping saunsere(sp?)..." and was rebutted with "Jeez Rimmer, you make war sound romantic!"

Arnold Rimmer and Dave Lister off RED DWARF... Good program

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

IMHO war and politics have the same principles: It''s a numbers game, who ever has the most wins whether it''s through brute force or gentle pursuasion. So if your going to make a war game then you have to have numbers or its a fps. Correct me if i''m wrong. The king is merely a head cheif or head politican pushing his desires/politican-intentions on the mass minority (and sometimes but rarely in history for the minority).

In ancient history these kings were a lot closer to the front line (more interactive) than they are in modern history. But then again they also (in ancient history) have so much to worry about.

If your going for a futurist war game then [logically] you/i would plan it so the "king" would be positioned even further away from the frontline than they are today. I know this could sound a little irrevent merely by the fact that this is a game which never has to take "reality" too seriously, it''s just something that came to my mind and i thought maybe worth adding to the debate.

So what was the point here again that Voodoo4 was going on about? Why do we have strong kings etc? My guess is because it''s an element in previous games that wasn''t taken seriously enough by the game designer of these games so they stuck to the status quo so they could get their game finished! So what''s being proposed here? and how will it improve the quality of a rts/rpg/fps etc? I''m a little confused and sorry but i don''t feel like (whilst making this post) to come up with solutions but i''ll listen.


I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Hrm, a bit of the beaten track but for those interested I highly recommend reading the art of war by sun tzu, its a good read and it enlightens some of the finer points of war that are often overlooked...

just my $0.05

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au

CyberPunk RPG
http://www.eisa.net.au/~sdgrab/index.html

Gladiator....one of the best movies ever....

You people forget that it was the royalty who could afford all the wonderful training in combat and physical fitness. Some royalty did (Maximus in Gladiator), some didn''t (the prince of England in Braveheart)

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

Dominik Grabiec, would you care to re-iterate some of the info from the art of war? I for one am interested.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Ahh, The Art of War, good strategy book. Go to the library and rent it, it''s pretty interesting.

----------------------------------------

I'm fat, you're ugly. I can lose weight.

------------------------------------

"We are the music makers, and the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka