Exate wrote:Why do Fliers gain twice as many AP as melee ground units, and which themselves gain AP half again as fast as Archers?
In general, the less likely a unit is to survive lower levels, the more I wanted to reward them if they reached higher levels. Casters are the ultimate example - they're really squishy, but can become very potent with time. The Flier class is not as squishy as a caster, but more squishy than melee units. Since it is immune to melee, it is a higher-priority target on the battlefield, so is less likely to survive. I wanted to reward that.
Exate wrote:Does this imply that there are capture mechanics and that we can capture specific enemies if we try, then turn them to our side? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and if the enemy can capture units and it affects their tactics then it seems logical for us to have the same situation apply.
Yes. At some point, the enemy may surrender, and all remaining units can be captured. The option exists to try to turn them (which takes time), or you can select players to execute them in order to level safely. Executing a captured prisoner rewards the same XP as killing them in combat. Hippymancers will make capturing them easier. I haven't introduced Turnamancers because I don't want this to be too easy at present. I might reconsider this later.
Exate wrote:I'd approve of that, I think. Modified Attacks are relatively cheap, and if you can buy multiples and then stack them it could really make combat more of a tactical game for the fighting units.
I'm leaning towards making it even more tactical. Give combat types "Modifier Points", and they can use any modifier they know once for each MP they spend. So, if they have 3 MP, they can use Block, Mighty Blow, and Support, or Mighty Blow x3, or any other combination. MP would probably be 1 at lvl 1, 2 at lvl 2, 3 at lvl 4, and 4 at lvl 8.
Exate wrote:In our case, we would be expending group build points to balance that; no upkeep necessary. Being fair to the players as a whole does not necessitate ensuring that every player is balanced against every other player, but rather ensuring that the players as a whole are balanced against the enemies as a whole, and that the players are all in a position where they make enough of a difference to enjoy themselves- which, since we can all contribute tactics, we all certainly would be regardless.
While I completely understand that, I'm also a min-maxer at heart, and I want to avoid situations where, for example, 7 players each contribute a point to the 8th player, and then get themselves all killed in order to roll up new characters.
If I give full AP to the new characters, the 8th character basically got 7 free AP. If I don't, and the 7 other players died because they weren't potent enough to survive, their new characters probably won't be, either. It's easier to just try to make all of the characters 'balanced'.
The players are still going to need to try to build a team that will complement each other. There's no need to allow for player generosity to enter into the picture, and it's easier for me to not have to worry about being able to game the system too much by allowing that sort of power-shifting.
Also note that players are NOT balanced against each other at the start anyway. Casters are underpowered to begin with, but as Bland pointed out, they get significantly stronger as they level.