next »

Obviously I don’t need to describe that. It would slow your units’ movement, and it would fight poorly in mud, while these hinderships (I made up that word) wouldn’t be as pronounced as in a forest. It would also slow down tunneling.

It could also slow construction and training time, depending on what it is.

If it is raining and your troops are trying to climb dangerous mountain terrain, they could slip and fall, getting killed. Maybe not a practical, or really that great of an idea, but I thought it’d be funny. Besides, I don’t think random falling-off has ever been used in a game/RTS, and it’d surely affect someone if they’re trying to attack an enemy base. They’ll have to risk losing units, or call off/delay the assault.

[I don’t think random falling-off has ever been used in a game/RTS]

Obviously I don’t need to describe that. It would slow your units’ movement, and it would fight poorly in mud, while these hinderships (I made up that word) wouldn’t be as pronounced as in a forest. It would also slow down tunneling.

It could also slow construction and training time, depending on what it is.

That's something I'd like to have in the game too, except for the tunnels. It's... I dunno... unlikely that tunnels would be finished before a long time, as well as that the longer they get, the more likely it is to collapse at any time.

If it is raining and your troops are trying to climb dangerous mountain terrain, they could slip and fall, getting killed. Maybe not a practical, or really that great of an idea, but I thought it’d be funny. Besides, I don’t think random falling-off has ever been used in a game/RTS, and it’d surely affect someone if they’re trying to attack an enemy base. They’ll have to risk losing units, or call off/delay the assault.

:lol: That would be because it's pretty annoying to have your troops fall down and die because of rain

Things like that are just unlikely to happen, not often in any case. It could be something of an unique effect, but it would be something of an extra. It shouldn't be applied to any experienced/hero units either, as loosing a rookie would be considered fun for the effect, loosing a hero would only cause serious annoyance. "Why the bloody %#^& couldn't he watch his step!?! He killed hundreds in battle, but he dies because of a slippery slope!?!"

Solinx

Well, anti-climatic endings are what make life interesting, aren't they?  What would a heroic death be if everyone had one?  I always thought that was the one weakness of Silmarillion; everything was so epic that epicness itself lost meaning.  But anyways, random deaths such as these would be just plain annoying.  Let's keep randomness to a mininum.

Luck should be negligable in an RTS game, and moreover there should be significant enough "samples" throughout a match that it is statistically improbable than any one strategy will get the upper hand because its favourable conditions appeared significantly more often.

I think there must be three important factors to weather:
1) almost all units are affected evenly, otherwise specific strategies could gain too much of an advantage with a lucky run of weather. 

2) weather prediction, knowing what the weather will be ahead of time is critical.  It would be absolutely unfair for a stroke of lucky weather to break a well thought-out plan.  There should at least be a warning so a player can cut his losses if the weather is going to get in the way.

3) significant enough weather changes throughout the match so that no one weather type can dominate, even by chance.

we could do weather prediction, for example by letting dark clouds appear before heavy rainfall (like in real life)

Well, anti-climatic endings are what make life interesting, aren't they?  What would a heroic death be if everyone had one?  I always thought that was the one weakness of Silmarillion; everything was so epic that epicness itself lost meaning.  But anyways, random deaths such as these would be just plain annoying.  Let's keep randomness to a mininum.

Luck should be negligable in an RTS game, and moreover there should be significant enough "samples" throughout a match that it is statistically improbable than any one strategy will get the upper hand because its favourable conditions appeared significantly more often.

Completely agree with you, including the Silmarillion stuff.

I think there must be three important factors to weather:
1) almost all units are affected evenly, otherwise specific strategies could gain too much of an advantage with a lucky run of weather. 

2) weather prediction, knowing what the weather will be ahead of time is critical.  It would be absolutely unfair for a stroke of lucky weather to break a well thought-out plan.  There should at least be a warning so a player can cut his losses if the weather is going to get in the way.

3) significant enough weather changes throughout the match so that no one weather type can dominate, even by chance.

Number two and three I completely agree with, and athough I don't like it, one will have to be that way too.

It would be more realistic to have it vary for different unit types in various ways. Having wet, heavy clothes on, wet bowstrings, both would reduce accuracy and range of archery. While speed would reduced more with heavy armored units. With the predictions, it could be argued that it could be taken into account, but I believe you that it would mess strategies up too much.

Solinx