Nerei

I know they want to have trees animated (swaying in the wind) with birds etc. That alone could simply be done using an animated background or animated image placed on top of the background. They might just make them in the same style that games like skyrim does it, that would allow more interaction. However looking at the kickstarter picture it looks like they are made with fractal procedure scripts. That does not make it impossible, but quite resource intensive. I might be wrong but that is what my experience with them and comparing them to the pictures of such trees in my textbooks tell me. The high quality of the picture they have posted and the way things are made in ToEE also hints at by far the majority of items being static or at lest if you can interact with it, it will be in 2D which is somewhat limited. Naturally that is not to say all have to be. Chests, crates, barrels and maybe other furniture could very well be made to be destructible but I would not expect to be able to casually blast holes in buildings or walls. The quality of the pictures they have posted pretty much means such objects would be 2D and images and thus any actions would have to be pre-planned. Their limited budget and time is a limitation to what they can do in that department. Odds are that except for very simple things like chests, barrels and other stuff you might break for phat lewt you will only be able to break things when the plot calls for it. Pretty much like it was in the IE games.

AFAIK they are going for ToEE style where they place 3d objects on prerendered backgrounds. So, this is entirely possible. Actually with the 3D models it could very well be practically impossible, but I will get to that. With 2D it is possible, just not very practical. The nature of tilesets is their repeating nature. The nature of IE game maps as a whole is their non-repeating nature (at least for overland maps even if they reuse models for more than one map. They reuse building interior images quite a bit though so they are an exception) In games like ToEE they prerender just about everything (walls, chairs, tables etc.) as one image (or potentially a few depending on design) with a few overlaying images/3D models. A tiled system is (usually) a flat background (usually a mosaic of smaller images or potentially a plane with texture "painted" on) with a large collection of images on top assembled to look like something. This makes for a noticeable difference. This is a bit general but you get the idea. The actual 2D/3D placeables on an IE/ToEE style map is just things like doors etc (parts that can move or disappear without affecting the rest of the landscape), the rest are part of one image. You could make everything 2D placeables sure, but most would still need to be rendered individually due to lights/angles etc. Look at the overland maps from Icewind dale II, there is hardly any repeating areas (going by lights and angles, not reuse of models). You also need more memory as we move from one big image to the same sized image with a ton of smaller images on top of it. Take a look at the Kickstarter picture, pretty much everything there is unique and thus would have to be rendered as individual pieces, both in a whole and a burnt/broken state. If that picture is any reference to how the finished game will be that is a pretty substantial increase in workload. Back to 3D models. The real problem with 3D meshes is the quality, higher quality means more polygons and the preview picture use very high quality meshes. It is the same story with textures. Real time rendering in a game engine also means some tools are less usable. Many things in a pre-rendered scene can be made using scripts rather than actual meshes. Trees is a perfect example. For real time rendering you pretty much need to translate it to a mesh though. The script handling a 2M polygon tree can go from a few kilobyte in size in script format to something like a 5Mb when translated to a mesh. As mentioned the models they used in the kickstarter picture is very high in polygon count. Each tree mesh could easily have over 50K polygons each. Even a few of these trees in a scene with lights, shadows etc. being rendered realtime and your computer will start to have problems, add 40 more and it will die! From what I know it takes hours to render each of the images for a project like this. They actually add details manually post-rendering to prevent it from being even longer, I think their words was "weeks". Making the kickstarter picture as a realtime rendering with the methods they use is not really possible with the computers we have today. edit: yes on a small scale you could break few things like 3D doors or barrels but as a whole making noticeable changes on the map is not possible with 3D

It would just come down to applying a Gambeson on top of your mail or plate armour. Given that it is pretty much just padded cloth I would expect the protection it offers to be negligible (you already wear padding underneath your armour). Plate armour would also include all the mail it would need to function, no need to apply a suit of mail if you are already wearing plate. it should be included if it is a complete suit. All plate and mail armour should include things like an arming doublet (which is also known as a gambesom) by default if it is to function properly. You need it to fasten the individual pieces of your plate armour and for with mail also to protect against blunt weapons as mail by itself is near useless against say a mace. This padding is pretty much also what makes the armour wearable in the first place. As for helmets etc those could just be separate items. Really except to add some colour to your armour by applying a gambesom on top of it (and maybe minor stat changes). I do not even see much customization options here beyond that, a suit of plate should include all the mail it needs if it is complete. Both mail and plate should include the arming doublet if it is to really be usable.

6 words: Jagged alliance 2 uses tiled maps Tiles allow each individual part to be replaced when a certain condition is met (like them burning or being blown up) The preview shots we have from PE so far is not tiled and thus that is not possible.

While it is possible to mark areas on the map as and spawn flame effects there should it be hit by fire, it will still look rather silly when the fire goes out ( which would usually be by consuming all fuel) and there is no trace of the fire having raged here maybe 20 minutes ago. Being hunted for burning down a village when the village is still in pristine condition to me would just be silly. One option is making all flammable items 3D models, that way it is fairly easy to "change" them, just replace the texture or the entire model. However the risk then is the 3D models standing out being quite low detail compared to the extremely detailed background (I would not be surprised if rendering them could take hours). If done right though it could work for a limited selection of flammable objects. It has to be done carefully as burning a chair next to pile of firewood that cannot "burn" would again just look silly. If you take the promo picture posted during the Kickstarter there is just about no way to make a fire there look believable except through making multiple renderings and a lot of overlayers to apply to the map to simulate the fire raging or burnt patches. Having all the trees made as 3D models with the level of detail in those pictures would break the back of pretty much any computer. If it could be done well, I would find it very interesting, but the resources required to do that would likely be way too much to be worth it. As a half complete solution I would just say skip it. For games like these changes are probably best done more or less off stage (which would pretty much have to be quest/event triggered) and that part of the map supplied with an overlayer or just sticking to effect like torching the barrels in Icewind Dale 2 at the Shaengarne. Those could be done and should not be too demanding.

My main problem with unique areas for each class is the amount of work it requires compared to the benefit it gives. If we assume everything else being equal adding a class specific area would give at best 6/11 the benefit with a given group (due to the 11 classes). That is assuming the player does not bring a specific class to unlock the feature. Also if they pick the BG2 stronghold style approach to it (only protagonist counts for getting it) it drops to 1/11. Unless they have changed it since last time I checked you only got 8 companions (might have happened it is not something I check up on). That means 9/11th cover of the classes at best in a run unless you specifically create and swap characters for this. If they can find a non labor intensive way to add it sure I would definitely not mind. Making a new quest/encounter that puts the spotlight on a specific class in an existing area (or copying a generic area like BG did with houses) should be fairly easy adds flavour. However if it comes at the cost of making a completely new area just for this purpose, I do not think that with a limited budget and limited time it is worth it. Naturally this is not to say there should not be areas that appeal to a specific class. A thieves guild (probably) appeals more to the rogue than the paladin and such places should be there, just not simply for the benefit of 1 class. That is just my opinion though and the devs might have another approach.

Personally I would probably go with the 1D8 method, not that it had anything to do with D&D, but it makes for a simple way simulate different types of hits (say 1 glancing and 8 cutting into the thigh or something like that) which without some other modifiers a flat number will have problems with. Also as have already been mentioned 2d6 does not mean all numbers come out equally, that can help eliminate the extreme outliers. To me rolling a 12 with 2d6 is basically a mini-crit and 2 a mini-botch. Ultimately though what makes for the best method really depends on the other mechanics that I do not know. Part of my reasoning for what I think would be best could be incorporated into other aspects it could be a system that does not need them and would thus make it superflous or even counter-productive to have it here.

You are not letting the AI do everything, you are making the AI that hopefully will be able to do everything Seriously it is just something to tinker and except to see what it can do, just get some basic functionality out of. For the most part I would not trust the AI with anything but basic things, it tend to fail or do substandard in complex situations. It can however cut down on micromanagement and for that it is good.

I tend to agree that Dragon age had a better AI system than the IE engine games although 3rd party scripts could make it almost decent. One of the best mods for DA:O was one that removed the limitation on the number of AI commands a character could support. Before I got that I must admit I cheated so I could have the tactics maxed out from the start. It could actually be fun to just build the AI and see how well it would do without input. Personally I would probably prefer the DA:O style AI to that of the IE games, but no matter what I just hope that we will be able to get an AI that is capable

haha what a joke. Keep on making up crap. Professionals make mistakes all the time, just less than the average person. To pretend this doesn't exist or there aren't limitations to different people is some kind of joke. You guys can use the it's just bad A.I. excuse, but that's just your opinion. You can't prove that it can actually be done because it hasn't been done. For all we know it's simply a technical limitation at this point and my points still stand regardless. In the IE games, if I remember right, mobs just attacked the closest party member usually. If you moved out of range of that mob then it would give up chase and just attack the closest party member. No going specifically after your vulnerable weak characters. No way to close the distance when you were out of melee range. The people who think RTwP is better than Turn Based are wrong. I've pointed out facts. This isn't about personal opinion or preference. This is about mechanics and which one objectively works better. Dream and your posts are hilarious. You're trying to make up a bunch of excuses or crap to justify your opinion and make your opinion seem right. I'm the only one debating rationally and objectively here. And yes some people's opinions are worth less than others. If someone thinks that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is the best film ever, their opinion is worthless. That's just the way it is, but I'm not arguing that. I'm simply providing examples of why Turn Based works better than RTwP. You guys are the ones getting upset over nothing. So what we say is just opinions and what you say is fact? I am not sure what world you live in, but I definitely hope I never enter it. I must say though it must be really great to be able to say things and it just becoming facts. Personally I would probably use it to end poverty and starvation instead of focusing it on computer games. You agree that you decide what opinions are worth something and those that disagree with your opinion is worth less?! wow talk about being openminded! Several words comes to mind but I am pretty sure it is against the forum rules to use them in the description of other users. In any case all you bring up is your "facts" as well as pretty much both ignoring and now outright saying how little regard you have for opinions that differ from your own. That alone means that any discussion is not really possible and this debate is effectively over. I have to admit though that you have convinced me of one thing. I now agree that some opinions are worth less than others. For one I now regard your opinion as being worth about as much as that of the average ant on New Guinea. Have fun living in your own world and if you ever get to Earth, please do not look me up. Edit: don't bother replying to me, I will not be reading it anyway

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range. So in other words you cannot abuse TB combat? Okay, I will have to remember that next time I abuse the 2012 version Xcom to death! Abuse is a matter of game-design, not a matter of it being TB or RT. Face it, you can abuse all systems even those specifically designed to try and avoid it which Xcom 2012 actually is! Typical and fact does not mix well in this sentence. Typical will indicate that even if it is commonly like this there are exceptions. Your very own words is that it is possible for RT to have these options, ergo it does not have to be less. If it is possible (which your statement says) it is down to the designers to do it right and not about if it is RT or TB. Given that your opinion is that mechanically TB is better than RT, this "fact" is irrelevant. And here we jump to conclusions. First of why does it have to be chaotic? Why is that an admission of anything? Is it bad if something is chaotic? The AI is a tool that helps you play like you want to. I do not see why is that an admission of anything except that it is something players want. If you do not want to control the entire party all the time the AI can help you do that. In turn based I have to control every character, every round. If I do not want to go through managing all of my party all the time for fights that are near trivial, I can do that in RT, but not in TB (yes even ToEE had encounters that could be fairly trivial). If I just want my archer to fire arrows at a target for the next 3 rounds the AI helps me do that, why is that a weak point? It simply means I do not have to do busywork! I did not know you had been a game designer at all the companies that ever made party based games with part AI's in them, or if not that you had seen internal documents from them. For if neither of these are the case then you are just making your own conclusions based on incomplete information and thus at best have a shaky fact, at worst just plain wrong. Also wow, seriously? Assuming that games you do not like is made for people with ADHD? Assuming they cannot focus on something for more than 30 seconds? Assuming their opinion is less than yours? Sure you cannot be more offensive? I assume you are also aware that Dragon Age is by many regarded as the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate and ultimately the base mechanic are fairly similar (RTwP, healing kits etc are just specifics). Your claims are generic enough to cover BG also, being directed at RT combat. Does that mean that the opinion of the people that like the IE games and prefer that style to TB are also not worth anything? If you want one good thing from Dragon Age it is actually the AI. Did you know that there are competitions to building the best AI in some games? Claiming party AI is something that simply cheapens the game is just wrong. It can just as well be something that adds to the game. When I played Dragon Age Origins my main joy was getting a mod that made the controlled character use it's AI commands and then the fun was to see how far the party could go with the AI I made. That is AI adding a different aspect to the game, a challenge that is impossible to get in TB games like ToEE. That is a design issue or a programming issue, not an inherit problem with the RT mechanic. I can claim the same with TB, I have had situations where I accidentally clicked wrong in Xcom and had my character move to a wrong position (usualy caused by elevation making it hard to click the right place). In that case I have to reload or probably lose a soldier. This is a design problem, not a problem with RT mechanics. Again this is a design problem. And if you want counters try playing ToEE with Vanilla AI, it is atrocious. There are plenty of example of bad TB AI's. No it is your opinion you elevate to facts, if you cannot recognize that then I could say you are the ones having problems. That you cannot take anything people that do not support your ideas as anything worth considering is also saying (again consider the Dragon Age style games being designed for people with ADHD). You even take things that some people do not like and raise it as good things! If people do not like the slow combat, it is a legitimate problem. It may work as intended, but for those players the intention is wrong! There are other real time games than Warcraft or Starcraft and given that your standpoint is TB is better than RT, we can look at those also. Go play a few Paradox Interactive grand strategy titles and come back to me and say that RTS (RTwP) cannot be as complex as TB. If you are going to claim you can play through the grand campaign of Hearts of Iron III without extensive thinking and planning I am simply not going to believe you. Those games are more complex than the majority of TB games I have played. Compare that game to say Axis and Allies, basically a TB version of the same scenario! There is a pause function yes, but you can play though it on a set speed, multiplayer does just that. Playing that game without pause is basically handling massive amounts of information in a real time scenario and can be insanely complex. You also keep hammering that RT is simpler than TB, which again is nothing inherit to RT (again try and play say British Empire though the grand campaign of Hearts of Iron III, for added difficulty try without using the pause function). There is no reason except conscious design choices to make RT simpler, Paradox does in most cases prove that. You may find more complex TB games than HoI III sure but that does not mean you cannot make RT complex as complex as TB, it has been done. We can take MoO III a great example of a super complex TB game. That game is so complex that it allows you to automate functions to keep you from information overload. By most accounts the complexity of MoO III is just too much and too badly executed, especially coupled with a broken AI. The assumption that more complex have to mean the game is better is flawed, most people would say MoO III proves that. Players can always fail, no one is perfect. The ability to fail has nothing to do with time, the chance of failing however does. having one or two weeks to plan your move does probably not mean much, having 20 seconds or 2 hours does. If you are going to claim that time has nothing to do with your ability to process the information a game give you and formulate a strategy from it, you are plain wrong. If time was not a factor in your ability to formulate a strategy the only thing that should limit you is mechanically how fast you can execute your moves. After all additional planning should not matter. If the time-limit is tight it adds pressure to the players and increases the challenge and the person better able to handle that challenge is the one that usually wins. There are actually TB games that allow you to set the amount of calculations the AI can make for each turn. The longer it has the harder it generally is as it has more “time” to evaluate the situation. That is an example of time mattering when it comes to making a strategy and planning ahead. Having infinite time is a help to anyone planning their moves. Naturally it does not guarantee a perfect result as you do not have perfect information, but it does make it easier, there is no way around that. Wow this got a bit longer than planned

While I by far do not use hotkeys for everything, it sure would be nice to have the option to map whatever I want however I want. Luckily if we assume the old IE games are an indication to how it will be, that will likely be the case. I can only check for the original Icewind dale on this computer, but there I can map just about everything, including class specific abilities and spells. Main problem with the IWD keymapping though is it does not really appear to support multiple key shortcuts, but that is something that should be improved no matter what.

While I like the idea, it has some late 80's early 90's adventure game feel, I am not sure it would work well. For one I remember several times in those games where I basically had found the solution, but did not know exactly what words they where looking for. Hunting for the right word (or the right spelling of the word) for 5-10 minutes in thesaurus is not exactly fun. It is something that could be helped by having it recognize multiple words, but as has already been mentioned having english as a second language will hurt it somewhat. As mentioned by Ieo instead having 15+ options for a riddle is probably a better alternative.

While I must admit that I also love sitting in the couch using a laptop I really do not see how a IE style game can be made to work with a controller. The sacrifices that would have to be made would not really be worth it. Not sure what exactly you can do with a X360 controller. Perhaps you can map different buttons to simulate the mouse and the rest as the most used shortcuts?

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong. It is a fact, that it is your opinion, that the points you listed makes TB games better than RT, nothing more! What you listed may be good points for you, but not everyone that alone means it is not a "fact"! Light moves at 299.792.458m/s in complete vacuum, that is a fact! That TB games are better than RT due to mechanics, not so much. Take this example: Lets say I might happen to dislike the slow and more methodical approach that TB offers and find it too easy and too little of a challenge that I got an unlimited amount of time to plan each move. I might find it challenging to have to manage things with a time-limit, that i have limited time to execute my plans. I might love that I potentially have to manage several places on a map in real time while in turn based games I have unlimited time, making it easier to multitask such situations. Using those statements I cannot really see how RT would be worse than TB. Using those RT is better than TB, but it is just opinions, just like your statements is just that, opinions on what makes one type of game better than the other. Ultimately if we play the "fact" game, take these counter statements, they are as as much a "fact" as your "facts": and just for fun, a very opinionated "fact" Does that mean we now have facts that say different things? Where does that leave us? Your basic argument however: Due to the very broad and vague style can be countered by comparing two radically different, but still TB and RT games. Again compare tic-tac-toe with just about any decent RT game, compare it with BG2 or IWD/IWD2 HoF mode if you want! Which one is more challenging, which one has the more complex mechanics?

I wasn't arguing with you I was sincerely asking. You turned a post talking about mechanics and challenge between TB and RTwP and what has more into a 'what is better' debate. I was simply giving you some arguments (many actually) of why TB might not be the best system possible and why RT (with or without a pause function) or some entirely different system might be better depending on what you find to be important. You may not agree with them, but that is your opinion just like it is your opinion, not an actual fact TB clearly is best or most challenging. You said I could not argue against that, so that is exactly what I did. If I did not come across with that properly then I am sorry, but ultimately what is best/most challenging is a matter of opinions and taste, there is absolutely no hard fact there, only opinions.

Well you made some very general assessments about what RT and TB is. Including later that TB is better simply due to the mechanics, which I very much happens to disagree with and argued against. And things like "what is wrong with you?", makes for a great argument! Anyway I think we should stop this here and just agree to disagree.

I think that depends on your number of attacks. Last time I played IWD I had many animations for each to hit roll, but that was early in the game. More attack each round should make it more like the animation which from what I can tell play at specific speed.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego. RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is. Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT. Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot. However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system. I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more. I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged. Well you started out saying people needed the games to be RT because they where bored. Maybe they are bored with TB combat I do not know, but it could be valid. I sure can argue against what is "better". Better is relative to the person applying the label and what criteria you judge by. Your criteria for a "good game" puts TB high on the list which is fine, but that is judging by your criteria. It is subjective. If I judge by total sales I can tell you that TB is pretty far down the line in terms of games. By that criteria "Sims" is the better PC game. Starcraft is also high on the list and that is RTwP! Some would argue that League of Legends is the most challenging game simply due to it requiring split time reaction (I have met such people), I do not agree with it but it is a valid argument and judging by the numbers playing likely the more prevalent! Go by Metacritic and it is Half-life 2, a FPS that is the best for PC (I am excluding Mark of the ninja due to the low number of reviews but it is not exactly TBS either). Does that men FPS is "better" than TB? Civilization 2 is very high on the list but tied with Command & Conquer. By that criteria RT is just as good as TB. As for TB being more challenging that really depends on the game. Tic-tac-toe is technically a TB game while say Paradox Interactives Hearts of Iron III are RTwP games. Which one is more challenging? I'd say the Paradox game. Extreme case but it is TB vs RTwP. I have no problem with you saying that you find TB is better than RT, in many ways I actually agree. That is a subjective analysis and that is fine. I do however strongly disagree with that it is objectively a better type of game simply due to mechanics, which is basically what you are saying. You can make extremely dumbed down TB games and you can make extremely complex RT games (again tic-tac-toe vs Hearts of Iron III). It depends on the design.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego. RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is. Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT. Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot. However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system. Also you brought up the very limitation of the sequential TB combat in that it handles large number of enemies quite badly. If that is good or bad is something else (I would say bad, being limited is rarely good), but it very much is a limitation of the system. In some 4X games it means that you do not want to spam a ton of small crafts against a few large capital ships as it just takes eons to go though! Yes it is another genre but it is still TB and demonstrates the problem with sequential TB games. Your solution by effectively removing "trash" again highlights a problem with sequential TB combat, it can take a decent amount of time to kill "trash" well after you have effectively won the fight. That just makes the fights drawn out and makes people wish for them to end already, which is really the worst situation. Slow or fast combat is about preference, but when the player wish for it to end, then you got a problem. Having to remove things due to your system being less ideal towards it does not really paint it as being better as a whole, it might do well at some things, but it is limited. I say all this as fairly large fan of TB games, I still play games like the original X-com to name a real TB classic, but I can see the limitation in the system and I understand why it is not something for everyone!

The roman legionnaire post the marian reforms carried all kinds necessities including rations for upwards of 16 days! They where their own packmules. The weight has nothing to do with what they fought in, it has all to do with logistics. As for the Lorica Segmentata, which is what we commonly picture the legionnaires wearing it is actually debated how many wore that. The legions was more than just the heavy infantry we normally associate with it. The romans actually also used armour fairly identical to mail armour (lorica hamata). It is also assumed that it was the cost of the Lorica Segmentata that resulted in it disappearing in the late imperial period. Normally mail is supported by the shoulders and a belt that helps distribute the weight. That does by no means make the weight as well distributed as a suit of plate armour, not by a mile. You still carry a lot of the weight on your shoulders. Also mail is surprisingly heavy, a long suit of mail can weigh 15-20kg, nearly as heavy as a suit of plate. Even if you can tie such a suit to your entire torso you are still carrying all the weight there compared to plate that has it spread over the entire body!

Personally I like turn based games like ToEE or Civilization also for that matter to take a fairly different example of turn based games. However they can also be somewhat limiting mechanics. For one as has already been brought up fighting a sufficiently large number of enemies (or in civilizations case moving 100 units after which the ai does the same) really can slow the game down. Sure it can be fun even if executing each turn takes 30 or more minutes but if we take Uomoz example with 30 gibberlings I might just end up getting a cup of coffee while the AI takes it's turn (I regularly do that in civilization). So while I love turn based games and I have no problems wasting alot of time executing a turn, I would say that real time with auto-pause is fine. Without autopause though it would become a bit too much starcraft for my taste

Yes, you're quite right. I was speaking about plate, and I should've specifed that (not sure why I didn't); I agree about mail, since that's obviously true. I would say that in both cases you would be significantly more restricted than wearing a t-shirt, certainly, but not enough moreso than wearing leather that it would make all that much of a difference to dodging -- although whether or not that should be reflected statistically would, to my mind, depend on how large a range of numbers we get for such things. Percentile based? Sure. D20 based? Maybe not. Stiff, tough leather is also noticeably more restricting than a t-shirt, and soft enough leather that it isn't at least a bit restricting isn't much good as armour. It is actually surprising how much mobility you do have with it. I have seen people do backflips while wearing plate armour. Certainly the idea that if you fall in plate you cannot get up is stupid (only exception maybe being a mounted knight in really heavy plate dropping in deep mud). My main argument is that the circus acrobat will be restricted if wearing a suit of armour compared to wearing nothing, he will have a harder time dodging blows. With plate in particular it should probably not matter much if you're not very agile in the first place. The maximum dexterity bonus that d&d has would be a fairly decent way to simulate such armour restrictions. Horribly restrictive armour like mail could even give a dex penalty. Never heard about alleviating the weight of mail armour using a stiff leather backing. I would say the weight of the cuirass would still mainly be supported by the shoulders. You also still need the soft padding so to me it really just feels like you're adding more weight. According to some sources the japanese engineer and MG troops involved in the Kokoda campaign carried upwards of 50 kg of equipment with common soldiers reaching towards of 30kg (which is roughly what you can expect modern soldiers to wear also). Most suggestions I have seen for the weight of a Roman legionnaires gear is in the 30-45kg range, some going even higher if they carry rations for many days. Compare that to wearing a suit of plate that usually weight around 20kg and are fitted across your body and suddenly it does not appear to be that much of a restriction (yes some suits weigh upwards of 50kg, but those are for hoseback only). Now add the fact that you can run, jump etc in a suit of plate armour and I really do not see why it should be impossible to march in it. Naturally it would be harder than wearing no armour, but plate should by no means be restricted to mounted warriors. Consider the historic perspective. Most likely the guy that could afford a suit of plate could also afford a horse, so why should he walk if he could ride? Also in most cases he would have time to don his armour before the battle. Our situation in a 6 man crpg part is different from the real world in many cases thus we have to look at what is possible and not what happened in some cases.

This one?

They might just be able to use D20 should they want to, that is pretty much what Paizo Publishing does with Pathfinder. Mail armour is pretty much fully supported by the shoulders (except maybe a belt for additional support) and fairly restrictive in terms of movement. It is badly fitted by most definitions. Plate could be said to be easier to wear simply due to it having the weight distributed over the body and not just hanging on the shoulders. I would very much say that your movement is restricted while wearing mail compared to a t-shirt