>>4571297
sauce on pic plox ;3

The passive/active dynamic is worth pursuing.
How will you stack large quantities of bonuses from multiple units?
How will groups of people interacting scale when over 20, 100, 1000 to each side or force apiece?

Looks pretty good to me. What about Medic/Healer?

You don't seem to have a straight warrior or knight type.

Need a religious figure.

The passive bonus could be that it boosts the active effects of the other archetypes, due to the stirring preaching that said religious figure gives every Saturday/Sunday/whatthefuckever.

FLAW: You can only have one.

>>4571615
By not having large stacks, obviously.

>>4571620
Noted.

>>4571641
I'll put down Soldier.

>>4571679
A touch generic, and if the priest's Passive bonus boosts the Active bonus, how can it possibly deliver its bonus?

Give us a rundown of what you've decided the benefits are going to be for the archetypes you've already picked out? It would be a helpful frame of reference for the direction you're trying to go with your game, if nothing else.

For example, it's understandable that the Hunter is going to get food for the rest of the archetypes. But does he rely on the Recon to find animals to kill? What's the difference between your Brawlers and your Barbarians? Is the Bard/Journalist supposed to draft blueprints for the Engineer, while the Prospector gets raw materials, with the help of the Recon, who finds potentially useful areas in which to do that?

One qualm: As a mage fan I would like to see some spellcast'n, but if your setting doesn't allow...

... at least let in the charlatans.
You know, tricksters, illusionists, and conners.
The jesters and entertainers that deceive.
They can fake the supernatural so well that people won't even notice the difference.

>>4571711

>A touch generic, and if the priest's Passive bonus boosts the Active bonus, how can it possibly deliver its bonus?

Eh. Admittedly, I hadn't thought it all the way through.

>>4571726
I'd say a priest of some sort if still quite a good idea, though. It's definitely a recognised archetype.

You might want to think about a Noble or Ruler type.

Archer (Hunter?)
Commander
Sapper/Alchemist (Engineer?)
Messenger/Page
Nobility
Tactician
Chef
Poopsmith
Knight (as mentioned before)
Spy/Rogue
Guard

The Fool
The Magician
The High Priestess
The Hierophant
The Empress
The Emperor
Strength
The Chariot
Judgement
Temperance
The Hanged Man
The Devil
The Tower
The Wheel of Fortune
The Sun
The Moon
The Star
The Lovers
Death
The World
The Hermit
Justice
Yo Momma

>>4571868
>>Yo Momma
It's like Jung AND Freud.

Heel
Babyface
Badass
Monster
Manager
Valet
Spot Monkey
Midget
Jobber

>>4571715
So noted. I'll post those in a sec.

>>4571716
Its not that I'm disallowing spellcasting, its that... putting spellcasting and magic into a setting is like trying to drink from a firehose. Unless you're SUPER careful with the crank, its not going to be pretty.

Okay, first off, before I give his information, you have to know that the game is going to be vaguely X-Com-ish, only you don't control the missions. You plan and direct, mostly, rather than take action. You give orders and dispatch adventurers/attack parties, and give orders, and check back later. You organize your units in the base to build or defend or recuperate, and organize units send on expeditions, which are self-propelling. Sort of like... Dungeon Tycoon, I guess. ¯\(°_o)/¯ (Yes I know it will likely be a computer game rather than PNP)

Bard/Journalist: "Passively", he provides a detailed rundown of forces that attack you. Actively, he provides a detailed rundown of encounters on an expedition. (Normally you would simply get a damage/loot report for either event)

Recon/Scout: The other thread told me that there would really be no use for a Recon unit "passively", unless I didn't consider sentries to be a natural part of base functions. Actively, they would decrease the chance of enemy ambushes and traps.

Engineers: Passively repairs base parts, also provides a bonus to base defense. Actively, provides a small bonus to avoid traps, and a small chance of finding a suitable location for a new base. When sent out in groups, can build a new base.

Miner/Prospector: No idea what to do with them passively. Actively, they'd increase the yield in loot. I'm kind of iffy on this one.

Hunter: Haven't decided how I'll work his passive ability. Actively, a bonus to fight against a certain class of enemy (monsters/beasts/etc), bonus loot for killing them ("Hey, dragon (insert organ). Always useful!")

The others are just a redistribution of combat stats so far.

>>4571891
I see what you did there, brother.

>>4571942
i think you meant
>>4571868

>>4572185
Nope. They're (often unspoken) wrestling roles.

>>4571942
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON 4CHAN?

SHOULDN'T YOU BE FINDING MORE MONEY FOR ME?

>>4571938

Reminiscent of Ogre Battle, but with a focus on base tactics, rather than going out and kicking the shit out of people.

>>4572338

Oh, god damn you. Now I want to find a copy of that game and play it until I get distracted and forget about the save file, the storyline, and the anger inducing alignment system.

>>4572338
I'm glad I invoke that sense. Ogre Battle 64 is one of my most favorite games ever.

bump

There's a different angle that you could try out, if only for the slight improvement to interactivity. Try out different fictional civilizations, each with their own little variation on the individual archetypes. Dwarves have better Brawlers or whatever, but worse Bards. Elves have better Recon and Hunter, but worse Engineers and Knights.

You could make one of them tougher than the rest and label it "Easy Mode," or go the opposite direction, gimp them to Hell and back, and call it "Hard Mode."

Additionally, being able to hijack enemy forces would be sweet. Pick out an enemy and designate one of your archetypes to convert them. The only drawback I can think of enforcing, off the top of my head, is that that archetype's passive and active benefits would be halted for X amount of time, where X is whatever time frame you feel like enforcing.

Suggestion: Make your game the way you want and choose archetypes that fit, rather than fit the game around the archetypes.

>>4573527

Further suggestion: Unless you're absolutely, positively certain that you want your game to be crafted to cater to the whims of the autistic and sometimes whimsical residents of /tg/, don't come to us. Some of us know game balance. Some of us know storytelling. Some of us know how to model realism. The rest of us are Warhammer 40k freaks, or Magic: The Gathering addicts, or trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

Sure, you might end up with something that's excellent, but the statistics are against you on that.

What do you plan on coding this in, OP? It seems like material for a Flash game.

>>4574608
Because liking 40k automatically makes you a retard.

Shut the fuck up, and fuck the fucking cancer fuck off, you fucking wanker.

>>4574631

Actually, I said that makes you a freak. I respect the hell out of anyone that can memorize seventy different codices, but I can't do it myself. Envy is such a fickle bitch, sometimes.

>>4571297

Bard/Journalist
I would rather Storyteller or Historian

Barbarian
Agree

Brawler
Definetly agree

Recon
Messenger?

Engineer
Yeah

Prospector
Uh?

Hunter
Yeah?

I just wold add the olds:

Warrior - From the Peasant with a lance to a Knigth
Researcher- a.k.a. wizard/alchemist and so on
Healer - a.k.a. the Good Witch of the town

>>4573451
This whole game idea has been evolving over time, and the last time I tried, nobody liked the idea of factions, or there was too much overlap between them. But I'll keep the idea in mind.

>>4573527
>>4574608
Oh yes, I have what I want firmly in mind, but I'm coming to /tg/ like a modeller comes to a bits box. I'm wanting ideas and suggestions that I can consider and approve/reject, but without sitting down and coming up with the archetypes on my own. I'm just also answering questions on what the game would be like.

>>4574626
Most likely, yes.

ARBITERS - Civil administrative staff who manage peace-time production, trade and justice.
TACTICIANS - Military staff who manage wartime resources, personnel, defence and campaigns.
SCHOLARS - Priestly or academic class who research and inform on a variety of subjects civil, militaristic, ecclesial and scientific.
SOLDIERS - Official yeomanry organised into solid regiments for the defence of territory, the upkeep of civil peace and the pursuing of foreign interests.
BARBARIANS - Partly mercenary militia ranging from adventurers of legend to wondering brawlers and thieves.
WATCHMEN - Scouts, reconnoitres and spies by turn, scouts are sent on missions into foreign territories with the aim of securing information.
ENGINEERS - Primarily stonemasons and carpenters, Engineers are for large-scale construction both civil and defensive.
MINERS - Plundering the earth of her wealth.
RANGERS - Masters of local terrain these men can hunt both man and beast.
CRAFTSMEN - Ranging from individual smiths to proto-industrial producers of civil utilities and military materiel.
SERFS - Woodsmen, farmers, charcoal-burners and domestic servants.

Don't ask me about passive/active, but the descriptions should help work it out. Some are definately either only one or the other: Scholars are only passive, wereas Barbarians would just sit around and drink unless being made active.

>>4576528
Looks good. Have you considered a tiered structure for units. For instance, the SOLDIER could go from yeoman - man-at-arms - knight?

>>4571297

This is from the guy who did the Shining Force, Landstalker and lots of other 16Bit artwork. Awesome.

>>4576528
Alrighty. I'm going to stay away from "civil" stuff, as like I said, X-com-ish. You've got a team of specialists, and your fort is more like a base than a castle/city/whatever. And most of the rest of your examples are already covered by the ones I started with...

>>4576827
I thought some could use more definition and additional 'military outpost' classes were certainly needed:
Bard/Journalist is conceptually poor and not really want you want to use the class for.
Bardbarian/Brawler are either synonymous or one's redundant.
Recon, Hunter and Prospector are also dangerously close.

Besides, the more civil aspects allow players, if they wish, to expand and play at kings for a time if they choose.

>>4576827
i think this list is more comprehensive and well defined than your one

Aside from Arbiters, Tacticians, Scholars, Craftsmen, Serfs, it doesn't really add anything, and if he's avoiding civil work, you can only argue tacticians and craftsmen, MAYBE scholars. Thats not any more cohesive than the OP's.

>>4576984
It's not just about the adding, you know - it's a process of conceptual refinement. But, as was said, /tg/'s a creative bitzbox of ideas and suggestions so if what I've said is unwanted then so be it; I feel no poorer for having contributed.

Recon, engineer and prospector are very non-fantasy terms... Especially recon. Engineer is so-so.

>>4580448
>(Due to a intense discussion over the definition of the term "scout")

One more for the night.

>>4580448
Bicycles don't bother you, but the use of a term for specialization breaks it for you.