Good points of MoM

[Thargon]

There have been many threads about bugs and other things that needs to be corrected or that the game can do without. But what is it that makes the game GOOD?

I'll toss one thing that makes the game rock: the map display (and general graphical appearance). It is just enough to get the point through and not one pixel too much. The simplest (but fully effective) implementation.

What is your opinion about features that the game MUST have otherwise it'll lose part (or all) its appeal?

[Catwalk]

I absolutely loved the unit system (stats, abilities, figures, XP) when first playing it. While it was not utilized to its full potential, it allowed for very rich diversity in unit variation. I'm really looking forward to seeing what zitro can come up with after breaking the puzzle with a hammer and reassembling all the pieces

[Thargon]

Another good point is the exploration possibilities, not only of the map, but the infinite combinations spell/unit (or spell and anything else).

[Iranon]

A glorious sense of power escalation. On the military side, it's reinforced by low-end units never becoming entirely obsolete so we have a consistent frame of reference instead of "things remain the same, only the numbers get bigger".
On the overland side, by big thematically appropriate effects for every colour.

I like the laid-back approach to balance instead of streamlining the life out of the game as many modern makers would. Niche or synergy-based playstyles can compete with the obviously powerful ones.

A consistent combat system where most units have some use, with room for both overwhelming power and efficiency in numbers. Coupled with locally different production options, this leaves a large amount of choice.

[Thargon]

I used to call it 'mith', but I have to admit that 'glorious sense of power escalation' defines the concept in a much more colorful way.

[IndirectCell]

I absolutely loved the unit system (stats, abilities, figures, XP) when first playing it. While it was not utilized to its full potential, it allowed for very rich diversity in unit variation. I'm really looking forward to seeing what zitro can come up with after breaking the puzzle with a hammer and reassembling all the pieces

Same :P nuf said

[SpearmanD92R]

In Civ you have the "spearman beats tank" phenomenon arising from the manner in which combat makes just one-to-several RNG calls. And thus an obsolete unit has a non-zero, and non-sensical, chance to destroy a piece of modern hardware.

I think that in civ1 a vet. phalanx fortified on a fort-mountain tile (think 300) had a higher defense score than any unit that could normally attack that square, save a nuke, and even the nuke would have trouble detonating against such a team. Fighting on completely-even terms, an artillery unit still had at least a 1-in-7 chance of being destroyed when attacking a phalanx, and a 1-in-3 chance if attacked.

MoM has the combat screen instead. Not only are there actual, fun mechanics, but even each separate combat action within the battle is governed by a law of averages. That is, if you have two six figure units with a bunch of swords, shields, and hits each, repeatedly duking it out with each other, the game has the tendency to return some highly-credible results. Meanwhile Torin the One Man Army simply won't be killed in such exchanges, and rightly so by the physics of high fantasy, but even he has some specific weaknesses.

Funny how civ has gone through 5 engine generations, "spearmen beats tank" is going strong, and a solution as staring at them right from their own company history in 1994.

[IndirectCell]

In Civ you have the "spearman beats tank" phenomenon arising from the manner in which combat makes just one-to-several RNG calls. And thus an obsolete unit has a non-zero, and non-sensical, chance to destroy a piece of modern hardware.

I think that in civ1 a vet. phalanx fortified on a fort-mountain tile (think 300) had a higher defense score than any unit that could normally attack that square, save a nuke, and even the nuke would have trouble detonating against such a team. Fighting on completely-even terms, an artillery unit still had at least a 1-in-7 chance of being destroyed when attacking a phalanx, and a 1-in-3 chance if attacked.

MoM has the combat screen instead. Not only are there actual, fun mechanics, but even each separate combat action within the battle is governed by a law of averages. That is, if you have two six figure units with a bunch of swords, shields, and hits each, repeatedly duking it out with each other, the game has the tendency to return some highly-credible results. Meanwhile Torin the One Man Army simply won't be killed in such exchanges, and rightly so by the physics of high fantasy, but even he has some specific weaknesses.

Funny how civ has gone through 5 engine generations, "spearmen beats tank" is going strong, and a solution as staring at them right from their own company history in 1994.

Think they need to learn from master of Magic where Health, Armor (to Block) and Accurasy (to hit) matters.

Where if there was a game scenario whit a phalanx vs a tank, then the tank would have alot more damage and alot more armor to play whit, and even if one would completely fail the (to Block roll) of 30% whiout any bonus, the tank would still have alot of Health (ie spearman vs any of the dragons or wyrms).. basicly spearman has no chance, and dragon also has a preemtive attack of firebreath, and also normal weapon immunity and so on and so on :P

Tought some Civ has a funnier problem of Milita vs Helicopter.. where the helicopter gets destroyed :P
Could be fixed by not allowing the milita attack the chopper and chopper gets a no retaliation vs melee units.. or and just Count as a ranged unit.. i mean a chopper in melee combat.. chopper should function more like a warship whit flying and invisible :P