Cold damage: still necessary?

[turin]

We could also easily eliminate fire, arcane, impact, pierce, or even blade - just change all attacks of those types to the next closest thing. But doing so wouldn't be a good idea. I really don't see where you're going with this...

[Elven]

We could also easily eliminate fire, arcane, impact, pierce, or even blade - just change all attacks of those types to the next closest thing. But doing so wouldn't be a good idea. I really don't see where you're going with this...

I think that can be wise to add a cold attack to more units. for example archmagi can use both fire and (much weaker) colad attack. or skeleton warrior lv3 (i do not know the name now) can use "frozen axe" or something like that...


another idea is to change the effectivity of fire and cold - based on terrain.

unit standing on snow can have more powerful cold attack, and unit on lava (flying unit) can have more powerful fire attack. but it will be a great advantage for drakes...

[Shadow]

@Irrevenant
This might apply for good and slick software but not to this extend for a game else I can also roll marbles.

Very few principles are absolute. But this one almost always holds true. The key is to take as simple approach as possible that achieves the goal.

In this case, the question boils down to "will the quality of the game be reduced if Cold Damage is removed". I'll let better minds than mine answer that question.

P.S. I don't really understand what you mean by the marble comment.

Sometimes I like it complex and complex means that some paths are unnecessary or misleading.
And rolling marbles is the peak of complexity.
Though it fulfils the same functions.