Starting next Monday, we begin work internally on the Elemental combat system. It won’t see the light of day for months (tactical combat part anyway). But this is the place to discuss how you would like it to work.
Right now, a unit has Attack, Defense, Hitpoints, and speed. It’s very straight forward. When in battle, other factors come into play too (range of attack, height, and cover).
But obviously there are a lot of other factors that could be looked at. Blunt weapons vs. Cutting weapons for instance. My personal inclination is to stay away from damage types because they add a lot of complexity without really giving back a lot of fun (in my opinion). I’m sure there are those who will disagree but we’ll have to agree to disagree there and perhaps damage types can be made something available to modders later.
I would like to see experience be used more than as simply a modifier to attack and defense and HP. I don’t mean when you train your units (which gives them more HP) but I mean real combat experience causing them to simply be better at combat but we have not yet come up with a way to convey this well in the game.
I would also like to see Mobility be taken into effect somehow in combat. The Mongols conquered much of the known world because they were strictly a mobile army that could easily outflank their infantry-heavy opponents. How to convey this to players is again, a challenge that would have to be dealt with.
What would you guys like to see?
Mobility becomes important only if angle of attack and formations become important. If rolling up a flank isn't a meaningful maneuver, then mobility is relatively unimportant. It's hard to reflect mobility properly in a turn based game. One possible way is to allow attacks to occur at any point during movement - that would allow, say, horse archers to wheel close, shoot, then retreat. If automatic counterattacks are implemented, then there should be an advantage to attacking first - that is, attacks should degrade unit effectiveness.
Historically, units tended to lose because morale broke, not because everyone died. Veteran units tended to have better morale and so to hold longer, even though they might take more casualties. And casualties are not the same as deaths, particularly where magical healing is available. Adding morale would make things a lot more complicated, though.
When the unit is boiled down to Attack, Defense, Hit Points and speed, experience, by definition, has to improve one or all of those. If you want experience to have other effects, the unit has to have other dimensions. One dimension that hasn't been talked about but is likely important in the game is special abilities. Experience may either grant special abilities or help special abilities to work better. For example, all pikemen may be able to form a square to defend against cavalry, but maybe it takes a turn or two to implement the formation - veterans could do it faster. Or maybe only veterans can do it at all.
Kohan did a lot with formations but also used a real-time combat approach. Still, the formations were interesting and may be worth looking at.
Experience may also have an "aura" type effect - strengthening the backbone of nearby units (i.e., supplying combat bonuses).
Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with experience just increasing attack, defense, hit points and speed. I'd suggest allowing the player to pick where the experience goes rather than just increasing everything uniformly - that would allow the player to emphasize unit specialties and give more of a sense of growing the unit under the player's control.
Another idea is to add personalities to veteran units. They'll pick up a veteran corporal or a veteran sergeant - a named individual that grants bonuses to the unit. Could even let the exceptional veterans be transferred between units - give a green new unit a veteran sergeant to show them the ropes. Might have a special ability of increasing the rate at which experience is gained. A veteran medic might allow the unit to recover HP each turn.
Agree with most of what has been said. Would like:
One or more magic damage types, separate from physical damage
Resistances to magical attacks
Endurance / fatigue
Directionality of physical damage, especially for units with shields. Attacking from behind or the side should be an advantage in melee combat. Shooting at the side or back might not make much difference if the target doesn't carry shields.
Separate parts of defense: armor, shield, and "defensive skill (blocking with your sword/spear/whatever). Against archers, shields are especially good, but defense-skill doesn't matter. Shields and blocking are directional, not armor.
Charge bonuses
2 kinds of "speed" -- how far the unit can move in a turn and how quickly a unit can strike/shoot/spellcast. I *guess* those are "mobility" and "speed", but the terminology needs to be made explicit. Then, for example, two-handed axes would do a lot of damage but wouldn't be as quick as swords.
Special weapons characteristics like pikes that make it hard or impossible for swordsmen to even get close enough to swing, at least if the pikemen are in a deep formation. Mabye just a weapon "reach" for all melee weapons.
A rock/paper/scissors setup similar to the TotalWar series, where *usually* cav beat archers, archers beat infantry, and inf beat cav (at least spearmen & pikemen, swordsmen are different)
Disadvantages in forests for cav, long spears, pikes, archers, etc. Swords & axes rule there.
But for experience, I'd be happy with a simple system of small bonues to attack/defense/morale/resistance, etc. (but not necessarily bonuses to all those stats at every level).
------
and most of all, from the very first reply...
"From MoM I recall ToHit and ToDefend stats that had very interesting effects, as well as the Resistance stat.
Edit:
There's also cool things like "First Strike", "Breath Weapon", "Armor Piercing", "Illusion Attack". How do you feel about that sort of thing?"
Love those from MOM. For instance "attack" is separate "chance to hit" and "damage if you hit". And don't forget "negate first strike", for pikemen.
PS: still have the Master of Magic "Official Strategy Guide", which give lots of details. I could post them if anyone cares.
I like the idea of making terrain types matter as a battle setting. Hilly terrain could have better archer points that add a unit of better range and visiblity. You might also hide some units behind hills so the enemy doesn't know their exact position. Heavy woods would could reduce cavalry speed to footmen speed.
Disagree on the environmental damage types though, it doesn't make sense. If I'm wearing snow gear then I'm supposed to take more damage from a mage casting a giant snowball? If anything it should be the opposite. I could see however a need for different gear types or your units take damage. Wearing furs instead of metal armor in arctic regions or else suffering cold damage every round (as well as other effects potentially). Likewise deserts are too hot for heavy armor, see the history of the Crusades and how that failed them.
This models the history of warfare in which many civilizations mastered only the art of warfare in their region and their military advances were halted by climate they weren't suited to do battle in.
Lots of good ideas here, I like them a lot!
The two things that I'm most interested in:
morale/experience (e.g. my bigger army of brutalized peasants should have it's ass kicked by a bunch of enemy peasants with higher wages and a battle or two under their belts)
damage types / counters (spearmen should stop charging cavalry but get ripped to pieces by archers)
Rishkith, it sounds like you agree with the environmental damage but disagree with the specific example. Am I right?
I'll just chime in: all physical damage being the same - fine.
I think the various elements need a damage type. Some elements also probably only deliver physical damage. (earth for instance would definitely deliver crushing, and if all physical is the same... and I am not sure how you "resist" a 200 lb. boulder to the chest. Air also, what kind of damage does air deliver other than a suffocation maybe? I guess tornado or whatever but again how do you resist? Difficult. Do any water spells deliver cold damage, maybe air has electric based spells like lightning bolt, and of course heat. Having heat, cold and electricity damage as well as physical which would combine all slash, pierce and crush I think would be wonderful, because then you could equip troops to resist those things and I think would add a lot of variety to the game. I had kind of hoped and envisioned that the various clans might have strengths and weaknesses to certain elements, seeing how the game is elemental: war of magic, I kind of hoped for tribes like the water nation, fire nation of the animated Avatar series.
Perhaps Elemental is going more along Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth books, how Darken Rahl provided the magic and his people provided the steel - I guess again what is hard to see is if a fire bolt and an ice bolt just do generic damage and not element specific damage, it is hard to see how following different paths will really differentiate, at least in combat. Again for a game called Elemental, I think the choices of which element(s) you specialize in should matter. If there are other ways planned to bring that about, that we don't know about yet, it may be moot.
As far as how the battle unfolds - I liked MoM's system, I also like X-Com (which you have already indicated is a direction you are heading) and I like Total War type combat too. The fact that you are going to have things like elevation matter is a pleasant surprise. Also I did not play Dominions 3 much, but I really liked how you could build how formations would go into battle and you could set default behaviors for each unit. But I did not like in Dom3 how once battle started it just followed the scripted instructions you had given it, I want a little more ability to direct traffic during the fight.
I would like to see normal units be able to develop veterancy from combats won/xp.
I'm somewhat tired of swords. Or, to be more specific, of the way that most games tend to approach weaponry. Swords are always the default, usually the best, and when they even remember that other types of weapons exist (you know, the stuff that was actually used far more than swords throughout history) then they make it into a lame rock-paper-scissors type of affair. And that's boring and frustrating to me.
I want to field an army equipped entirely with spears - personally, I'd prefer to see spears be the default weapon type instead of swords, but that's just me. I also want to field armies that use axes, or maces, or whatever else I can think of. I'd like to see a whole variety of weapon types for equipping my troops, with different benefits to each.
And they all need to be valid choices. I don't want to end up getting punished by the game because I picked one option and the AI soverign picked another. I don't want to play rock paper scissors, I want to build up my kingdom with what I think is cool.
For me this is the issue with Mongols as a viable army. Historically, the Mongols were a pure cavalry force, highly disciplined, highly mobile, with superior tactics and logistics. In a typical strategy game, it doesn't work that way - cavalry beats archers, but spearmen beat cavalry, and archers beat swordsmen, so every sensible army is going to consist of equal parts all three. That doesn't make for a very diverse tactical environment where all armies are fielding the same kinds of units.
If you say 'Spears beat Cavalry' then no, Mongols are never going to be a viable army because when you make an all-cavalry force then the other person will build an all-spear force and trounce you.
I think when most of us say "spear beat cav", we are thinking of the non-archer type of cav. Horse archers a a whole different thing.
And I personally don't think swords should beat cav. Swordsmen get skewered by the "first strike" or plain old "weapon reach" if the cav have lances. Pikemen kill cav-lancers with their "negate first strike", AKA even longer "weapon reach".
This. Start with master of magic's combat system.
Experience can be handled like in fall from heaven (as i remember MoM didn't do much besides increase stats at level up) - discrete promotions units get at each level.
Stay away from making tacitcal combat as involved as, say, the total war series. Master of magic really is a gold standard here in terms of how much complexity you should have. Fights were fast, but could be very involved and interesting.
Keep it simple. Attack/Defense/Movement/Hit Points/Resistance, no bonuses for directional facing, no morale/stamina system.
Damage may be an additional statistic or related to attack. It doesn't really matter. Both systems work fine.
Complexity should come in the form of passive (immunities, first strike/negative first strike, etc.) and active (attack-like, etc.) abilities like HoMM or AoW or MoM. No need to turn this into Civil War General.
About experience : add things like stamina and morale. Then an experienced warrior won't lost morale as easily as an inexperienced one. Same thing for stamina. For instance an experienced warrior can redirect damage done to the stamina instead of the health, making them more able to survive in combat.
In martial art, the first thing you need to learn is how to survive a battle, how to avoid things.
One more thing : experienced warriors could get better results for damage in the range they're allowed to.
For instance if a weapon does 1 to 4 damage with same chances to get a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4, then an experienced warrior would get a better chance to get a 4 than a 1. (that system is used in Sacred 2)
About mobility : you use some of your movement point sto initiate an attack. If you win in less than two turns then you will get back some movement points to simulate some kind of blitzkrieg.
EDIT : One thing I hope ... don't make a system too simple. Battles will be a great part of the game. I just hated the battles of galciv2 (in fact i stopped playing it because of the system). Simple, yes, but not simplistic, pleeeeeaaaaaaase.
I agree that adding stuff like blunt weapons vs cutting weapons would most likely be a bit TOO in depth. But on the other hand, not having at least some basic types of damage would make combat too simplified in my opinion.
I´d like to see some kind of rock-scissor-paper system, especially between the different unit types (spearmen beating cavalry while defending, cavalry running down archers, archers killing cavalry and swordsmen easily if shielded by foot soldiers, swordsmen slashing down spearmen, etc.).
I mean, come on. Spearman killing Cavalry is obvious, especially since that one scene in Braveheart. To me, it would feel really awkward if this wouldn’t be implemented.
I also have to agree with some of the other suggestions. I´d love to see having Archers standing on a Hill get a longer range. And Units fighting downhill should get a bonus of some sorts. Hills in Elementals Tactical Combat having the same tactical significance than they had in real life would be really sweet.
To make cavalry units superior to foot soldiers, I also have to agree with the suggestions to implement flanking. This could be really straight forward, like reducing the defence of a unit, which is attacked from the side, by halve. Units attacked from the rear should have even lower defense. Since cavalry will have a higher movement rate, they could easily outflank any footsoldier.
As for combat experience: Formations like the shield wall giving bigger bonuses, and a reduced flank bonus for the attacker if the outflanked unit has an higher experience could be some believable ways to make combat experience affect battles.
Some sort of morale system, like cephalo already pointed out, would also be cool. In Medieval times the defeated army was seldom wiped out completely, so to have your soldiers turn and run at some point would be really cool. I also think that having a dragon or another mighty creature of magic could affect the morale of both armies (boost the morale of the one while reducing the morale of the others). This would be a great way to point out the significance and superior might of these units.
All of this combined would, in my eyes, sum up to some exciting and very tactical battles, which would also have a semi-realistic and believable feel.
Another thought, which ties in with the casualties vs deaths comments above. I'd like to see an after-battle phase where the winner can optionally pursue the beaten army (perhaps only in battles of a certain size?). It's something that occurs in some board games, and nicely conveys an advantage to an agile army.
So, when one side decides to withdraw or is routed, there is some form of calculation based on speeds of the armies, time of day, terrain etc. Possible outcomes involve being wiped out, escaping cleanly, rear guard actions and so on. Good results mean a lot of casualties can be recovered, bad results mean, well, they don't.
Each player could have an option to withdraw at any stage during a battle, but they run the gauntlet of the enemy's pursuit. This way, player's can commit their sovereign to a battle, knowing that they still have a chance to withdraw if things don't go well.
Most of what I would have said has already been discussed. Experienced units should have an edge in retaining combat ability in combat, whether that is through the implementation of morale, stamina or both as well as other benefits, including but not necessarily limited to higher base stats (attack, defence and HP). Also, at least magical types of damage should be differentiated, but I also think dividing physical damage into blunt and sharp, with blunt halving (or whatever number is found good for balance reasons) armour protection but generally having lower damage values, making it good against armoured opponents but less so against lightly armoured ones. That would also fit the historical reasons for maces, warhammers and the like. I also think poison damage, for example, should be differentiated, not least because the idea of killing hordes of zombies by blowing poisonous darts at them is kind of silly.
Formation or at least flanking bonuses should also be included because otherwise movement becomes little more than every melee unit charging into combat in the most direct route, which is kind of boring and repetitive.
I don't have much time right now, but before I explain it in detail later I want to point out the major factors early:
1. Agreeing to most of my predecessors Morale should be a most basic value, that should change throughout a lot of the battle by many factors (experience of the unit, win/loss, difference in numbers, direct hits, a lot of magic, creatures that produce fear/terror, there is a lot of space.) The effects of Moral could be different, but should result in a gradual loss of overall fighting capability (including mobility) maybe up to the point of fleeing. You also wished to stronger include experience, well here is the best spot to do so. Be it a factor to decreas morale loss, more morale to begin with, faster morale regain or any combination of it, experience should affect it. (Because that is exactly where in our real world experience had the biggest effect)
2. Rock, Paper, Scissors should NOT be used in a artificial way. The game design should always be, that the classical balance from our real world (examples: cavalry beats archers most cases), RESULTS from the abilities and attributes of the units. I give classical examples. Cavalry shouldn't get a bonus against archers because they are cavalry against archers. They should be good at it, because they are fast and can outflank enemy positions, and because archers tend to be vulnerable to charges because of their lack of shields and formation. Another examples is spears against cavalry. Spears shouldnt just do bonus damage to cavalry. They tend to work against cavalry because they were long and cavalry tends to impale itself, so maybe give them something like a first strike ability and/or a damage bonus against a charging unit, that scales with that unit's charge bonus. I hope you understand the idea.
3. The battle needs to go far beyond the basic attributes, that are currently implemented now. (This is my personal opinion). As I understand you devs want to give the players a feeling that their "Zhaak'Ye Archers" or their their "Hounds of Karesh", or other units and their combinations that they come up with, feel special to them. You CANNOT reach that with a simple attribute system as it is implemented now. If you design a unit that simply has the best of everything (maybe except mobility) and anyone can do without spending a single thought on it, it means nothing in the end.
In order to fix that, you either need to complexify the base system a lot. You do that either by complexing the base system: Damage Types likes Blunt, Piercing, Slashing, whatever, just an example, the corresponding armor types too then.Chainmail is nice against slashing and ineffective to blunt and piercing, to give an example. Special abilities tied to weapons (first strike, charge value, one-time usables etc).
Or you promise us a very complex and distinctive magic enchanting system for units or units equipment, better both. I will just give one example and that is the well known Master of Magic. The combinations of enchantment-spells on units (and their running costs, so you had a tradeoff), are up to today unmatched in their complexity and fun to come up with.
To my personal liking I would want to see both, a complex equip-based base system with damage types and enchanting options (with a tradeoff), for equip and units respectively.
4. Also agreeing to a predecessor without many words: You at LEAST to differentiate between MAGIC and PHYSICAL damage types. Personally I think an element-system should be included (Its called Elemental after all isnt it )
Alright, that's it for now, I hope that my argumentation is plausible to you,
Have a nice day,
Katerchen
Plenty of good ideas here. Would be nice if a unit can have skills like:
Enemy bonuses: Dragonslayer +5 attack against all dragons
Racial bonuses: Dwarf +3 attack +3 defense in mountains
Terrain bonuses: Swamp Creature +3 movement in swamp +5 attack in swamp
Hunter: +3 attack agains all animals
Giant slayer: +5 attack agains all giants
+++++ you all know this drill
Another thing that I would like in a game (but this might not be the right one) is a unit AI that would introduce some exciting issues. What if some of the loot from fighting is divided among the units. When a unit is back in town he can spend money on levelling (if enough exp), buying potions, buing better armour/weapons and so on. The unit would do this on his own and you would have to provide the proper buildings for it to use. Its a touch of Majesty i know
This could also introduce a shopkeeper AI where the guy running the armory would upgrade his shop to the next level when he has made enough money from selling items. And then we have the producer AI (running for example a lumbermill). He would also upgrade if business is good. We would then have these AIs trying to do business and buy wood, stone and iron for upgrading their buildings. I digress...
A) A simple Zone of Control (ZOC) mechanism will be definitely fun. Your enemy cannot bypass your surrounding 1 hex ZOC unless their SPEED is way higher than yours. However, if you only have a few units in your stack, your enemy can bypass your ZOC if they are way more numerous (e.g. they have total HP of 10,000 vs 500HP of yours). The Mongols will have a very high SPEED so they usually can bypass opponent ZOC. The Mongols also has high MOVE that allows them travel several hexes per combat turn. Therefore, Mongols can ‘outflank their infantry-heavy opponents’ as asked in OP.
B ) Free opportunity strike (Optional, it depends). When one party decided to leave an opponent’s ZOC, the opponent is granted a free melee attack, if the ‘total HP’ difference is not too big.C) Flanking. Enemy managed to get to your back has ATT & DAM bonus. I want it simple here, just the back, but not the side.
D) Battle Tactics. Some specific units can perform special ability that push/pull their opponent on the tactical combat map. For example, if your dragon can pull your enemy one hex closer, so they become within your archer’s attack range.E) Unit formation. If units can occupy more than 1 hex, unit formation can be fun, when there is flanking/battle tactics and ZOC dynamics. Otherwise if all unit only occupy 1 hex, I don’t see unit formation is any much more fun than the boring Blunt weapons vs. Cutting weapons mechanism.F) Cover %. Each unit has a Cover % that will be added to the terrain’s inherent Cover %. This % is used for projectiles attacks like arrow, canon. For example, a dense jungle has a natural 100% cover, making any projectile useless when someone hide there. Another application of Cover%; breath weapon check against Cover%, but it will naturally cut the effective % to half.G) Luck %. It is the resistance against any mental/status attack like Confusion, Blindness, illusion attack etc. When the troop get more experienced, its Luck% goes up with it. Also, lucky units has a greater chance granting them a free extra attack. These should be one of the way experience be used more than as simply a modifier. Ideally the calculation of damage is done by using PART OF the “Material physics” mechanism I’ve proposed. This mechanism should allow extreme flexibility on how different type of damage can be dealt to any material; any modder should be happy with such. Denryu, this Material physics idea will work well to your question. If such a flexible system is too complex to program, I will then vote for the Magic Resistance system many people has already mentioned.
Basically all the good ideas have been written down here already. I'm all for diversity. Things we surely need are:
- Different types of magical damages and resistances
- Resistance stat!
- Traits like first strike, death strike, healing, etc.
The problem with rock-paper-scissors isn't just that it's boring to me - it relies on the sort of structural framework that won't actually exist in Elemental because you're creating your own army from the ground up. As Frogboy has said, there is no 'knight' unit, so you can't balance units with the assumption that 'knights' work this way and 'footmen' work that way, and there are established relationships between pre-defined forces.
Take Cavalry, for instance. Cavalry is just 'a soldier on a mount' by definition. In Elemental, you can put any soldier you want on a mount, give them whatever weapons and armor you like. It could be a soldier with a sword, an axe, a spear, a bow. They could be using a shield or not. They could be armored or not. They could be poorly trained, or elite units. They could have various enhancements on top of that.
It's the same with every other unit. Archers beat Spearmen? Really? What about if I'm outfitting my troops as roman legions, with long spears, square shields, and armor. A turtle/hedgehog formation is hardly going to fall apart from an arrow barrage. What about skirmishers with short throwing spears or javelins, and light shields? The Archers will have better range, but they'll have better defense against arrows.
There's too many variables for just 'this unit beats that unit'. There is no 'this unit' or 'that unit' by default, there's only the units you yourself create. If you balance it on the assumption that spears beat cavalry beat archers, then where would you fit in any of the other weapon types? It's overly simplistic.
Let it be determined by the individual statistics of the units, and simply give the equipment types their own traits. A mount lets them move faster. Heavy armor raises defense but slows the unit down. Shields block attacks but only allow a one-handed weapon. Polearms give them better reach, maybe Axes damage shields and Maces penetrate armor. Bows or throwing weapons give a ranged attack.
Don't slip into the trap of trying to ape the simplistic gameplay mechanics of other games. You can't base your assumptions around rock-paper-scissors because there's going to be a virtually unlimited number of unit combinations. In real life, it was never just 'this unit beats that unit'. It was that this particular unit with its equipment, training, and tactics, has an advantage against some other kinds of equipment, training, and tactics.
Damage types are very important in a fantasy game because fantasy creatures attack and block these damage types depending on their mythology. For example when a Dragon breathes fire at a Fire Elemental obviously that would be the same as blowing a gust of oxygen at a human. Also take into consideration where units will be entering different terrain types where they will slowly be damaged by these elements. Naturally an Ice Elemental will die quickly in the desert because of the heat and a Fire Elemental will die quickly trying to travel across mountains filled with snow. Are you saying the game will allow reptile creatures to travel across cold terrain the same as a Yeti ?? These resistances are needed not only for battle, but for the game map.
These damage types can be great fun when implemented correctly... let me explain. It seems you're looking at these damage types as all the same without any other purpose other than damage. First the importance of poison damage allows for a slow death instead of the usual *wack* units dead... this slow death also adds fun giving the player a chance to still save the unit. Second cold/ice damage can have the effect to slow targets caused by freezing. Third fire damage can not only hurt the unit, but can also damage many types of equipment such as clothing, clubs, wooden shields, etc., etc., . Fourth lightning damage is instant and cannot be dodged like an iceball or fireball and causing a short stun effect. Fifth is the mental damage type which are attacks to the mind... several possible effects. Naturally most undead will have high resistances for cold and poison. Naturally machines such as catapults will have negative fire resistance. Naturally reptiles will have a moderate fire resistance yet a low cold resistance. And the list goes on. HOW CAN YOU NOT VIEW THOSE BATTLEFIELD DAMAGE TYPES AS FUN ???
Well personally I feel the game needs more unit statistics such as precision, morale, and strength... these will allow for more unique spells and more accurate creature/unit creation. Otherwise creating a hobbit who is very strong, but unskilled means statistics which just won't match, as well as undesired battlefield results.
As I've mentioned previously training units should only play a small role in regards to hitpoints for the simple explanation of instant damage from spells. If lightning struck the ground doing a moderate amount of lightning damage to both a healthy navy seal and his friend an overweight accountant, the healthy navy seal soldier would not walk away with minor injuries when his friend is only ashes. Training should only equal a small amount of extra life because training equals skills not life hitpoints.
Poison, Heat, Lightning, Cold and Mental damage types
I'd like to see combat kept fairly simple. If you're planning on a MoM style tactical map for combat, you can create enough variation for the attacks themselves through attack/defence/hitpoints and a handful of special abilities/civ 4 style promotions. King's Bounty is a recent game that did simple combat pretty well. King's Bounty had attack types, but if there's other parts to the game I'd rather each part was reasonably easy to pick up.
Complicated only equals fun for people with lots of spare time, so I'd rather you didn't cater exclusively to them.
If you do want to cater for them, a good (or generous, either works) autocombat feature is a must so more casual players can play without being steamrolled by AIs that understand the hundred page attack matrix.
Regards the flanking, I think that speed as a combat value could convey that idea well enough, especially if there were research paths that could allow to constantly pursue speed as an overall tactic. I see no reason why this couldn't translate to the strategic map as well, having expert logistics with an army full of fast movers in HOMM was definately a valid tactic.
Regards specific damage types, I agree with other posters that this should be pursued, mainly because I think that a games longetivity gets a serious shot in the arm on account of the resulting subtleties. Again HOMM (especially 3) really nailed this aspect, not only could you tailor a hero for your needs, but the sheer diversity of troop/damage types really stretched the amount of ways you could approach that game.
Physical attack - I like blunt, piercing et all
Magic attack - basic elements, death, light, whatever fits to the game story
HP/Armor - Maybe damage mitigation as in Demigod for armor? Or just HP.
Important things about combat: Keep the numbers of stats low. That means that HP should go up to 20 or something like that. Same for attack, defense, armor etc. Why? If you get something that gives you +1 boost, going from 5 to 6 makes it feel like you got something. Going from 53 to 59 just doesn't have that feeling.
Always display what is happening - damage dealt, attacks avoided, poison damage, etc. Demigod does a good job there. It is very important that player sees what is going on and that you can see all those criticals, insane damage and combos you so carefully produced by powerbuilding your unit.
Height & position (flank, back) should give you an advantage (if you ever played D&D, +2 when in doubt:)
D&D also has a concept of attack of opportunity which are nice but probably too complex for Elemental.
Destructible city walls, buildings and defenses (similar to Age of wonders)
Magic system - I always liked Magic the gathering system and MoM used a lot of it. I'd love to have very complex magic system for tactical battles. Global map enchantments (rules from main map), battle enchantments and unit enchantments. Instants (like fireball) are probably already planned and interrupts are probably too complex to handle.
But getting into battle with just a couple of units against numerically superior foe and then mind-controlling all enemies and making them fight among themselves should be fun. You know, not the "army with highest DPS wins"...
And for last suggestion, if you are feeling bold, don't use HP at all. Have a state machine define health of the unit.
Something like:
State Healthy -can do anything
Attack with power X -> f(X) chances to Set State to wounded
State Wounded -> moves at 50% speed, can only perform some actions
Attack and in state wounded - chance of becoming Dead or Fatally wounded ...
You could even implement some internal HP counting to increase chances for specific states. And of course, each unit /unit type / unit body would have unique state machine.
Why do that? This would give units completely unique feel. For example, you could make light attacks just make dragon angry - increasing attack or speed. It would also remove some of the determinism from the game - if you have been playing the game like MoM or AoW for long enough you know when you are going to lose...
A good way to convey that a unit is more experienced would be to give it one free ability. There could be a list of abilities that a player could chose from to apply to his unit once it reaches a certain level. The reason I say that a player should choose is that it would give more individuality to the unit, it wouldn't be just another cookie cutter troop that got churned out of the barracks. It fought in battles, it won several times, it achieved something.
As for the abilities themselves. They could be things like increased movement over certain terrain types, improved damage against another type of unit, morale increase for the entire stack, ability to instill fear in lower grade units, and all other forms of non-magical abilities.
I'm happy you're planning on making height and cover factors in tactical combat, that is good news!
Although it's all been said before:
Doing away with different types of physical damage - good thing! The only caveat is that something should be done to differentiate different types of weapons. It could be as simple as having them all be very similar in effect but vary their resource costs/production time. But some weapons could have effects/abilities attached to them. Sharp weapons could cause bleeding, blunt weapons could have a chance to stun/knock back depending on the relative strengths of the opponents, etc. So long as maces and swords and spears are all ~equally worthwhile I will be happy.
Magical damage - there should be Fire, Magic, Earth, Air and maybe Life/Death types of magical damage (and associated resistances). Leaving this out would be totally counterproductive to having a complex magic system. I'd also like to see a willpower stat - it would affect morale and would come into play when dealing with mind-effecting spells.
I think morale would go a huge way to making combat interesting. There are tons of ways it could be implemented; troops could break and flee if morale goes too low, they could rally or gain a second-wind (and in generally fight better) if they have high morale, etc. But if breaking/fleeing is too complicated, severe penalties to combat effectiveness, or even freezing in terror, would be a nice consolation prize at least.
Regarding experience - I think experience should have a small effect on Attack/Defense/Willpower - these things represent combat skill and battle-hardiness. A battle-hardened warrior is not going to be as affected by adverse conditions on the battlefield as a less experienced soldier; and all else being equal, the more experienced soldier will have an advantage over the less experienced based on skill - not higher HP or things like that. IMO HP should only depend on race, equipment and magic - maybe with a few exceptions like channelers, or dragons, etc. But I think where experience really shines is with traits/abilities - ala Civ IV, basically. Like someone else mentioned Elven Legacy's system was pretty good. What traits/abilities are available could depend on faction, race, equipment (and maybe training, depending on whether or not training can provide actual abilities - like scouting, for example).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
