This is going to be long. I beg for forgiveness up front.
So for those of you just tuning in, Elemental has just completed a marathon 8 month Beta 1 cycle. The purpose of which was to explore all kinds of new game mechanics and try different things out. It went so well that in our next game, I’d like to bring the beta people in even earlier.
For Beta 1, we stripped out the graphics engine forcing users to play on a “cloth map” interface. We went through considerable lengths to ensure that beta 1 was unpleasant to play. The goal was to get people to think about what makes a good game rather than thinking about graphics or features per se.
From that marathon beta we got a incredible amount of feedback, online discussions, and lots of debates. We read them at length and they made us think about a lot of different things that we hadn’t thought of before.
So what was the impact? Below I’m going to walk you through the tangible differences to the game based on the betas and the beta tester debates.
No one will ever agree on the single best way to make Elemental. No matter what we do, there will be dissatisified people. It’s inevitable because (and I consider this unfortunate) the gaming industry has reached a point where there is a severe lack of what we call “new IP”. That is, games that don’t include a roman numeral after the name. Worse, when we do get new games, they’re increasingly designed to work on both PC and consoles which means that their feature set has to work on the lowest common denominator. As a result, Elemental has a lot of hopes behind it.
But we have to be careful. Anything designed to be all things to all people is doomed to failure. So with Elemental, we’ve had to really consider what the game is about and focus on that game.
Camp #1: The Settlers Camp
This is the camp I’m nominally from. That’s where you mine resources which in turn get processed into one thing and then turned into another before being used as yet another. The economic system in Elemental was (early on) very much like this. You mined metal. This metal was processed into metal bars which in turn were turned into weapons, armor, etc. Which in turn were shipped to where you wanted to build the unit.
This was one of the concepts that the beta program jetisoned. Not because it was a bad idea but because A) there is a “Settlers” game already and it would so overwhelm the rest of the game.
Camp #2: The Master of Magic Clone Camp
I am nominally part of this camp as well. This camp’s input tended to be “Master of Magic had X” and that itself was enough to argue that Elemental should have it. While Elemental is almost certainly the most similar game to MoM since MoM itself, it is, by no means, a clone of it.
Camp #3: The Fall from Heaven Camp
The popular Civ IV mod has lots of fans (myself included). There’s certainly plenty of items in Elemental that are similar to what is in Fall from Heaven since both ultimately are civilization style games.
Camp #4: The Panzer General / Magic: Total War camp
This is the group that argued, quite correctly that with a subtitle “War of Magic” that it made sense to focus on the warfare elements of the game.
Camp #5: The SimFantasy camp
The term isn’t meant to be dismissive of those who would like a truly organic world. At the one extreme, you have Elemental as a board game and at the other extreme you have Elemental as a fantasy world simulation.
So what are some of the big changes that occurred because of the massive beta?
In no particular order:
With Beta 2 expected in the next couple weeks, we’ll have a pretty good idea whether release is going to be this Summer or next Winter. (Fall is “booked” at retail). I personally believe that late Summer is still likely but we’ll see. Beta 2 will give us a pretty good sense of where things stand.
The big questions in our minds will be the role of the NPCs in the world and the role of quests in the world. Their inclusion are the most obvious “differentiators” for Elemental. We’ll be balancing and enhancing those features for years to come.
I'm thrilled real time is out. Winning because of superior micro/APM is cool & stuff, but I would really, really hate it in an otherwise turn based game. And eh.. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but TB is what I signed up for.
That said, tile & turn base combat isn't exactly my fondest wish. Ideally I'd like a distance based WEGO/phase system.
Grids, whatever the shape, limits manoeuvrability and tends to make things like facing, reinforcements, flanking & unit formations either less important or more tedious than they ought to be.
IGOUGO makes perfect sense on the tabletop, where more than one player and lots of house-keeping are involved. In single-player computer games, I don't think it makes a lot of sense, however. The house-keeping is a non-issue, and the computer neither needs time to think, nor time for the players to grab a beer & relate some funny little anecdote from work or whatever. The down-time the UGO part introduces serves no practical purpose, it's simply time the player spends waiting.
As for the combat mechanics themselves, I'm very much in favour of utilising both orders and scenario rules. What do I mean?
Orders are stuff units can be told to do. Like "March X forward, turn X degrees to the left, charge" Such a system works well within a RPG'ish system with fantastical units. A regiment of trolls, for example, might not be able to carry out as many or as advanced orders per turn/phase as a regiment of critters with more brains and better discipline. Likewise, an experienced commander might be able to utilise a particular army better than an inexperienced commander.
Scenario rules are things like weather conditions, whether reinforcements are available, how battle deployment is handled, lighting conditions, whether there's objectives to achieve beyond making the enemy/ies leg it, and so on.
For example: engaging an enemy camped on the site of some ancient library, pre-dawn and in pouring rain, might let you snuff the enemy's sentries quite easily, position your ranged units for maximum devastation, and completely screw up the enemy's deployment. But it might also mean there'll be traps waiting for you on the battlefield, that your ranged units will be seriously impaired because of weather and - at least for a time - darkness, and that you'll have to rout the enemy very, very quickly if you don't want the enemy to burn whatever goodies are in the ancient library.
Why not explain us the results of your testing?
no thats a very bad idea for many reasons
in a real strategic game you have to "REACT" to the small RNG (hopefully very small ) and decide
having a game where you decide all at start and then watch would make the RNG explode with units surviving at 1 hp freely and stuff like that
Most likely because it's about resources, and that horse has been beaten to death, resurrected, then beaten to death again.
Aside from being slow, a truly turn based game also has the "you go first" problem. I've won more then one battle in TBS games simply because on the first turn I blew the everloving hell out of the other guys best unit, before he was allowed to do anything about it. In a game with powerful magic that's made even worse, because the sovereign can flatten stuff with spells with no possible defense.
Giving orders and then letting them resolve simultaneously adds a lot of chaos and unpredictability to combat, which as a bonus makes it harder to kill a top unit like a hero before the other player has a chance to do anything.
And it seems you never played combat mission, or you would never say that the RNG dictates who will win. Yes ther's a lot of luck involved, but a good player will always win over a weak player. And between two player of the same level that's the tactics used that will do the difference.
I'm glad our input improved the game
TACTICAL COMBAT
I'm not sure how to do it the right way since every TBS is different and thus require different rules, but I firmly believe that the attacker must get the first move.
About "my side moves first" vs "speed decides who moves first" I don't know what's best....I'm not gonna pretend that I know what's best.
Consider Initiative from Heroes of Might & Magic V though. It added an additional way to measure power of units (and heroes.)
I cringe every time someone says this. Have you ever played a Total War game, or a game with similar combat? At least in single-player, actions per minute has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with combat. Nothing. There is a really handy feature called "pause" that lets you give as many orders as you want, as often as you want, while taking as long as you want. There is a little bit of micro, but because of the ability to pause it's not bad at all. The only micro that I found stressful in Total War was when the pathfinding blew up, but that was a problem with the terrible pathfinding of the game, not an inherent problem of the combat itself.
Also, I just thought of another major concern for me. Right from the beginning, Brad said that we'll be able to reenact battles like the Battle of the Five Armies from the Hobbit. To be frank, that is one of the most exciting things about the game for me - that would just be awesome. But... A battle between five different players' armies in turn/tile-based combat? ...That just does not have the same appeal. You'd spend most of the combat waiting, watching everyone else take their turns.
Not only that, but if it's something like 3 vs 1, or 3vs2, or 4vs1, etc, the smaller team (assuming relatively equal armies for each player) could potentially be at a ridiculous disadvantage. It extravagantly exacerbates the advantage of going first. For example, if the larger team's players get to go first, between their combined forces they could probably utterly destroy the smaller team before it even has a chance to move. On the other hand, if the smaller team gets to go first, it could do a disproportionate amount of damage to the larger team before being wiped out.
The Battle of the Five Armies would be amazingly fun to play and watch in continuous turns. It would be boring and fraught with problems in turn/tile-based combat. Although, if orders are issued by all players and then the turns are resolved simultaneously, that would solve most of these concerns.
Elemental uses combat speed.
Each "turn" is divided into 10 phases. The faster the unit, the more moves it takes in a given turn.
Elemental has come a long way in the last 8 months. I still remember the initial beta relaease were the game crashed after just a few moves, and now we have a stable base, that just needs flesh to cover the bare bones.
I am so happy you decided on turn based combat rather than real time. The battles in MoM and XCom are great, and you seem to be leaning more towards XCom, it does worry me a little on how long the battles will take. Will have to wait and see how big the maps are.
The research system you now have is excellent. The fact you get to choose one of several techs when one becomes available allows you to develop a strategy very early on.
The economic system going global is a vast improvement over the individual city. Although I have always loved micrmanaging, I never seemed to get anywhere in the earlier releases, now I seem able to make some progress. There are plenty of things that make me go hmm! Like do I build specialist cities? Or have each one do a little bit of each? I suppose against the computer AI specialists will work well, but in Multiplayer food production cities will make too tempting a target. Its good that it makes us think.
Really looking for to the release of this game, keep up the good work.
Good post. I don't see how a five army battle would be playable with traditional TBS/tile mechanics. It would take an eternity, 80% of which would be waiting for other players. It works alright in single player, but the more players you add the more painful it gets. Continuous turns scale up a lot more gracefully.
Give us an example...
I really liked how HoMM V separated speed into movement speed and initiative. A mage is perhaps not the fastest runner, but he sure can wave his arms like crazy and blow stuff up in the blink of an eye. HoMM had only one action per round though (move, attack or use ability/magic), and Elemental has 10 phases per round but I'm not sure what that means (perhaps could enlighten us? )
What was that about not conceding single player terrain in the name of multiplayer?
yes i admit i never played combat mission BUT what i said remains true
i want to shot a fireball AND decide after it if finish the guy who resisted or run away or throw some arrow
i dont want to decide at the start "fireball on his summoner, arrows on the paladin, wyvern on the small drake" and hope all goes the way i planned
its just bad
similar to HOMM 5?
You're oversimplifying the possibilities, though. There is no reason Stardock couldn't implement a system where I could have my sovereign shoot a fireball and then use the remaining time in the turn to retreat, for example. There could even be conditional commands (if X happens, do Y).
The success of the strategy and tactics, then, depend as much on how well you predict the actions of your opponent as it does on your master plan. It allows you to take risks that you could never take in regular turn-based combat, too. For example, I could chance exposing a fragile spell-caster for a short time to do some major damage. if my opponent didn't foresee such a possibility, it'd work out great. If he covered all his bases, though, and took that into account, then my spell-caster would be in a world of hurt.
If they took HoMM combat and just had us issue all our commands at once and then we'd watch the ensuing combat, that would indeed be relatively uninteresting. Really, it wouldn't work very well. But if they give us more nuanced control, allow us to give a series of commands and much more customizable ones (for example, to defend another stack, or to defend a location, etc) - that would be great.
I mean, your scenario of "i want to shot a fireball AND decide after it if finish the guy who resisted or run away or throw some arrow" is exactly what we have to live with in most traditional TBS combat. If my mage shoots a fireball, that is typically the end of his turn, no chance to follow up with a volley of arrows or retreat. Some games do allow more than one action per turn, like King's Bounty, but like I said above there is no reason this could not be implemented in combat as suggested by Silicor.
Squad Leader's semi-simultaneous system was designed back in the pre-computer boardgame days, it's a bit on the complex side, and I doubt the general Elemental player base would be interested, but it's still a good system and those who question the excitement/strategy/tactics of TBS should give Squad Leader's system a try, as it might open their eyes.
A WEGO variant of it would be interesting as it would maintain the 'fog of war' regarding your foe's intent that turn (but you could watch it unfold and react to it) and minimize waiting.
A Squad Leader turn consists of 8 "phases":
1-Rally Phase (in which "broken" units attempt to rally and malfunctioning weapons are repaired)
2-Prep Fire Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may fire on enemy units; any units that Prep Fire cannot move or fire again for the rest of the player turn)
3-Movement Phase (in which the player may move his units on the board)
4-Defensive Fire Phase (in which the other player may fire on units that just moved)
5-Advancing Fire Phase (in which any units that moved may fire)
6-Rout Phase (in which any "broken" units must flee for cover)
7-Advance Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may move every unit one hex)
8-Close Combat phase (in which any units from opposite sides that end the turn in the same hex engage in close combat).
If there's no morale/routing (which would be a shame as it's a nice feature) or repairable items then no need for the Rally Phase (1) or Rout Phase (6), so there'd only be 6 phases.
Prep fire would be archers/fireballs/etc 'softening' up the enemy.
Advancing fire is for units that didn't fire in the Prep Fire Phase.
etc.
It sounds cumbersome but in practice it goes pretty fast (especially as a WEGO), as not all phases apply in a turn, or apply only to a small extent, and players generally pick it up pretty fast. The computer as moderator also would speed things up, as calculations for LOS/etc. would be automatic and behind-the-scenes, and it would keep track of who fired, who moved, who is subject to defensive fire, etc.
The system was set up for squad-based combat, with individual tanks/MGs/artillery pieces/etc. and also individual leaders. It could apply to larger units a la Total War, or player created units via click&drag/etc., which would also speed things up.
Anything a RTS system can do this can also.
Ok, so I don't know if any of you have noticed, but I have not been around the forums for awhile. This is because as a whole, I have lost the excitement that this game provided in its early renditions. To me, the way this game is going is following the same sort of pattern that eventually was realized in the game Spore. So much innovation and ingenuity in the original idea that the end could never match up.
Yes, stardock, I will give you that you have appealed to the common crowd. Like any company would do, you sold yourselves to sales. But to say that the majority of the people on this forum or even the beta testers "lobbied" for a more simplistic economy is utter BS. If you take a look at the original thread in which the camps were discussed, you would see that most people "lobbied" for the camp 1. This would not in any way "overwhelm the rest of the game" only enhance its immersion.
I can't help but see the difference between what this game could have been and what it is turning out to be. The immersion of the entire game has taken such a drastic hit. The living, breathing world we were promised is fading. You say this game can't be everything to everyone. But as least give it a shot, don't take the easy way out. You said:
And its really sad to think you made the game that would sell the most. But I suppose I can't blame you. It's probably too much to ask for a company to actually care more about its followers than the money.
This game will be a hit. No doubt. But it will also be just like civilization, just like every other strategy game of the modern age. Where after a few months you throw it up on a shelf and never look at it again. I guarantee, and would put money on it, that the end game will consist of hitting the turn button over and over and over just like your previous game Galactic Civilization
I think you've let your biggest fans down Stardock. I may be the only one with the guts to say it but this game will never compare to MoM, will never compare to X-com. No one will be talking about this game 15 years from now, because this game has nothing to set it apart from the mold.
I really don't want to tick anyone off, I just really would have liked to see this game be all that it could be instead of a shadow. So this is my farewell, you won't hear from me again. Sorry for my bluntness but it needed to be said.
My wall of text died. So...repaired wall of text!
Regarding the Living World
I say yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Heroes of Annihilated Empires was, by all rights, a letdown of a game (if you want to see what rushing a product looks like, look ye to HoAE) but I still frequently play the skirmish mode. While my allies are building up bases (you can play it as an RTS or have your hero level and function like an RPG) I would have a blast hiring as many goblin/gnoll/orc tribes to fight under my banner. Couldn't control them physically, but they raided my enemy frequently on their own.
Just seeing Elemental go with the basic "Hire troops", "Leave alone" and "kill lair-dwellers" would be a letdown. I personally want to see at least some level of basic interaction between lairs. There is no way I would expect you to have something like...Gurkesh the orc champion killed Borgash the troll king 20 years ago and the trolls have been secretly planning revenge to the point of building up a massive army and are preparing to strike out across your lands while the orcs have heard of this from Gibblegob the goblin and your capital city will be where both factions converge.
What I would expect is basic interaction. Give a basic need (food?) and when that need is not met for whatever reasons, the lair dwellers go on their way. From here, let the possibilities flow - let them perhaps migrate to another lair, or take over another, or what have you. Just something more than "we will wait here until we are recruited or attacked" will be sufficient. Perhaps give a chance on encountering another faction to go to war, leave peacefully, or form an alliance of sorts (they work together, no more than that)
Why have this? Simple. The options that a player could have for their individuals games would be massive. One game could see two lairs fighting each other next to your territory, another could see them become allies. Perhaps you wipe them both out, or just the enemy of one and become allies with another...something different.
It will offer up something else, too. This is a new world, and my Sovereign has the option to restore the land and become a figure of hope and power. So can other Sovereigns. Restoring the world should have an effect beyond making those other Sovereigns want to kill me. I mean, if I am a beacon of hope to a hopeless world, I'd like that hopeless world to look at my Sovereign and act accordingly. I want to play a game and have some random lair-dweller come up to my soldiers peacefully and say, "We want to live in peace on your lands" and then have another one try to destroy me. I want to fight against more than just other players, not just sit there and let things go about because I made them. This is a WORLD that I am going to be altering. The world should react accordingly.
Regarding the Economic System
I'll be perfectly honest here - the thought of having to build up X iron, to turn into X/2 iron bars, to turn into [(X/2)*.03]/Z iron swords would really irk me. First, it seems needlessly complicated. Second, I am a physics major in school - I do my computations for work...in school. I have no intention whatsoever to have to keep a calculator nearby when I am preparing to build an army.
So, I like the idea of just being direct.
Regarding Tactical Combat
I've played various games, some TBS some RTS. I've played Age of Wonders, I've played Total War. I've played Sins and Gal Civ II.
RTS does look...better. It's more entertaining to watch, because you're watching actual combat rather than what seems to be a few pieces moving across a board. I had hoped to be able to sit back and watch battles like the Lord of the Rings unfold before my eyes, see fireballs and lightning bolts and ice storms and lava maim and kill my enemies. To watch troops advance towards each other, arches letting loose, magic filling the air with metaphysical death...everything. Furthermore, it's viable to have tactics and strategy in an RTS. If I arrange my soldiers in columns or rows, they act based on that. Soldiers will advance as a whole, with my infantry up front, ranged at back.
I do not want to have a game where horsemen kill my archers because they literally ran past my infantry. Nor do I like the whole "soldier one moves...soldier two moves...soldier three moves...soldier four moves...end turn. Soldier one moves...soldier two attacks...soldier three attacks...end turn." That is...
Look. When I first was reading about Elemental, I read something to the effect of "You can control your own soldiers. As your champions/heroes gain levels and become good leaders, you can trust in them to lead battle for you." I want to sit back and watch battles sometimes. Furthermore, I don't want to spend my playing time leading each individual unit - I'm playing a mighty sorcerer, not a general. I like battles...but sometimes, it's more fun to watch and just act when it suits you.
To that end, I think that it'd be best to go with the whole "both sides give orders, units react" thing. This could have numerous advantages! First, there is no need to worry about reaction time - you and your opponent both 'move' at the same time. There is strategy - predicting your opponent's move and countering it, reacting to their moves. Everything happens at once, so there's no need to put a line of troops surrounding each archer just to prevent a horsemen from racing around an infantry or two and take out my prized wizard, thus erasing my whole magical defense.
The battles could be cinematic, too - just take out the actual strategy phase and replay a battle to your heart's content. It might be a little choppy, but it's still something.
Regarding Hexes/Squares
Whatever works for you, Brad. I'm sure it'll be fine.
Sorry to make you cringe, but the comment stands. And yes, I have played the TWs, King Arthur and a couple of other games with the same mechanics. My problem, in a nutshell, is that interfacing operations has to be simple enough to actually carry out in real time, or the gameplay shouldn't take place in real time. Adding a nifty little pause button to allow for more complex interfacing operations, isn't a nifty idea at all. It kills time as an essential resource in the RTS, and sucks the joy out of using what might otherwise have been a perfectly nice interface in a turn-based game. If ever there was an unhappy compromise, it's that pause button. And however much I enjoyed BG, I'll never forgive it for spawning the hateable design.
I share your concerns & very much hope it'll be some type of WEGO system.
Was there a reason there wasn't a poll done on this topic of battle systems?I'm just curious of what the results would of been. I'm pretty sure real-time would of probably won that poll.
You're referring to a WEGO system, right? I am very glad EWoM is going to be turn-based as no matter how it is implemented, real time battles never feel as tactically satisfying as turn-based battles. Now that we are going in a TB direction, I agree that WEGO would be the best way to achieve that. WEGO games provide all the thoughtful tactics that are inherent to a TB game, but also provides the tension of a RTS game as watching the turn's cinematic replay can be very entertaining (the player can watch all the gory fun without having to worry about still playing the game). Battlefront's Combat Mission uses this system and it makes for a wonderful gameplay experience. It really is the best of both worlds (TB planning, real time execution).
If E:WoM goes with a WEGO system, I will be dancing in the aisles!
ok i dont understand what is this game anymore will someone pls explain
what i expected
battle: real time like total war (not like age of empire) when i say total war i mean squads of 50-100 men
now i see turn based in turn based like hmom what is point of having 1000(or milion) men i squad its like you have 1(visualy and if oponent has same 1000 there is no point of 1000 its like 1 on 1) where 1 hit of players hero magic kill whole or most of units before it even move eh
economy,faction,making units:good freedom
eh rpg point of game:i imagined it like 1 part of game gorgon alliance where you send your hero on mission for ex and to find magical items
movement acros map: knight of honor (i dont like in total war turn based move because if you dont see some part of map when you finish your turn army can pass beside your army if not on bridge like it doesnt existe
units:and i hoped every squad could have general who would build up their skill eh
for multiplay 5 vs 1 look game world of battles maybe im wrong here i dont know how it work he
I pre-ordered after reading this post from Frogboy. Considering I love ALL of the games in the 5 camps he mentioned, (With Fall From Heaven currently taking all my time) and I love turn based tactical battles, that pretty much sold it for me.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
