Originally, Elemental was going to have continuous turn combat. That effectively meant real-time. Ultimately, after playing around with it, we decided to implement turn based (simultaneous turns based on combat speed) with tiles.
The evolution of tactical combat in Elemental owes a lot to the beta program. 9 Months of public beta testing of the game engine with corresponding debates has led to some important changes that would not have happened otherwise.
A lot of the discussion resulted in us thinking about the game in ways we didn’t think of before. Specifically, how do we address game design issues that have plagued our genre for decades now? If you’re a strategy gamer, you know them well.
For us, the challenge of tactical combat has been about giving the player as much control as possible over how long tactical combat should last. This ultimately led to the realization that the funnest way for us turned out to be to have the strategic elements of combat very clear and well defined.
Elements of Tactical Combat
In no particular order these are the things that matter:
Remaining Questions and issues:
So it's just a matter of taste ? I think that a We-Go system really adds to the usual You-go-We-go System :
Those are, in my opinion, things that would do well with a turn base strategy game and would add a lot to the tactical possibilities. If you can try Frozen Synapse you could have a good idea of what it would be.
Hehe, funny stuff. I bolded out some parts of your post, because those are the main "problems" with the WEGO system compared to the real turn based or turn/tile based systems.
Ufo: Aftershock, Ufo: afterlight had similar systems, they work pretty well too (imo)
It is a question more of strategy than of "counting tiles", wrong timing = Friendly Fire
The whole combat is more fluid. As all the units move at the same time, new strategies and new possibilitys become possible, AND I think it would be more "Fast Paced" for MP.
Just my 2 GILDARS...
Those games are all about small squad based tactics. Do not try to compare EWoM to UFO:Aftershock or Combat Mission. Those were excellent strategy games [don't get me wrong], but imo a real turn based or tile/turn based system works better in certain games. I think that it is the way to go in a real fantasy TBS game. [Ex.: AoW2-SM or MoM]
So we'll have to agree to disagree : for me less chess-like thinking is not a good thing. With a lot of units, with a lot of skills and possibilities it would be a game for rainman in the late game to compute everything in-battle.
Less direct control isn't the same thing as no direct control and different as light direct control. You would still have a strong control on your units, but less on the outcome.
I played UFO afterlight for a long time and the tactical module is better than the system of XCOM terror from the deep and UFO enemy unnown.
And with a lot of units you could still got that kind of control if we can create armies like in real world : with general that command sub-generals that command etc.. So you just give orders to the level you want : to a whole army or to every soldier if you need.
Not if you have any hope of recreating something like the Battle of the Five Armies, which was mentioned as something they wanted us to be able to do.
I know it's been said before, but I want to vote against the winner take all system because it promotes a serious issue with constant build up and everyone afraid to initiate combat for fear of losing the game in one massive battle.
I'd rather build the ability to retreat in as a game mechanic that requires the user to choose that ability. Spells that allow it, troop skills that help support it (a Rear Guard ability) or something similar.
I'd like you to use a different term for what you mean, like 'successive turns' or IgoYougo. It's just a question of vocabulary, but I find it demeaning to the simultaneous turns system that you say it's not 'real'. Wego is a turn based system too, there's nothing more real in one or the other. The Civ system allows you to play N moves in your turn, resolve each of this move, before the next player's. So instead of 2 phases in each turn, you have an essentially random (depending on fight results) number of phases in each turn. Chess or go where each player makes exactly 1 move and resolves it before the next player plays their turn.
Wego works very well in Dominions3, which is one of the inspirations for Elemental according to Frogboy (although certainly the most important one). Again, the use of 'real' is one I don't understand. Mind you, English is not myy native language, so it may be me not understanding well, but when I read your sentence, I read that games not using this system aren't 'real' and are not worth calling games.
How is it realistic to send out your units in a we go system with by nature a limited number of options for the AI, can you really program a unit to think for itself. Really how many games has the AI been a really tough opponent(without cheating)? I spend all the time and effort to craft my kingdom and my military to entrust their defense to a limited computer entity deciding how to carry out an attack. My preference is knowing that I have enough control to accomplish what I want. I understand that controlling vast armies in strict TBS can daunting, but there always is the option to auto combat. If we go, and continous real time, and RTS are your what you like, good, there have been hundreds of examples of these made in the last 10 years. This is a good thing because choices and variety are great. But this is the first major game to have TBS tile based combat for close to a decade, I for one am looking forward to it.
In all likelihood, the vast majority of the potential buyers of Elemental have never heard of the game; and if they have heard of it, they probably only know that it will be a turn-based 4X strategy fantasy game. And when they do hear about it, they will expect whatever kind of combat is advertised.
The Total War games are "real TBS games". They have been eminently successful without a "real turn based or tile/turn based system." Civilization IV, in fact all of the civ games, are "real TBS games" and they don't even have tactical combat at all. The only reason that they don't fall under your categorization is that they are not fantasy games, but honestly that's a largely cosmetic difference. A game mechanic that works in a historic or otherwise non-fantasy game would work just as well if you modified in some fantasy elements.
It really has nothing to do with "X type of combat is better suited to this type of game than Y type of combat." Pretty much ALL types of combat that have been suggested have been done successfully in some TBS game or another. It is simply a matter of what combat mode will be the most popular, and which the devs think they can do the best and best suit their vision for the game.
How is it realistic for the entire battlefield to wait twiddling their thumbs while it's my Archer Squad #3's turn? How is it realistic for squads of units to only move through squares, and position themselves at large, predetermined locations? WEGO is much more realistic than that: you give commands, which can include "if ___ then ___" scenarios, broad orders like "Defend this unit" or "Defend this location." Even how to defend it (can it use spells? only hand-to-hand? what about special abilities? etc). The AI responsible for carrying out the execution phase of WEGO should be easier to do well than for a full-blown RT system, because it doesn't have to worry about long-term strategy. It requires a tactical AI, while the player is responsible for the overall strategy (obviously, AI players would sitll be responsible for its own strategy, but that is always the case). I would argue that in most games with WEGO combat, you do have enough control to accomplish what you want, unless your opponent outmaneuvers you. I don't see how that could possible be a bad thing.
People keep saying this, but I don't see it. Straight up RTS games (ala starcraft, age of empires) simply don't count - totally different genre, totally different objectives and significantly different gameplay even regarding the combat aspect. Pretty much every TBS game out there uses regular old turn-based combat (or doesn't have any to begin with) - HoMM, AoW, Civ, King's Bounty, the list goes on - and it is even more extreme when talking about fantasy TBS games. HoMM IV and V, AoW:SM, King's Bounty and King's Bounty: The Armored Princess are 4 major TBS games with TBS tile based combat all within the past decade, some fairly recent. Elven Legacy, too.
What fantasy TBS games are there with any other type of combat besides straight up turn and tile based? King Arthur - it has Total War-like combat. Dominions 3 has scripted WEGO combat. King Arthur was fun, but has a very limited replay value; all it has is the campaign so, even though you have some small control over how things go, it gets old after a couple playthroughs. On the other hand, games like HoMM and AoW:SM have excellent sandbox modes and incredible replayability. Dominions 3, from what I can gather (haven't played it), is a rather extreme form of WEGO combat - you script out everything for the whole battle, and then watch as it plays out. Not necessarily accessible to the masses.
So actually, I would turn your argument around on you - pretty much every fantasy TBS game to date has used regular old turn and tile based combat. The occasional fringe game has broken out of the mold, but are either geared towards a very small demographic (Dom 3) or don't have much replayability (King Arthur).
Your English is pretty good. "Real" in this context refers to what might be called "traditional" or "true" fantasy strategy games. It's the way the biggest games in the genre have worked in the past, so it's the way some people expect it to work now. It means that games that don't do it this way aren't real "fantasy turn based strategy games" in the way the others are.
Every genre of game has some expectations like this. RTS games like Starcraft have some of the same expectations.
Until this week, it was advertised as continuous turns, which is closer to realtime then traditional turn based combat. Shouldn't people have been expecting that?
Actually IIRC it was labeled as Turn Based, then it was said it would be CT, then it was changed back to TB.
Again I could be incorrect. I know when I pre-ordered I was under the assumption that it was TB. And later I found/read it was going to be CT.
The whole CT thing for me was a major let down, but it will be what it will be. (Granted I can say this now because I am happy that it went back to TB. If the shoe was on the other foot I am not as sure I would be as understanding lol.)
I was certainly surprised to find out it was Turn based tiles.
Looks like it was Telefrog and Tyjenks from quarter-to-three who started making the "what, RTS battles?!" comments.
What I wonder is how they'll manage epic battles with a one unit = one tile paradigme.
If my thousand-troop legion of swordsmen and my thousand-troop legion of archers takes 2000 tiles just to field, what room is going to be left on the map?
LOL You know Tcores that most likely a squad will take up a tile, or a legion will take up a tile. Most likely it will based on the way you build your troops. so that each unit be it a solo, platoon, or legion will take up a tile.
Granted I can just hear the screaming now. Why does my single soldier and that entire legion take up the same amount of space????
Personally I don't care about the little inconsistancies like that or like a turn = X amount of static time. I care about if the game and the combat system are fun to me. You can't really play any game without suspending some aspects of beleif and reality hehe.
Controlling the length of a tactical battle. We believe that users should have a lot of control over how in depth they want their battles to be. Should a tactical battle finish in less than a minute or should they last 2 hours? How do we make it so that players can control this?
How about combining these two issues into one system:
Retreat is not possible for the defender until pre-determined moment N, when the attacker starts losing morale. (the attack is faltering and in no position to persue immediately) At this point the defender can stick around since the attacker clearly Chose Poorly and it's time for payback, or they can seize the oppertunity to make tracks while they still have feet to run with.
The attacker can withdraw at any time, maybe with a couple turns notice while morale plummets due to the retreat order so the defenders can get their licks in on the retreating cowards. The attacker automatically withdraws if morale reaches zero for all units. (or a set percentage?)
This gives the attacker an advantage in that they have more control and choices, (gotta make offence desirable) but gives an outmatched defender other options than death, if he can hold on long enough. The attacker should also have plenty of time to wipe out small defender armies that would always retreat if given the choice.
"N" would be determined by the situation: Relatively short on roads/open terrain where the attacker charges in hoping for a quick victory, very long in sieges where the attacker obviously comes prepared for the long haul. In sieges this lets the defender still have a victory against the attacker if they can hold out long enough, (if they can hold out until "long N" has long passed and attacker morale has zeroed out forcing their retreat) the the defender can't retreat in this case because in a siege the attacker naturally has the place surrounded.
It's just personal preference. Saying you prefer one TBS method and discussing their relative merits is fine, but saying one is 'better' for Elemental -- when we haven't even seen the tactical system -- is unproductive.
Hopefully we'll eventually have a simultaneous TBS so both camps are content.
I hope the battle system will do my laundry and cook me breakfast... If not... I'll be awfully disappointed.
Nope. I was around the day this site and forums went up, and it's been advertised as having continuous turn combat from the "beginning." I don't remember if we got any info about the combat initially, but certainly the first info regarding tactical combat was that it'd be continuous turn based, ala Baldur's Gate. And that the screenshot of tactical combat with the tiles was an early mockup and not at all representative of what the combat would be like.
Well most of the people [especially those, who didn't preorder] think that EWoM is the successor of MoM. Do you really think that those people are expecting to have an RTS or WEGO style combat system?
Which is why I said IMO. Either way, it's pointless to argue, since we know that the vanilla game will have a turn/tile based combat system, and I am happy that they decided to use this system.
If you want to go that way, "most people" who didn't pre-order but might buy the game later would be people who haven't been gaming for 20 years and thus will have no idea what MoM is.
nm
I am gaming since ~2000 and I know MoM very well...in fact I used to play older games even. The fantasy TBS genre is not very popular compared to the FPS/RTS genres for example. The TBS fans are dedicated gamers imo, so they should know about MoM. It's the "father" of the fantasy TBS games afterall.
I think it is wrong to call the tactical maps a choice between random or pre-made. The choice is between algorithmically generated or pre-made. If you make a number of cool maps, you could analyze what makes them great and try to make the battlefield generator make some of those details. What is even better about generated maps is that it could be made modable similar to how AIs are modded. So modders might make new interesting battlefield generators, that given inputs of terrain makes new battlesfields.
I always favor generated. Battlefields are not that different from world maps. The underlying issues of balance, interesting features, and uniqueness are the same.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
