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:
You've also been posting on this forum for a while and thus are atypical. Not to mention you'd already have known the game wasn't turn based. (Until last week, anyway.)
You know that is why I pre-ordered and got involved with this game, but that horse has already bolted from the barn. Age of Wonders was also touted as a spiritual successor to MoM and I think Elemental at this rate is going to be just as close.
Inspired by MoM it may be, a "Spiritiual Successor" it is too far of a stretch to call any more.
It seems like the Mom spiritual successor more like a marketing moniker more than anything. You can't just have a graphical & AI update to MOM and expect market success, to be fair though.
==
I concur with Pigeon's recent posts here.
Whether it was forethought, simple genius, or a requirement for the future modding abilities, it does seem a bit odd that SD built a new RT based game engine, with an obvious lean towards CT as the primary battle model proposed, then had to back down to the newest iteration of Tile/Turn based for Vanilla.
I really hope Brad does not take to long to, if he does at all of course, writes up a Post-Mortem for E:WoM after release. I am sure the actual reason for the change, at quite an expense we are told, to caused such a shift would prove quite interesting indeed.
I won't bother to speculate at this time.
I absolutely HATE a finite number of turns for the attacker. IMO, Elven Legacy is an OK game when it could have been a GREAT game had it not been for the timed battles. The attacker should be allowed to retreat ( at least part of the time). They should pay for it but allow the retreat to happen. If anything, allow for a die cast (based on current losses, general leadership and terrain) that would determine if an army or part of the army can retreat and then allow or disallow. If not allowed, then fine, make it a timed (finite number of turns left) determine the end of the battle.
I am also a little concerned about premade maps. Won't the battles ultimately get repeated and get very boring?
I think they just wanted to make it as moddable as possible, and chose the "least controversial" (because people who buy Elemental expect a TBS game, so it's logical that the combat is turn-based too) system as the standard one.
Sometimes, Frogboy's posts look like fishing baits or like 'preaching the false to know the truth'...unless they are just plain nonsense. (No disrespect, just a constatation. )
I didn't read all posts but I'd like to state something obvious:
why instate Morale to make formations and units retreat...when at the same time you don't want retreat possible in the game?
Either there is morale as in Dom3 and armies retreat or there isn't and they fight to death as in AoW (except YOU could retreat when playing the attacker).
Seems obvious to me at least...
PS: and for the other points, I am with RavenX and XeronX.
I don't honestly think so. The armies coming into each battle are different, and there would be several maps. It's not like every fight would take place on exactly the same terrain.
Previous games also had limited numbers of tactical maps, and honestly not having enough of them wasn't a complaint I heard much.
Quoting _PawelS_, reply 331Quoting John_Hughes, reply 329Whether it was forethought, simple genius, or a requirement for the future modding abilities, it does seem a bit odd that SD built a new RT based game engine, with an obvious lean towards CT as the primary battle model proposed, then had to back down to the newest iteration of Tile/Turn based for Vanilla.I really hope Brad does not take to long to, if he does at all of course, writes up a Post-Mortem for E:WoM after release. I am sure the actual reason for the change, at quite an expense we are told, to caused such a shift would prove quite interesting indeed.I won't bother to speculate at this time. I think they just wanted to make it as moddable as possible, and chose the "least controversial" (because people who buy Elemental expect a TBS game, so it's logical that the combat is turn-based too) system as the standard one.
Agreed. But then why create a CT based system, then scrap it (losing both time and Money), if the "least controversial" mode is obviously Tile/TB?
I think the maps could have Pre-Made characteristics, but they should resemble the place where the battle takes place...
Anyway, I truly hope for the release of Beta 2 this thursday...
I guess they started with RTS, because it's "in fashion", used in most contemporary games. And later they realized that they are making a game for TBS fans, and they should use a tactical combat system that appeals to them.
Btw can someone explain to me what's the difference between CT and "normal" RTS?
Has anyone considered that maybe the original combat system that they had come up with was either just plain bad, or no fun at all?
The differences are minute to observation and rather large under the hood.
CT is truly a Turn Based Engine, all actions happen on set ticks of time and simultaneously. The difference and I think this is the big one. Is it all happens non stop unless you pause it. So it is kind of a hybridzation of TB and RT. So if we say a turn is 6 secs. While you guys may follow their movement orders between seconds 1 through 5. Any actionable actions (such as attacking, casting spells, that kind of nonsense.) will all happen on second 6.
Where as in a RTS any Actionable Actions can happen on any given second depending on when you order them.
I think that pre-made maps are fine AS LONG AS battles in cities are based ON THE CITY!!! (as in City battles being randomized and field battles being premade)
However, even for field battles I think there needs to be some sort of parameter ... and if the tac battle's location/etc falls outside of that parameter its a randomized map instead of a pre-made one.
Hopefully this wouldn't take too much time to implement (as opposed to fully one or the other)
As far as Winner Take All ... I think that each turn each army should allow for one attacking retreat and one defending retreat. An attacking retreat is controllable at low morale, while a defending retreat is Panic (no control)
I agree that after N turns an attacking army's morale should drop "somewhat" but never resulting in an automatic loss please. As in, if you start with a high morale, then after 3/4 N turns you get normal morale, and after 6/4 N turns you get low morale ... however NEVER panic. And if you have normal morale, after N turns you get low morale. And if you have low morale, you stay? at low morale but after 2/4 N turns you get increased chances for events to drop your units morale to panic, and after 6/4 N turns the chances increase to a ridiculous level (like simply being flanked) ...
However never a default win/loss, or even a default switch to panic (except for defensive retreat, especially if out of a city)
thats the thing, i think that BOTH sides should have a dropping morale counter. and i think that EACH unit tile should have its own morale. this starts at 100 morale units + leadership number of highest champion present. each full combat turn the morale lowers by 1 point, each time the unit is attacked lowers by 1. spells and other battlefield events lowers OR raises morale. once a unit gets so low, it losses its bonus, then goes into the negative. this way you are constantly trying to manage morale.
you could introduce special units such as flag carriers that increase morale on the battlefield.
once a units morale reaches 0 it panics and tries to flee the field. if it makes it to the edge before you can raise its morale, then its gone. it will be 1 square in the direction it fled from battle.
No they wouldn't be - they wouldn't expect anything at all in particular. Most of the potential buyers have never heard of Elemental, beyond maybe the fact that it is a game in development, and will in all likelihood not hear much about it until much closer to release when actual previews and reviews start coming out. If they haven't ever really even heard of the game, then they probably don't "think that EWoM is the successor of MoM." And when they read those previews and reviews, they will learn what to expect from it.
Not to mention, I have been a TBS junkie since I started playing video games in ~1994ish. Before MoM even came out. I had never heard about MoM until our friends at Stardock announced that they were working on a spiritual successor to MoM 2 or 3 years ago. So even some of the most avid TBS gamers have never heard of MoM, so it wouldn't be too crazy an assumption that a sizeable fraction of more normal people who enjoy TBS games haven't heard of it either, let alone played it.
But that doesn't make sense. People who buy Total War games expect a TBS game, but it does not have turn-based combat. Sure, by now there have been enough Total War games that most people who are likely to buy one would either know from experience that Total War uses RTS combat, or they'd have heard through the grapevine. But what about the first installations of the series?
And far more importantly, anyone who buys a game without reading about it at all deserves whatever it is they get if it turns out they thought the game would be different than it is. People expect what is advertised about a game, not the first association they make in their heads when they see the genre. Not to mention that nowadays the inside of the box cover of most games displays major game features quite prominently. People who don't know anything about a game don't expect anything about it; people who have done their research know what to expect.
...This thread has gone off topic. But I suppose it has gotten to the stage where it's too unwieldy to be very productive anyway, and I think most topics of relevant discussion have been more or less exhausted so I don't feel too bad for contributing to the derailing of yet another dev post.
Yep, that is true.
Morale
I think your idea about morale sucks
So if my archers does almost no damage to the enemy then on top of that, their morale goes down the drain as well??
That's a slippery slope and I don't see the point of that (and realism is an invalid reason to me.)
WTA
Lots of complicated rules, for what gain?
And again this realistic morale....and add % lost in retreat to that....No....
Controlling the length of a tactical battle
1. Completely against you here. I like kiting.
2. I believe an Initiative stat is better
3. Sounds good
4. I support a timelimit for everything except combat just like in AoW: SM.
I wouldn't have given feedback if you hadn't asked for it, but there you go.
Ok, this is weird.
Yes, I agree with this. Now let's take a look at EWoM's Gameplay page.
Elemental: War of Magic is a turn-based strategy game set in a world of magic, warfare and intrigue. In it, players take on the role of a powerful sorcerer known as a “Channeler”.Players found new cities, research new technologies, study spells, build a family dynasty, engage in diplomacy, fight wars, go on quests and much more as they strive to overcome all enemies and dominate the world.
Key Features
Warfare
When two forces meet, players can choose to have those battles instantly resolve or go into a tactical battle mode to either watch the battle take place or control the action turn by turn. In battle, players can cast devastating spells, flank enemy positions, go for the high ground and much more.
->
Yeah, the topic is more or less exhausted indeed, so I see no probs with having a little off-topic discussion. Either way, I think that this off-topic discussion is exhausted as well.
I have pluyed many multi- player games and personally your multi-player options should be just that an option. If all players want to not have tactical combat time limits then they should have the option to have this. I know the people I play with would not want a time limit.
persoanly like i said it should be option me and my freinds just want to play game and make it last as along as possiable.
we like long winded tactical turn based stragety games that can take week or month to play out.
if person wants winner take all thats fine, just have a check box says winner takes all option at start of the game that when way you tryt o chase me down with your spear men that move 3 boxes vs my horse men that moves 6 I can out run you and when 10 turns go by i auto win. lol
and people who dont not want to have battle take x number turns has abilty to chose unlimited combat with retreat widtdraw option or a no width draw option.
maps would half to be big enough though I think for this feature to be work able for example large map and then you half to run your units back to begging of the the map your side of the map and if you retreat like that then maybe you take hit to your moral for so many x number of turns for combat.
but people who dont not want that option should have abilty to turn it off.
theres no reason why you cant have options for things like othere games have for example total war.
Turn-based sounds like a great idea. And I think it will be lots of fun for the beginning of the game. But once you get later in the game it will quickly bog things down unless tactical combat is simplified into oblivion. I think this is going to cause problems for the game that will only become evident later when it's far too late to change back to real-time combat.
Just think of how long your X-com turns got when you had the biggest ship and imagine trying to play that in multi-player for EACH BATTLE.
That won't be a problem imo. 100 soldiers divided into 10 squads or 10000 soldiers divided into 10 squads shouldn't matter too much with regard to the length of the battles.
Don't take this the wrong way anyone, I was as psyched about it as anyone, BUT, unless something radical is done with material costs, build times etc, fielding the ultimate 10,000 man Battle force may not happen on anything but the HUGEST of maps that make it so you never see another player for 4000+ Turns.
Perhaps Beta 2 will shed some new light on the state of that game element but I am skeptical at this point. I hope I am totally wrong.
That's what I meant about simplifying the game into oblivion. This would mean late game battles will be exactly the same as early game battles except with different numbers by your units. This would be a great disappointment in my opinion...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
