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:
In a pre-gunpowder world fixed defensive structures like castles were basically unconquerable without massive advantages in manpower or some other kind of factor. That was why sieges could last for months or years, because no credible attack could be mounted.
In a world with magic? Who knows.
An attack along a single axis invites a counter attack along a single axis, so you are correct in that multiple attacks to force the enemy to commit their reserves and find a weak point
That being said, defense does not always have the advantage. The environment in todays world is significantly less hospitable to armor than in WWII given the density of anti-tank weapons and the fact that artillery/aircraft are much more deadly to tanks now, but you try and fight an armored battle defensively you are still probably going to lose. You fight a defense in order to go on the offense. A combination of airpower, artillery and armor enables a modern army to take on many times its number of enemies offensively by using the logical conclusion of the Deep Battle Doctrine originally formulated by the Soviets. Destroy the enemies reserves (something only truly possible on the offense) and you don't have to fight the bulk of his force.
I think the point of the "myth of the offensive" in WWII is that people thought that encircling the enemy was "always" possible. Even in today's world, its only possible with massively superior technology or numbers.
It would not be wise to assume that you can always avoid their main forces ... therefore a single axis attack, regardless of the pathing, is not the best approach.
I think that preparing ONLY to attack the enemy's rear guard and reserves/supplies is the very same mistake that all the powers in WWII made ... thinking that their "best weapons" whether it be armor, bombers, or whatever ... would only have to fight the rear and flanks, as opposed to the enemies best weapons ... leaves you poorly prepared.
Instead, it is best to design your best weapons to take on the enemy's best weapons ... and if you get a chance to attack an exposed flank or reserve then HEY, THATS GREAT ... but it shouldn't be your ONLY option for a conclusive victory.
Encircling the enemy is not necessary, or even particularly important. To not destroy the enemies reserves (and I mean this in a broad sense, rendering ineffective is in this sense the same as "destroy") is to fight a set piece battle on their terms. That is extremely costly. To fight a modern war cautiously is to revert to a high tech WWI... both expensive and unnecessary. By "destroying" the enemies reserves you are rendering their C2 ineffective in addition to destroying their ability to react to the unexpected. Without effective C2, they have lost against a modern armored force. Don't get me wrong, there are many ways to go about this, and under certain specific circumstances it does not work against a semi-conventional force (Lebanon 2006 springs to mind, although even here the Israelis had been fighting the COIN fight for so long they had forgotten how to do combined arms... this somewhat applies to us, but nowhere near as much), but one nation state to another it works every time. And this is why I'll happily be a part of a numerically inferior force of Americans against any of our potential rivals.
coooooool! this is looking a lot like what i was hoping it would be like - a table top miniatures game!
have you stardock dudes played any of those kinds of games like De Bellis Antiquitatis or Field of Glory or the modern default of Games Workshop games like warhammer or 40k? actually field of glory from slitherine has a pc and mac version that's not perfect and the AI is pretty brain dead but it's pretty much as close as it gets in terms of a pc version. (actually DBA Online is much closer and better but it's pretty much multi-player only and so i haven't played with it much).
(actually, i'm really really hoping that the elemental system ends up being a close pc incarnation of Hordes of The Things (an official fantasy variant of De Bellis Antiquitatis))
that paradigm would offer a lot of true tactical depth e.g.: absolute importance of maintaining your battle lines, missile weapons are basically harassment, terrain is VERY important, manipulation of morale and getting enemies to route is truly how battles are won (i.e. importance of depicting the fact that nobody fights to the last man), and the related notion of the QUALITY OF UNITS (distressingly, you have not mentioned this but i think it is absolutely CRUCIAL) where battle hardened veterans are far more effective and valuable because they are less likely to route than conscripted newbs....
anyway, i totally applaud you for going turn based. another game system that is similar to table top minis is sega's total war series but the real time element really takes the tactics out of it and makes it more tank rushy imo.
as for the other issues brought up in the post:
- winner take all sounds good. to have armies not disappear from the strategic map after a defeat on the tactical battlefield would make the game feel very wishy washy and undecisive... not to mention LONG. so the army could have been killed to the last man or everyone routed for their lives but on the strategic map, they're gone.
- in terms of game speed, some granularity would be nice - so that there's a "full mode" where all combat is resolved for me and for the computer and i get to watch how everything plays out in verbose mode. then a mode where only my combat is resolved fully and the enemy actions is synopsized with a line of text. then both is synopsized. then just autocombat.
as someone who plays the pc version of FOG, i know that i get frustrated waiting for my turn while the computer takes just as long as it do to not only make its move but resolve its combat turn!
anyhoo, i have faith brad wardell! make it awesome and make the money leap from my wallet!
luck
jin
In my opinion, I think that the attacker should have to finish a battle in a certain amount of turns. The deciding factor should be something like the ratio between attacking/defending forces, the attacker's army in general, the defending army in general, the type of terrain in which the battle is taking place, etc.
I think retreating should at least be an option to both sides. However, maybe it can be a pre-game option whether or not retreating deals a penalty. Perhaps more of a penalty towards the attackers for being stupid enough to start a fight they couldn't finish. Then again, maybe the worst penalty available is not being able to retreat as an attacker? That would definitely make me think twice before attacking an "easy target".
I don't believe there should be draws, except in the aspect of retreating. Especially in a large map, this feature would be repetitively obnoxious, allowing the game to be unnecessarily lengthy.
The tactical battle time issue is kind of a touchy subject. In my opinion too much customization takes away from the overall feel of the game. I want there to be some solidarity when I start up a game. However, maybe sometimes I would like to fight an hour-long battle with someone. I'm not really sure how this could be implemented at the time.
If at all possible, why not combine both randomization and richness? There would be nothing worse than rolling my army through a forest, and then fighting on a pre-determined map in a blizzard. Obviously that is exaggerating a little, but maybe not. I want to be able to feel a smooth transition from real world to battle mode. For example, if there is a guard post, such as a watchtower, that should offer excellent defensive position. That should be the focal point of the battle, but perhaps the other mechanics such as attacking positions, and combat bonuses be pre-determined. However you can insert a smooth battle play is the best option for me.
The One made Sauron so bad-ass. Plus he was quite a large humanoid.
On the "Winner Take All" point of how many turns does the attacker have to "cap" the battle? Sounds like a perfect opportunity to incorporate some sense of logistics into the game. Make N proportional to the number of baggage carts that the army brought along with it, and make those a viable target for the defender to capture to cause N to suddenly drop and put the battle into a "sudden death" mode.
Of course spells, etc... can reduce the need for baggage carts.
Morale should figure into how long battles last also. Morale systems should have some play in both the strategic and tactical sense. E.g. Bring along some units just for the morale bonuses. Assasinate such units of the opposing side. Tactically, there should be local morale at least in super simple form. E.g. Have a sense of center, and ight and left flanks. E.g.Your flanks might crush the enemy flanks, but the opposing superhero with some magic combo might send your center fleeing for their life due to poor morale, effectively ending the battle.
Morale has real significance in battles since the beginning of time, and without it the units are just Jaga Fett clones.
On the "combined arms" aspect, consider that one's mount makes the benefit of being mounted. E.g. some mounts provide speed (flanking) or even allow the 'Parthian shot'. Other mounts provide shock (i.e. an initial bonus in the charging due to mass) (e.g. mammoths) or are essentially "hitpoints". Some mounts give a combo of the above.
Shock units that successfully hit should lower some of the enemy morale.
On "randomization", generally any randomization makes the game like craps or slots whichs basically negates strategy. So except when gamboling on a random benefit to try to tip the balance of a stalemate, I think randomization should be limited. Slight variance is to be expected, so light randomization is to be expected. In other words if two melee units of equal base strength face off, you expect a variable outcome, but if the omega super tank faces against the wimpy melee unit you do not expect variance to favor the wimpy unit without divine intervention.
That said there may be room for some units that throw some randomization on the battlefield. E.g. stealth units that just might assasinate a general or hero, etc...
Thresholds is good. No need to waste the gamer's time with pointless skirmishes that the AI provoked, or were the result of an "attack move".
Terrain considerations, that's great. Great place for engineer-units as well as special abilities to negate/ablate those (e.g. fly over the fort walls, burn down the forest that the archers are hiding in). I'd rip the hill/guerilla promotions from CIV4 for starts, as well as give some field fortifications that can be improvised during a battle. One thought: for each engineer in the army, allow the defending player to set up some free field improvisations (e.g. palisades, traps, mini balistas,etc..).
i like the idea of being able to control how deep i want combat to be. if the options allow, i would go far enough to get in depth like games such as, final fantasy tactics, tactics ogre, fire emblem, heroes of might and magic, ect. call me crazy but thats me.
I like this idea, but it depends a lot of how much the options, or mod capabilities, allow, which itself depends on how difficult they are to program (or allow to mod). But if they are possible and reasonably feasible, I'd like to see them included in options or (have to the capacity to be in) mods.
Best regards,Steven.
i like the idea with pre-made maps with certain locations, randomization for the rest.
OK, retreat should be an option, but just have each of the retreating units have a % of dying while fleeing (enemy unit type/number should contribute to the %) that seems the easiest, least complicated thing to do while still making retreat realistic and reasonably usable.
A good way to cap a battle is not to give a set # of turns, but only allow, say 8 or 9 'units' in a party that can attack. then, if you want a larger battle, you can have parties, friendly or not, around the defending party jump into the battle too. I hope this was 'like' the plan you guys were making (my beta hangs too bad) and it should work, it has before. Battles shouldnt be more than 20 minutes or a scenario/campaign could take hours to days to complete, thus rendering it too time consuming to get through the objective or mission, the ultimate goal of each game.
i like the idea of having morale and morale units however. 'intelligent' units should have morale depending on who they're fighting with and what their fighting history is like (how many battles, wins/losses). Morale units, such as bards perhaps?, could allow multiple parties of the same side in the same battle fight longer. Food should DEFINITELY play a role in morale. desertion is touchy for me, i'd rather not have my 'remaining' units then desert me. maybe if the #units>food, that makes sense, or maybe if the units deserting were/are mercenary's or were hired at some point (home nation morale advantage?)
i was reading these, but at some point i just stopped, too many. so this is what *I* think, im sure someone has mentioned some of these, but this is what i think. Developers, if you read this, seriously consider it
best wishes and hopeful,
Malleus
I haven't read through all 17 pages so apologies if some of this has already been decided. Here are my thoughts though:
I think retreats should only preserve champions, all 'standard' units should not survive. But if only champions remain, retreat should become impossible, to prevent endless champion retreats. In terms of time limits, I think rather than a set time-limit there should be a 'reinforcement' time. After, say, x minutes or whatever, the defender can call in units up to one tile away. 2x minutes, two tiles, etc etc, giving the attacker a real pressure to finish the fight within x minutes but not resulting in doom if they don't.
Perhaps there should be a "Don't auto-resolve if a champion is in the army" option. Or, more complex, you can set a flag on an army that says "Don't auto-resolve" my fights. Maybe my favourite peasant, young Bobbert, who has been with me since turn one, is in my army of three men and a chipmunk. I would like the chance to defend Bobbert. He has a wife and child back home you know! Plus a complex back-story but that's a tale for another time.
In terms of time, you could do army scaling? So, if battles were set to 'fast', only 50% of units would actually appear in tactical. Set to 'epic', unit numbers double for tactical. Something like that?
Randomisation:
How about special battles (e.g. city defense) are pre-set, others random? If this doesn't take absurd amounts of development time. Perhaps there could be some little tricks too, e.g. if you attack a Sovereign, there is a pre-generated map, or the defender can 're-roll' the battle-field once or twice. Mix things up a bit.
Thanks for taking the time to read this far . Unless you skipped to this line in which case... i hate you!
Oh. Can we have "Epic final-boss-music" when we attack a Sovereign and "Awesome sub-boss-music" when we attack a faction heir? Probably too late for this but... one can hope!
I'd say, that atleast in 1player game you should not limit the time of tactical combat. You can always press auto-resolve (it could be also option during combat) if you think it's gonna take too long...
I apologize if I missed this suggestion earlier in the thread, but I would allow the player to choose the length (i.e., number of turns) of the tactical battles during game setup. That would effect the "winner take all" issue as well since if one side didn't wipe the other retreat would take place on the strategic map.
I think this would also mitigate battle length issues in multiplayer because everyone knows hows long the battles will be before the game begins. I know people would think kiting could be an issue. However, if you don't want to be kited build fast units as part of your army or if you want to kite people use all fast units, it worked for the Mongols.
"WINNER. TAKE. ALL. This is the part where we want to hear your opinions. We do ask that you keep an open mind on what we ultimately go with. My opinion is that the attacking player has the onus to finish the battle in N turns. After N turns, the attacker morale starts to go lower and lower at which point the defender can come out and make mince meat out of them. The question is, what should determine what N is? Or should we allow retreating? Should we allow draws? I’m against retreats or withdraws because it’s one of those things that allows the game to drag on. It’s a strong personal preference of mine that two men enter, one man leaves. (Your heroes will tend to escape though)."
I don't like that. I didnt't like that when playing MoM, AoW1 or AoW2. There are tons of great examples which allow tactical retreats like the Total War Series. You don't want to run player away - create troops (or spells) designed to hunt down retreating troops like cavalry, wyverns, dragons,... fast and hart hitting troops. It completes the strategy ambition you have - otherwise it would be in my opinion just another mainstream kiddy product pretending to be good fantasy turn based strategy.
And why should the heroes only have RPG elements? Have you ever took a look to Master of Monsters (Sega Genesis) or Battle of Wesnoth (PC)? I want to build my armies as well as my cities. I want to have the choice to be able to flood the enemy with countless troops or create an elite strike force growing in experience with every battle. What would be a hero without great companions helping him in his battles (Like King Arthur and his brave Knights)?
And it would be also great if T1 troops would stay valuable until late game and if they wouldn't become totally useless like in AoW2. What would be a great horde people (like orcs) without numbers?
So plz consider this, have a look at the games mentioned and try to fuse this into a worthy MoM successor then I would be willing to buy this.
Rgds
Randomization vs. Richness: Random!
Let's be honest...retreating doesn't take more out of you than chasing. Better, retreating gives you a better opportunity to choose the fighting ground (to your advantage).
A well-designed retreat is traditionally an extremely important tactic in war. If you have no ground to hold, you can fall back, regrouping in defensible territory... or you can break into a march after the retreat and meet up with your allied troops.
Generally, giving chase to a retreat is a huge gamble. I don't see why this should not be the case in this game. I suggest that units can only retreat if they're on the edge of the map... you can either auto-retreat or retreat manually (and sacrifice troops to slow your opponent, of course).
Oh yeah. I will always take well-designed random over richness.
im sure my ideas have been said don't feel like reading all 17 pages i just want to vote for retreating
.....for every above mentioned reason. it kiddie-fys it. Its not a real battle if one can't run away
your telling me you catch a rogue with your foot soldier and there is no chance of the rogue losing him? mybe if ambused or something but normal battle you have to allow retreating or its just not war.
I do agree you should have to be at the edge of the map.
If you want to stop people from running so much?.....make a snare spell.
Random vs Premade? Random.
Retreat? How about using a battle stance setting before each battle starts. Eg:
Berserk - Will not retreat. Attack and speed bonus.
Advance - Can retreat after 50% losses.
Balanced - Can retreat after 30% losses.
Defensive - Can retreat after 20% losses. Defence bonus. Speed penalty.
Battle time?
Up to 10 minutes for big battles. Good examples: Field of Glory. Age of Wonders. Crown of Glory. Disciples. MoM.
Other?
Hexes.
Unit facing bonuses/penalties.
Unit neighbour morale bonus.
Unit neighbour attack bonus.
Unit dig-in defence bonus.
First off. I want to play the tactical combat before I form a solid opinion on random vs. pre-made. That said, I do like the concept of having both. If you had a forest that was just a generic forest, maps would be random. However, on the same map you might have a forest with a specific name, and combat in those tiles would have pre-made maps, still numerous different ones though, so you couldn't be completely sure what to expect.
As someone mentioned for battle length, I like the concept of logistics, or again as stated you could use moral.
How about if you, as a player, build anything in a particular area, then it's automatically a premade map for battles. This may also allow you to add things in the game you can do to improve your "battle map terrain", like even possibly reshaping the land to be a natural fortress if you have a powerful enough spell. Or you could simply have more "defensive" premade maps based on how much a player has built in that area. Otherwise, any territory where there is no "building" could be random.
I think items/spells/equipment/abilities/special units can be incorporated that can increase an armies ability to fight longer then lets say 10-12 tactical turns. Then you require either some sort of reinforcements or first aid tents, food or magic to prolong the battle passed 10 turns. Or Each turn in the tactical map can consume a resource or the like, so that if you are planning a siege then you must have enough resources to sustain the siege.
Winner Takes All
With respect to the winner take all debate, would it be possible to begin tactical maneuvers before the battle takes place to determine whether or not retreat is possible? For example positioning a unit directly behind the enemy and then attacking from the front with another to box them in. This in confluence with a suggestion above based on Total War retreats would add another element of strategy in that if you don't cut off their rear, you could at least attempt to compensate in battle itself with units with greater combat speed so as to potentially run down retreating units.
Map Selection
Hundreds of designed maps could get stale after a few months, I'd rather see random maps. At least that way there's still a possibility of a map with nicely placed strategic terrain, whereas with preselected maps, there is absolutely no possibility of randomization. In the long run I'd prefer to see long run.
Battle Length Control
I agree with the post above concerning accessories and the like having an impact on battle length. Perhaps battle length could depend on provisions the army has. This wouldn't limit the battle necessarily but players would begin to see penalties after provisions have been exhausted making winning a battle more difficult. And maybe if a player wants to engage in a lengthy battle they could establish supply lines directly from their kingdom. These supply lines themselves would also add to the depth of strategy as flanking an invading army and cutting off their supply lines would be a pain in the arse and could turn the tide of battle. This kind of reminds of COH and the strategic points where a well placed capture could shut down more than half an army's production. Perhaps battle length N would be independent for both armies and would correlate to provisions on hand and the presence of a supply line or lack thereof.
After I wrote this I began to wonder how this supply line concept would manifest. I think maybe the advancing army could construct something before battle begins to establish the route within a certain radius of the point they are attacking. After battle begins this could appear on the tactical map (maybe some horses with sacks on their backs or something) and if the enemy so chooses they could attempt to reach it and destroy it thereby cutting supplies turning a previously infinite battle into a finite one..
1.Would be cool if there were spells to fog the positioning faze for your opponent, as well as spells(magic eyes, birds, etc)/items (binoculars, potions of greater seeing) /abilities (master tactician, ranger)/special units (scouts, rangers, ninja) to nullify that would be cool as well.
Maybe some items like binoculars or ability of master tactician to allow you and see where the opponent placed his first 2< (based on lvl) troops & thus allows you to adjust your own decisions prior to the start of combat. Maybe players can even have defensive items such as cataracts or spells that work as such that can be cast on grids prior to begging of combat that can help defend the troops or prevent opposing teams from moving in for a first strike.
Also making the tactical map equivalent to the size & placement of the engaging armies grids vs the grids occupied by your opponent. This would allow for the incorporation of tactical maneuvers such as flanking & encircling into the game dynamics, could be a nice way to spice up the game prior to the tactical map engagement. Maybe even spells that could be used to prevent your troops from being flanked.
2. If you have such an engaging game & then ruin it by pre-calculated battles would truly suck, just play Evony or Lords Online in that case. What would be cool though is to incorporate the use of pre-created maneuvers. Like in NFL games or Rainbow Six, you can have pre-created maneuvers that your troops perform & you can jump in at anytime to adjust the moves or to activate another pre-created maneuver/tactic.
3. Maybe tactical spells to create/destroy obstacles that can modify the movement of enemy units. IceWall Vs FireSpells or EarthWall vs Air/WaterSpells etc. Another thing would be cool is if you can chain magic, like AirWall & casting Fire on it will create a flaming tornado or something, forcing the opposing team to either retreat or use a spell to counterbalance an active flaming tornado on the field of battle. Maybe even spells like Fissure can be created to prevent troops from getting to your archers.
Random Maps always.
Retreating or Withdrawing options for BOTH sides ALWAYS
This isn't suppose to be a chess game so I don't agree with Winner take all.
The problem with retreats or withdraws is usually the ai gets into a ping pong match when it can't ever win. Something would have to be coded into the ai to retreat several squares before looking for new enemies to attack after a retreat or withdraw or to at least join up with another stack to try again.
As far as N goes if the combat is simple and considered fast and quick then a 25 turn limit like in MOM will be fine. But, the running around the map for 25 turns by a flying unit vs a whole army or stack just to prevent taking the square should be eliminated. The army with the most combat points should take the square after 25 turns this could also include bonus points for kills during the battle. I have never liked the run around the map for 25 turns ability in any of these games that have allowed it. It's gamey and in the real world the army would have moved inside of the castle or city while the silly unit flies around above laughing at them but with no power to defeat them. Then a few days later the archery corp arrives and shoots it to death anyway.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
