Beta 3B introduces the skeleton of tactical battles.
Here's the basic concept on how they're supposed to work:
Your Combat Speed is translated into action points. We do NOT use your Moves per turn stat (that's supposed to represent endurance and it's not subject to change).
The current system is, however, far too basic of course. In this thread, we will discuss which aspects of MOM, HOMM, AOW, as well as new concepts you guys would like to see.
Below is the system we intend to implement and we look forward to your thoughts on this:
These 6 things are what we consider the "basic" for day 0.
Obviously, right now, none of these 6 things are in. I am hoping to get a Beta 3C up on Monday that has them though.
On top of these 6 items there is what we consider "required" for v 1.1 (60 days or so after release):
In the long-term, we plan to keep evolving tactical battles based on feedback. It's not something we're going to push out there on day 0 and call it a day. But I also think it would be naive to think that by day 0 or day 120 that tactical battles will be the end all be all because there is just so much one can do with this area and it's not something that should ever be considered "finished".
I would like to put all possible unit actions on the interface - Attack, Move, Defense, Spells, Abilities, and have the AP Cost of each available on Mouseover or somehow see-able in combat. That way, you don't have to stumble around when you first see the system.
Sound nice, but what will happen for plate mail soldier with a CS lower than 1? Are action points rounded toward the nearest integer?
Is it retaliate for all attackas against a given unit in a given turn or only against the first attacker in a given turn, unless special abilities involved (like in KB) ?
How do these six things play out in large groups of units?
If I have five units with 3 AP each and they're all right next to their foes, does that mean I click Attack a total of 15 times? (5 * 3) Or that I can cast fifteen spells? What about fifteen units?
What are the thoughts behind having movement take 2 AP and attacking take 1 AP? While that's realistic, what is the intent of doing things that way?
Would conflating the abillity to attack multiple times and the abillity to move across the battlefield not lead to really weird scenarios, where our 5-tile moving calvary also can make 10 attacks? Faster than the on-foot bowmen or daggermen?
perfect, that s how it work in almost any other game and its working till now
Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed.Moving a tile uses 2 action points.
Attacking and casting a spell uses 1 action point.
so with 1 speed you have enough to move 1 tile and 1 basic attack
seems fine
the only problem i see if a unit only attack n times, ok with retaliate its not so overpowered but need to be well thought
(ie maybe against mages who i imagine retaliate for low dmg) or some strange combo
sounds nice
yeah thats interesting, in KB there was only 1 retaliate per unit per turn but in elemental with multiple attacks and many units i think its not so good
sucking AP could be nice, also maybe some malus like 20% less dmg on successive retaliate in the same turn
I agree that the AP system looks bad to me regarding cav/fast moving units, too. IMO cav should just have 1 attack, but be able to move more than 1 tile.
Due to this I am in favour of a split between movement and other actions.
CharonJr
yeah i am not sure about attacks and mostly spells only takes 1 ap
but for spells they at least cost mana so even if you cast 244141 in the same turn you end OOM
still could be too much and maybe it could lead to the situation where the first attacker is too mch strong and with the right combos of spells/ranged attack can decimate the enmey within first turn
what about archers then?
they dont really need to move so i would set archers attack a bit higher than 1
What about having the weapon determine the combat speed? Lance calvary could really only get one attack per turn, but still have high movement.
But if you were to give your mounted units a riding bow, they could make more than one attack and still have mobility. A riding bow is not as effective as a real longbow necessarily.
Mobility could be a stat determined by equipment. Start everyone at two or three movement. Racial bonuses could apply.
I like the idea of researching different formations and/or special abbilities that your troops can have in tatical battles. E.G. Charge skills: bonus on the first attach.. mounts give you a charge bonus... that sort of thing.
The action-point system reminds me of all the complaints before that combat movement & weapon speed should be separate.
I can think of lots of alternative. Probably too late, but...
A: It might be a lot more acceptable to the masses if they added a weapon-speed system -- traits like double-strike, triple strike, etc, for some units.
Then a unit with a quick-strike weapon like a dagger, or perhaps swords in both hands, gets double-strike and has two chances to hit per AP, including two chances to retaliate once that is implemented. But he doesn't need lots of AP, so he can't move faster than units with slow weapons like battle axes.
There might also be negative/fractional strike, so a crossbowman shoots slower than an archer but moves at the same speed.
In this scheme, the average avg combat speed might be a little lower than it is now.
B: Or, just have AP's control weapon speed and let combat movement be derived from strategy-map movement speed, like in MOM & Aow:SM.
-----------------------------------------------
If spells can be as destructive as I expect / hope, then casting them could take more than 1 AP. Maybe only require 1 or 2 AP, but consume all the unit's remaining AP for that turn.
----------------------------------------------
I think that when a unit retaliates, that should consume AP. I thought that was what FB meant when he said a unit retaliates "if it can", until I read below that they weren't planning to do it that way.
Retaliating more than once per turn (or enemy, maybe) should be a buff and/or special ability. A unit surrounded by enemies should not be able to strike back at everyone who swings at it unless they have a high level of skill, magic, or appendages.
Edit: Stuff removed for me being unobservant
Also, units retaliate now I notice, I could have sworn they didn't a few hours ago...
yes thats a good idea, also to fill combat research
there could be even a research to set troops at start of combat (within a few tiles ofc, not just all over the map)
and some research to give basic troops some additional skill like charge to mounted units or whirlwind to axemen or slowing shot to archers etc etc
Ok I have a TON to say on this one....
For #1 - What about a "Counterattack" (passive) skill for units? Units that have this ability can counter-attack. Units that don't have the ability cannot. This would be a simple way to make units more unique as well.
For #5 - What about if there was technology (perhaps in the combat trees) that allowed you to select different formations for armies. You could set this on the pre-map and when battle begins your units will attempt to enter in formation (or as close as possible based on terrain).
As for other special abilities here are a few suggestions:
Passive Skills:
Counter-Attack: Gives the unit a chance to counter-attack when stuck in battle.
Reach - Allows the unit to attack units an extra (non diagional) square away.
Dodge- Small chance of avoiding an attack that does not miss.
Active (requires a button on the bar) skills:
Protect: When target unit is attacked, attempt to take some or all of the damage in its place.
Throw Sand: Throws sand at the target unit causing some effect. Not available on all terrain.
Steal: Attempt to steal an item from the unit
Guard: Defend against attacks.
Lunge: Get a small bonus to damage, but unit automatically counter-attacks if able to do so.
Venom: Attempt to poision a unit.
Fire-Breath: Breathe fire on target unit.
Ice Breath: See above but with Ice
Etc. Breath: Lots of options here
Some of these abilities could also be made available to sovereigns giving more trait options during character creation!
One additional suggestion is to make direction matter in combat. A unit attacking from behind should deal more damage from one in front. Perhaps some weapons get a bonus in this regard (daggers etc.) This would also allow for skills like Backstab which could be used to make rogue like units/heroes.
well its not bad, giving the ability "always retaliate" to huge fierce beasts and double retaliate to some minor monster and specialized warrior could be an alternative
i really like the AP system. its a tried and true system that has the ability to be deep. it just has to be balanced. for instance alot of people concerns here can be addressed by balancing example
people are worried that archers will be able to shoot alot. well pulling back a bow and taking aim takes alot longer than swinging a sword. so you would have an AP penalty on the archers FOR ATTACK. the game could easily have hidden parameters for combat AP move, combat AP attack, combat AP magic etc.
base AP = 5
move = 2 (no penalties for armor, enemy enchantment, or whatnot)
attack = 3 (shortbow, AP +2)
this way the unit could fire once while stationary, but not 2 times because it would cost 6 points, however it could move twice, or move once and attack once.
its just gonna take balance.
I'm still downloading the latest version but here are some grognardish ideas.
Various weapon types should give various advantages beyond simple damage. Clasically Pole weapons trumped cavalry and swords but were susceptible to archers or being flanked (until you get the Swiss Square formation). Archers were weak but cheap troops, very susceptible to arcery (up until crossbows and Longbows which were the "atom" bomb's of their times). Cavalry was fast but until you got lances and stirrups not that devestatating unless could hit them from behind.
Chariots?
Pole arms?
I haven't like the ranged combat on the strategic map except for magic (doesn't make sense that you take 1 day to walk 2 hexes but can shoot that far).
Looking forward to trying the combat.
Ren
I like the philosophy here.AP is a nice way to go, but here's is how I would adjust the 6 tenets:
Here's one idea I had that would give more flexibility.
Action points = Move
Number of action points it takes to move one tactical tile = 1
Number of action points it takes to attack once/cast a spell once = Action Points/Combat Speed
Number of action points it takes to counterattack = Half that to attack
That way, combat speed is the number of attacks you can make if you don't move, action points is the number of squares you can move if you don't attack. Like in x-com, units can have the same number of attacks per turn while having differing move speeds easily.
Also, counterattack costs were shamelessly lifted from Age of Wonders, which I thought had a very good tactical combat system. The devs might want to take a peek at that system again, since it seems like that you could lift a lot of inspiration off of that, especially for special abilities.
This is very very interesting.
I'd like to hear what others think of this.
The main thing we are looking for here is that we want a user to be able to have god like heroes (think Sauron at the beginning of LOTR) and the best way to do that is to make sure that unit can go around and kill a lot of units via either Melee or magically in a single tactical turn. We can't do this if we use moves as the number of tiles they can move otherwise we'd have to let that unit move a ridiculous number of tiles on the main map.
But at the same time, we don't want calvary units to become godlike either.
I always liked the idea that conter attack was an option you had to select, and it used one point from *that* turn , not the next.
But in Xcom, you had to select the abilty to counter attack, and it used some of your AP's from that round.
@frogboy the attacks per round and the movement speed per round has to be separated, there is no way around this.
We can't do this if we use moves as the number of tiles they can move otherwise we'd have to let that unit move a ridiculous number of tiles on the main map.
why not just add a multiplier in battle, say a unit has three moves on the map it has 6 moves on the tactical battles, but you don't even have align the tactical battle movement to the map movement just don't give units a combined pool of attacks per round and movement.
if you do this, just to take your sauron example, sauron would have been faster then any cavalry since he has so many action points, which is of course ridiculous he is slow but can attack often. same with heavy cavalry fast but only one very strong attack per round etc.
basically if you do not separate between movement and other actions on the battle field and just have one stat for that you will not have:
-slow but powerful units (like berserkers who go crazy once in melee)
-fast units but with few strong attacks (heavy cavalry, dragons, ...)
also it would be pretty abusable just build archers with high combat speed:
they could kite all units to death
Alright, now this is closer to how things also worked in Fallout.
Action points, as mentioned by NullAshton. But the reason that system was so elegant, was because it was intuitive. And this is a great way to do it.
It makes sense, your action points should be something you spend to move & attack. With the standard baseline being move at least 1 square and still be able to attack.
But I personally completely agree. Moving 1 square costs 1 action point. Attacking cost 1 action point. Spending 1 point to ready an attack when an enemy becomes adjacent (before they can respond) 1 action point. Counterattack it would make sense to be cheaper or even to simply have no cost, but a just a limited number of times they could respond based upon their level. (Higher level units having learned to be able to counterattack more efficiently).
Hmmm how to represent this all so that champions are godlike yet cavalry isn't.
Ah.. when cavalry moves in the tactical map, they can go one extra square per 1 action point for a move action.
This way it simulates them moving faster but not getting a higher arbitrary number that would be abused in attacks. To over compensate for that faster movement.
Personally I really like this idea.. in general. It's streamlined, and kinda of what I was trying to say over in the beta forum about the Tactical combat. It needs a clear set of options, and this method is succinct and to the point allowing an easier way to then put a system in place around it that makes it easier to find use and becomes intuitive.
X-Com was, rather, a ranged combat simulator though. It also relied a lot on units ducking in and out of cover, and the 'counterattack' or rather reaction firing system was simply a way to fire out of turn in a game where a single hit would take you out of the fight.
Elemental: War of Magic is fantasy though, and as such they tend to have very melee-centric models. Ranged units for the most part weaken the units, at least most of the time in Master of Magic and similar games. The reason for free counterattacks(or taking up half of an attack) is for one having much more visually interesting combat, and it takes less time to actually complete. Instead of watching your units line up like practice dummies to be slaughtered by their forces, you have units trading blows back and forth.
I also think it makes battles tactically more interesting because you can't have a dozen units gang up on a single tough unit, and have them all escape without a scratch if they take the unit down first. With counterattacks, you're going to lose some of those forces or at least have to heal. Plus this might encourage hero vs hero combats being that you lose nothing if your hero survives(except some healing time), which perfectly fits in with the theme.
Sounds like a bit of x-com / fallout / Age of Wonders / Champions (P&P) systems. Definitely an excellent group of systems to draw upon. The thing that worries me is clearly explaining how it works in the already busy GUI, because it really is a lot of numbers and stuff.
Maybe having a graphical bar across the bottom displaying the unit's total action points and then as the unit moves, casts, etc the bar empties so people can see why they can move and attack 3 times but only move twice and attack once.
But as a system, it's a very good approach. Explaining it at a glance.. that's hard.
maybe this has been discussed else where, but here goes.. im not sure i like having to hit the turn button after moving all my units only to have ai move or attack then repeat. id much rather there were continuous turns based on something like initiative or mabey combat speed, per unit. only example i can think of right now would be final fantasy tactics. i think tactical battles would flow much better this way, plus make it more of a thought provoking process. the way it is now you can always move all your units to the best position in your first move, and theres nothing your enemy can do to prevent it. you never really have to addapt to the unexpected, i find my self just reacting to my enemies move as a whole rather than having to wonder what one specific unit will do or can do next. any hoo just my too cents.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
