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 thoroughly enjoy the proposed Action = Move system. I think it would provide a lot more flexibility.
In order to keep cavalry from being too obnoxious, give a person riding a horse a combat speed penalty. That way if they have 6 moves, they are not attacking 6 times in one turn.
I tend to like this idea. I think counter-attacks might need a little number tweaking, though. A unit with 1 move and 2 combat speed would be able to counter-attack 4 times? That's a bit much, considering that our armies will be capped by logistics. I like combat speed determining how many attacks you can do, but it seems too powerful for counter-attacks.
The otherall mechanic, though, I think would be pretty fun.
I apologize, I cannot seem to get Block quotes to work properly, therefore quotes will be small, bold, italic in the following text.
Below is the system we intend to implement and we look forward to your thoughts on this: When a unit attacks another unit, that units gets to retaliate (if it can) against the unit that attacked it. Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed. Moving a tile uses 2 action points. Attacking and casting a spell uses 1 action point. The placement of units on a map will be based on the the composition on the units going into the battle. Units will have various special abilities (that's why the action tab looks so blank right now).
1.) Definitely necessary. In my opinion, a unit should be able to retaliate up to its Actionpoint limit - retaliate should cost the same as attacking, and be taken out of the defending units next turn. That way a unit can always defend (even if it just moved across the map), but it is also possible to lock down a strong unit by throwing lots of little pests at it.
2.) Action Points = 1 + combat speed is good, however this should be separated from 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.
2. and 3.) If you want to limit strategic movement, but enable lots of movement in tactical, make tactical movement 2x strategic movement. Or multiply strategic movement by a certain percentage of combat speed to arrive at a comfortable tactical movement speed.
If this is not acceptable, I hope you go away from 2 AP per move (which would result in immobile plate wearers) and go to 1 AP per move, 2 AP for woodland, hills, swamp, etc.
4.) Sounds good
5.) As I detailed in https://forums.elementalgame.com/388257 I would prefer an Army setup screen that we can use to turn a heap of units into an army (which does not lose cohesion when entering a city) that comes with pre-determined placement. Positioning should be influenced by the strategic map only in so far as to determine from which angle armies attack (and even that might not be necessary - the standard 'Attacker on Left, Defender on Right' would be awesome.
6.) That's cool, but please (as mentioned by another poster above) list AP cost and total available AP.
And by a way of review of current 3B tactical combat: I feel units start too close to each other (attacker to defender) and aesthetically I would prefer a 'left to right' setup as opposed to the current 'top to bottom'.
I'd rather have a system more like Dungeons and Dragons, to be quite honest, so you'd split your actions into Standard, Full-Round, Movement, etc. So you could do a Standard Action and Movement Action, or two Standard Actions, or two Movement Actions, or a simple Full-Round Action. I'm not fond of Action Points as they work right now. I'd rather, say, have a separate movement speed with a separate combat speed. Combat speed might affect things like initiative, and possibly a chance to do multiple attacks against a slow opponent.
Gargoyles = High movement speed/low combat speed.
Hobbits = Low movement speed/high combat speed.
This sounds like a very good way to handle this.... lets run this puppy up the proverbial flag pole and see if it waves!
I think at some point there should be the ability to "set your composition" before the battle commences.
That way, there could even be a little composition strategy (like place your archers all on the right flank, where a large cliff is, so they can attack while no enemy can climb the cliff, but must move around)
Okay let's look at this as a session to identify area's of public perceived weakness. Without the need to redefine the wheel in the process.
Q: What is it we need to accomplish in combat?
A: Have a system in place that is both easy to use, makes sense, and feels fun and logical.
Proposed ideas, have been
The interesting thing is, in both cases they are semantics. They do the same thing. With different words.
The key pieces then is to express the differences. Movement should be separated from the number of attacks, as envisioned by Frogboy referencing Sauron.
Sauron didn't move a lot in those opening sequences. He strode forth. (Move Action). Ended adjacent to an enemy unit. And because he had a fear aura about him he was able to attack without the good guys getting an counter attack action. And he did this several times. Using an attack action to attack a square containing units of troops. In some cases he was able to shift between swings. And that last part isn't an absurd idea.
But I think that would of been more for a special ability in this system. Normal units, can attack a number of times equal to their combat speed. With the attacks broken up between moves. As long as there are movement points available.
So a knight group, is adjacent to a group of goblins, they attack, the goblins if any survive counter attack. But assume they all died. The knights still have 1 more attack available. (Their combat speed determines the number of attacks.), so now they use their Move action. To move up one square adjacent to another unit of goblins. The knights attack, dealing their damage. The goblins counter attack, dealing "Their" damage. And the knights are finally done their turn.
Now... Sauron on the other hand. He's got say a 3 combat move. And a 5 combat speed (which translates into 5 attacks.) So Sauron uses 1 move to go 1 square. Ends adjacent to three units. He attacks each unit once, dealing the brutal damage. And in each case he wipes out a unit. He has the option after each attack to move another step if he feels inclined. For now, he wipes out the other two units, moves another square up, and uses another attack wipes out that unit, uses his final move, steps up and uses his final attack to wipe out another unit.
So that puts us at phase one. Classification. Which would work better, and more intuitively. In each case, they function similarly. Action points with move and attack do face a bit of an issue with explaining themselves in each part.
But maybe a Hybrid version.
Movement should be pulled out and separated from the rest of the action point tree, or reduced to costing 0 points. But allows you to move up to your Tactical Combat Movement distance. Which you can do at anytime before or after any other action?
So take the Sauron example. He's got a Combat Tactical Move speed of 3. At anytime he can use up to 3 of his movement, including the minimum of going 1 square at a time.
Heck you could even represent that with a physical Bar of action points. Up top you've got red bubbles representing the number of "Action Points" you've got to spend per that unit's turn. And right below that bar, is a blue a number of bubbles representing the movement available at any given time.
So that way it's easy and visible.
And then with a UI box indicating your actions. Move, Attack, Cast a spell, Use an item, Ready an attack, Charge.
(Charge would be a special one, that as you move, it applies a bonus to the damage of an attack performed for every square extra beyond 1 that you have gone. And at the end of the charge, you still have a number of attacks available depending on your Combat Speed).
Hmmm this latter one here seems to do the job, without the worries of a Cavalry unit having super movement and then each movement point being somehow translated into attacks.
Just that each unit should have movement points. And Action points to do things like cast and attack, and ready attacks as triggers, and using items, or powers on the items.
(Sorry if some of this seems disjointed, I was writing this in between solving problems as they crop up here at work.)
i believe that your action points should remain a base amount, HOWEVER i think that weapons, armor, spells and other modifiers come into effect as you use them. this means that equipping a sword that gives you a bonus to your combat speed DOES NOT change your combat speed. but when you attack it requires more or less combat speed to attack based on positives and negatives. example.
i have a combat speed of 4. i want to move 3 squares and attack a unit.
scenario 1: i have on full plate armor it has a combat speed penalty of 1. the unit is 3 squares away. i can get there but i can't attack. it used all my AP just to get there.
scenario 2: i have on full plate armor it has a combat speed penalty of 1. the unit is 3 squares away. i have a short sword of blinding speed. it has a combat speed bonus of 2. it takes all my AP to get there, but since i ended up adjacent to the enemy i can still make 2 attacks to any unit that is adjacent due to the bonus from the sword.
in short this way if you are encumbered you still won't be able to move that far, but you will be able to attack if you can make because you use up ap as you go, you also GET AP as you go if the equipment, enchantment etc allows for it.
all you need to do is have a visible AP counter that will deduct as you perform actions. example: a sword icon will show attacks left, a movement icon will show moves left, etc.
this is deep, it will allow balancing to be made on units such as archers(as i said earlier a bow will have a attack speed penalty, this will allow them to move quickly, but not have many stationary shots)
Um, why not just use the amount of moves units have on strategic map also in tactical combat, and combat speed as a number of attacks? That way you could get that heavy cavalry with lots of moves and few attacks, or a berserker with less moves but no armor and many attacks. This may be a stupid idea, since I haven't had a chance to test the newest beta yet and therefore have no idea what the tactical combat even looks like, but thinking about a simple solution this came to mind. And it leaves the problem of what does using items/special abilities cost? Well special ability=attack could work in terms of cost at least. Just a thought. I think this is basically now starting to sound like the hybrid idea by Gorstagg
The key thing is to differentiate Overland Movement on the big map.
And Tactical Movement, on the battle map. And should also be indicated that way, on the character stats page.
And then the heart of tactical combat comes into play.
Let's assume that the action points go into place. That movement is separated out between movement actions, and all other types.
Then we need some clarity on. Combat Movement. Combat Speed... too many words that are similar.
Let's change it..
Battle Prowess, and that number with a baseline of 1. And then all the things that affect that, dexterity, etcetera, speed of the weapons, and so on. That would indicate the number of attacks a person could make per turn.
Because it is all semantics and vernacular.. but Battle Prowess will confuse people less and then you could treat the title of Combat Speed, to determine their actual movement. So it's intuitive, and less confusing.
So I would propose, changing the name of Combat speed as it exists now to Battle Prowess.
And combat movement could be retitled Combat Speed.
Let's look at an example.
Peasant.
Then take a look at.. it.. suddenly it's completely clearer to an observer.
They know it's movement, they know the number of attacks it has. They know how strong it is and how many hit pionts it has. They also know it has no other special abilities. And that it has no spells it can cast.
And it's less confusing. And feels useful, like looking at a battle card, knowing the stats, and expectations and then can move it into position.
And now when you choose a high damaging weapon that reduces your Battle Prowess, down to a minimum of .1 with it always rounding up to the nearest whole number. (Or not depending on what feels right when testing.)
What do you guys think?
but there is no good reason to do that
mounted units move fast on tactical map AND strategic map
footman move slow on both
the final system should follow this logic
I like it Simple yet effective.
yeah after i thought a bit this basically solves most of problems
the only problem with this system is that attack speed then becomes TOO strong if you just multiply your attacks without having to use those points to move
also lets not forget you can use attack speed to cast spells etc
this is also good
with this cavalry move fast on both maps but cant attacck too much cause of combat speed
huge fiery beasts can have both high and so move fast and attack a lot
also you can have some real good kiting like a mounted unit with 4 move and 2 attack speed who can move 1, attack and move back 1, hit and run
sounds really nice from a first thought
Number of action points it takes to counterattack = Half that to attack
not sure about this, maybe you should reset AP even in enemy turn and just give the unit same counterattack than attacks
you cant really have a xcom like combat cause xcom was all based on guns and hidden enemies etc etc
Yea, I pretty much agree with it.
The one Caveat, perhaps, is that you could have Movement (Strategic Move), and Speed (Tactical Move).
Cavalry would probably give ... like +4 Movement, +2 speed, and +1 Finesse
...
While ring of Uber would give +0 Movement, +1 speed, and +2 Finesse
(Finesse = combat speed)
....
meanwhile Heavy Armor would mainly effect speed (and slightly effect finesse), and Heavy Weapons would mainly effect finesse (and slightly effect speed) and movement would remain unaffected.
@Gorstagg
This might work, but it wouldn't have the choice of "Should he move one square or should he attack twice".
AP = Combatspeed
Move = fMovementCost (Base=2.0, Fast Horse=0.5, Fast runner = 1.0, Flyer = 1.5 etc. Lots of things can change this)
Attack normal = 1 AP
Attack for dual wield = 1.5 AP - DEX/60 up to a min of 1.0 at 30 DEX (if anyone can reach that)
Attack for 2H = 1.5 AP - STR/60 up to a min of 1.0 at 30 STR (if anyone can reach that)
Spell or Ability = Every Ability and most spells should have a predefined cost, which maybe INT can improve.
Counterattack subtracts 0.5 for normal attack and 1.0 for 2h/dual of either this turn's AP or the next turn's. So if you want to save AP for the next turn, you might not want to spend all AP this turn. THe STR/60 and DEX/60 will also decrease this for 2H and dual, down to 0.5.
The reason why I think these should have different values, and thus be different is. That strategic level movement is an abstraction of actual distance travelled. While tactical combat is a smaller arena, and has different mechanics.
Further enhanced movement options. And can represent different types.. overland movement and battle movement. So the War research that unlocks Advanced Movement, may only apply that to overland map movement. Where it makes sense to duplicate a higher speed due to the size of the maps. While on the tactical battles you don't need to showcase all that speed at the same rate, due to the maps being smaller, and the stated goal of having the fights get right into it.
That's what popped in my head as a counterpoint to your thoughts on this.
Yes Gorstagg ... our thoughts are *almost* identical on this
Overland movement (I called it movement)
Tactical Movement (I called it speed)
and Weapon Speed (I called it finesse)
what I would like to see is adjacent armies joining the battle like in AoW 2.
This is a fine system, but how do you show the points to the player? To a12 year old who is bad at dividing numbers?
I think the math is good, but it can't be presented this way. Even for us good at math, you don't want to have to do a lot of multiplications/divisions in order to know what you can do.
Such a system should probably be presented like having Combat Speed points, 1 attack = 1 point, 1 move = (combat speed/move speed) rounded to the nearest (highest?) integer.
Retaliation is a must.
Attacking should cost 0 at the end of a move (charge). This may not be for all units (special ability) and may have a drawback (in which case the charge would be optional), but it would really make it harder to wait for the opponent to come near and then strike him down thanks to higher initiative.
Dominion's way of lowering defense of units that are ganged upon is something I like a lot, although it goes against the über unit like Sauron in the movie killing everyone around him (although in Dom, super combatants do wipe the battlefield all by themselves).
That sounds like a great ability, as a special ability that can be unlocked, and trained from the tech map... hmm...
So, here are some ideas:
Archery:
- line of sight, obstacles
- damage is reduced per range
- time for reload for some weapons (crossbow etc) costs movement/action points
- attribute for "the critical hit" - this is a low percentage possibility to hit where there is no armor (perhaps also for melee combat)
- different heights of attacker and defender result in bonuses etc. (also for melee combat)
- a command where you tell your unit a target and a line of fire, so that this units automatically aims on that target as soon as this crosses the line of fire (perhpas you and your unti have to learn this. Only veteran units are able to do so and you need to have an intelligence value of some kind)
Retaliation:
I like the Imperialism II system: You have to prepare for counterattack and that costs a movement point. So to be prepared you have to spare one movement point or you won't retaliate.
- different units retaliate a different number of times (like HoMM there are units that retaliate every time, some don't at all (too slow), and so on)
Command ability:
I really would like to see differently qualified leaders. You could do this via level and intelligence (see above) but that does not feel realistic (so a high level magician would be a good general?) - Did you think about some kind of attribute system like in HoMM (tactics, logistics, different magic schools, trade expert and so on). This would add to the roleplaying aspect of the game. I want magicians, thiefs, warriors, generals, healers, business man...
I very much like the idea that combat speed simply decreases the number of points required to attack.
All units could start each turn with say 50 action points. By default normal movement costs 25 action points, attacking / casting spells costs (50 / combat speed) action points, so two tiles or one attack per turn per unit as a starting point. Then you have combat speed and different abilities, feats and conditions that change these values. Examples:
Well, you get the point. Really good idea this one. There are a couple of changes to the system I would definitely prefer in addition to the above.
yes on a general principle you are right
but in a fantasy world a horse is faster than a footman
both on a strategic and a tactical pov
you are right
you dont have to
but its fun!
how can you not love having horseman running and charging towards enemies?
that is only accomplished if the movement is the same on both maps(or if there is a relationship between the 2 but lets keep it simple)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
