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".
The jist of his idea is that "combat speed" becomes the number of attacks you can do in a round, and the "action points" of an attack cost Movement/Combat Speed (while movement costs 1). That opens up the ability to make units that are fast moving in tactical combat, but don't gain extra attacks due to being fast. Something with combat speed 2 can only attack twice no matter if it can move 2 or 10 tiles in tactical combat.
That I think is the fundamental issue a lot of us have with this system. It just doesn't make sense that a guy on a horse can swing a sword faster then the same guy not on a horse. Can he move faster? Absolutely! Horses outrun people. But swinging the sword faster? I just don't see it.
To get around Brad's concern you need a separate "tactical speed" stat, but TBH I think combat speed right now is overpowered since it boosts effective damage and tactical movement speed. Having a single movement stat affect both places doesn't strike me as a big problem compared to how crazy something with a high combat speed is right now (as it can either move and attack, or stand still and attack a LOT).
ps - It's great to have you in the discussion.
I just really don't like that the current system lets a unit attack often just because it is able to move far.
Totally agree. There is no reason to go for attack speed since boosting combat speed is so powerful. I'm also not sure what to think about only one move per round. I guess I'd have to try it and get a feel for it.
I really hope Tactical Battles on release or 1.0+ come together nicely. Hopefully these arn't just pretty screen shots, but rather the plan. Looking forward to seeing the end result =D
Here's some examples of Ashton's proposal. For these purposes, "moves" means "tactical movement speed", and isn't necessarily the same as overland movement speed. CS is combat speed.
Peasant: moves = 2, CS = 1. Can move 2 tiles, or move 1 tile and attack. Attack costs 2 moves.
Footman: moves = 2 CS = 2. Can move 2 tiles, move 1 tile and attack, or stand still and attack twice. Attack costs 1 move. (Would also have 2 counterattacks.)
Archer: moves = 2 CS = 1. Same as the peasant.
Horse Archer: moves = 4 CS = 1. Can move up to 3 tiles and attack (the horse gives extra mobility), but can still only attack once. Attacking uses 4 moves (but so long as you have any left you can attack, much like your 3C change).
Dragon: moves = 5 CS = 5. In this case, moving and attacking both cost 1, so the dragon can move + attack up to any combination of 5.
Sauron: moves = 5 CS = 10. Walking god of death and destruction, he can attack twice for every movement point.
Really fast scout: moves = 10 CS = 1. Can move like the wind, but isn't a very effective attacker (as attacking costs 10 moves).
The main gain here is that you can do things that affect movement without affecting combat effectiveness.
yes thats the point
while i still dont see while a unit able to move fast shouldnt on tact combat
horse fast on strategic = hjorse fast on tact
yeah this *
Specifically for LikeTheWhirlwind, this is our suggestion:
1) Combat Points are how far you can move. 2) Your Weapon Speed is how often you can make an attack. 3) A weapon speed of 5 means you will use 1/5th (or 20%) of your Combat Points every time you attack.
Everything else we've written is just the algorithms for doing it and the consequences of doing it that way. (plus side arguments about whether you should be able to line up your forces, but that's not relevant here.)
In this system it doesn't matter how many combat points you have, you always can only make the same number of attacks. What determines how many attacks you can make is your weapon speed. If your weapon speed is higher, you're left with a higher number of combat points to move around with after making an attack. Our system completely supports having fractions of movement, because the math works like this:
How many Combat Points you use per attack is Total Combat Points (i.e, the cap for the unit) divided by Weapon Speed.
Total Combat Points / Weapon Speed = points used per attack.
We also talked about weapon speed. In this system most weapons should have a weapon speed of three (up the miss chance to balance this as needed), slow weapons should have 2, and catapults should have 1. Fast weapons should be 4 and up.
Anyway that's what we were suggesting. We think it deals with the "super-calvary" and "sauron" units quite well.
What is the logic behind this?
Obviously to prevent hit and running.
Yep, this is what I was talking about as well in my earlier posts. Combat Speed should be = number of attacks & number of spells casted / turn. It would be logical to go with this system, while AP would only affect the movement points & using of special abilities.
We gonna have a retaliation system, which is a good enough counter to the hit and run tactic. + This way the combat will be less realistic + less tactical as well.
I don't know, it'll just be a different system. Not being able to move after attacking doesn't automatically make it any less tactical.
i really hate that you just cast spells for 2 turns till you are out of mana. every battle starts with MASSIVE NUKING because mages also have high combat speed and you can cast 3 spells a turn easy. there is no time limit on spell casting in fights, its just a matter of how quick you run out of mana.
this also means that whichever caster gets the first turn has a huge advantage. You could bring 3 champions vs 1 and if you dont have some sort of antimagic protection or big hp buffs on them the 1 will kill them on his first turn, pop pop pop. (this is just theorycraft natch, ive never had 3 champions. )
It's not good enough at all. With moving after attacking, you can still kite units that have fewer movement points. Hit, run away, other unit uses all its AP to chase you, hit, run away.. ad naseum. Greatly increases the amount of time it takes to finish a battle, and is a cheap and pretty unfun tactic when you're on the receiving end. Gameplay > realism.
I could see having an in-combat mana regen too. It goes in turns just like the overworld map, so it's reasonable enough for it to regen each turn in combat, too.
1) When a unit attacks another unit, that units gets to retaliate (if it can) against the unit that attacked it.
2) Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed.
3) Moving a tile uses 2 action points.
4) Attacking and casting a spell uses 1 action point.
5) The placement of units on a map will be based on the the composition on the units going into the battle.
6) Units will have various special abilities (that's why the action tab looks so blank right now).
I definitely like the Action Points (AP's) idea. It lends to that "X-Com" tactical battle feeling. AP's have been used in a Lot of turned based games. Everything from X-Com to Fallout 1&2 to RPG's like Baldur's Gate in which the AP's were in the back end and the player didn't see the actual AP's but rather saw them as a turn counter based on a invisible timer.
Elemental I believe, because of it's rich variety and the fact that it is a Fantasy game, has the chance to be truly Unique in the way AP's are handled. As the game evolves down the line we'll be seeing more and more uses for AP's and every use will have different effects and implementations. By tweaking the costs of AP's for various actions Elemental will have it's chance to stand out from the crowd, let me give some examples.
Most games handle this by having a pool of AP's and only having the costs change based on what types of actions are used. For example in X-Com, even though one soldier may have more AP's then another, kneeling or standing will use the same amount of AP's for those actions for both of those soldiers. This is how most games of this type handle this. AP's change based on a units experience level and how attributes are spent on these characters. This is the same old, same old, that fits the mold for everything because this type of system is easy to do and seen as intrinsically "Fair". I think this can be changed to add better variety and to also tweak balance when needed. If it costs a Man 2 AP's to kneel, why should it cost a Dragon 2 AP's to kneel? Especially when that Dragon is so much bigger than a Man. Maybe a Dragon should use up more AP's to kneel but also have a larger AP pool to draw from. Deciding to tweak variables by unit type will give you the ability to balance different unit types against each other and allow for a greater variety for their uses as different unit types have different abilities.
Here are 6 quick ideas based on the early 6 things you'd like to do. Feel free to draw on these and extrapolate or add ideas where needed, or to ignore them entirely and do you own thing. Which ever you prefer
Note: ALL Values below are "Hypothetical" values. For the examples given you can insert whatever values you want based on what they actually are in game.
1) I would say to have the AP's used by the unit that is retaliating come from only one turn. Either the turn in which it was attacked, or the turn after. This would add strategic depth to battles by causing the smart player to "Save AP's" for defensive actions. If I move a unit and attack or do another action that uses All that unit's APs then maybe it shouldn't be allowed to retaliate. Or if it has No AP's and it is allowed to retaliate, have that retaliation not be very successful. Why? Because if a unit is completely out of AP's that simulates the unit being "Exhausted". If a man runs for 1/4 of a mile and then suddenly has to react quickly to something he'll have a much slower (and hence less effective) reaction than if he had just been standing there doing nothing until he needed to react. If the player knows a unit will be attacked then a smart player wouldn't use up all the AP's on a offensive move unless he knew that offensive move would wipe out his enemy. If the unit is going to be attacked at the end of the turn the smart player would save AP's to bolster the units defense. Perhaps add in a modifier that converts left over AP's to a slightly higher defense rating. Example:
Unit A has 30 AP's. During the turn unit A uses 25 points in moving and attacking and when done has 5 AP's left. If the player chooses not to move unit A those remaining 5 AP could add 5 points to the basic defense of unit A against attacks during that turn. (the values are completely made up here as I have no idea how many AP's are used for what)
2) That seems like a good way to handle it. You might want to also consider tying Dex to AP's as well. Dexterity, to me at least, leads me to think that something with a higher dexterity could move a little more, and faster, than a unit with low dexterity.
3) I'd like to see the costs of moving in AP's be based on the Type of Ground being moved over. Flat grassy plains would take less AP's to move through then a dense forrest. A dense forrest would cost a different amount of AP's to move through then loosely packed snow. Etc Etc. This also lends to different types of units being able to move over things at different costs. I.E. a Swamp Dragon may only use 1 AP to move through a swamp, while it costs a Man 2 AP's to move through that same swamp tile. This way you can tie certain unit types to their favorite terrain types. Like having a Ice Golem move quickly through Ice and Snow, but move slowly if forced to travel through a desert. Varying costs per terrain type has a much better feeling to it I think.
4) How about having this be variable on how powerful the spell or attack is? The stronger the spell or the stronger the attack it will use more AP's. If a man can swing a sword and do 5 damage at a cost of 1 AP, why should a Wizard be able to cast a spell that levels a small army for 1 AP? If a Man can shoot a bow at a Dragon for 1 AP, why should it cost the Dragon only 1 AP to breath fire on the entire army? I understand the need to keep costs simple so you can balance things easily in the beginning, but, I think you could add a Lot of depth to this if you tweaked the AP costs of actions based on how strong those actions are. This also allows more variation in actions, like Mêlée attacks and "Special Moves". A Man can swing a sword normally for 1 AP, OR, that same Man can do a whirlwind attack with his sword and it might cost 3 AP's.
5) I'd like to see the player given the chance before battle to place their units where they want before the battle begins (within a certain range of course). This way I can put my casters behind my mêlée units or put my archers up front and then move them to the rear during the battle if my enemy advances. Tactical battles would need to have another "Phase" added to them called the "Deployment Phase". You arrange your units how you want them to start the battle, then you hit "Begin Battle". To give an example, the Total War games do this as do many others. It honestly doesn't matter if it's for a turn based battle system or a real time battle system. This works good for both.
6) Very cool . To give more variety to these special abilities I would suggest having the AP cost for using these abilities vary based on the ability its-self and the stats of the unit using the ability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are just some general ideas to expand upon your 6 points. I think the battle system is shaping up nicely so far. Also, the animations in 3C are much improved compared to 3B. I noticed you tweaked the animations for attacks so that both the attacking And defending unit step up to each other. This looks much more natural then having the defending unit step up to get hit. Well done indeed
You guys are doing One Hell Of A Great Job!!!!! Keep it up!!!! See you on the battlefield.
Agreed. I'd like to see that as well. Along with items that can be used like Mana Potions or Tomes or something that can be used in battle just like they can be used on the Strategic Map.
Actually, I think that would be a Valid Tactic as it's been used in real life battle situations. What's important is that it can't be Abused, not that it's not "possible". The AI simply has to be smart enough not to be kited All The Time. It does make sense though for a weaker unit to use "hit and run" tactics against a more powerful foe. As you point out though, kiting can be abused, which in a game like Elemental it needs to be kept from being abusable at All Costs.
Hmm, when I think about it, I guess I'm saying I do agree with you. It's just it needs to be a valid tactic as well. It comes down to making the AI smart enough to not fall for it in a abusable situation.
I think these are great ideas, Raven X.
Best regards,Steven.
Glad you liked them, Steven. Some of those are actually variations of ideas I implemented back in my UO days. Between the classes and different abilities and spells and items each class could use we would often have different spells and abilities that id the same exact things. The only difference was they would be named something different and have different costs depending on the class that was using them and the stats of the character. For example, a Knight in UO had no to very limited offensive or healing magics, but instead had potions or other items it could use to get the same effects as classes that could cast magic. This could be used to even the playing field between classes while keeping the integrity of the various classes intact.
Unfortunately with the accelerated time-frame for Elemental's development many of the finer aspects of costs for things, which is nothing more then another factor that needs to be balanced, will have to come later on down the road either in patches or expansions or both. Elemental has so many various options and ways to do things that balancing it all is literally a Mind Blowing and quite daunting task. Luckily Stardock has a whole Team of people working on this. If a task like this was left solely to Brad and one other guy there's no way I'd say they would be able to meet the gold date and have everything be even remotely "Fair" or "Balanced". This is where it pays off to have the Big Bucks like Frogboy does so he can hire a small army of people to crank things out at a good pace
Go Stardock Go!!!!
Great ideas but this one is especially important. Right now it is easy for a high combat speed sovereign to single-handedly win any battle by unloading spells or a ranged weapon. Bows definitely need to cost more than one AP because they are just too easy for a sovereign to abuse. Spells might also benefit from higher AP cost. Another way of solving that issue is by increasing mana cost. The basic attack spells are probably too cheap right now. I'd like to see those spells become more expensive. That way mana would have to be saved for important battles.
I don't know that limiting number of spells per turn is the best/only option, but I opened this thread intending to comment about how unbalanced magic is now. I like that it makes sovereigns powerful/deciding forces, but not every sovereign starts off with combat magic or defensive spells. You could steamroll the early game very easily--just race to firebolt and destroy everyone within walking distance.
I saw this chart on the Wolfire Games blog the other day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PokemonTypeChart.PNG
It shows how various types of Pokemon cancel each other out. Something like that, though maybe not as complicated, would help balance magic battles, I think. Give players different strategies and research paths for dealing with magic defense. So that having fire magic isn't the only way to learn defense against fire magic. And so fire bolt isn't a one shot kill against every opponent.
Short term magic shield spells would be good, too. An ice shield, for example, could protect against electricity indefinitely (or with some upkeep mana cost per turn), but get shattered by earth attacks or melted by fire. A fire shield could protect against water and ice, but only one time and the fire's put out.
I'd have to look at how other games balanced magic and play around with it for a while. Giving too many options could be as bad as giving too little. Right now, though, it's like everyone has machine guns and nobody has body armor.
At least that explains the cataclysm
How does the AI "not fall for it"? If my ranged guy has a higher combat speed then your melee guy, I win unless I screw up. You have no defense against it because you can't reach me to melee. Ever. The only thing you can "not fall for" is that it's a mistake to send slow melee units anywhere without either fast or ranged backup.
Not that I even need to move, since with the current combat system ranged attacks can be fired so many times before a melee unit can close the distance that you're probably dead anyway. But that's not kiting, that's just another oddity of the combat speed = AP setup.
Yeah somehow I knew it wouldn't end up this good looking.
Tactical Combat needs a lot of work right now, here are two issues I noticed:
These issues would be easily solved by separating the current move/attack system into separate movement and attack stats. Furthermore, Troops should start out further apart (out of range of bow fire) and each ranged units attack radius should be highlighted (on mouseover).
Last, but definitely not least: health needs to be a cumulative derived stat of constitution:
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
