What the title says. Tactical battles are so simplistic that designing a specialized unit is, well, not really even possible. If I'm aiming for autocalculation, I design for getting the most efficient "unit weight" for my buck. If I'm designing to be effective in tactical battles, I just pile on as much whoop-ass I can. Get a new tech? Add additional increment of whoop-ass to all newly trained units. What. A. Timesink. Isn't this what we were all dreading from the start might happen? And now that Stardock has changed their tune on the significance of tactical battles, we can continue to expect unit design to be meaningless.
This theme runs throughout Elemental and is the biggest persistent flaw. There are plenty of decisions to make, but very often there are a few obvious "best" decisions" each game or, at the least, the best decision is very obvious. What does this leave us with? Lots of busy work.
Personally, I think unit design beyond minor cosmetics should be left to modders and the game should return to Master of Magic's tried and true method. First, make tactical combat meaningful. If you have to, go ahead and just plagiarize Master of Magic's tactical combat to a tee. In other words, give units conspicuous special abilities that have specialized relevance on the battlefield. Then, add plenty of core units in the game that certain races and civilizations have access to and that become unlocked when you gain a special resource or a certain tech (or can be hired as mercenaries as special moments). Then, use the modding tools to create a vast resevoir of unique units that can be shuffled into each new game to fit certain "niches." Some games you might see Lizard Man Spear Throwers show up at your city. Other games you might see Gnoll Grapplers trudging through the country side.
As of now, however, explicit unit design in Elemental is a drag and a source of imbalance: another feature that produces a burst of intrigue within a casual onlooker, but damages the game.
I have been enjoying the heck out of this game...but, people are 100% correct. The lack of flavor is the critical deficiency. We need special abilities for tactical battles, and traits (possibly retinues) for character cards, and something to flesh out dynasties such as true succession.
I agree with special abilities. Also, character attributes make no sense - there should be less of them and they should have an impact. I'd get rid of charisma and replace it with a feat or something similar.
Another thing that bothers me is AP cost for movement? Why is movement more expensive than attack yet moving around hardly matters?
No, you are wrong. it's not color it's mechanics. Combat doesn't have to be complicated to be fun (and as you noted if you don't look at the details in MoM and EWoM it looks similar). But one is fun and another is not what is the difference.
1) There are almost no damage spikes in MoM once you look at stats -> you have fairly accurate estimate of what will happen. It bring tactics and not just a luck
2) It was varied, while spearmen and swordsmen does look similar but one with better shields and attack. Swordsmen had big shield which protected from arrows - very good and specific role. (that's just 2 starting units the farther you go more cool stuff you get)
3) Magic played big role - hence Master of Magic, at the any stage of gameplay. And it was varied - not just dmg and summons, but various buffs (with various effects), enchantments, debuffs on enemies etc.
4) There was place for little guy and big guy - how cool was superelite soldiers, they could stand toe to toe against even strong magical creatures.
5) Tactics was varied, the way you fought against Rjak (death mage) was completly the different as you would against Tlaloc (warlord)
6) Heroes were cool with various abilities, and they were able to live long enough to be really handful at the end
So no it was not just bells and whistles (color) graphics are abysmal compared to nowadays situation but gameplay was great
I think separate stats would be way too complicated, but I agree with what you are saying. A simpler way to do it is just to have a much wider range of traits that a unit has. Keep simple defense, attack, and basic resistance. Instead of adding more stats, add traits. A trait might give a certain unit EXTRA defense against arrows or EXTRA defense against fire spells. That way we aren't bogged down by 12 or so statistics.
Unit design and tactical battles both need more meaningful decisions and trade-offs.
As others have said, these items were rushed. They work, but they're not done, not in terms of long-term replay value.
I think the special abilities should be combined with the weapons as D&D 4.0:
Blunt: The targets AP are reduced by 50 % for 1 turn.
Slashing: The targets HP are reduced in the next turn by 50 % of the damage, that penetrates the Defense.
Piercing: The Defense of the target is reduced by 50 % for that attack.
All units are the same thing with different number of points. You can't design units with any special abilities. If with could design units with special abilities (like the special attack of fire elements) then we would might have something.
Would like to see combat a little more like Disciples I & II, where special units have special attack abilities.
Tech: Thiefs Guild
Building: Thief's Guild
Unit Type: Thief
Special Abilities: Hide, Steal, Ambush
Hide: Unit becomes hidden (can't be seen or targeted by range weapons)
Tactical Combat
- Ambush (if hidden, will attack (Ambush) any unit that comes within range with 3x damage)
- Steal (gold, weapons, poitions etc.) from units vs. attacking target.
Strategic Map
- Ambush Unit can hide on map and attack (Ambush) passing units (like Caravans)
- Steal (gold, weapons, poitions, resources etc.) passing units
Well that's quite unbalanced
But in general yes, that's how it should be done.
Here is what I'd like to see to make the unit design more engaging and worthwhile:
Greater visual customization. Put in alternate models/colors for armor pieces and weapons and let us choose between them. Just slap a little arrow on the bottom right of every item button in the unit designer and have it be a drop-down menu where we can click and select what stat-identical version of the item we want. I want helmets that obscure faces, and armor that can be gleaming, battle-worn, or dark and menacing.
It's been said before, but special abilities and traits for constructed units. There are lots of ways to implement these. Some can be item-specific. A warhammer gets Power Strike which does damage + knockback, a high quality shield might let you adopt a defensive stance by forfeiting your move for massive damage reduction. Some can be learned. If the unit has personally killed enough wild spiders, they should get some kind of Nemesis: Spider trait that makes them more effective at it in the future. If they kill even more wild creatures, maybe they'll get some kind of unit equivalent of Dungeonmaster that makes them effective against every creature. This last one improves not only the unit designer, but tactical combat. It gives an added reason to shepherd and guard specific units, and to employ tactics to bring someone in for a kill.
If you have built specific buildings or unlocked certain technologies, you could also choose to have units trained in specific abilities from the unit design screen. As a trade-off, they could be trained in maybe 1 or 2 abilities and each one increases the training time required.
It would also be nice if we could design units of recruitable races (Drath, Ogre, etc.) at increased cost (because of the need to specially forge and train things) just for a little diversity. I'd also be game for spider/shrill/etc. barding to make them a little more viable and defensible in the later game.
This one is less important but hey let me ride those giant spiders.
I have not gone through all 59 replies here but I tend to think the main issue is that the tactical battles were really an after thought during beta. Beta was really only about a month on that section when for many it is the most important aspect. More time was taken on the unit design I suppose but without meaningful application of player designs, both aspects of the game fall a bit short. IMO, you add more polish to the tactical battle system, you will probably see more benefit to unit designs.
I am glad they did not listen to you about the getting rid of TB. I would not get this game if it did not have TB. If I wanted to play a non-TB game then I would get CIV5. Even in it's simple form I much perfer having TB in Elemental than not. I hate Auto-combat and will never use it no matter how much time may be saved.
I would really like a wide variety of training options. Such as being able to train a units basic stats. And then add special abilities but have what special abilities are possible based on the weapon/armor types the unit is using. (Or make the cost change depending) But adding too many abilities should have a multiplicative effect on training time and cost. So you can create a unit maxed out with every ability but he'll spend 200 turns in training and cost you 4000 gildar and he'll lose to the 150 peasants with hammers that your opponent trained in the same amount of time.
All the devs need to do is look at all the special abilities that both AOW:SM and MOM had for thier units and put thos into the game. When you research a certain Tech this would give you this ability.
For example if you have researched a tech that gives a reach weapon (Polearms - Spear, Lance, Glave, Pike etc) then you get First Strike. And a bonus against Calvery units.
You could research a Magic tech that would allow you to equipt units with Entangle, or Cold Strike etc.
There is no limit to the abilities that the can put into the game.
I want both. Combined they will be great.
It's been said before, but special abilities and traits for constructed units. There are lots of ways to implement these. Some can be item-specific. A warhammer gets Power Strike which does damage + knockback, a high quality shield might let you adopt a defensive stance by forfeiting your move for massive damage reduction. Some can be learned. If the unit has personally killed enough wild spiders, they should get some kind of Nemesis: Spider trait that makes them more effective at it in the future.It would also be nice if we could design units of recruitable races (Drath, Ogre, etc.) at increased cost (because of the need to specially forge and train things) just for a little diversity.
I agree, and I think the future of unit customization/diversification in Elemental will probably be through items. The Elemental lore is spelled out, so adding unique mystical units per factions like minotaurs, stag beetles, etc. probably wouldn't work with their lore, plus it's a lot of work to have all that artistic flavor added in, so we're probably left with the "peasant-armies" for the long-term.
However a lot of special abilities can be added through the weapons. Having power strikes, cleave, etc. are good but I think some magic should be added to the weapons. Eg. Cleric staff that has bad att stats, but special ability it heals a few hp. Fireball staff for a ranged magical damage attack (not cast by sovereign). Some sword of hitpoint regeneration, a shield of arrow resistance, robe of invisibility, ring of true sight. Imagine having several shields to pick from when designing a unit: 1. high def value 2. arrow resistance 3. magic resistance 4. reflects a portion of damage to melee attacker 5. reduces damage from swords/axes. Then it actually 'matters' which shield is picked according to your strategy as opposed to maximizing attack/defense values.
Tech tree's would probably need to be reworked and some exclusivity per faction as to which items they get. But overall the factions could become as differentiated as they were with the MOM racial abilities (or make completely different abilities). For example, MOM's dark elves have a weak magical attack, or troll regeneration, can be mimicked by adding regeneration to all of "Umber's" armors for example, or adding a weak magical attack to the weapons of another faction.
One of the issues I see with having abilities tied to weapons is that, I'm not sure how good of a visual indicator the battlefield graphics would be to let you know what exactly the enemy unit can or can't do. Telling the difference between an elf and a dwarf is easy in other games, but here you'd have to see if a humanoid is wielding a dagger, a sword, or a mace, etc. which makes it tougher to spot. The unit cards would probably need att/def values and some icons for the various abilities and maybe some other kind of visual aid to make it easier to spot equipment.
MOM as well as AOW who mimiced a lot of what MOM did both have a host of special abilities that units could have which so far Elemental does not have.
So I think the consensus is that Tactical Battles should utilize special abilities. If units have special abilities, perhaps tied to different weapons and armor, then tactical battles would be much more interesting.
Hmm just want to say to OP that unit fesign to me is one of the best features of the game... can't usually wait to see what new things i can make, and whther it's worth it in terms of materials.
Agree with the Op but I would really argue that the base game needs a lot more customization rather than leaving it to modders.
The ATK vs DEF unified stat system is far too simple to ever give decent deep tactical combat or even varied army building strategy.
GalCiv has a deeper damage and defense structure simply with the basic 3 types of weapons and defenses and this structure is what makes the unit design not just useful, but fun.
There is a reason that RPG's and fantasy games have different damage types, different armor effects, and loads of special abilities: These are the things that make your character/faction different, unique, fun, and allow the player to identify with them. Without it the experience is far less immersive.
Also some abilites that are good may also have a downside to them with Weaknesses. Such as Towershield providing 6 def but -2 att and or reduction in either speed and or AP.
On a similar note, your race choice is effectively pointless. Not only is there no mechanical difference, but you'll so very rarely see the graphical one too. I loved how in MoM your race choice really changed things. Stuff like Draconians flew and breathed fire, Dark Elves all could shoot magic, Halflings were lucky, and so on. Having innate bonuses for each race would help in making faction creation a little bit more interesting. And if your base race has more abilities, that'll help transfer over to the units you make, so this isn't quite as off-topic as it seems .
Yes right now the only racial ability that makes much difference is the +10 HP bonus for the Wraiths.
I think this is an great idea. If we claim a recruitable race, we should be able to use that race as a base for customization rather then just building the stock units. Maybe some units should also double as mounts. (I would love to put a Drath on a dragon mount ).
I like the unit design feature. I think it has a ton of potential once developed more.
Yes, I imagine it is fun for a lot of people, but the "cool effect" has no bearing what so ever on the balance of the game. Of course I would like the idea of having unit design be balanced and relevant, but I'm not sure its possible. Ironically, having too much control in a game can actually destroy the breadth of strategic options that a game offers and can instead add a terrible amount of tedium.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
