I actually love a lot about elemental. The point of this game is not imho, settlement management and economics, but a War of Magic. i'm not too fussed about the ai issues, but for me the game just doesn't get the war or the magic right in a way i find satisfying. most of this is imho down to fundamentally flawed game mechanics.
the biggest problem with combat at the moment is the concept of combat speed. for those of you who don't understand it (and i don't blame you), combat speed is the only stat melee units posess other than attack, defense and hit points. when the stat was first described it was as a way of modelling powerful creatures like trolls, who could make many attacks in a round. the problem is that the combat speed pool is also used for moves and spellcasting. as well as weapons increasing your combat speed (and allowing you to make more attacks) it also allows you to make more attacks and cast more spells. ie, buying a mount lets you cast more spells and equipping short sword lets you make more moves in a turn. this leads to situations like this:
https://forums.elementalgame.com/393547
clearly this is a messed up situation.
combat speed doesn't even succeed in it's main purpose, which is modelling different weapon speeds and creatures who can attack all around them at once. when you're choosing weapons to equip, comparing an attack value to a CS bonus is incredibly difficult to do, forcing most players to "wing it" rather than make a educated decision between the two. similarly, the way that heroes are given the option to increase their own combat speed on level up is incredibly confusing and unintuitive. anyone who looks at the dialogue knows what strength and constitution will do, broadly, but weighing increasing strength vs increasing combat speed is very difficult. i've no idea which is better, but i bet that whatever the difference is in the long run is ridiculous. that the same stat represents attack speed and movement rate mean that, effectively, a unit that can attack enemies on all sides is exactly the same as a fast unit of cavalry
fortunately the solution is really rather easy. please sign this petition if you agree that the stat system needs to be changed, even if you don't like my solution.
the differences the game models can, in fact, be modelled without the creation of any new stats.
combat speed as it stands is not combat speed. it is an overall pool of points that is used for all actions. so call it something appropriate, like Action Points (i will use this name from now on to stop confusion)
currently all attack actions have an AP value of 1. this is the value that should be changed by weapons, not the overall pool. do this. this way a weapon with twice the attack speed really does mean twice as many attacks and nothing else
AP should not be a value that is increased by mundane items, or slected to be improved on level up. it just doesn't fit in with the other stats here. it should automatically increase as you level up at a fixed rate and as units are given/achieve higher experience, thereby removing the level up dilemma. this also means an equal rate of improvement for melee and combat sovs. spells and items may also improve this stat as presently.
finally, movement.
each unit already has a unit stat for strategic movement. some have argued that there may be a case for slow strategic units having high tactical speeds. personally i can think of no examples for which this would be appropriate. please suggest them if you can.
if you model movement like this, then you satisfy all scenarios without creating extra stats. it also means that most default speeds will remain as they are. only the higher level, more exotic scenarios are changed (and for the better)
every unit has a speed (like at the moment). infantry default to 1, cavalry to 2 and so forth.
on the world map, units move 1 + their speed in each turn
on the battle map, moving a square costs 1/the unit's speed in Action Points and a unit can move up to speed+1 squares in any given turn.
so, assuming a standard 2 AP (and standard attack speed of 1):
infantry have a speed of 1 and move 2 squares per turn on the world map (as present). on the battle map they either move 1 & attack 1, move 2, or attack 2
cavalry have a speed of 2 and move 3 squares per turn on the world map. on the battle map they either move 3 (as they hit their max moves, and then have 0.5 AP left over), move 2 and attack 1, or attack 2. so their attacks are unaffected by their mount.
this way, only the abilities intended to be affected are affected and every stat does exactly what you expect it to with no bizarre consequences. granted, the system is quite low resolution (ie, reducing AP even slightly for armour would cripple infantry units), but given enough variables it can become a more continuous system. you could also allow a limited number of AP to be carried over into following turns to work out the remainders. spellcasters can only ever cast 2 spells per turn when stationary, until their level increases their AP to 3.
how does this system sound?
I agree with this. The most jarring issue for me is, as you said, the availability of increasing my combat speed when my sovereign gains a level. Your solution of having CS automatically increase at a fixed rate is exactly the one I was throwing around in my mind. Good stuff.
Yeah, an AP system would really help this game's tactical combat out a lot. Like in the old Final Fantasy Tactics.
And perhaps making "difficult terrain" use up more AP, thus enabling you to create bottlenecks or penalizing otherwise completely advantageous defensible spots.
Why is there only stats to put points into? I don't want to turn this into a fallout game, but some perks at certain levels or for large amounts of points would really spice things up.
Some examples, just shooting from the hip;
Camouflage - Costs 3 points, makes the recipient gain 25% defense against ranged attacks.
Stealth - Costs 4 points, makes it so that recipient ONLY cannot be seen from more than 2 tiles away
Drill Sargent - Costs 4 points, when stationed in a city, troops are trained 10% faster.
I dunno, just something to break up the 'level up - buff speed/essence in order to spam vigilant defenders or AOE spells' monotony...
While I agree with most of your post, I know of a big example of such an unit: scouts. Items like traveler cloaks and boots effects can be explained by an increased stamina, which allows scouts to move farther in a single turn because they can walk for much longer before being tired. So only a strategic movement increase, without any effect on tactical battles.
But since scouts are an exception, not a rule, these extra move on the strategic map could be implemented as a special ability instead of having to split move speed into 2 variables.
@ wayninja: yes i like feats/perks too. but first i think a good stat system is required. being able to tell everything about a unit from a glance at it's stats is far preferable to having to read loads of perk descriptions. when things can be done within a stat system they should be; ask any warhammer player: they all HATE special rules.
@ Ephafn: you're right, the scout speed boost could be easily attached to the kit you equip them with.
Signed
I'm still leaning towards using the strategic speed for movement but I wish I could find a better AP based system that unifies combat actions to one stat.
Even spell casting should be affected by the CS penalties of full plate, which isn't possible in an AP hybrid system that uses up say 50 % of a unit's CS for a spell.Same with bows. If their rate fo fire is never affected by full plate then you can indeed make them use 100% of their turns CS for one shot. But I feel that it should be affected.
One possible solution:
Funny thing - that's pretty close to the MoM system. They had the same problem with combat speed, you see. =P
And if the single stat is kept, make diagonal moves worth 1.5 pts, to make it meaningful for a tank to cover a squishy in tactical combat.
GReat IDEA!
Or even better get rid of Square tiles in tactical combat and replace them with a hex gridmap.
Brad doesn't like hexes. (and there are reasons for that beyond personal whim = )
It's not happening.
And since we're dealing with fractions anyway, it should be 1,414 not 1,5. =PRight now you can move to any square with 0,1 CS. That is silly. It should require at least more than half of the CS to "regularly" enter the square.That would... reduce... min/maxing exploits like units with exactly 2,1 CS because that gives the most bang for the buck.If you had 2,6 it would be "more or less okay" to move 3 squares. Close enough, at least...
But "difficult terrain" - by all means. That and localised defensive bonuses for said difficult terrain make up the core of such tactical combat.
Some good points made in this thread.
Best regards,Steven.
I agree with the OP completely, plus i would really like to see the "difficult terrain" implemented as suggested above
Even if you assume they wanted to change that, the technical work involved now that everything is built (and designed artistically) for square tiles is huge. It's highly unlikely, and given the option it's not the area where the work would do the most good anyway.
In regards to combat speed, yes. It needs to die. There's been a lot of ideas posted for better systems.
While I agree that Combat Speed would be better served by calling it Action Points, I don't think it necessarily needs to "die". There are many tweaks that I think could make it better and more interesting, but it doesn't need to go away completely, because a lot of what has been suggested can be done with the current system with some base modifications. Changing it completely would probably do more harm than good since you would have to rebalance an entire new system. Let me give some examples:
Say you want to make the cost of movement across different terrain cost more/less AP. You can do this with the current system by giving units more AP in total, and have it cost 2 AP on normal terrain, and 3 or 4 AP on harsher terrains. So if someone starts with 10 AP, they would be able to move 5 normal squares, 3 difficult squares, and 2 very difficult ones. Mounts can reduce the AP cost to move by 1, this won't let them attack more often, but will let them move further on the same AP. Same with skills like sprint.
Similarly, you could give equipment negative AP values (except for special magical equipments), so as to represent their weight or difficulty to wield. Thus, if you wear heavy armor and use a heavy weapon, you won't have as much AP to move or attack as many times. Assuming 10 AP like before and each attack takes 4 AP (and can only be done if you have 4+ AP left), if you use a dagger (-1AP) and light armor (-1AP), you'll be able to hit twice. If you use a sword (-2AP) and no armor, you'll be able to hit twice as well, but if you use anything heavier, you'll only be able to attack once. Of course if you have to move, you'll only get 1 attack, or perhaps none if you move too far. Thus, you could have powerful heavy weapon (IE: Lord Hammer) be very hard to use (-5AP), so that it can only be used if you're standing still. If you move at all, you won't have enough AP to attack that turn. This will also force the unit designer to only use light armor with Lord Hammer troops. because if you use heavier armor, you won't have any AP to attack at all, unless...
Using this method, you'll inevitably end up with some AP left over at the end of the turn, these AP(s) can be saved for the next combat turn to emulate a "wait" option, which will by itself introduce some new factors to tactical combat to make it more interesting. As long as you put some limit on the max AP you can save for the next turn (say max of 5AP, or 50% of normal AP), you won't run into the problem where people waiting all the time, and allow those heavy armor Lord Hammer troops to save up enough AP to attack after 2 turns, or a light armor/weapon troop to save enough AP to attack 3 times.
You can also make counters needing a certain amount of AP saved (like 2), so you won't be able to counter if you go with an all out attack. With that, you can have special abilities that reduce the amount of AP needed for counters to make unique countering troops. Etc, etc...
... as you can see, there are a lot of things you can do with the current system that doesn't require a complete overhaul behind the mechanics. If anything, I think the main problem with tactical combat atm is that the combat field is too small, thus limiting the complexity of available strategies.
I wrote the following a while ago which appears relevant here....
Issue
Currently speed is a major issue - picking up a short sword allows you to move quicker.
There are significant speed levels that are far more advantageous (2.1 much better than 2.0)
Proposal
Use a single action point resource (AP's) with a fixed amount per turn (e.g. 60 - you could think of these as seconds)
This replaces the current combat move bar.
Let the weapon determine how many AP's are taken up by an attack
Let the model determine how much a move costs in AP's (based on combat speed - possibly modified by local terrain)
Let the spell or othe special action determine how many AP's it takes (stats could modify it)
- this should address issue 1
You can take action provided you have action points left, but when you go negative this gets carried over to next round
e.g. you have 10 AP's left and do a move that takes 30 AP's - you are now at -20AP's you you can't do anything else. At the start of the next turn you get 60AP added to your total so you start the turn with 40AP's.
second example - you have 10 AP's left but decide not to move. The 10 AP's don't get carried over so you start with 60AP's
This allows for a more continuous feel (7 moves over 3 turns rather than 6 or 9) and therefore addresses issue 2
It also allows for other features
Counterattacks could use AP's (if a unit is under attack by many units it could get pinned down) also makes engaged units more difficult to move which feels right.
The possibility of actions which span multiple turns (e.g. epic spells)
Defending against missile fire could use AP's (same reason as above)
Wounds could affect AP's (less recovered by wounded units - so moves slower & attacks less)
Leaving the square adjacent to an enemy could cost AP (simulating Zone of control)
CS definitely needs a rework, that much is sure. I like most of the op's ideas.
Some good ideas in here with the AP pool. It would also be more easy to interact with moral issues (armies with low moral would take a AP penalty). I also agree on the rounding. I have found myself making units to boost CS just over the next whole number in order to "steal" an extra move or attack. I typically equip my early heroes with weapons that increase CS (staff). They don't attack anyway and the extra actions are what I am after to ensure I can double cast spells as needed. I also absolutely stay away from anything that has CS penalties as well.
Actually, FFT was much more complicated than just AP.
Each unit had CT. When CT hit 100, they could act.
Moving OR Acting left a unit with some CT. Doing both drained it out. Doing neither didn't take much at all.
Each unit had a Speed rating. This is how much CT is gained with each "tick".
Also, casting spells had a CT associated with it. So some spells, like Flare, would take much longer than, say, summoning Shiva. Most attacks were instant, but some, like Jump, Aim had CT as well.
Each unit also had a fixed base movement, which could be increased by certain equip (usually boots). There was no cost per panel cost to moving like in Elemental. Each unit got one move and one action and could do either in any order.
And I agree - a system like that would be AWESOME. I love FFT's combat system. Combine the fact that your attacks could smack friendly units (or heal enemies) and the Brave/Faith system. You could really feel the difference between a fast unit like Thieves or Ninja vs slow, powerful units like Dragoons or Knights.
What's scary is Elemental COULD actually pull this off with what it has in the game. STR = Brave, INT = Faith, "Combat Speed" would just be Speed. Change it so each unit had fixed movement and one move, one action. Heck, could even flesh it out more - DEX helps defense. WIS helps magic defense. And change the turns to be based on a CT type system instead of "All my guys go, then all your guys go" And definitely do away with the "I can pick the order I want them to act in"
I'm getting excited just thinking about the possibilities.
I think it's doable, to have an AP system where plate could affect casting, while simultaneously avoiding the whole "cavalry attack faster than infantry, and guys with swords run faster" problems. This is more or less a repetition of other posts, so I don't claim full credit, but the idea is:
-Everyone gets similar AP, say 2.0
-Everything has a flat (not percentage) cost: i.e. 1.0AP to attack, 2.0AP to move a tile, 2.0AP to cast, and so on. Those specific numbers may not work for balance reasons, but you get the idea.
-Items modify certain costs. Dagger might give -0.5AP cost per attack, not affecting movement/casting/etc. A hammer could be +0.5AP cost per attack, horse is -1.0AP cost per move, and so on.
Now, all that is pretty basic, little different in practice from the various AP systems that have been discussed to death. The key, and the solution to your plate-casting-penalty dilemma, is this:
-Items can modify multiple costs. For example, each piece of plate could give +0.1AP to attack, movement, and casting costs if that's what you want.
[Not to mention the excellent idea posted previously that actions should require at least half their total cost to perform, i.e. no moving unless you have at least 1.0 AP left - that's a basic balancing change that should be made no matter what combat speed system we end up with.]
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
