The latest poll shows that people are very interested in us taking a new look at the combat system (https://www.elementalgame.com/journals)
One of the biggest complaints we have seen is that weapons are 1 D N where N is the max the weapon does.
While 1 D N is the same system GalCiv II uses, the difference is that in GalCiv, a ship might have many weapons which would tend to equalize the overall damage.
Simply put, there is too much luck involved in Elemental's combat.
The purpose of this post is to discuss other ways combat could be done. What suggestions or preferences do you have AND how would you communicate (visually) to the player how such a system would work?
Jumping in a bit late, I've tried to catchup as much as I can while at work. Dunno if this has been mentioned already. Along the lines of the setting up your troops before combat (King's Bounty, HoMM) I would really love the option for Marching Orders. This would in effect be way your Army moves as it makes it's way across the map. In the event of surprise attack or something your Army would be setup as it was in your Marching Order. This makes perfect tactical sense and I think would work quite well if a Troop Placement system is implemented.
Right now with 1DN you're rocking (something similar to) the age-old problem from Civilization 2: a Spearman can kill a Panzer. 1DN does bizarre things.
I've said this before, but it's my opinion that every strategic combat system should have these five logical, statistical premises:
1.) Attack. Chance to hit. The very first principle of combat: Did your Panzer's shell manage to hit the spearman?
2.) Defense. Chance to not be hit. The companion to Attack. The spearman's a much harder target to hit than the lumbering Panzer.
3.) Damage. What is the maximum and minimum potential damage dealt if the Attack landed? Those stone-tipped spears are a joke compared to a Panzer shell.
4.) Armor. How much Damage is negated if an attack connects. Those spears won't even scratch the tank, and I doubt the loincloths will do much good against the Panzer's machine gun.
5.) Hit points. How much Damage can a target sustain before it is killed or disabled? Arguably you could make this the same as Armor, with Armor reducing as Damage is taken, but that's a whole other can of worms that implies some kind of fatigue system. Keep it simple.
Logically, the Panzer should always win, either by killing the spearman or by forcing a retreat. Don't even bother adding some secret hidden condition where there's a 1 in 100,000 chance that the spearman wins. It's chintzy and silly and dishonest. Let the numbers do the work. Don't be cute.
These are the bare bones basics. Initiative, special traits, terrain penalties or bonuses, or other circumstantial conditions are all just gravy. They add quite a bit of depth, but they're not *necessary*.
And I'm not saying you should ignore those circumstantial conditions. Elemental absolutely should include special traits for units. You'll probably want an equivalent system for Magic that is parallel to those four basics, as plate armor preventing a lightning bolt doesn't really make sense. Initiative-based move order is pretty much expected at this point. Terrain bonuses/penalties are somewhat expected. Movement speed (how far a unit can move per turn) is expected. Line of sight and obstacles are expected. And that's just scratching the surface of cool additional mechanics you can come up with.
I think a lot of posters on this forum put the carriage before the horse. They want weather effects and invisible-life-stealing-first-striking-weapon-immune diamond dragons that can shoot laser beams out of their eyes as a free action once per round. That's great. That sounds cool. Maybe a little complicated, especially with the free action nonsense, but still cool.
The problem is, I don't think many of these suggestions realize that you have to bake boring spongy bread before you can slather icing on a cake.
1.) Base statistics should be icons equal to the numerical value of a statistic (5 attack = 5 icons) and not just numbers (though numbers are fine to include). The icons should represent what the statistic entails. Attack could be bullseyes. Defense could be... well, that's a tough one... shields, maybe? Damage could be a sword; Armor could be an icon of plate armor. It's the Simtex method. You want graphical, at-a-glance ideas of how strong (or weak) a unit is:
2.) Hover tooltips. Lots and lots of hover tooltips. You can turn them off in options.
*Hover over the word "Attack" and you get a concise tooltip such as "Determines how likely this unit is to hit its target. Attack is countered by the target's Defense statistic." Likewise for all other stats -- even something as basic as mana or hit points.
*Hover over the icons for Attack and you get an exact numerical readout. Perhaps even a "base chance to hit against a Defense of <average Defense value in a typical game>: <% chance to hit>." Again, a quick, concise, at-a-glance idea of how this unit stacks up against the "average." Likewise for all other stats.
*Hover over any special abilities and get a fully detailed explanation. "First Strike" should say something like "In combat, this unit will strike its attacker before the attacker strikes it." That's the bare bones explanation -- but do better than that. Add in a full description of conditional mechanics, such as "If an attacker also has First Strike, the attacker will attack first as normal."
Another example: If you're talking Lifesteal, be exact. "Steals life from a target if the target is damaged" is passable. "Takes 30% of the inflicted damage against a target and adds that number to this unit's hit points" is MUCH better.
3.) Tactical combat calculated tooltips. You're controlling a Vampire with Lifestealing. You hover over a Spearman with First Strike. Somewhere on the UI, you need an exact readout of Hit Points, Chance to Hit, Potential Damage, Counter-Attack hit + damage, and a description of any other circumstantial abilities that will affect combat. Basically, you want an exact tactical readout of what will happen if you commit to an action. This should include probabilities, damage ranges, and any other circumstantial effects. The effects should be fully documented.
Example (you're controlling the Vampire and hovering over the Spearman, the icon has changed to the "Attack" command icon).
Attacker HP: 4/12. Death possible! (2.5%)
Comments: HP should always show Current HP/Max HP.
Because of the Spearman's first strike, include some indication that the unit could die if he goes through with the attack. Also include the percent chance the unit will die -- in this case, the Defender has a 10% chance to hit and a 1 in 4 chance to do the 4 damage required to kill the Attacker. Thus, the chance for the attacker to die from all circumstances is 2.5%. Oh, and Red = dangerous!
Damage range should include the enemy's reduction from Armor. Calculate the exact numbers beforehand and report them to the player. Don't make the user do the math.
Attacker Chance to Hit: 85%. -- Damage: 9-12 -- Lifesteal: 3-4.
Comments: Note the inclusion of Lifesteal and the exact amount of HP that would be gained assuming the attack landed. Green = healing.
Defender HP: 4/4. Death possible. (85%)
Comments: Red for consistency, except there's a period instead of an exclamation mark. Again, the % is the chance the unit will die. In this case, the Vampire will hit for at least 4 damage, so it's a guaranteed death if the hit chance is a success.
Counterattack Chance to Hit: 10% -- Damage: 1-4. -- First Strike (this unit will counter-attack before your attack).
Comments: Draw the user's eye to the enemy's special ability using red text and fully describe the consequences of it.
Here's another example of a Spearman versus, I don't know, a Sheep with First Strike.
Attacker HP: 4/4
Chance to Hit: 100% / Damage: 2-4 / First Strike (this unit will attack first).
Comments: The Attacker's First Strike supersedes the Defender's First Strike due to the defined mechanics. Point this out by making the info green and re-affirming the Attacker will indeed attack first.
Defender HP: 2/2. Death possible. (100%)
Counterattack Chance to Hit: 0% / Damage: 0 / First Strike (attacker also has First Strike).
Comments: The sheep will die. Thus it's Counterattack stats are 0 across the board. Note that the sheep has First Strike, but gray it out (or use strikethrough) because it's irrelevant and note why it's irrelevant. (EDITs: It's hard to covey gray on this board.).
This is essentially the King's Bounty way of doing things, except with more detail and mechanics explanations and reminders.
4.) Put all the info you could ever want about combat, from a detailed description of each special ability to the exact formulas for attacks/damage/etc in the Elemental-pedia (I forget what this is called -- the ingame help).
k, that's all for now.
@Frogboy
This point may have been hammered home by this point, but separating a weapon's chance to hit and its damage is necessary in order to have meaningful differences between weapons. Damage types would add another dimension, and allow all kinds of interesting possibilities--elemental damage and resistances, chain mail and plate having separate and viable advantages, cutting, piercing, and crushing weapons being more useful against certain armor types, etc. These are the kinds of things that make a combat system robust, fun, and tactically rewarding.
Implementation of this slightly more complex system would also make the unit creation tool useful. Currently, unit design serves no real strategic purpose. It's a matter of balancing cost vs. numerical values. This means that unit creation is unrewarding, because your opposition has no impact on your strategic unit design. With damage types, and separation of to-hit and damage, you will need to take your enemies' capabilities into account, making unit design strategically important.
The simplest combat system that I would consider viable would have these components:
Attack: A measurement of how likely the weapon is to hit a target, modified by dexterity.
Damage: A measurement of how hard the weapon hits when it does make contact, modified by strength.
Damage Type: Piercing, Slashing, Crushing, Air, Water, Fire, Earth, Arcane, Poison, off the top of my head. Probably Projectile as well so that shields can bestow some archery defense... that'd make using two handers more of a tossup on value add.
Defense: A measurement of how likely a unit is to dodge, deflect, or otherwise evade an attack, modified by dexterity.
Armor: A measurement of how much (or what percent of) damage a unit absorbs before hitpoints are affected.
Resistance: This would probably work easiest as a special ability available in 3 flavors, i.e., Fire Elemental is immune to fire damage, Air Elemental to Air, and so forth. Perhaps Demons are 50% immune to fire, and units with Chain Mail are 25% resistant to Slashing and Piercing, whereas Plate Mail provides 25% mitigation against Slashing and Crushing, etc.
A system like this is still dramatically simpler than MoM's system, and more intuitive than Elemental's current system (fire spells hurting a fire elemental, wot?). It also allows for some interesting strategic dynamics. Enemies coming at you hard with masive two handed hammers? Fight back with fast, high defense low armor units and archers. Enemy coming at you with a bucket of units with heavy armor (and thus low defense)? Hit back with high damage, lower hit chance weapons. The possibilities are endless and much more entertaining than the current design metagame.
I didn't mention it specifically, but it falls under my comment about more pre-combat options. A stronger connection between what happens in the strategic level and the tactical level as well orders that bridge the two. It should make a difference that I'm in friendly territory or not. Something as simple as a morale modifier based on location for instance and marching order as you mentioned. If I can make a different on the tactical level by smart action on the strategic (and vice versa), I don't have to be stronger or win to win.
Like the economy, tactical battles have no actual "tactical" tradeoffs or choices to make.
Choose the terrain you fight on? - it makes no difference.
Choose the weapon you fight with? - certain weapons are clearly superior.
Choose different armor types? There is no tradeoff for a higher defense value.
Terrain should have effects. Fighting in a forest should be a penalty to ranged attacks. Defending on hilly terrain should be an advantage to archers. Terrain should effect magic spell types as well.
I might also recommend that characters wearing too much heavy armor get their combat movement reduced by 1. Characters wielding pikes or halberds can counter-attack before the initial attack.
Some magic spells might not do as much damage but can ignore armor (i.e. lightning spells), when trying to make things more tractical or strategic you need to figure out what the choices are and what trade-offs can be made?
I've outlined bits and pieces of my ideal combat system in other threads, I think I'll pull it all together here. That said I'm in favor of a detailed and complex system of combat which might not be popular with some people so assuming it's all possible I've got a goal for modding.
Battle Setup:
-First things first I'd like to see larger army sizes, right now the maximum is 12 units per army. Ideally this would be able to scale up to 100 or so but that would require a better UI with regard to army management.
-Due to the size of armies we would also need scaling maps, whichever side has a larger army dictates the size of the battlefield.
-Players need to be able to place their units on the battlefield beforehand, the random setup just simply does not cut it
Maps:
-As I said more maps will need to be created of multiple size ranks. These maps also need to have more tactical variance and places that are desirable to control for logical reasons. High ground, cover, concealment, areas that sap movement, provide a boost to magical power, the possible options for tile bonuses and the tactical options they provide are staggering.
-Overall map bonuses day/night, weather and environmental concerns. Cold areas could see fire magic being less effective with frost being amplified. Stormy weather enhancing lightning spells and snuffing out flame spells. Desert heat amplifying the strength of fire spells while weakening frost. Where your battle takes place should be important and this brings me to the magic.
Magic:
-Spells need damage types and secondary effects.
-More support spells both offensive and defensive.
-Most important of all, magic needs to be able to alter the battlefield. Channelers can raise mountains, volcanoes, cause blizzards and storms. All on the strategic map, translate this into the combat. Magic ripped this world asunder and the new channelers are able to reshape it at will so allow them to do so during battles. Stop a cavalry charge by creating a flash flood in the tiles ahead of them, raise the land itself to give your archers a better vantage point, create lasting storms that interfere with enemy archers. I want to see magic play a really important tactical role in every battle that contains it. These people are powerful and it should be reflected in the battles tactically.
Combat Damage and Items:
Right now as many have noted, combat damage is simply too random and combined with current HP levels on units like champions, it's quite frustrating.
I'm a fan of Hit/Miss Damage/Damage resistance for items. This creates more reason to have a varied army with light/heavy infantry, archers, cavalry, spears vs hammers vs swords and so on.
Some item examples:
Boar Spear:
Damage: 5 (Piercing)
Defense: +5 (Due to reach)
Grants Ability: Spear Wall
Crit x2
Max Targets: 1
2h Warhammer:
Damage: 20 (Blunt)
Defense: -5 (difficult to parry with)
Attack: +10 (able to put all strength behind the blow and aim)
Combat Speed: -1 (slow lumbering weapon, high damage to compensate)
Grants Ability: Stunning Blow
Crit x3
Max Targets: 2
Leather Armor (set)
Slashing Resist: 15%
Blunt Resist: 20%
Pierce Resist: 5%
Lightning Resist: 10%
Fire Resist: 5%
Frost Resist: 10%
Defense +10
Grants Ability: Evasion
Plate Armor (Set)
Slashing Resist: 65%
Blunt Resist: 30%
Pierce Resist: 10%
Fire Resist: 15%
Frost Resist: 15%
Lightning Resist: -10%
Defense: -10
Combat Speed: -2
Grants Ability: Hold the Line!
Tower Shield:
Piercing Resist: 60%
Defense +15
Combat Speed -1
Attack -10
Grants Ability: Shield Wall
Ok so hypothetical situation here:
12 spearmen in leather with tower shields vs 6 hammerers in platemail
Assume the base attack/defense of all units is 50
Assume combat speed is the number of actions you get per turn as well as the number of counterattacks you get per turn
A critical hit is achieved if the difference between your Defense - attack roll is equal to half your attack score.
Spearmen have Attack of 40 and a defense of 80. Hammerers have an attack of 60 and a defense of 35. Both units have 20 hp per soldier so spearmen have 240 and hammerers have 120. For the sake of this experiment the spear group has a combat speed of 4 at the start of the engagement and the hammerers a combat speed of 2
ATTACKER TURN
Hammerers Attack:
They will roll attack vs defense for each unit in the friendly stack (I'm using excel to randomly generate the rolls)
So in this attack round the hammerers inflicted 20/20/60 blunt damage on the Spearman team.
Leather armor has a 20% blunt damage reduction so total damage inflicted is 16/16/48. Now the warhammer has a max targets of two, so in one swing it could possibly damage two units. In this case we apply 16 to one spearman, dropping him to 4, the next hammerer hits him for 16, 12 of which spill over into spearman 2, he's down to 8 and spearman one is defeated. 48 is applied to spearman 2, 8 is enough to kill him and the remaining 40 is applied to spearman 3 which kills him outright.
Spearman group is down to 9 members now, they counterattack:
This round the spear group inflicted 5/5/5/5/5/5 damage to the hammer group, plate only has 10% pierce resist so it converts the damage to 4/4/4/4/4/4. They succeed in killing hammerer 1 and wounding hammerer 1 for 4 damage.
This time the superior mobility granted by leather armor helped out the spear group and they take only 16 damage. Leaving spearman 4 at 4 hp.
DEFENDER TURN:
Spearmen group uses evasion (+10 Defense for 2 turns)
Spearmen Attack:
This time the spearman group deals a total of 20 damage, this kills another of the hammer group outright.
Hammer group counterattacks:
While the evasion didn't really help much in this case the hammer group misses on all counts anyway.
Spear group attacks again:
This time they deal another 20 damage killing a third hammer unit.
Hammer group retaliates:
They deal 16/16 damage total. 4 kills spearman 4, 12 carries over onto spearmen 5 and he's at 8. 16 hits him and 8 carries over onto spearmen 6.
Spearmen group attacks again:
They deal 16 damage wounding a hammerer and leaving him with 4 hp.
ATTACKER TURN:
Hammerers use Hold the line (20% bonus to resists for 2 turns, unit is immobile)
Hammerers attack:
They deal 16/16 damage, spearman 6 is killed, 8 is dealt to spearman 7. The other 16 applies to spearman 7, killing him and carrying over to spearman 8.
Current Battle stats:
Hammerers are at 44/120 hp and retains 3 members
Spear group is at 88/240 and contains 5 members
Spearman counter:
Normally they'd do 12 damage but due to hold the line this is further reduced. Base damage of 5/5/5 is reduced by a total of 30% 3/3/3
9 damage is dealt to the hammerers, but since spear damage cannot carry over multiple units, it takes 6 of it to kill the 4hp hammerer and leaving the next one to only take 3 damage.
Spearman attack:
This time they deal 12 damage since hold the line remains active. Hammerer has two members remaining and one of them has 5 hp.
Hammerers Counter:
They deal 16 damage, again killing a spearman and wounding a second for 8.
They deal 6 damage, killing the second to last hammer unit.
Hammerers retaliate:
He manages to barely kill another spearman and wound a second for 8.
Spearmen attack:
They damage the final hammer unit for 3.
Hammerer is out of counterattacks for the turn and cannot respond.
Spearmen attack again:
They deal 9 damage tot he hammerer, he's down to 8 hp now, and still cannot retaliate.
Hammerer attacks:
Crushing blow used: Enemy unit cannot retaliate this turn.
He gets a fairly lucky hit and strikes down another spearman while wounding a second.
Spearmen are stunned -50 defense
Hammerer attacks again:
He kills another spearman and wounds the final unit.
Spearmen uses spear wall: (+10 defense +20 Def/Att vs mounted units lasts 2 turns, unit is immobile.)
Spearmen attacks:
And deals 4 damage to the hammer unit (hold the line has ended) hammerer is reduced to 4 hp.
Hammerer retaliates:
He misses
Spearman Attacks:
And he hits for 4 damage, killing the hammer group at long last.
Now obviously the numbers can be tweaked, I just kind of threw them all together at random for this mock battle but it should be able to convey the kind of numbers I'd like to see backing the combat system. I'd also like to point at out that the training techs could easily allow you to train units with higher attack/defense skills as well as hp, that would've changed the outcome of this fight quite easily. It might also be a good idea to make the attack/defense rolls a bit less random by having a minimum value as a % of the total added in, just to normalize the results a bit more.
Special Abilities:
-No doubt you noticed that I placed special abilities on the items and armor sets that the units in my fake battle used. This is something I'd like to see for pretty much every weapon/armor combination so that there are more reasons than just damage to design a unit. Currently unit design is pretty bland and the only real concerns are what you can afford that has the highest #'s I'd like to see that change. Variety is the spice of life right?
-This feeds into champion development as well, I'd like to see champions able to pick from a list of special abilities based on their "class" in the game as they level up. They also need some more HP in order to survive in battles with units that are composed of 12 soldiers or more. Alternately they could be used to command units, say you can merge a group of 3 units into a regiment led by the champion himself, granting bonuses to morale/offense/defense/etc.. based on the skills of the hero. That way you can build up combat champions or commanding champions in addition to mage champions.
Combat Phases:
-I don't particularly care for an entire side going at once, frogboy posted in another thread the possible new system of splitting the turn into 10 more turns or phases then allowing actions to occur on certain phases for the different combat speeds. Combining that system with my damage system would likely work very well with a few tweaks and I like the way they were going with combat phases. Just thought it needed a mention here.
Movement and animations:
-I'd like to see a continuous animation system so when two units are engaged in combat there is a fighting animation that continues while it isn't either units turn. Ideally once a melee unit engages another melee unit they would be "stuck" in combat and would not be able to retreat without penalty.
-This goes hand in hand with the previous suggestion but the animations for combat with multiple soldier units should reflect that kind of fighting, one guy walking up and smacking them is kind of odd to see.
-All movement and combat animations need to have an option to be sped up if people want to do so.
-Have the option to plan movement ahead a few turns and a visual representation on the map of the planned path so you won't have to move every single unit every turn all the time.
I know this is a gigantic post and I doubt anyone is going to read the entire thing, but if you do, let me know what you think.
A better summery of was I was saying, thank you.
There's such a huge disconnect between what I'm doing on the canvas and what I'm doing on the battlefield. It doesn't matter that I'm trudging through the desert. And it doesn't matter if I 'ambush' someone or get ambushed. It doesn't matter (other than healing) that I have a good supply chain.
I just want to quickly add that if the devs are reading all of these, I feel your pain. There's a lot of good ideas but some of these sounds like it'll need a new game and a half to implement.
I am a big fan of Gnilbert's ideas. They create a much more dynamic and interactive combat experience. Gnilbert's ideas seem to be developed with implementation in mind. There are many great ideas out there, but no all of them are practical from a development side.
We need to see more ideas, like this, that are not only well thought out, but reasonable to implement in game.
I'm largely repeating things that have been said, but the important changes to me would be:
Split up attack chance to hit and attack damage into 2 stats.
Split up chance to dodge, amount of damage soaked, and magical resistance into 3 stats.
Have spells to buff and debuff all of these stats. Blind, Weaken, Bless, Strength, etc.
With the implementation of a global mana pool and upkeep, I would like to see the ability to cast persistant buffs on a stack for upkeep.
Magic should be highly reliable with low variability of damage. Magic is supposed to be the heart of the game, right? The force that creates or destroys existence? Against a wolf or a group of 3 peasants, there should be a 0% chance that a fireball will Miss or do 1 damage. Against a magical creature like a dragon with a high magic resistance stat, low damage or zero damage with a "Resist" message makes sense.
This all allows for greater variety in monsters as well. Things like darklings that "cannot be the target of offensive spells" should simply have a very high magic resist relative to their level. Agile creatures like wolves have relatively high dodge chance but zero damage soak. Stone giants have zero dodge but 70% damage soak. Etc.
And above all, greater transparency of the mechanics of all of these things. Like someone else said, tooltips, tooltips, tooltips. The more informed that I am, the more I feel that I am making Important Decisions instead of just "this stack has the highest attack number, I'll use him."
Get rid of 1dn, replace it with separate "to hit" and "damage" rolls.
Heavier armored troops should be slower (movement wise) but obviously have a higher DEF. Heavier weapons should be slower (action point wise) but do more damage.
Positional bonuses (flanking).
Make bowmen, infantry and cavalry more distinctive. Cavalry should be able to charge (bonus to damage after movement?), whereas infantry should extend "zone of control" that prevents movement or enables automatic counterattack.
More battle music!
If you could release some modding integration for custom AI personalities I'm sure the modding community would love to help provide multiple challenging AI opponents. The modders would eventually challenge each others AI personalities in games not only against humans, but other AIs to determine which are the most powerful AI personalities.
IF you build the modding integration for custom AI personalities... they will come.
I don't think the personalities are an issue so much as getting the AI to usefully asses its/its enemies status, and take appropriate strategic actions.
Each unit has a base Initiative score. At the beginning of the battle the unit gets a Battle Initiative of their Initiative score plus a random number (ties go by Dexterity and further ties go by random). Each turn starts with the unit of higher Battle Initiative and ends with the unit of lowest. Recalculing Battle INitiative each turn wouldn't be crazy and can add some nice randomness too.
Each unit has X action points each turn. Actions go from moving to attacking or casting a spell, and usually cost a single action point. The units don't need to spend any action point every turn. Units cannot counterattack unless they have action points remaining or have a special skill that gives them counter attack.
Terrain affects battle (movement, cover...).
Units with (quite) more individuals (and/or size) than their opponent(s) (of same or less size) have penalties when attacking and defending (12 humans vs 1 human). Bonus against units of bigger size (4 humans vs 1 Dragon).
Unit can have skills by themselves and/or by equipment. From spears giving first strike against cavalry units to tower shields giving more defense against arrows. And skills that allow to regroup broken units, to counter attack extra times...
Formations.
Tactics phase before battle to deploy your troops in your "initial area". (or maybe a skill for a champion that does that... something along those lines anyway)
And most importantly a nice log IN battle to read everything that it's going on no matter if you payed attantion to the screen or not.
Just my uninformed opinion.
You're going to hate me, Brad... I like Dominion's combat system. It's hideously complex, because the computer can do the work, and includes some of the following:
Longer weapons can "fend off" shorter ones - if the shorter weapon attacks, and the longer weapon hits, the attacker has to make a morale roll [and take a point of damage] to even swing.
Shields have an armor value, high, that adds to the armor value IF the parry happens. (again, this is a chance-to-hit/damage system, and shields block damage when they work.)
Your defense lowers against every successive attack, so enough people attacking will eventually land a hit- and possibly a critical.
Rolls are 2d6, exploding, added to the base value. So attack 10 vs defense 20, you could still hit if you got one or more 6's on the original roll, cause the 6es would turn those dice into 7-12 [or more!], so you could plausibly roll a 16 (for a 26 total) and the defender could roll low 2d6 and get a 5. Likewise a guy with a spear (13 base damage) COULD damage a stone golem (30 armor), it's just incredibly unlikely. This gives good results in 100-vs-1 fights. Giants predictably squish individual heavy footmen if they land a blow, but they're outnumbered 6 to 1...
Morale leads to fleeing. Fleeing leads to getting stabbed in the back. Armies took most of their casualties when routing, just like reality.
This one's probably not doable in game, but Dominions you only got to do base army setup and script some suggestions. The troops on both sides were computer controlled. Which means, of course, "Equally stupid."
Probably not also interesting in this game: some injuries healed and some didn't. One-armed crossbowman? That's a guy with a knife and bad armor. Godling loses one eye in a fight? That's bad. Lose the other eye? That's REALLY bad. (giant spiders could "lose some eyes"- this game tracked how many limbs and eyes each character has, giving correct results for cyclopes, regular units, and 8-eyed critters...)
On a smaller scale of changes, I agree with many of the above posters - attack and damage separate, attack speed and move speed separate, many more possible specials (firebreathing flying Draconians?) I'm not sure I agree that "magic should be predictable" - magic being hideously UNpredictiable and powerful is traditional. It only started being predictable when they made wargames like Chainmail, where wizards were direct stand-ins for artillery units. I don't know if big randomness is compatible with having savegames, though.
After playing a lot of Elemental, I've come up with a lot o things from other places that I'd like to see in the game. A lot of these have been mentioned before, so if so, please simply consider them to be a +1.
Ideas, in no particular order:
1. To hit roll - modifiers (magic like displacement, agility, etc)
2. Damage on hit (die roll+modifiers) - Defense modifiers (damage resistance from armor, magical protection, whatever)
3. Clearly obvious effects of bonuses in the UI. If piercing weapons matter, let me know about it when I'm looking at weapons, when I'm attacking, etc. Mouse over box for bonuses and resistances to everything on units in tactical combat
4. Clearly defined effect types (magic, physical, fire, water, earth, air, evil, good, life, death, etc)
5. Magical items having affects on this stuff. Ring of +1 to all elemental resistances, whatever
6. Unity of scale. I have trouble telling what "awesome" is. Clearly defined limits of things would help get an idea of where you are in the grand scheme of things. In D&D 2nd Ed, for example, creatures don't have more than 400hp. I think the scale should be smaller than it is now. A +1 to hit should be a fairly big deal, even late game. Or your cool magic rings and whatnot don't matter much. If the scale is going to keep getting better, and you can only wear one ring of a particular type, you'll need to be able to make/get better rings of the same type. +5 Ring of Damage, etc. Deciding how big a square in combat is, might help, too.
7. Bonus definitions. I'd really like to see a definitive list of what bonsuses there are, how they stack, how they don't stack, what maximum values they can have if any.
8. More versatile spell effect shapes: Square (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, etc), Radius (3x3, clip corners to make round effects), Cone (generally triangular, expands wide in two directions), Line (2x4, 1x6, etc). This would greatly increase the versatility for different spells to be put into the game, Fireball (round) Cone of Fire (5 square cone), Burning Hand (2 square cone) Polar Ray (1x6 line)...you get the idea.
9. Combat ranges. If I have a big honking spear, let me strike from two squares away. If I have a bow, clearly define the range. Six squares, etc. A good way to control weapons is to keep the ranges interesting. Have a reason to have a pike, a bow, a sword, an axe, a warhammer. Remember, 5 guys with swords are really scary 10 feet away, but a 5 guys with longbows is a lot scarier. Ranged weapons were invented for a reason, the SHOULD be really good. Counter this with heavy shields. If someone is behind someone else, they were be a penalty to hit him if he's the same size, say 50%. That means you can have heavily armored shield wall guys with bowmen behind it, or even casters.
10. Combat abilities. Charge (attack in a straight line on a horse), set for charged, whirlwind strike (hits guys around you), overrun(knocks an opponent back one square), leap attack (attack with melee weapons from two squares back), acid breath, fire breath, daze, dominate, confuse, entangle, etc.
11. Simultaneous combat based on Initiative: in MoM, in a melee, both guys attacked. This happens, now, but the attacker always goes first. Have a roll (to simulate the randomness of combat) with a unit's combat initiative bonuses. Whomever rolls higher with bonuses goes first. This makes combat equipment matter. A short sword strikes faster than a longsword does. This makes having quick skirmishers matter in the game, rather than biggest weapon wins.
Hope this helps.
I think the attack should be called damage and the defense should be called resistance, too. The damage could be the same as in version 1.07 if the damage of mid and late weapons is lower. The resistance should reduce the damage by a fixed amount and if the damage is lower than the resistance there should be a "Resisted" on the screen.
With these changes the combat will be more tactical and the HP will be more important, but the Constitution should increase the HP at every level after the first (perhaps Constitution / 5).
The new tactical battle system sounds great, but i hope you will improve the effect of the morale in tactical battles, too.
@Boltcutter
Yeah, DomIII's combat system is awesome. It really strokes my grognard the right way... wow that sounds wrong. Something on that scale would be ideal in a dream game, but frankly I'd just be happy with what I and others have outlined above. A simplistic system, but one that is infinitely more nuanced than what we currently have.
Yep, yep. The Doms 3. system is excellent indeed.
Note regarding dmg types & resistances - Damage resistance should be a "natural" ability [Ex.: 20% Res. to fire] and armors should "offer" damage reduction.
This may or may not be a really long post. Everything upstairs isn't quite working out visually.
Defense.
You have a dodge in there already, but it's a yucky implementation. Armor, aside from the craptastic roll method, is just what it should be, a damage reduction. The numbers need work, total absorbtion should be more difficult than it is, but the principal is good.
Expand upon dodge, it becomes evasion. Heavy armors should come with a detraction to your agility. Weapons should have parry bonuses that only work in melee, shields would block ranged attacks as well.
Offense.
Weapons need two ratings, an attack rating and a damage rating. A catapult is much harder to aim than a crossbow, but if a rock does land on you it's vastly more damaging than a bolt.
Strength should be a modifier for weapon damage and agility reductions from armor, Dexterity a modifier to your base evasion and the other weapon functions..
This will open up unit design to a more diverse platform instead of demanding that I equip units in full plate if I want them to survive.
Instead of rolling damage versus armor, roll to hit. Design a strike range system and work the attack rating against base evasion with parry and block modifiers, only block for ranged of course. The lowest values miss, the highest values are criticals with damage multipliers, armor piercing qualities, things like that. You then take your strength modified damage value and alter it based on the critical before accounting for armor reductions for a final damage value. You can actually differentiate between weapons in a meaningful way. An axe could have a massive damage boost for a critical strike, blunt weapons could stun, rapiers pierce armor.
Clock cycles are measured in the Ghz now, it's silly to be using a system so simple that even table top games have surpassed it.
Pacing. It blows. This is probably a shocker since no one at Stardock wants to play tactical battles as far as I can tell, but it's way too fast. This might have been a joke, but I think it's probably just my mind trying to deny a superiority complex. I probably have one.
Your AI sucks so hard over the damage values because it can kill itself in one round, not because it might every so often but because it's the norm. You have a unit with 12 attack, 5 defense, and 8 hitpoints. What can you expect but a half dead to dead unit after that first strike? Then it has two more. If they used armor in liberal amounts they'd at least get somewhere, but they're undervaluing it severely. This is the sort of result we should see in a game on the scale of Total War, which conveniently enough is what I was originally expecting so if you want to scale the size up instead I'll be more than happy.
Hit points should be much larger than the typical damage range. The guy with a claymore and no armor should be chopping unarmored people in two fairly often via critical strikes, but only extremes should be at the rates we're seeing these days. Two well armed and armored peons should have to trade quite a few blows back and forth.
Damage application, and I'll just stay away from the visual of two idiots from two groups duking it out all by themselves, is stinky!
You need splash damage. Not area attacks that hit multiple tiles, but splash damage within those individual tiles. One guy whacking away at a squad with a sword should be killing exactly one man when they do more damage than one man has heath for, and not a single point more! If the guy is some sort of super buff guy that cuts down more than one person at once, there needs to be a separate accounting for that. When a dragon breaths fire over multiple tiles, it should be individual damage, not squad based damage. When a dragon heats the air up to 1600 degrees, being surrounded by other marshmallows doesn't save you. Dragons should have splash damage, the guy with a pointy stick should not. This of course also means that individuals in a group should have their own discrete hit points. Those individual should also individually roll for defending.
On something like a catapult shot, assuming it hits, you could have the whole squad roll individual evasion checks. Everyone that fails got squished.
Ranged mechanics! Line of sight. Physical realities should always be observed where applicable. Magic fireballs do not fire through mountains any more than arrows do. You cannot aim at a unit you cannot see. Shots should have trajectory, it's 3D after all. A catapult would be an arced shot. It can fire over obstructions. Ranged weapons like bows can also fire in volley over other targets, assuming they can see them. Such a mechanic should come with an accuracy penalty(much harder than throwing darts) in return for the increase in usage. Direct fire should always run into whatever unit is in the way. Yes, I'm advocating friendly fire too. If there is a unit in between your archer and his target, there should be a big chance your shot hits the other unit. Unit density or creature size should play into ranged accuracy. It should be nearly impossible to miss 12 man squads with a ranged shot. You have 11 targets for your miss to end up hitting.
We also need army placement. I'd like stealth troops and ambush functions when an enemy passes adjacent an enemy army with special rules for placement that lead to a proper ambush as well, but some sort of army placement system is necessary.
Such systems will lead to army design actually having thought attached to it, and you can write an AI that does things like put other units in front of it's champions so I can't fire off a dozen damage spells on the first round and kill it.
Without reading any reply...
I would like to point out, that two most common things, which people are complaining about combat are:
1. Randomness
2. Seperating movement and attack points.
And its no wonder. randomness is good for replayability but it must be within certain boundaries. Combat must be somewhat predictable, so people can actualy use strategies and planning.
For seperating action points to movement and attack. That system is simply more flexible and allow better balance and customizing units.
Anyway, there is much more to do. I am in a favor, of dmg reduction from the stats instead of chances. Simply because, one can plan his moves in advance.
There is more things to do, like ressistance stat and other. But I would like to see at least those two. Seperating actions into two pools. And less randomness from the combat.
Purely from a combat perspective, I think most folk will consider this too weak and mild, but I think one way to consider replacing 1DN -- and I'm a fan of XDN (multi dice) ideas myself, but think this is interesting to consider -- is keeping the 1DN system, but modifying it such that every level of the hero/soldier increases the minimum (but not the maximum). This adds something of a degree of both realism and balance to the current system, and also increases the value of levelling up your soldiers ... for now, soldiers are mostly just something to build to ensure your military points aren't too low ... you have to keep disbanding your soldiers since you can't upgrade them; the current system offers little value to giving your troops field experience. This idea of mine I think would help make giving your non-hero soldiers experience, I think, a hand up in relevance/importance.
At level 1, a hero or soldier has the unfortunately possibility of only doing 1 point of damage with a sword that, say, does 1D10 base damage (just for the sake of an example). That's terrible! But think of someone picking up a sword for the first time and trying to attack an enemy ... they don't quite have the moves down yet and while its not too hard to touch a sword to an opponent, if you don't really know how to use it, you might not do enough damage.
To show this out as an example (the actual formula could be redone of course), I'll run some examples using the formula based on this of:
MinDamage = MaxDamage - ( MaxDamage * 1/Level )
With a weapon that does 10 as MaxDamage, this works out thus:
Level 1: MinDamage = 10 - (10 * 1/1) = 10-10 = 0
Level 2: MinDamage = 10 - (10 * 1/2 = 10-5 = 5 Minimum Damage
Level 3: MinDamage = 10 - (10 * 1/3) = 10 - 3.3 = 6.7 Minimum Damage
...
Level 10: MaxDamage = 10 - (10 * 1/10) = 10-1 = 9 Minimum Damage
Past the point of when Leve = MaxDamage, the return is too diminishing, so maybe when Level is not less than MaxDamage, either keep it as MaxDamage-1 as the minimum damage and a limitation of the weapon, or offer a bit of extra reward for higher levels with the weapon by adding BonusDamage in attacks which would add to the actual damage done and could then exceed the weapon's MaxDmg (well, that plus the strength modifier) thus:
BonusDamage = ( Level * ( ( Level / MaxDamage ) - 1 ) ) - 1
Level 11: ( ( 11/10 ) - 1 ) - 1 = (11 * 0.1) - 1 = 0.1 (this would be a bonus to add to the actual damage, which if fixed to the same formula above would wind up being between MaxDamage-1 and MaxDamage, or 9 to 10 in this example case ... adding in the bonus, it would then be in the range of 9.1 to 10.1)
Level 12: ( ( 12/10 ) - 1 ) - 1 = ( 12 * 0.2 ) - 1 = 1.4 BonusDamage
Level 13: ( ( 13/10 ) - 1 ) - 1= ( 13 * 0.3 ) - 1 = 3.9 BonusDamage
I hope its at least an idea to consider. It makes retaining troops a bit longer more useful, and makes them more useful for levelling up non-hero troops; it works for heroes too, of course.
For a major overhaul, I would really like to see a We-go system put in place as described in various threads.
For a minor change:
1. Lower overall attack values. Right now, combat is too deadly. It would be nice to have a few rounds of fighting, so important units have a chance to retreat when hurt.
2. Raise HP (mostly for heroes). Also, allow heroes to fall unconscious at 0 health, but not die until they reach -10 or maybe -con.
3. Average the damage with 1/2 the attack value. For example, a unit with an attack strength of 20 would calculate the damage per the current system, and then average that value with 10. Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/2))/2
Implement heavy, medium and light weapons by changing the formula slightly. Light weapons would also tend to have slightly higher AttackValues to compensate. (Hits more, but for less damage)
Light: Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/3))/2
Medium: Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/2))/2
Heavy: Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue*2/3))/2
Basically, the formula would be: Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue*X))/2
Where X = 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3 for light, medium and heavey, respectively.
Note, an (attackRoll - defenseRoll) equal to zero now hits. Negative does not (even though the formula says otherwise)
4. Make all weapons and armor only subtract action points, heavier items subtract more. (Why does a shortsword make you move/cast faster?)
5. Make Movement cost (2 / strategic map movement value) action points. (If you really need strategic map movement to be different, then make a strategic map only movement bonus ability) I'm guessing it will be rare.
6. Have option to Speed up/Skip animations. Have spacebar (or another key) skip any current animations
7. Add TAB key functionality to find unmoved units
8. Add option to fight the tactical battle after seeing the results of autoresolve. This might be (more?) controversial, but I like to autoresolve fights when they are forgone conclusions since i like to attack with overwhelming odds. Sometimes, I misjudge or get unlucky, and I lose a unit. Those seems like the most interesting fights to actually play, so I always feel like I missed out on an opportunity for fun. If you don't like the idea of getting two chances, at least show the likely results of a fight. (Maybe run the autoresolve a few times and average the results)
Honestly, I would say just simplify the combat system to a straight-forward Damage rating Vs Armor rating system, and place a stronger emphasis on Total Action points, as well as the action point cost of attacks. In other words, if your unit has a damage rating of 10, and hits a unit with an armor rating of 2, then the total damage you would deal to your opponent with that hit would be 8.
Here's an example of the kind of units you could create with that combat system :
UNIT 1- Soldier
45 Health
10 Damage
2 Armor
6 Action Points per turn
Cost of attacking = 2 AP
The soldier is an all-around average unit. He can attack a good number of times per round, though not as often as the rogue. He has some armor, though not as much as the crusader. His damage per swing is higher than the rogue's, but less than the crusader's, giving him a decent balanced role on the battlefield.
UNIT 2 - Crusader
60 Health
20 damage
4 armor
Cost of attacking = 4 AP
The Crusader has high hitpoints, high damage, and high armor, but can only attack once per turn. This makes the crusader great at killing fast-hitting targets such as the rogue, great at absorbing damage, and good at dealing damage to targets with high armor ratings.
UNIT 3 - Rogue
30 Health
5 Damage
0 Armor
7 Action Points per turn
Cost of attacking = 1 AP
The rogue, while having relatively low hitpoints, no armor, and low damage per swing, has a high damage potential against lightly armored targets and medium armored targets because of his ability to attack many times in a given round. This unit would be less effective against highly armored targets, however, because each individual attack is for a low damage number, and thus, is more easily mitigated by armor.
UNIT 4 - Archer
25 Health
8 Damage
1 Armor
3 Action points per turn
The Archer has solid damage potential, and can attack three times per round, but due to their low AP generation, can not move many spaces in a turn. This, coupled with low hitpoints and armor, makes archers great at killing low and medium armored targets from a distance, but highly vulnerable to attacks from rogues.
These stats could be balanced organically by designing all items to have both pros and a cons. For example, some armors could have negative stats to balance their positive stats, so to make the units listed above, you could use some example items the the ones listed below to make the units I've mentioned above (as well as different units) :
(assuming base values of 25 hitpoints, 6 AP per turn, and the cost of 3 AP per attack, 1 AP per tile movement)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
