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?
In no particular order
- more ranged attacks
- different movement speed for different units ( a peasant should be faster than an armored knights without a horse )
- introduce bonuses for different weapons types ( a pikeman should be able to defend against a knight, crossbows have bonuses against armor, a cavalry archer can be used to kill most non-ranged infantry )
- combat spells should be relevant ( add some spell-induced terrain changes during combat )
Imagine a ( very expensive ) channeler boosted with spells being able to defeat an army in melee - you promised somebody like Sauron, but at the moment any solid stack with lord hammers means bye-bye champion.
Lost in the budget alongside the flying dragons and the levitating channelers that are actually mentioned in the lore. Simply put - 5 tech treees against actual game content.
Total War only has a handful of combat stats. Attack, Defense, Morale, and one or two others. Victoria 2 also has a handful; Attack, Defense, Discipline, Morale, Movement, and Teamwork (or something). All these stats are also broad and generalized while addressing factors other than pure equipment; they measure skill and mood. But they mimic combat far more accurately and satisfyingly than Elemental at the moment. The point I'm trying to make is complexity can build from a few simple stats; that it's better to have a few generalized stats rather than trying to account for every little detail. Having a multitude of stats is one extreme. Having too few stats is the other extreme; in this case, with only a few ways to influence the system, the system can be uninteresting and prone to mood swings, as it were.
I also did not talk about the way stats are utilized.
My point wasn't that stats and abilities were wrong. My point was that simply adding them does not magically make things better. My point was to avoid adding in stats that are intuitive but also add too much complexity and obtuseness.
I'm basically saying exactly what you seem to think I'm not - a fewer, broader stats.
There are a lot of good ideas here! I also like to see combat more complicated. I don`t know how it would work in MP. But probably you can make 2 combat systems to choose from.
Actually, Total War does have a few more stats. In addition to different attack and defence values based on type of attack and type of armour (which Elemental also has), the most important difference I think is the skill stat. Instead of simply doing (weapon attack - armour defence), the calculation starts with (attacker skill - defender skill). The result of this generates the probability of a hit or a miss, not how sharp the sword is or how think the armour is. If it's a hit, then the (attack - defence) calc is done for damage with, I'm assuming, standard normal probability. When units gain experience (level up), their skill goes up. It's more complicated than this - they use rather complicated calculations which result in more realistic battles and damage - however the player never worries about the details; you can tell by the way the 3d models are going about their combat how the calculations are being done.
Doing it this way means that simply giving a mace to a peasant doesn't mean he'll beat an unarmoured veteran foot soldier with short sword. It's no matter that a good blow with a mace would probably kill an unarmoured man, if his chance of laying the blow is only 10%.
Thats how i would design combat. I tried to KISS, but modular enough to modify each part of through traits, equipment, spells etc.
ToHit
Each creature has a base chance to hit an enemy of 75%.
In an Unit, each creature has an independent chance of 75% + (No. of Creatures in the Unit). It is a teamwork bonus that shrinks as Creatures in that Unit are slain.
Magic has a base chance of 100% - (Target Magic Resistance)
This enables:
- ToHit+ for each friendly Unit adjacent to my target enemy (flanking)
- ToHit+ / ToHit- depending on moral
- ToHit+ / ToHit- depending on buffs and debuffs
- ToHit- depending on fear effects (against demons, while under a spell, due to moral fail etc.)
- ToHit+ / ToHit- depending on Hero traits (Leadership, Reputation, Aura etc.)
- ToHit- depending on visual effects (combat in woods, in mist, in darkness; all natural or magically)
- ToHit+ for ranged combat and possible magic
- ToHit- depending on target dodge / shield block values or visibility status (stealth, invisible, ghostly etc.)
- ToHit+ / ToHit- depending on own equipment or target equipment (magic weapons, charms, equipment traits (Ranger gets ToHit+ with ranged weapons) etc.)
- ToHit+ / ToHit- depending on your and targets Dexterity value
Damage
Each Creature deals damage when it has successfully hit the target. This calculated for each individual Creature in an Unit.
Physical damage of each Creature is calculated: (STR/10) * WeaponDamage (min. 1).
Magical damage is calculated (INT/10) * (SpellDamage * ShardBonus)
i.e.
a human with STR 10, without equipment, buffs and training does 1 damage
=> (10/10) * 1= 1
a trog with STR 12, without equipment, buffs and training does 1.2 damage
=> (12/10) * 1 = 1.2
a human with STR 10, equipped with a staff (Dmg +3) does 3 damage
=> (10/10) + 3 = 1 * 3 = 3
A human knight with STR 12, equipped with an axe (Dmg +6) does 7.2 damage
=> (12/10) * 6 = 1.2 * 6 = 7.2
Berny McBurnigton (INT 15) has access to a fire shard (*2 damage). He casts ‘Crispy Chicken’ (Level 1 combat spell = damage 5) on … a chicken.
=> (15/10) * (5 * 2) = 1.5 * 10 = 15
Armor negates damage according to damage type. Every armor has damage reduction values for blunt, pierce, slash, fire, cold and arcane. To keep combat flowing armor reduces damage by a percentage (so no frustrating zero damage hits).
Leather Armor: Blunt 2, Slash 1, Pierce 0, Fire 0, Cold 2, Arcane 0
Each point of armor reduces damage by 5%.
The “human with staff” hits for 3 damage. Staff is a blunt weapon, Blunt protection 2. Received damage 2.4
=> 3 – 10% = 3 –0.6 = 2.4
The “human knight with axe” hits for 7.2 damage. Axe is a slash weapon. Slash protection is 1. Received damage 6.84
=> 7.2 – 5% = 7.2 – 0.36 = 6.84
Chicken is fireproof!!! ‘Crispy Chicken’ is fire based. Fire protection is 18.
=> 15 – 90% = 15 – 12 = 3
Number of Attacks
The number of attacks per combat turn is a flat number based on training, equipment, number of striking limbs (Hydra etc).
Each attack checks for ToHit independently.
- Dual Wield vs Sword and Board vs Two Handed Weapon
- Special training like Assassin, Bladedancer etc.
- Creatures with low damage values, that can get lucky hits (Swarm creatures like rats or bugs)
- ‘Haste’ spell adds 1 attack; Slow takes one attack, if you only have one, you cant attack next turn (but move)
Initiative
Initiative is based on (Dexterity + Intelligence)/2 and modified through terrain and actions take last turn.
Starting your turn in a swamp tile lowers you initiative this turn.
The turn after you used the charge ability, your initiative is lowered.
Haste and Slow spells modify initiative
Daggers are faster then Maces, one handed weapons beat two handed weapons
Heavy armor is slower then light armor, no armor goes first.
Move
How many tiles you can move.
Calculates from Dexterity: 1 + (Dexterity / 10), or based on creature.
Can be modified through equipment, magic and stuff.
Enables:
- Root spells and movement debuffs without influencing attacks
- Terrain altering spells that distinguish between melee and ranged creatures.
Edit: Also see here for ideas to make building armies more strategic https://forums.elementalgame.com/394684
The combat system should be simple. Look at famous games like Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Master of Magic even and Colonization. Give units a base value dependent on their type (and have LOTS of TYPES in the game) then add modifiers from equipment like +2 for magical weapons to +5 like in dnd. All other things being equal except for magic and ranger. Give bonuses for length of weapon, give first strike advantages even if on defense. Give some units counterattack abilities before they die if they suffered a death blow effect (meaning simultaneous strike). DnD combat mechanics have always been my favorite. I like THACO if anyone remembers that. Get the ATK and the DEF with all their modifiers and then just do the simple rule ATK minus DEF = Negative Hit Points with the DEF counterattack modifer causing damage to the attacker as well. Combat encounters should be simultaneous at the same time for both sides. Not side A attacks side B and side B takes this much damage. Then side B attacks and side A takes this much damage. That kind of combat has never been fair to the defensive player. Combats must be/remain simultaneous.
The ai must also be improved not to advance when on defense without surveying the enemy and its missle power.
Oh yes it will....in MULTIPLAYER! hahahaahah
total war has charge bonuses, units with both melee and ranged attack, separate defences versus ranged and melee and quite a few others (some of which are hidden). it also does not have magic to deal with. it also gets to average out results over hundreds of combatants, so individual odd results go unnoticed. nor does it have to represent heroes, which arguably requires a much more developed, d&d style stat system to make fair and interesting.
elemental needs more stats. you can't represent a war of magic with 4 stats.
NOTE: I gave a more detailed version of how the mechanics I'm stating briefly below could work HERE.Basically I think the whole problem here is that in a strategy game, you live and die by letting the player make Interesting Decisions. Right now, there are some big obstacles to this: * Combat is too random. (no need to explain why) This makes the decision the player makes less important and less interesting. The feedback (combat result) is muddled because of this, so the user doesn't get (reliably) rewarded for making a "good" decision. This makes it seem like his decision didn't matter at all. * The mechanics (though random) present an obvious "best choice." When you're outfitting your units, go for the biggest weapon and the biggest armor you can afford. More troops are generally better. That's it. As soon as you realize it, there's no decision at all, much less an interesting one. So what needs to change?Get rid of Combat Speed. I honestly have a difficult time describing how much I hate this mechanic. Essentially, you've given everyone the equivalent of a Haste spell that they can upgrade with weapons and armor. It's very unbalanced. It might not be as "realistic," but turn based combat games seem to be converging on the following idea: One main attack action per turn per unit (movement isn't a main action, generally). Basically, player 1 makes an interesting decision and then player 2 responds with an interesting decision. Right now, when one unit walks up to another unit, he attacks, and can continue attacking until he's out of movement points. This can easily be 3 or 4 times with a high level hero. And for that entire process, you've completely eliminated everything on the battlefield except for those two units - which is boring. It also makes your actual turn much longer than it needs to be while the animations play. The active player makes a very large number of decisions/actions before the other player gets a chance to do anything. I can't tell you how many tactical combats end completely before I've finished my first turn. This effectively removes the other player from the combat entirely (his troops are there, but only reacting). Damage tags/types. Weapons/troops/effects should have one or more (user defineable) tags for the damage. This could cover "impact" like Slashing, Crushing, or Piercing. It would include element types such as Fire, Earth, etc. And then you can have more interesting things like "delivery" tags: Creature, Dragon, Poison, Spell, etc. Just drop the tags in the GameModifiers that are applying the damage, and add similar tags to the defense/armor values (below). You could keep it very simple at first, while still providing a wide variety of flexibility for the modding community. EXAMPLE: The damage from the bite attack for an "Acid Drake" is tagged as Acid, Piercing, Dragon, and Creature. EXAMPLE: The damage from a fireball spell is tagged: Area, Fire, and Spell EXAMPLE: My Dragon Salyer's Shield is tagged: 10 Defense, +5 Defense vs. "Dragon," +5 Armor vs. "Fire"Better combat statistics. You need the following unit stats: - ATTACK, aka Weapon/Attack skill. This is your ability to hit accurately against a target's Defense. - DEFENSE, aka Don't get hit, Dodge, Parry, Deflect. This is a measure of how well you completely avoid incoming attacks through any means. - DAMAGE, aka How hard to you hit. This describes how much damage you do to a target when you hit. It's different from how well you hit in an interesting, meaningful way. Without a seperation between Damage and Attack, you can't distinguish between the plodding troll who swings wildly but might crush you in one hit or the master of daggers who'll bleed you out with hundreds of tiny cuts. - ARMOR, aka How thick your skin is. This describes how much incoming Damage is reduced after someone's Attack has already beaten your Defense. Seperating Damage/Defense is what keeps a swarm of rats from 1-shotting a Dragon. - SPLASH, aka How many people you hit can at once. This goes back to the Sauron example from your post HERE. Sauron wasn't moving faster than everyone else in that scene - he was hitting more people with each blow. With Splash, a unit actually attacks larger groups more easily, but doesn't get a bonus against a single model. This is ideal for things like dragon's breath, very large weapons, etc. Again, I refer you to my longer description HERE.Gnilbert
i agree with the analisys but imo its not a problem of combat speed
imo its a problem in overall balance
like max dmg being better than fast and low dmg
ofc you 1 hit enemies that cant counterattack
it was the same problem as the first combat system
imo when we see balanced weapons and RELIABLE not random armor combat speed MAYBE works
so i wouldnt shut down combat speed but first try to balance dmg and spells
when you cant 1 hit enemies and their armor actually defend them attack 3 times and getting 3 counterattacks is not going to be so great like it is now where you can give opponents 3 times 123232313 dmg with no CA
Wow this thread filled up fast
For what it's worth, here are my 2 cents...
1) Because of the way the combat system works (1dN), the ratio of damage to hit points seems to be way off.
1a) Because of this, whoever gets the first attack has a big advantage. It also leads me to game the AI, to wait until the enemy walks adjacent to me, and then smack it - especially when I am using champions (glass cannons) who could easily be squished in one attack.
2) I don't want to sound like a MoMophile, but I liked the system where each point of attack has a %-to hit, and each point of defence has a %-to block. This way, you won't have the problem where a unit with 30 atk rolls a '30', and unit with 40 def rolls a '1', and you end up with a dead unit in one shot. You preserve the randomness, because it COULD still happen, it just isn't as likely.
2a) This would also tie-in really nicely with the attack/armor types. Perhaps, if you are wearing armor that matches the attack type, you get a 50% chance with each of your block rolls, rather than 30%. That seems like an novel way to differentiate the armor and weapons.
2b) This would help mitigate the attack vs. hit points problem I mentioned in #1.
2c) When you guys get to add in more unit bonuses/specializations/buffs, +hit% and +block% would be available as additional bonuses you can add.
2d) You could also build resistance into this, where a suit of armor might give you 10 defense against a fireball, with a 30% chance to block, but someone wearing a magic robe could have only 5 defense, but with an 80% chance to block magic attacks. The robe wouldn't be as effective against swords, but much better against fireballs.
3) You may have already added this in a patch, and I just haven't noticed because I have been playing an older saved game, but I think more can be done with # of figures in a unit. I don't remember if MoM does this, but each individual figure in a unit should have a separate attack against the defender, and the defender uses its full defense against each figure's attack. That way, having a horde of peasants will work really well against other small units, but poorly against an opponent with high armor (especially if its armor matches the attack type).
3a) If you wanted to be fancy, you could also tie a unit's counterattacks, not to the number of units attacking it, but to the number of figures. Maybe the horde of peasants won't do much damage to the target, but it may distract it from the golem walking up behind it...
4) I think the attacks should be simultaneous between two units. No gaming the AI that way, and it just seems right. It also allows for a first-strike bonus for some units (MoMish, I know, sorry).
5) I think that adding iniative to the move order (based on combat speed, maybe?) would be neat, but you would need some way to track/display who has the next move, so the player (or the AI) can plan accordingly. I think the 'tactics'-style games do this.
Thank you for soliciting our input, and best of luck,
MAM
As (many) others have said, the issue is more than damage distributions. Certainly, that needs to be fixed. More important, however, is the need for more complexity and useful options on the battlefield and, therefore, back to unit design. This does not need to become a Total War game, but you do need to include most or all of the following:
1) Damage types and resistances (even it it's just physical, elemental and spirit)
2) Flanking effects on morale
3) Troop Placement (or make the default placement clever enough to put the bow-users and mages behind the infantry)
4) Tactical spells with a greater variety of effects, particularly effects that cannot be achieved without magic
Finally, as Frogboy has mentioned, integration of various systems is critical. You can't call either magic or tactical combat finished until both of them are.
Combat speed is definitely a problem. Tying together both movement and attacks into a single stat allows kiting to be far too easy to pull off. More importantly, it makes the "first strike woes" much more deadly (an extremely fast unit can charge in, attack, attack, attack, attack). As Gnilbert made clear, it's also very non-fun for the player on the other end, if it were to go multiplayer. At the very least there should be movement speed and attack speed.
Personally, I would like to see the idea of one attack/round idea implemented, with exceptions made for units with special training (enabling them to attack twice, or attack in a circle, etc).
Because we're playing against AI you need to throw balance out the window for the most part when it concerns the ai. If the game is balanced the ai will never be worth playing against. Those crying for balance are usually multiplayers and you've already stated you wouldn't sacrifice the single player experience for the multiplayer one. Balance has always been an issue in most all PC strategy games and it is what ruins most of them that follow that lie that the game must be balanced.
What favors the human must be given to the AI without cost. The Civilization series does this the best by difficulty levels. It's why it's been such a success over the years and the reason MOM is still a success after all these years neither of the games are balanced. Most everything favors the ai advantage as well it should. It's what makes these games FUN & CHALLENGING.
The Warlords series is something you might look into as well for combat mechanics. They are simple yet fun and they don't have to have all that complicated bs that the AI can't handle anyway.
This is why you should just take examples from the MASTER GAMES an implement them and throw balance out the window. Don't worry about the multiplayer element of balance unless you can code it separately from the main game.
I fully agree, I've been playing it for years and I never get bored (with new mods and campaings and races comming in).
If you could mix Wesnoth with Age of Wonders tactical battles, that would be the PERFECT game for me (lot of tactics, preparation, planning etc). just maybe streamline it alittle bit so that Strategic map dynamics wouldn't suffer
I've no doubt that most of what I say here will have been previously mentioned by other posters, but in the effort to give feedback/share thoughts I'm going ahead anyway.
Well, as previously stated, splitting the D will result in a bell curve set of results (2d6 resulting in more 7's for example) and this would serve to take a degree of unpredictability out of the combat while retaining an exiting level of randomness. Whatever system is eventually implemented, losing too much unpredictability could make combat stale.
The main thing though, is if combat is to be revamped, then at the same time so do the equipment lists.
Someone already mentioned there simply aren't enough missle weapons, Crossbows could serve as a higher tier weapon or perhaps a slower firing alternate throughout all tech levels. I do realise that missle weapons could be exceptionally imbalancing to the system if too powerful, so perhaps some kind of range penalty, to stop an army of archers sniping the enemies to death could be implemented. Preferably in the form of damage output rather than accuracy, so back rank archers would still be capable of providing support rather than a series of lucky blows wiping out the occasional unit. Also, shields could be tweaked to offer a greater degree of protection against archery, giving a value to the lower damage, single handed weapon types, aswell as the opportunity to create units dedicated to resisting and countering archers.
Differences between weapon types would need to be part of this system aswell. Not just the damage type of blunt/slash/pierce, but the speed factors being retained/refined and perhaps some of the qualities mentioned by other posters in regards to first strike opportunities. In the regard of first strike, giving the quality to polearms and having it negated by facing a polearm (or enchanted weapon with the same ability/hero with same ability) would be a sufficient enough representation.
Smoothing out the numbers in weapon tiers is a pressing need, there is a vast degree of disparity between weapon types and the levels at which they appear, also some steps taken to eliminate redundancy in weapons developed could be used. Perhaps ensuring that no tech development includes two weapons designed for the same purpose with little difference in cost or effect could work. The most obvious examples of this problem appear throughout the empire tech tree. Trog scimitar/two handed scimitar and the shortbow/longbow leaping to mind. Differences in material cost aren't enough to warrent the inclusion of both.
Finally, I'd say there is a great deal of merit in the suggestions been given regarding the development of heroes. I'd suggest a system of specialisation similar in concept to that of the city levelling system, though spread out a little. Allow a choice from a list of abilities if the hero gets to a certain level.
For example an adventurer reaches level 3 and can then select from the following list;
1) Increased movement. (+1 move to unit) 2) Increased vision. (+1 to sight) 3) Punising strike (Once per battle Improved attack)
At level 9 a second tier and at level 15 a third and final tier could be introduced with improved versions of previous abilities or more powerful abilities appearing for the first time (unique summonations for example), perhaps even some of the soveriegn abilities at the final tier (organisation being a helpful one to have). This could allow for some thematic types of heroes aswell, riffing on the traditional themes of paladin, ranger and warleader, aswell as the more Elemental specific ones such as Fallen, Channeler and Scion.
It goes without saying that each type of hero could have a different kind of list, and would give some incentive to get those merchants, loremasters and researchers out from behind the walls and in the field doing some research or building some trade contacts (with guards of course).
Now, this would place a lower value on the farmer type of hero/administrator and they would either have to develop in a different fashion, or perhaps have abilities that sync up with the level of the city they manage. Ideally, the administrator types (production, farming, mining) would be provided with a different system for xp and development based upon the progress made within the city they manage or time served. One thing for sure, they shouldn't be the handled in the same fashion as heroes. Beating people up doesn't make you better at farming... well, unless you use the corpses as mulch.
Anyway. Thanks for taking the time to read this those who did.
I also think that you should first use the Master of Magic system, then start tweaking from there. Here's a bit from a FAQ that describes how a hero fighting a multi-figure unit combat works:
"Why does my Strength 7 hero get butchered by Strength 4 Swordsmen?
The answer is that there is strength in numbers. The 4 "swords" that itshows in the upper right combat window represents the strength of oneswordsman in the unit. Humans typically have 6 humans in a unit.Here comes the math. Each "sword" represents a 30% chance of doing one"heart" of damage to an opponent. Each "shield" represents a 30% chanceof blocking a "heart" of damage. When all "hearts" are blacked out theunit is dead.
Let's assume that this hypothetical hero has 7 "swords", 5 "shields",and 8 "hearts" (this would make hime pretty close to The Rogue in stats). Let's also assume that the swordsmen are Highmen Regulars. This willgive each figure in the unit 4 "swords", 2 "shields", and 1 "heart" apiece.
Now the melee starts. All melee combat is simultaneous. The hero swingsand typically does around 2 "hearts" damage (30% x 7 "swords" = 2.1).All of the swordsmen swing and typically do around 7 "hearts" damage (30%x 24 "swords" = 7.2). After the damage is calculated each side gets toshield itself. The hero typically stops around 2 "hearts" (30% x 5"shields" = 1.5, we'll round this up to 2). This means that he will betaking around 5 "hearts" damage this round. He only has 3 left. Theswordmen take their damage one figure at a time. Each figure typicallywill shield 1 "heart" (30% x 2 "shields" = .6). So the first figurerolls his saves and stops 1 "heart". Unfortunately, there are 2 "hearts"of damage to apply so he takes the unshielded "heart" and dies. Nowthere are 5 swordmen in the unit and one hero who has taken quite abeating this round. If he goes another round he will most likely die. Iguess it wasn't a good idea to attack those swordmen.
This example showed one round of combat with no modifiers. Typically,there will be quite a few modifiers due to experience of units, specialabilities of units, and the use of magic and items.Contributed by: Brian Wade (FLEBOAOLCOM)"
http://dlh.net/cheats_3053g.html
I'm a balance nut but my definition of balance is not necessarily yours. =P
I want the systems in a game balanced. Troops vs Magic. Fire vs Earth vs Life. Kingdom vs Empire. Diplomacy vs Warfare vs Economy.And that does absolutely not mean making each school of magic a carbon copy of any other. Much to the contrary.
That a difficulty level is called "normal" doesn't mean that I expect the AI to play as well as a "normal" human player.Yes, the GalCiv AI is awesome but compared to WOM's complexity the game isn't even on the same order of magnitude.
I'd be perfectly happy with a "balanced" AI that balances some intelligence with blatant cheating. =PJust don't make it as obvious, please. No -312817 Gildar treasury in the diplomacy screen...
Expecting a perfect AI is a nice dream and it would be great if it happened but I doubt that Brad would promise that...
There's a BIG difference between Civilization's lack of balance and Elemental's lack of balance. If Elemental were on par with Civ gameplay wise, I would be happy. Civ stomps me just 1 or two difficulties up anyway
Some thoughts:
1. Make the tactical battle maps larger - 2x2 should do it. That actually gives some meaning to range and maneuver.
2. Give all spells a range limit in conjunction with the above.
2a. Add some higher level bow/missile options.
3. Give the AI some intelligence!
4. Stuff that Rune_74 said:
5. ALMOST FORGOT: Defender should move first!!! Not the attacker.
No the defender shouldn't move first but get first missle strike. The defender should defend the attacker is the one who should advance. But, there should be terrain advantages for the defender to hide behind and give bonuses to THACO so they can't be hit so easily by attacker missle fire. Also once again this IGOUGO system has to be removed for simultaneous attacks so that both units will attack and defend at the same times. I'm tired of these whoever goes first has the advantage in combat.
X-Com series did this best. You could fire on an alien or alien on you and still get off its or your last shot should you or it be killed or downed during that combat portion. That's the way this should be. No IGOUGO but IGO-AT-THE-SAME-TIME-UGO.
I still stand by my first response, but I'd like to throw an additional idea out there that's kind of "one step up." The new idea is based on the following idea: The point of the game isn't to realistically simulate fantasy combat. The point is to have a fun game where the mechanics encourage the players' interactions to develop in a way that could be related in story form as a fantasy combat. Wow - karma for anyone who can state that more clearly. But anyway:Reactionary Combat. The goal of this design is to keep both players engaged more continuously in the combat with interesting decisions to make both offensively and defensively. I want the highly interactive feel of Chess or Go (as mentioned earlier).CRUNCHY DESCRIPTIONEach unit has two types of tactical actions: Actions and Reactions. An Action provokes a Reaction from one unit in range. - Ability Type tagslabel the abilities of a unit in a meaningful way. Each unit ability can have multiple tags. Examples would include: Melee, Ranged, Attack, Defensive, Spell, Counterspell, Fire, etc.- Active abilities (Actions) are what they have right now. I cast a healing spell, I attack that unit, I move around. * Actions can have a "First Strike" modifier. When marked "First Strike," the Action is resolved before the Reaction.- Reactive abilities (Reactions) are abilities a unit can use when provokedby an opponent unit's Action. Currently, all units in the game have the (automatically executed) Reaction "Counterattack." In this model, however, additional Reactions are possible. * Just like Actions, Reactions have ranges, target types, etc. Reactions use Ability Type tags (above) to determine which Actions types provoke them. * A Reaction is one of these types: a. Defend. Occurs when a friendly unit is the target of a provoking ability. Your reaction targets the ally unit. b. Counter. You react when a friendly unit is the target of a provoking ability. This reaction targets the provoking unit. * Reactions may be flagged "Personal." A Personal Reaction may only be used when the provoking Action targets this unit. * Reactions may be flagged "Ally Only." An Ally Only Reaction may only be used when this unit is not the target of the provoking Action * Reactions, like Actions, may have a "First Strike" modifier. If a Reaction is marked "First Strike" it will be resolved before the provoking Action. * Some unit abilities may be used as both Actions and Reactions (internally, it may be best to code them as two abilities, though)New combat sequence. On your turn, do the following: 1. YOU: Pick a unit that hasn't acted this turn. 2. YOU: The chosen unit may move and "declare" one Action. 3. OPPONENT: When the Action is declared, all units that have Reactions provoked by the Action who are within range to use their Reaction ability on a legal target (Personal, Assist, Defend, etc) are highlighted. Choose ONE of those unit's Reactions. If only one unit has a valid reaction (i.e. only the attacked unit can counterattack), that Reaction is selected automatically. 4. COMBAT ENGINE: Resolve the Action/Reaction in this order: First Strike Reactions AND First Strike Actions, Actions AND reactions. 5. YOU: Repeat while you have units that haven't acted. If there are none remaining, it's the opponent's turn.EXAMPLES AND NARRATIVESEXAMPLE 1: Reaction: Counterattack. Range: 1 tile. Provoked by:MeleeAttack. Type: Counter (Personal). Effect: You attack the unit that's attacking you. This is what happens now. They attack your unit in melee, and your unit counterattacks. Note that the personal modifier keeps this ability from being used when a nearby ally is attacked. As opposed to...EXAMPLE 2: Reaction: Harrying Fire. Range: 2 tiles. Provoked by:MeleeAttack. Type: Counter (Ally Only), First Strike. effect: Target's Attack score is reduced for this action. If you have a group of archers directly behind your swordsmen, you could choose this Reaction (instead of letting the Swordsmen counterattack) to reduce the damage done to your swordsmen as they are attacked. a variant of this reaction might also do minor damage. The First Strike setting makes sure this takes effect before the attacker's damage is calculated.EXAMPLE 3: Reaction: Counterspell. Range: Unlimited, Provoked by: Spell, Type: Counter, First Strike. Effect: Target's spellcasting effects are reduced for remainder of the turn based on relative INT scores (or something). Mana cost: X Anytime an enemy unit used an Action tagged "Spell," this unit could use this ability. Since it's "First Strike," you would spend mana to reduce the opponent's spell effectiveness. EXAMPLE 4: Reaction: Moment of Glory (a spell). Range: Unlimited. Provoked by:MeleeAttack, RangedAttack. Type: Defense, First Strike. Effect: Target's Defense is set "very high" until end of turn. Cast this spell as a Reaction to keep a unit alive when they're being attacked (instead of letting the unit counterattack)EXAMPLE 5: Reaction: Blink (a spell). Range: 0. Provoked by: MeleeAttack, RangedAttack, Spell. Type: Defense (Personal), First Strike. Effect: This unit is moved to a random square within X squares. Cast this spell as a Reaction to an attack or spell to move randomly to a nearby tile before the attack can take place (short circuiting it)With those examples, I hope it's clear how cool and strategic this system could be. With a decent user interface, it wouldn't play out nearly as complex as this might sound from the written description.Gnilbert
Not easy to implement for developers or understand for players. I actually don't like that system since it hampers some strategic decisions (ie, outcome is the same regardless of first strike).
The combat system just needs to have the wonkiness hammered out of it (single attack/dmg stat, single move/attacks per round stat, hugely variable results, etc.), and needs a huge injection of fun. Fun, in this case, is meaningful choices. To create choices, there needs to be a wide range of options for created troops. Currently there is just attack, defense, and speed. Obviously this requires changes to the troop creation more than the combat system.
So, just to make this clear, in my opinion the combat system will be completely fixed and great under two conditions.
1) fix the weird design choices regarding stats.
2) make the trained combatants special.
Until these two things are charged, combat will be unfun. It will be used only to avoid losing unnecessary troops.
I strongly echo the sentiments regarding more specialised units and special abilities. So far, apart from being cosmetically different, the created units do not feel unique.
I would like to see units be able to receive active and passive abilities. These abilities would be unlocked by researching the appropriate techs, and would be tied to the Warfare/Conquest and Adventure/Domination trees.
For example, when researching the first level of Adventure/Domination, a "Frontiersman" ability can be unlocked. This would be a passive ability which gives the unit with it a 25% bonus against creatures. This would encourage more early exploration through the creation of military units, since they would be less fragile against random encounters in the wild.
The player can train a unit to acquire these active or passive abilities. Training an ability will require a monetary or resource cost, and active abilities will have a mana (or "energy") cost.
These abilities can be learnt by the Sovereign when unlocked. Active abilities would also require mana to use. However, the number of abilities the Sovereign can have will depend on his/her level (e.g. 3 at Levels 1-10, 4 at Levels 11-20 etc). This would allow players to create martially-oriented Sovereigns with character, without making them overpowered.
These are just some of the abilities I would like to see:
Mounted Combat -- Received upon unlocking "Mounted Warfare", this would give the trained unit a bonus to movement speed on the map and in battle. However, they would be weak against units with the Cavalry Killer ability.
Cavalry Killer -- Units with this ability deal 50% more damage against mounted units.
First Strike -- Unit with this ability always attacks first, even when being attacked.
Far Shooter -- Unit with this ability deals more damage the further the target is from it.
Shield Breaker -- Active ability, this enables the trained unit to reduce the defence of target enemy unit by 1/2 of its attack score. Can stack.
Shield Other -- Active ability, this enables the trained unit to take half of the damage dealt to target ally unit.
Apart from passive and active abilities, I would also like an overhaul of the tactical magic spells to make each school unique. Right now, most of the spells seem interchangeable. There is just no reason for me to learn a particular spell from the Water school when there are other spells in the other schools that do the same thing.
I suggest making each magic school unique. Fire spells would emphasise doing large amounts of ranged damage, while Earth spells would focus on defence and close quarter damage. Water spells would be geared towards healing and crowd control, while Air spells would aim at affecting the battlefield. Enchantment spells are your basic buff/debuff.
So much has already been said. Let's try to summarize.
For visual feedback : King's bounty Armored princess has this absolutly right. When you right click on a unit (you have its card with attack, defence, etc..) if you hover on the defence stat, you can see the special defenses (80% against magical, 0% against physical, etc.)
When you select a unit and then hover the mouse on an enemy unit you'll see the least damage you can do, the highest damage you can do (without showing what a critical hit would do) and how much (something like 4-15 or 0-1 or 150-266) enemy soldiers you could kill.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
