First of all, I want to say that I have been one of Derek Paxton's biggest fans ever since Fall From Heaven came out. That mod was genius. Derek basically took an existing game and made a mod so good that playing the mod was better than the strategy game itself. And not just ANY game - this was a SID MEIER game. So Derek, if you're reading this, I just want to say that I'm a great admirer of your work and although Stardock's launch of Elemental was suboptimal, they certainly picked the right person to solve their issues.
That said, this isn't exclusively a fan-praise post. I'm writing about a significant flaw in Elemental, namely, the game's battle system. I'm smart but not a tactical genius, yet somehow I find myself routinely defeating armies that are alledgedly three times my power or more. This is a problem. A more significant problem is that battle isn't very INTERESTING - it's basically slight variations of "march your forces up to each other and have them attack as much as possible, first strike has a a mild advantage." Yawn.
The following are my suggestions for improving tactical combat significantly to make it more strategically challenging, but most importantly, to make it more FUN. Having been a programmer myself at one point, I'm cognizant that there are only a limited amount of resources that you can sink into any given problem, so I've tried to limit my suggestions to changes that would be easy to implement.
1) Interesting Terrain Part of the problem is that terrain in Elemental doesn't DO anything other than give the occasional +10% modifier. And even then, those terrain pieces are always off to the side, never in the center of the battlefield so the marginal advantage that they give is offset by the fact that you have to pursue the terrain. Why? Making terrain more interesting will give players much more interesting tactical decisions to pursue. The trick is that you have to throw terrain right in the thick of the battlefield, where it actively effects the combat. You also have to make the type of terrain dependent on the tiles that the two units are in before combat occurs.
For example, suppose that moving through swamp terrain costs double the action point expenditure. Armies with lots of archer units will favor engaging in swamp terrain, since they can turn enemies into pincushions while said enemies are slogging through the swamp to get them.
Likewise, suppose forest terrain blocks arrow, giving a signicant penalty to hit a unit in that terrain. That would result in infantry units favoring forest terrain for the cover it provides, and they would take more circuitous routes (both on the overland and on the tactical map) to stay in the trees.
Hill terrain could have areas of higher ground, which confer an attack bonus to units that have higher elevation than their opponents. Furthermore, going uphill costs an extra action point. Suddenly, hill become great places for defneders to fortify and establish bottlenecks.
This are all interesting terrain features that would lend a much more strategic element to tactical combat, and would also force players to consider the overland map when planning their battles. But why stop there? You could throw in interesting random elements on the map as well. For example:
A carnivorous plant that is immobile on the tactical map, but damages any unit that starts in a square adjacent to it.
Boulders and tree trunks can provide cover from ranged attacks, giving units that hide behind them a significant bonus to defense against ranged weapons.
A healing monolith that restores 1 hp per turn to units that stand next to it.
A river that units cannot pass through except in shallow areas where the river may be forded.
Not only would these elements all make tactical battles more interesting, but they lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities for new spells. For example, an Earth spell like "Boulder wall" (summons a row of boulders in an area of your choice) or a Water spell called "Liquid Terrain" (turns an area of the tactical map into swamp terrain).
2) Interesting weapons and armor Lets face it, weapons as they are now written don't give you many choice. There's damage, and then there's more damage. Some give you a bit more combat speed, but that's a questionable choice since every attack you make results in you taking damage as well. What you need to do is make weapons with interesting bonuses and penalties, so that arming your troops will no longer be a simple cost-benefit tradeoff but a legitimate tactical choice. For example, here are some suggestions that I have to make weapons more interesting.
Reach weapons (such as halberds, polearms, and longspears) allow you to attack enemies from one or two squares away. Furthermore, if you are two squares away, enemies can't counterattack unless they also have a reach weapon. This might at first seem disadvantageous when compared to ranged weapons but since melee weapons only cost 1 action point to attack (rather than 2 for ranged attacks) then reach weapons have an extremely effective killzone unless an enemy is fast enough to dash in close.
Impact weapons (such as mauls, clubs, etc) not only inflict damage but knock the enemy back a square if the attack inflicts enough damage. Having the ability to inflict forced movement enables you to make more more interesting use of battlefield terrain. For example, if the carnivorous plant from my terrain example were used, you could push an enemy next to it, causing them to take damage.
Threatening weapons are quick weapons (like daggers, rapiers, shortswords) which enable you to take advantage of openings in combat. A unit with a threatening weapon "threatens" any square that it can attack in melee (typically just adjacent squares). If an enemy unit moves from one threatened square to another threatened square, then the unit which is threatening the second square inflicts a small amount of automatic damage on the enemy unit. This allows you to set up chokepoints even on the tactical map, stopping enemy units from getting to your soft targets.
Having these weapons would result in your choice of equipment being a much greater part of the battle. Furthermore, monsters could be made more unique and interesting by giving them or more multiple weapon qualities. For example, an giant could have both the "impact" and "reach" qualities, allowing it to push units around the battlefield from two square away. A hydra could have both the "threatening" and "reach qualities", making it a horrific threat to melee combatants.
3) A AI that uses strategy in tactical combat Right now, the AI is woefully unprepared to deal with human opponents. While it's commendable that the AI targets weak units, it never calculates combat speed to see if it can CATCH the weak units. This results in easy wins for human players simply by running a weak but quick unit in circles while archers do the rest of the work.
What you need to do is have an AI that thinks in more general "big picture" terms and asks general questions to determine a specific strategy for that battle. For example:
"Do we have more artillery?"Compare ranged attack strength of AI army to ranged attack strength of enemy army. If it is greater, then instead of engaging enemy units, have them go to choke points and only attack enemies that try to get by. If it is lesser, than try to engage in melee as quickly as possible, using areas of cover as a path to reach the enemy.
"What dangerous units does the enemy have and how can I best respond?"Dangerous units are units that have a very high attack strength. If they have low defenses and low movement, then have archers target them while spreading your melee units one space apart and going after them (this stops them from using the "run in circles" technique. If they have high defenses and low movement, have your units focus on low defenses targets first, and if the high attack strength unit gets close, have your units use all of this movement to run away. This results in the enemy wasting its most dangerous unit chasing yours around the battlefield.
"Do I have regenerating creatures?"If so, use regenerating creatures as melee combatants. Send them to the front line to fight until they reach half their hit points, then have them run to cover as quickly as possible and move through cover to the rear lines until their wounds heal. Then send them forward again. Repeat as needed.
There are also a few strategies that should be used for overland AI. For example, I always send a few low-level heroes in combat with my really tough armies, even if the heroes don't have the weapons or armor to engage the enemy. In combat, I simply have those heroes hide in the back while my army destroys the enemy. This lets the heroes grab a share of the XP and level up quickly, so they are always far more powerful than AI heroes. Well, why not have the AI use a similar strategy. It would be really invaluable, especially in the early game.
Anyway, these are just a few general ideas for making tactical combat more interesting. Elemental is a great game in principle, but boring battles really detract a lot from the other great elements of the game, and that making some significant changes to make combat more interesting will result in a lot of happiness among your fan base.
Terrain tactical benefits
Example of implementation - Eador: Creation
Fast glance on the basic stats of units in this game
Melee attack
Melee counter attack
Ranged attack
Quantity of shots
Range of fire
Defence against magical attacks
Defence against melee attacks
Defence against ranged non-magical-attacks
Health- note:when health is low combat offensive stats decrease.
Endurance-used for any action(except movement),if this stat hits bottom - unit cant do anything.Endurance do not replenish fully each turn,instead unit have option to rest 1 turn to replenish some amount of it.There is related feats that boost quantity of endurance replenished when resting.Note:when endurance is low combat offensive stats and movement decrease.
Movement-used to move around.Replenishes fully each tun.All movement points are consumed when unit attacks.
There is leveling system for units\heroes.Max level - 20(heroes - 30).Each level up gives 3 random(not completly random,knight wont get magical spells etc. Only unit related such as range for archers) options of feats\stats(or skills for heroes).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is 8(that i can remember) land types in the game(5 types on the screenshot-hill,plain,wall,castle,forest)
Swamp - defence and counter attack penalty,cost more movement to pass,little endurance loss while passing.
Forest - defense bonus vs ranged non-magical attacks,cost more movement to pass,little endurance loss while passing.
Plains- no bonus\penalty
Castle- i don't really remember what bonuses it gives,something about ranged attack if I'm correct.
Hill-bonus to counter attack,increase range of ranged magical\non-magical attack,cost more movement to pass,little endurance loss while passing.
Mountain-can be passed only by flying units
Wall-can be passed only by flying units
Water-can be passed only by flying units
There is terrain related feats that are common or achievable by leveling up for some units(or equipment\skills for heroes that gives such feats)
Knowledge of swamps - unit losses only 1 movement point and don't lose fatigue when passing this type of terrain.Higher level of this feat provides defence bonus while stationed on such terrain type.
Knowledge of forests-unit losses only 1 movement point and don't lose fatigue when passing this type of terrain.Higher level of this feat provides defence bonus while stationed on such terrain type.
Knowledge of hills-unit losses only 1 movement point and don't lose fatigue when passing this type of terrain.Higher level of this feat provides defence bonus while stationed on such terrain type.
Battlefields are mostly covered by terrain type that corresponds to the land type on the world map(swamp,hills,plains,forest +\-fortress) where the battle is going.
----
Other probably interesting examples from this games not-so-related to terrain
Units with ranged attack
Have limited range (archers have greater range then crossbowman,crossbowman have armor penetration feat,and still mages have even lower range(range doesn't count for spell-casting)) thus some units can increase it through leveling up.
Some units have (or can achieve through leveling up) a feat to replenish shots while in combat sacrificing their turn
If anyone interested there is encyclopedia of any stat\feat of this game here http://eador.com/en/4.html BUT it's all in russian language.
P.S.English is not my native language so i'm not shure that this post makes complete sense.
I'm going to disregard Femmefatale48 going forwards from this post since she sounds like she's trolling. I do admire Derek's work based on what I've seen of it, and no brown-nosing is intended. Don't get me wrong, I'd be willing to brown-nose a little if there were profit to be made, but why would I brown-nose somebody who can't advance my career, finances, or romantic interests in any way? That doesn't even make sense - do people actually DO that? (Somebody OTHER than the troll answer that please.)
To everybody else, yes, realism can be done in a game system, but can it be done in Elemental? Some examples that other people brought up seem like they would require a complete revamp of the combat system. To which my response is, $$$! If it costs too much $$$ it ain't gonna happen.
What I'm sort of looking for here are QUICK fixes - ways to make the combat systems more strategic without requiring a total revamp. For example, somebody else mentioned initiative could be implemented, so that the changes have more chance of being implemented from a practical perspective. While I don't entirely agree with him, I thought it was a good suggestion because it's the kind of thing that from a programming perspective would be easy to do.
I know some people will say that they're not programmers and have no idea what is or isn't feasible but we live in a digital age and I'm sure that we can all figure it out with a little effort. I'm not trying to be rude; I'd just like to keep this conversation focused in a goal-oriented way, not just do random wish lists.
It has to be a random wish-list until we know more.
You say that a total revamp of the combat system is costly, and it surely is (and I'm no programmer) but we have been told that there would be major revamps of mecanisms in FE, so perhaps the tactical combats too.
It's all in Derek's hands now and all we can do is giving him some trails to follow (if he doesn't already know them). It's not pushing a personal agenda but more like "Hey, This and That worked in This game. Perhaps, it could work in FE too?"
Have to disagree with you on this one. They should try to make tactical combat fun like in AOW:SM. Because AOW:SM has many of the Stratigic elements that E:WOM has to include goodie huts and even quest if the map has them set up. True quest have to be manually created when creating the map in the editor.
Also keep in mind that E:WOM is suppose to be the spiritual sucessot of MOM ......well guess what MOM had?
There is no reason that they could not make TC a lot more fun than it is. All they have to do is incooprate elements from several games such as AOW:SM, MOM, HOMM just to name a few.
the arguments about realism are pointless, and it is unlikely that any specific requests made here will make it, however
i think most people would like some implementation of the following ideas
- mechanics that favour maneuvering: being attacked from the flank is not the same as being attacked from the front
- mechanics that distinguish weapons by their type as well as their quality, and make certain weapons (spears, daggers, lances) better in different circumstances (not the same as damage types)
- initiative system to replace combat speed (better with some random element imho), mounts/speed changing action points costs rather than action point availability
- mechanics to make terrain matter (potentially related to the first point), assuming this can be done without making the best approach to a given map too obvious
my statements on "realism" are largely about the best way to implement these, rather than any disagreement on what the game needs.
True... when you put it in general terms like that, I definitely agree with each of those points. And if the FE team finds some way to make each of those things happen, I would definitely be a happy person, regardless of what approach they use to implement it.
Well isn't that part of the problem? AoW made one thing the focus, did it really well, and then built other systems as needed to support it.
Elemental does a LOT of things, but does none of them well. Dynasties are pretty much pointless except as free heroes. Quests are more boring in Elemental then they are in AoW, and outside the campaign the AoW ones are just random "go do X" when you build a shrine.
Tactical combat in Elemental is really just a way to exploit the AI, it's not interesting or particularly fun. City sieges for example (the place where AoW really shined, particularly when you're on the defensive and massively outgunned) can't exist in Elemental at all because the fundamental mechanics that make it work are missing: LoS and walls. A fight in an open field in AoW is different then one in a forest, which is different then when you try to take my capital. In Elemental they're really pretty much the same thing.
The giant list of things you mentioned they need time to work on is itself part of the problem. If they cut that list down by eliminating half the mechanics on it from the game entirely, there would be more time to focus on something and they'd wind up with a better game. Maybe they decide that tactical combat is just something that they can't fix, and so they chop it outright and devote time to the economy instead.
I don't know. But I do know that doing a couple of things really well is better then doing ten poorly.
I agree that, to get combat as good as say AoW:SM, they'd have to focus on it to the exclusion of other aspects of gameplay (just like AoW:SM did). Thing is, there's a lot of grey area between the current very simple exploit-the-AI combat and AoW:SM's combat. I think Kenata's point is that, while yes it would take a complete overhaul with some essential changes to the game mechanics to get "very good" AoW:SM-level combat, we could have "pretty good" combat through some relatively easy changes like more unit abilities. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for a complete remake of combat, hopefully with one of the expansions they'll get around to it - but in the meantime combat could be so much better if unit abilities gave us a few more decisions to make during it (and if the AI knew what it was doing, as well). In other words, combat could be fun and even make you think a little without needing to be the focus of the game.
Here's another possibility I thought of for difficult terrain (ie, terrain that costs extra action points of movement and/or has other penalizing effects) that would enhance the game: landwalk effects.
What landwalk would do is that units which have the appropriate landwalk ability (ie, forestwalk, hillwalk, swampwalk, etc) would ignore all negative effects and extra action point expenditure from that type of terrain. For example, a unit of rangers could have forestwalk which means that not only do they move faster through foress on the overland map, but if there are a lot of forested tiles on the tactical map they will be able to run rings around you.
This in turn can be easily used with new races to give them choices that result in substantial differences in gameplay rather than just mild cosmetic effects. For example, if you create a race called lizardfolk and one of their racial features is that they all have swampwalk, then players will be very reluctant to go near swamps controlled by lizardfolk enemies since the units can easily catch them (due to no overland penalties to movement) and they will be slaughtered on the tactical map (since lizardfolk can simply use their movement advantage in swamp to pick away at the players with ranged attacks and then outdistance them whenever the players get close. Likewise, if elves are a new race that has forestwalk, then moving through forests controlled by them becomes very hazardous, and elven players will want to make it a point to build close to forests.
Of course this only applies if my earlier suggestion is taken of making the tactical map dependent on the squares that units were in on the overland map, and also if the elemental team actually make terrain more ubiquitous rather than just "a few squares scattered on the edge of the battlefield." But I think that's just a no-brainer since so many people are dissatisfied with tactical combat as it currently stands and it's fairly clear that using random tactical maps is not the way to go.
However TC for Age of Wonders changed with each iteration, both added and removing elements. Additional unit abilities are the easiest way to improve TC, however there are other things that can be done. Such as making ranged attacks ability to hit be modified by distance, adding elevations to modify the change for said ranged attackes to hit, and adding a move cost to terrains.
Easy changes: Range just adds one additional factor to calculations for ranged attacks. Similarly elevation adds one more factor to the calculations and one additional value to terrain. Move cost adds another value to terrain and if they are using A* pathfinding then it should not be hard to implement (and I recall the strategic map including movement cost for different terrains). To really be meaningful they would need larger battle map and a larger move range in general for all units (as would adding range to ranged attacks).
Hard changes: Cover is harder, so it is likely wishful thinking till the second expansion. The same goes for Line of Sight, which was used in dungeons for the first game (this would require larger maps, like move cost). Walls require distructible obsticals, cover, and elevation, but once those are present they are easy to add. ZoC might be hard to add, unless it is classified as an opprotunity for a counter attack and gets implemented the same way (on the other hand, this is not as applicable to squad battles so it is not really need... besides it works better on hexes than squares).
No clue changes: Larger maps means multiple armies can be brought in to the fray*, which adds to the strategic value of choke points on the world map. Multiple armies and larger maps allow for non-heroes to retreat, as it would be possible to trap forces and kill them before they get away (thus limiting the annoyance of a small, quick force that continuously gets away).
* Multiple stacks should also satisify the requests for epic battles in a way that will also make them more fun, which larger groups of units would not add anything other than a cooler visual representation.
Assuming a good selection of special abilities, initiative based turns, and the above features Elemental would have better TC than any of the Age of Wonders games. Even with just the easy stuff it would be far better than it is now. It is also worth mentioning the Tactical AI in Age of Wonders: Shadow Magix is totally brain dead and the greatest weakness of the AI for that game, but TC against the AI is still fun.
It is better to think of these things sooner when lots of changes are in progress and while there is less to be changed. It is also good to know what you want to add later on. Move cost and elevation are similar in the types of changes that need to be made, and elevation and range penalty are also related. As such it makes is easier to add them at the same time, but you can only do that if you know you will be adding all three of them.
Exactly - the reason I'm bringing it up now is because AI and tactical combat changes need to go hand in hand. And I think the tactical combat AI should be a priority, since AI is the hardest thing for users to mod themselves. Thank you also for mentioning that the terrain changes I suggested would be really easy to implement, because they're a simple change (just give the terrain one extra property).
Personally, I'm of the opinion that simple changes, when used wisely in combination with each other, can create a much better overall effect than complex "special abilities" which are individually customized. For example, take the three properties I mentioned in my original post - Reach, Impact, and Threatening. Used individually, they add a certain strategic component, but once you start mixing and matching you can make interesting variations. This is why I favor adding a few simple weapon properties that can be easily combined to simulate more complex weapons rather than an infinite number of abilities.
For example, say you want combat in Elemental to simulate how deadly mounted knights were. Make a special weapon on the tech tree called a Lance and give it the weapon properties Reach and Impact. Also, you need to restrict the weapon to mounted units only. For the AI side of the equation, have it target melee units without the Reach ability and use the following metacode snippet:
IF (Enemy unit without reach is adjacent or one square away) THEN attack.
ELSE IF APs needed to reach nearest enemy unit AND attack it are less than or equal to your APs, then move to one sqaure away and then attack
ELSE end turn with one square of distance between you and the enemy unit you're targeting.
What this means in normal english is that the typical knight will have on average 5 AP due to his mount. When played by the AI, he will target an enemy unit that does not have reach, attack it (not triggering any counterattacks because of the lances Reach property), push it back one square (because of the Impact property) move forward a square, attack it again (not triggering counterattacks again, and again pushing it back), and end his turn with one square of distance between the AI lancer and the players unit. The player (whose typical foot soldier has 3 AP) then has to spend two action points moving adjacent to the lancer, and his final action point to attack (triggering a counterattack). Effectively, the lancer has made three attacks to the players one, and also driven the player unit back two square. This definitely would be an pretty good simulation of how devastating mounted knight charges were in real combat.
Now let's examine good counterattacks. Short of magic, the only really effective ways to counter a mounted unit that uses these tactics is:
A ) to have enough troops to be able to come in with other troops and overwhelm the unit from the sides (real-life equivalent: a mob surrounding somebody and pulling him off his horse)
B ) to have other units with reach block the way so that they can counterattack when the knight unit attacks them (real-life equivalent: using pikemen or better yet, other knights).
C ) to use powerful archers to take down the knights before the knights can reach them (real-life equivalent: the English Longbow)
D ) Engage them in terrain that costs so many actions points that the knight can't effectively move and attack more than once (Real-life equivalent: knights trying to fight foot soldiers in the waist deep waters of a swamp.)
As you can see, just by adding two simple properties, combining them together, and adding a few relatively simple lines of AI code, you get a ferocious unit that will require some serious strategic thought in order to defeat. This is why weapon properties which are always on are a much better design choice than giving weapons special abilities. The example I described above would be extremely difficult to program using the "special abilities philosophy". When it comes to elegant AI, simplicity is always the best choice.
It should be easy, particularly because elevation and move cost are used on the strategic map. If the tactical map is the same as the world map, then nothing in regard to the properties for the tactical map would even need to be changed. They would just need to make use of it (and in the case of using elevation for ranged it would need to be possible to get info about the tile under the unit, which would also allow for interesting special abilities that work better or worse on some terrains).
Approved! And for weapon properties, please no rock-paper-scissors!
citywolfdreams; your thinking is very similar to mine; weapon properties are the best way to improve strategy, not special rules.
personally though, i think pushing units back would look sort of silly in elemental with the low resolution grid - i'd prefer a damage multiplier for charging. i'd also rather have integer properties (spears have 3 reach, pikes have 5) and a few more of them (like a measure of how easily units can turn to face attackers, ie swordsmen sacrifice stronger fronting for the ability to repel attacks from all sides, things like that). but i've said all this already.
so kudos.
Maybe I'm nitpicking semantics, but the weapon properties you describe are special abilities as far as I'm concerned - you're just proposing 'passive' abilities where Kenata seems to prefer 'active' abilities. Both of which are very different from, say basic mechanic changes like flanking and morale and such. From that perspective - basic mechanic changes vs. adding new abilities to the current system - there's relatively little difference between active and passive abilities, they're certainly not mutually exclusive and could perhaps be even better when combined.
That aside, although I like the idea of passive abilities as you propose, your example could be better chosen - it supports active abilities more than anything else. Your knight is limited by this "impact" ability, moving the enemy away from himself just forces him to waste movement catching back up into attack range - he'd actually be better without it, he could just sit 2 squares away attack 5 times in a single turn. Starting just within attack range with a reach weapon and trying to kill a non-reach infantry, a regular pikeman with 3 AP, reach, and no impact would actually be deadlier than a knight with 5 AP, reach and impact (assume for a moment other stats are equal). The knight can attack+move twice, then he gets attacked once after the non-reach infantry moves into range and gets a counterattack (3 attacks dealt, 1 received). The pikeman can just sit there and attack 3 times, then receive one attack and get one counterattack next turn (4 attacks dealt, 1 received).
All in all, a short range unit knocking enemies out of its own attack range is an interesting and potentially useful ability, but definitely situational - having it happen automatically every time you attack will hurt more often than it helps. It makes you wish that impact was an active ability, to be used when the knight has an enemy at point blank and wants to force him back, not anytime the knight is trying to kill something. Which brings me back to my initial point - active and passive abilities aren't mutually exclusive, and could be even better when used together. Just as an example, your knight with a passive reach and an active impact would be far deadlier. If he's stuck with a passive, automatic impact, your knight would actually be better off "kiting" enemies - moving just within reach range, attacking, knocking them back, then withdrawing far enough away that they can't get an attack in on their turn. Either way we're drifting farther and farther from anything that resembles a real cavalry charge, there's probably a better way to implement it - my point is that active and passive abilities can coexist, there's no reason to restrict ideas to one or the other.
@Sethai - I think that we agree in general, even if we disagree on the minor points. The reason I used this example is more because it fits into my (admittedly simplified) example from the original post.
@Austinvn - I don't think that this example was poorly chosen: actually I chose it specifically to make the point that weapon properties do not (and should not) always be positive. As you pointed out, having an impact weapon can be a big detriment in situations where you WANT to stay close to your opponent. However, the same thing could be said of ranged weapons - they're hugely advantageous if you're on the opposite side of the battlegrid from a melee opponent, and hugely disadvantageous if the opponent is adjacent and hacking at you. In the example I gave referencing knights, I clearly demonstrated that knights would be absolutely devastating when used against foot soldiers without reach weapons. However, in a combat that takes place in a swamp, knights would be terriblu disadvantaged since they don't have the movement to attack, move, and then attack again.
This is by intent - much like in Civilization, I feel that some units should naturally be more advantageous in certain situations and against certain other types of units. However, rather than demonstrating this through bonuses and penalties such as "pikemen have a +3 counterattack bonus against knights" (and then having to update that to include wolfriders and other type of cavalry whenever a new expansion comes along) I think it should be done more naturally, by giving unit weapons, armor, and mounts special properties that naturally favor one type of combat while penalizing other types. This forces players to think and plan out their strategy more carefully. The idea is that people who make dumb tactical choices like taking knights into a swamp to fight lizardmen (or whatever race turns out to be good at swamp combat) can and should deserve to lose, even if they have the numerical advantage.
My final point is that any great tactical combat system needs to have forced movement that can be imposed on the enemy. Perhaps impact weapons are the wrong way to go but there needs to be SOME way of driving the enemy back into dangerous or hindering terrain, otherwise the terrain can easily be avoided and has very little effect on the battle.
DELETED by USER due to wrong forum... Sorry!
Re-posted HERE
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
