http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiting_(video_gaming)
This is an issue that, as the AI guy, I'm still struggling with. How to defend against this?
I've been tempted to have the AI do it to the human but the more I think about it, the more unsatisfying that would be.
In beta 1, the kiting issue isn't huge because the tactical maps are so small. But in Beta 2, they start to get a lot more interesting (I have one map that is basically inspired from Demigod complete with multiple paths).
I'd be interested in hear different ideas on how to prevent excessive kiting.
I still think the best solution is cavalry being made avaliable earlier, run those archers down. The problem would be horse archers - but you can make horse archery its own tech tree. At least that would force a spearmen screen unit (Spearmen should get bonus vs cav)
Use existing tools before adding a bunch of gamey stuff.
In history, efficient horse archery is a special technology. Mongols use specials assymetric bow, and kity tactic are one of their strength.
@Frogboy: Please, don't use some strange mechanics. It is one of the things that breaks the gameplay of WoM. Fatigue like you describes don't seems to simulate something credible. Furthermore, that implies a new bunch of mechanism, special ability and spells if you don't want to have the feeling it is a "rough patch".
Fatigue in dominions 3 works very well, but its a stat that is used for a lot of things.
Mabe each kind of action move/cast/attack would have a "fatigue" cost attached. For instance moving costs you 1 per square, attacking with a melee weapon costs you 2 and attacking with bows cost 3. Those costs reduce the initiative, until you use a "rest" action : you get as many initiative points as your constitution/4 (for instance). So if you cram all your initiative you have to take more time to recover, but constitution helps you recover faster.
Sounds like kiting is an initiative issue. Maybe a soft cap on initiative, where you can potentially get 2 turns before an enemy gets one (MAX 2 actions to the enemies 1). The requirement would then be that the enemy has a very low initiative, rather than the current requirement of having a very high initiative, subtle difference but important to note. Then give very slow units some cool down ability that will let them close the gap. Such as: Sprint, ranged snare/root.
If you manage to get a fast unit to be slow through magic or ability, then the reward should be going multiple times before the enemy does.
However, units that are naturally slow should have a cool down ability or spell that will allow them to close the gap every couple turns. Generally speaking naturally slow units tend to hit like dump trucks and have the hit points/defense to match. Where fast units tend to be lightly armored and squishy, this is a natural trade off.
I don't think you should remove the effectiveness of fast units. I wouldn't want to see a situation where I would not build a fast unit due to the fact that it will be just as fast as the slow units after "several" turns, where the slow units then mop up due to higher def/hp.
Concerning initiative as the root of the problem:
Don't add artificial init caps for just some unit types.
You either can go for a closed turn iniative system, like I suggested before: https://forums.elementalgame.com/417270
This ensures that each unit will move one time per turn.
(See, this is exactly WHY i suggested a closed initiative system - even as many declined, it would fix the "initiative adv = win" problem nicely)
Or you can at least raise the base initiative rating. Currently a initiative bonus of +1 is a 10% increase of initiative (!!!!!) - that's totally crazy, especially as you throw tons of initiative boni just right at the players face.
If you would change the base initiative from 10 to 40, then one point of initiative extra raises initiative only by 2,5%. Which lowers the amount of occasions that units get double turns or more before the enemy can react. Obviously the higher you raise the base initiative in relation to the initiative modifiers the nearer you morph the open initiative system into a closed one.
BTW, just to mention it: if the initiative is high enough, you can also kite with melee weapons, as units, with the exception of some heroes, don't retaliate when attacked in melee. (A one time counterstrike per turn as a game standard has been requested several times and I agree with the suggesters)
Is this a real problem of fair tactics? I rather fall into the second camp. Core Problem about the current implementation (0.77, possibly 0.80?) might be, that strategic move = tactical move and that thus tactical move is very easy to come by (I'm all in favor of keeping easy options to increase strategic move / maybe implement a waterwalk/flying/forestwalk/mountainwalk/pathfinder movesystem simmilar to MOM [without keeping the tac / strategic parity from mom], would make very interesting options. Especially the terrainwalk ones and might be interesting perks / reasons to include heroes in a normal unit stack) .Cavalry and similar units (Panthers, things with charge) should be what can counter this. Not possible with the way move is implemented (I am not much enthused by the thought that strategic move would be neutered as well... Overland is slow enough as is). Army logistics isn't equal to battlefield tactics so why keep them at parity (unless there are major systemic / resource reasons which are well beyond my capability to understand even though I can hardly imagine it being a big deal...)?Mounted Archers should be scary imo (and catchable by regular cavalry). They are after all not the easiest to acheive / take resources and their damage-output is limited (as is). And there is precedent for why mounted archers are tactically superior in history.Implementing a split for strategic move / tactical move and attaching a tac-speed penalty of 1 or in extreme 2 for bows (all kinds or all except the high-tech ones maybe) also would be a way to curb this. (Have to say that implementing additional tactical move-sub-systems like no move when shooting sounds complicated and a possible hamstring from the AI which would at least take extra time / resources from the AI Programmers/Frogboy to teach the AI to understand it. For what gain which couldn't be achieved otherwise?)I'm not in favor of reducing the overall value of initiative (at least in a major way). Maybe reduce the overall ways to gain it (a little). Being super-fast in Initiative should be a serious predicament for the other side (currently its celerity and tactical superiority per Perks, that should count for something.).That's a result of the initiative based system and I much like it / how it plays (YMMV of course . Doesn't mean its balanced perfectly yet (nor that it need be in any part of the beta) but at its core it very much feels right compared to EWoM, Mom ect...)Not in favor of changing to a closed turn-system early in the beta thus abandoning the existing concept (not least because of how mages / casting time works, which I like / offers interesting options to handle counterspell and simmilar stuff). I think the initiative-system at its core (without turn-caps) is something worth exploring / trying to perfect. Very much in favor of tweaking with the values / options ect. during the beta though (maybe do 100 as the base and tweak the bonuses accordingly. 40 is harder to comprehend. centimal systems work better for me / might be for most players or even AI to understand since it allows seamlessly applying percentage without much thought.). Wasn't aware that the base was 10. That explains why "minor boosts" have such a huge effect! Archers sound like a reasonable counter for very strong but slow units like ogres or possibly slow infantry. Spices up tactical/offers an interesting layer (as is). And Troll-Warriors are scary when they get a strike in (as is).If Heroes get to do it: I'm fine with it. Works with magic as well after all (free with enough equip / the right spells), scaling way more powerfully (shards ect.). And thus preventing Kiting would mean neutering magics as well (for heroes). given that melee might be most powerful right now (not least because of overabundance of melee-/armor-oriented equip in the item-drops, cant see bows / magic-gear appears very often even though it was supposed to be with 0.77 according to discussion / possibly changelog) not sure if that is necessary or even desirable.As is, I feel Archers (both for Heroes and normal units) are considerably underpowered (especially since for heroes magics is a more accessible option without the drawbacks compared to bows, with the only disadvantage of costing mana which is also quite easy to reduce / possible to completely circumvent) for the time they can be gained and need a boost. It might be worth a look to decrease the Strength-Penalty from 100% to say 50% or 75% if a more gradual test / balance is wanted. Makes sense up to a point too, given that pulling-power plays a role in firing a bow. And I'm not sure I understand the mechanical necessity for a full disconnect to an attribute (could also be related to another attribute like dex instead of course...) from a design / balance perspective either. (not least since it lowers interesting options of customization for what gain?)Rather teach the AI to handle such stuff (understand the value of initiative, AI-Players/Civs using tactics like this against monster-hordes as well if possible) and being fine with tactical options than neutering them and making the game / tactical shallow. Diverse tactical can be a boon to the game and things that seem unfair (see "The Art of War" for why "unfair" battles are desirable and something a good general should strive for. Not speaking of great generals here ) maybe a just reward for good investment / clever tactics. Even if they might feel unfair to the AI-Programmer (Also sounds like something the AI should be able to be taught to use against us either. )And monster-hordes should be fair game for both players and AI-Civs using an appropriate counter. Player / AI vs. environment shouldn't induce a tactical headace. Imo its fun as is (Of course doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.).Please don't haphazardly meddle with / kill off fun and working concepts rather concentrate on the broken ones (like tac-speed = strategic move)
One solution:
When you have archers in an army, in tactical battles you have a supply wagon outside the battlefield in in your end of the map. If this supply wagon is destroyed, you can no longer make ranged attacks. The wagon can only be destroyed by an activated ability when a unit is standing next to it.
Another solution:
If an archer moves, it is considered to have an initiative of whatever the initiative of the slowest unit on the field is until its next move, or an initiative of 1. So archers with high initiative may attack quickly in succession, but they're slow to move. If you have a ranged weapon equipped, you are always considered a ranged unit, regardless of other equipment.
Third solution:
Limit the number of ranged attacks per unit per tactical battle.
@ Sir_Linque: To offer a synopsis (for people not liking to read long posts / deviations from the main topic) of my long post above / explain my suggestion for a fix and in a much less complex way with much less variables to program and teach the AI than what you laid out under "another solution" (simmilar enough to roughly count in there): Divorce tac-move from strategic move, reduce the tac-move overall and give bows a move-penalty in tactical. (example: Move of regular unit=2, Move of Unit carrying a bow = 1. Move minimum 1 or possibly even 0? Numbers open to tweaking of course.)Make boosts to tactical move very hard to come by (except maybe for heroes). Without removing easy ways to improve strategic move.Keep the impact of initiative and not meddle with a possibly working and interesting concept in complicated ways for complexities sake when the root problem lies elswhere. (making kiting still possible but much harder to acheive.)Imo more practicable than what you suggested and has other benefits as well (adding an additional path for perks ect.).Limiting ammunition at the current state whould make a weak option (archery) even weaker. So I am against it since I don't see how at net it would improve the game.
I agree that some AI opponents should know how to use kiting if facing units without archers...i.e. attack, withdraw, attack, withdraw.
Historically bowmen took longer to train than spearmen, and those using the English longbow; that devasted Knights at Agnicourt took longer to train.
I like the concept of trained units (not militia) with shields having access to new tactics - i.e. Shield over head (i.e. +10 to dodge vs missle attacks for wooden shields, +20 to dodge vs missles for metal shields, -1 to movement).
Blackmantle, but it doesn't prevent kiting, as you said. I would prefer to prevent it altogether. And if you take away the special bows / abilities I mentioned, my proposed system is pretty simple, too. Actually I'll go ahead and remove them from my post.
I have a pretty strong negative reaction to having initiative be eroded over time. It punishes the unit designer who puts in a fast, agile archer units, and favors the designer who puts in slow, highly defended, high attack melee units. Will we erode their efffectiveness over time, too? They carry the same threat, essentially; the ability to deliver damage without taking any themselves. This would be historically accurate, I guess, but it makes for poor gameplay, as your units are ground down to shadows of their former selves, and the battle decays back to I go, U go tactics. One of the diifferentiators for EFE is the initiative system and the ability to design high initiative units; I'd hate to see that taken away to balance a (admittedly cheap) tactic when other solutions exist. If we want to be historically accurate, then archers weren't overpowered because they had limited ammo, limited range (which both MOM and AOWSM had, range penalties), and low rate of fire.
Let me ask you this: Let's say that one of the new spells is flight, and I can cast that on a unit. Now we're back to the same problem: my archers can't be reached by ground based units, and can essentially deal out damage without reprisal. Will we make it so flight can't be cast on archers? How about invisibile archers? Any of these methods effectively takes away counterattack opportunities. Will we make new special mechanics to handle each of those?
While I do think fatigue may be part of the answer ...
I think we should first look at how Initiative is currently handled.
(most units with decently high initiative get 2 turns in a row ... what?)
-> Soldier A moves twice
-> Soldier B moves twice
-> Soldier C moves twice
-> Soldier D moves twice
->Enemy Monster moves
I mean ... shouldn't it be closer to
A moves
B moves
C moves
D moves
Monster moves
What do u think? (in the current implementation, I just don't see how initiative is being handled)
this could be fixed easily reducing initiative when using bows so that on avarage 1 archer attack 1/n times a melee with equal stats
then on start archer has advantage starting far but in few turns the melee get close and archer is in danger
if its not enough there could be a penalty to movement with bows for the same reason
last but not least ill add a small modifier to dmg with distance so that shooting at 3 4 tiles is 100% dmg while shooting to 10 tiles is 50 60%
as for champions it should be balanced a bit initiative and speed so they can be much better than units but not as much as now
but in the end ofc a very high lvl archer champion should be allowed to kite, at least the small slow monsters, surely shouldnt be possible to kite a dragon or so
This just seems to be overly complicating things. The problem is initiative and movement. There is no reason that initiative should allow multiple moves. Initiative should determine order of action for each unit. In the event balancing out the strength of champions is a concern you could use some other function to grant multiple attacks or use some calculation of level & initiative to do so.
Movement needs to be restricted to max of 4. Movement enhancing items should be expensive and difficult to manage, as weighing down your units should reduce movement. Being able to close or increase distance is a very huge tactical advantage. But most importantly, if the other side has a group of mounted horse archers, and your side has no ranged weapons, spells or mounted units of their own... you SHOULD lose! Make the computer kite like a dick.
That said ranged penalties are certainly welcomed.
I think many have made similar comments, but it makes most sense to me to have to take a turn to set up. You could even buff archer dmg a little if you force them to set up and aim for a turn. It also becomes a target that is important for the enemy to get to. This would encourage more actual formations in tactical battles.
There is also additional things one could do in that scenario such as taking extra dmg by melee or doing hald dmg when someone is up in your jock.
This is a rather harsh method I'm suggesting. But in White-Wolfs Vampire: The masqeruade, you could get extra turn actions for your character trough diciplines. What I'm proposing is that initiative only gives extra actions, but no extra moves and actions. The champions could attack two times extra, move two times extra, or move and attack one extra, each. This would make initiative less overpowerd, but will change the system. I'm really wandering if the current system is that bad. Couldn't you just trap the archers after a while by blocking his movement?
But this would be the best, in my opinion. An abillaty that allows a unit to block all movement next to him, in exchange of an atack or other action.
Sorry for the fuzzy post.
Good Idea
This works as well, combine both ideas for perfection
I don't like the fatigue idea much but I recognise that something needs to be done to tackle kiting issues and this would help in a long game but most battles are much shorter and it does nothing to deal with the impulsive mega mage that wipes out the enemy army in his first 2 turns. Maybe spells like blizzard, fireball and dirge of ceresa need a charge up time of 2 turns? With regard to fatigue maybe a unit loses 10% of its initiative with each turn it takes, so once the unit has taken 10 actions it's initiative becomes a base of 1 and once every unit has taken 10 turns they are effectively equal? However that approach would be unsatisfactory because it will create anomolies where the faster units fatigue quicker and actually become slower than the 'slow' unit simply because they have taken 10 turns quicker - so maybe the base should be the fastest enemy unit?
This thread seems to be focusing alot on archers - I don't think they are the problem, they are generally quite weak and already get a strength and initiative penalty. To get to horse archers you need to do ALOT of research too - once the AI is programmed to use these correctly then the playing field becomes level. Maybe cap their ammo and leave it at that. TBH I would like to see different types of arrows as researchable techs - magic arrows please
The main issue for me is how champs are able to exploit kiting to level up quickly - far ahead of the rate an empire develops. Once a champ has reached 20+ levels and you have a high mana income plus cloudwalk then you have effectively won the game. The key to reigning in the super champs is to make monster fights more challenging so that champs arent able to solo it so easily - that means giving them additional abilities to combat kiting.
Here are some other things that really benefit from a high initiative approach and may need looking at too:
1) Implusive trait
2) regeneration (very powerful with multiple life shards and multiple turns)
3) battlecry, haste and slow - battlecry can get pretty insane once you have a bunch of life shards
4) stun trait (and other dazing/proning effects)
5) I'll throw in counterattack too as it effectively gives you yet another attack, which can equate to 4 vs the AI's 1
6) anything that boosts movement
I'm not saying that these should be nerfed necessarily, just that I have been able to use all of these very effectively to really exploit initiative.
With the right combination of abilities you can effectively deny a monster any actions whatsoever and just take one turn after another in a 1 vs 1 battle. Yesterday, I played a tactical battle with my high level (30+) General Carrodus vs the big earth elemental Torax - I started by using battlecry and haste to boost my initiative to the point where I had 3 turns to Torax's one and then I kept using stun against him so that he missed his one turn and then i took another 3 and stunned him again etc - perhaps these big boss monsters should be immune to stun?
I agree with Blackmantle. Kiting is only a problem when Initiative and Movement are so powerful. This needs to be fixed before kiting can be dealt with. Fatigue and limited arrows are the worst ideas I have seen. Horses can battle for hours without fatigue. If anything, the heavily armored humans that everyone here is trying to protect should lose Initiative while horses continue to run circles around them. And limited arrows is just silly. What general sends an archer unit into battle with 6 arrows? I guess we don't know his name because he obviously died in the first battle. Or maybe he was killed by his own troops.
One primary fix to movement would be to disregard the leader movement bonuses during tactical combat. It makes sense that these work on a strategic level, but they ruin the balance of tactical combat.
Then the bonuses available should be balanced so that it is more difficult to get a high Initiative and Movement hero or trained unit. Make those traits cost more for trained units and move all the levelup bonuses to level 5 or 7.
I am fine with kiting as long as it is a tactic that progresses at an equal pace to other strategies.
Please don't call my ideas silly, and I won't call yours silly, agreed? We're already so far away from anything smacking of a realistic combat simulator here that making comparisons to it is just...well, you know. What we're discussing is how to balance a combat mechanic in a game so that it's fun, and the dev team can implement it within the calculation set they're currently capable of or can put in within a short amount of time. My personal feeling is that the AI should kite me all around if he can, that's what I've done to countless games before this one. If the AI is finally bright enough to do it to me, I need to develop tools to cope with it, or die trying. What I don't want in a game design is a very complex calculation that changes over time as a fix to a point problem. I think high initiative is a good thing, and if I've developed a hero that gives high bonuses to my units, and the AI doesn't have a counter, I should be rewarded for that with an easy victory. The other thing to consider is that most other games we're holding up as a good example (MOM, AOWSM) relies on finite ammo for ranged units. If you want to make sheildwall give a +20 against ranged attacks, sure. But DON'T hamstring the initiative system; it's one of the things that make EFE unique. As seanw says, balancing it against the other combat mechanics (attack, dodge, etc) is a possibility, but the fact remains that kiting developed because it is one of the most effective ways to dish out damage without taking any yourself. It's in MMOs, RTS, FPS, and TBS games. Teach the AI to do it, and it just becomes another tactic that can be used and countered.
The high importance of initiative and movement may be bad for the kiting issue, but overall it makes for fun gameplay so I don't want to lose it.
Maybe just get Derek to make all the existing bows to be incompatible with cavalry, and then create a cavalry bow as its own item which requires its own expensive technology. That would likely be the easiest/most straightforward, and can also keep horse archers from using the most damaging bow, which is a positive for balance.
I agree about not fucking up the Initiative system, though.
Ooh now there's a good point. In a given turn, Initiative should determine the turn order, not the amount of moves/turns one gets. That would immedeately solve the kiting problem, unless its horse archer vs footman ( in which case you deserve to be shot). IF you bring move 7 to a fight and a bow, victory should be won by a Lighting Bolt
If you need to nerf initiative gains, why not start all units with a higher base initiative?
If you're going to limit ranged attacks (ok solution) , I'd want my archers to carry a melee weapon, and then that opens up a slew of AI issues, so I don't like that idea.
Simplest solution: archers cannot move and fire in the same turn. Maybe get rid of the initiative penalty for bows if you do this.
This way for them to kite they'd need to be twice as fast as the melee unit. I also think a range distance penalty, dependent on weapon should be in place also, but higher-power bows would need a damage buff in this case.
Mounted archers would be a problem here, but making that a tech tree would at least mean you'd have to invest for it, with the other side being able to invest in counters.
One last solution: draws. Battles shouldn't last over 30 turns. Make it so you can't win by kiting. Have the AI kite themselves when they realize they can't win.
I meant no offense. Limited arrows are an idea from old games and I have always found them silly. I didn't consider it anyone's idea. Some ideas are silly though, nothing wrong with being silly. They would have to be some really thick arrows if only six can it in a quiver. Just saying.
Plus, what the heck am I supposed to do with archers after they run out?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
