I think there should be the counter attack for melee units which is SIMULTANEOUS with the main attack (i.e. done before the damage is applied to the unit under attack). It will make it meaningless to look for first strikes in melee.
I think many people here will support me.
Moreover, I suggest that units engaged in melee should be somehow "locked in melee" i.e. unable to move after they struck or were struck by another melee unit. Or maybe they could disengage but then their enemy would get an opportunity strike against them (which obviously may not be counter-attacked).
Thanks.
well it depends on what they want to do with ai etc
surely counterattack has been debated LONG LONG time ago and we were all agreeing its the best and easiest way to fix melee combat and not requiring a huge ai and lot of changes
so we will see where things are going but simultaneous counterattack seems to fix lots of problems alone (figure and multifigure scaling, ai unable to first strike effectively, huge bosses like dragons etc not being enough "epic" etc etc)
I hate always counter attacking. And it wouldn't work well in a game with glass cannon soldiers. Every attack would be a suicide.
In your scenario what's the tactical advantage to first strike?
If you and I are standing on a field with swords and I run up to you and get the first strike, assuming we're both trained in what we're doing, I'm now in the advantageous position because I am dictating the flow of action. You are reacting to me. As long as I keep you reacting to me and not initiating your own action, I win unless I screw up. It's called an OODA Loop.
The system you propose blatantly ignores this fact and gives no advantage to initiating action at the unit to unit level.
They should reduce attack damage or increase too. And if not, then it should be a suicide. Because melee combats definitely can't be resolved like this. Melee combat IS about BOTH sides of similar quality taking similar amount of damage. A group of ten people can't make one melee strike and kill another group of ten people without taking similar amount of damage from them, it's ridiculous.
I don't actually think there is ANY advantage of moving first. We both see that we are going to engage in like 10 seconds and it doesn't matter who moved in first. Defender can actually strike before the guy who is advancing on him. Moreover, most melee strikes are actually parried, so I just parry you strike or make a step sideways and here we are, the first strike is mine. There is NO advantage of first strike in real life.
I do believe free counter-attack should be a perk, not a given.
Locked in melee is a poor idea, in my opinion, as it removes freedom from the player, which i dont like.
I would however love to see something like an "Attack of Opportunity" system where you provoke a *melee* counterattack by moving out of any square adjacent to a unit with a melee weapon, providing that unit is equipped with a melee weapon, and has not already counter attacked anyone else since its last turn.
That adds an entirely new tactical layer to combat, helps to combat kiting and casual first strike tactics. The battlefield becomes much more like a chess board.
However, I honestly dont know if that sort of thing is easily within the game engine's technical capacity at present. Also, the designers seem to want to keep the battle under 3 minutes, and might not favor anything that slows them down by making players think more.
Guaranteed counter attack does seem like it would stop all melee units from attacking, how about a system where defense isn't granted by shields but instead is a trainable trait that is buffed by shields and adds a counter attack?
That seems more balanced, you could also add first strike to spears in this way.
I even think the defender has more time to observe and decide and therefore has a better reaction. But all these things are SOOO negligible in melee that I don't belive we should think about them at all.
I think the initiative system needs an overhaul long before an idea like this needs to be considered.
The notion of retaliation is paramount to any turn based tactical battle.
Some units should have the ability to retaliate to the first hit in a turn, but shouldn't retaliate to the second, third, nth hit in that turn. Other units should have the ability to retaliate one extra time per turn, while others should have the "no enemy retaliation" characteristic. There could also be a spell that gives one extra retaliation to the affected unit for that turn or a chance to retaliate every time until the end of the tactical battle (ex: the affected unit is given a 20% chance every time it's hit to retaliate again, until the end of the battle)
A general "locked in melee" approach makes no sense though. One should be able to lock units in melee by surrounding them or by casting specific spells. There is also the possibility for some types of units to have this ability built in (think of the dendroid soldier in Heroes of Might and Magic III - every time it hit an enemy, it had an x% chance to root that enemy to the ground and the effect lasted until dispelled or the dendroid were killed).
Why would it stop them from attacking? Does it stop them from attacking in Master of Magic? Does it stop them from attacking in real life? In total war series?
Melee will always make sense since they should inflict much more damage than ranged (rangedneed to be nerfed, too). Or, rather, ranged should be very likely to miss and have limited ammunition.
First strike in spears is a good idea: they could counter attack before the enemy attacks and attack before the enemy counter attacks.
Or I have another idea:
Spears have first strike against mounted units and mounted units have first strike against not mounted units... that would make some sense.
That rather seems like a mod already.
In the total war series ... if one unit 'charges' another equivalent unit, it will only deal about 10% damage (kill about 10% of the soldiers). Maybe a little bit more, but not a lot.
Its when you have basic armed troops facing off against peasants that you end up killing, say half of the unit with one charge.
(as for knights ... well they'd kill all the peasants, they'd also kill more than half of the basic armed troops, and the few survivors would just run away)
-> Just to give an example of how another game does it
I just think about such a situation in "real" life: if a group of people are engaged in melee, they definitely can't just show their backs and move without receiving some additional casualties from those they are in fight with; even if they are not surrounded, disengagement from melee is not an easy task.
They'd kill all the pesants with or without a charge. And this is a special situation - mounted charge. I think mounted units should have first strike against not mounted units, too.
Sry, misread your post. My Bad
I still think that counterattack should be a trait and not built in to all units (unless only from defensive mode), that goes double for "locked in combat".
It seems very unlikely that the Devs would change so much of basic tactical combat.
True, but that's just a suggestion.
I get where the OP is going with this. MoM had simultaneous attacks and so does HoMM. There is a good reason for it. Currently whom ever gets in the first hit has a big advantage assuming most things are equal. So it becomes a predictable tired waiting game to see who can move into position first. This usually is the player because the AI doesn't prioritize that way yet. Battles shouldn't work that way. There should be a risk inherent to a melee attack. I mean realistically unless it's a suprise attack there is no way some someone is going to just stand there and let you take a free swing at them. Am i right?
Maybe this can be countered with "First Strike" traits that prevent a counter attack if you kill the unit first and "Fear" traits that prevent retaliation on the more powerful units.
Game implementation wise though I think they way it currently is is fine. It does give more strategic depth to movement at the cost of realism and to be honest too much will have to change to balance things to work as the OP suggested. Standard units though do need something they can do in between marching to their deaths. Maybe an automatic defend option so the first striker doesn't get that much of an advantage.
Well, In real life there is absolutely an advantage at striking first. (If you miss, or they dodge, parry, ect then it isn't a strike... so, differentiating between acting first and striking first is my point.) Getting 'locked in melee' seems to be the way to go with the ingame issue and adding a simultaneous combat element seems solid as well.
In a related point, I feel that allowing us to setup our unit formation at the beginning of a tactical battle may alleviate some problems with getting rushed by a high initiative opponent when your archers are in the same 'front line' as your other melee units.
The "always on" first strike lets melee feel like ranged combat. To me it boils down to have a action points based system (like many other games have for good reason). How about some costs:
I know its done this way a lot but this does not mean its a bead thing. Also it allows to pin down a unit by attacking it so much that there are not AP's left when it starts his(/her) round.
Also i like the perks "firststrike", "always strike back", "no retaliation"...
To fit the charge situation, just give a strength bonus to the group which arrives in combat for one combat round. This should fix that without the *cite* ridiculous attack for free concept. I think the imagination should cover some seconds of fighting (with many strikes and parry's) instead of a single strike.
I agree, somewhat.
In Master of Magic, which we reference SO OFTEN... combat takes place like this.
Swordsmen Attacks Spearmen in melee, both take damage at the same time.
Archer attacks Spearmen from ranged, Spearmen take damage only.
Archer attacks Spearmen from melee, Spearmen take damage only. OR Spearmen Attacks Archer in Melee, only Archer takes damage.
Samurai with First Strike attacks Spearmen, Spearmen take damage.
Other strategy tactical games use this idea of simultaneous damage. It's a smart idea and I think it would fix my issues with tactical combat. I think tact. combat got A LOT better with the maps and AI, but working it like this would make unit design a lot more interesting. Right now, all you need is init and damage and you can own anything. Doing this, your melee troops are at risk on the offensive, which is how it should be. No more glass cannons.
Init should still determine movement and all that, for the use of ranged attacks, spell casting, special abilities. Perks like First Strike would prevent a unit from Counter Striking. A perk like Counterstrike may allow the unit to attack again after the initial fight between units. Hopefully the devs look at it because, despite how much fun creating new units are and can be, I've found that an army of Archers on Horses with Init and no armor is an all win group. I've killed heroes, monsters, and just about anything with just 2 Squad sized units of these archer riders. Before them, it was about spearmen with enough movement to cover the field and the +10 init on turn 1. As long as I one spearmen per unit, I would one shot most enemies.
EDIT: It just occured to me that Archers LACKING the ability to attack back if being attacked would be a great weakness to balance out their ranged superiority.
well ofc the strategy would be about searching the best tradeoff, for example attacking damaged units or starting with tanking guys to reduce the counterattack and then the assassins to finish off them
also there are (will be) skills to use and there could be a perk about a "real" first strike where the unit having it FIRST deal dmg and after the dmg is dealt (and so eventually the opponent dies or if multi figures get reduced in dmg) he will take the counter back
Hmm another idea. If devs want to stick to the initiative system:
if a unit is attacked let it suffer some turns (loss of 1/4th initiative temporary). So a unit which is defending will have to wait a little longer. But of course with retaliation implemented.
What do you think?
I agree with both of these issues :
First strike is too powerful, so we need either counter attack, either base HP being much higher compared to damage than they are now to mitigate this, or anything else to stop the tactical battles from being a boring exercise of counting spaces.
Archers being able to kite from melee without penalty, and having endless amunition is a problem too. It allows a single horse archer to obliterate a complete stack of ennemy footsoldiers (but as it would not be able to retreat when is ammunitions are depleted, that would lead to another problem).
(edit for typos)
Exactly as DarkGaldred said!
(Thanks, you saved me having to type my own summary.)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
