Some of the points from https://forums.elementalgame.com/389642 warrant further discussion in a more constructive manner.
[And no, I'm not the same poster.]
I'm sure that many of these are already
1. More techs sounds like a known issue that will no doubt be changed before release. Moving from 3 to 4 there is already some good improvement here.
2. I strongly agree with the general point about magic types being too similar.
Chain lightning, fire storm, ice storm are just the same thing with different graphics.
The elementals and the various summons are the same; we should have tanky earth elementals, fast but low heath air elementals, ice elementals with an ability to disrupt the enemy (reduce its speed, chance of losing its move, etc.) high damage low defense fire elementals that explode when they die.
But more importantly than these, there needs to be variation in "theme" across the elements.
Example:
Fire has good damaging spells, moderate summons, weak buffs and curses.
Air has good buffs, moderate damage, weak curses and summons
Earth has good summon spells, moderate summons, weak damage spells and curse.
Ice has good curses, moderate buffs, weak summons and damage.
Each spell can also have a probability of showing up in your spellbook; for fire, the damage spells have a high probability, while the summons have a low probability.
Adding specific elemental damage types and resistances also seems obvious (fire elementals immune to fire, but vulnerable to ice, etc.).
While on this point, I would also add; a really obvious thing from MoM missing here (and present in most fantasy games) is a Resistance stat, rather than just a catchall "defense" stat.
It doesn't really make sense that armor (leather, metal) and dexterity protect you from lightning bolts and such.
And it would be neat to have some units that are resistant to physical weapons but vulnerable to magical attacks, and vice versa. And hero/champion units that are more resistant to magic attacks than regular grunts. Maybe the Wisdom stat could boost magical defenses?
I would also suggest to try to cut down on the number of spells, but make them different and useful.
Increase the costs of researching each spell, so each spell really counts. I don't want to have to flick through a spellbook of 40 spells to pick one out to cast.
Maybe limit the number of spells you can ever learn (or be offered) at each spell level; so you can only ever know say 3 level 2 spells, 3 level 3 spells, etc.
3. I agree that the first-move advantage is too strong.
A Homm-type system of iniative (which could be different from combat speed) or just alternating move; you move a unit, I move a unit, you move a unit, I move a unit, until every unit has moved, then next turn.
Sovereigns have initiative 3, champions 2, regular troops 1, horses add +1, magic items can add some too.
Removing the ability late-game to instakill Sovs and Champions with magic/ranged attack would be useful; let them get a bodyguard of meatshields to help them survive. Or implement Line of Sight, where you can only attack the front row.
Some kind of tactics ability to place your units within a starting area box (a la Total War games) would be good too.
Another thing: the combat stength of parties/squads etc. should degrade as they take damage, a la MoM1.Its a bit lame that a Squad with 2 health left (where most of the guys are dead) can still deal out a massive melee strike.
In general, damage rates are too high relative to hit points. Damage is easy to get, hit points aren't; units shouldn't be able to deal out more damage than they can take in a single blow.
I'm sure you've thought of most of these already, but thought I'd throw them out there anyway.
Oh, and another thought on parties/squads and how they gain power relative to smaller groups.
The way these get more powerful is just too much.
The benefit of these should be:
a. the unit can heal to full strength (its original number of mean) as long as it has any health remaining
b. it concentrates its power into a single tile and army slot.
It should NOT mean for example that 3 guys A, B C that are all 5 attack/2 defense with 6 hit points are as good as a single guy D that is 15 attack/6 defense and 18 hit points.
Instead, it should be the case that if the ABC attacks D, then it counts as if an attack 5 guy was attacking against 6 defense, and was doing so 3 times.
This would really help make champions/sovs more important into the mid-late game.
[Maybe it already works this way and I have misunderstood, but it doesn't seem to.]
Earth has good summon spells, moderate buffs, weak damage spells and curse.
An example of how this might work.
Damage:Fireblast: does [up to Int]+1 of fire damage. Int% chance that the unit is set on fire, and will take 1 damage per turn for rest of combat. High probability of being available to research if you have the Fire spellbook.Lightning bolt: does [up to Int]+1 of lightning damage. Medium probability of availability.Icebolt: does [up to Int/2] of cold damage, Reduces enemy combat speed by Int/50 for rest of battle. Low probability of availability.Hurl boulder: does [up to Int] of physical damage. Low probability of availability.
Summons:Minor Fire elemental. Attack 8 + [Int/3]. Defense zero. Combat speed 1, 2 moves. 20 health. When it dies, does [up to 5] damage to each unit in an adjacent tile. Average probability of availability.Minor Air elemental. Attack 6. defense 2. combat speed 1+[Int/5], 1+[Int/5] moves, 15 health.Minor earth elemental. Attack 8. Defense 8. Combat speed 1. 2 moves. 10+[2*Int] health. High probability of availabilityMinor ice elemental. Attack 4. Defense 4. Combat speed 1, 2 moves, 25 health. Each time it attacks, probability [Int] that the defending unit will lose its next combat round. Low probability of availability.
Buffs:Minor Fire shield. Each time an enemy successfully damages the unit in melee, they take [Int/10] damage. Low probability of availability.Minor air shield. Adds [Int] to the unit's defense against (physical) missile attacks. High probability of availability.[Or: Haste. Adds [Int/8] to the unit's combat speed. High probability of availability.]Stoneskin. Adds [Int/4] to the units defense. moderate probability of availability.Frozen armor. Unit becomes immune to cold damage, takes zero damage from the first successful physical attack each combat.
Curses:Drought. Target city loses [Int]% food production.Gust of wind. Target unit loses its ranged attack for [Int/3] turns.Quicksand. Any unit entering target tile on the tactical map will lose its next turn.Icy shackles. Unit loses next combat turn. Has [Int] chance of losing its turn each round for the rest of combat.
As luck would have it, the OP has posted most of what I would have posted, but in the continuing theme of constructive solutions, here's the priority of improvements I'd see for tactical combat:
1. Don't start in striking range.
2. By default put sovereigns in the rear rank and implement line of sight for archers, or even better have some ability to set who goes in which rank, even if it isn't a full setup phase. For example designate troops as cavalry, infantry, archers, casters, and let the player set them to prioritise first or second rank.
3. Initiative is a must - currently the attacker has a huge advantage. I would also favour the initiative style of Heroes of Might and Magic where high initiative units not only go first, but faster units also go more often than slower ones. If a unit could only counterattack once between moves, this would also ensure that slower units have less counterattacks.
4. Archers that fire can't move. This would stop the ability to fire once and move once, thus never getting caught by units with 1 move.
5. Implement limited ammo. Larger quivers could be an equipment type - I'd suggest ammo of 5 as base for archers or crossbows, 2 for spear throwing, 3 for breath attacks, etc.
6. Give the defender a 'pre-battle' buff chance so that casters can do something to protect themselves from first mover advantage. If the full initiaive system is in place this would be less necessary and instead could be offered to all casters.
7. Units with shields could be given the options to form shield walls which block line of missile attacks vs the units behind.
8. Bring in the resistances as propsed by the OP.
I strongly agree that the different types of magic should have themes, strengths and weaknesses.
I like all of that except number 2. While number 2 is still a good idea, I think it would be better if we could put our units anywhere we wanted within a certain range at the beginning of battle. Like in a "deployment" phase. This way the player could best arrange their force for the given situation.
I strongly support a deployment phase. It should be possible at least to make a Sov into a Sauron-like melee-monster - who you would certainly want in the front row.
Indeed. Doing that with a Sov is possible now more or less. I too really want a Deployment Phase. I can think of plenty of situations where I might want Archers up front only to move them to the rear after they fire a salvo or two, or reverse situations where I'd want them to start in the rear ranks. Having a Deployment Phase isn't much of a issue with small armies, but once you have at least 4 unit types it becomes an issue Imo.
I don't think we should allow ranged units to move and shoot in the same turn; that kind of kiting will make it very hard to balance ranged units. The exception would be if we had some short range javelin or slinger skirmisher type units. Peltasts, Velites, that sort of thing.
I think i would prefer not to have a deployment phase. Sounds like it would add too much time to run of the mill battles.
Better to be able to predesignate which rank you want each unit to be placed in before battle for simplicity, in my opinion.
A simple way; you enter the deployment phase with the units already set up by default, depending on the party order in the strategic screen (first 4 front row left to right, next 4 back row). You can change the deployment if you like, otherwise there is a single mouseclick to start the battle.
And then make it easier to drag units into whatever party order you like in the main strategic screen.
I could go with that. If we limit ranged units to not being able to move and shoot in the same turn then them having a decent starting location is doubly important.
While I disagree, I do see where you're coming from, strawbdragon. It's just like any other part of the game though. If you don't want to have to deal with it then when the "Deployment" box pops up just click "Continue" and don't worry about it. Better yet (maybe) have an option to turn it off completely. In any kind of strategic battle though, be it turn based or real time, I think having a Deployment Phase of any kind can really add a lot to the strategic depth of the tactical battles. I think we all can agree at this point that tactical battles still need a lot of work to make them have a deeper impact on the game ( <-- I believe Frogboy himself shares that opinion as well). We've already established with the "Auto Calculate" and "Threshold" options that tactical battles don't Need to be played by those people who don't want to deal with them, but, for those of us who do like them adding more options to add depth to the system is a much needed and very good thing.
If you spend a lot of time and effort building up a good army then seeing a much needed unit get cut down quickly because of a bad starting position is really frustrating. Also, if you look at most other games of this nature with armies fighting each other, there's always a way to set up how your armies go into battle. A lot of games handle this with in depth "Formations" or even with as simple a system as arranging them by the order they are in their perspective groups on the world map. As we all know Elemental doesn't have formations, so position on the field of battle is again doubly important.
As long as it can be easily skipped by those who don't want to deal with it, I can't see how having a "Deployment Phase" would do any harm to the game-play. Honestly my friend, I can only see good things coming from it. It's always possible I'm missing a way of looking at it though so if you can think how it might be detrimental to game-play then by all means please share your fears so we can find ways to avoid them. This will help because eventually I plan on modding in a Deployment Phase anyway for both of my planned mods.
Agreed. I don't know if I'd base the default formations on the party order though. It might be better to have it default to using the units with the highest Dex or Action Points or some other variable that is based on a unit stat. Which ever way works best is fine by me though as long as there is some kind of deployment phase.
Yes - I wasn't perhaps clear on what I'd like best, but it would be:
1. Full deplyoment phase for battle - skippable.
2. If not 1, then designation of which unit types go in which ranks in an options menu (which can be changed in game), and this is used as the dafault behaviour for every battle until changed.
3. If not 1 or 2, a default setup chosen on some automatic criteria that we can at least plan against (be it unit type, dexterity, or whatever).
Any of these would be better than current, but I'd obviously prefer 1 or 2!
I'm in agreement for the idea of a 'skippable' deployment phase. For small armies that you don't mind sacrificing the hassle of full deployment seems redundant but for a large force sent against an enemy city led by your sovereign, strategic deployment could be the difference between winning and losing.
Of course, if this was implemented, it would raise the question of who deploys first? Does the attacker retain his advantage by deploying second, thus responding to the defenders tactics? Or does the defender deploy second as he see's an enemy force bearing down he deploys his army to maximum effect? Or do we go with (the slightly tedious) simultaneous deployment where player A places a unit first, then player B and so on?
I'd go for enemy units are not revealed until after deployment.
Me too.
Best regards,Steven.
I don't think it would really matter who deploys first as the battle won't begin until both sides are deployed. To be fair neither side should see how the other side is deployed until the begining (turn 1) of the battle. Just like in the Total War series, you don't see the enemy army until after the deployment phase.
I kind of wonder... if the game is intelligent about positioning units on its own, in what situation would you use a deployment feature if you can't see the enemy deployment?
When I want to use a specific tactics.
I think the default unit positioning should be the same as used in the deployment phase of the previous battle (if the army composition was the same).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
