auto-resolve vs. tactical spell division

Its another pitch for my spellbook selection, really

For those that have been here a long time, you may remember my pitching for having multiple pre-saved spell books.  (example, and again)

 

 in my previous posts, I talked about having pre-sets including "weak magic" (having only the basic low level spells, or making the strong spells especially difficult/rare to recieve),  "Strong Magic" (having easy access to many very powerful spells, perhaps removing some weaker redundancy spells that might have been used in the weak magic)  and "tournament magic" including the most balanced arrangement of spells, possibly for tournament, ladder, or other compeditive play.

I have however, thought of something new.   We could have "tactical" vs. "auto-resolve" spells and spellbooks. 

Tactical spellbook would include a lot of "in battle" use spells, that may not be useful (or even usable) for games where combat is auto-resolved

In turn, 'auto-resolve"spellbooks could have enchantments that specifically effect auto-resolve rolls (say a moral boost, or firy heart might give auo-resolve bonuses)  or variants on the "in combat" spells that allow them to be used outside of combat.  

 

One example that comes to mind is a generic fireball spell.  In tactical combat, you'd expect it to hit 1 target with AoE, but that doesn't work if everything is auto-resolve.   In tactical combat it would be a decently useful spell, but a skilled tactitic player might be able to space his or her units to recieve mininum damage from such spells.   However, in auto-resolve, such tactics would be removed, so either the spell would be gone or it would be usable from the over-land map.  However, in the overland map, it would have to either A: hit all units on a tile (in which case it would be broken if the same damage as recieved in combat) or B: reduce damage per unit hit or C: have a set number or ratio of other units hit by the "splash".  Anyway, it would have to be modified to fit the new purpose (or just removed because it is useless and can't be used outside of combat).   This is why I call for set(s), so auto-resolve and tactical based games can have their own spell lists.

 

Another idea is just have a window that appears before auto-resolve combat where you pick how much mana and which spells you want to use in combat, and that is factored into the auto-resolution.     This may be the best option, but it seems like a cheap to solve the auto-resolve vs. tactical gameplay problem.  (what do you think?)

7,906 views 24 replies
Reply #1 Top

I don't think there should be different spells for auto-resolve vs. tactical combat because I think most people will use some combination of both methods of combat in the same game. And if you allow both types within the same game, then you're better off sticking to one type and ignoring the other, but then that locks you into one of the combat methods. 

I'd much rather have the ability to give the AI guidelines of what spells it's allowed to use in auto-combat, if any - and maybe even a mana limit. There could be a system sort of like in SoaSE where you can enable auto-casting of certain spells.

Reply #2 Top

I'd rather the AI doesn't suck so that tactical combat is interesting and people don't want to skip it.

Reply #3 Top

Some people will always want to skip it. And I love tactical combat, but sometimes I want to skip it, too. But I think treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a bad idea. In fact I'd say it's a really bad idea.

Edit: Oops, fixed a horrible typo.

Reply #4 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 2
I'd rather the AI doesn't suck so that tactical combat is interesting and people don't want to skip it.

99% of the time "I" want to auto-resolve has nothing to do with the AI.   Usually it has to do with either A: time (especially good AI takes time to fight.  I sometimes don't want to spend 5 hours fighting AI in tactical battles for a game I could beat in 1 hour without.   or B:  multiplayer:  because sometimes (especially play by e-mail or games that take several days) it just isn't reasonable to have tactical battles (note, here AI isn't even present)

 

(If I get bored fighting AI, it means somebody fails at making fun spells)

Reply #5 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 3
Some people will always want to skip it. And I love tactical combat, but sometimes I want to skip it, too. But I think treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a good idea. In fact I'd say it's a really bad idea.

There's some kind of typo in the one or both of the last two sentences here. I'm guessing that you mean "Treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a really bad idea." But I wouldn't bet on my guess being correct.

Reply #6 Top

Perhaps this stuff should be handled by a Dominions 3 like battle system. You could script what the AI should do, and the AI will do that to the best of its ability in the auto-battles. If you tell it to cast a fireball, it should try to fry a group of enemies instead of a lone unit.

Given that Elemental is currently under development, I think we should be able to design an AI instead of relying on scripts alone. You know, a few If... Then... statements here and there. Allow us to save our favorite AIs so we could use them for armies and in different games would help to make things good.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting DivineWrath, reply 6
Perhaps this stuff should be handled by a Dominions 3 like battle system. You could script what the AI should do, and the AI will do that to the best of its ability in the auto-battles. If you tell it to cast a fireball, it should try to fry a group of enemies instead of a lone unit.

Given that Elemental is currently under development, I think we should be able to design an AI instead of relying on scripts alone. You know, a few If... Then... statements here and there. Allow us to save our favorite AIs so we could use them for armies and in different games would help to make things good.

I like the Idea of being able to script the AI in case I don't want to fight the battle out myself.

If the battle is going to be trival I don't want to use mana or god forbig essence.

 

Sammual

Reply #8 Top

Quoting GW, reply 5

There's some kind of typo in the one or both of the last two sentences here. I'm guessing that you mean "Treating tactical and auto-combat as two different games is a really bad idea." But I wouldn't bet on my guess being correct.

Oops, sorry. Your guess was right - I think ti's a really bad idea.

Quoting DivineWrath, reply 6
Perhaps this stuff should be handled by a Dominions 3 like battle system. You could script what the AI should do, and the AI will do that to the best of its ability in the auto-battles. If you tell it to cast a fireball, it should try to fry a group of enemies instead of a lone unit.

I cringe a little bit when people suggest handling combat in Elemental like in Dominions 3. I have never played the game (though it seems like I game I'd enjoy), but there is a problem with it. It is catered to a small niche, which has a very disproportionate voice on these forums compared to the target customer base of Elemental. Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to script out all their battles? I don't. So I think if Elemental has any sort of combat scripting, it needs to be either simplified or have a very, very good UI and be very intuitive.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't enjoy it (though I'm happier with full-on tactical combat with a good auto-resolve that takes a few magic-related cues from the player), I just don't think it's the right thing for this game.

Reply #9 Top

I cringe a little bit when people suggest handling combat in Elemental like in Dominions 3. I have never played the game (though it seems like I game I'd enjoy), but there is a problem with it. It is catered to a small niche, which has a very disproportionate voice on these forums compared to the target customer base of Elemental. Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to script out all their battles? I don't. So I think if Elemental has any sort of combat scripting, it needs to be either simplified or have a very, very good UI and be very intuitive.

Well its kind of why I mentioned being able to save scripts and AIs between armies and games. That way you could build up you scripts and AIs over many battles and games. Saving scripts would be an upgrade to the UI in comparison to Dominions 3. Heck, maybe a few nice players might decide to donate some scripts of their own to those who might find them useful.

For the record, the scripts in Dominions 3 could not be saved between armies, let alone games (to the best of my knowledge).

P.S. You could always download the demo for Dominions 3 and play around for a bit.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 8
I cringe a little bit when people suggest handling combat in Elemental like in Dominions 3. I have never played the game (though it seems like I game I'd enjoy), but there is a problem with it. It is catered to a small niche, which has a very disproportionate voice on these forums compared to the target customer base of Elemental. Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to script out all their battles? I don't. So I think if Elemental has any sort of combat scripting, it needs to be either simplified or have a very, very good UI and be very intuitive.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't enjoy it (though I'm happier with full-on tactical combat with a good auto-resolve that takes a few magic-related cues from the player), I just don't think it's the right thing for this game.
Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to tactically control all their battles? I don't.

Reply #11 Top

I imagine most of the people that are bored by 4X games like Civ would be more entertained if they had tactical combat.  The lame combat empire builder market is already saturated.

 

Master of Magic was the definition of a buggy shit release.  Master of magic had tactical combat.  Master of magic is still a big name in the 4X world.  Just because no one seems to give a shit about the market doesn't mean it isn't there.  Even if the Civ market is bigger, and I don't buy it, they'd have to compete with it.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Luckmann, reply 10
Do you imagine many of your more average TBS players wanting to tactically control all their battles? I don't.

Yes, actually. I do. (there would of course need to be an auto-resolve, which we know will be in, and has been in almost every game with tactical combat). In fact, everyone I know personally who likes 4X games likes tactical combat. Like Psychoak said, MoM had tactical combat. AoW had tactical combat. HoMM (different type of game but very similar player base) is based on tactical combat.

I would actually say that it's more the avid/hardcore TBS players that don't want tactical combat. 

Reply #13 Top

As long as it's not real-time (or has an EFFECTIVE pause system), I love it. If it is real-time and the pause system curtails your UI or is absent altogether, why bother?

Reply #14 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 11
I imagine most of the people that are bored by 4X games like Civ would be more entertained if they had tactical combat.  The lame combat empire builder market is already saturated.
I love this. This reminds me of the topic in which Steampunk was brought up and someone made a comment as to how many steampunk games there are.

Not counting a mod such as Fall from Heaven 2 (which is great and all.. but still just a mod, with all the limitations and band-aids that involves) how many fantasy 4x TBS games have there been? HoMM, AoW and BT:tL the legend certainly doesn't count - they're all quite far from Grand Strategy or 4x. The only one I can actually think of is Fall from Heaven. Even if we count generally, and not just fantasy, I still only get that to Galactici Civilizations and Civilization in recent memory.

Quoting psychoak, reply 11
Master of Magic was the definition of a buggy shit release.  Master of magic had tactical combat.  Master of magic is still a big name in the 4X world.  Just because no one seems to give a shit about the market doesn't mean it isn't there.  Even if the Civ market is bigger, and I don't buy it, they'd have to compete with it.
It's a big name. But that's about it.

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 12
Yes, actually. I do. (there would of course need to be an auto-resolve, which we know will be in, and has been in almost every game with tactical combat). In fact, everyone I know personally who likes 4X games likes tactical combat. Like Psychoak said, MoM had tactical combat. AoW had tactical combat. HoMM (different type of game but very similar player base) is based on tactical combat.
I think the issue lies in most people never having experienced the the 'scripted combat' model (which you admittedly haven't, either). While Dominions 3 caters to a small niche, the game wasn't specificly geared towards that niche from the beginning - it created it's own niche from an existing audience. Dominions 3 is small due many issues - the scripted tactical combat system more likely than not being the least of them.

Again, I'm hard pressed to find a game that employs a remotely similar system. That's not an attempt to be antagonistic - I'd genuinely like to see if anyone have actually employed a similar system. Anyone seen any? Regardless, I encourage you to try Dominions 3. I'm not that much of a fan of the game as a whole, as much as certain aspects of it. For example, I don't like the EU/HoI-like system and the game has a truly horrible UI that takes some getting use to.

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 12
I would actually say that it's more the avid/hardcore TBS players that don't want tactical combat. 
Are there any other kind?

Reply #15 Top

again with the reference to dominions 3.  why havn't I purchased that yet.   I'm not waiting any longer, I'm putting it on my credit card (I hate to do that)

Reply #16 Top

Quoting Luckmann, reply 14
"I would actually say that it's more the avid/hardcore TBS players that don't want tactical combat."

Are there any other kind?

That question doesn't really deserve an answer. But I'll give you one anyways: yes. Civilization IV wasn't a success because a small group of avid TBS players went out and bought it - it was a success because many people who enjoy TBS games as much as I enjoy the occasional RTS game went out and bought it, too. And the latter group, I'm sure, was far larger than the former.

Quoting Luckmann, reply 14

I think the issue lies in most people never having experienced the the 'scripted combat' model (which you admittedly haven't, either). While Dominions 3 caters to a small niche, the game wasn't specificly geared towards that niche from the beginning - it created it's own niche from an existing audience. Dominions 3 is small due many issues - the scripted tactical combat system more likely than not being the least of them. 

I probably should try out Dominions 3, but I also doubt I will. Same reason I probably should play MoM, but I probably won't. I don't really know why. But still, I would be very surprised if I enjoyed scripted combat more than tactical combat. I love watching my battles unfold real time, telling my armies where to go and what to do. I loved Medieval II: Total War as much for its combat as for anything else. The combat was RTS, but there is something so visceral about controlling my military at such a level in a game with such a huge scope. Bringing my catapults and cannons, smashing down walls and gates... It's just so satisfying. Even in games like AoW, HoMM, etc, I enjoyed tactical combat very much - not as much as in TW, but still quite a bit. I know those aren't so much of the grand 4X TBS empire-building genre, but I still loved tactical combat there. And every time I play Civ IV I wish that it had tactical combat.

So no, I don't think experiencing Dom 3-style combat scripting will make me like tactical combat any less, and I don't think I'd prefer scripting. Maybe I'll get myself to download the demo and find out for sure, but I really do think it's a forgone conclusion. Scripting may be great, but it wouldn't give me that same visceral feel of telling my troops exactly what to do and then watching them carry out my orders.

Reply #17 Top

Tactical combat complaints tend to center around how long the game will take to play, or how unfair it is against the AI.

 

My guess is that the latter is single player types, and the former is multi-player types.  As single player gamers vastly outnumber multi-player gamers, in the hundreds and thousands to one range, the relatively minuscule level of complaint leads me to think it's mostly multi-player types that get bent over it.

 

Assuming this true, hardcore players would be more against tactical combat, since hardcore players are the only players crazy enough to do online TBS. :)

 

I love this. This reminds me of the topic in which Steampunk was brought up and someone made a comment as to how many steampunk games there are.

Not counting a mod such as Fall from Heaven 2 (which is great and all.. but still just a mod, with all the limitations and band-aids that involves) how many fantasy 4x TBS games have there been? HoMM, AoW and BT:tL the legend certainly doesn't count - they're all quite far from Grand Strategy or 4x. The only one I can actually think of is Fall from Heaven. Even if we count generally, and not just fantasy, I still only get that to Galactici Civilizations and Civilization in recent memory.

 

There are oodles of 4X games that have flown way under your radar then.  Fantasy specific, not as much.  Age of Wonders being the only thing close to MoM to have come out since should be a big clue on how starved that market is.  On the lame combat side, you've got at least three rather prominent lines, Disciples, Warlords, and HoMM.

 

Yeah, HoMM makes it into my lame combat list, stack based is subpar.  Better than Civ style, but then anything is.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Luckmann, reply 14
I would actually say that it's more the avid/hardcore TBS players that don't want tactical combat. Are there any other kind?

The last time I heard someone use an argument like that, it went along the lines of nobody would buy a Wii because only hardcore types played video games. The time before that, it was people saying that no MMORPG would ever be bigger then Everquest, because only hardcore gamers would play that type of game.

Then of course the Wii sold faster then any system in history, and World of Warcraft showed up. People then started saying all those players would migrate to newer more hardcore friendly MMOs, which never happened.

The point? The non-hardcore crowd completely dwarfs the hardcore crowd. Even in the TBS market, making a game designed to cater to the most hardcore of the forum goers is a recipe for failure.

Reply #19 Top

Ideally you want both core and casual market.   The casual market bring the sales, but the core market bring the casual market (if that makes any sense)   if the core market claim something sucks, the casual market is much less likely to step up to the plate.  the reason the Wii sold so quickly is because all the core fans rushed out and bought it, and from there the casual market took off.  If you get only casual players, at best you might get a sleeper product, something like bejeweled that slowly grows in popularity over a rather long period of time.   (which isn't bad, but still.   don't neglect the core either)

Reply #20 Top

Sorry, but the only people that pay any attention to the core market are the people in the core market.  Free advertising by having news agencies pick up the crowds is the most the core market will ever do for the casual gamers.  The advertisements for the Wii are why it sold so well, they were catchy and informative.

 

As a hardcore as hardcore gets gamer without an internet connection to do it, I don't even give a shit how many people are interested in a game anymore.  If there isn't a single person online, it doesn't pose a problem.  They don't even notice us, they never have.  They pop into Walmart, see the box, and think gee, that looks fun.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 20
Sorry, but the only people that pay any attention to the core market are the people in the core market.  Free advertising by having news agencies pick up the crowds is the most the core market will ever do for the casual gamers.  The advertisements for the Wii are why it sold so well, they were catchy and informative.

As a hardcore as hardcore gets gamer without an internet connection to do it, I don't even give a shit how many people are interested in a game anymore.  If there isn't a single person online, it doesn't pose a problem.  They don't even notice us, they never have.  They pop into Walmart, see the box, and think gee, that looks fun.
"Oooh, shiny".

Reply #22 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 20
As a hardcore as hardcore gets gamer without an internet connection to do it, I don't even give a shit how many people are interested in a game anymore.  If there isn't a single person online, it doesn't pose a problem.  They don't even notice us, they never have.  They pop into Walmart, see the box, and think gee, that looks fun.

I just went to bestbuy the other day to look at monitors, and walked out with Elven Legacy and Prince of Persia even though I knew close to nothing about either. I mainly brought Prince of Persia because I played the original years and years ago when I was a kid, so nostalgia and curiosity kicked in. I don't really expect a remotely similar experience, though...

Reply #23 Top

A lot of casual players base their sales on metacritic scores and results on sites like IGN.   I guess I can't discount the "ooh the box looks pretty", "I've heard of this series name before", and other impulse buys.  But usually somebody has to "hear" that a game is good before they buy it. 

Reply #24 Top

There are plenty of canned responses from the major reviewers for that. :)