Frogboy Frogboy

Tactical Battle Evolution

Tactical Battle Evolution

Fleshing out its implemtnation

Beta 3B introduces the skeleton of tactical battles.

Here's the basic concept on how they're supposed to work:

Your Combat Speed is translated into action points. We do NOT use your Moves per turn stat (that's supposed to represent endurance and it's not subject to change).

The current system is, however, far too basic of course.  In this thread, we will discuss which aspects of MOM, HOMM, AOW, as well as new concepts you guys would like to see.

Below is the system we intend to implement and we look forward to your thoughts on this:

  1. When a unit attacks another unit, that units gets to retaliate (if it can) against the unit that attacked it.
  2. Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed.
  3. Moving a tile uses 2 action points.
  4. Attacking and casting a spell uses 1 action point.
  5. The placement of units on a map will be based on the the composition on the units going into the battle.
  6. Units will have various special abilities (that's why the action tab looks so blank right now).

These 6 things are what we consider the "basic" for day 0.

Obviously, right now, none of these 6 things are in. I am hoping to get a Beta 3C up on Monday that has them though.

On top of these 6 items there is what we consider "required" for v 1.1 (60 days or so after release):

  • More distinction in the action point cost
  • More finesse with regards to the counter attack (in v1.0, we don't plan the counter attack to absorb any action points from the next turn but this is something we want to explore so that ganging up on tough units is more viable).
  • A lot LOT LOT LOT more buffs/debuffs

In the long-term, we plan to keep evolving tactical battles based on feedback. It's not something we're going to push out there on day 0 and call it a day. But I also think it would be naive to think that by day 0 or day 120 that tactical battles will be the end all be all because there is just so much one can do with this area and it's not something that should ever be considered "finished".

392,501 views 274 replies
Reply #226 Top

I have to agree with Sethai (@224) here. Combat in GC2 is very simple - which is why I barely every fought in the game. I hope we get some more complexity in Elemental - either vanilla, or through mods.

Reply #227 Top

Quoting Icepick, reply 220
How about a spell costing its level in APs to cast? I.E a level 4 spell takes 4 AP to cast. Any attacking/moving by the caster during the turns it takes to complete interrupts the spell. This way an opponent has 2 or 3 turns to try to interrupt a Sovereign casting a 9th lvl nuke spell. Also keeps someone from busting out 3 or 4 high level spells per turn.

If spell level= # of APs doesn't balance, you can always toss a modifier in there: (modifer * Spell Level) = # of APs...note that could also be a difficulty modifier as well, which would make more challenging levels harder to play, and easier levels easier to play.

 

yeah id like something like that

 

but even more easier id like just to cast few spells each turn

 

it seems just odd to spam spells  like it is now

Reply #228 Top

Quoting Sethai, reply 224
the current oversimplification of tactical battles reminds me distinctly of the oversimplification of battles in GC2. brad likes to think of his games as glorified board games in which all the numbers can be traced by the player almost as quickly as the computer comes up with them. this is a noble purpose, but it leads to some ridiculous situations. anyone could look at the GalCiv battles and notice that it didn't have any mechanics at all to demonstrate big ships being outmaneuvered by small fighters. or accuracy. or range. and it made for ridiculous situations and boring armies.

i fear this mistake is being made in elemental as well, and when players have a degree of control in proceedings they will feel even more frustrated. combat is far too complicated to be modelled by (effectively) 4 stats. look at the warhammer games, look at D&D, look at the ultra casual total war games. we need separate stats to separate the strength of attacks from the chance of hitting, toughness vs parrying ability (you can't parry an arrow), movement ability from number of attacks, because these are all things that vary in any reasonably imaginable scenario. these are all massively obvious. fortunately we have computers that are easily capable of managing all these variables. the real world, or even a fantastical facsimile thereof is a complicated place, but reasonably unabstracted mechanics do not make for a complicated game. GalCiv 2 was based on many simple mechanics but still ended up massively confusing to casual players (in my experience); all people who had no problems with more complicated but less abstracted systems like D&D.

i love brad and could never do what he does, but he can be stubborn on things like this (for good reason; release is only a month away), but he really needs to budge on this imho. movement speed and number of attacks really need to be split up imho at the least. in the long term, there needs to be even more change.

I agree on all points. Especially about movement speed and number of attacks need to be split up

Reply #230 Top

The notion that you need more stats is provably false. MOM only had attack, ranged attack, shields, resistance, hitpoints.  It was perfectly fine and quite interesting combat system.  Granted mostly thats because it had abilities on its units.  Abilities are coming though.

Resistance would actually be a nice mechanic to implement, it would serve to make champions/dragons/etc. far more resistant to magic than foot soldiers without requiring big hp boosts.

 

Reply #231 Top

Quoting DeadlyShoe, reply 230
The notion that you need more stats is provably false. MOM only had attack, ranged attack, shields, resistance, hitpoints.  It was perfectly fine and quite interesting combat system.  Granted mostly thats because it had abilities on its units.  Abilities are coming though.

Resistance would actually be a nice mechanic to implement, it would serve to make champions/dragons/etc. far more resistant to magic than foot soldiers without requiring big hp boosts.

 

hp are still    required

 

when something has 8 9 hp its hard to balance

 

mostly cause the actual system contains a TOO HIGH randomness on dmg

 

maybe if armor would produce a % reduction  etc

 

but  right now we really need more hp

 

myabe just a lvl boost on lvl for free

like 2 hp free

Reply #232 Top

Quoting Icepick, reply 220
How about a spell costing its level in APs to cast? I.E a level 4 spell takes 4 AP to cast. Any attacking/moving by the caster during the turns it takes to complete interrupts the spell. This way an opponent has 2 or 3 turns to try to interrupt a Sovereign casting a 9th lvl nuke spell. Also keeps someone from busting out 3 or 4 high level spells per turn.

If spell level= # of APs doesn't balance, you can always toss a modifier in there: (modifer * Spell Level) = # of APs...note that could also be a difficulty modifier as well, which would make more challenging levels harder to play, and easier levels easier to play.

For the record, I prefer the movement/combat speed system on page 1 over an AP one.

That said, with AP I'd rather see the spell cost it's mana cost in AP. If it's just the level, you can still carpet bomb fireballs.

Reply #233 Top

I'm very much against spells taking several turns to cast, else their effects will need to be greatly increased to balance the amount of hurt a same-level Melee sovereign can dish out (and it's a lot). I'm not against casting fewer higher level spells per turn versus lower level spells (like being able to cast 4 level 1 spells, but only 1 level 5).

That said, with AP I'd rather see the spell cost it's mana cost in AP

This makes caster Sovs have to invest in an extra stat, since tactical spells can cost 5+ mana. Then there's "okay" scaling for some spells, but mostly you'd end up casting just 1 spell per turn in most cases 'cause it just uses up any AP you have, there won't be any diferrentiation between the power of the spell. One Dominate spell is probably not the same as a "hit everything for lots of damage" spell, but the combat system wouldn't really care.

Reply #234 Top

i dont think anyone wants multi-turn casting. it's just that 8 ice bolts in 1 turn is ridiculous

Reply #235 Top

i dont think anyone wants multi-turn casting.

You'd be surprised, people have been asking for it :P

Reply #236 Top

Throwing it out there as an option, there is a difference (in my case anyway). ;-)  And I did mention higher AP or Mana Point costs as options too. ^_^

Best regards,
Steven.

Reply #237 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 235

i dont think anyone wants multi-turn casting.
You'd be surprised, people have been asking for it

Multi-turn tactical casting and is different from say overland casting. If I'm casting a game winning spell, it should probably take longer then snapping my fingers. :P

Reply #238 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 235

i dont think anyone wants multi-turn casting.
You'd be surprised, people have been asking for it

 

 

but not in tactical combats, maybe enchantments or other big land spell

 

anyway the actual magic system is not so bad

 

there is a progression and it takes time to research spells which is nearly the same

 

Reply #239 Top

Quoting DeadlyShoe, reply 234
it's just that 8 ice bolts in 1 turn is ridiculous

 

yup right now this is one of my concerns, but lets wait next beta to see how they solved it

Reply #240 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 233

This makes caster Sovs have to invest in an extra stat, since tactical spells can cost 5+ mana..

you can make the same trick as for melee attacks

 

spells have a base cost (mana or level or whatever) divided by attack speed (eventually with a constant to make it balanced)

Reply #241 Top

Quoting Koalab, reply 228


Quoting Sethai,
reply 224
i love brad and could never do what he does, but he can be stubborn on things like this (for good reason; release is only a month away), but he really needs to budge on this imho. movement speed and number of attacks really need to be split up imho at the least. in the long term, there needs to be even more change.

I agree on all points. Especially about movement speed and number of attacks need to be split up

Also agreed. The sad thing is a Lot of us saw problems like this coming over a year ago when it was first made known that there would be so few stats that mattered affecting game-play. We tried to lobby for a slightly more complex system with a few more variables. I can understand keeping it simple for coding and balance purposes, but also when you try to boil down a complex system into something that's Too Simplified it can cause problems like the one we're facing now with movement/attack speed. Of course there are plenty of ways to fix the problem, like by adding different stats or abilities to weapons or armor to counteract what is happening with the battles now, though that still involves adding another value. It would have been a Lot Simpler if they would have listened and put in a few more stat values from the start which would have avoided this problem all together.

Sometimes K.I.S.S. can cause more problems than it eliminates. This is one of those times.

(K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid)

There is such a thing as "too simple", especially when it causes bad things to happen in game-play.

 

Reply #242 Top

I'm standing by my belief that movement should be split completely from the Action point setting.

There should be Action points, used to perform actions, attack, cast a spell, use a potion.

And there should be movement points that ... let you move a distance. Irrespective of your action points.

And the only time you should see the two ever meet would be for a charge ability. Which would give you a powerful attack after your movement with you then no longer being able to move that round even if you have additional speed points.

Beyond that.. the AI isn't going to be terribly confused about using resource 1 for movement, and resource 2 for action points.

 

And the idea about casting additional spells, what about the first one costs 1 action point, the second one cast costs 2 action points, the third one costs 4 action points. (So theoretically you could cast 3 spells with 7 action points. But two for only 3 points.)

I think that balances it as well a bit so spells can't just be super spammed.. but still let those with the action points to do so.. cast spells then.

Reply #243 Top

ravenx how can you simply ignore master of magic?

Reply #244 Top

Quoting DeadlyShoe, reply 243
ravenx how can you simply ignore master of magic?

How am I ignoring MoM? I loved MoM :) MoM was a semi-simplistic game, that's true. It was the combination of all it's systems combined how-ever that made MoM as good as it was. For it's time MoM was incredibly Complex. Compared to the complexities of today's games though MoM is rather lacking. Still, in it's day, MoM was my FAVORITE Fantasy Strategy game.

 :)

 

Reply #245 Top

Ahh, ok. I see what you meant now,DeadlyShoe. I'm still not ignoring MoM, but, Elemental is Not a MoM clone. It's far more advanced in Every way. Also, even though MoM had a very simple stat system, it didn't have the game-play flaws that are happening now in Elemental's battles. When having too few stats introduces flaws in the system then I'd say that's a problem, no matter how good other examples of a simplified system may be. Just look at D&D for an example. On paper the D&D stat system can look incredibly complicated. Is it though, is it really? No, not at all. It's basic math that a computer can do in mili-Seconds flat. Basically though, DeadlyShoe, you just have to realize that this isn't MoM and by looking at and playing the current beta's battles it's Obvious to a lot of people that having such a simplified stat system IS the cause of our current issue with movement/attack speed. I don't think that can be denied no matter which way you look at it. Especially when the evidence is clear. Adding another value and separating speed from movement IS the way to go and the easiest fix. The main question is:

Does the Team have enough time left to implement a change like adding another basic stat and still make the gold date?

Everything done between the RTM date and actual launch is Supposed to be nothing but shine and extra polish and bug fixes, Not having to re-balance the entire stat system. If they re-balance everything to include another stat and fix it with a zero-day patch and a reviewer doesn't get that patch before he plays the game and writes his review then Elemental will get bombed in the reviews for having drastically flawed game-play and I'm sure None Of Us want to see that happen. This issue MUST be resolved before launch or a lot of people are going to consider tactical battles to be gimped and simply tacked on when in reality they are supposed to be one of most compelling and challenging factors of the game.

Reply #246 Top

Quoting Gorstagg, reply 242
I'm standing by my belief that movement should be split completely from the Action point setting.

There should be Action points, used to perform actions, attack, cast a spell, use a potion.

And there should be movement points that ... let you move a distance. Irrespective of your action points.

Yeah, this could work as well. Combat Speed shouldn't be removed of course, it should affect the number of attacks / number of spells casted / turn. + I don't like the "fixed" amount of AP / attack system. It makes no sense if all of the creatures are using up the same amount of AP for an attack. I know that AoW's combat system worked like that, but there wasn't any stats like combat speed in that game. [Even tho, it has the best TBS combat system up-to-date, but it can be improved.]

Reply #247 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 232


That said, with AP I'd rather see the spell cost it's mana cost in AP. If it's just the level, you can still carpet bomb fireballs.

Interesting notion. Either way it can be made to work, simply by shifting spells up or down in level, or up or down in mana cost. It is simply a balance issue at that point. The question is how many spells (and of what level) should a Sov be able to cast in a combat round? Once that is determined, then making the game mechanics around it shouldn't be too difficult, especially since APs seem to already be implemented.

To me, Sovereigns are too high powered in the early game right now, both for melee and magic. My first challenging fights usually come when I start the Master Quest. 

I also see nothing wrong with higher level tactical spells taking more than 1 round to cast. I would really hate to lose most of my army b/c the AI (or whomever I am battling) simply went first in the first round and got off a high level army nuking spell before I could even try to do anything. At least give me 1 round to maybe scatter my troops and lessen the impact somewhat.

Reply #248 Top

Frogboy, what do you think about this very important issue of being fast in battle (horse archers) means you can attack and cast spells a lot, and being able to attack/cast spells a lot (Sovereign) means you can move a lot?  I'm very interested in how the final game is going to be balanced when movement and attack points are not separated, and more Action Points means you can attack/cast spells a lot, or move a lot, or do a decent amount of both movement and attacking/casting spells.

The first reviews of Elemental are going to be very crucial, and I think this issue could have a very big bearing on how fun and balanced the game is and what kind of reviews it gets.

Best regards,
Steven. 

Reply #249 Top

The action point system is set up so that those with a high combat speed can basically go to down on others.

We do not want to hook this up to endurance (strategic map movement) because the two aren't really related.

The idea is that someone with a very high combat speed can do a lot of harm in a single tactical turn.

But high combat speed is useless without attack power. You can be really fast and not be able to get through the other guy's armor. 

In Beta 3C, spells go right through armor which was a bug that was fixed.

Reply #250 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 249
The action point system is set up so that those with a high combat speed can basically go to down on others.

We do not want to hook this up to endurance (strategic map movement) because the two aren't really related.

The idea is that someone with a very high combat speed can do a lot of harm in a single tactical turn.

But high combat speed is useless without attack power. You can be really fast and not be able to get through the other guy's armor. 

In Beta 3C, spells go right through armor which was a bug that was fixed.

Any chance you could list the planned(or already implemented) changes for tactical combat? It has been discussed at length so far, but we really don't know where you guys are headed. Right now it just seems overly simplified to me. I was hoping for a bit more finesse to the tactical battles.

I was also wondering why tactical battles were planned this late in the beta. I think its quite a big part of the game, and from what games you guys have produced before, it must be something that you have little experience in. (plz correct me if I'm wrong)