i dont get the question

it will be displayed like every other stat

but its not a lot cmon

its the same that happens when you move on road on civ you have move counting 0.5

I like your points. The disengaging is something that could be done better than other games do it because often they lack a godd concept. I would distinguish different kinds of disengaging:

- standard disengaging: every unit is able to do this. If you move to a tile still facing enemy units (like to the side) they aren't able to hit you or you could defend. If you move away they are able to hit you without you defending.

- professional disengaging: only for veteran units: you could move away from enemy units with the ability to defecd yourself (perhaps with using up more movement costs).

- fleeing: If morale is added to the system: you loose the control of your unit and they can't defend themselfs when moving away from the enemy

1. It's important to have some kind of Initiative rating so the defending unit might actually get to attack first.

2-4. I think attack speed and movement speed should be separated even if they use the same Action Points. As someone suggested, attack cost = Action Points/Combat speed could work. I just hope the numbers could be simplified to full integers. Decimals are a big turn off for anyone but a math geek.

That way you can have infantry and cavalry move at a different rate but cavalry does not necessarily attack twice as fast.

I would still like to see some Damage vs. Armor considerations. So that you could have fast attacking units with less damage per strike and slower heavy hitters. The former would be the best against lightly armored targets but weak against heavily armored ones who would be more vulnerable to the heavy hitters. This would bring another strategic level of building your units against a particular opponent, while potentially leaving you weaker against a third faction.

If Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed, than Action points = Move won't work. Why should combat speed affect the movement points on the tact. map? Not to mention, that what about cavalry units? Their combat speed shouldn't be better than a normal unit's combat speed. Their movement speed should be much better of course. So, this means, that =>

Combat speed and Movement Speed should be separated, else this system will make no sense at all....

Just an example: X creature is slow because of his huge body mass, however it can hit his oppoments at a very fast rate, when he manages to 'reach" his enemies.

Also, just a note: When a unit tries to move away from enemy units [disengaging] -which are in contact with him [IE. they are occupying the surrounding tiles]-, those enemy units should try to hit him. It worked like this in AoW-SM, and it was a good system imo. That being said, perhaps a special ability should be added...like evade or something: Units with this special ability could move away from enemy units without being attacked.

Yes, I think the key here is too keep the AP system, but have a move cost 1 AP where the maximum number of tiles is determined by the movement speed of a unit. An attack costs a number of APs determined by a units combat speed (base speed modified by weapon/armor/equipment/potions/spells). If a unit has any leftover APs at the end of the turn those can be used for additional retaliations.

This way a basically untrained foot unit with 1 AP and a movement speed of 1 and a combat speed of 1 could either move 1 tile or attack once while a fast and better trained unit like cav (2 APs, movement speed 3, combat speed 0,4 due to heavy equipment) could move 3 tiles and attack once, or move only move 6 tiles and have no attack.

If both units dont do anything during their turn they go into defensive mode and are able to retaliate more than once (2 for the untrained unit - 1 base +1 from leftover AP, 3 for the better trained unit - 1 base +2 from leftover AP).

I think that with different stats for movement abd attacks we basically keep the AP system and give the player choices (always good IMO) while being able to "realistically" represent all kinds of units form slow and weak to fast and strong in addition to being able to set up defensive positions if leftover APs can be used for additional retaliations.

CharonJr

How to do ranged and disengation. (Using examples from my model*)

Every ranged weapon has a range value (in tiles) so that:

      Range= RangeValue + STR/5 for bows

      Range= RangeValue for crossbows

Bows have an attack cost of 1 AP.

Crossbows have an attack cost of 1.5 AP - DEX/60 down to a min of 1.0 AP.

Some units can block arrows heading towards friends behind them with abilities or by using spells.

Attacks never miss. (Should be blockable by shields.)

You disengage when you move away from an enemy, and it should simply incur a counterattack if the enemy has AP. Works like every other counterattack. Abilities that avoid counters would avoid this too.

EDIT: It should be possible to have specialized abilites for this too. Either in vanilla or available for modding.

*Nobody seems to have noticed it

Eh, I've suggested this a long time ago. Here is the topic. This is a must have feature. Attacking 1 tile from multiple directions in the same time makes a lot of sense afterall.

There's a difference between counter attack and disengaging from an enemy, so there should be different mechanics for it. What's the same is that the enemy should be prepared to do so aka having some kind of action/movement points to spare. And hence we talk tactical battle here you should be able to take the preparation from the enemy by attacking him first with another unit (melee, ranged, magic), so your disengaging unit is safe.

There is a problem if your CS is lower than 1: you won't be able to have any action points for attacking.

There should be few general rules (unless countered by effect/special ability):

- if your unit haven't use yet any AP, it can always move at least one tile or attack one adjacent unit.

- even if your unit have used all its AP, it can retaliate against the first attacker

I would keep what is quoted for defining AP and AP costs.

After the general rules has been applied, you can do an action only if you have enough AP left.

I would keep the AP you haven't you during your turn for retaliating more than one when your attacked, the first allowed retaliation reducing you remaining AP. And I would define the cost of counter attacking being the same than attacking.

With all theses rules we have:

- if you don't do anything during your turn, you have your Combat speed has the number of counter attack

- if you use all your AP during your turn, you can counter attack 1 time

- If you have 3 AP and a CS of 3, you can move 1 tile and strike 2 counter attack

Maybe you can only perform every other counterattack. So by taking a counter, anything else can attack. By doing this, you can disengage and also let weaker units attack without risking death. Therefore getting strong durable units up front will let the weaker units move more freely.

Yep, this is what I've suggested as well right before you've made your post. -> If we want a somewhat realistic combat system, Combat Speed and Movement Speed must be separated, even tho maybe it's too late for that, since the release date is close.

Something more I'd like:

Visibility:

- if the terrain of the battle field and the training of the unit/the leader yields it, the defending units shouldn't be seen by the attacker when entering the battle field. Only if they move to the open or use magic/ranged attack they will be seen

Terrain:

- the bonuses/maluses terrain gives to units could be based on the unit type like mounted units get a malus in the woods and a bonus in the open

I would rather have AP than movement speed. I am for movement costing different amounts of AP rather than eveery unit having a certain length it can run. Then you would have to decide what to do with your AP more than you would otherwise.

Move and attack speed need to be split up in some way. Under the existing system, an armorless archer can quite easily kite a guy in plate around and never get touched as long as he has 3 action points (the plate guy won't be over 2 and thus can't both move and attack in the same turn). I understand that plate slows you down, but that's kind of silly. Also, why does being on a horse give someone multiple extra attacks? If you make a horse archer in this system, he gains a lot of extra attacks which doesn't make any sense (why can he shoot a bow faster on a horse when it's actually more difficult to do so?).

So... tactical combat move either needs to be a seperate stat entirely, or some multiple of the overland move stat. Attack speed shouldn't affect movement. You then get cavalary gaining movement speed without suddenly being able to swing a sword four times faster then a ground unit. (At the same time, someone like Sauron can have something resembling a normal unit speed but have seven attacks.)

If we can't get the stats split up, I think this is the next best thing. It gives you a reasonably good effective split (in that boosting combat speed boosts your attacks without also inflating movement, and vice versa, thus fixing the cavalry being able to shoot a bow really fast problem), and it also allows fast attackers to counterattack more effectively. That one is really important to me personally, as a footman with a dagger really shouldn't be able to counterattack the same number of times as a Dragon (which can do it using claws, tail, or teeth).

Best of all since it's tinkering with the costs on existing stats, it seems pretty doable. Great suggestion.

edit - One thing I would say is that a unit should be able to attack at least once. That is if you have AP = 4 and combat speed = 1, you should be able to move 3 and attack once (the attack in this case would cost 4, but just uses whatever you have left). A unit with AP = 4 and combat speed = 2 could also move 3 and attack once, or move 1 and attack twice.

Action points / combat speed? When combat speed has decimals?  Ugh. 

Not really.  Units that might logically attack first on defense (i.e., pikemen, dragons, giants wielding clubs, etc.) could be granted a special ability to strike first.  This is a lot less complicated than additional stats. 

Good point.

- Actually it should cost more AP to use a bow than to use a sword (get new arrow, arm bow, aiming!, shooting), so moving and shooting on the same turn should only be possible for trained units (and Legolas)

- there should be the possibility to miss with a bow, especially on longer distances, this percentage should be increased if the unit wears armor, rides on a horse etc.

- you can't attack adjacent units with a bow

- the normal bow/arrow should not penetrate a plate armor (but there should be a low possibility to hit where there is no armor) but on very short distances (2 tiles). The damage a ranged attack does should be decreased by range

i don t get how that could happen

Maybe some unit designed with full armor plate  and heavy weapon

Actually a bowman should be able to kite a heavy armored warrior around. There is no way somebody in heavy armor would be able to catch up with a lightly armored ranged unit unless the ranged unit lets it happen.

CharonJr

I really like these ideas. Especially the idea of an unit occupying  more than one tile. So if you fight against a big critter (6 tiles big) you can get more soldiers (10 instead of 4) fighting it at the same time, which makes sense in my book. I also really  would like to see number 2. This would make tactical combat a lot deeper without adding too much complexity.

Combat Ability Brainstorming:

Long Reach: Unit attacks first on defense, except against other units with Long Reach.

Monster Hunter:  Unit gets 3x Combat Speed added to Defense against melee attacks.

Shock and Awe: Air spells cast in combat reduce enemy morale.

Shield Wall: Unit gains minor boosts to defense when used in large squads.

Volley:  Special ranged attack: Requires all action points, but any casualties inflicted reduce enemy morale. (Alternative: Reduces target action points by number of casualties inflicted.)

Grim: Unit never retreats.

Berserker: Unit automatically casts Berserk after taking damage.

Tempest Warrior: Unit has partial immunity to battlefield-wide spells.

Stunning: Melee strikes by this unit drain enemy action points.

Overwhelm: If this unit inflicts more damage than it receives, the defending unit is pushed back one tile, displacing in turn any other units behind it. Displaced units lose their action points.

Nae True Man/Nae True Fallen: Unit gains combat speed bonuses if fighting fellow men/fallen.

Heraldry: Gain Morale and Combat Speed bonuses if a faction Champion is present in the battle.

Intimidation: Units attempting to attack this unit are required to make a morale check first.

Skilled Rider: This units combat speed is improved when riding a mount. (Faction trait?)

Warden: Unit receives bonus hit points when fighting defensively.

Exploit: Unit gains attack bonuses if the defending unit has already been attacked this turn.

I've read many good ideas here... Very good...

The units should be able do retaliate = YES

The units should take an oportunity attack while disenaging = PERFECT

The Tactical Battle Map = BORIIIIIIING (I am from the Camp who wanted RMG for tactical battles and I still think is the best. all the battles that I fought have been on the same place (not on the SAME place, but always with the same Tactical Map... Always with a lake or something even if I'm fighting on a desert... I really think tactical combat maps should be reworked to resemble the location where the battle takes place)

Initial starting positions on TC = I think we start very close to the opponent, I don't care if I have to move a lot to be able to attack my opponent, since he has to do the same, at least this way we can maneuver our troops to better positions or at least plan to have some strategy including spells to compromise movement and etc...

Cover = I didn't saw or even could make use of cover on tactical battles, I didn't fight a battle on a Walled City but I don't see any kind of cover where we could hide our troops from enemy fire or the likes...

For a first shot, it is truly a good thing, but I really would love if more concepts from AoW:SM be recycled or redefined to be used in elemental, first and foremost the ability to involve N squares of troops on a same battle...

Hope to see a 3C soon (3B too unstable for me...)

Keep up the good work guys, you are on the right way...

Absolutely unrealistic. I don't like this idea. Creatures must be diverse. Example: Slow creatures, which are able to land many hits / turn - like a Naga ; Fast creatures which are only able to hit 1 time / turn - like a warg rider ; etc.