Spyndel

So the game seems to favor "Glass Cannons"... (commentary and suggestions)

▼

So the game seems to favor "Glass Cannons"... (commentary and suggestions)

from Elemental Forums

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, so please forgive me. But the forums are a little crazy right now, and I wanted to discuss something productive.

 

I used to be dismayed when I saw the AI with some high hitpoint uber-unit that did like 5 million damage a shot. Until I realized that unit is only dangerous if it actually gets to *hit* you. The combat system gives the clear advantage to the attacker, and its movements are very predictable. Building a squad of veteran heavily armored units with powerful hammers is very expensive and time intensive.  Building a squad with nothing but the most powerful weapon you have is considerably shorter, cheaper, and gives you a one hit wonder, but thats all you'll need to kill those units.

If you one-hit on first strike, you suffer no retaliation.  From that point, the enemy movement is so predictable, you can easily out maneuver them, or kill them one at a time letting them move their two spaces up to you, hit, and fade. Or you can then move your expensive armored units into position for the weaker units to flail away at.  An enemy squad of archers can be problematic, but a magic using hero can counter them, and even if they then kill your glass cannons after the glass cannons have taken out the dangerous unit, it doesn't bother you as much, because you can build them for much cheaper.

On the one hand, you could argue there is a good reason to have a mix of high damage or high defense troops, but you can't really build  troops that have a high enough defense that will keep the unit from losing members vs the high attack scores of some of the monsters, while on the other hand, it is much easier to pump up offense to be able to one shot them.

 

 

There are lots of complex ways you can rework the combat system to account for this, and to enforce the value of armor and survivability, and diminish the advantage of the attacker, but there are some simple things, too:

 

 

1)  Mix up enemy combat speeds.   Enemy movement is far too predictable.  For the most part, most of them move two squares, and it is easy to move into position where they can't attack you that turn, but you can kill many of them the next turn without risk of counter attack, or kill one at a time, and move to repeat the process. Mixing up enemy groups with move speeds of 3 and 1 will make it far more difficult to anticipate and effectively counter their movements to where you're killing multiple units every turn without retaliation.

 

2)  Make "tough" enemies that are supposed to be "hard to kill" , hard to kill by virtue of more hit points and less defense.  More units will be able to hit them, but fewer will be able to one shot them without suffering a counterattack.  The defense scores can get pretty annoying anyways, with your entire army completely unable to hit a creature for damage.  Having your entire army have to focus fire for multiple turns to bring something down, but still able to actually *hit* the thing, seems just as epic to me, and less frustrating.

 

3) Units act in order of highest combat speed, tie goes to the attacking side.  Make the -speed drawback to those powerful blunt weapons really hurt. With every unit having a default combat speed of 2 now, the intended drawback to those weapons isnt really functioning. You can still move and hit, or hit multiple targets fairly easily. Glass cannons with heavy hammers are in much more danger if enemy archers act before them.

 

4)  Special, unpredictable enemy movement movement abilities, like teleport and leap. I know you are already working on abilities like this.

 

5)  An "initiative" system. Slightly more complex, yes, but you can serve multiple purposes with this. Both armies have to roll an initiative check to see who acts first.  The initiative check is modified by the highest level hero's "leadership score", which also affects morale. (armies should really require a hero unit to lead them around the map, but that is another thread). The leadership score is influenced by...Charisma...giving more value to that stat.  This isn't an "easy" balancing fix, but something like it would keep people from being able to abuse the attacker advantage so much. Archer squads and enemy spell casters become much more dangerous if they can act first.

 

 

Anyways, I'm sure these and many better ideas have been discussed previously, so please accept my apologies.

elemental
36,782 views 45 replies
Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Sethai, reply 14
as a general principle, i'd really rather they fix the basic stats and mechanics, and reflect unit diversity through these, rather than adding in a huge amount of special abilities. otherwise the mundane units that make up the core of the game will become redundant. anyone whose played warhammer (or any roleplaying game) can tell you that a plethora of special rules are no substitute for a well designed basic rules set.

This. If the combat in a strategy game isn't fun when only the most basic units are involved, then no amount of added stuff is going to make it a classic on the combat front.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

In reality glass cannons should be flankers.  I feel that most units just get one shot and that is not the depth in combat I seek.

I also feel that defense and damage resistance should be separated and even attack and damage.  Charge would give higher dmg.  Flanking would give the ability to strike without retaliation. 

Now I just make a high attack unit and spell them with deflect, let the enemy come to me and bash him to pieces.

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

I would love if there was initiative on a per unit basis. Remove the idea of separate turns entirely, and allow all units to act at their respective speeds. Exceptionally quick units might even get to move multiple times before the enemy gets it chance to move.

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Either simultaneous attack/defense resolution or per unit initiative should be added.

Currently either AI is easily cheated to make it come and then get first hit or I suppose you'll get a standoff against human, when nobody wants to come and get the first strike. That's simplistic to the extreme.

If you have simultaneous attack/defense it doesn't matter who strikes first, unless you have units with first strike ability (ala MoM). Then fast (mounted) units with first strike say lancers will play intended role.

Or (with initiative) this also can be modeled by adding higher initiative to hitting units (say the same lancer).

But I like the first approach more, since second one complicates the combat. Not only you have additional stat (which is strictly speaking a bit artificial) but this will complicate interface and combat itself a bit more. You have to know the order in which units move, add wait mechanics etc.

Still both solutions are much better then current state 

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting MumbaCraft, reply 31
But I like the first approach more, since second one complicates the combat. Not only you have additional stat (which is strictly speaking a bit artificial) but this will complicate interface and combat itself a bit more. You have to know the order in which units move, add wait mechanics etc.

Still both solutions are much better then current state 
Well, I actually think that tactical combat should be more complex.
There isn't enough choices in combat right now, and it's pretty easy to tell which tactic will give you the best results - that's an issue to me, there isn't any real choice when there's a best way to approach a problem.

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Norhg, reply 32

Quoting MumbaCraft, reply 31But I like the first approach more, since second one complicates the combat. Not only you have additional stat (which is strictly speaking a bit artificial) but this will complicate interface and combat itself a bit more. You have to know the order in which units move, add wait mechanics etc.

Still both solutions are much better then current state Well, I actually think that tactical combat should be more complex.
There isn't enough choices in combat right now, and it's pretty easy to tell which tactic will give you the best results - that's an issue to me, there isn't any real choice when there's a best way to approach a problem.

Currently, yes. But I think if you are able to add more choice/tactics without complicating things it's better then to add more with complications. 

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

I like the initutive idea. And I would like to see Heros give some Leadership bonuses to the stack they are attached too. But I would not want it where that each army must have a hero leader.  A hero leader should give bonuses to the troops in the stack based on Charisma and any special abilities that mught apply.

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top

Firstly I honestly like it this way.. its more realistic.. lighter faster units should be able to out maneuver slower heavier units.. I would prefer to see a better mechanism to use/create carvery or other units with  more movement to neutralize the glass cannon. plus do not forget a glass cannon is vulnerable to another glass cannon.. The AI just needs to react to  ranged units with their own ranged units.. (by the spells are a great solution to this those damn vigilante minions are dangerous to low hp / low def units..

Reply #35 from Elemental Forums Top

I realise that these suggestions here are the "easy fix" ones, always keeping one eye on what's doable in the short term - or even modable.

That shouldn't limit creativity in coming up with better long term solutions, though. =)
One idea, that I saw in another thread, was to somehow limit the (game breaking) offensive power of say, a 20 man unit.

With swords or hammers it is quite unlikely that all 20 members get to attack at the same time. They just don't fit in the space where they can reach the enemy.
The reason for having a "deep" formation is rather so the unit doesn't lose it's formation and doesn't get wiped out by the first counterattack. 2nd rank members would step up to fill the space in the front rank.
Perfectly logical and believeable.

So I'd suggest that the total ATTACK of a unit is not
Single.Member.Attack * Member.Count

but instead:
Single.Member.Attack * SQR (Member.Count) +1  [rounded up;  obviously capped at max Member.Count]
because for small units it's far easier to have all members attack. (4 -> 3, 8 -> 4, 20 -> 6)

Historical armies had the exact same problem. They obviously wanted to have more members of their army to attack while minimizing their own (vulnerable) frontline.
So they invented the Really Long Pointy Stick (tm). (dubbed "pike" by their less sophisticaed infantrymen)
Using those, the second rank of a formation - and sometimes the third - could do nasty things to the approaching enemy. It may not be as flexible as a frontline weapon but approaching a formation where a whole lot of  pointy sticks are pointing your way can be pretty distracting.

In game terms, a unit using such polearms would allow more members to attack the enemy.  Such as:
Single.Member.Attack * ( SQR (Member.Count) +1 ) * 2 [rounded up;  obviously capped at max Member.Count]
(4 -> 4, 8 -> 8, 20 ->11)

The effective formula would then be

Single.Member.Attack * ( SQR (Member.Count) +1 ) * Weapon.Melee.Range [rounded up;  obviously capped at max Member.Count]

where Weapon.Melee.Range is a unit stat that is assigned at unit creation.
It can have values of 1 or 2 for swords and pikes.
In fact, nothing prevents a weapon like spears from having a Weapon.Melee.Range of 1.5. Nothing wrong with flexible and customiseable values.

A formula like that is always neater than a lookup table with precomputed values for different unit sizes. One size fits all and it stays valid for custom unit sizes that modders will eventually come up with.

Reply #36 from Elemental Forums Top

To be honest I think it's a failing of the AI rather than the combat system. The glass cannons only work because the AI invests far too heavily in melee units and targets archers and spells somewhat bizarrely. Against another player or a sensible AI those glass cannons would never get to swing their hammers; they'd either be shot full or arrows or blasted by eldritch energies long before that happened.

Reply #37 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Akka, reply 20



Quoting Spyndel,
reply 17


Addressed above.  Few other tactical games do this, for good reason, IMO.


Damn, sorry. I parsed through the thread to see if the point had been already made, but obviously missed it. Doh, and I hate when others do it :-/

That being said, after reading your reply, I really don't agree with your point. I don't see how not using the "attack and retaliation at the same time" has any link with high-attack/high-defense/etc. having a place or not. If you actually want a glass canon or if you want to kill without risking retaliation, just use a ranged unit, or use units that have abilities specially dedicated to it (like "first strike" in MoM). If you want to use high attack units without defense, well then they will kill, but die too. That's also a strategic choice - making cheap units that do a lot of damage but aren't durable, kind of "living missiles".

Not to add that it also feels just more logical to have mélée (hand to hand fighting, where you have to get close and fight directly) being simultaneous for both the attacker and the defender.

In the end, the simpler system is just more logical and easier to work with. It allows at least as much tactical choice (weakening a unit before entering in mélée against) and strategic choice (high-cost vs high-effectiveness) than the other methods, all the while preventing most exploits and being simple and easy to understand and manage. From my experience, complexity is nearly always worse than elegant simplicity.

I agree with you. The flaw of other games have been the lack of "attack and retaliation at the same time" mechanic.  Atlest as far as melee combat is concerend. Special abilities such as first strick becomes more affective with this in play.

Reply #38 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Vladesch, reply 24
They should have just copied the master of magic system.

Armor counted for a lot in that, against weaker units.

(waits for the inevitable"but this isnt MOM" response)

Or the AOW:SM system which was similar MOM but a little better.

Reply #39 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Archonsod, reply 37
To be honest I think it's a failing of the AI rather than the combat system. The glass cannons only work because the AI invests far too heavily in melee units and targets archers and spells somewhat bizarrely. Against another player or a sensible AI those glass cannons would never get to swing their hammers; they'd either be shot full or arrows or blasted by eldritch energies long before that happened.
Well then, consider two equally strong forces of archers. What happens when one side gets to attack with all its units before the other? Due to the all-or-nothing nature of units the side which goes first will win the combat bar bad luck bordering on the surreal.

Reply #40 from Elemental Forums Top

You know, one "simple" fix that I should have mentioned, was a general nerf to weapon potency in the game. It is far too easy to run up obscene attack power in the game that outscales common hit point and defense scores. Squad tech allows offensive scores to skyrocket and one shot anything, while defense scores don't accumulate in the same way. Even the combined defense score of a squad will not keep them from losing members.

Reply #41 from Elemental Forums Top

Defense scores go far higher than attack at the high end, 60% higher or so if the unit is in a defensible position like a hill.
If you reduce attack power the defense of plate armor needs to be reduced too.

 

I completely agree that combat needs to be less lethal, ideally I would want to see the experience/training techs reworked so hit points become more uniform across the game - I don't think you can balance the game as long as some units have 3 times the hit points of other of even though they have the same resource cost and defense and attack values.

Reply #42 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 38

.

I agree with you. The flaw of other games have been the lack of "attack and retaliation at the same time" mechanic.  Atlest as far as melee combat is concerend. Special abilities such as first strick becomes more affective with this in play.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  Not only is the simultaneous conflict a more real representation of actual conflict, but you it ads in more interesting chessboard style battles where abilities like first strike (or my beloved MOM's pikeman "negate first strike" :) ) that skew the dynamic of the engagement and throw wrinkles in the strategy.

If we are hell bent on maintaining the "you hit me, I hit you approach" then it should not be attacker first and then defender 100% of the time.  I think an initiative check of attack vs. defense should be the basis, it already has the mechanisms in place to be implemented and makes sense.  I'd add in an attack and defense rating to weapons as well, that way you have interesting match ups (for example, spears have a higher defense rating then swords, hammers have a high attack rating but poor defense).  This makes certain unit types more advantageous in different situations.  It ads a rock paper scissors style counter system that I think will make the tactical combat more interesting and enjoyable.

Reply #43 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Akka, reply 23
I still disagree with your reasoning. Basically you are saying that tactics and variety hang on the fact that a unit can enter mélée without armor and come out unscathed. This simply doesn't compute.

I think that, on the contrary, tactics enter more in the equation when you have to take this into account - and it allows the game to be more logical, seriously, who would expect to fight toe-to-toe without defense and still survive ? - and to actually maneuver in order to minimize the damage of retaliation, and use all the methods to weaken an enemy before contact with the "glass canon".

And I don't see how it has any link with homogeneization, again. You want max damage and defense for any unit, that feels rather logical. The point is, the game simply need to have drawbacks - cost, speed and the like. This has nothing to do with the ability to kill a unit in mélée before it can retaliate. In fact, this entire thread exists BECAUSE of the "kill before it can react" effect exists, and is easily abused. The method you defend is actually much more prone to exploits and homogeneization than the other.

 

Not at all.  I'm saying by common fantasy gaming convention, there are different types of melee units,  built differently, with different roles in combat. A striker/rogue (+ speed, +attack, _hp, -Def) is built for maneuverability and finishing power, to be able to attack *opportunistically*.  His role is to move around and finish off targets that are vulnerable *that round* that can be taken out with one strike, because he trades maneuverability speed, and stiking ability, for the ability to suffer much damage.  These characters are fundamentally built this way...not *only* relying on special abilities, although those are important too.

In your scenario, I don't see any value for a character built that way. The right character to take an attack, always has to be built to survive heavy punishment, because they will always take damage. There is no reward for using them opportunistically.  It becomes checkers, instead of chess.

 

Consider the typical following typical tactical combat scenario, where you have limited number of moves per round, and success means minimizing damage to your army as it is out on the road, unable to restock its units:

 

1) 2 enemies: One target with medium armor and a powerful 50 point attack has been fighting my tank who has high armor and the ability to suffer punishment, but low speed and only a moderate attack.  That target has 50 HP left, but my tank only does 25 hp damage a turn.  In turn, my tank with his armor takes only 30 damage a turn, but has 120 hp left.

 

2)Another enemy target , 4 spaces away, is identical, except it has the full 100 Hit points left.  My tank is too slow to reach him that turn.

 

3)I have a striker unit that is fast, and therefore able to attack either of the targets this turn.  He can do 65 HP in damage, but has little defense to speak of so he will take close to full damage, and only 75 HP.

 

My tank obviously has attacker 1 well in hand, and can take that punishment to kill him in a round or two. So should my striker then close to the new opponent and engage him?  No, because while he could deal that attacker a mortal wound, he couldnt kill him, and would take severe damage from the counter attack, probably resulting in his death before the tank could reach him in a couple turns. The right move is to move in opportunistically (since he can be anywhere), and deliver the deathblow to my tank's target, while the tank them moves on to the new target , where he can absorb the damage better than the striker, as well as any counter attacks (if counter attacks were limited as they should be).

One scenario results in greater damage for both units and possibly one death, the other keeps both units alive for the next battle, with only moderate damage to one.  This is tactical thinking. Had both of my units been tanks, they would have taken more overall damage, and been in poor shape the next battle.

 

In a simultaneous attack scenario, not taking into account special abilities which you may or may not have access to, that striker disappears from the field.  He cannot survive the counter attack from either enemy.  Outside of ranged attackers and magic(which you may or may not have access to), there is no incentive to build that striker character.  You are simply building units with the most powerful attack, and the most powerful defense (but emphasis on the latter) you have access to every time, because every unit will have to go toe to toe and suffer damage in return for every blow delivered, even a deathblow.  Then they simply gang up on whatever unit is within reach that turn, and hope to win the battle of attrition.  That is not what I want, and I don't find the notion of building "disposable" units very appealing in a game like EWOM, where you're out of reach from reinforcements most of the time, and speed is of the essence.

Theres nothing wrong with the idea of units built with high offense and low defense. I want to see diverse roles and unit mix on the battlefield.  It's simply that this role is a bit out of proportion in its effectiveness in EWOM right now, diminishing *other* roles that might be played, for instance a High Defesnse, low attack unit.  It's clearly a problem, but I dont see the idea of getting a deathblow against an enemy depriving it of a counter attack to be the problem in and of itself.

 

As another poster said, the tactical combat mechanics should be diverse and effective on a basic level, outside of the need for special abilities (which are still vitally important for the game to see developed), which you may not have access to all the time. Whereas from the first turn, you can build units to serve different basic roles, eventually unlocking special abilities that help you specialize even further, and add other options during combat. 

 

Furthermore, I find the idea of an enemy whose head I just chopped off, still doing damage to me, conceptually distasteful.

 

 

Reply #44 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Norhg, reply 42
Defense scores go far higher than attack at the high end, 60% higher or so if the unit is in a defensible position like a hill.
If you reduce attack power the defense of plate armor needs to be reduced too.

 

I completely agree that combat needs to be less lethal, ideally I would want to see the experience/training techs reworked so hit points become more uniform across the game - I don't think you can balance the game as long as some units have 3 times the hit points of other of even though they have the same resource cost and defense and attack values.

 

My complaint was more specifically tailored to the way attack scales with defense in squad units.  All their attacks seem to get added together, so they can deliver power hits that one shot other units. But their defense, while it appears to stack, doesn't seems to function in the same way. The individual units still seem to die when taking hits sufficient to kill them as individuals. In other words, as a unit, they are doing 100 hit points in damage, but as individuals, they dont appear to be benefiting from a 100 point defense score, falling to attacks that shouldn't be potent enough to penetrate that score.

This is just observation. I don't pretend to have any idea of how the combat is calculated in this game.