[Idea] Balancing Squad Sizes, Individuals, and Armies

Any thoughts?

I'm especially curious about what people think about #4) Adventuring Parties.

I disagree with 4). Champions are unique/individual characters and should`t be use in a group. How you imagine mp,hp of such group? Who would die after the blow of a creature?
But if this party is just a small army (each character work individual as in today`s version) it could be quite good.

I was thinking about one more thing. How in medieval times knights almost always win battles with peasants (weak troops). Main reason was the discipline of troops (especially this one), morale and loyalty of troops (what for die for this king if another one will give same taxes as this one).
So i agree with 2), but how can we find in devastated world 100 people at the start of the game?! This is way armies are smaller, and it`s rather about groups of people to fight then huge armies.

So we must think about this game rather like Fantasy Fallout then a Fantasy Medieval Total War.

Yeah...maybe I didn't explain it well...

The idea is that on the Strategic Layer, we have Parties (Made up of Champions) and Armies. The Parties can explore quest locations and engage in other activities. Armies cannot. Parties would be limited to a set number of Champions, something like 4-12.  On the Tactical Layer, the Champions in a Party would be individuals, just like now. Champions in Armies would be the same as now, although it would be great if they could join units as leaders and perform other more interesting and useful functions.

This would have the following benefits:

1) Quests could be scaled much more effectively since you would only be dealing with 4-12 Champions and not entire armies of normal units. It would also make more sense...kinda hard to squeeze an army in a standard fantasy dungeon...

2) Champions would gain much more value and importance. Champions would be the focus of Adventuring, and would be the key to exploring dungeons, quests, etc. Armies would stick to military campaigns.

3) With some work, Champions and Quests could become much more interrelated. Quests could become more involved with many more branches and decisions points, and could call upon the special skills of the Adventuring Party to be completed.

Not sure where you are going with #2. I think that if a Player has the population available, the Player should be able to build large units. This is a good gameplay choice. There are pros and cons. This is basically the system we have now. I'm just looking to balance individuals vs. units. Take a look at something like Warhammer Fantasy Battle. You have big, individual monsters, small squads of specialists, small units of elite troops, and big regiments of normal troops. I think that is a good way of handling it.

Ah I see you've come up with the exact same idea I have.

https://forums.elementalgame.com/395376

And you posted it earlier.  And it's much more detailed.

Suffice it to say I agree entirely.  It would make an 'adventurer' style sovereign a legitimate build.  As it is it's really a waste to invest in adventuring abilities, because high tech and a big army is all that dungeoneering involves.  With separate adventuring parties you would require strong individual characters to do high level quests, rather than just cramming a thousand archers into a dungeon.

I agree with all points. And I'd like for groups of units to be managed properly on the battlefield, meaning, no more 1 on 1 duels while the rest of the squad watches, that's just incredibly annoying.

I especially like the suggestion of combining champions with normal units, but I have another suggestion related to that, which I'll explain promptly.

Now, in general terms, add a bigger tactic element to the battles by adding basic bonuses like higher damage when flanking or attacking from behind, or stuff like formations. You could say this type of combat we have right now works for fights between small parties (as in, heroes only), but it's too simplistic for battles between armies.  A "protect" system could be nice too, allow me to explain:

[ ] [ ] [X] [X] [X]

[ ] [ ] [C] [S] [X]

[ ] [ ] [X] [X] [X]

Say, if you have a champion (C) stationed in a tile, and right next to it you have a small squad of spearmen (S) or whatever set to "protect" the champion, every enemy unit attacking the champion that comes from one of the (X) tiles, would have to attack the spearmen first. So, if you wanted to attack the champion, you'd have to come from the side, and flank him, to avoid having to confront the spearmen. That alone would make positioning of units MUCH more important and relevant. It would also give fast units like cavalry a much more active role, as well as giving "defensive" units like spearmen more importance.

And while we're talking about spearmen and cavalry, why not add a few bonuses and weaknesses to certain weapons/items troops have? I know we have the whole piercing/blunt/cutting damage system, but it's not very... deep, so to say.

Also, regarding positioning and movements of units in general, Elemental could use a "hexagon treatment" like Civ 5 got. Right now, squares can lead to very annoying situations like:

[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ]

[  ] [  ] [X] [S] [X]

[  ] [  ] [S] [C] [S]

Again, C is the champion and S are spearmen/whatever friendly troop. What annoys me is that, even though the spearmen are forming a pseudo-wall around the champion, enemies coming from X tiles can attack the champion freely, even though there are 2 huge stacks of troops next to them. Hexagons would fix this (my "protect" idea would also, but not so well), but then again, asking for such a overhaul of the maps would be too much to ask.

One more thing: Make battlefields bigger, and more varied too.

Oh oh oh, and one more suggestion: Sieges. Walls. Assaults.

Brad says that hexagons must die in a fire.

I posted something quite similiar recently and think that shields should play a role in protecting the single champion, too.

It shouldn't be perfect defense anyway. The champ should take the same percentage of damage as the protector, otherwise you'd have invulnerable units which is always a dumb idea.
If the protector unit has shields, the percentage could be bigger or the protector taking a higher % (which is offset by them having more defense/block through the shield), while the champ takes a lesser %.
Right now there is precious little reason to pick a shield but if nothing else - it would feel right for a unit that "tanks" for the champion.

Oh, and I fail at reading too. It was the thread linked 2 posts above. =P

Well, hexagons or not, unit placing should be much more relevant in a turn based combat system like Elemental's. And yeah, that's a bit what I was saying too.

Another thing that could be added to avoid imbalancing the protection system would be, giving the protector a "protection rate". Meaning, after you set the unit to defend someone, it has X chance of "blocking" (say, 90% or 80%) an enemy troop from attacking the protegee. After doing so, this rating goes down (to, say, 50% or 40%) until it's the protector gets in position again. This already means a unit won't be able to protect another one forever (read: until it dies), since once the protection rate runs out, the protegee is open to attacks.

This protection rate would also be reduced when the unit moves away from the one being defended, but not completly. That way, you can move the protector around to cover different sides, introducing yet again, unit placement into the matter.

haha, I think we have all done that before...but  thanks.

Interesting discussions about placement and protection, some good ideas here. I would personally prefer attaching Champions to squads of normal soldiers, but the ideas shown here are probably more likely to be implemented.

1-3 works ... although honestly I don't think 4 is needed. Or rather, of course 4 is needed now ... but I'd rather have a combat system that makes it more cost-effective to send heroes into dungeons rather than armies.

and yes, I'm currently working on it/ trying to figure it all out

Not sure I follow, do you think that limiting dungeons / quests to Champions / Parties of Champions is a good idea? I don't think it is an issue of cost-effectiveness, I see it as more of a gameplay design issue. It is rather silly to send entire armies into a dungeon, and also makes it basically impossible to really balance quests. Balancing a quest against a small group of heroes is much easier than trying to balance it against entire armies. Plus this would give NPCs more to do...you would need them for quests, instead of one Champion and your entire army.

Well, I think that Dungeons (if they were properly implemented) might have a size limit AND a number limit.

So for instance ... some Dungeons you could fit 20 guys but not a troll or a dragon, while other Dungeons you could only fit 5 soldiers.

Large creatures would not only have a static size limit, but also add more than 1 to the "constant variable" number limit.

So yes, I think it should be possible to send in (an army of thousands) 20 peasants at a time into a dungeon, and have them all die. 20. peasants. at a time.

Of course, each 20 *might* deal some damage to whatever lies within.

After all, my motto is that an infinite number of peasants will always defeat a finite number of ANYTHING.

//

But even assuming its something like a giant battlefield with 1 Dragon ... with no size or number limits ... it (should) be more efficient to send in a small elite squad (like an "army" of 10 heroes backed with a few squads of death knights) than a huge army of peasants (thousands of peasants divided into 100 soldier regiments).

I believe the unit sizes and techs are ment to balance out kingdome and empire.  Empire is able to get the better weapons quicker but kingdome can form the larger squads. If you start breaking the squad l;imits on the empire side then you will have to give the kindom side quicker access to better weapons.  Pretty soon their won't be a diferance between kingdom and empire and you may as well start calling it WOW.

@ Lyander ... this thread isn't about the differences between Kingdom and Empire.

this thread is about making Squads more normalized to *force* the game to have a good combat system.

Without a good combat system, this would never work.

I have plenty of ideas on how to make Empires different than Kingdoms. It just happens that the current "game" your playing is designed in such a way to make you think in a certain way.

As an example ... Empires could have faster population growth at lower population levels.

Like buildings that increase pop growth by +2 until it reaches a population of 200 pop, or 500 pop, etc ... so at 1 pop your city grows at 8 per turn, plus. Meanwhile, at 1000 pop, it only increases at 2 per turn.

As far as unit sizes go ... I think its silly for Kingdoms to have larger squads, because *in the lore* most people are fallen, and fallen soldiers are just cannon fodder.

*Ergo* one thought I had (with static squads) was that, say, max unit size is regiment. Kingdoms have 80 soldiers, Empire has 100 soldiers.

That would be theoretical squad maxes for Kingdom vs Empire "regiments."

now, as to relative differences, Kingdoms have A) better experience/training for high level units, better formations/ tactical options and leadership abilities

meanwhile Fallen have A) stronger heroes/ fewer yet stronger NPCs, and more, cheaper soldiers with quickly replacing populations ... ergo less maintenance costs

Kingdoms meanwhile would only have straight-up Prestige ... ergo their pop growth is *roughly* the same regardless of population (however I would like to see a small "pop growth-by birth" mechanic thrown in)

Add in an assumption of taxable population ...

and you get the Kingdoms being a more stable nation with generally fewer soldiers, able to get bigger cities somewhat more quickly, and higher tech somewhat more quickly ...

Kingdom soldiers also have the distinction of being able to gain levels ... which should some-what alleviate the lack of numbers and "initially" weaker heroes. Weaker heroes should be allieviated somewhat by there being more Experience-giving quests available for Kingdoms than Empires. (meanwhile Empire heroes level up through raw conquest)

Kingdoms also get more use out of their fewer, sometimes *weaker* soldiers by having many formations, and morale boosting leadership abilities ... to get the most out of what they have. And what they have will generally be higher tech than their more numerous, sometimes stronger Fallen adversaries.

Empires work best keeping low-pop cities (producing little in the name of gold, knowledge, or magic) popping out large numbers of soldiers. Its assumed that there are plenty of fallen in the countryside, but that they only gather near the cities (where the research happens) when they are needed.

Obviously Krax wouldn't work *exactly* like the Fallen, but they would possibly have some elements of Empire/Fallen and some elements of Kingdom/Man ... that all depends on which techs (and thus which buildings/ equipment/ formations/ bonuses) they get form their race, and which techs they get from their allegiance.

What your sugesting is some major rework on both sides of the table not just a few little tweaks.  I can only imagine the number of bugs that would pop up while reworking both sides into what you are sugesting.  I like alot of the ideas that you are sugesting but even if they do decide to follow up on this type of idea it would be about 6 months before the changes come out then another month patching the little bugs that pop up becuase of it.  I would hate to be in the room where they argue out what changes to make and which ones not too.  I am also sure that most of the game designers are on edge and a little irritable about now with all the problems this release has had

I like your suggestions, especially part 4. I've had similar thoughts about adventuring parties. Self-quote from another thread on that subject;

Tasunke, good ideas as always. I have some similar ideas. There is quite a bit we can do, I believe.

So?

This is the IDEAS forum...this is where we come to talk about ideas. Stardock fumbled, as everyone knows, but they have really owned up to most of the reasons for this and are working hard to fix and improve the game, hence the frequent updates. Elemental has been a disappointment, but the core of what Stardock has done is excellent, and I am very impressed with their commitment to fixing the game and standing by it.

So yes, an idea like this will require some work from Stardock or modders, but thats ok. Elemental needs work, and it will take some effort to make it into the game that we all know and want it to be.

Exactly! Or think of classic D&D where a Player could hire a henchman. You could have a party of Heroes with a few normal, generic guys as followers / henchmen.

I really like the idea of 'special missions' as well. Many of us have referenced King Arthur as a good example of a mission / questing system, and I think that Elemental's own system could become just as good or better. We just need more quests, and I think we will get there. Some quests would be like the current escort / fedex / battle quests, but we could also do quests that involve diplomacy, espionage, or any number of other things. The system seems powerful enough...I just hope we can get a 'Quest Designer' to allow those of us with creativity and ideas but no coding skills to get involved.