[1.20b] Simultaneous Damage for Tactical Combat - Poll

Either this, or items and unitstats that makes sense for a game without simultaneous strikes.

But really, I think that would take too much development time to be in 1.3. What's needed now is to bring the game back to not having every single unit be a glass cannon, and ranged weapons not be the supreme weapon of total annihilation.

Ya, good point about range. I haven't built any yet but I can see how they come with "I win" buttons in this build.

Leaving first strike for later it might be worthwhile to throw in simultaneous damage and also reduce the reach of range weapons. Dunno, just thinking off the top of my head.

[Edit] Or penalize the chance to hit by the distance of the attack.

ive always been an advocate on WE-go combat. always hated the dreaded you-go i go scenario. since whoever goes first gets huge advantages using  you-go i go.

Ya right now first strike is ultra important. It basically decides who wins the combat in anything even remotely like a fair fight, and the against the AI you will always get first strike. 

There are a lot of issues with tactical battles that mainly stem from the extremely small movement/action-point allowance and the consequent tiny battle fields. Simultaneous strikes would solve the the problem of the first strike but it would really just dumb-down the strategic element of the game even more. You wouldn't even need to enter tactical battles if this was introduced - you could just auto-resolve all the time.

As it is at the moment all you need to do is make sure you finish your turn 2 squares away from the enemy then let them close the distance so you get first strike.

I'm really disappointed that this is what the 'tactical' component of the game is reduced to - but unfortunately that is the only tactic you need with melee units. And as Heavenfall mentioned, ranged units now dominate the battlefield because of the 'glass cannon' units.

It feels like the discussion and game has almost returned to where it was in the beta process with tactical battles - with not a lot being resolved. To me it appears that Stardock have been chasing their tails plugging gaps as they are identified but without really stepping back and considering the big picture. There are so many tactical battle games out there that could have served as an example of how to handle this but we've ended up with a chess board full of pawns.

Or, eliminate the one side moves / attacks / casts with all units, and then the other side moves/attacks/casts with all units.  Replace it with a turn queue in which all units of both sides move/ attack / cast in a combioned sequence that is based on each unit (of whichever side) moving according to a preset rubric (combat speed, initiative, or what ever).  Units that don't move /attack /cast get a bonus for def, or a reaction attack depending on type of unit.

The problem is not which player that moves in what order, the problem is the completely screwed attack/defence mechanics that makes it impossible to have anything that resembles an interesting battle. Just cap the damn attack and defence at 20 and then add some randomization to the battle calculations. Remove dodge and add a shitload of different passive abilities to weapons/units/items. Make troop positioning matter. Make the battlefields bigger.

The big problem I think is that the whole point of WoM has become the number crunching and city building. Which are gameplay elements I find completely uninteresting. TC is designed to take max 1 minute so that you quickly can go back to manage your invisible population in a brown world.

*sigh*

I vote yay for simultaneous combat. It would really reduce the advantage the attacker currently has. If you have even forces, it is very easy to win a fight without any loses because you can strike first.

Traditional military parlance suggests that the attacker needs to have three times the effective 'force' of the defrender to insure victory.   Obviously many factors go into determnining 'force.'  Defenders usually have a significant advantage.  'Digging in,' etc., is virtually useless in cuttent TC.

I'm pretty sure that in one of his recent interviews, Derek mentioned that FE will do just that.

Fortifications in general are in a sad (nonexistent?) state:-(  +% health isn't really a good game mechanic for something physical (walls) that should change the landscape (both figuratively and literally) completely.  That said, there's been no indication that any fundamental mechanics will change for tactical battles in EWOM (fortunately the tactical AI is on deck for an overhaul).  Very interested to see the new directions that they take tactical in FE:-)

What he says. Players just have an overwhelming advantage because we always attack the right targets, and the AI the wrong targets. This could help even things up.

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and as usual, I started comparing the current system with MoM. For those who don't know or recall, MoM didn't have simultaneous strikes.

In MoM you could fight against monsters or other wizards armies. Monster fights were interesting because they typically had unique and often powerful units. Fights against other wizards were interesting because every wizard used different spells and they were being used in every combat - a caster didn't have to be present. In a way you had several different types of fights within a single game. One for monsters (same for every game) and one for each opposing wizard (somewhat varying spells each game). This kept the fights fresh even though the actual combat system was very similar to WoM.

Of course, MoM also had a ton of interesting special abilities for units. And balance between attack and defense had been pretty well crafted.

I fear simultaneous damage would just change the problems we have, not solve them. Archery would still be the same as now - attack and defense/hp balance would have to be redone anyway. And the combat will probably stay a bit bland without unit special abilities and faction distinction - more spells in MoM, dunno what in WoM.

My inner geek would not let me allow this to pass:-p  MoM did in fact have simultaneous strikes - hence the great value of rare skills like First Strike (paladins, sky drake) as well as the occasionally useful Negate First Strike (pikemen).  Not to mention the occasional thrown weapon of barbarian heroes & gnolls (I think), which give a separate pre-strike attack.  If you remember the animations, all of the little guys on both sides of the strike were flailing in unison:-)  In remembering this, you have finally convinced me that simultaneous damage would be far better given the glass cannon tendencies in WOM (each individual in the MoM squads tended to be similarly low on HP relative to atk & def).  It makes the battles more immediate and less easily one-sided, since you no longer cause serious smackdown without consequence.

Thanks for encouraging me to go down memory lane:-)

The game you are approaching to already exists... it's called Warlords 2, and it was quite good

It was my understanding that 1.3 was to include a change towards an initiative system... Is this no longer the case?

And yes, I agree with Das123' sentiment that there are loads of great tactical games out there with mechanics that should be borrowed from.

Why this insistance of of creating a new system that is worse than what has gone before?

Simultaneous attacks is a no brainer, it complements the Unit/HP change and opens a new dimension in tactical combat for skills and abilities.

Channelers should be able to cast in any battle at a penalty of increased mana cost depending on how far the channeler is.

Introduce spell skill attribute, a channeler can cast spells depending on his spell skill, different spells has different skill values and skill raises through different mechanics.

TLDR

If you are going to implement MoM's formula. implement it fully.

Simultaneous damage might be very interesting if it was properly applied to the following modifiers as well (beyond first strike and first strike counters). (I'm using counter-attack below as a description of the attack the defender performs in a simultaneous combat situation)

UnitStat_CounterattackMultiplier - currently a unitstat that modifies the counterattack damage from the unit. Ie, the counter-attack is different from the standard attack by a variable. Could be stronger, could be weaker. Pikemen may be very strong at counter-attacking, but not so strong at attacking.

<Attribute>CannotBeCounterattacked</Attribute> - Unit can attack without suffering simultaneous damage. This may be limited to 1 per turn or something like that (ie - the first attack this unit performs in each turn cannot be counter-attacked). That could also be limited to "the first attack this unit performs each combat cannot be counter-attacked".

<Attribute>DoesNotCounterAttack</Attribute> - Unit never counter-attacks. This should be available both as a flaw-trait on units, and a possible debuff on enemy units. Similarly, it may be limited to "the next attack suffered" or "the next 2 attacks suffered" and so on. It could also be "does not counter-attack for the first attack suffered each turn".

Edit: A new attribute that might be fun, especially for shield-dependant units or "boss type" monsters. This attribute would allow the unit to ignore the first attack it suffers in a turn or combat, and still deal counter-attack damage to whoever attacked.

But why do we need simultaneous damage when an initiative modifier is all that is required?  It is hardly representative of a sword fight that both combatants kill each other at the same time. Normally there would be attack and counter attack, thrust and parry.

If units would simply become available for actions sequentially based on their initiative rating it would solve all issues. (Well, solve this one any ways)

Counter attack could then become a trait rather than the norm... indeed, there are many possible traits that could be dreamt up under an initiative system.

I haven't played Elemental but I've seen alot of youtube vids and followed the discussions.

I HAVE played AoW trilogy, MoM and  HoMM II - V though.

NO to simultaneous damage!

I feel the attacker must have the advantage. I'd also like it to be like AoW in that <I strike> <enemy counterstrike> <I strike> <enemy counterstrike> it uses actionpoints so you can 'drain' an enemys movement so he can't do anything the next combatround. Worked great in Age of Wonders II & Shadow Magic.

I've been trying to point out the greatness of AoW tactical combat since release of WoM (hell even before release), but for some reason it seems important for Brad to reinvent a wheel, end up with a square wheel and then patch it until it rolls.

Hopefully we will end up with great TC, but the road to get there is unnessecary bumpy.

You haven't been alone in this regard. The approach Triumph took with tactical combat in the AoW series is very well executed. I'm hoping their next currently secret game is a return to Age of Wonders.

I think what Stardock focussed on in WoM is making tactical battles short so the player wasn't caught up in drawn out engagements. They did achieve this aspect but unfortunately at the expense of strategy, tactics, balance and immersion.

I feel simultaneous combat could be really fun but would require things in this vein to flesh it out.  

If the defender counter attacks at a reduced strength, say 50% base, that number could be increased 5% a level as units level up.  And it would leave room for traits and abilities to further enhance your counter striking ability.  

I really like the idea that weapon types would have various traits effecting both attack and counter side of combat.  

do it like master of magic.