The cave is frightening

An interior? That is pure double rainbow!

Looks very AoW. Love it.

Be afraid, be very afraid.....  love it!!!

I just need to post one more thing:

 

Frightening Cave is frightening. 

LOL at the mouseover description.

too cool!!

edit:

"Still not porn"  -  dunno, turned me on

That is fricking awesome!

Cave... interior.... 

Looking great! Bodes well for modding support.

It would be great to explore caves, dungeons, etc like small underground maps. Each with its surprises and rewards.

The champion enters but does he go out with just one ear?

some caves have earatating consequences

Nice pun!

I like the idea of not every tactical battle being basically the same 20 x 20 square tile map like EWOM.  Hope that's what we're seeing here... some crazy variety in the tactical battle maps.

Graphically, look nice.

From what I gather in this screenshoot, it is a very typical tactical map... flat map with obstacles.

If Stardock will name 1 innovation here, what is it?   Glad to listen.

As usual, I am not asking/wishing a lot, as beta is probably near.

At the most basic level, I want to see if 'height' is in.  A very simplistic implementation will be nice already.

3 height levels: A, B, C (while A is the lowest).   Normal non-reach weapon cannot hit A <-> C, even if adjacent.   And it is not possible to walk from A <-> C, unless there is jumping/climbing/flight ability.   Finally missile bonus provided to high grounds.

 

I'm 99% sure that this has been confirmed as not being in. It's my impression that the work needed to the engine to handle heights would be substantial at least, and more likely prohibitive.

I love the cave.

 

I don't like this idea. 1. Too many variables make the game over-complicated. 2. How would it look like? Minecraft I guess...

 

I've never played a tactical battle game where I've been thinking "sure would like this a lot better if it had height differences". They never make or break a game. It's often just fluff, and fluff that the AI sucks with. I don't mind graphical hills, but I don't really need any gameplay adjustments with them.

 I'm happy that we have obstacles and atmospheric maps if the combat system is deep enough otherwise.

Ya even getting maps with some impassable tiles, and that actually reflect where your fighting, is a big move forward.  I'm pretty confident combat will be fairly fun from the journals I have seen so far. In a perfect world their would be more dynamic tiles such as mud and hills but I am happy with what we have. Since their is a mud tile spell and since stat boosting tiles existed in WoM it might be possible to mod them in though.

1. (Complexity.)  Climber doesn't want to add just height. He wants to add a "reach" modifier to weapons and bunch of new height-related abilities. That adds a new dimension (literally!) to the current stats. And this dimension would over-complicate stuff imo.

2. (Graphical representation.) It would look like any other tactical game with height? Name one. I guess you are referring to tactical games with big map (probably hex-tiled) with hills etc. This would not work with FA imo, it's not this kind of game. FA's tactical combat is far more realistic (more zommed!) than in those games. I can't imagine how height modifier would look both nice and realistic (on FA's level). And I don't know how the new graphics could be compatible with Climber's idea of reach of weapons -- how it would look like?

Uh... So you're saying "it's often just fluff, and that's bad" and then saying "I don't need crunch". So what the hell do you want?

 

Look at the post again. He wants some super basic stuff. It's not a new dimension, it's a small addition that, together with a lot more, could make tactical battles worth caring about. As far as reach weapons, well, we should have some concept of that already. That we don't just reveals how bland tactical battles really are.

The two examples that came immediately to mind that do this pretty well are Lords of Magic and Final Fantasy Tactics. The latter is isometric, and has pretty much exactly what Climber describes. It works very well. Lords of Magic has deformed terrain, with non-incremental elevation. Speed on a slope is decreased, and you get combat bonuses for being elevated. City walls also use this; they have stairs in the back for defending missile units to ascend but otherwise can't be scaled normally, and thus you must use flying or missile units to clear the walls, or destroy the gate and go up the stairs. That's a lot simpler than a good siege system in Elemental should be, but it illustrates the value of height well enough.

Are you misunderstanding on purpose? I say the gameplay adjustment of having height differences is meaningless to me, and the AI would have a hard time with it. So I don't feel there's any point in wasting resources to do it.

If you say 'height differences is meaningless' to you, you really miss the point.    Try 'Final Fantasy Tactics' or the Disgea Series, play some FPS, or ask why snipers like tall buildings, this may tell you why height provide more tactical option/variety.   It will make the customizing units more meaningful, initial positioning more meaningful.  How about ability to attack from 1 tile behind (if at the same height) with long spears?  

I have not asking for many levels of height level that makes it look Minecraft.  I just ask for a minimal of 3.  The level B acts as the stairs to your own castle in a tactical map.  I don't mind having 4 levels (or even more), but the utility of having 4+ is less than the first 3.   3 or 4 is really enough for our purpose, but programming wise it should not be much difference to Stardock once it exceed 1 level.

In another screenshot, I see that graphics of having different height levels is a non-issue for FE.  The gfx engine support it.

The rules governing height should be easy for any one to grasp, yet providing way more depth of play.   The programming of rules should not be hard for SD to implement.  It is the design of rules/change of units/change of balance that require their resources/time.  And then the AI.

AI need to understand these rules.  They need to have good pathing code.  They need to have an understanding of 'soft' choke points due to the implementation of height (we now already has 'hard' choke points as indicated in OP's map).  Some spots are more valuable than others.  Some unit should go to high places.  Will height really give Frogboy an AI challenge?  I doubt that.

===

Put it another way, what aspect of FE tactical combat we currently know really excites you?  

The initiative system? Really?  The obstacles here and there? Really?

1 Complexity.

For me ideal tactical game has fairly simple mechanics and a broad spectrum of choices within this simple mechanics. Maybe you are right and the three layers can be done without spoiling the simplicity of basic mechanics of tactical combat, but I doubt it. I would add flying units instead of this. It's more simple (only two layers and no strange weapon modifiers, just ranged/non-ranged) and fun.

2. Graphical representation.

Final Fantasy Tactics is too far from FE in terms of graphics and style. This is what I meant by Minecraft style (I know there are no ramps in Minecraft, but still). Please no!

I more like Lords of Magic's tactical battles. No odd cliffs, just hills, slopes, etc. And this could work: player would gain attack and/or defense bonus if on higher ground (like Obi Wan  ), just like you said. But imo it should be done more nicely (less blocky, without those ramps) and still readable. (Like in Alpha Centauri?) But no different "reaches" of weapons, please.

I've played plenty of FFT and Disgaea. They have a battle system completely built around height differences. They are both games that revolve completely around the tactical battles. If you say those kinds of systems are easy to implement, you are out of your mind. Both games use custom made unique tactical battle maps that are designed with very specific battles in mind. You can't just take the system from those games and slap it on another game with random encounters and a wide variety of units and think it'll magically work.

I never found myself thinking "man FFT and Disgaea are really good games because they have height differences!". It's not a requirement for a good tactical battle system.

You also really need to understand that it requires a lot more than you think to implement your ideas. Requiring the AI to do fast pathfinding, line of sight calculations and proper decision making based on those variables is a crazy challenge. To give some perspective, Forgboy mentioned that having a line of sight system in tactical battle might be too much for the AI to handle properly.

I believe you're confusing the AI in games like FFT or Disgaea as good enough for FE. The problem is that in FE your opponents have a level playing field with you. In games like FFT and Disgaea the developers give huge handicaps to the AI to make the game interesting. If at any point you would switch sides with the AI in those games, you would probably trounce the AI controlled player characters easily. Writing truly good AI is something that's done in very few games.