On tactical battles

My general reflection on a game’s general direction.

 

1)      Tactical/strategic game.

There is an ongoing discussion in the forum whether a tactical aspect of SK should be expanded. Frogboy frequently pointed out that he wants the battles to be quick, thus, they cannot be too complicated. It worked well for FE. However, SK is inspiring to be a different game, and thus, in opinion of some the balance has moved significantly from strategy to tactic. If that the case, tactical battles as they are now can be discovered lacking. Frogboy, however, pointed out that you have research (sovveregin), then you have town etc. which give you enough of strategy lawyer so the battles can be of the secondary importance.

However, it is not the case of how much research you have, but rather how much time and energy you spent on strategical versus tactical decisions. In FE I had to build a sufficient empire to have an effective army. I have to carefully ponder which research to do, so I have money for the army, and that the army is modern enough to be competitive. I have to choose how many towns I will have, and I will have to place them strategically. I have to worry about neighbours, to keep them away from me while I build my power etc. So lots of thought was given to that aspect.

In SK there research, but there is not much thinking required. I build the cities where the game tells me to build. I build as many as I can b/c I need logistics. I have one town to build troops, since you build so few of them, and you want to have them with the best bonuses. In every other town I just build every building that gives you bonus to logistics, and that’s it. Then I just build pioneers. The circle where you decide the balance between mana/spell research/sov’s levelling I basically don’t touch, since they are so interconnected that you need all three of them at any given time. In case of a sov I just choose one branch and follow it to the end (the best bonuses are at the end), so apart from the initial choice not much of thinking is required … Crafting – I just craft the best equipment I can and give it to hero. Again, not much to think. Hero by the time doom counter reaches third of scale are already at the level cup – not much thinking required either.

Thus, in SK suddenly tactical battles become so important, apart from the battle not much thinking nor energy is needed ….

2)      The nature of tactical battles

Recently Frog referring to a focus and difference between battles in FE and SK said:

The main difference is that battles are mostly about putting your magic/special abilities against the other side's.  The skill comes from knowing when to use what rather than strategic positioning.

Here are two problems:

AI – is so bad in using abilities …. ALWAYS they just use the ability the very first thing in the battle, no matter what goes on the field. When I attack a group of shadow wargs with my single hero, I know he will be moved all over the map, since every warg wants to switch his position with my hero … When I attack ogre I know he will through stones first, so I get close to enemies own units – ogre will kill or hurt them every time. Spiders will web me, cavalery will use their skill the very first thing, regardless whether it is good or effective …. Swarm mechanic is cool, bad that AI totally ignores it. I can swarm AI's unit, and it will never move to a better position …

Second – so far there is not much choice on my part. I usually use the same abilities over and over again. In recent game I played Varga and it was: frenzy (for extra initiative), then fire breath (to kill most of them) and then finish the rest. Spells are even worse. Since the game tries to encourage you to actually use them sparsely I find myself not casting them at all. Damage spells – while should I cast them if I can move my unit and attack to a better effect and save mana? Spells that make units weak are good only against super monsters but those are far and between and usually resist them anyway. Then you have this limit of spells to one/battle, and they cost precious mana ….

Recently I played a game where I ignored spells totally (no research, no casting) and I was doing great (on impossible).  

Thus, I do not feel that I win by outsmarting AI by using timing and difficult choices in using abilities/casting spells.

3)      On Terrain/flanking and other possible upgrades to tactical battles.

For me the core of the problem is this: there is no possible way I can protect my vulnerable low point units from dying in any way. Recently I got a cleric unit from a quest, very cool and nice unit. The problem is that I knew right from the beginning this unit is already dead. First battle and it will die. Archers always target first the low hp support/range units and there is nothing that can be done. In other games, I would keep cleric away/out of range, or put him in the forest, or behind a rock. Here I can do nothing, except boosting his dodge. I gave him three rings, cast spell giving bonus to dodge, first battle against 4 archers he died. Very frustrating. I do not build mages, nor archers, since they will die anyway. Sometimes i just build a series to archers to soak the damage, so they die every battle. Only high hp, high defense units have a chance to level. Possible solution is to move cleric out and back to the army, depending whom the army faces, but it is such a bother … In FE you could deal with it by making very high ini units, SK does not allow you to do so. 

The problem is even worse that this cleric would always start the battle in the front line, close to enemy. And of course, you cannot place units before the battle.

That’s for me is a real frustrating problem …

 

I do not know what ideas could improve tactical battles – I am just sure that smaller battle fields, faster movement, units being canon glass (who attack first wins, hp is generally low) makes the battles even less tactical. And for now there is not much to do apart from battles.

18,395 views 22 replies
Reply #1 Top

All very valid points. Oh but they changed Verga to the warlord Naphaz in the 0.751 snapshot... (for some reason) so you've got something new to try. Trying to think of a summary then:
Not enough spell content,
no AI yet,
spells are costly to use (using up a unit turn and mana and a sovereign cast),
glass-cannons limit battles and use of low-hp units.
no cover, LOS, range-penalties etc make archers/mages overpowered against fragile units,
Scouts/clerics/other low hp units start at the frontline and die, or move to the rear and get shot by snipers.
*General frustration about tactical combat.*

 

Reply #2 Top

In another discussion, someone brought up Baldur's Gate battles.   In my mind, Master of Magic battles are a major inspiration here.

SK won't revolve around intricate tactical battles but they are intended to be interesting - much more interesting than what was in FE/LH for instance.

So in terms of implementing feedback I would recommend two categories:

Improvements to the current tactical battles one might suggest:

  • How units are placed in battle
  • Balance re costs
  • Addition of range penalties or other factors
  • New unit abilities you'd like to see
  • Unit AOC better displayed more use of (area of control to use to block other units)

and then category 2: Expansion of the current tactical battle system:

  • Concept of general time effects (we have the means to have battle conditions as time goes on, we just haven't found a fun way to use it yet)
  • Concept of having environment overall effects (desert vs. ice vs. shadow) 
  • Concept for having tiles affect movement (mud or brush that slows down movement for instance)

Tactical battle inspirations we use:

  1. Master of Magic
  2. Baldur's Gate
  3. Hearthstone

Those 3 things give you a basic idea of the level of depth we're looking for.  So we don't want to get into concepts like high ground, flanking.

Now, before someone says "Let's do it all" remember we have a finite time and budget.  We're a very very small team. Everything here is being programmed either by myself or Charles.  

Some things I've already added that you will see soon because I have most of the same frustrations that Frank mentioned above:

  • If you control a crystal resource and some common crafting, you can now make rings of life that add +! HP to units. Super cheap and easy way to upgrade early units.
  • If you control a metal resource and some iron crafting materials you can make armor reinformcenets that get +1 to defense.  
  • General focus on getting more strategic and tactical spells in.  This will really start to show up in beta 3.
  • A LOT of new summoning based stuff is going in (like 2X as many monsters as we currently have in the game will be summonable into battle).

 

Reply #3 Top

Okay, it's obvious that you're hearing us, Brad. I'm really glad to see those recommendations.

 

Cheers!

Reply #4 Top

I think, while interesting and useful to know that only actually addresses one issue: Lack of spell content.

It doesn't make those spells any more viable to be cast in battle (paying 3x for each spell cast), nor does it make the units people already have more viable. (a fully kitted out archer still dies in one round of combat).

Range penalties would be nice, and it's nice to know it's within scope.
I'm not sure the expansion ideas actually address any of the complaints/criticisms in these two threads. But more stuff can't hurt (except as an expensive use of time).

Reply #5 Top

Love the idea of having resources affect crafting. Can having horses give you access to leather? Clay gives you access to pottery or is required for some type of jewelry?

Reply #6 Top

I'm not sure why terrain effects such as receiving a bonus while on a hill are a bad thing.

Seems kind of natural/intuitive to me.

Reply #7 Top

"I'm not sure why terrain effects such as receiving a bonus while on a hill are a bad thing.
Seems kind of natural/intuitive to me."

I can imagine they had four problems:
1. They probably made the bonuses too large. e.g. +50% damage, forcing you to stand on the tile to win. Or to never stand on a negative tile.
2. Poor visual effect - those glowing rings that linger are a really ugly way of showing terrain effects.
3. They only changed a couple of terrain tiles to the new system - if only one tile is different you have no choice of where to stand.
4. Maps so small as to only generate 1 or 2 interesting tiles total

All easily resolved... but then again maybe it was something completely different that stumped them.

 

Whatever happened before, I do hope tactics get a bit of a spotlight and some intense dev love during one future update. (more than just adding planned content)

Reply #8 Top

I have to agree that tactical battles seem a bit lacking currently. My understanding was that they were meant to be the focus of SK, rather than just a component on FE, and that victory was supposed to be done by building up and using the most powerful stack possible. Sure, there are light city building, diplomacy, and questing components, but they are even less important than they are in AOW3, which is a game solely about tactical battles.

 

Main improvements I would like to see : 

 

Terrain effects / battlefield effects. Fighting in fog reduces ranged unit accuracy. Standing in a patch of herbs may provide magic resistance, but slow your movement.

Better AI - tactical AI is pretty meh.

More emphasis on spells / countering / special abilities. I mostly just seem to bash units into eachother using their base attack vs defence. One of the main promises of SK was that battles would be more about intricate countering and strategic uses of spells, not spamming basic troops.

Better enemy variety - probably because its beta, but it is very limited right now. More neutral dungeons or biomes with unique enemies would help here.

 

Reply #9 Top

Resources effecting crafting is very welcome news. ^_^

 

Reply #10 Top

it's in the beta 0.751 snapshot in a limited form... but the effects of those items are little +1 bonuses. Which in practice means you can make all your hero accessory slots useful early game. Late game a few +1s here and there isn't enough to keep any fragile units alive against any serious opponent. So it's mostly just another buff to heroes early game and a bit of added micro late game. Which makes me think it's not going to work in the current form.

+1 hp to any unit, or +6hp from all the accessory slots... well that may block half of an attack from a weak unit. It's good on low-level stuff... but not enough to keep them alive. If the effect was larger but cost more resources perhaps they'd be 'too good'. I'm not sure what I'd suggest other than seeing how it works in practice and revisiting the balance of those resource-trinkets later.

Reply #11 Top

As players move up in their crafting abilities, they will gain more access to recipes as well as recipe buffs (which aren't in yet but work as described in a previous post) to make your units less fragile.

Early on, your units are very fragile. They live hard and die fast.  As time goes on, they gain increasing amounts of robustness through crafting, spells, etc.

Most of the spell/crafting content won't make it in until next month.

Reply #12 Top

Concept of having environment overall effects (desert vs. ice vs. shadow)

Have you ever played the old board game Titan?  I would suggest doing a lot of research into this game, and use their tactical battle system as inspiration for how different battlefields (in diverse biomes) can play out.

Reply #13 Top

I'd like to see more tactically interesting bosses.  Some example powers:

 

1) Barrier shift - force player to bring archers/melee/magic units to deal with wherever the barrier is.

2) Abilities that increase insanely with number of opposing units. . force player to approach with a lone hero

3) Low Initiative, low mobility, low range, high everything else.  Force player to kite or have high init units that dart in and out.  Not too much hp since you don't want it to take forever.

4) Kill order battles - On death a unit buffs all allied units.  Or a unit picks up buffs based on how outnumbered it is.  Kill units in a specific order to avoid some deadly buff combination.  (Kill the one that grants maul last!)

Etc.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting analysismike, reply 13

I'd like to see more tactically interesting bosses.  Some example powers:

 

1) Barrier shift - force player to bring archers/melee/magic units to deal with wherever the barrier is.

2) Abilities that increase insanely with number of opposing units. . force player to approach with a lone hero

3) Low Initiative, low mobility, low range, high everything else.  Force player to kite or have high init units that dart in and out.  Not too much hp since you don't want it to take forever.

4) Kill order battles - On death a unit buffs all allied units.  Or a unit picks up buffs based on how outnumbered it is.  Kill units in a specific order to avoid some deadly buff combination.  (Kill the one that grants maul last!)

Etc.

I like this.  Especially the idea of having some monsters who get tougher based on the # of units they're up against.

Reply #15 Top

a few ability ideas:

1) Blazing form - Every tile the user steps on ignites into flame, causing fire damage for x number of turns.

2) Immovable mountain - Caster grows, taking up a 2x2 block. Loses all movement. Gains armor or is invulnerable for x turns.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting analysismike, reply 13

I'd like to see more tactically interesting bosses.  Some example powers:

Have to say I agree. Boss battles in FE were badly designed and boring.

Quoting analysismike, reply 13

2) Abilities that increase insanely with number of opposing units. . force player to approach with a lone hero

This but make it an initiative boost. The biggest problem bosses had in FE was their low initiative allowed them to beaten easily by large groups. A tweak on the new Obsidian Legion unit's charge ability could also be given to a boss instead as a more organic option. 

Quoting analysismike, reply 13

3) Low Initiative, low mobility, low range, high everything else.  Force player to kite or have high init units that dart in and out.  Not too much hp since you don't want it to take forever.

Like every boss in FE? Although you didn't kite them you just rushed in and surrounded them with tons of speedy, ie your normal, units that attacked 3 times for every time the boss attacked once, ganking him before he got more then 1-2 attacks off. 

Personally I would like to see interesting bosses that deal with swarms of units or really fast units in interesting ways:

-Summon two immobile support units at the start of combat that attack at a range. Say giant crystals or tentacles or something.

-Curse all enemies at the start of combat so they slowly take damage over time. Could be designed as an environmental effect like a sub zero blizzard surrounding Ventrar. 

-Have a combination summoning and damage spell that summons a unit to a tile and damages all units around it.

-Have mass summon spells that allow them to continuously summon groups of units around themselves to attack.   

-Summons immobile units to isolated tiles that heal it and have to be quickly taken out or he will recover.

-Smart use of teleportation to avoid strong units and attack weak ones. 

-Goes immune to damage for 1 turn after taking 5 attacks. 

-Blasts the tiles around it with fire after taking 5 attacks. 

-Every 3 turns makes itself immune to a random single damage type. 

-After being hit with a certain damage type 5 times it becomes immune to it for 3 turns. Can only do this to one damage type at a time. 

-Non permanent mind control. 

Every boss should have an interesting twist to the fight that makes it unique from a tactical perspective. A lot can be done with the charge system from LH 1.8 to compensate for large armies or super fast units.

Reply #17 Top

High initiative is my vote, period. As it is, the player can field very high initiative units. Dragons were challenging in FE because in addition to all their dangers, they were very high initiative.

Give the bosses lots of chances to mess with the player and surprise them. Give them lightning damage, too, to surprise the elemental resistance crowd.

 

Reply #18 Top

I think we just need to do away with single unit bosses. They're too one-dimensional so it's easy to exploit their weakness and take them out without any risk. Give them a few additional special units that fit in with their theme, but helps to cover some of those deficiencies that get exploited a lot like low initiative or single-element damage.

Reply #19 Top

I just implemented a bunch of new spells that allows the player (and the SK) to modify the tactical battle tiles.

Reply #20 Top

If bosses learn to use their spells, they will be more challenging and interesting already.

Reply #21 Top

Modifying the tiles sounds promising. Turning tiles into mud or an inferno (like the Ranger's Hellfire shot) or perhaps a briar thicket sounds good. :grin:

 

Load up the Guardian with some of these. ^^

Reply #22 Top

This is one area that SK won't be as moddable as our previous games.  The SK knows specifically what spells it has and how to use them.  It results in much better, more intelligent spell usage but it also means that if you added another spell it wouldn't know how to use it -- though I do plan to tag these spells eventually so that similar spells can be added by modders.