Frogboy Frogboy

Tactical Combat discussion continuation

Tactical Combat discussion continuation

Beta1z_Tactical (8)

Originally, Elemental was going to have continuous turn combat. That effectively meant real-time. Ultimately, after playing around with it, we decided to implement turn based (simultaneous turns based on combat speed) with tiles.

The evolution of tactical combat in Elemental owes a lot to the beta program.  9 Months of public beta testing of the game engine with corresponding debates has led to some important changes that would not have happened otherwise. 

A lot of the discussion resulted in us thinking about the game in ways we didn’t think of before.  Specifically, how do we address game design issues that have plagued our genre for decades now? If you’re a strategy gamer, you know them well.

For us, the challenge of tactical combat has been about giving the player as much control as possible over how long tactical combat should last.  This ultimately led to the realization that the funnest way for us turned out to be to have the strategic elements of combat very clear and well defined.

Elements of Tactical Combat

In no particular order these are the things that matter:

  • Combat Speed. Your combat speed determines how many “moves” / attacks you get during a particular turn.  In the begging of Lord of the Rings, what makes Sauron such a bad ass is that he can attack so many units at once. He has, in game turns, an incredible combat speed.
  • Morale.  Unit morale matters but for fun purposes, we try to keep it straight forward. Units have High Morale (25% combat bonus), Normal Morale (no bonus), Low Morale (25% combat penalty), and Panic (you don’t control them). It provides a whole new avenue for us to play in.
  • Terrain. This is where the tile based part mattered for us (and for the AI). Some terrain, obstacles, and tiles simply provide better offensive and defensive bonuses, Controlling them matters.
  • WINNER. TAKE. ALL. This is the part where we want to hear your opinions. We do ask that you keep an open mind on what we ultimately go with.  My opinion is that the attacking player has the onus to finish the battle in N turns. After N turns, the attacker morale starts to go lower and lower at which point the defender can come out and make mince meat out of them.  The question is, what should determine what N is?  Or should we allow retreating? Should we allow draws?  I’m against retreats or withdraws because it’s one of those things that allows the game to drag on. It’s a strong personal preference of mine that two men enter, one man leaves. (Your heroes will tend to escape though).
  • Combined Arms. Archers have range. Mounted Warriors have great combat speed. Foot soldiers tend to have better weapons and defenses.  It means putting together your army matters a lot. It also is important to us that players understand precisely why they won or lost a battle.
  • Thresholds. Players can set the tactical battle threshold in the menu. That is, they can say it requires 10 units on each side before it’ll actually go into tactical battle.  At any point, players can have a tactical battle auto-resolve.

Remaining Questions and issues:

  1. Controlling the length of a tactical battle.  We believe that users should have a lot of control over how in depth they want their battles to be. Should a tactical battle finish in less than a minute or should they last 2 hours? How do we make it so that players can control this?
  2. Randomization vs. Richness. I won’t lie to you, we have a trade off in front of us and it’s a big one.  We can randomly generate the battlefields in tactical combat OR we can have it pick from a series of pre-made tactical battle maps.  The randomly generated ones won’t be as interesting but they’ll more accurately reflect the local terrain.  I’m preferring the pre-made ones because we can add some spectacular strategic when we’re crafting them and have hundreds to pull from.
1,482,717 views 469 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #176 Top

Quoting Nick-Danger, reply 170

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 160And I feel that with the Beta 2 +3 combo... I think Raven's post will stir some debates/considerations that are good to have.  His point regarding player control is beneficial and needs to be raised, because as he points out we're seeing some things lean towards less control (WTA, pre-made maps unreflective of chosen terrain, time limits on battles, etc.), and unnecessary(?) simplicity (splitting movement speed and attack speed for example) -- unnecessary as much of that is taken care of 'under the hood' and so doesn't complicate things for the players (just the coders ).
His point regarding the nature of this beta is interesting too.  When I heard that release is intended ~3 months after we get phase 2 it struck me that is more akin to a normal beta than I realized -- our job is to try and break the game, test different systems for crashes/etc.  With only ~3 months between the start of phase 2 and release, and given the time needed to iron out the kinks and achieve some semblance of balance, that leaves not much time to tweak the major design decisions.  Thus I conclude much/most of the design decisions have been made and we're 'fine-tuning' them -- and that's fine.  I'm not saying we have no effect, just putting things into perspective.

This isn't a complaint/criticism, as I look at our beta glass as half-full not half-empty -- I think our role here is much better than the typical beta, but most of the design heavy lifting has been done.  And Frog has mentioned including 'beta-testers' earlier in the process in the future, which fits in with the above.

I hope the ultimate standard for what decisions the devs make is their concept of what Elemental should be.  Listening to us is great, but they need to listen to their 'dream', for otherwise we'll get a hodge-podge of ideas.  The best results are usually when someone has a dream and pursues it, and holds to it despite attempts of others to impose their dreams onto it.

I'm too old to be naive -- I keep learning that the hard way -- but sometimes ya just gotta sit back and trust, and I'm trusting that Elemental will turn out pretty well.  It won't be all I'd make it, maybe in some ways 'worse', but also in some ways much much 'better'.
End of Nick-Danger's quote

Damn there is more "dirt" around here than I originally thought, thankfully.

The whole "idea" of what E:WoM would be happened on paper and some white board long before a PC was ever turned on. It is known as "creative" thinking.

After that we have been allowed to help "mold" that idea. If Brad could post the actual #'s in cost/day of a production run, many would cry BS foul, but in today's market, start up costs in 3-5 million would not be considered outrages. (I guess at #"s) but know that new games cost a f'ing boatload...

All I know is that come Beta 2-3, the in game unit #'s (et all) best (hopefully) ;) ;)  be available for Balance and then we can make a difference. Otherwise, the Mushrooms will revolt. LOL!

 

Reply #177 Top

I really think we need to play the tac battles first before passing to strong a judgment.  we need to see the bigger picture here.  stardock has been making games for a long time, i really enjoy their games, so i am gonna have to just put my faith in them that what they have going will be great(if not perfect).  i do think that raven makes alot of valid points, and i think beta 2 is gonna give us our first real taste of elemental.  just gonna have to wait i guess.

 

BTW: its funny, frogboy did warn us about getting pissed when we find out how much they were holding back.  i guess he was right to a certain degree, the shit did hit the fan a little ha ha.

Reply #178 Top

Quoting Stmorpheus, reply 177
I really think we need to play the tac battles first before passing to strong a judgment.  we need to see the bigger picture here.  stardock has been making games for a long time, i really enjoy their games, so i am gonna have to just put my faith in them that what they have going will be great(if not perfect).  i do think that raven makes alot of valid points, and i think beta 2 is gonna give us our first real taste of elemental.  just gonna have to wait i guess.

 

BTW: its funny, frogboy did warn us about getting pissed when we find out how much they were holding back.  i guess he was right to a certain degree, the shit did hit the fan a little ha ha.

End of Stmorpheus's quote

LoL true. My responses in this thread weren't about that. They were about making sure some ideas get the attention they deserve while those that "I think" would hamper game-play get tossed out, which is what we all want.

Frogboy's Post on "not to get mad" was more about us seeing the graphics and THEN the other small systems that have been implemented without any of our input. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

I already know/knew what to expect as I've been on the inside of a game's production team before. Internal Alpha's and Beta's are NEVER the same as Public Alpha's and Beta's. This is done to protect the un-finished work from being STOLEN by the competition.

Reply #179 Top

yeah, i guess that we all really want this to be the game of our dreams, and if something seems to not go the way we want it, passions flare.  i think that most of us realize how talented brads team is, this is why we are so passionate about getting the features that we want.  because we know that the game we always wanted will be in such good hands.  i guess its like parenting in a way, you watch your children grow, and you hope they turn out exactly how you want them to, but there's so many chances for them to stray.   maybe they will turn out better than you could have ever expected.  just gotta hope for the best.

Reply #180 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 165
Given the cost (in terms of $$$) of tossing out the real-time (continuous turns/pixel based combat system) I think I can safely say that we wouldn't have made the change to tile based turn based if we didn't think it was a lot more fun.

A game that tries to be all things to all people ends up being nothing to anyone. 

 
End of Frogboy's quote

Instead of tossing out the actual system, why not give us a try at it? Maybe it is the GOOD ONE, but still lacks some thought maybe not, in the ultimate case, the modders would have something to use if at some point someone thinks like modying the Tactical Battles...

Reply #181 Top

I would just like to add, perhaps emphasize, that while I am strongly in favor of allowing retreat, it should be strategic retreat.

I would rather have no retreating at all than a retreat button that ends combat, and an RNG decides which units get away and which don't, and how much damage they take in the process.

I really think retreating should work very much like it does in Total War. Troops that make it to the border of the combat map should successfully get away. I should be able to choose which units to send into a retreat, and whichever units make it make it, and the ones that are killed in the process die, obviously. Retreating units are more vulnerable because their backs are turned to the combat and they are focused on getting away, not defending themselves. Routed units will break and run, out of the player's control. But this allows to me to decide which units are important enough to me to retreat from a lost cause (probably including any heroes involved), and which units I'm ready to sacrifice in order for those units to get away.

Whether all retreated units end up on the same spot on the strategic map or not, I'm less concerned about. Regardless, you can either have retreated units automatically move as far away from the attacker as they can, or you can give the player the opportunity to decide where a retreated army should retreat to (obviously within their available movement). If a city or other defensive structure is located within range, perhaps they can automatically go there. If it turns out that people can retreat ad nauseum, then implement penalties or limits where appropriate.

 

Like others have mentioned, guerilla tactics and harrying skirmishes would add an enormous amount of strategy and tactics and excitement to the game. It's easier to pull off in continuous turns or real time combat, but if you could somehow work that into the combat in Elemental it would be amazing. To do that, though, you would need to give the player control over where retreating units move to on the strategic map, or offer multiple modes of combat, for example:

You could give the attacker some choices when they initiate combat: regular combat, or guerilla combat. Choosing guerilla combat, battle could be initiated on a smaller map and movement speed, attack speed and stealth/ambushing skills/abilities could be emphasized. You'd go into this sort of combat with the intention of slowing down the enemy and/or whittling down their numbers, and then retreating. The combat wouldn't end with a victory or defeat screen, it would simply display the results and leave it up to the attacker and defender to decide what the outcome means to them. Obviously, when up against a larger, superior force a harrying attacker would not want the battle to drag on - they would be overwhelmed. The attacker would want to rush in, do some damage, and then run away before being overwhelmed. Clearly, going into guerilla combat with slow, conspicuous troops probably wouldn't end well. Going in with a raiding party of light cavalry, or nimble ranged troops, or stealthy units would be much more successful. I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish this in terms of mechanics, though.

The ability to engage in guerilla warfare could even be a skill. Only units with that skill (possibly implementable as something like the "scout pack" or something) could engage in guerilla tactics, or a force led by a hero who has that skill could also even if some of the units don't have it - though those units without it probably wouldn't be very effective in guerilla combat, anyway).

Something to think about, anyway.

EDIT: 

Another nice thing about this is:

The larger force would pretty much always have the opportunity to annihilate the smaller one in standard combat the next turn, or, if they decide not to, the guerilla would be free to harass the larger army next turn, too. This poses both players with options - guerilla warfare would be risky not only because your troops could lose the skirmish, but also because they could be easily hunted down the next turn (depending on movement and stealth, etc); and the larger army could choose between hunting down the guerilla force, removing the thorn from its side or it could march on, knowing that it'd have to fight off harrying attacks every turn but arriving at its primary destination faster.

It's exactly what guerilla warfare is supposed to achieve, really.

Reply #182 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 165
Given the cost (in terms of $$$) of tossing out the real-time (continuous turns/pixel based combat system) I think I can safely say that we wouldn't have made the change to tile based turn based if we didn't think it was a lot more fun.

A game that tries to be all things to all people ends up being nothing to anyone. 

 
End of Frogboy's quote

I really would have liked to try out the real-time tactical combat for myself. I think if the beta testers had gotten to compare the old system to the new one we could have given some really solid and insightful feedback. Perhaps even reaching a compromise in tactical combat where most people were happy with the system.

Reply #183 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 150

I am old, "dirt" old. I grew up in Mechs that had Heat, they were a nightmare to learn to drive, maintain and simply pointing and shooting every chance you got was a Death sentence. God that was so much FUN!
End of John_Hughes's quote

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 176
Damn there is more "dirt" around here than I originally thought, thankfully.
End of John_Hughes's quote
If you're "dirt" old I might be "older-than-dirt" old :)

My original "shooting" used dice and "pointing" was trying to avoid knocking the chits off the game board ;)

*waits for the inevitable "you're just a whippersnapper -- we didn't even have dice or game boards, we used rocks and actual dirt boards" when I was a kid*

That old Mechwarrior was a great game.  Knowing when not to shoot was as important as knowing when to.  Patience and self-control are interesting game 'features', eh?

Reply #184 Top

Why exactly can't each battle map Actually mirror the terrain on the strategic map? Is it a memory issue or what? Have each world map drawn out in 3D, then when a battle takes place and the camera moves in for the battle just have the battle map be a piece of the strategic map only enlarged to actual scale.
End of quote

Yep.  Works find in Rome:Total War

Reply #185 Top

If I see that things are going badly, allow me to order my hero to break and run and let my other troops cover for him. Give us the choice. Having heroes "tending to escape" would be so frustrating; defeating an enemy hero that never retreated only to face him again a few turns later would make me tear my hair out. Likewise, if it's chance-based, then the rare time when my hero doesn't escape, particularly a beloved hero, would be a "WTF" moment. During auto-resolve, obviously the chance to escape should remain, of course.
End of quote

Agreed.  In this case "WTF" is an acronym for "reload", but how...... "Want To Flashback" ?

Reply #186 Top

I think that MoM did it good : you have a "flee" button, and have a chance to loose some (or all) of your units (and some fame too sometimes).

You could have the movement speed of the fleeing units compared to the fastest ennemies to give modifiers to each unit survival chances (fast cavalry and flying units should escape easier unless ther are other fast or flying units in pursuit), and it could sometimes be frustrating to lose a unit that should have been able to flee because it was at the rear of your forces, but at least it would be immediatly resolved.
End of quote

Agree.

Reply #187 Top

Quoting Raven, reply 159

Quoting ghog69, reply 158WINNER.TAKE.ALL

I would prefer the pre-made maps to the randomized ones only if there are truly hundreds to choose from. If not I fear the maps would become predictable and the 'strategy' would be lost. I don't know how quickly the team could make that many maps representing varied tactics so I ask, "Is it worth the effort?" Would the time be best served to support the map making community and have a new pool of maps being uploaded regularly?


Don't forget, that very same "map making community" Will dwindle down to a small hand-full of people once either...

A ) The "Newness" of the game wears off.

or...

B ) They Stop making Expansions and move on to the next game...causing the "newness" to wear off.

Four years from now, if a couple new expansions haven't come out by then, there won't be a "map making community". Just a little group of us "Die Hards".
End of Raven's quote

 

Then break out the Python and make your own random map generator. :grin:

 

Seriously, four years is a long time to worry about how new the maps are for tactical combat. If the 'community' is robust early on, we should see thousands of maps to keep it fresh. As a developer, I'd be more worried about having lots of interesting, tactical battlefields when my community was at its largest. A lot more than just maps would need to be fresh to keep me playing for four years. If the community as a whole has moved on I doubt there would be much to keep people playing that some random maps would fix.

 

Reply #188 Top

Can an allied player's units help defend my city, or can there be a massive free for all slugout between several armies desperately trying for control of an important choke point or resource?
End of quote

I'd vote for these.

Reply #189 Top

Units' battle speeds.... does anyone here remember Wizard's Crown or Eternal Dagger? In those games, units with higher speeds went first, but *in addition*, a unit with say a speed of 20 would not only go before a unit with a speed of 10, he would also get to move twice as often. Speeds on both sides were lumped into the same pool, it wasn't 'your turn, ai's turn, your turn, ai's turn' but 'Your guy with speed 20 goes first, then the ai's guy with a speed of 19 goes next". I don't remember how ties were handled, maybe with the flip of a coin?
End of quote

Sounds like HOMM5.  Worked pretty well.  Months ago when I first heard about "continuous turns" combat I thought that's what it meant.  Silly me.

Reply #190 Top

What I always held is that tactical combat should be allowed to span multiple strategic turns. Combat lasts 10 tactical turns and then 'stops' to be resumed on the next strategic turn. Both armies are pinned to the tile during "Strategic Phase".

That plus a sensible stacking limit would allow for multiple battles to develop, with re-enforcements arriving and perhaps wounded units leaving.

It would allow for tile enchantment spells to be cast depending on the progress of the battle.
End of quote

 

Sounds good.  Might also help timing issues in MP.

Reply #191 Top

Winner take all Sucks. It is unrealistic and it really sucks if in a close match you are forced to lose it all.

I wouldn't want to see tactical battles go longer than 20 minutes. 10-15 would be ideal with maybe the occasional longer "epic" tactical battle when sieging a capitol.

I think there is a happy medium between randomized & richnesssuch as semi-randomized with modular tilesets.

Also, my biggest concern about tactical combat is whether or not auto-resolve makes it irrelevant.

Reply #192 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 190

What I always held is that tactical combat should be allowed to span multiple strategic turns. Combat lasts 10 tactical turns and then 'stops' to be resumed on the next strategic turn. Both armies are pinned to the tile during "Strategic Phase".

That plus a sensible stacking limit would allow for multiple battles to develop, with re-enforcements arriving and perhaps wounded units leaving.

It would allow for tile enchantment spells to be cast depending on the progress of the battle.


 

Sounds good.  Might also help timing issues in MP.
End of Lord's quote

WOW. I know I have heard this idea before in other games. But Yeah this idea I really really like. It would help the speed on the MP end while allowing for some really interesting strategic choices like putting a champion and just enough troops out to defend hime for a couple strategic turns as bait. Then Bam charging in with the real army from out of the FoW to catch them after they are engaged.

Have a point of Karma on the house k1

Reply #193 Top

Just a few thoughts

I have to agree that we are argueing about a lot of details when we haven't even remotely seen what they have. While obviously the Stardock internal build is different than what they are giving us, that is to be expected. Who wants to test something that crashes all the time or balance is so out of whack that you can use the same tactic over and over? The core of the internal testing will be looking for killer and out of whack mechanics, testing early builds for holes in the design and lately probably looking for graphic glitches.

Stardock wants us to give feedback on if they are going in the right direction. What tweaks can they make that would make the game better. Just that they threw out RTS for TBS alone but didn't remove it from modding says they are listening.

So in closing, beta 2 is out in a week or two. My sense is Frogboy is asking for replies on the broad scope of what they are looking at. For all we know, some of the things he posts are quite opposite of what they think. That way they can validate what they thought by everyone going NOOOOOOOOOOO! and look like heroes when they did it the way they wanted to begin with. I am not saying they are, but it would be rather clever and good marketing. So let's calm down a bit and discuss things and wait for the beta2 before we say "that will never work!" or "If they do that, I will never buy another game!"

Charity to all, malice toward none.

 

Reply #194 Top

Quoting ghog69, reply 187

Then break out the Python and make your own random map generator.

 

Seriously, four years is a long time to worry about how new the maps are for tactical combat. If the 'community' is robust early on, we should see thousands of maps to keep it fresh. As a developer, I'd be more worried about having lots of interesting, tactical battlefields when my community was at its largest. A lot more than just maps would need to be fresh to keep me playing for four years. If the community as a whole has moved on I doubt there would be much to keep people playing that some random maps would fix.
End of ghog69's quote

Luckily Elemental comes with a Awesome Random Map Generator!!! :)

You are right about the time-frame. Four years is a bit much to expect...but, then again, I'm still playing games that are far older then four years old. I play Gal Civ 2 all the time still when I'm in the mood. It's forums are still quite active even though they know they aren't getting any new content until Gal Civ 3. If Elemental is even Half as Fun as MoM the games life will FAR extend Four years. I also play X-Com all the time too (on the original CD's) though of course I have to use another program to do that. I've got Rome:TW, and Med2:TW, and Empire:TW installed right now. I know Empire is newish, but Rome and Med2 are starting to gain in years and both of them have very active fan and Mod communities still.

Of course if Elemental is a success (which it Will be) there Will be expansions. Not to mention Mods and Total Conversions and who-knows-what else being created all the time by users and shared through the game servers.

Quoting Rishkith, reply 191
Also, my biggest concern about tactical combat is whether or not auto-resolve makes it irrelevant.
End of Rishkith's quote

You know Rish...that's the first I actually thought about that. That could possibly be a very big concern. The problem is though you'll always have purists who simply won't play/don't care about tactical battles. Or some-one who's played the game so long they don't care to play or watch the battle. Still, that's a very valid concern.

I think a lot of people are forgetting though that Frogboy said they "Would Not Compromise the Integrity of the Single Player Game to fit the Multi-Player Game's Mechanics", or something to that affect. Even though Elemental will have a robust multi-player component, it is primarily a Single Player Game. This means that the major battle engine will probably be quite different in terms of how it's used between a single player game and a multi-player game.

I'm not sure if everyone remembers that or not, but, I think we should all be concentrating on the Single Player aspect of the mechanics, for now at least. Some things will obviously need to be "tweaked" to play solidly in a multi-player game. Either that or we'll end up with a "gimped" single player experience and I don't see Frogboy letting that happen. This is his baby. In a way it's "all of ours" baby. The depth of some single player mechanics simply won't translate to a fun game experience for multi-player.

Reply #195 Top

One thing that really bothers me about tbs that might be good to think about is lack of group movement. If we have hundreds of archers they should be able to all fire in one chorus. Furthermore, I hope ranged units don 't need to be aimed at a specific enmey, it takes too long with today's interface and doesn't apply to real combat. It sure would save a lot of time during epic battles. Being able to move formations of units towards one's enemy would also be an advantage.

Games like this are never playable when we have to spend ten minutes just advancing towards the enemy.

 

As to issues of combat speed. Armor will probably be the major issue affecting hits per turn and movement speed. It is a little ridiculous though that a horseman with a sword would be able to attack more than a swordsman on the ground. I assume there will be a special rule for this issue as I trust Froggs and the boys would not let my archer horsemen get twice as many renged attacks as foot soldiers. It would be Zhengis Khan all over again. *_*

Reply #196 Top

I really think retreating should work very much like it does in Total War. Troops that make it to the border of the combat map should successfully get away. I should be able to choose which units to send into a retreat, and whichever units make it make it, and the ones that are killed in the process die, obviously. Retreating units are more vulnerable because their backs are turned to the combat and they are focused on getting away, not defending themselves. Routed units will break and run, out of the player's control. But this allows to me to decide which units are important enough to me to retreat from a lost cause (probably including any heroes involved), and which units I'm ready to sacrifice in order for those units to get away.
End of quote

Worked well in Total War.  Not sure how well it makes the transition from real-time to turn-based.

Reply #197 Top

Have a point of Karma on the house
End of quote

Whoops -- that was me quoting someone else.  Is there a way for you to take the Karma away ?

Reply #198 Top

OK, finally my own post....

There should be some penalty for retreating, but death of some units is only one option.  Units could be dispersed to different squares, or lose mobility for the next turn, or the commander could lose experience or command-points or whatever they end up being called, or the whole army could move back a few squares to a location chosen by the computer.  Fast units & fliers should be able to retreat from slow enemies with less penalty than the other way round -- hit & run with a fast army sounds cool, and running down fleeing enemies with my cav in Total-War was fun.  There could also be less penalty if the retreating units are far from the enemy and close to the edge of the battle map.  

Draws should be allowed, at least if the attacker decides to retreat.

If the penalty for loss/retreat is that the commander loses experience, waive the penalty if he is hugely outnumbered.  Maybe even give him some experience if he inflicts casualties and gets away.

--------

Not a big fan of time/turn limits in SP, unless we can set them high or low, with a "no-limit" option.  I personally like LONG battles, at least if the forces are large and evenly balanced, and nobody has an "instant-death-to-all-enemy" spell.  Best if there is a mid-battle option to let the computer auto-resolve the rest, like Froggie said there would be.

If units (especially attackers) can retreat without much penalty, there isn't much need for time limits in SP.  I don't care much about MP.

If we have a long time limit (or none) and I want the battle to end fast, I'll just have to figure how to kill them fast :)  or run, or as Froggie said  "At any point, players can have a tactical battle auto-resolve".

The only advantage of short time limits in SP, in games I have played, is if the attacker just sits at the back to the battle map and doesn't actually attack coughShogunTotalWarcough.  Then a short limit lets the defender win (as he should) without having to go attack the "attacker".  But that's more of an attacker-AI issue than a time-limit issue.

-------

I'd MUCH rather have a choice at the start of each battle between autoresolve or tactical combat or retreat instead of any threshold system.  I might REALLY WANT to see if my one unit can somehow beat their three units if I play it right.  And I certainly don't want my lone uber-champion killed off because the autoresolve doesn't know how I would have won with him.


Just don't let "autoresolve" become "autolose" coughTotalWarcough.

-------

Morale + Terrain + Combined-Arms = good

-------

"speed" needs to be separate things, as many have said above.  How far a unit can move in a turn has little to do with how quickly that unit's turns come.  Didn't HOMM5 call the latter "initiative"?  We need better words"speed".  Maybe "movement" for one and "quickness" or "initiative" for the other.  

Then there might be "weapon speed" which is a 3rd thing -- a dagger stabbing more than once in a single turn or a skilled archer shooting twice.

-----

Not really sure about random vs pre-made battle maps, but within one random strategic map, if I fight twice at the same spot I'd like to be be on the same tactical map.

-----

Yes! Please let us see whatever you have for tactical combat soon, while there is still time to change it.  But NO time pressure in SP, please.







Reply #199 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 198

Yes! Please let us see whatever you have for tactical combat soon, while there is still time to change it.  But NO time pressure in SP, please.
End of Lord's quote

Yeah, I think this is definitely a good idea...

Reply #200 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 195
One thing that really bothers me about tbs that might be good to think about is lack of group movement. If we have hundreds of archers they should be able to all fire in one chorus. Furthermore, I hope ranged units don 't need to be aimed at a specific enmey, it takes too long with today's interface and doesn't apply to real combat. It sure would save a lot of time during epic battles. Being able to move formations of units towards one's enemy would also be an advantage.

Games like this are never playable when we have to spend ten minutes just advancing towards the enemy.

 

As to issues of combat speed. Armor will probably be the major issue affecting hits per turn and movement speed. It is a little ridiculous though that a horseman with a sword would be able to attack more than a swordsman on the ground. I assume there will be a special rule for this issue as I trust Froggs and the boys would not let my archer horsemen get twice as many renged attacks as foot soldiers. It would be Zhengis Khan all over again.
End of seanw3's quote

 

I have to second the bit about taking forever to advance. In a sizable map, every unit of men must be moved manually to a very specific location as opposed to total war style circling all your men and dragging out a formation at the area where you want to do battle. click, click, drag as opposed to N*2 clicks where N is the number of units in your army. Very tedious. Not to mention, you don't get that awesome feeling of the war drums starting when your army starts to march in turn based games, nor the intense battle music coming in when the armies come in contact (i guess you could but it would fall terribly flat). 

Also frogboy, I have an objection about your "trying to be everything to all people." There is a group (how large, I don't know but I imagine quite sizable indeed) that wants a game with a turn-based overworld and real-time tactical battles. Making such a game isn't some ploy to attract both tbs fans and rts fans, it's an effort to attract fans of the type of game you're making (or create those fans, since this type of game is quite new). It's like saying puzzle quest was trying to be everything to both puzzle fans and rpg fans. It wasn't; it was its own awesome game because those elements worked perfectly together.

I want to echo the request to allow the beta testers to play both versions. Obviously you don't have to listen to the majority opinion out here in the wild when making your game, but you should give us the pleasure of giving you informed opinions. Who knows, maybe we can sway you once we've tried it.