[Beta 3B]Tactical Battles Feedback / Improvement list

It is turn based not initiative based like Heroes so that is unnecessary just click on the unit you want to use.

I would love to see:

• Counter-attacks
• Unit Abilities (flight for dragons, multiple attacks, a cone of attack, that kind of stuff)
• Stronger Enemies (not monsters AI opponents)
• A greater emphasis on defense. Right now without counter-attacks there is no reason to waist money on armor as long as you can kill in one turn, or you have more combat speed.

That's what I get for writing it early in the morning. You're right.

Frog said elsewhere that the beginner monsters won't have abilities, but as you fight higher level ones they'll start.

Tactical combat needs to be tactical, not just a graphical representation of auto combat (like HoMM, disciples etc).

Just copy how TC works in Age of Wonders 2 / Shadow magic. They really got it right in those games. Units retaliate and use up  their move/attack points for next turn. This means low level units can gang up on larger units and drain them on attack points.

the should disconnect combat speed from the movement speed on the battle field and instead use the normal movement speed instead.

for example so a unit with high movement speed but low combat speed can move several tiles per turn but only attack once, and a unit with slow movement speed, bit high combat speed can attack many times per turn but only walk on tile a turn etc.

I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of tactical battles generally.  For one thing, a human can usually outplay the AI on a tactical level with ease, plus, I enjoy the strategic elements, while tactics ends up being more micromanagement.  However, I do enjoy watchng them play out sometimes.  This is how I play AoW:SM--I choose manual battle, but then I let it run automatically, so I can see what's happening and refine my force organization to optimize my chances of winning.  I would like it if that option were available in Elemental--choosing "Auto" but being able to see it play out, instead of having it resolve instantly.

Any chance we'll have that in the finished product?

agree

this problem was even in mom

the point is there HAS TO be counterattack

otherwise one way or another all combats end in neverending kite

also most speed should be 2 or even more

monster most of all should all be faster than humans apart some slag or uber behemot and stuff like that

When fighing the bandit campment from a quest, the wolf appears to retaliate when you strike it.

dunno what to say

the whole idea is not clear, i know how it could work but right now its hard to understand whats the idea of stardock about it

ofc changing everything makes it working but we should "fix" combat starting from the original idea

whicih i dont understand what it is

in this kind of combat attack speed is simply out of control

you lvl and choose if attacking 2 times (TWICE) or increase your hp of 1 or your dmg by a smal amount

 i mean wtf?

how can MULTIPLY your attacks be even remotely nearly equivalent to a couple points of dmg?

so i just dont understand the basic idea of it

yup happened to me too

but sounded like some sort of special skil while should be automatic for every unit

I had to fight tactical battle for quests and I haven't been asked to do so. I would like to decide every time a battle occurs if I'd like to auto-resolve.

- I can't see the terrain bonuses (if there are any). That should be changed.

- I'd like terrain that's differently high (higher unit gets bonuses)

- line of sight, obstacles (AoW..)

- monsters/heroes on my side that move independently

- perhaps a "tactics" attribute that defines how many units you are able to command

- poison/illness/life draining on weapons and monsters

Tactical combat ... from what I've seen.. it needs some serious improvement to make it really enjoyable, and to have some "Tactical" depth and interest.

To do that, Tactical combat needs to function in a way that's easy to understand but also provides further depth, and genuine fun.

Step 1. Every unit should have two basic types of actions.

1.  
   1. Move action. The distance a unit can move is based upon their movement speed.
   2. Standard Action. This is used to attack, use equipment, cast spells etcetera.

Step 2. Movement is an obvious one. But you should also be able to move through friendly units if an unoccupied space is available within the range of the units total move.

Step 3. Types of Attack Actions. All use a Standard action to fuel them.

•  
  • Standard Attack - A units normal attack for their type, melee, ranged or spell. They can do this before or After a move action.
  • Ready Attack - You ready a unit to attack an opponent who comes within range of that unit. (Melee when a target is adjacent. Ranged if further away.) But this is where Unit Combat Speed should come into play for melee. The unit with the higher initiative (err combat speed), gets to resolve their attack first in case an opponent charged or when the enemy unit became adjacent.
  • Charge Attack - The unit makes a melee attack immediately as part movement. The advantage to charging is + to hit and damage.
  • Counter Charge Attack - Your unit can designate the ability to charge an enemy if they move within range. (This can result in two units "Charging" each other and the unit with the higher combat speed, gets their attack off first.)

These ideas are just basic, but add a depth to the Tactical combat that, would really make it jump leaps and bounds across the board. And they aren't just specific to any one game. They are normal for many fantasy rpg tactical battles.

Turn based doesn't have to mean one entire side goes, then the other side goes, ad naseum till blood pours out our eyes. Make it interesting. Add a real initiative rating. And then a random dice roll to see how many movement points they rolled up. Which they then spend that initiative points to move units, one at a time, until all their points are out for their turn. Then the enemy takes a turn moving their rolled initiative points to move units. And then... at the end of that round, if the battle is still going on. Then initiative is rolled again. And this way sometimes if luck favored you, you get to move more units and other times your only able to move the minimum.

I'm just saying, I think people will have a hard time enjoying the tactical battles if they function still as they currently do. But add in a little depth that makes them think, give them a random dice roll to determine the number of units they can move, and which ones to do so can be engaging. It'll then become a case of using interesting factors, determine when to move a unit, when to charge, and when to ready an attack. And so on and so on, and so on.

I do realize that were just doing the beta version of this Tactical Battles. And they seem to be going to run the way they currently are. But as with all aspects of this game, if we can help provide some interesting and compelling ideas.. they can look it over and find ways to implement them. To fix it as it were. I mean let's be honest here, the game already has move and attack built in. The rest of it is just clarifying it with words, and easy to determine functions, and a few minor things like Ready Attack, and Charge, and Counter Charge. And charge could be just simply a movement combined with an attack as part of it for the computer to figure out.

Also you should not start next to each other. This is especially bad for casters/archers which can be reached on the first turn. I like however the size of the battlefield. You can easily see all of it.

I feel that maps need to be about 50-100% larger.  It's so small and clustered together, you have no time to align your forces for defense or attack.  If they keep the map size, at least place the opposing forces on the opposite ends of the map.  Right now everyone starts right in your face so it really seems to limit the usefulness of ranged abilities.

Thus far (and I admit it is early), there are a lack of "interesting choices" to make during a battle.  I get attacked by a group of guys, they start within spell range, so I need them with Firestorm.  Then they're in melee range and they whack at me.  Every battle typically resolves in this manner, just a few basic steps.

I understand that they probably wanted map sizes to be smallish to make them end faster, but right now there's such a lack of interesting tactical options, there's no reason not to just autoresolve every battle.

Contrast this with say, Age of Wonders, where you had terrain that blocked projectiles, slowed movement, you could surround and flank units, etc.  This right now is just click a couple buttons and finish the battle.

This isn't meant as a slam, just constructive criticism, but as it stands right now I don't think I'd ever use tactical battles.

Nop. The size of the maps should be dynamic. It should depend on the total number of units or groups. [I copy&paste this reply of mine from an other topic ->]

Example:

Number of units [or groups] on the battlefield / size of the map -> <=10 / 12x12 ; <= 25 15x15 ; <= 50 20x20 etc.

I don't like the camera control. Some kind of isometric camera lock would be great. When I get into battle I don't want to fiddle with the camera too much, I just want to get down to business. The camera also makes it hard to click on certain parts of the terrain when issuing move orders.

That'd be fine.  But for the battles I'm fighting, the maps are too small.  Well not even necessarily too small, it's the fact that all the units start out almost on top of each other.  There's no room for tactical maneuvering, just an immediate slugfest.  It's boring.

Those maps really are WAY too small. But the fact that they start out right next to each other. Talk about ruining the suspension of disbelief. And this isn't intended to disrespect anyone. It's in a way something I wouldn't of  expected from Stardock at this stage of it. BUT... and I emphasize that but. 

Were still using a beta tool. Were still probably generations behind where they are for the game overall development. I know how I would really like to see these tactical battles run, and heck other aspects of the game as well, cities, spell customization/development, magic item creation/finding.

But it's now out in our hands to break, and let them know where were at.

They earned a night of rest. And much more.. this was a gigantic improvement overall for this build. I'm not convinced on the Tactical Battles yet. Oh and a better way to describe the points I was making above, would be to refer to them as Tactic Points. And then using initiative and those points to perform activities. Taking turns. But this way it's not all one sided.

And there needs to be some distance between the encounters. Because right now. They are not fun to play. (When I can get it to show me the map instead of the white screen like it's anti-alias is turned on it.)

I am conviced that the battlefield size is ok. Larger Battlefield would mean you have to scroll, and can not see all your units at a glance. That already killed AoW battles for me. Furtehrmore with the number of troops present they should fit quite nicely on these small maps.

However as postet above and severaltimes more the Enemies should start at larger distance.

The other problem is moves. I think we have to much moves for the battlefields. You should have 1-2 Moves regularily, and not up to 5 (Mounted units, with the right equipment). Add retailiation and you are good to go. 

Its also strange that i need a fast weapon to cast two or three spells...

Yeah, there should be some better spacing for the larger battles. I don't mind starting 2 tiles away from the spiders at the start, but armies should really start farther apart so you get wiggle room.

 3 4 more tiles at start but speed NEED to be way faster

should be like in kings bounty where 90% units goes 2 tiles/turn MIN  with a good % having also more than 2 or some occasional speed boost

1 tile moving just kills the fun and gameplay

also what would be the point of slowing spells if they already are so slow

i hope not

what would be the point for us of testing some broken beta if they have a better beta available?

i can understand like in the bast with no tactical they ofc had battles going on

but i dont want to believe they make us test a broken combat while they do posses a working one

that would make no sense at all

your point may be right for different section of game, like we have 10 quest and they instead have 50 cause they are testing the other 40

or we have 10 items they have 40, we have 10 monsters they have 30

but  like i said cant be true for other stuff

We are listening to your ideas on this. There are many different ways to do tactical battle. 

The battle system that you have IS what our current system is but we are looking at making a number of changes based on actual game play feedback.

They just finished the build last night, we're not several generations back or anything

Tactical battles are new.  It's our job to find problems and get them tweaked to our liking.  Sure tactical battles are dull right now, but that's the point of Beta 3B.

EDIT:  Was writing this before Istari posted.

Agreed.  Why reinvent the wheel?  SM's system worked just fine, even with the garrisoned units having unlimited move their first turn, so long as they stayed inside the city. 

To add one:  TABBING between units doesn't work in tactical combat.  You have to click each unit to use it.

Also, hitting enter doesn't end the turn.  You have to click the flag.  These two things should stay consistent from the strat. map to the tact. map.

 Edit:  Experience is still messed up.  My queen gets 10 exp, the sov and everyone else gets 50, doesn't matter who or what they are fighting, or who scores the kills.

I bought elemental for its tactical battles, so I am very devoted in giving my two cents on this subject, seeing as is the tactical battles... well they are not good.

First off, there is a fix that wouldn't need to let every unit counterattack, yet still be fair. It is tacking combat speed away from actions. You give every unit 2 actions (maybe more as a special ability) 1 action can be used to move, the other action can be used to attack or cast spells. That way if you have a unit with the speed of one, then they can move next to you and attack you. Also if you use the tactic of attacking and then moving that is fine, because if you want to attack next round you have to move in then attack, thus you would be right next to the enemy. Giving them an oppurtunity to attack you despite being slow.

That is the easiest fix, and would still make counter attacks a unique skill.

Clever A.I:

If the enemy has a movement of 1 they shouldn't move to somewhere they can't act...


  

Quicker movements:

In tactical battles, the units don't need to move at a realistic, and slow pace. Make symbolic actions that are fast, and keep the game moving. Swinging a sword should be a quick "whack whack" and that is it. Not a draw the sword back... swing it to the side... swing it in front of you... miss, swing it back again, swing it to the side again, swing it forward, ... miss again.

Health bars:

It would be very nice to be able to have health bars. This adds so much to tactical battles, namely, it lets you see visually how much your attack did, and it lets you strategize better.