My poorly* writen opinion concerning the tactical system

*due to the fact that i don't speak english :)**

from Elemental Forums

**but thanks to dict.leo.org... please correct my diction if you like...

Had so far just little time to play, but been following the forum with joy and interest...

 

There seams to derive one dilemma from the fact that there is only on stat for movement and number of attacks (and maybe whatever else involves “doing something”, like casting)

à Action Points (AP)

 

If you only have action points (I’m not against it – could be satisfactory and is definitely simple) then you must adjust everything else so that it will be fun to play, versatile and cool but still looking plausible - in row of how we feel that mystical/medieval armies and heroes should behave - at least in our imagination.

 

I’m, so far, manly concerned with the implementation of cavalry. Because mounted units, not single heroes, are a little pointless without at least same additional options.

One would be the possibility of “flanking” or even better a system of “positional/mobility warfare”, another one the chance, of course, to charge. Huzaa!  

 

Another nice thing to have would be some system for

- Strategic ambushes

  • An army is caught on the wrong food, the units are in bad or random order in the beginning of the tactical fight
  • Or not all of them are immediately available (front/rear guard, main army) Maybe only possible with an army management screen…

- Tactical ambushes 

  • The ninja in the haystack
  • One surprise attack without the possibility to retaliate/counterattack
  • Nasty traps? / prepare the battlefield (Trait?)
  • Smokescreens, Visibility, Burning Woods…

- Guerrilla warfare – a small army/group hassles a bigger slower army

  • The bigger the army the slower it gets?
  • It’s easier to sneak into the camp of a big army (infiltrator trait)
  • Hit and Run like Mongolian Horseback Archers (Hit and Ride)  

 

I think it’s difficult to design a system for everybody, but hardcore wargamer might be helpful in same aspects of real/historical warfare tips (this one for the authentic feeling)

If your system is very simple (which it seems) then you really must think it through, like… chess (simple rules, endless possibilities, a horror for the AI)

It would be interessting and comprehensible if you have some core rules and than adjust everything with traits  

Given:

- Simple Attack: 1 AP

- Simple Move: 2 AP

 

Simple thought one: chance the Numbers

- Units have 3 AP (approximately, +/- traits; higher levels, poison, spells...)

- Units on Foot:           

  • Attack: 1 AP
  • Move: 2 AP

- Units on Horseback (a Trait):

  • Attack: 2 AP
  • Move: 1 AP
  • Damage: + X% for every Tile moved, whereas X depends on the mount and/or on the Weapon (Short One: 10%, Speer: 15% or Lace 20%)

 

Others fast thoughts: some things don’t cost very much AP… but still beware if you run out of them at the end of yur turn...

 

- Don’t refund AP every time initiative switches and implement the meaningful use of fractions of a full AP or give everyone more of the spice…

- Immediately Counter-Attack cost 0.25 Action Points with half the attack value (or lower) of the defender. (Skills could increase this.)

à You have to save same AP to counterattack on your opponents turn.

- Implement Facing with four directions (n,s,e,w) and eight possible angles of attacks (if you count diagonal strike). 

- All attacks from the sides or the rear force a chance of facing, if this is not possible halve the defenders defence

- A forced chance of facing costs 0.25 Action Points and the defence is 10% lower.     

- Initiate a morale check if a unit is attacked from opposite sides in the same round. If it fails the first time it moves to a free square – if it can’t it panics…

...hm         

O.K. some of these thoughts may also be a little pointless in a MoM-like-Tactical Combat….

what else...

- Basic Horse Cavalry Trait: Move costs 1.25 AP on Plains

- Warhorse Trait: Move costs 1 AP on Plains

- Warg Cavalry Trait: Move costs 1.50 AP on Hills plus small attack bonus

- Bear Cavalry Trait: Move costs 1.50 AP in ähm... caves (woods?)

 

Naj... too little time and not well thought out...

Best wishes

Aygis

 

 

elemental
14,927 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

Have to agree with this.  The tactical combat system could benefit greatly from more complexity.

There also must be bear cavalry.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

In the combat thread we have discussed this quite extensively and completely agree that one stat for movement / number of attacks causes a lot of problems. Specifically we've been calling it the "Sauron / Super-Calvary" problem where people who move far on a battlefield (calvary) suddenly get a ton of attacks, and people who are supposed to have a ton of attacks (Sauron) can suddenly teleport across the battlefield. It's obnoxious.

 

I'll repost our conclusion from the other thread:

 

Combat Revamp

1) Combat Points are how far you can move.
2) Your Weapon Speed is how often you can make an attack.
3) A weapon speed of 5 means you will use 1/5th (or 20%) of your Combat Points every time you attack.

 In this system it doesn't matter how many combat points you have, you always can only make the same number of attacks. What determines how many attacks you can make is your weapon speed. If your weapon speed is higher, you're left with a higher number of combat points to move around with after making an attack. Our system completely supports having fractions of movement and weapon speed. 

 

 The algorithm works like this:

How many Combat Points you use per attack is Total Combat Points (i.e, the cap for the unit) divided by Weapon Speed. So that's Total Combat Points / Weapon Speed = points used per attack.

Normal weapons should have a Weapon Speed of 3 or 4. Slow things like large maces should have a weapon speed of 2. Catapults, which should only fire once, should have a weapon speed of 1. Fast ones go to 4 and up.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Been lurking for a while.  Signed up just to say that I think the idea summarized by TCores is absolutely brilliant in its simplicity and depth.  This would add *so* much more to tactical combat than the current 1pt attack/2pt move system does.  Stardock, you simply *have* to implement this ;)

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting TCores, reply 2
In the combat thread we have discussed this quite extensively and completely agree that one stat for movement / number of attacks causes a lot of problems. Specifically we've been calling it the "Sauron / Super-Calvary" problem where people who move far on a battlefield (calvary) suddenly get a ton of attacks, and people who are supposed to have a ton of attacks (Sauron) can suddenly teleport across the battlefield. It's obnoxious.
 



I'll repost our conclusion from the other thread:
 



Combat Revamp





1) Combat Points are how far you can move.
2) Your Weapon Speed is how often you can make an attack.
3) A weapon speed of 5 means you will use 1/5th (or 20%) of your Combat Points every time you attack.


 In this system it doesn't matter how many combat points you have, you always can only make the same number of attacks. What determines how many attacks you can make is your weapon speed. If your weapon speed is higher, you're left with a higher number of combat points to move around with after making an attack. Our system completely supports having fractions of movement and weapon speed. 



 

 The algorithm works like this:

How many Combat Points you use per attack is Total Combat Points (i.e, the cap for the unit) divided by Weapon Speed. So that's Total Combat Points / Weapon Speed = points used per attack.
Normal weapons should have a Weapon Speed of 3 or 4. Slow things like large maces should have a weapon speed of 2. Catapults, which should only fire once, should have a weapon speed of 1. Fast ones go to 4 and up.


End of TCores's quote

Actually I'd go with a totally separated movement & attack system [like I've said in the other topic], because that would be more realistic, but this could work as well. [This is somewhat similar to the AoW combat system.]

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 4


Actually I'd go with a totally separated movement & attack system [like I've said in the other topic], because that would be more realistic, but this could work as well. [This is somewhat similar to the AoW combat system.]
End of Tormy-'s quote

 

well if i have to design a new combat system i would use a system of 14 differential equation while the stats of each unit would be a matrix of 256x256

 

that system would rock for sure

 

the problem is we ALREADY have too many stats

the system elaborated in the discussion thread and reported by tcore just use the actual stats and make them more meaningful instead of addind a tons of new things

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ddd888, reply 5



Quoting Tormy-,
reply 4


Actually I'd go with a totally separated movement & attack system [like I've said in the other topic], because that would be more realistic, but this could work as well. [This is somewhat similar to the AoW combat system.]


 

well if i have to design a new combat system i would use a system of 14 differential equation while the stats of each unit would be a matrix of 256x256

 

that system would rock for sure

 

the problem is we ALREADY have too many stats

the system elaborated in the discussion thread and reported by tcore just use the actual stats and make them more meaningful instead of addind a tons of new things
End of ddd888's quote

Actually you wouldn't have to add anyhing if the devs would decide to implement a separated movement/attack system, IF # of overland movement points = # of tactical movement points. [Like in AoW] However ->

Imo this would be the best system with regard to the movement/attack system [1 new stat should be added / movement should be separated into tactical and overland "variants"]:

Stat 1. = Overland movement points

Stat 2.= Tactical movement points [=AP]*

Stat 3.= Combat speed [this would only affect the number of attacks & number of spells casted / turn]

*AP = tact. movement points [moving, retaliating an enemy strike & using special abilities would affect the AP]

 

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

We only need a new stat because they're strongly against using overland movement speed as tactical movement speed. If that wasn't a problem we have all the stats we need: movement and attack speed (combat speed).

As it stands right now, this part of the system is too simplistic. There's not enough stats. Too many stats is more of a problem for Sovereigns.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top
Quoting Tormy-, reply 6



Actually you wouldn't have to add anyhing if the devs would decide to implement a separated movement/attack system, IF # of overland movement points = # of tactical movement points.

End of Tormy-'s quote

ah ok i agree and i always told that this is my easiest solution

but for some reason stardock dont like it so nothing we can do about it :P

 

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 7
We only need a new stat because they're strongly against using overland movement speed as tactical movement speed. If that wasn't a problem we have all the stats we need: movement and attack speed (combat speed).

As it stands right now, this part of the system is too simplistic. There's not enough stats. Too many stats is more of a problem for Sovereigns.
End of Tridus's quote

 

 yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats

 

like resistances against  elements and against weapon  types

 

(if i remember correctly frogboy told he wanted to put them, right? )

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ddd888, reply 9



Quoting Tridus,
reply 7
We only need a new stat because they're strongly against using overland movement speed as tactical movement speed. If that wasn't a problem we have all the stats we need: movement and attack speed (combat speed).

As it stands right now, this part of the system is too simplistic. There's not enough stats. Too many stats is more of a problem for Sovereigns.


 

 yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats

 

like resistances against  elements and against weapon  types

 

(if i remember correctly frogboy told he wanted to put them, right? )
End of ddd888's quote

Okay, now I am confused again, because I thought that we gonna have resistance types as well. We have damage types this is 100%, but we won't have resistance types? What is the point of the damage types in that case? o_O

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ddd888, reply 9

yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats

 

like resistances against  elements and against weapon  types

 

(if i remember correctly frogboy told he wanted to put them, right? )
End of ddd888's quote

You could do those as special abilities, rather then stats.

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 11

Quoting ddd888, reply 9
yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats

 

like resistances against  elements and against weapon  types

 

(if i remember correctly frogboy told he wanted to put them, right? )
You could do those as special abilities, rather then stats.
End of Tridus's quote

 

true

 

 

maybe even better instead of flooding units with stats

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Damage and resistance types are figured into rolls. The way combat works is the attacker rolls 0 or 1 to his weapon damage, and the defender rolls 0 or 1 to his defense rating. The difference between rolls is how much damage is done. If the defense roll is higher than attack roll, it's a miss. If, say, an armor resists piercing damage, then the defender gets an automatic max roll vs piercing weapon attacks. I'm not sure if the min roll is a 1 or 0.

Basically, if I have 4 defense (strong against piercing), and I get attacked by a 10 damage piercing weapon, I can take a maximum of 6 damage, as opposed to a maxium of 9 (if rolls have a min of 1) if my armor doesn't resist piercing.

There's no separate "stat" for resisting damage types.

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

i know there isnt

 

but there will be something i suppose

if not what would be the point of having blunt and other type of damages?

 

(not that i really feeel the need of having them  btw)

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

... I just told you how it works and how different damage/armor types interact. It's not "there will be something". There is something now.

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 13
Damage and resistance types are figured into rolls. The way combat works is the attacker rolls 0 or 1 to his weapon damage, and the defender rolls 0 or 1 to his defense rating. The difference between rolls is how much damage is done. If the defense roll is higher than attack roll, it's a miss. If, say, an armor resists piercing damage, then the defender gets an automatic max roll vs piercing weapon attacks. I'm not sure if the min roll is a 1 or 0.

Basically, if I have 4 defense (strong against piercing), and I get attacked by a 10 damage piercing weapon, I can take a maximum of 6 damage, as opposed to a maxium of 9 (if rolls have a min of 1) if my armor doesn't resist piercing.

There's no separate "stat" for resisting damage types.
End of Annatar11's quote

So which armor is good vs. piercing damage, which armor is good vs. crushing dmg and which is good vs. blunt dmg? Hopefully all necessary informations will be displayed on the screen.This is a hella weird system. Why do we have this, instead of a "normal" dmg-resistance system?

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm guessing we won't really know until we see the XMLs in beta 4 :P

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 17
I'm guessing we won't really know until we see the XMLs in beta 4
End of Annatar11's quote

Well, that's a whole problem in and of itself. From playing the game there's no way to know these things exist. Add that to the list of things that need fixing with tactical combat.

Reply #20 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting TCores, reply 2
In the combat thread we have discussed this quite extensively and completely agree that one stat for movement / number of attacks causes a lot of problems. Specifically we've been calling it the "Sauron / Super-Calvary" problem where people who move far on a battlefield (calvary) suddenly get a ton of attacks, and people who are supposed to have a ton of attacks (Sauron) can suddenly teleport across the battlefield. It's obnoxious.
End of TCores's quote

That 'Sauron' thing bugs me.

Ok: Frogboy wants 'Sauron' in late battles.

But Sauron didn't kill 20x1 people in one battle turn. He killed 1x20 people each time.

It had nothing to do with speed. Better have large weapons which can be used with area of effect. Ex: if a Broadsword of Doom is used to attack one soldier, he'll get, say, 14 damage. If the same weapon is used against a tile containing a raid of 22 people, each one of the 22 would get damage ranging from 10 to 12.

THAT would be a Sauron analogy.

Or in AoW there was a dwarf unit with the special ability to hit all surrounding units at the same time. That would be great for some powerful being sure to be surrounded by hordes of enemy

 

Otherwise, yes, I can't understand either that talk about "godlike cavalry". In AoW, every unit had the same number of attacks (except when magic or ranged): 3. And the number you effectively used was according to your distance moved (green => 3 attacks, orange => 2 attacks, red => 1 attack) or whether you used many counter-attacks the turn before.

There's no reason in Hell to give more attacks to someone who can walk faster because he has longer legs :grin: ; it could be according to the weapon: a dagger = fast attacks, a warhammer = slow attacks.

Reply #21 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 19
Indeed. As for the source so people don't think I'm dreaming it up:

https://forums.elementalgame.com/385858 reply #8. And min roll is 0, not 1.
End of Annatar11's quote

I've missed that post, thanks for the link! I must say, that I don't like this system. :S

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

 [This is somewhat similar to the AoW combat system.]
End of quote

Oh gawd please do not use anything from the AOW combat system that was the worst game ever for me.

Now you might want to look at a game called Magic Realm by AH. Weapon speed in that game determined who hit first not how many times they could strike. Along with that it determined if someone could evade the strike like if the weapon speed was 3 and the run speed of the character it was hitting was 4 then the weapon automatically got a hit chance. Magic Realm has the best and most fun combat system I ever played. Getting a hit chance didn't always mean a hit because each player and npc picked a direction and type of attack. Like a Smash to the Head whereby a duck played by the other player would make it miss unless the attack speed was faster than the duck speed. Wonderful game combat mechanics.