[Suggestion] Simple tactical magic system

Interesting.  You propose that a casters ability to cast more spells per turn is directly related to the amount of essence they have on tap?  I would think that Intelligence would be more of a gauge toward spell casting ability; it doesn't matter how big the tank of fuel is, you'll still only get as much fuel out as the size of the nozzle permits.  OTOH, the effect of burning up your essence casting spells having a direct effect on the number of spells you can get off is also intriguing as it would neatly add in a concept of exhaustion.

Either way, I understand that your main point here is to try and add in a limiting system easily into the game so as to be something that could be implemented before release, and in that case this might work if the devs are so inclined.  I would imagine that the tactical system is going to see a lot of evolution between now and release, and probably even more so post release when the gold date 'Sword of Damocles' is no longer hanging over their heads.

This is interesting. Another possibility would be to make use of wisdom which is underused presently.

Yes, intelligence and wisdom would both also work here. I used essence so that non-sovereign spellcasters would initially be limited to the one-spell-per-tactical turn goal that Frogboy wanted, while still allowing sovereigns to be magical terrors on the battlefield.

Also, the initial value I used for newly-imbued hero essence was wrong. It should be 3. Edited to reflect the correct beta 4 value.

Strangely, with as overpowered as summoning is right now, I tend to think the reverse is true. I've stopped worrying overmuch about INT, and started pumping Wis/Essence, as summoning is a far more efficient use of mana than direct offensive magic.  Carrying around a permanent entourage that hits many times per battle for as much damage as you could nuke for, while you fire 5 arrows per turn from safety, is far more cost efficient than blowing through your mana by nuking 3 or 4 times a battle.  And it leaves you plenty of mana left over for doing fun stuff like carving out passes through mountains, buffing/Debuffing cites, and imbuing other heroes, all of which are not dependent on INT.

I honestly wish *more* stuff, and especially summoning(especially in terms of duration), was limited by INT.  A few points either way in INT won't make a huge difference in a battle.  A few points in WIS makes for a decent increase in essence, and greatly increases your flexibility and the amount of mischief you can cause in a given turn.

I'm not sure that having even the meanest wizard able to cast twice per turn really gets at the core desire of making it harder to deplete your entire mana pool in a turn or two, or making the ability of the attacker to go first giving massive alpha strike capability.

I would rather have tactical spells be slightly more powerful, but only able to cast once per turn.

Another thing that needs to be factored into the calculus here is the opportunity cost of the mana.  If you spend your mana rapidly on weak tactical spells, then that eats into your ability to cast enchantments and Summonings.

Mana is slow to recover.

What about making spells take a certain number of actions, so a simple lightning strike takes one action while chain lightning could take three. You're then giving the player a tactical choice as well as having a mechanic to control the more powerful spells; do I shoot off three quick cantrips and try to take out the weaker bandits, or should I gamble on a slightly more powerful spell and hope it can take down the strongest bandit.

 To make it even more fun you could even theme the spell books around it. Fire could specialise in quick, single target cantrips which take a single action to get off, while Earth might be much slower with predominantly three action spells. It gives a good feel for wizards of different schools having their own approach to magic, and adds more consequences to think about when selecting spell books for a sovereign.

@Spyndel: I think the best way to limit summoning is to make the more powerful summoning spells again dependent on control of an elemental node.

@Scooter: I agree that tactical combat desperately needs to be turn-based by unit, with play order based on combat speed, rather than turn-based by player with play order decided by who attacks first. That's really an issue for tactical combat overall, rather than this specific magic issue, though.

@Archonsod: I agree and discuss that in the linked posts at the bottom of my comments. My goal here, though, was to suggest a simple and quickly implemented solution that was straightforward enough to be usable for the release version. The refinements are a good idea for post-release development.

At the risk of thread hijack...

I think that's the *start* of whats wrong with current summoning, yes.   If you want *permanent* monster unit, you should have to recruit it like heroes, or train it like any other unit, along with requisite tech  and resource requirements.  Summoning, IMO, should be battlefield magic like any other attack magic, and not last past the engagement. Its cost should be adjusted accordingly. Being able to cast a single spell that not only does damage the entire battle, but also works defensively to keep attackers off your costly permanent units and absorb damage, is still a bargain at twice the price of a single unit attack spell.

Right now summoning is talking the place of conventional armies.  Obviously the challenge will improve as the AI gets better, and Brad is revamping the magic system in any event, but currently it is far too easy to march across most of the map with only a handful of summoning spells, bypassing intended technology, resource, and economic limiters.

You raise a very crucial balance point in the current Elemental.  Summons need to be much more limited (and as a consequence, less costly).  For example, in HOMM 2 and 3, summons last only the battle they are summoned in.  Elementals that are bought last until they die, but elementals summoned in battle only last one battle (or less ;-)).  But they can still be a decent power if the mana cost is right - as even for one battle being able to summon some badass units can still be game-changing, but in a way where risk/reward is balanced.

And I think that's what all games are measured on really, is the risk/reward balanced for all the possible things one player can do to the AI or another human player?

Best regards,
Steven. 

I don't think those summons are going to be in the release in the same form they are in the beta, at least not the obviously overpowered bear unit.  Seems to me that bear is more like a unit to allow the player to advance quicker than normal in order to experience and test the mid and late game type of play faster than normal so they can test and see how it works.  Or it was just thrown in without any real thought toward balancing at all just to see how the summoned units are working.

yes i like this very much.  i just want there to be a way to use combat speed with spells.  this sounds good, making a sovs and champs that specialize in magic useful and unique.  i had originally just said that i would like them to add combat speed to all the spells, but this way would be a faster implementation.  mainly because you just have to balance the equation as opposed to each spell.  very nice!

Another thought on Summons: make summons relatively weaker, but boost them with Magic tech researches.

I have no problem with Summons substituting for a regular army IF doing so comes requires you to pursue magic techs rather than warfare techs.

As for node requirements: I think requiring summons to have an Elemental Shard would require a system where Shards are not of a particular type, and where the player (when building a shrine on them) then gets to choose what type of shrine to build.

Its lame if I have a great summon Fire monster spell, but the only shards near me are earth and ice.

I still really prefer one spell per turn; we don't want a caster to necessarily dissipate their entire mana pool in order to be effective in a single fight, because losing their mana means its a long time before they can fight again, even if they don't use any summoning or enchantments.

I would keep the shards they are now, randomly scattered by type across the map, however, I would modify the sovereigns so that no one knew any elemental magic until a shard was discovered.  This way, if I happen to find a water shard, I gain access to water spells that I can learn.  Summoning then is based on number of shards owned.  If I have one water shard I can summon weak water elementals, if I have two shards I can summon a more powerful elemental, etc.  I would also limit the number of creatures that can be summoned/controlled based on the number of shards I control.  Thus if I have three water shards I can summon a "Master of Lake" or three "Lords of the pond" or six "Water sprites".  Then the level of the caster could factor into the strength of the attributes of the summoned creature.  This would make ownership of shards a critical resource as they should be, but not limit a player who chooses fire magic but then starts in a land that only has water shards.

I think this idea would also fit in with the Lore of the game.  Namely that controlling shards gave me access to elemental magic and elemental creatures.  In addition, other spell books and abilities, enchantment, summoning non-elemental creatures, buffs, protections, etc. would work as currently provided.

But that could mean:

a. 100+ turns without any magic!  For a game that is *about* Elemental magic.

b. No player control over what magic you get; you're forced into it by the mapscript rather than getting to choose/roleplay your magical development.

I don't think this is a good way to go.