Tactical combat solution with Examples, Math and Simulation results

from Elemental Forums


This is a revised version of the original design I outlined HERE. I appreciate the feedback from that thread, and I'm going to provide some examples for how my proposed system is better than the current system. I have modified my original idea based on new insights after reading Robbie's excellent post HERE. I'm going to skip the math-heavy exposition this time, and just go for the stats.

Preamble: Why it's not as complicated as it seems
  You may look at this stuff at say, "Wait, aren't you adding a half dozen variables? How can I make sense of all of this? The current system is much simpler." The strange truth is: the current system only seems simple because a lot of the combat variables are hidden from the user. Examples of these currently in the game include:
  - % chance to bypass armor completely
  - % chance to do double
  - Multiplier for counterattack damage
  - % chance to dodge an incoming attack

  All of these factor into the "simple" Attack/Defense system they currently have.

What's wrong with the old system?
This has been done to death, but the gist is this:
  - Evenly matched opponents ( X Attack vs X Defense ) have an expected result of MISS. This prolongs combat needlessly, since half of your actions would have no effect. We're not simulating second-by-second combat in this game - it's a game about both champions and armies. 100 soldiers don't charge 100 peasants and "miss," even if they do poorly. 
  - The damage done by X Attack vs. X Damage doesn't scale well as X increases.

My Assumptions/Beliefs
My whole model is based around the idea of expected final damage when two units clash. I specifically want to avoid "stalemate" type results. As for champions vs. units, I believe the following:

 - A troop of weak units should still be able to (somwhat) damage a single, high armor target.
 - Champions are best suited to fighting other champions and monsters. In high fantasy, a single warrior doesn't often defeat large armies singlehandedly through combat skills alone - though they do it frequently with magic...
 - Sovereigns should be casting spells or acting like a champion (above). Their spells should be effective against both single targets and troops, with some better for one or the other.
 - If a large group surrounds a champion, they could eventually just dogpile him. Their numbers should count.

My model
None of these attributes is "multiplied by the troop size" for the UI. They are what they are.

ATTACK: This is your ability to successfully hit opponents in combat. It incorporates ideas about weapon skill, attack speed and more into one number.
DAMAGE: This is the average damage you do to an unarmored opponent when you hit him.

DEFENSE: This is your ability to "not get damaged at all" when someone attacks you. This incorporates dodging, parrying, deflecting, blocking, etc.
ARMOR: This is the average damage your armor soaks when you actually get hit.

SPLASH: This represents the number of units you can hit with a single attack. This is 1 by default. If you have a weapon capable of cleaving through multiple foes, this could be 2 or even 3. If you're breathing fire, this could be as high as 6 or 8. If your "attack" was really a fireball cast on a single unit, it could easily be 20.
  * the actual effect of splash in the mechanics below don't make "splash" weapons more effective against single troops. The bonus only comes into play when you're facing a group.

Damage Calculation
** Don't worry about the apparent complexity of the calculation. This is not happening in a large RTS. This is a couple of floating point operations performed to resolve a single unit v unit attack - which is nothing. Additionally, it's the kind of thing that the computer can easily show you odds/expected damage for (think HOMM).

For the resolution of an attack, the final damage is derived as follows:
** FEEL FREE TO SKIP THIS PART

OverwhelmEffect = MAX( 1.0, Attacker.TroopSize / Defender.TroopSize)
RelativeAttack = OverwhelmEffect * Attacker.Attack
HitRatio = RelativeAttack / (RelativeAttack + Defender.Defense)

SplashEffect = MIN( Defender.TroopCount,  Attacker.Splash )
ActualHits = HitRatio * Attacker.TroopSize * SplashEffect * Attacker.Attack

Penetration = Attacker.Damage / (Attacker.Damage + Defender.Armor)
DamagePerHit = Attacker.Damage * Penetration

ActualDamage = ActualHits * DamagePerHit

How it plays out in simulations
For each example, I aggregated the results of 500,000 simulated combats to the death. For each attack action, effective Attack and Defense were varied randomly around the unit's base value with a normal distribution limited over the range +/- 60%. Assume SPLASH = 1 unless otherwise specified. The Attacker has the first turn, but becomes the defender on even turns.


Example: A "sniff test."
ATTACKER: 1 Warrior: 1 Atk, 1 Dmg
DEFENDER: 1 Peasant: 0 Def, 0 Armor
Result: Warrior hits the peasant for 1 damage. That seems right.

Increasing Attack or Damage for the Warrior increases the damage accordingly. Giving the Warrior some amount of SPLASH > 1 has no effect, since he's fighting one troop.


Example: Two evenly matched groups of warriors
Warrior: 5 Attack, 2 Damage, 5 Defense, 2 Armor, 10 health each
ATTACKER: 10 Warriors (100 total health)
DEFENDER: 10 Warriors (100 total health)

Average Round 1 Result:
  Attacker hits for 25 points of damage.
  Defender retaliates for 20 points of damage

Aggregate Results:
  Average total rounds: 6.77
  Attacker wins 57.8% of encounters with 35 health remaining.
  Defender wins 42.2% of encounters with 30 health remaining.


Example: Outnumbered, stronger defenders
Royal: 8 Attack, 2 Damage, 7 Defense, 3 Armor, 10 health each
Warrior: 5 Attack, 2 Damage, 5 Defense, 2 Armor, 10 health each

ATTACKER: 20 Warriors (200 total health)
DEFENDER: 10 Royals (100 total health)

Average Round 1 Result:
  Attacker hits for 28.3 points of damage.
  Defender retaliates for 46.7 points of damage

Aggregate Results:
  Average total rounds: 2.93
  Attacker wins 99.98% of encounters with 142 health remaining.
  Defender wins 0.02% of encounters with 18 health remaining.


Example: Outnumbered, much stronger defenders
Troll: 8 Attack, 4 Damage, 2 Defense, 8 Armor, 18 health each, ** 3 SPLASH **
Warrior: 5 Attack, 2 Damage, 5 Defense, 2 Armor, 10 health each

ATTACKER: 20 Warriors (200 total health)
DEFENDER: 10 Trolls (180 total health)

Average Round 1 Result:
  Attacker hits for 28.3 points of damage.
  Defender retaliates for 46.7 points of damage

Aggregate Results:
  Average total rounds: 1.02
  Defender wins 100% of encounters with 147 health remaining.


Example: Fireball spell vs. 12 Warriors
Warrior: 5 Attack, 2 Damage, 5 Defense, 2 Armor, 10 health each
Fireball: 5 Attack, 3 Damage, ** 20 SPLASH **

Average Result: 54 damage


Example: Fireball spell vs. 1 Troll
Troll: 8 Attack, 4 Damage, 2 Defense, 8 Armor, 18 health each, ** 3 SPLASH **
Fireball: 5 Attack, 3 Damage, ** 20 SPLASH **

Average Result: 3 damage

Gnilbert

18,779 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

I like your ideas alot and would be very happy to see this implemented by Stardock. I hope the devs take a long serious look at your post here, especially considering the cracking mod you have released already which I am currently enjoying a great deal :)

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

I don't like your damage armour interaction:

DamagePerHit = Attacker.Damage ^2 / (Attacker.Damage + Defender.Armour)

Damage scales far better than armour. If tech increases and damage increases with it, armour values would have to increase to ludicrous amounts to compensate for the increased damage, and keep DamagePerHit the same.

For example:

5 Damage, 0 Armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

10 damage, 10 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

20 damage, 60 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

30 damage, 150 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

40 damage, 280 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

100 damage, 1900 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

 

 

 

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

I understand what you are saying with large numbers of troops overwhelming a hero.  But if we consider the Genra:

Gimli the dwarf killed 43 orcs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1s4Tr7Ag9M and looks like he got bruised a bit. 

In the book Destinies Embers Heroes take one 5 or 8 people at a time and emerge unscathed,  and march through armies of dozens alive and well.

It's perhaps unrealistic to expect a hero to emerge from slaughtering a few dozen untrained and ill equipped baddies with HP left to spare . . . but somehow it feels more right.  More Heroic.

Also in your system, If my opponent is making armies of 12, or 20, do i have any choice but to make troops of 12 and 20 myself?   Is more always better?  If so then  isn't the game isn't really a strategy game, it's an arms race game.  A Strategy game would allow me to see that my opponent is attacking with 300,000 swarm troops,  My best option is to make the army of 300.

It's unrealistic . . .  but somehow more right.

In short, I want a system where given the assumption of equal cost armies outnumber your opponent 3 to 1 is great.  Outnumbering your opponent more then 7 to 1 . . . is a disaster.

Note: This would be true unless you specifically planned your troops to be built to kill very small groups [but then they would die instantly when faced with a equal sized army].

 

Robbie Price

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Netriak, reply 2
I don't like your damage armour interaction:

DamagePerHit = Attacker.Damage ^2 / (Attacker.Damage + Defender.Armour)

Damage scales far better than armour. If tech increases and damage increases with it, armour values would have to increase to ludicrous amounts to compensate for the increased damage, and keep DamagePerHit the same.

For example:

5 Damage, 0 Armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

10 damage, 10 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

...

100 damage, 1900 armour -> DamagePerHit = 5

End of Netriak's quote

    The scaling thing is completely intended! Combat is deadly. In general, it really is much easier to create portable means of causing massive damage (like a bomb) than it is to have a portable means of defense against it. (like a portable bomb shelter?) In that case, it's Defense that you really need to protect you - don't get hit to begin with.

  As a side note, I probably should have been more clear about my expected ranges for the values of those stats:

ATTACK: 0 to whatever.
DEFENSE: 0 to whatever.

DAMAGE: Usually within 1 to 5 without enchanted equipment
ARMOR: Usually within 1 to 5 without enchanted equipment

SPLASH: Usually 1, ocassionally as high as 3, but easily 5+ for spells or area effect abilities.

  *Based on the existing troop health model, I assumed that a normal person had a base health of 5 to 10 (like peasants, warriors, and champions), and that monstrous creatures could have more.

  For an individual troop member, if your damage is 5+, you're saying that an average, not particularly skilled hit is going to kill a normal person outright. Something doing damage 5 is a pretty amazing weapon. A good sword is probably only a 2 or 3. A monster or champion might have something stronger, of course - but they're expecting to fight monsters and other champions! By a similar argument, something with Armor 5 is perfectly capable of reducing an amount of incoming (not particularly well placed) damage that would outright kill a normal person. This goes back to my bomb vs. bomb shelter thing from above.

The same effort in Damage vs. Armor is always going to favor damage. But, the relative ranges of Damage to Armor should be limited by the game's model of the weapons available to us. The distinguising thins about weapons is the tradeoff of Attack to Damage to other special abilities like Splash, Armor Piercing, Poisoned, Elemental Damage Type, etc.



Gnilbert

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top


Also in your system, If my opponent is making armies of 12, or 20, do i have any choice but to make troops of 12 and 20 myself?   Is more always better?  If so then  isn't the game isn't really a strategy game, it's an arms race game.  A Strategy game would allow me to see that my opponent is attacking with 300,000 swarm troops,  My best option is to make the army of 300.
End of quote


Actually - this isn't true at all - check out the example with the warriors and the trolls. The warriors outnumbered them 2 to 1 and attacked first, but the trolls won 100% of the 500K simulations with minimal losses. Both large and small unit sizes have merits. It's a lot like playing Warhammer or something - its about small groups of "expensive" models vs. large numbers of "cheap" models. In this system, a champion could still realistically kill a large horde of minions just by virtue of having magically augmented SPLASH, health and damage.


Note: This would be true unless you specifically planned your troops to be built to kill very small groups (but then they would die instantly when faced with a equal sized army).
End of quote


The goal of the system is to force the player to make a decision about what types of troops he's building. Is your opponent creating massive armies of peasants? You can create a small group of (expensive) fire breathing hell hounds to wipe them out. Is he sending Fire Giants your way? Make sure you're sending a champion unit with your troops who can go toe to toe with him. I want the decisions about quantity vs. quality to make the game more interesting.

Gnilbert

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

I find it rather odd how your outcomes are rather ... exact, even though your using "average" damage and "average" armor. (assuming its supposed to be a tight Gaussian)

Its still LEAGUES better than the current system. Congrats.

 

I do like how you have armor inherently weaker than damage however ... I mean, Neither armor or damage should probably be getting too high, yet in games (like Total War) its far better to have almost all soldiers have less defense than offense. (lets face it, people die in battle)

In the Total War games you rarely see units with equal parts attack and defense, instead their attack is much higher than their defense (and those with "low" defense have REALLY low defense). So essentially, by making armor less effective, you have achieved this and I applaud you.

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Yes please! This system would be soooooo much better than our current one! Our current one feels so bland I get bored... It feels like a chore to make units and to do tactical battles because there's just no strategy to it.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

The scaling thing is completely intended! Combat is deadly. In general, it really is much easier to create portable means of causing massive damage (like a bomb) than it is to have a portable means of defense against it. (like a portable bomb shelter?) In that case, it's Defense that you really need to protect you - don't get hit to begin with.
End of quote

But we are not talking about bombs and bomb shelters here. This is a fantasy game. True, a spear is cheap, and armour that protects you very well against it would be expensive, and even that would far from make you invulnerable. But in this game you also have things like stone giants, being that are literally made from stone, legendary magical armour, etc. Things that should pretty much be invulnerable to conventional but high quality weapons. You should need something like a catapult or a magic sword to harm a stone giant. Your system does not conveniently allow for that.

Assuming a high quality sword has an attack of 4, and a stone giant should reduce that damage to less than 0.1 to properly represent the futility of chopping through solid rock with a sword, the giant would need to have an armour value of 156. Clearly ridiculous.

 

 

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Actually - this isn't true at all - check out the example with the warriors and the trolls. The warriors outnumbered them 2 to 1 and attacked first, but the trolls won 100% of the 500K simulations with minimal losses. Both large and small unit sizes have merits. It's a lot like playing Warhammer or something - its about small groups of "expensive" models vs. large numbers of "cheap" models. In this system, a champion could still realistically kill a large horde of minions just by virtue of having magically augmented SPLASH, health and damage.
End of quote

 

I don't see 2:1 to be a huge or even a really meaningful example.   In my system a 3 or 4 to one advantage is ideal. 

Also looking at your warriors and Trolls.

Troll: 8 Attack, 4 Damage, 2 Defense, 8 Armor, 18 health each, ** 3 SPLASH **
Warrior: 5 Attack, 2 Damage, 5 Defense, 2 Armor, 10 health each


It looks to me like those Trolls cost more then twice as much to field then the warriors do.  3 splash alone has  to be worth a pretty penny. 

"ARMOR: Usually within 1 to 5 without enchanted equipment,"  so that 8 Armour's got to be really  pricey as well.

 

Your system is good, its realistic, but it isn't epic. It isn't fantasy.

 

Robbie Price

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top


It looks to me like those Trolls cost more then twice as much to field then the warriors do.  3 splash alone has  to be worth a pretty penny. 

"ARMOR: Usually within 1 to 5 without enchanted equipment,"  so that 8 Armour's got to be really  pricey as well.

End of quote


Yes - each single troll is much more expensive than each single warrior. And the 10 trolls were hopefully much more expensive to field than the 20 warriors. In the 500,000 combat simulations to the death, the 10 trolls won every time. As in, completely decimated the warriors (who attacked first each time). On average they only lost 1 or 2 trolls.

    Cost to cost, the trolls should be wildly more expensive. If the two units had been of "equal" strength (assuming one wasn't a clear counter to the other) then you'd have expected to see something more like the result from the second example, where the attacker was slightly favored because they were able to deal damage first.


Your system is good, its realistic, but it isn't epic. It isn't fantasy.
End of quote


I'm trying to understand this feedback so I can update my model... What is lacking that's making it not epic or fantasy? I have trolls, fireball spells, heroes and warriors. I have squads vs. champions where a good champion has a (often better than) fair chance against a squad - especially if they have magic or someone's cast "fire breath" on them.

If you can provide an example of what's missing, I'll do my best to update the model accordingly.

Gnilbert 

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top


But in this game you also have things like stone giants, being that are literally made from stone, legendary magical armour, etc. Things that should pretty much be invulnerable to conventional but high quality weapons. You should need something like a catapult or a magic sword to harm a stone giant. Your system does not conveniently allow for that.
End of quote


   You are 100% right - the equations I outlined don't cover the case of the stone giant you described. But, honestly, they're not intended to. That's the "basic model" that handles the creatures that are obeying the "basic rules" of combat. The stone giant is an exception to those rules, much like the whole SPLASH concept is an exception to the rule that one attack hits one person, or that some units can attack without being counterattacked, or that some units have damage that pierces armor.

   If you tried to model the stone giant's skin with only the armor score, it would throw a lot of things out of whack - how much higher would the damage of the champion's weapon need to be and wouldn't that make him crazy-overpowered against normal troops? Instead, it's better to add the special "traits" that everyone wants so badly - and I never did clearly state I expected those in my original post, so shame on me. In the case you're describing, it sounds a lot like "immunity to melee" or "immunity to ranged" - and possibly a "weakness to siege." All those things can be added easily as exceptions to the basic model.

   Personally, I don't like "hard counters" in games, so I probably wouldn't choose the "immunity" part - the reality of a situation is often a lot less interesting (to me) than a game abstraction. In "reality," the appearance of a stone giant would pretty much be game over if all I have are regular troops. I much prefer things like "half damage from X" and the like.

Gnilbert

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Gnilbert, reply 11



   Personally, I don't like "hard counters" in games, so I probably wouldn't choose the "immunity" part - the reality of a situation is often a lot less interesting (to me) than a game abstraction. In "reality," the appearance of a stone giant would pretty much be game over if all I have are regular troops. I much prefer things like "half damage from X" and the like.

Gnilbert

End of Gnilbert's quote

I don't know about that... In "reality" your troops might figure out that by jamming their swords into the creatures joints they could immobilize it and then perhaps they only have to crush some crystal on the creature or something to put an end to it... I mean... How *do* you 'kill' a stone giatn>

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Goodmorning Gnilbert

What I was getting at with the cost of trolls is that when I compared or compete two armies I try to use combatants of the same approximate cost. 
Showing that an army that cost 5 times more can defeat a cheaper army doesn't really show much. 


What i want to see is how your system works when equal cost armies compete,  but one army has 10 guys, and the other army has 140.
If the two armies cost wildly different amounts you can't learn anything,  but if they cost the same you can see how Strategy can change the outcome. 


That's why i really liked my 10 macemen vs 1 Hero,  and 10 pikemen vs 1 hero.  The troops were identical, the damage and defenses, attacks, only one small variable changed, mace vs pike (I should have had the pike have a slightly lower attack or a slightly lower damage,  to keep the cost balanced, but one can presume the macemen had some other ineffective bonus in some other part of combat)  Just changing that one stat changed the battle from victory to defeat.  when outnumbered 10 : 1.

I don't think your system could be made so that a 10 : 1 battle of equal cost could be won by the underdog.


I'm trying to understand this feedback so I can update my model... What is lacking that's making it not epic or fantasy? I have trolls, fireball spells, heroes and warriors. I have squads vs. champions where a good champion has a (often better than) fair chance against a squad - especially if they have magic or someone's cast "fire breath" on them.
End of quote

When I think fantasy and epic I think winning against apparently un-winnable odds.  IN real life 1 man can not take on 14.  Not to mention 34.  Your system is better, more realistic. But it doesn't leave much room for strategy, the bigger cost comparable army will win,  Especially when the ratio exceeds 7 :1.     The beauty, the epicness of my system is you can have an army of 300, stand toe to toes with 40 or 50 times the force and walk out smiling.  and then get turned into a Paste by a team of 25.  Who loose to lone guy (all same cost).  That doesn't happen in real life.

That 300 person army can kill pretty much anything 2000 troops and up.  (unless it's specifically built to defeat armies of size ~300), but is weak against smaller forces. 

 

When i build a unit, I don't want to ask 'how big and how powerful can I make this?'  I want to ask, 'what are my enemies going to build big? small?' 'How can I best build something to defeat that?' ' Should i build big, hoping they will build medium or large? should i build small and hope they build large? should i hedge my bets and build a medium army which could win in either direction but will probably take huge losses no matter what?'

  If in the last 50 turns of a game the AI is not building and using non hero troops of size 1 and 2 in it's Main force because it's the best solution to the problem at hand . . . then the combat has failed. It's become a realistic arms race, not a strategy fantasy.

at least that's how I see it.  Does that make any sense.

do you see what i mean by epic??

hope that makes it clearer what I'm going for.

Robbie Price

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

Maybe an example of 4 bone ogres vs 50 warriors would be good.

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

Using really rough assumptions

 

Assuming Bone Ogres have Combat speed 1,  and are carrying a tree, or most of a tree for a club,  we're talking three strikes.  probably 2 kills each so each round of battle the ogres would kill 8 - 10 warriors. 
Ogres area about 2.5 times larger then humans, so we're talking 16 'targets'  (human = 6 targets) each, or 54 targets all told.    Low defense but very high armour. . .  Warriors having damage 2,  vers an armour of 5 or 6... they would hit all the time but may one in 10 would do one damage

 

Loosing 8 each round

50     5 damage to ogres

42     5 damage to ogres

34     4 damage to ogres

26     3 damage to ogres

18     3 damage to ogres one ogre dies

12     3 damage to ogres

2       0 damage to ogres

0

 

23 damage total to ogres,1 dead.

 

You'd have to standardize and balance the outcome,   A better army for taking out bone ogres would have 20 - 25 swings/people and use the extra money to boost damage and possibly Def a bit.   Ogres then would miss, so kill less troops each round, and take significantly more damage per hit.

 

Night all
Robbie Price

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

Perhaps add an additional, more abstract, concept into the model. The idea of notability (to use an existing Elemental term) or force multiplier (for a modern term). The reason special operatives or Spartans or heroic characters devastate aren't attack strength, defensive strength, or whatever. It's training and/or 'specialness'. More so in fantasy worlds, a smuck from a farm (Willow, Frodo, what's his face from Black Cauldron, any number of fantasy books) can -beat- a well trained warrior in a fight after a training montage. Not because they've got great stuff or even great training but because they're the designated hero.

 

The model reflects the reality of a fight but it lacks the inherent 'specialness' that somewhat defines fantasy and other fiction, or even how a small group can often overcome situations not through internal and personal circumstances but external factors and training. I would suggest building in a mechanic that, if not quantifying that, then at least takes it into consideration. For instance, various games use this idea of horizontal power by ranking things as underling, minion, normal, veteran, boss, elite (or whatever). Perhaps notable creatures and people are functionally equivalent to something twice their power or have twice the HP or otherwise have some special bonus that 'breaks' normal combat. 

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting sagittary, reply 16
Perhaps add an additional, more abstract, concept into the model. The idea of notability (to use an existing Elemental term) or force multiplier (for a modern term). The reason special operatives or Spartans or heroic characters devastate aren't attack strength, defensive strength, or whatever. It's training and/or 'specialness'. More so in fantasy worlds, a smuck from a farm (Willow, Frodo, what's his face from Black Cauldron, any number of fantasy books) can -beat- a well trained warrior in a fight after a training montage. Not because they've got great stuff or even great training but because they're the designated hero.

 

The model reflects the reality of a fight but it lacks the inherent 'specialness' that somewhat defines fantasy and other fiction, or even how a small group can often overcome situations not through internal and personal circumstances but external factors and training. I would suggest building in a mechanic that, if not quantifying that, then at least takes it into consideration. For instance, various games use this idea of horizontal power by ranking things as underling, minion, normal, veteran, boss, elite (or whatever). Perhaps notable creatures and people are functionally equivalent to something twice their power or have twice the HP or otherwise have some special bonus that 'breaks' normal combat. 
End of sagittary's quote

 

Notable creatures and heroes are good,   but then you almost have 2 combat systems, one for hero's and one for everybody else.

 

That lacks transparency.  Ideally one system would be able to be adaptable enough to do it all.  Having units with names in blue *this unit can't be killed by anything other then a unit with a blue name* which is how 'fate' works ... the game devolves to blue man group tag.

 

Now I know that isn't quite what you intended or meant,  but without great care and balancing that's what it can become. 

 

At least with my system you can map it out rather easily,  Build a bunch of Tiny, small, big, and Super units all of the same cost.

Build 2 or 3 of each size. 

Tiny: Strong against small, Strong against big.

Small:  Strong against Tiny, Strong against big, designed to kill super.

Big:  Strong against small, Strong against Super, designed to kill Tiny.

Super: Strong against small, Strong against big.

 

Each unit you build will have a ideal size to attack or be attacked by.  then simulate. 

 

Robbie

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Any one thing will not work for everything. The mechanics of heroic realism do not play by the same rules as the mechanics of normal combat. A universal system usually isn't - not even in physics. Your system works; it operates on the idea of mass combat. That X > Y > Z > X. By nature, heroes break that and whether or not it's balanced within your system or more or less transparent or more or less easy to balance, it's something that needs to be taken into consideration because that's the expected dynamic.

 

For instance, in the fiction and in expectation, players equal 1 hero to about 8-12 'normal' people in terms of a 'even' fight. Less than that, the heroes win. More than that, the heroes lose. Giving heroic characters enough of a boost in some fashion such that their combat balance is balanced around 1 hero = 8-12  would allow for this to occur.

 

It's like dual-type Pokemon. Heroes are still otherwise 'normal' people... they just get an extra strength and extra weakness. It 'breaks' the normal idea that creatures are of one-type... but still works within the system to create unusual creatures you can goof around with.

Reply #19 from Elemental Forums Top

I would suggest that Heroes have High ATTACK, DEFENSE, and HP, but basically about the same damage as everyone else.

(especially high attack and defense)

...

erm, using your model that is.

Reply #20 from Elemental Forums Top

I like your model! It would be an excellent math for a system based on exceptions, like magic the gathering or the white wolf RPG Exalted (ahem, low level Exalted, for those who know the system).

There you have some easy rules as base, and special abilities basically saying "In this situation 'x', the parameter 'z' should become 'y' " wich is a VERY GOOD base for a combat system with few but very meaningful special abilities.

Reply #21 from Elemental Forums Top

I have a few proposed changes for your system. Basically, it has to do with targetting. Lets assume N is a very large number close to infinity, and much much larger than X by a LOT!!!

Ok. Now a "squad" of N soldiers attacks a "squad" of X soldiers. Each soldier has a "separate attack" (I think you already have this in your design?). So ... a squad of N soldiers has 3X attacks vs the squad of X soldiers. The squad of X soldiers have X attacks vs the squad of N soldiers.

 

So basically, a platoon of 40 soldiers would have 40 attacks vs a company of 20 soldiers .... but only 30 attacks vs a squad of 10 soldiers. And only 12 attacks vs a party of 4. And only 3 attacks vs a lone hero. Also, I think that "squads" of soldiers shouldn't be allowed to have splash damage (only single units should be allowed splash damage). The only exception, I guess, is if a squad of creatures were attacking opponents one or two full size-classes smaller than them.

 

I also think you should allow Heroes to form "parties" of up to 3 or 4. These "parties" would act as a single unit (for HP purposes??) yet have separate mana pools and action points. Not sure how or if this would be possible. (but, maybe its a possibility, and maybe it would be appropriate). Also, outside of battle, these parties can be split, rearranged, and in general be non-permanent.

 

I also think that Heroes should have (in general) more attack, defense, and HP, but not necessarily give any more damage (class specific?).

 

Also, perhaps if Armor was more efficient yet always lower than Damage. And if Attack/Defense were WIDE Gaussian and Damage/Armor were narrow Gaussian.