[Gameplay] deconstructing combat mechanics

from Elemental Forums

After several games and viewing the occasional forum post I've been thinking a bit about combat in E:WoM. There are a few areas where the system seems flawed by design, but might not be that difficult to correct.

There are essentially two different systems for unit stats, one for buildable units (and monsters) and another for heroes. Not only do heroes and buildable units scale in different ways, but constitution functions differently than other combat affecting stats like strength and dexterity. Once squads become available buildable units scale faster than heroes and have HP scale, when heroes effectively do not scale for HP. As the number of troops increase this only gets more pronounced. Choosing a stat at level up can also be frustrating, because there is an opportunity cost in choosing to increase constitution (and buildable units also get more of a HP benefit from leveling).

HP scales at a much slower rate than attack or defense, even for buildable units. The culprit for this appears to be the armor system. The defense value of a full armor set is roughly 5x the value of non-breastplate pieces, because each piece has a value and gets higher with each armor tech level unlocked. Weapon values have to be high to pierce high defenses, but HP starts low and there are few options for increasing it.

A partial solution would be to change the way armor works. For example, when a new armor tech is unlocked it could make available just one option, a suit of that armor type (or perhaps two options, a full suit or just the breastplate). This would allow for easier balancing of attack, defense and HP values.

A partial solution to the hero and buildable unit disparity would be to force them to use the same stat system, but give heroes special traits or abilities. For example, there could be a “Hero” trait that gives a hero bonuses when fighting against groups, or a “Challenge” ability that forced a squad to fight against them individually.

Fixing these two areas of combat would have a major impact on most of the discussions (and complaints) I've seen on this forum. I must admit I have a strong bias in favor of a system with traits and abilities. They make tactical combat much more interesting! Other than that, I hope this was unbiased.

5,627 views 2 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

To put this in perspective here is a simplified example of how these changes can be used to improve combat balance and how it will affect a couple of common complaints: Assume that all armor only comes as a set, then divide all the in game armor and weapon values by 2.5. Imagine soldier A and soldier B fighting, both are spearmen (5HP, 2 attack, 0 defense). On average it will take 5 swings to resolve this fight and the winner should be left with only 1 or 2 HP.

Some times first strikes are talked about as a strategy, at others as a cause for complaint. A strong weapon that can be aquired relatively early is a mace, but with 5 attack it would be rare to kill even an unarmored enemy in 1 swing. Since this would result in a counterattack the unit is no longer dominant, and would probably lose if facing the 2 spearmen above. Getting the first strike is still powerful, but hardly game breaking.

Another common complaint is how heroes die too easily. If attack and defense values are scaled back the hero is more likely to survive. Take a group of spearmen with padded armor (4x 5HP, 2attack, 2 defense) against a hero with 12 HP, 5 attack and 5 defense. The hero might not win such a fight, but won't get killed instantly either, giving them more chance to retreat or even make a few attacks hoping for a lucky outcome.

Another way of looking at the situation is to look at the possible outcomes of an attack. The attack can: 1) miss, 2) do damage, but not kill the target, or 3) kill the target. If a unit with 40 attack (lord's hammer) swings at a defender with 5HP and no armor the vast majority of the outcomes fall into group 3. While this is an extreme example, I believe this large disparity between the size of group 2 and group 3 is what is causing the problem that many players are complaining about symptoms of.

 

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

really, i currenty believe the present system is awful and needs a complete  reimagining. giving hp bonuses to armour makes the stats an awkward compromise. i'd make the stat system universal, and have different hp systems for heroes and buildable units. keep items limited to attack/defense bonuses and hp tied to experience and stats. 

start with a base amount of hp, give an additional amount for each level of sovereign (or recruited experience), then multiply the whole thing by a value setermined by con (say, +10% per point after 10)

ie total hp = (base hp + hp) x (CONx0.05)

so say the base xp is 5, +2 per level, a level 3 sov with 14 CON gets 11x01.4 = 15.4.

this way, your sov is much more suvivable at higher levels, but con still matters (you can double you hp by going from 10 to 20 CON)

you could even use the same system for both heroes and troops, given that heroes/sovs will generally be higher level and have higher CON, they will still have the advantage.

if you extend the attribute system to races this also means you could start giving races stat bonuses. say amarians have 12 con, and 10 in other stats, they'd all get +10%hp, whereas another race might get 12 DEX and higher defence. this woiuld be a great way of differentiating races in gameplay terms, without imposing arbitrary, inorganic things like special abilities or different tech trees.

i realise the numbers are totally out of whack, but the principal is fine. especially if we move away from 1dn to separate attack and defense rolls, (giving a longsword 1-8 damage say), then everyone is going to start doing a hell of a lot of extra damage, so more hp generally will be necesarry.

 

the more i write about this stuff, the closer i realise i am coming to D&D rules and the d20 system. i don't think this is a bad thing.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor