DerekPaxton DerekPaxton

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

Fallen Enchantress: Weapons

There are currently 124 weapons in Fallen Enchantress including 17 base weapons.  The base weapons are the normal weapons you will encounter and equip your armies with.  One of our design goals for FE was to make every weapon valuable and distinct.  So there is a reason you may want to use a broad sword instead of a mace, or a spear instead of a dagger.

To accomplish that we needed to add more depth to weapons, they needed to be differentiated by more than their attack rating.  The following table is the weapon stat spreadsheet in the editor (where it breaks down the base weapons so I can compare and tweak numbers).  There is a lot of new information in this sheet.  But the primary information I wanted to show is the stats on the comparisons on the individual weapons.

Type- This is the damage type of this weapon.  Armor has the ability to have different defense values against different damage types.  Plate mail is better against blunt weapons and chain mail is better against cutting weapons.  The elemental types are also damage types so magical weapons can do fire, lighting, cold or poison damage, and magical armor or items can provide defense against those attacks.

Armor Piercing- This means that they negate 2/3 of the opponent’s defense (spears, pikes and yew longbows).  They are excellent against heavily armored opponents.

Strength Mod- This is a modifier to the amount of unit’s strength bonus.  100 means it doubles their strength bonus (the massive Maul is deadly in the hands of Trog units).  Shortbow’s negate the strength bonus entirely (you don’t get to use your strength bonus when using a bow).

Production- How much production time the weapon adds to the units train time.  Improvements can decrease this time (having a weaponsmith in the city) and are a good idea when you are considering building large groups of units with advanced weapons.

Weight- Weight limits are used in FE.  This is the big reason why you don’t simply want to put the best armor and weapons on all your units.  At some point you will have to decide if you want that huge maul or tower shield or full suit of plate mail.  Especially if you are playing as the Wraiths (base stats are faction specific in FE, so the Trogs can get away with more equipment than other races).  Mounts also increase a units carry capacity so another reason you may want to invest in mounts (besides the increased movement) is to be able to use more armor and bigger weapons.  As mentioned in an earlier designer journal you can give traits to units you design, so if you want to make heavily armorer unis with big weapons, prepare to add some traits for strength (as compared to the other cool things you would add with traits, it’s all hard decisions).

Combat Speed- In FE on each combat tick all units get to add their combat speed to their initiative.  When they get to 100 initiative they get an action (this is all behind the scenes, in game players simply see a queue of units in the order they get actions).  The higher the combat speed the more frequently the unit gets to act, and it allows us to be more granular about creature speed.  The base speed is 12, but weapons can affect speed so that a unit with a dagger will get more (ie: if you are a heavy spell caster, carry a dagger or a staff, not a Maul).

Those are the base weapons, but that’s only the start.  Now that we have more depth in what weapons can do we can really go wild with them for magical weapons.  We are creating a dangerous world and we need reasons for the players to risk their units exploring it.  One reason is to find magical equipment.

We added Staves that make spell casters more powerful, swords that do lightning damage based on the wielders level, bows that do more damage vs beasts, etc.  We have a unique great sword that is stuck in one of our elemental lords (good luck getting that one).  We have weapons that poison victims they strike, Slag Teeth that are like short swords with increased crit chances, the Druss Blade that ignores armor, etc.

There are common, uncommon, rare and unique weapons.  There are a lot to find and we want players to be discovering new ones as they play and replay the game.  We won’t have Diablo style drop rates (you won’t be swimming in magical equipment).  Instead we want every magical weapon you get to be something special and interesting.  You should have a few to spread around to your champions by the mid to late game, and you can share them with units that can use them best or pile them all on one champion so he becomes even more powerful.

And this is open to modding.  There are a lot of bonuses to give, and they can be impacted by things like the wielders level (as in the sword that does +1 lightning damage per level of the wielder), only have their bonus apply against certain creature types (this is part of the conditional gamemodifier work we did for traits), vs damaged units, vs units with a higher or lower specified stat, etc.

But my favorite ability is that weapons can apply a spell when it strikes an opponent.  This came out of the requirement to be able to have weapons that poison opponents.  Instead of simply applying a poison effect the weapon applies a spell, so we have the capabilities of the entire spell system open to us for what weapons can do (more about all the new spell functionality later).  Weapons can blind opponents they hit, they can weaken them, they can curse them, whatever the modder wants to make a spell to do, the weapon can apply.

So if you started reading this article and thought that 124 weapons was a lot of weapons, it’s only a fraction of what the game can do and the interesting things we can create.

 

295,360 views 164 replies +2 Loading…
Reply #101 Top

 

Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 87

Quoting Derek Paxton, reply 82In my mind its like call Magic the Gathering a RPS design.  Sure there are cards and strategies that are better against some and worst against others.  And Im sure there are examples of card (or creature) A is better than B which is better than C which is better than A.  But thats just a small part of a much larger picture, where the cards have strategic strengths and combinations.

The fact that you just mentioned the depth of Magic the Gathering for FE made me pop a nerd boner. In one of my first posts on these forums 6 months ago I mentioned how awesome it would be to bring the depth of Magic the Gathering to EWOM and have EWOM visually represent the depth. I'm thinking how Peter Jackson brought Tolkien's books to the big screen. Man, this is exciting.
End of AlLanMandragoran's quote

 

Only problem, MTG is famed for *MAGIC*, sure the creatures cards are varied but more so the spells, artifacts etc. It's a insult to compare the diversity if MTG with EWOM/FE

Reply #102 Top

.

Reply #103 Top

.

Reply #104 Top

Kadrium,

Can you give an example of the type of system you actually like playing?

To me it sounds like you either enjoy systems that are really simple, as in so simple as to not really exist at all, or systems that are hyper-convoluted and cannot actually be conceived without alien technology.

Thanks.

Reply #105 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 95
If I have two units in a combat, one who does piercing damage, and one who does slashing damage... and you have two units, one who is strong against piercing damage and one who is strong against slashing damage... The decision of who fights who is made up for me. That's not poor play, that's a game mechanic giving me the illusion of strategy.
End of Kadrium's quote

Um... they way you describe it, there is never any "choice" or "decisions" to make. Every conceivable battle system (that isn't just absolute randomness) has a best strategy in any encounter. Any deviance from that optimal strategy is thus, in your way of thinking, not an option and those options there are, are always only illusions of strategy...

Strategy, more exactly in game terms tactics, always depends on the limits our brain gives us in thinking them through. Take chess for an example. It has the most severe hard counters in a RPS system, meaning any unit (in the limits of it's movement options ofc) can instakill any other unit.

So, is it true then that any decision is predetermined in it? That there is no strategy involved?

Suprisingly, the answer is kinda yes. Computers are able to determine the best (or so close to best that it doesn't make any differences for us humans) move from any giving setting on a chess board. Thus, you theoretically have no option then to chose those if you don't plan to lose.

Of course this is nonsense, just because there are "best" possible moves, doesn't mean that there is no choice involved. First of all, we can't calculate all moves and compare them like computers can. Secondly, more complex settings then chess get increasingly complicated and harder to calculate through.

Also, just because you have an unit that counters another unit doesn't mean that at every given time the player knows how to use this unit, since there is usually not enough info available to even know all moves. Ie. you have an unit A that hard counters another unit B, but the enemy has 2 units B on the field, one close to your archers C and one close to your cavalry D. B can kill C and D easily. Now, you can either kill B which threatens C or the B which threatens D, but not both. Now, does it matter that you have a counter system here for this situation? No. It's still a hard choice to make and this choice doesn't depend on wheter or not unit A counters unit B, it will depend on the relative values of unit C and D for your strategy.

Reply #106 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 103


No, I'm just expressing my hopes that such a damage-type mechanic is not such a major factor to combat that playing to favorable armor/weapon match-ups supersedes actual strategy.
End of Kadrium's quote

The differences in units, whether it's weapon types, damage types, traits, etc, is a PART of strategy.  It's not some fake way to claim the game is strategic. 

If you don't think the differences between American, British, and German tanks (design decisions, armor vs. round caliber, etc) played a significant roll in World War II, you're nuts.  Or how about "piercing" damage at the Battle of Agincourt? 

It sounds like your argument assumes that they are going with an exact RPS system which Derek has clearly said numerous times they are not.  Having differing damage types and the ability to min/max an army (based on that or other factors) to a particular enemy or go for a well rounded all purpose army is absolutely a strategic choice.  It would be no different than if you showed up with a longbow heavy army and got crushed because you're opponent had cavalry.  That's not the damage mechanics fault, that's the players fault. 

If the armor vs. damage type were the only consideration going into the system it would be alarming.  You'd end up with a combat system like the current one, where Attack and defense are all that matte and getting those numbers as high as possible is the only strategy.  But from everything we've been told there are going to be more factors in building successful armies than that. 

Edit:  I'm also curious how you'd design the system differently?  I'm not saying that this is perfect or not (we haven't seen anything yet).  But it does seem like flexibility and depth are among the combat system goals.  That's why I don't share your concern.

Reply #107 Top

Quoting Vandenburg, reply 105
Um... they way you describe it, there is never any "choice" or "decisions" to make. Every conceivable battle system (that isn't just absolute randomness) has a best strategy in any encounter. Any deviance from that optimal strategy is thus, in your way of thinking, not an option and those options there are, are always only illusions of strategy...
End of Vandenburg's quote

Exactly what I have been trying to say. Every system that forces you to make any choice whatsoever is technically a RPS system to some degree. The best you can hope for is that instead of being brutally simple the system is complex enough to have depth and subtle nuances so skill is required instead of just spamming a specific unit. On the other end you have to avoid being too complex and pointlessly confusing or having irrelevant details. It seems to me the current system has a good chance of finding a good balance. As in pretty much everything else in life there are no easy answers or simplistic all encompassing virtues, you have to find the balance.

Reply #108 Top

.

Reply #109 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 108
I'm just more interested in a system where the point isn't to create favorable weapon vs armor matchups, but to utilize special abilities and traits along with maneuvering and terrain in such a way as to gain an advantage while your opponent does the same. I just don't want it to come down to "sweet, he has hammers and I have plate mail so I'm gonna win."

I understand that Derek has said that's not the case, and I've said that sounds positive to me. I don't mind if the weapon vs armor matchups have an effect on the combat, but I don't want combat to revolve around creating mismatches, and I'd prefer the mechanic not be involved at all. That's all.
End of Kadrium's quote

Okay, well then we're basically in agreement. 

Like you I hope that the combat is much deeper than just unit design.  I just also hope that unit design actually matters to combat.  It was one of the features of E:WOM that I was initially most excited about and it ended up being mostly irrelevant.  Research something, design a new unit using that new something, build them.  Use anything older as cannon fodder.  Repeat.  All in all, I'm curious to see what the new combat looks like.

Reply #110 Top

Hi Derek,

Let's throw these weapons into EWOM so we can beta test them for you.  ;-)

Reply #111 Top

Quoting Kadrium, reply 103


No, I'm just expressing my hopes that such a damage-type mechanic is not such a major factor to combat that playing to favorable armor/weapon match-ups supersedes actual strategy.

I just don't want it to come down to "sweet, he has hammers and I have plate mail so I'm gonna win."

End of Kadrium's quote

 

Come on now. All strategy game are like that, or to put it more generally, matching up my army with theirs such that I inflict the most casualties while sustaining the fewest losses. Whether you have RPS systems or units with abilities, there will always be a best choice which will determine how you will play it out.

e.g. In Total War games, I always try to circle the battlefield with cavalry trying to catch archers unawares. I try to protect archers with lines of spearmen. And finally, I use the rest of my infantry on the front lines.

e.g. In Starcraft 2, I constantly scout my enemy to see what units he is building so that I build units that counter his own.

e.g. In chess, each piece is valued based on its ability. This guides me to determine which pieces I want kept safe and which opponent's pieces I target.

 

At least wait for the beta before pointing out concern in the weapon system. Maybe you are right, but we cannot ascertain that without playing the game ourselves.

Reply #112 Top

Quoting razor436, reply 111

Come on now. All strategy game are like that, or to put it more generally, matching up my army with theirs such that I inflict the most casualties while sustaining the fewest losses. Whether you have RPS systems or units with abilities, there will always be a best choice which will determine how you will play it out.

End of razor436's quote

I think he was expressing the hope that the armor vs. damage type effects weren't so powerful that they nullified all other considerations in tactical combat.  Terrain, for example, should come into play and if used properly should help you to mitigate some other weaknesses in your army. 

Edit: To use your Total War example, terrain and position are playing at least as much role in your victory there as are having the right units.  You move the right units into the right position in order to succeed.  As WOM stands now, position and the lay of the land are absolutely irrelevant in tactical battles.

Reply #113 Top

You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a Dev Journal that outlines how you get from Point A to Point B from here, where

Point A is: having the code for a large handful of combat-related variables implemented, and
Point B is: having a fun, deep combat system implemented.

Not that I actually expect you all to do one just because I asked. Just curious, is all.

Reply #114 Top

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 113
You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a Dev Journal that outlines how you get from Point A to Point B from here, where

Point A is: having the code for a large handful of combat-related variables implemented, and
Point B is: having a fun, deep combat system implemented.

Not that I actually expect you all to do one just because I asked. Just curious, is all.
End of LightofAbraxas's quote

Such a great question.  There is no magic formula that produces fun.  I wish I could provide it.  I will say that you need a lot of things to add up to a fun tactical combat experience.  You need:

1. Strategic decisions in combat.  This means more good choices in combat, more spells, earlier in the game and more special abilities.  Not meaningless choices, but choices that matter.

2. Strategic decisions outside of combat.  How you design your armies, how you level your champions, who uses your magical items and what are you willing to risk to get those magic items.  All will play a part in your tactical combats.

3. Good opponents.  Variety, interest and detail in the opponents you face.  Sometimes the movie is more about Vader than Luke.  The opponents have to have style, and they have to have strengths and weaknesses that play against the chocies you have made for your units.

4. Atmosphere.  We are working on battle music, more arenas to fight in, better screens for tactical combat.  Lots of little things that may not draw much attention, but add up to a better gameplay experience.

As you will notice from the above the detail in the weapon system doesn't directly relate to fun.  It's one tool in the toolbox, just a gear in the larger machine.  It allows us to do things, but just having the tool doesn't mean anything.  We also have to use it correctly.  Thats where the real magic happens.

Reply #115 Top

Hmm... another thing... not sure if it was brought up already in another thread or so... don't have the time to forum lurk and read stuff. How about the environment? as in... line of sight I know this more relates to outside tactical combat and more goes on along the side of the overlay.

Hills - in Civ 4 since this is the game I played most for a time, you gained extra line of sight by having units on top of them, you also gained a defense bonus by holding your ground there, because it's always a good idea to be on higher ground in a combat situation. Especially if your an archer or a mage, I was surprised to not see a line of sight bonus applied to units when you go up on a hill.

Reply #116 Top

Quoting Derek, reply 114
4. Atmosphere. We are working on battle music, more arenas to fight in, better screens for tactical combat. Lots of little things that may not draw much attention, but add up to a better gameplay experience.
End of Derek's quote

Is there a chance for city arenas (especially for cities with walls) to have special properties that make those battles unique? Ie. siege like battles instead of cities giving units %-bonus? (Shadow Magic had an excellent implementation that didn't necessarly required siege weapons.)

Reply #117 Top

.

Reply #118 Top

Quoting Derek, reply 114

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 113You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a Dev Journal that outlines how you get from Point A to Point B from here, where

Point A is: having the code for a large handful of combat-related variables implemented, and
Point B is: having a fun, deep combat system implemented.

Not that I actually expect you all to do one just because I asked. Just curious, is all.

Such a great question.  There is no magic formula that produces fun.  I wish I could provide it.  I will say that you need a lot of things to add up to a fun tactical combat experience.  You need:

1. Strategic decisions in combat.  This means more good choices in combat, more spells, earlier in the game and more special abilities.  Not meaningless choices, but choices that matter.

2. Strategic decisions outside of combat.  How you design your armies, how you level your champions, who uses your magical items and what are you willing to risk to get those magic items.  All will play a part in your tactical combats.

3. Good opponents.  Variety, interest and detail in the opponents you face.  Sometimes the movie is more about Vader than Luke.  The opponents have to have style, and they have to have strengths and weaknesses that play against the chocies you have made for your units.

4. Atmosphere.  We are working on battle music, more arenas to fight in, better screens for tactical combat.  Lots of little things that may not draw much attention, but add up to a better gameplay experience.

As you will notice from the above the detail in the weapon system doesn't directly relate to fun.  It's one tool in the toolbox, just a gear in the larger machine.  It allows us to do things, but just having the tool doesn't mean anything.  We also have to use it correctly.  Thats where the real magic happens.
End of Derek's quote

Is there any plan for making the terrain of tactical combat matter more?  Where you choose to fight the battle on the strategic map as well as where you troops are positioned on the tactical map seem like two things with the potential to add quite a bit of good choice to combat decisions.  Mounted troops get penalty in wooded/rocky tiles, etc? 

Aside from the "whack away at each other mindlessly until dead", this has always been my biggest disappointment with WOM tactical combat.  Terrain and choosing a battle location should be as big a part of combat as weapons and armor.  I've always thought the tactical map should be bigger where the first few rounds of combat are about long range damage ability and seeking favorable position.  Plus greater consideration of terrain could lead to interesting options for strategic spells effecting tactical maps (warding certain tiles, terrain alterations to benefit your defensive army, etc). 

Just curious...

Reply #119 Top

Quoting Kantok, reply 118
Is there any plan for making the terrain of tactical combat matter more? Where you choose to fight the battle on the strategic map as well as where you troops are positioned on the tactical map seem like two things with the potential to add quite a bit of good choice to combat decisions. Mounted troops get penalty in wooded/rocky tiles, etc?

Aside from the "whack away at each other mindlessly until dead", this has always been my biggest disappointment with WOM tactical combat. Terrain and choosing a battle location should be as big a part of combat as weapons and armor. I've always thought the tactical map should be bigger where the first few rounds of combat are about long range damage ability and seeking favorable position. Plus greater consideration of terrain could lead to interesting options for strategic spells effecting tactical maps (warding certain tiles, terrain alterations to benefit your defensive army, etc).

Just curious...
End of Kantok's quote

Yes.  A la the old board game 'Titan.'  Amazing.

Reply #120 Top

Quoting Kantok, reply 118
Is there any plan for making the terrain of tactical combat matter more? Where you choose to fight the battle on the strategic map as well as where you troops are positioned on the tactical map seem like two things with the potential to add quite a bit of good choice to combat decisions. Mounted troops get penalty in wooded/rocky tiles, etc?

Aside from the "whack away at each other mindlessly until dead", this has always been my biggest disappointment with WOM tactical combat. Terrain and choosing a battle location should be as big a part of combat as weapons and armor. I've always thought the tactical map should be bigger where the first few rounds of combat are about long range damage ability and seeking favorable position. Plus greater consideration of terrain could lead to interesting options for strategic spells effecting tactical maps (warding certain tiles, terrain alterations to benefit your defensive army, etc).

Just curious...
End of Kantok's quote

100% agree. Where you fight on the strategic map should affect the battle. As you said fighting in woods should be entirely different then fighting on roads, plains, swamp or whatever. Also tactical maps need chokepoints, projectile blocking squares, and whatever so that instead of running at eachother mindelssly combat is about luring the enemy into favourable terrain on the strategic map, and then controlling the terrain on the tactical map.

Reply #121 Top

k1

My cynical side is trying hard to resist but you are saying all the right things to make FE into an instant classic if you can pull it off. Bravo!

Reply #122 Top

weapons can affect speed so that a unit with a dagger will get more (ie: if you are a heavy spell caster, carry a dagger or a staff, not a Maul)
End of quote

This part bugs me.  Using a dagger instead of a huge club should mean you can stab with the dagger a lot of times, but it should make my spell casting faster.  That's a problem with the whole "action point" system carried over from E:WoM, where it bugs me that having a horse means I can shoot a bow one more time per turn.

I think E:WoM would have been better with a time-slice system.  A turn is "X" seconds and stabbing with a dagger takes fewer seconds than swinging a 2H club, with most swords somewhere in between.  Moving one square takes fewer seconds for a light horseman than for a heavy infantryman.  The magic ring of speed (and possible future "haste" spell, etc) make actions take slightly fewer seconds instead of adding an action point.  Etc.  Etc.


The initiative-based equivalent seems easy....

In FE on each combat tick all units get to add their combat speed to their initiative. When they get to 100 initiative they get an action (this is all behind the scenes, in game players simply see a queue of units in the order they get actions). The higher the combat speed the more frequently the unit gets to act
End of quote
... Change the last sentence to "Quick actions like stabbing with a dagger subtract less from your initiative than time-consuming actions like swinging a huge club or casting a spell of doom, so your next action comes sooner".

Reply #123 Top

Makes me wonder if there will be caster type specific weapons that give bonuses to spells (dmg amount, amount of squares it affects, healing increases by a certain percentage), spell resistance. Special type of rods/staffs/wands that require crystals and a certain elemental shard to make, ect, ect. Basically something that makes your spell casters more dangerous or helpful.

Playing EWOM has gotten me back into playing DnD, more specifically Dungeons and Dragons Online and this is getting the creative juices flowing and making ideas pop out of my head xD

I'm sure Derek 'Kael' Paxton has the same thoughts, cause that's where he focused a lot of his time on is a special campaign he made for D&D which we all know he made into a mod for civ4.

Already you got ideas like armor that can be crafted through quests or unlock-able research that require elemental shards that add percentage of defense towards that element or add a x% base for how many shards you control for defense and spell resistance.

Stop me please... before I start going on a roll... I could come up with these ideas all day and night and possibly months! :D

Reply #124 Top

Quoting EternalRequiem, reply 123
Makes me wonder if there will be caster type specific weapons that give bonuses to spells (dmg amount, amount of squares it affects, healing increases by a certain percentage), spell resistance. Special type of rods/staffs/wands that require crystals and a certain elemental shard to make, ect, ect. Basically something that makes your spell casters more dangerous or helpful.
End of EternalRequiem's quote

Check the StrategyInformer interview to make sure, but I'm almost positive that spell-enhancing staves and item crafting are confirmed for FE.

Reply #125 Top

Actually guys, some swords were able to cut through plate mail, namely short curved swords such as the scimitar. Straight swords were generally useless against plate.

Gamewise, swords being more effective agaisnt plate in general though is DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB.

 

 

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB