Inconsistent level of abstraction

Defending city walls... without the city walls?

from Elemental Forums

Some design decisions are hard to understand, like removal of city walls from the tactical battles. First, the games wants you to micromanage the swings of individual combatants (which is currently not very entertaining, because usual tactical elements like flanking, formation bonuses or cooperative interactions between units [archers provided cover for footsoldiers in Fantasy General, remember?], and boils down to a row of units trading blows till one side falls), and then it says: "okay, you are defending the city, but the city is sorta not here."

Why? The sole purpose of building a city manually, deciding where each building would stand, would be to fight on its streets in case of invasions. Putting barrack next to a gate would have some sense then, but no, the design makes both minigames rather pointless. I can't pretend to care where I place my buildings - because it does not really matter - and I can't pretend to be excited by defending a city that is not even there. 

Siege defenses are just the opportunity to make tactical battles tactical - the attacker must gather significant superiority, and be prepared to take losses on the walls UNTIL they are breached, or somehow compromised. The wall breaches or opened gates create chokepoints that are interesting strategically, archers on walls are at an advantage, and each siege engine you bring have its pros and cons. Magic could play a tremendous role here, giving you another dilemma - raze the city to the ground with powerful magic, or try to preserve valuable buildings?

Another abstraction oddity is the representation of unit groups. How can a single attack kill three soldiers at once? Or how can all simultaneously attack at once? The unit groups act as a fatter version of a normal unit, and it seems very confusing to me. For most purposes, they are just the same unit with more hitpoints, and perhaps better attack? 

Also, the detailed look on a city is a wasted opportunity too - starved city could look differently visually than a happy city. Sieges could leave scars on the buildings. Border city at war could have armed citizens in the streets, patrolling, while a peaceful city could have napping, content, happy townspeople. 

2,204 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

Definitely agree about the city representation (walls, siege defenses, building layout, etc.) in a tactical battle.  I was actually about to write a post about it.  

I don't have any issues with the single attack wiping out multiple enemies (see Sauron at the beginning of Fellowship) or the "multiple guys attack at once" thing.  

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top


Why? The sole purpose of building a city manually, deciding where each building would stand, would be to fight on its streets in case of invasions. Putting barrack next to a gate would have some sense then, but no, the design makes both minigames rather pointless. I can't pretend to care where I place my buildings - because it does not really matter - and I can't pretend to be excited by defending a city that is not even there. 

Siege defenses are just the opportunity to make tactical battles tactical - the attacker must gather significant superiority, and be prepared to take losses on the walls UNTIL they are breached, or somehow compromised. The wall breaches or opened gates create chokepoints that are interesting strategically, archers on walls are at an advantage, and each siege engine you bring have its pros and cons. Magic could play a tremendous role here, giving you another dilemma - raze the city to the ground with powerful magic, or try to preserve valuable buildings?

End of quote

exactly, right now it's basically a very shallow chore, you put out buildings wherever, whereas if the tactical maps differed depending on where you put out your buildings, it would make some sense. with that said, i think it's better to just remove the "place your building where you like it" completely and let the buildings go in randomly and instead let the player design their own defensive tactical map for their city, if they like. you know like put in stuff like walls and defensive structures.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Counterpoint to the whole: design your own defenses in the city... it will be a big task.  If it's done poorly, it will be really abstract, and people will be upset.  If it's done in a detailed, well thought out manner... it will be another thing that players need to deal with, unless the AI can actually do it well enough for the player. 

When I'm making a city, I don't want to have to spend several minutes planning intelligent defenses for it, especially if the defenses need to change as the city levels up and starts taking up more room.  I'd rather be doing anything else the game has to offer.

 

Effective fighting in a city would require things like Line of Sight for archery attacks and certain spells, ect... it would be cool if it was done well, but at the moment, it would take a lot of work on the tactical engine to pull it off.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Come on, even MoM had sieges with walled cities, Age of Wonders too. I agree that it brings additional problems for the AI, but turn-based, it can be done, IMO, because it has been done. 

What is infuriating, city walls are actually built as a little building that encloses only itself. Did not anyone tell those mighty enchanters that walls bust be built AROUND the city to be effective?

Right now, it would be almost better if tactical battles are abstracted altogether like in Warlords 2, because they bring little interesting gameplay to the table.