A Simple Change to Massively Improve Combat

Currently, combat in Elemental works in the following way: Each unit has an attack score. When it attacks it generates a random number between 1 and that score (aka, rolls a dice with that many sides) and subtracts the defence value of the unit it is attacking to determine its damage. Groups of men are displayed as having the same attack and defence values as 1 man, multiplied by the number of men in the unit. This means that when a unit of three guys is described as having 60 attack, it is slightly disingenuous. But i'll get back to this later.

We also have, by popular demand, a to-hit system. The problem is that no one really cares about it because attacks rarely miss. The system was set up so that misses rarely happen because that would make combat slow and unsatisfying. Hence the accuracy system is very half hearted and no one really cares about their unit’s accuracy.

More importantly, going back to the first point, giving groups multiple attack rolls and monsters and champions just one gives us two very different kinds of unit which are difficult to balance against each other. Currently champions are very powerful because they are now capable of getting huge attack scores. This was the only way to make them competitive against large units (in comparison to WoM). But the problem with this is that it quickly gets out of hand: a unit with One Big Attack Dice is better than a group of men with lots of small ones, because the enemy unit’s defence score is only subtracted once.

So I propose the following: instead of giving monsters and champions huge attack values, give them multiple attack dice, like units have. Champions would start at 2 attack dice and rise to about 5 as they gained more through traits. The attack stat should be renamed “damage” and every unit should have an “attackS” stats instead, displaying the number of attack dice each unit rolls when it attacks.

Reasons for doing this:

1 – It more accurately represents the way the combat system actually works

2 – It’s how most other game systems, from dungeons and dragons to warhammer, work: individual powerful units rolling multiple attack dice in a single turn.

3 – It reduces the potential for monsters and champions to overtake units in terms of damage output, by putting them on the same playing field (champions and monsters will have the defence rolls of enemies subtracted more than once from their damage, moderating their damage ouput).

4 – It allows accuracy and to-hit to be implemented properly. Currently, you can’t have half the attacks missing, because that means 50% of turns are wasted and unsatisfying. But if every unit has multiple attack dice, EACH DICE CAN ROLL TO HIT INDIVIDUALLY, and the resulting scores added together. So Damage is done even when some of the to-hit rolls fail.

5 – It adds depth and character to units. Units with low damage and lots of attacks (like spearmen) can do lots of damage to units with low defence values like other units, swarms, and weak monsters. But Monsters and Champions, with higher attack values and less dice,  might be the only units capable of defeating enemies with high defence values. So you use your units to hold off their units, while your hero takes on their dragon. This isn’t a rock-paper-scissors type thing: good units of any kind remain competitive against each other.

6 – It reduces randomness. As every child knows, rolling a 7 on 2 dice added together Is much more likely than rolling a 12. Currently, randomness is reduced by an “under-the-hood” normal distribution curve. Doing it this way would remove the need for the maths to be “fixed.”

I attach the caveat that this post is based on my less than perfect understanding of the increasingly arcane combat system (and this in itself is a good reason for reforming it). Secondly, this would also require a wide reform of the attack values for heroes and monsters (something which I believe needs to be done anyway).

24,402 views 15 replies
Reply #1 Top

Sorry about sounding negative, but I don't agree with this. Master of Magic managed the champion vs unit attacks. Battle of Wesnoth manages different attack counts for different units - albeit with a slightly different combat system.

I feel the problem is the huge leaps the values take with e.g. weapon attack scores. Higher tech tier weapons have incredibly high attack scores when compared to the lower ones. I don't see any reason why this can't become balanced.

Reply #2 Top

Quoting Vallu751, reply 1

I feel the problem is the huge leaps the values take with e.g. weapon attack scores. Higher tech tier weapons have incredibly high attack scores when compared to the lower ones. I don't see any reason why this can't become balanced.
End of Vallu751's quote

I agree, this is the main problem, and this is my way of helping us achieve that. When you increase the attack value of a soldier by 3 for a unit of 5, it doesn't just count at three, it counts as 15. Ideally, you'd make the increases much more gradual: say, start all basic weapon attack values at 10 and then increase by increments of 1. This works fine for units fighting each other, but once that unit faces a monster or hero with huge attack and defence values, it can fall flat. Hell, if you capped out soldier's attack values at 20, then you could reach a situation where they were unable to hurt an enemy at all if it had a defence greater than 20.

We need to bring all weapons onto a reasonable, steadily increasing scale of damage values, but if you do that, how will a champion with 15 Attack ever compete with a unit of 5 guys with 10 attack each? The best way to do that is to give him multiple attacks, and it has a lot of other benefits as I outlined above. 

Fundamentally, 3 archers = 3 arrows = 3 attack dice. Not one. That's how it is at the moment, and it's a sensible way of designing a combat sytem; the problem is that the mechanics are being hidden away. Why mislead players by impying they have just one attack dice? Can we at least agree this information should be displayed more truthfully? And once we're being honest that that's how the system works at the moment, then why not bring everyone onto the same system?

Reply #3 Top

Quoting Vallu751, reply 1
Sorry about sounding negative, but I don't agree with this. Master of Magic managed the champion vs unit attacks. Battle of Wesnoth manages different attack counts for different units - albeit with a slightly different combat system.

I feel the problem is the huge leaps the values take with e.g. weapon attack scores. Higher tech tier weapons have incredibly high attack scores when compared to the lower ones. I don't see any reason why this can't become balanced.
End of Vallu751's quote

(((sorry for the edits, figures didn't add up)))

 

Spot on, its the difference between values that is the issue,

I have been saying since the days of EMoM...  we need to make the maximum unit for everything 200, magical enhancement starting at 10% upto 100% possible, and I know their is a lot of arguments over how powerful magic should be.. I think it should be a slider.. direct magical damage starting very low (maximum of 40) though to god like (maximum of 200)

 

I haven't followed much of FE's development so just a few examples with no direct reference to the game.. 

i.e. a standard sword dose say 100 damage, a dagger say 50 whilst a war hammer dose 200

A flaming enchanting adds 10%, a lightning one might add 50% and 'Deaths touch' adds 100%

Cloth armour would have a defence of 50, leather 70, chain 100, scale armour 120, lorica segmentata 140, light plate 160, full plate 180 and kings plate 200.

 

Reply #4 Top

The damage game mechanics sure need some additional clarity/work. It's kinda a black box now and I'd love to see the info be more accessible/understandable. Having one value for this without any explanation for the factors involved and how things are calculated makes understanding/improving/working with the system very difficult. Rarely can I explain why my unit did the damage value it did or why it was so random or predict how much damage it might actually cause (despite the tooltip hovers, which don't always seem accurate).

Reply #5 Top

Quoting sjwt, reply 3


i.e. a standard sword dose say 100 damage, a dagger say 50 whilst a war hammer dose 200

A flaming enchanting adds 10%, a lightning one might add 50% and 'Deaths touch' adds 100%

Cloth armour would have a defence of 50, leather 70, chain 100, scale armour 120, lorica segmentata 140, light plate 160, full plate 180 and kings plate 200.

 
End of sjwt's quote

 

I agree, we need a reasonable scale. But just changing the current system to something like this only works if everyone has one attack, which they don't. 10 men with swords then do up to 1000 damage. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as every unit gets multiple attacks to bring it up to tht order of magnitude. And it's about more than just the basic weapon values: what about all those bonuses that the game gives to sovereigns and units as they gain levels, traits, stats and loot? If you give sovereigns extra attack dice as they level, instead of damage bonuses, and make accuracy more important and fun (and give magic weapons better accuracy instead of damage), then we can use those instead and avoid the ridiculous Damage Inflation that is currently damaging the game.

Reply #6 Top

If each point of attack represented an attack which could do 0 or 1 damage, ie separate rolls (and similar to Master of Magic) that would be more or less what you are discribing.

Reply #7 Top

Me doesn't think defense outright just reduces damage by 1 per point, I usually have tons of defense which seems to stop decreasing damage after some point (I usually get to play with enchanting Stoneskin and not enchanting with Stoneskin). So to my point of view you got the armor wrong.

That said, I do dodge should be more significant in battles, I only once or twice had a champion with notable dodge, I usually have enough dodge from spells to make enemies not hit (some spells gives ridiculous amounts of dodge vs ranged, obscuring fog for example).

I think that there should NOT be an "Attacks" attribute for heroes, but I think that when dealign damage with the main attack it should be divided up to 3 pools of damage, which separately needs to hit (so heroes usually never is really dodged, but high dodge would be like damage reduction against heroes). Or I think they should focus on more single unit stacks.

Would be cool if there were more monsters you could train instead of all being just armies.

All in all, I still believe in one of my older theories: There is always more than 1 way to fix a problem, I say this in the hope that you all will be willing to look at some alternatives (while Ill continue to be a hypocrite and think my own is the best xD)

Thanks for posting this, I think the attacks and dodge scores should be addressed, though I can wait until the devs get more functionality into the game before going through game balance.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Sethai, reply 5

I agree, we need a reasonable scale. But just changing the current system to something like this only works if everyone has one attack, which they don't. 10 men with swords then do up to 1000 damage. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as every unit gets multiple attacks. And it's about more than just the basic weapon values: what about all those bonuses that the game gives to sovereigns and units as they gain levels, traits, stats and loot? If you give sovereigns extra attack dice as they level, instead of damage bonuses, and make accuracy more important and fun (and give magic weapons better accuracy instead of damage), then we can use those instead and avoid the ridiculous Damage Inflation that is currently damaging the game.
End of Sethai's quote

 

Unfortunately with the way how damage calculations are set up your suggestion may not be a solution Sethai.  As it stands, FE's system measures X amount of damage successfully dealt equals Y number of units per stack are dead, no exceptions.  That includes magical damage too.  The problem isn't number of dice versus number of targets but the effects of distribution of the damage dealt.  If I dealt 10 damage against ten units, should two of them always fall dead 100% of the time or should there be a possibly of only one dropping dead with five others wounded etc?

In Civ V, all Japanese had 'bushido' ability that allowed them to spread damage evenly between soldiers.  Unrealistic that it always worked perfectly all the time but you get the idea.

 

I plan to mod in what I can.  I think you guys will be pleased.  At the very least it will fix missile attacks versus melee.

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 7
Me doesn't think defense outright just reduces damage by 1 per point, I usually have tons of defense which seems to stop decreasing damage after some point (I usually get to play with enchanting Stoneskin and not enchanting with Stoneskin). So to my point of view you got the armor wrong.

End of Kongdej's quote

Yes, very possibly. It may will be rolling within the defence and subtracting that from the attack, or rolling within both, but it's definately something along those lines if I remember frog's originally description. The fact that we don't even know says something pretty damning about the system if you ask me. Personally I like the roll-within-the-attack method, on the basis, that blows can strike in different places and be harder or weaker, but the armour itself is always the same. And doing it that way makes it easy for the player to know when he can't hurt an enemy (because it's defence is higher than your attack), but I digress.

Quoting Kongdej, reply 7


That said, I do dodge should be more significant in battles, I only once or twice had a champion with notable dodge, I usually have enough dodge from spells to make enemies not hit (some spells gives ridiculous amounts of dodge vs ranged, obscuring fog for example).

End of Kongdej's quote

Yes, and your way would be another way of doing it. We only got the dodge system because we pestered frog for it, and he made the reasons for his reluctance clear at the time (and the more I play the game, the more i accept them): that you can't have lots of attacks missing without making the combat slow and unsatisfying. It either ends up poorly implemented, or lame. Better, he argued, just to do less damage on average: ie, give the unit a lower attack value. Giving all units multiple dice and rolling to hit on each separately separately accomplishes this.

Likewise, we could also argue that instead of going through the whole "this weapon does this much damage, and i have ten guys, so i roll it ten times" logic is too complicated, and make every unit with 50 attack behave the same, regardless of how they get there, but I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Having a meaningful difference between 100 guys with swords and one ogre with a club is nice i think, and adds a layer of depth.

So, on both these issues, my solutions works pretty well with the mechanics we already have. So does yours actually. But what happens when you have a champion with a bow? (and therefore 10 piercing attack and 0 blunt or cutting) You still have a situation where he's failing to do any damage half the time, right? I guess I'm being a little more conservative adn trying to work with what we have.

 

Reply #10 Top

Quoting RogueCaptain, reply 8

Quoting Sethai, reply 5

 Unfortunately with the way how damage calculations are set up your suggestion may not be a solution Sethai.  As it stands, FE's system measures X amount of damage successfully dealt equals Y number of units per stack are dead, no exceptions.  That includes magical damage too.  The problem isn't number of dice versus number of targets but the effects of distribution of the damage dealt.  If I dealt 10 damage against ten units, should two of them always fall dead 100% of the time or should there be a possibly of only one dropping dead with five others wounded etc?

End of RogueCaptain's quote

Yes, and that is an interesting and important factor. It's essentially a penalising special rule for units: that their number of attacks is proportionate to their hit points. And it can be factored in fairly easily. Working on the assumption that half the units in a typical battle die (or, half the total hit points are lost) and that these units, as they are destroyed, will average at 50% of their total potential attacks, then this only works out as a -25% penalty to total damage effectiveness, which is not insurmountable. If you imagine a typical early game hero having 2 Attacks at 15 Damage, and an early game unit having 5 attacks at 10 Damage, it doesn't really alter the balance of power that much. Not to a degree that a little tweaking can't redress.

I'm not saying it will balance the game with current numbers, but it'll create a decent platform with which to do it. Whether we start treating groups like individuals and remove the multiple attack dice, or start giving individuals more attacks, we're not going to get the combat system working properly until everyone is on the same page.

PS: you can also argue that the casualties rule cuts both ways in the strategic sense: a unit of ten men that suffers 5 casualties will still recover back up to it's full strength of 10 attacks, where as you had 10 individual guys, you'd never regenerate any of your losses.

Reply #11 Top

I just feel it will be a rush for a weapon with defense penetration and stacking attacks, and it probably will be a "rush" to gain more attacks all the time if such are avaiable.

You say dodge is cause problems, to me dodge is the reverse of a crit (and I dont mind if I just do half damage versus a dodging oppenent, but that is details, so if we remove dodge, should we remove crit?...

I think the main problems are lack of "counters" against dodge, since  you can always grab a spear against a heavily armored unit (ofc u can't change mid battle, but can start training spear units etc). There is only 1 obscure ability against dodge, and that is hidden behind the path of the assassin xD (which I only pick for archers).

I wasn't here to see the discussion about frog not wanting dodge >_< (I joined later I think).

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #12 Top

I have made my own balance for dodge. Basically it is abundant, but so are accuracy bonuses of the same kind. I would want to see a modded preview of your system before I could really say one way or the other, but it seems like a drastic change. Not sure if it's the best fit solution.

Reply #13 Top

Hmm ... perhaps Trogs could have this "Bushido" type ability?

Would certainly make them a scary bunch :D

Reply #14 Top

The first thing they would need to do if they were to implement a "to-hit vs AC" style combat system would be to eliminate this non-zero damage on a successful attack nonsense they currently have coded in, although I believe that Frogboy's "plink" strike is going to essentially eliminate this feature anyway.

Secondly, many of us old-school P&P RPGers fount the "to-hit vs AC" system overwhelmingly unsatisfying way back in the day, so I would advise caution to seeing it return.

However, in response to the OP, I see your point, and it could work.  Another, possibly simpler, suggestion I have is this:

A unit could only remove (kill) up to it's number of units from a defending unit on a successful non-magical attack.

Traits and such could alter this of course.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 14
The first thing they would need to do if they were to implement a "to-hit vs AC" style combat system would be to eliminate this non-zero damage on a successful attack nonsense they currently have coded in, although I believe that Frogboy's "plink" strike is going to essentially eliminate this feature anyway.

Secondly, many of us old-school P&P RPGers fount the "to-hit vs AC" system overwhelmingly unsatisfying way back in the day, so I would advise caution to seeing it return.

However, in response to the OP, I see your point, and it could work.  Another, possibly simpler, suggestion I have is this:

A unit could only remove (kill) up to it's number of units from a defending unit on a successful non-magical attack.

Traits and such could alter this of course.
End of mqpiffle's quote

Oh I like the To-hit ver AC that D&D 3.5 rules had. Very fun combat. And unlike it;s predessors in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, a lot more flexability.