Tactical Battle Evolution

From what I'm seeing so far quite a few people (me included) are envisioning a system in which movement and number of attacks are seperate stats, but interact with each other.

I agree, essentially a lot of us are on the same page on this. In order to create the "calvary" and the "sauron," we need the combat speed to be a separate stat from number of attacks. The model of 1 square = 1 combat point, cost to use weapon is Total Combat Points / Weapon Speed seems complicated, but in practice people can understand it pretty simply as:

"Combat Points are how far you can move. Your Weapon Speed is how often you can make an attack. A weapon speed of 5 means you will use 1/5th (or 20%) of your Combat Points every time you attack."

Successfully updated karma reason!

@ Malloreon ... overland map-speed has to do with things a Backpacker has to think of. Food Supply, Logistics, Morale.

meanwhile combat speed deals with how fast you can run (marathon) ... while attack speed deals with how fast you can move (sprinting)

For instance, fencers have to have a very fast attack speed, but not all of us can run very fast ... yet if one of us was a skilled backpacker his overland-map speed would be relatively high.

Supply Routes and Morale could easily affect the Overland Movement speed of an army.

Additionally, Undead and other things without a need for food could have a consistently higher overland movement speed for all but well supplied/ high morale cavalry.

Meanwhile, nothing has a higher Tactical speed than Cavalry (unless maybe flying creature). While foot soldiers have a wide range between slow attack speed and fast attack speed.

Example ... a Foot Soldier Axeman and a Mounted Axeman could have the same attack speed (unless stirrups were involved). Yet a mounted Axeman's tactical speed is much higher.

Meanwhile, a mounted Axeman's Overland speed could be only slightly higher than his footman counterpart or even equal ... yet with equal supplies and morale the mounted counterpart would move faster Overland.

I suppose if you throw out the Undead and Demonic units, there is less of a visible difference. I realize that in a previous post on Mounts, I had the mount give a greater difference in Overland speed (just as difference between Saddles and Stirrups) but I see that was wrong. I think its best if Cavalry give the greatest difference of speed during the Tactical battle, and only a slight difference in Over-land movement.

Perhaps +2 Overland Movement and +4 Tactical speed.

Because in Overland Movement you aren't going fast, you are methodically traveling, camping, and getting supplies.

Edit: **In addition ... having Heavy armor could reduce your Tactical Speed, while Heavy weapons reduces your Attack speed, and neither affect your Overland Movement

Successfully updated karma reason!

Remember in your ideas guys to 'keep it simple stupid' . Some of us arent as smart as you all and although the computer can calculate it, a simpler system HELPS underestand it better.

1) first, to answer this: (bold is quote)

Action points = Move

Number of action points it takes to move one tactical tile = 1

Number of action points it takes to attack once/cast a spell once = Action Points/Combat Speed

Number of action points it takes to counterattack = Half that to attack

I like this idea as long as we have a way to increase action points.

however, another poster put up an idea earlier that by BEING on a horse you automatically 'halved' costs of movment from frogboys original idea (moving cost 2 combat speed, and overall speed was 1+ combat speed). Then, for cavalry BOTH actions would cost one- this would also work and prevent faster cavalry.

Now, onto other issues...

2) COUNTERATTACKS (ripped from MOM/AOW):

MOM had simultaneous counterattacks (simulating to units engaging), and used special abilities to modify (first strike for cavalry, and 'negate first strike' in halberders/pikemen. This would be an excellent system to see return- even better than AOW becasue it better simulates two units engaging. In AOW, letting a unit just run up and smack em was cool, but was too much of an advantage in a turn based game. However, some sort of combat speed/actionpoint/whatever limiting your total number of simultaneous counterattacks like Age of Wonders (were you had a finite number of attacks AND it pulled from your upcoming turn) would be good. IE COMBINE EM!!

3) COMBAT SPELLS

frst off, keep the 'imbue' ability so we can create casters. Is fun, its cool, and makes magic and mages sufficiently rare and powerful.

Second: Take a note from Age of Wonders II and let us build wizards towers! (maybe ONE tower). This would give us a reason to keep a soverign at home 'ruling'', and allow him/her to use spells to support armies in their territory. Like 'MOM', use a modifier based off of range (and maybe consider letting them cast spells when the soverign has heroes in an army in foreign territory)

4) SETTING UP TACTICAL BATTLES (the only part i ripped from HOMM5)

A 'tactics' or 'general' stat for heroes that lets us set up are forces on the tactical map. Larger stat = more of map open to place troops before combat begins. Also, allows for 'ambushes' at sufficiently high levels (to surround an enemy) AND could use such a stat to decide who to attack first.

5) ARCHERS:

Currently shortbows are too powerful, and ive yet to see other bows in the game. Please nerf- high level bows with champions could be a way to mow down soldiers, but right now my party of archers with a soldiers cape is kicking WAY too much tail.

6) Damage types:

cutting/piercing/blunt/fire/ice/arcane: keep this in. Please? I want reasons to arm soldiers with maces vs axes, not just 'strength and speed'. Also looking forward to special abilities!

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh, and i remember reading somewhere that there would be an advantage to soldiers being on foot as opposed to mounted....cant remember were i saw this. Could this still be the case? Or will it simply be a cost thing?

Successfully updated karma reason!

How much different would you like Overland Movement and Tactical Movement? I'm not sure that it is necessary:

A unit that can move far overland should also be able to move far across tactical maps

I can see why Tactical Movement could be different from Overland Movement. A couple reasons:

A single scout should be able to ride father every night than a legion of horsemen can move due to logistics, but they should have the same speed on the battlefield
Troops who know the territory are able to move through it faster in real life than those who don't. Especially hilly and forested terrain, troops without maps and without guides will make many wrong turns and run into frequent obstactles than those who are able to use well-defined paths.
A camel / ox wagon is not particularly faster than a group of running men, but the ox can keep it up all day. This is rarely modelled in games: not all horses are bred for speed. Some are for endurance.
The wagon problem again: over flat terrain (such as a battle site) a wagon will move fast. Over a mountain without roads it will move incredibly slowly.
The extreme example: if transversing a chasm or area with extreme gradients, a trained man equiped to climb rockfaces, while considerably "slower" than a calvary unit, will actually make it much further than the horseman. Perhaps even days ahead of him.
Catapults are extremely slow on the battlefield, but once disassembled and put in the wagon, they've got the same speed as everyone else (this is a pretty serious consideration, half of the "wasted turns" in Civilization wars come from waiting for your catapults to catch up.)

I could come up with "fantasy" reasons as well:

Flying units might move at the same speed, but because they will not run into obstacles, they can go further then men get. There's a reason we have the saying "As the crow flies."
The Spell of Seven Leagues Walking doesn't make you run faster, but you never tire while it is cast.
Elves Fallen Trogs don't sleep. They can march all night.

What it would come down to is whether they want to put that much detail in to the game. I'd appreciate leaving it moddable, but I don't care too much either way. If Frogboy et al have a good reason to separate out Combat Speed and Movement, I'm happy with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i agree that we definitely shouldn't use the overland speed for anything combat related. my money is on action point cost to do things, like move, attack etc. i really don't want a base amount for everything, like attacking no matter the circumstances costs 1 point. or moving will always cost you 2. each combat action should cost something different. like the game jagged alliance 2(one may have had it, haven't played it). actions during combat should have their own stat.

combat speed = number of attacks

combat move = number of moves

combat magic = number of spells to cast (this could be really good, especially if more powerful spells cost more combat magic AP to use.

combat abilities = number of AP it cost to use units special ability.

you should have a pool of AP and each action you take drains that pool.

example AP pool = 100

move: 20 AP to move on regular flat land, more if passing through rough terrain(swamp, woods, hills etc.)

Attack: 10 to swing a fast weapon, 30 for something slow and powerful.

Magic: 12 to cast burn enemy, 30 to cast area of effect fireball.

Abilites: 10 points to go berserk(increases movement, moral, and attack), 25 points to transform into a demon.

it may be somewhat complex but as long as there is a good UI to handle it, its will be exceptionally deep.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Aye ... shortbows are far too powerful it seems.

A "Champion Only" Recurved Bow of Awesome could be 15 attack, medium range, +1.5 attack speed

meanwhile ...

Bow -> 5 attack, medium range

Composite Bow -> 7 attack, +1 attack speed, short range

Long Bow -> 10 attack, long range

Compound Bow-> 6 attack, +2 attack speed, medium range

Yithril Bow -> 12 attack, +0.5 attack speed, very long range

also, a "Champion Only" Titan's Bow could be 20 attack, medium range

Successfully updated karma reason!

I love both these from reply#103:

Second: Take a note from Age of Wonders II and let us build wizards towers! (maybe ONE tower). This would give us a reason to keep a soverign at home 'ruling'', and allow him/her to use spells to support armies in their territory. Like 'MOM', use a modifier based off of range (and maybe consider letting them cast spells when the soverign has heroes in an army in foreign territory)

4) SETTING UP TACTICAL BATTLES (the only part i ripped from HOMM5)

A 'tactics' or 'general' stat for heroes that lets us set up are forces on the tactical map. Larger stat = more of map open to place troops before combat begins. Also, allows for 'ambushes' at sufficiently high levels (to surround an enemy) AND could use such a stat to decide who to attack first.

And I agree with the last few posters assessments of ranged weapons (nice list, Tasunke), but I'll wait with equipment critiques for a later beta.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting TCores,

reply 105

I can see why Tactical Movement could be different from Overland Movement.

Anyone who has ever hiked or played an endurance sport shouldn't have any trouble understanding why Tactical movement should be different to Overland movement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem with all these cool complex systems people post, especially formations affecting gameplay, is that coding AI for that is really, really difficult. Calculating AP a bit differently and then having two different AP costs for each unit, movement and action (attack/spell/special ability) is much more doable and really in my opinion gives enough variety to tactical combat.

If you add larger than 1x1 units, some terrain effects and perhaps unit facing, I think we'd have an exciting enough system that's not too complex. After all tactical battles aren't the whole game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well ... it may not seem simple or basic, but just 4 stats work for me (3 stats for non casters)

Overland Movement

Combat Speed

Attack Speed

Casting Speed

..

default Overland Movement is 2

..

default Combat Speed is 2

default Attack Speed is 2

default Casting Speed is 1

(for someone average)

..

no stat can go below 1. So really the combat stats are ( 1, 1, 0 ) +1

To get Casting Speed above 1 would require some fancy robes or other magical items. (Concentration Gloves, Wizardly Robes, Meditation Band, Concentration Amulet, Ring of Concentration, Shoes of Meditation)

..

Attacking would cost CoS/AS, Casting would cost CoS/CaS, and Combat Points would equal CoS, and moving 1 tile would cost 1.

So at default, moving a tile costs 1 point, attacking costs 1 point, and casting a spell costs 2 points.

But how often are thinks at default?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Adding more stats isn't always better, yet EWoM has a lot fewer than most games, so adding a few shouldn't matter.

Movement should be separate since a packed catapult should keep up with the footmen, yet in combat they would pretty much be immobile. Same is said for horses, since they will have to trot when moving cross-country yet can gallop while in battle.

The ones I would like to see:

Movement: Overland movement,

Speed: In combat, how many tiles they can move optiimally.

Mobility: How much their movement will be penalized over rough terrain. Should be around 0.0 for flyers, 2.0 for horses, 1.0 for foot, 4.0 for siege weapons etc. Plenty of wars have been won from this, and larger armies will get an overland penalty to this since logistics is a b**** when maneuvering mountains.

Combat Speed = Attack count: for this is what it would be if Attack Cost = APMax/CS.... Yet how many attacks can you do if CS=1.7? 1.7 attacks per turn? This is where this model fails the most imo.

I'm not certain Cast speed would be that necessary since (I hope) all spells will require different amounts of AP to perform. Some should take more than one turn. But there should be shielding spells to protect yourself from ranged while you cast these.

And Frogboy is reading this (I hope he is) how hard do you think it would be to implement the continual turn model?

Successfully updated karma reason!

there was a bunch of discussion about tactical combat models in the past. the current turn based model is what they decided on after a lot of testing and tinkering.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

Below is the system we intend to implement and we look forward to your thoughts on this:

When a unit attacks another unit, that units gets to retaliate (if it can) against the unit that attacked it.
Action Points = 1 + Your Combat Speed.
Moving a tile uses 2 action points.
Attacking and casting a spell uses 1 action point.
The placement of units on a map will be based on the the composition on the units going into the battle.
Units will have various special abilities (that's why the action tab looks so blank right now).

Going off of the thoughts I had for this earlier.

I would definitely recommend, with a good sense of urgency, that you start the battles not immediately in front of each other. But at the starting border. Then movement becomes important. And really, it should be important.

And I would suggest that units in general have a speed of 2 squares, and the faster ones, for mounted, or what not get bonuses to their movement, while on the inverse the slower units like heavy infantry move 1.

And keep it completely decoupled from the action points.

This way, people can actually utilize the Tactics that these battles imply. This way the folks can find good terrain, and use it as necessary. Setting up flankers, and be able to fight a battle in 2-3 minutes. As was suggested. But one move per, or two action points just encourages lack of imagination.

Give us speed, keep it separate from the number of actions or attacks we can do per turn. And I think in conjunction with some other suggestions.. could really amplify the game to feel tactical. Yet still be fast, and still get the fights done quicker, while letting us enjoy the visual feast these battles represent.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You could get away with one movement stat that applies overland and tactical. AoW did that after all and we're all praising it here. It's just that with the type of numbers Elemental is using, the tactical movement speed would need to be some multiple of the overland speed (tactical battles where most units move 1 tile a turn would get REALLY annoying).

It does seem that we all agree that combat speed and movement speed need to be split somehow though. You need to be able to boost movement speed without also giving a unit five more attacks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tridus,

reply 98

Quoting Sareln,
reply 97

Agreed.

In terms of tactical combat, I really think AoW:SM had it done well. Had cover, high-ground, movement penaltys by terrain or spell...

And takes care OK of the retaliation without abusing...
pedroente, how did the AoW:SM system work?

Units had a "moves" stat. Moves used the same number overland and tactical. Numbers ranged from say 12 for a very slow unit (like a zombie) to 40 for flying dragons or calvary. The highest possible was 50. The base movement cost is 4, modified by terrain and abilities (less on roads or with a haste enchant, higher in forests/caves/etc without abilities, flying units ignored all penalties except for one in mountains).

In tactical combat, an attack uses 1/3 of your moves (effectively the proposed system here with combat speed locked at 3). If you didn't move or moved less then 1/3 of your moves, you could attack 3 times. The map actually showed you when you picked a spot to move to by marking the path and color coding, green was 3 attacks, yellow 2, and red 1.

Counterattacks were handled the same way, using your moves from the next turn. So you could "lock down" a unit by attacking it enough times that it didn't have any moves left.

There were lots of abilities that could modify how things worked. Ranged units had "fire" abilities for arrows or cannons or whatever that could only be used once and consumed all remaining moves (in the proposed system here a combat speed locked at 1). First Strike let a unit always hit first, dual strike let a unit get two attacks per attack, and so on.

It was a good system. The suggested one is almost identical except combat speed can change, which is an improvement. But it's pretty easy to understand. CS 1 = 1 attack per round. CS 5 = up to 5 attacks per round, depending on how much you move. It's simple and intuitive, but also pretty powerful in what it lets you do (Sauron can be created, but you can also make Calvary that are faster without being able to attack 5x more then a ground unit for no sane reason).

edit - As for cover, there was LoS. Things like being garrisoned inside a city with a wall would block ranged LoS (but you could shoot out of it), and melee had to break down the door to get in the city. Melee could attack walls (with abilities like crush wall to boost damage or wall climbing to bypass entirely), and magic/siege weapons could attack walls directly. Trees and even other units provided similar LoS cover.

Yeah AoW-SM's system was good, but if we could separate Combat Speed & Movement Speed in EWoM -> That would be the best & most realistic.

So let's see:

Action Points = 1 + Your Movement Speed [can't be lower than 1].

Moving a tile uses 2 action points.

Using a special ability uses 1 action point.

Attacking and casting a spell -> Combat Speed [should be separated from the action point system] IE: Combat Speed: 2 -> 2 attacks / turn or 2 spells can be casted / turn

Examples:

Naga -> Action points: 1+1[movement speed] Combat Speed: 4 -> It can move 1 tile / turn but it can attack 4 times / turn. Spec. ability: Cleave -> This special attack uses up all of the remaining attacks of the creature. IE. It can attack 4 surrounding tiles in the same time even, if there are 4 attacks left, or 3 or 2. Benefit: Only 1 target is able to launch a counterattack.

Warg Rider -> Action points: 1+5[movement speed] Combat Speed: 1 -> It can move 3 tiles / turn, but it can only attack 1 time / turn. Spec ability: Charge -> Double dmg if the target was at least 2 tiles away [uses up 2 action points + the "attack" as well]

That being said, this surely won't happen, because this would be a huge change, but I think that this is the "perfect" & most realistic combat system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I really think spells should be one/caster/turn.. unless the unit has an ability to do more. (Shard bonus?)

this helps preserve the distinction between different spells, especially AOE vs single target.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like what I read. Sounds more like the AOW:SM system (which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.) I would like to suggest one thing about unit placement when you first enter tactical combat. The one thing I did not like about AOW TC was that you could not choose how your units were placed on the battle field when the TC started. Often your healing and archer units were right up front and they were easy to kill in the first round. Now realistacly you would put these units behind the tougher melee units if given a choice. So what I purpose would be something along the lines of what TW does when you go to a TC. They allow you to place your units in a certain area before combat begins. Either that or allow a default unit placement for each Army that the player can choose. This would involve a tactical button on the Army details screen that you can select to go to a screen and set up your unit placement. Then once you do enter a TC this will already be set up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with everyone who suggests an AoW:SM style TC. It was (is) really fun to play.

Just some thoughts. In the first AoW you started very far from each other in TC. You had to make several moves before you were in range to do anything. While this is kind of cool, it does slow things down significantly. Since there was no bonuses for flanking etc it was kind of pointless, and they did change it for AoW2 / SM where the armies started closer together and only one move was needed for ranged attack for example. So what I'm saying here is, armies should start far from each other ONLY IF there is a bonus system in place for flanking and other maneuvers. If there is no such system, having the armies start withing one turns reach is probably the best.

Another thing that has been mentioned here is the "General" or "tactics" ability that lets you place units before battle. AoW didn't have this and it was maybe the only drawback of the TC in those games. It should be in, in one way or another.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another thing that has been mentioned here is the "General" or "tactics" ability that lets you place units before battle. AoW didn't have this and it was maybe the only drawback of the TC in those games. It should be in, in one way or another.

I disagree. This system adds little value if the game already smartly positions ranged units in the back and melee in front. This feature could be "cool" in some higher end battles, but not in the vast majority of them. The game just needs to always place ranged units behind and melee in front, and that's enough. Dev time at this point should go to much more pressing TC improvements.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Anatar 11,

Thats not exactly what i meant- it would include what you mentioned of course. at a high level, a good 'general' hero could have the ability to start out surrounding your opponent, have your cavalry start out at an opponents flank/etc. It also could have a Tactic Skiill 'comparison', so the better general can see the placement of opposing forces.

Would this be overpowered? Sure. But it would be like General Lee/Jackson outmaneuvering union forces in real life, and give an 'Epic General' hero or sovereign great advantages over superior forces. It would also help distinguish a 'general warrior' from a 'champion warrior'.

Oh, and i think this would be relatively easy for the devs to implement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 120

Another thing that has been mentioned here is the "General" or "tactics" ability that lets you place units before battle. AoW didn't have this and it was maybe the only drawback of the TC in those games. It should be in, in one way or another.

I disagree. This system adds little value if the game already smartly positions ranged units in the back and melee in front. This feature could be "cool" in some higher end battles, but not in the vast majority of them. The game just needs to always place ranged units behind and melee in front, and that's enough. Dev time at this point should go to much more pressing TC improvements.

I will have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is important to allow us to atlest set up how the Armies are positioned in TC prior to going into battle. This could be done on the army's detail page.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think it is important to allow us to atlest set up how the Armies are positioned in TC prior to going into battle.

Why? What does it actually do that matters for Elemental?

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you start further from the enemy, you will have a few turns to organize your army. This should suffice, in HoMM 3/5 the armies were so close, you reached each other in one or two turns. In TW the armies are so large, it would be very clunky to organize them in real time. Elemental has neither and therefore doesn't require prebattle placement. It isn't bad but there are so many other things they could be working on instead.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would just point out that even games as far back as 1988's Nobunaga's Ambition, had unit placement at the start of the battle.

The key thing to this is if, they hear some of our interests, so that way some of us could utilize terrain to our advantage, or find choke points in battle, we could then maneuver our units into position. Or move them up as we see the need.

I don't understand the confusion to why this wouldn't change battles from lasting 2-3 minutes. Having to quickly place a unit down, with the most simplistic approach of melee up front, ranged and spell casters in the back row, but having the chance to use terrain and high speed units, to create interesting battles. As some of us.. look to enjoy a tactical battle with some depth. Not just in dealing with unit powers and special abilities.

And suggesting it, isn't a bad thing. But the only ones who know how much effort any of these ideas are going to take is the dev team. That's it. So suggesting things that they said they would like to hear our opinions on, is important.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tactical Battle Evolution

Fleshing out its implemtnation