Frogboy Frogboy

Tactical Combat discussion continuation

▼

Tactical Combat discussion continuation

from JoeUser Forums
Beta1z_Tactical (8)

Originally, Elemental was going to have continuous turn combat. That effectively meant real-time. Ultimately, after playing around with it, we decided to implement turn based (simultaneous turns based on combat speed) with tiles.

The evolution of tactical combat in Elemental owes a lot to the beta program.  9 Months of public beta testing of the game engine with corresponding debates has led to some important changes that would not have happened otherwise. 

A lot of the discussion resulted in us thinking about the game in ways we didn’t think of before.  Specifically, how do we address game design issues that have plagued our genre for decades now? If you’re a strategy gamer, you know them well.

For us, the challenge of tactical combat has been about giving the player as much control as possible over how long tactical combat should last.  This ultimately led to the realization that the funnest way for us turned out to be to have the strategic elements of combat very clear and well defined.

Elements of Tactical Combat

In no particular order these are the things that matter:

  • Combat Speed. Your combat speed determines how many “moves” / attacks you get during a particular turn.  In the begging of Lord of the Rings, what makes Sauron such a bad ass is that he can attack so many units at once. He has, in game turns, an incredible combat speed.
  • Morale.  Unit morale matters but for fun purposes, we try to keep it straight forward. Units have High Morale (25% combat bonus), Normal Morale (no bonus), Low Morale (25% combat penalty), and Panic (you don’t control them). It provides a whole new avenue for us to play in.
  • Terrain. This is where the tile based part mattered for us (and for the AI). Some terrain, obstacles, and tiles simply provide better offensive and defensive bonuses, Controlling them matters.
  • WINNER. TAKE. ALL. This is the part where we want to hear your opinions. We do ask that you keep an open mind on what we ultimately go with.  My opinion is that the attacking player has the onus to finish the battle in N turns. After N turns, the attacker morale starts to go lower and lower at which point the defender can come out and make mince meat out of them.  The question is, what should determine what N is?  Or should we allow retreating? Should we allow draws?  I’m against retreats or withdraws because it’s one of those things that allows the game to drag on. It’s a strong personal preference of mine that two men enter, one man leaves. (Your heroes will tend to escape though).
  • Combined Arms. Archers have range. Mounted Warriors have great combat speed. Foot soldiers tend to have better weapons and defenses.  It means putting together your army matters a lot. It also is important to us that players understand precisely why they won or lost a battle.
  • Thresholds. Players can set the tactical battle threshold in the menu. That is, they can say it requires 10 units on each side before it’ll actually go into tactical battle.  At any point, players can have a tactical battle auto-resolve.

Remaining Questions and issues:

  1. Controlling the length of a tactical battle.  We believe that users should have a lot of control over how in depth they want their battles to be. Should a tactical battle finish in less than a minute or should they last 2 hours? How do we make it so that players can control this?
  2. Randomization vs. Richness. I won’t lie to you, we have a trade off in front of us and it’s a big one.  We can randomly generate the battlefields in tactical combat OR we can have it pick from a series of pre-made tactical battle maps.  The randomly generated ones won’t be as interesting but they’ll more accurately reflect the local terrain.  I’m preferring the pre-made ones because we can add some spectacular strategic when we’re crafting them and have hundreds to pull from.
1,481,897 views 469 replies
Reply #226 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 205

No, people remember. People have also bought the game with the ability to play multi-player in mind. If MP isn't going to be built to be playable, there isn't much point in building it at all. Is the goal here to build something people want to play in groups, or to tick the "we have multi-player" box on the feature list?

If it's the second one, there will be some very dissatisfied customers.

I don't think they'll gimp the multi-player. In fact the "Winner Take All" idea which no-one likes, Including my-self....WOULD BE PERFECT for MULTI-PLAYER.

It WOULD Gimp up SINGLE PLAYER. For MULTI-PLAYER though, it is a great idea. Which might have been what the Frogster had in mind.

As I understand it though, they Already know Some Single Player Mechanics simply WILL NOT translate into a "Fun" Multi-Player experience. They WILL make two separate systems. One for Single-Player, one for Multi-Player.

Note: I Bolded things above so they would be seen easily. Not yelling. ;)

Reply #227 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Raven, reply 226

I don't think they'll gimp the multi-player. In fact the "Winner Take All" idea which no-one likes, Including my-self....WOULD BE PERFECT for MULTI-PLAYER.

It WOULD Gimp up SINGLE PLAYER. For MULTI-PLAYER though, it is a great idea. Which might have been what the Frogster had in mind.

As I understand it though, they Already know Some Single Player Mechanics simply WILL NOT translate into a "Fun" Multi-Player experience. They WILL make two separate systems. One for Single-Player, one for Multi-Player.

Note: I Bolded things above so they would be seen easily. Not yelling.

No it wouldn't. I covered why back on page 4, and the main problem with it is that a defender has every reason to draw out a fight as long as possible to get the attacker morale penalties in place. That's horrible for multiplayer.

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #228 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting slaaw, reply 80
This is my first post in any forum ever! (it feels good to be out of the lurkers closet)

 

In my opinion, the manner in which combat is handled will make or break this game.

 

I think combat speed, moral, terrain that matters are all vital to creating interesting combat.  I also really want to see different abilities for the units that make them unique as this adds a lot of strategy and variety.  

I would like to see the ability to retreat.  Some units should be better at it than others.  Mounted units and stealth should escape easily while war machines and heavy infantry should not.

I do not want to see limitations on the length of battle in any form.

randomization vs richness - I vote Richness

It looks like I am the minority here and I understand that playing on the same maps would get stale but.... I have yet to play a randomized battle map that I thought was cool or that made a difference.  I am thinking HOMM, Age of wonders, kings bounty series.  They are all the same with a rock here and there, maybe a fallen tree or whatever but combat is basically the same every single battle.  To me, this is the epitome of a lack of variety.  With the richness option, we could have maps that would actually change our strategy.

I think that stardock could have map making contests pre-release and choose the best ones to include at launch along with their own.  This game is made to be mod friendly so we could have hundreds or thousands of hand made maps eventually.  The expansions would include new maps as well.  I admit that at launch, those who play many hours every day will get tired of only having a few hundred maps but in the long run we should have tons of maps of much higher quality than just 1 rock moved 2 squares to the left.

Pre-made battle maps obviously should be filtered based on where the battle is taking place.  If battle is in a forest square than it the RNG would only select from the forest square maps.  The maps could be designed to give the defender the advantage through better concealment or tiles with defensive bonuses.  This seems much more realistic and fun to me.  

 

 

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

Tactical battles are indeed a core part of what makes Elemental "Hip" (I am not sure I would go as far as make or break as there are other aspects of the game that have great potential) I say more like decrease the market share of interested players.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To Frogboy: Judging by the amount of posts in a short time, the length of the posts and the passion each person is displaying in there answers I believe that this particular area of the game development should be approached with all available deves on board and slow and steady (If money allows of-coarse).I would imagine that time, money and the true scope of the ambitious vision for the original ideas for the tactical battles may have been a factor in some of the changes to the original ideas.  However perhaps some of the core things that are needed to develop such can be implemented so that in future expansions such things can be implemented (maybe turned on or off) I was really looking forward to being able to use a switch to turn on or off the option to play tactical in RTS or TBS. That was the second biggest reason I had been so drawn to the game when I first found out about it. First reason was the promises of a flexible/moddable game that had enough flexibility to keep one interested in the game for years.

And you are correct you can't please everyone, doing so will only make the game become convoluted at best. Just do what you do best (that is make good games) Us players have and will always have laundry lists of things we want but in the end we know when a game is good regardless if all our wishes came true or not.

Reply #229 from Stardock Forums Top

I apologize since I did not read the whole thread. If any of these have been mentioned before, just consider them seconded (or thirded, etc.)

Combat Speed: I like the idea of generic action points ala X-com, MoM, et. al. that may be expended for moves, attacks spells etc. More Combat Speed = more action points.

Morale: Morale as stated sounds fine as stated with the exception of certain units which have fixed morale, or immune to morale effects. This is probably so obvious it  should go without mentioning. If so, my bad :)

Terrain: It should be harder to assail a dug-in foe on unfavorable terrain. Most games of this ilk only address terrain bonuses when it comes to fortified positions (castles, keeps, etc.) that have walls or fixed defenses. But attacking a defending force in the jungle, or swamp or mountains should be dicey business.

WINNER. TAKE. ALL.: Lots of debate here. I think there should be an option for standard retreat, but it should come with a significant risk of total annihilation. I also believe there should be some kind of magical option for retreat (Get out of jail free spell). Lastly, I think there should be some units which are, by their very nature, bad at standard engagement, but designed specifically for harass and retreat, but this might be harder to implement and downright annoying to deal with.

Combined Arms: I hope it's not quite as simple as Ancient Art of War mechanics, but balancing / maximizing the strnegths of your forces in consideration of the battle criteria should always be part of the equation.

Thresholds: I like this in theory, but there should also be a "player override" as in all players in the multiplayer game can vote Y/N if the people involved wish to manually duke it out (plus an adjustable game setting to specify the resolve criteria). Or as in the case of all of these items, a magical option to force a manual encounter/auto-resolved encounter should be included.

Controlling the length of a tactical battle: The board game Titan has a set number of turns an attack must be won by (10) or the attacking army is defeated. The defender also gets to muster an additional reinforcement unit after a certain amount of time. This tends to force the issue and give the defender an advantage by virtue of making the attacker press even in unfavorable circumstances. I like how this system works otherwise defending doesn't really have any benefit. As stated above though, I believe there should be magical "loopholes" here for increasing / decreasing the battle length, etc.

Randomization vs. Richness: I like the idea of hybridizing the random and rich. Rich for "special" locations which are part of the lore and random for generic map tile #02033. Once again, I advocate for magical manipulation of terrain.

Reply #230 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting XeronX, reply 192

Quoting Lord Cobol, reply 190
What I always held is that tactical combat should be allowed to span multiple strategic turns. Combat lasts 10 tactical turns and then 'stops' to be resumed on the next strategic turn. Both armies are pinned to the tile during "Strategic Phase".

That plus a sensible stacking limit would allow for multiple battles to develop, with re-enforcements arriving and perhaps wounded units leaving.

It would allow for tile enchantment spells to be cast depending on the progress of the battle.


 

Sounds good.  Might also help timing issues in MP.

WOW. I know I have heard this idea before in other games. But Yeah this idea I really really like. It would help the speed on the MP end while allowing for some really interesting strategic choices like putting a champion and just enough troops out to defend hime for a couple strategic turns as bait. Then Bam charging in with the real army from out of the FoW to catch them after they are engaged.

Have a point of Karma on the house

 

I like this idea as well it has potential to please both the turn based fans and continues base fans and even those of us who where hoping for a Icewind dale style combat.

Reply #231 from Elemental Forums Top

I've already out in my two cents earlier but just looking over several of the pages I can already see things have gotten into an in-depth discussion.


Ultimately, though, I think Mr. Raven's idea (whether it was his intent or not) is a good one: Separate systems for single and multi-player.

Furthermore, though, I think that if the tactical battles are /fun/ I wouldn't mind them going on forever, and if they all end artificially and in a contrived fashion I'll be a little miffed.

Options would be a good idea, leave the option open for people who like longer battles and more advanced tactics, but for people with less time and patience allow the option for forced retreat after N turns, sliders, check-boxes, etc.

Ultimately; I like being able to charge in and attack them retreat, taking no losses but slowly whittling the enemy down, and Winner Take All, as has been already emphatically stated by several, pretty much cuts your options, makes battles all about decisive clashes, and enhances the steamroller effect that makes most Strategy Games boring and un-challenging.

Still, though, some ideas; Perhaps units based on their speed and mobility have a 'retreat cost' and morale also plays into this somewhat, morale based on losses.

In this case, you could build units, like say, cavalry and skirmishers, who can retreat more effectively, and with good morale, won't 'lose' when they retreat, and these units could be used for harassment, while other less mobile units with lower morale would 'break' when they retreated, or be open to attack.

Maybe that would help keep options open, but make it so the players who don't have the time don't have to engage in long campaigns? Either way, I'd really like more in-depth combat, but I trust you guys to make something fun in the end either way.

Reply #232 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 227

No it wouldn't. I covered why back on page 4, and the main problem with it is that a defender has every reason to draw out a fight as long as possible to get the attacker morale penalties in place. That's horrible for multiplayer.

That is All True, Tridus, and well said.

The reason I say it would be "Perfect" for MP would be because I've seen them mention already that they Don't Want the MP games to Drag On Forever which many people have fears of already.

I understand those fears. I'm also looking forward to spanking some ass in MP games and I don't want them to take forever either. I also don't want to loose tactics and strategy because of "time limits" though. Your reply on Pg4 is quite insightful I think. You've always made pretty intelligent posts no matter what you're talking about and I tend to agree mostly with almost everything you say minus a few minor points.

Again though, this all leads back to the main goal of Elemental being a "Mainly Single Player" experience. They have said, multiple times, that Elemental is being made as a single-player game, but with a compelling multi-player aspect.

Should the Multi-Player be fun and intuitive? Yes :)

Should that come at a cost to the Single-Player game? Hell No!!! (and Frogboy said that won't happen)

In my opinion. I'd rather have a deep, strategical, logistical, Single Player game. They already made "Demigod" and concentrated on Multi-Player game-play. They aren't trying to do that with Elemental.

If for some reason that shifts and they decide out of the blue to say "Ok, we're now making Elemental a Mostly Multi-Player game and the Single-Player experience will be compromised to fit Multi-Player. I'd want my Money Back.

The other thing to do is for them to "compromise". In this Hypothetical situation, Frogboy would come on and say "We've Decided internally Not to make Two Separate mechanics systems for Single and Multi game-play. They will now be one in the same game-play wise.". ......

Well, if something like that was said, I would again complain that they were purposefully Dumbing It Down. As I said though, that's Hypothetical and hasn't happened.

They could also come up with some kind of compromising system that works great for BOTH single and multi play. By Default they wouldn't have to say anything like the Hypothetical Example I give above. They'd do it without telling us, but, At The Same Time they would be Going Back On Their Word and I'd call them "Liars". I KNOW they ARE NOT liars. Stardock wouldn't do that to their customers.

Reply #233 from Elemental Forums Top

So! gone through and read all of this...give or take. Ish. And I have found some questions...mainly because I really don't think we have enough information to clearly point out ideas regarding how to do tactical combat.

  • How many tiles are we looking at here? Is it like Heroes of Might and Magic where you have a handful of tiles, some units take up 1 tile, others take up a 2x2 tile, and it's not terribly hard to cross the map in one turn? Perhaps it's like Age of Wonders, with a fairly large number of tiles to move around on? Maybe even more, like Total War in tile mode? This brings me to my next question...
  • What is the estimated size for battles? in Heroes you could have one million v. one million and at the end of the day, the armies would take up the same amount of space. Size itself didn't matter...army composition did. Age of Wonders had each stack being no more than 8 units, and while you could surround an enemy and fight with up to six stacks (more in later games, like AoW 2 and Shadow Magic, especially while defending) sand generally a 'large' battle was anything more than 8 v. 8. What's the size of a battle in Elemental looking to be, on just a basic estimation?
  • Are units going to be controlled one by one, by groups (swordsman platoon 1, swordsman platoon 2, etc.) or as a whole? How will this be handled?
  • Will having competant leaders in an army matter? Will I be forced to command/control each and every battle, or can I sometimes trust in the AI leaders to guide my army to victory? Is leadership even something that's in the game, or has that been tossed out in favor of player control in each and every battle?
  • Will terrain actually matter in regards to battle? That is, if I have a forest, I'd expect units in that forest to have some measure of focused ranged attack (an archer batallion loosing a cloud of arrows, versus a mage igniting the whole tile). Will fighting on the muddy banks of a river incur a speed penalty? Crossing water have some effect? Etc. OR will it be like Age of Wonders, where I made it a point during a siege to hide my warriors behind houses and the like to prevent arrows (that is, terrain matters insofar as where something is placed, like it did in Age of Wonders)
  • How long is a universal game turn? I read some people saying that one universal game turn, on the game map, is one year. Taking this into account, it could be difficult to have retreats (oh, we fought for a bit, they fell back. We waited the remaining 11 1/2 months of the year, and fought again)
  • I remember Frogboy saying something about battles having two parts. There's a strategy phase, and (for the fact that I can't remember the details) the action phase. Basically, what this told me was thus: battle starts. Both sides input commands (you go there, you protect them, they'll shoot at him, that dragon will fly over there, my mage will throw a fireball there, etc.) press the 'finished' button. Battle happens - we leave the strategy phsae and go into the action phase. Action happens. The action phase stops. Strategize again...etc. I have two questions for this...one, how long is an action phase, how does it matter to units? That is, is one action phase one 'turn' where things happen, and when the things that are happening run out of points to make things happen (all units run out of movement points) or is an action phase a set amount of time that continues regardless (the two swordsman platoons clash, they fight. They fight some more. They keep fighting until the end of the action phase 30 seconds later).

I am going to ask that we get anything - a sketch, screenshot, drawing, diagram, movie, anything - so that we have something to go off of. In all honesty, I feel that we're totally ineffective giving information because what we're commenting on is something we all seem to have a totally different idea about.

-N

EDIT: Why do these questions matter?

  • How can we decide on random v. premade? If maps are only, say, 15 long by 7 wide, then go for premade. Not that it'll matter much. Likewise, random maps at 100 long by 100 wide would be fairly difficult to do without maps appearing, well, stupid - AoW maps were generally plains with various splotches of trees and rocks on them. And cavern maps, even in a wide cavern, would usually have some sort of a chokepoint - when no walls existed, even, in the cavern.
  • If maps are only going to have ~20 units on them, then personal strategy matters much more compared to universal strategy. Placing individual units (as they're all you have) is thus paramount, compared to placing units as a whole.
  • In short - for absolutely massive maps, I'd favor pre-made with the ability for we players to make more OR a random map generator that isn't random to the point of having one lone tree sitting around doing nothing randomly. In this, I think that it'd be safer to rely on the devs until we have more information.
  • Controlling units one by one will make for larger battles being annoying and immensely difficult (20 units/side still means that I must move 20 units/turn) while platoons make for smoother, shorter and more realistic battles.
  • Somewhat with the map comment above: if terrain matters strategically (forests hinder arrows, plains are good for horses, hills allow for enhanced charges) then massive numbers of premade maps would probably be much easier to implement, and more strategically sound, than random maps.
  • Turns themselves depend on knowledge of the system being used, knowledge that we are currently lacking. How can we decide on things like movement speed vs. combat speed? Smaller maps could allow for the strategy of having slow units movement-wise but swift attack wise, allowing for heavily armored units to really shine. Likewise, what's the point of having swift units if they charge into enemy lines at the end of the first turn and get cut to ribbons?
+1 Loading…
Reply #234 from Elemental Forums Top

* I remember Frogboy saying something about battles having two parts. There's a strategy phase, and (for the fact that I can't remember the details) the action phase. Basically, what this told me was thus: battle starts. Both sides input commands (you go there, you protect them, they'll shoot at him, that dragon will fly over there, my mage will throw a fireball there, etc.) press the 'finished' button. Battle happens - we leave the strategy phsae and go into the action phase. Action happens. The action phase stops. Strategize again...etc. I have two questions for this...one, how long is an action phase, how does it matter to units? That is, is one action phase one 'turn' where things happen, and when the things that are happening run out of points to make things happen (all units run out of movement points) or is an action phase a set amount of time that continues regardless (the two swordsman platoons clash, they fight. They fight some more. They keep fighting until the end of the action phase 30 seconds later).

I am going to ask that we get anything - a sketch, screenshot, drawing, diagram, movie, anything - so that we have something to go off of. In all honesty, I feel that we're totally ineffective giving information because what we're commenting on is something we all seem to have a totally different idea about.

-N

I would love more Info and some screenshots (eh, I would love Beta 2 right now, but the world isn't perfect)

But you really got a point.

Reply #235 from Elemental Forums Top

As far as the retreating mechanic the Total War series does this well. You flee to the edge of the map and hope the enemy does not catch up and cut you down. Now they have a slider that can be adjusted at any time to speed this up so that it won't take too long. Also with this method you can turn and attack a pursuing unit to by time for the other fleeing units.  Yes they take a hit on moral but they are still alive at the end.  Battle never get tedious or seem to long (I prefer long battles myself) But I can adjust the slider to accommodate my tastes for how fast I want the battle to go on.

Reply #236 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Raven, reply 232

Again though, this all leads back to the main goal of Elemental being a "Mainly Single Player" experience. They have said, multiple times, that Elemental is being made as a single-player game, but with a compelling multi-player aspect.

Should the Multi-Player be fun and intuitive? Yes

Should that come at a cost to the Single-Player game? Hell No!!! (and Frogboy said that won't happen)

In my opinion. I'd rather have a deep, strategical, logistical, Single Player game. They already made "Demigod" and concentrated on Multi-Player game-play. They aren't trying to do that with Elemental.

Thanks. :)

I think in this case, the issue applies both in SP and MP. Drawing out battles deliberately just to try and inflict a morale penalty is extremely troubling in MP, but it's not exactly great gameplay in SP either. If the goal is to limit the time any one tactical battle can take, there's been some great suggestions about limiting combat duration in other ways. I'll defer to them.

My concern here is that someone has to voice MP concerns. Even if SP is the main thing, if the game is going to have MP at all, it should be done well. Since I want to play with friends, those issues concern me a fair bit. :)

Reply #237 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 222

Natural morale [+modifiers & caps] should be based on a racial basis. IE. It should be easier to "scare" a goblin than a minotaur.


I disagree (I think - I'm not entirely sure what you mean). I think only the base morale should be racial. Take your average goblin and your average minotaur and yes, the goblin should scare much more easily. Take a goblin that's been through a year of elite training and fought a dozen battles, though, and he should be as difficult to scare off as almost any minotaur. So basically, natural morale should be racial, modifiers should depend on training, experience and maybe magic, and caps should be non-existent (blind devotion).

...If that's what you mean, than I agree. But your phrasing is a little confusing

So modifiers should depend on training & experience you say? I like it, since it makes sense indeed. :thumbsup:

However morale caps should be in. Each and every creature should have a "panic level" for example. While X creature will panic & try to flee once his morale goes below 25/100 [100=max], but Y creature will only panic once his morale goes below 10/100. This is what I meant on caps. I guess it's quite logical. :)

Reply #238 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting TarponCrest, reply 230

Quoting XeronX, reply 192
Quoting Lord Cobol, reply 190
What I always held is that tactical combat should be allowed to span multiple strategic turns. Combat lasts 10 tactical turns and then 'stops' to be resumed on the next strategic turn. Both armies are pinned to the tile during "Strategic Phase".

That plus a sensible stacking limit would allow for multiple battles to develop, with re-enforcements arriving and perhaps wounded units leaving.

It would allow for tile enchantment spells to be cast depending on the progress of the battle.


 

Sounds good.  Might also help timing issues in MP.

WOW. I know I have heard this idea before in other games. But Yeah this idea I really really like. It would help the speed on the MP end while allowing for some really interesting strategic choices like putting a champion and just enough troops out to defend hime for a couple strategic turns as bait. Then Bam charging in with the real army from out of the FoW to catch them after they are engaged.

Have a point of Karma on the house
 

I like this idea as well it has potential to please both the turn based fans and continues base fans and even those of us who where hoping for a Icewind dale style combat.

 

I too throw my vote into a system like this. In fact, I would suggest that all sides of the battlefield have a reinforcement zone (maybe the first 2 rows/columns of tiles on that side of the battlefield) where reinforcements will appear at the start of the battle for that strategic turn depending on which direction on the strategic map they were moved into from, in addition, any units already engaged in the battle that make it into this zone become unlocked on the strategic map and can be moved away from the tile the battle is taking place on (to represent fleeing); this of course goes against the WINNER. TAKE. ALL. concept, but I'm not a big fan of that myself.

 

regarding Randomization vs. Richness: Might I suggest another type of compromise? What if the battlefield was split into larger sub-groups of tiles (say a 30x30 battlefield split into 9 10x10 tiles where each 10x10 tile is not random and is actually designed to be rich with defensive/offensive potential, but then the battlefield itself randomly chooses 9 of these super-tiles as it's battlefield layout. That way each battlefield will almost always be unique, but have the rich design behind the components of the battlefield.

 

Reply #239 from Elemental Forums Top

after thinking about it a while, i think that both sides should have morale problems.  i think that at teh start of the battle each unit has a base morale of 100.  any bonuses increase this amount.  also a champions leadership skill affects it as well.

each combat round(each player goes once) 1 morale point is ticked off the units morale pool.  each time a unit is attacked another point is ticked off.  when the units morale drops below 75 % total they lose the 25 % combat bonus.  when they drop below 25 % they lose their normal status and gain the 25% penalty.  at 0 they go into panic mode.  each level of morale change is indicated by the color of the morale pool number.  green for bonus, black for normal, yellow for penalty, and red for panic.

now of course you would have many spells and battlefield events that could cause the drop or increase of morale to a unit.

if a unit panics it immediately starts to head for the nearest edge of the map at full speed.  if it makes it then the unit is off the battlefield.  preferably one space in the general direction it was heading.

Retreats should be in, but instead of automatically losing some units on retreat, there should be a way for the other player to halt a retreat.  such as if the player chooses to retreat then, it is announced to the other player.  then there are some options to try and halt that retreat. so as to finish them off.

Reply #241 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 237

However morale caps should be in. Each and every creature should have a "panic level" for example. While X creature will panic & try to flee once his morale goes below 25/100 [100=max], but Y creature will only panic once his morale goes below 10/100. This is what I meant on caps. I guess it's quite logical.

If we're going with a % based system, limits are needed for sure. Both at the low end (for panic level), and at the high end for bonuses. High morale is great and it giving you an effectiveness bonus is good, but you want to cap that. You don't want a situation where someone finds a way to cheese it and has 300 morale, and triple unit strength.

In fact the original numbers given in the OP are pretty good. 125% on the high end, 50% as a base panic number (modifiable of course by abilities/unit type). The difference is just that every number in between is allowed, instead of just 75/100. You can have a lot more things affect morale that way.

Reply #242 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Stmorpheus, reply 239
after thinking about it a while, i think that both sides should have morale problems.  i think that at teh start of the battle each unit has a base morale of 100.  any bonuses increase this amount.  also a champions leadership skill affects it as well.

each combat round(each player goes once) 1 morale point is ticked off the units morale pool.  each time a unit is attacked another point is ticked off.

If we're not going to have a seperate fatigue system, I love this idea. It accomplishes much the same thing by gradually wearing down armies as combat goes on.

  when the units morale drops below 75 % total they lose the 25 % combat bonus.  when they drop below 25 % they lose their normal status and gain the 25% penalty.  at 0 they go into panic mode.  each level of morale change is indicated by the color of the morale pool number.  green for bonus, black for normal, yellow for penalty, and red for panic.

now of course you would have many spells and battlefield events that could cause the drop or increase of morale to a unit.

if a unit panics it immediately starts to head for the nearest edge of the map at full speed.  if it makes it then the unit is off the battlefield.  preferably one space in the general direction it was heading.

Retreats should be in, but instead of automatically losing some units on retreat, there should be a way for the other player to halt a retreat.  such as if the player chooses to retreat then, it is announced to the other player.  then there are some options to try and halt that retreat. so as to finish them off.

I still prefer a more granular system here (ie: morale % directly modifies your effectiveness, so 82% is a valid number and worse then 85%), but some good ideas.

Reply #243 from Elemental Forums Top

(*Jumps out of the lurking spot)

Regarding Randomisation vs Richness : 

There doesn't need to be any serious compromise there, just good planning & careful allocation of resources. Pre-made maps' cost is O(N) while procedural ones are O(1). Availability of hundreds of very carefully crafted maps doesn't sound very realistic, and if there are so many resources available, I think they'd be better spent on focusing on the gameplay which is more important. A procedural system whose output is evaluated by artists, who can then feedback on programmers/designers who make the rules, makes to me the most sense, as it will be iterative and artists are an essential part of the process. Not sure if something similar was mentioned before, but anyway here's my idea : 

  • Programmers make rules for generating base maps ( a really simlple layout at this point ) based on core required strategic features (e.g. a fort or a bridge) taking into account the environment type.
  • When requested for a map, the generator :
  1.  
    1. Phase 1 : Picks an appropriate base & applies some simple random transforms / rotations. Here we don't have much procedural variation, as we need some key features to be in which don't play well with procedural rules. The simple procedural layout revolves around the core strategic features that have been carefully crafted by the designers.
    2. Phase 2 : Depending on the terrain type, applies minor modifications (terrain features, props, materials) that will add richness on the environment. Here we can go wild with all these little modifications which don't have a significant effect on the playability, but as a total they can have a significant effect on the perceived variation - props here & there, minor terrain features, etc.
  • Generate a few maps
  • Run them through the designers for playability
  • Run them through the artists for visuals/mood/atmosphere.
  • Depending on feedback, modify rules & generator
  • Rinse & repeat till everybody is happy

Also, really, no tiles for map elements, they were a necessity back then (90s). We have instances nowadays, and they're so much better.

Reply #244 from Elemental Forums Top

Looking forward to terrain being much more important.

Prefer random maps to match terrain...maybe use your pre-gen maps in dungeons or have the group meet a special NPC that takes them to a pre-made map as their guide.

Follow the MoM plan on retreats? You have an ugly chance to lose whole units...unless you want to add in the morale factor at time of retreat or some other modifier so it wasn't just a 50/50 chance. Or have a 'whisk' spell that returns all your units to town (with a limiting factor...works once per month/year/game so it doesn't get abused but still gives you a chance to save that 'special army' you dote on)...

Reply #245 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nathikal, reply 233
So! gone through and read all of this...give or take. Ish. And I have found some questions...mainly because I really don't think we have enough information to clearly point out ideas regarding how to do tactical combat.


How many tiles are we looking at here? Is it like Heroes of Might and Magic where you have a handful of tiles, some units take up 1 tile, others take up a 2x2 tile, and it's not terribly hard to cross the map in one turn? Perhaps it's like Age of Wonders, with a fairly large number of tiles to move around on? Maybe even more, like Total War in tile mode? This brings me to my next question...
What is the estimated size for battles? in Heroes you could have one million v. one million and at the end of the day, the armies would take up the same amount of space. Size itself didn't matter...army composition did. Age of Wonders had each stack being no more than 8 units, and while you could surround an enemy and fight with up to six stacks (more in later games, like AoW 2 and Shadow Magic, especially while defending) sand generally a 'large' battle was anything more than 8 v. 8. What's the size of a battle in Elemental looking to be, on just a basic estimation?
Are units going to be controlled one by one, by groups (swordsman platoon 1, swordsman platoon 2, etc.) or as a whole? How will this be handled?
Will having competant leaders in an army matter? Will I be forced to command/control each and every battle, or can I sometimes trust in the AI leaders to guide my army to victory? Is leadership even something that's in the game, or has that been tossed out in favor of player control in each and every battle?
Will terrain actually matter in regards to battle? That is, if I have a forest, I'd expect units in that forest to have some measure of focused ranged attack (an archer batallion loosing a cloud of arrows, versus a mage igniting the whole tile). Will fighting on the muddy banks of a river incur a speed penalty? Crossing water have some effect? Etc. OR will it be like Age of Wonders, where I made it a point during a siege to hide my warriors behind houses and the like to prevent arrows (that is, terrain matters insofar as where something is placed, like it did in Age of Wonders)
How long is a universal game turn? I read some people saying that one universal game turn, on the game map, is one year. Taking this into account, it could be difficult to have retreats (oh, we fought for a bit, they fell back. We waited the remaining 11 1/2 months of the year, and fought again)
I remember Frogboy saying something about battles having two parts. There's a strategy phase, and (for the fact that I can't remember the details) the action phase. Basically, what this told me was thus: battle starts. Both sides input commands (you go there, you protect them, they'll shoot at him, that dragon will fly over there, my mage will throw a fireball there, etc.) press the 'finished' button. Battle happens - we leave the strategy phsae and go into the action phase. Action happens. The action phase stops. Strategize again...etc. I have two questions for this...one, how long is an action phase, how does it matter to units? That is, is one action phase one 'turn' where things happen, and when the things that are happening run out of points to make things happen (all units run out of movement points) or is an action phase a set amount of time that continues regardless (the two swordsman platoons clash, they fight. They fight some more. They keep fighting until the end of the action phase 30 seconds later).
I am going to ask that we get anything - a sketch, screenshot, drawing, diagram, movie, anything - so that we have something to go off of. In all honesty, I feel that we're totally ineffective giving information because what we're commenting on is something we all seem to have a totally different idea about.

-N

EDIT: Why do these questions matter?


How can we decide on random v. premade? If maps are only, say, 15 long by 7 wide, then go for premade. Not that it'll matter much. Likewise, random maps at 100 long by 100 wide would be fairly difficult to do without maps appearing, well, stupid - AoW maps were generally plains with various splotches of trees and rocks on them. And cavern maps, even in a wide cavern, would usually have some sort of a chokepoint - when no walls existed, even, in the cavern.
If maps are only going to have ~20 units on them, then personal strategy matters much more compared to universal strategy. Placing individual units (as they're all you have) is thus paramount, compared to placing units as a whole.
In short - for absolutely massive maps, I'd favor pre-made with the ability for we players to make more OR a random map generator that isn't random to the point of having one lone tree sitting around doing nothing randomly. In this, I think that it'd be safer to rely on the devs until we have more information.
Controlling units one by one will make for larger battles being annoying and immensely difficult (20 units/side still means that I must move 20 units/turn) while platoons make for smoother, shorter and more realistic battles.
Somewhat with the map comment above: if terrain matters strategically (forests hinder arrows, plains are good for horses, hills allow for enhanced charges) then massive numbers of premade maps would probably be much easier to implement, and more strategically sound, than random maps.
Turns themselves depend on knowledge of the system being used, knowledge that we are currently lacking. How can we decide on things like movement speed vs. combat speed? Smaller maps could allow for the strategy of having slow units movement-wise but swift attack wise, allowing for heavily armored units to really shine. Likewise, what's the point of having swift units if they charge into enemy lines at the end of the first turn and get cut to ribbons?

Okay this post just rocks. Incrediably well written and cuts to the heart of the matter we are all dealing with.k3

And yes i think this post was so well written and formulated that it deserves a +3 :smitten:

Reply #246 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 241



Quoting Tormy-,
reply 237

However morale caps should be in. Each and every creature should have a "panic level" for example. While X creature will panic & try to flee once his morale goes below 25/100 [100=max], but Y creature will only panic once his morale goes below 10/100. This is what I meant on caps. I guess it's quite logical.


If we're going with a % based system, limits are needed for sure. Both at the low end (for panic level), and at the high end for bonuses. High morale is great and it giving you an effectiveness bonus is good, but you want to cap that. You don't want a situation where someone finds a way to cheese it and has 300 morale, and triple unit strength.

In fact the original numbers given in the OP are pretty good. 125% on the high end, 50% as a base panic number (modifiable of course by abilities/unit type). The difference is just that every number in between is allowed, instead of just 75/100. You can have a lot more things affect morale that way.

Agreed. :)

Quoting Nathikal, reply 233

Somewhat with the map comment above: if terrain matters strategically (forests hinder arrows, plains are good for horses, hills allow for enhanced charges) then massive numbers of premade maps would probably be much easier to implement, and more strategically sound, than random maps.

If the random map generator is decent enough, that should be the way to go. I don't understand your statement at all. o_O

Reply #247 from Elemental Forums Top

WINNER. TAKE. ALL:


I would like a realistic touch here, not just win/lose. And I don't like the bonus idea much. If you have to win in N turns to get a certain bonus the result will be that you WIN or LOSE AND RELOAD until you get a win... Then it is a puzzle game, not strategy, and I don't like it. 

You should of course be able to flee, but get penalties when doing so. A lost battle should not...no.. MUST not be the end of the game! You may lose control of some land but there should be a possibility to turn the war to your advantage again... That's what I miss in most strategy games, you are either winning or losing, there's nothing in between.

AoW is the best game in this regard imo, you can fight large battles and the outcome determines if you can expand your empire with a city or two, but one battle never determines the whole game.



Reply #248 from Elemental Forums Top

I think the action points concept is perhaps the most logical. I am suprised no one here is talking about Disciples 2 when looking at a perfectly designed TB battle. I think having a certain amount of raw points for action that is spent on moving and attacking makes the most sense and I really haven't seen any opposition to that affect. My thoughts are:

Having spells that can augment the amount of an army's AP (action points) would be a powerful strategy. They could also reduce the cost of certain actions, say reduce the AP needed for casting by 30% for one turn. For that matter, experience and technological refinement would have an effect, allowing me to specialize in light armor that allows both freedom of movement and more attacks per turn.

Heroes could really shine by getting significant AP boosts and maybe at high levels they could have a troop-wide rallying call.

Magical enchantment and ancient artifacts would also be very useful and interesting here.

 

On a side note, if things go the way I would see as logical, There could be some awesome spells that prevent an enemy from retreat like in Sins of a Solar Empire that I just started playing, Koshiko Cruiser FTW.

Reply #249 from Elemental Forums Top

I actually like the morale penalty idea.  However, I think it needs to have something to offset it.  I believe that is power of the army.

 

In the past,  games have said "your army is worth 100 pts,  their army is worth 3000 pts.  you have bad morale."  I don't think this is a good system other than the first time or two that unit goes out.   After that, It should be based off the point value of the size of armies your army has killed.  Like this.

 

I make a super uber archer unit that runs very fast, and equip them with quivers of unlimited ammo, and cast guardian wind on them (a spell that makes them immune to normal  missile weapons).   Because the design for this unit is very powerful, despite it's cheap point value, it's going to kick some serious butt.  I square off against a 500 point army.  The first time I do this, I have a bad morale penalty.  And rightly so...  my little guys are outnumbered 20:1 vs these guys!   They are going to be scared the first time this theory is tested!!!!

After I demolish this 500 pt unit,  My soldiers suddenly realize they are much more bad to the bone than they thought.   Now, I square off against another 500 pt army.  My troops already know they can wipe the floor with the enemy troops, and so do they.   So now I have a positive morale bonus, and they  have a negative one.   They are after all, horrified of the invulnerable flying death squad that is my country bumpkin archer unit!

Given a bit more time, and my opponents lack of ability to come up with a suitable counter, I end up wiping the floor with one of his main 5000 point armies.   Now, his troops are so petrified of my little archer unit,  that they have pretty much no morale at all.  The mere thought of my troops brings fear and dread to the hearts of anyone who opposes me.  Parents get their children to stay in bed at night by telling horror stories about the terrible flying  army who's name must not be spoken, lest they hear it, appear out of thin air, and slaughter everyone you ever knew.

This could actually help greatly with the tedium of the "mopping up" phase.   Once your troops are unbeatable,  enemy troops would figure that out.   And they would start surrendering as you approached out of fear of being murdelated.  And it would allow for attackers to take morale penalties the longer the fight goes on.  because if it is just a small annoying enemy force,  which you are having difficulty pinning down.... the morale penalty for the tiny army is going to be far more severe than the penalty for taking too long to kill said small pathetic army.

 

Reply #250 from Elemental Forums Top

Personally, I would like to see a "WEGO" system. You plot out your moves based on unit movement/action points for a time frame, say a minute. Then when you are ready, the action is realtime except you can't do anything put watch. That leads to surprises and traps on a grand scale. Also, it more accurately reflects real combat in that you can give orders, but you can't tell every unit to move exactly to a spot, shot at a particular unit. Unit experience and morale determine what happens in circumatances you cannot control for one minute. You can only watch.