Taking Tactical Battles back to square one

from Elemental Forums

Tactical battles in Elemental are really quite a mess. Sure you can tweak weapon settings etc but at the end of the day they are very deeply flawed. To correct them it will require a lot of evaluating concepts that are core to the whole game. But if this process isn't done then Elemental will always be a poor substitute for the old fantasy TBS games we all love.

Current Situation

Elemental tactical battles are fought on a grid of large sized tiles.

Why?

  • So that any size unit will fit in them.
  • Because that's what GalCiv had?

Issues with this

  • Looks ridiculous when you have a single unit in a full square.
  • Means the scale of the tactical battles maps have to be small to cater for the large squares.
  • Because the scale of the map needs to be small, the movement and action point allowance also needs to be small.
  • Because the movement allowance is small, the difference of being able to move one or two squares is enormous as opposed to 8 vs 10 squares in other games.

Suggestions

  • Make tiles much smaller.
  • Make movement allowances less dramatic and allow units to move an average of say 8 of the smaller tiles per phase.
  • Get rid of the whole concept of parties, squads etc and just allow simple abstraction like other tile-based TBS games.
  • If a unit is large, allow it take 2x1 or 2x2 of the small tiles.

Current Situation

All combat uses a simple (str + weapon) - (dex + armour + terrain) formula.

Why?

  • To keep things simple.
  • So that the tactical battles are manageable for entry level players.
  • So that the coding is kept simple and manageable.

Issues with this

  • No differentiation between weapon types (blunt and sharp).
  • No differentiation between spells and ranged weapons.
  • No differentiation between armour types other than defense. Eg. Archers wearing plate armour isn't a good idea.
  • If weapon choices mean nothing in TB, why split them in the tech tree?
  • If the only factor worth considering for weapons is attack strength then why not just simplify the whole weapon equipment table?

Suggestions

  • Make weapon choice meaningful.
  • Make a new classification called Polearms as an example. Polearms give defensive bonuses.
  • Make sharp vs impact weapons mean something.
  • Look at nearly every other game to see how they handled this. Particularly look at the game Battle of Wesnoth. For a free game they really nailed the difference between magics and melee - and different types of magic and melee - in a very simple format.
  • As has been mentioned, use more than a single random number for determining attacks and defence.

Current Situation

Battle all comes down to who gets the first attack (Glass canons as it has been termed here in the forums).

Why?

  • Because movement allowance doesn't allow posturing with large tiles (see above).
  • Because attack is often way more than defence or health.

Issues with this

  • No strategic element other than to hit and kite.
  • Loses fun factor very quickly.

Suggestions

  • Test morale when a unit approaches an enemy unit for the first time to see if they get a 'charge' hit on the enemy. (A hit where there is no retaliation). This will make approaching first more attractive.
  • If a unit tries to disengage all touching units test against their morale to see if they get a free hit.
  • If a unit disengages, have them test their morale to see if they can. Fail means they stay in place. Opposite units still get their free shot even though the unit doesn't move.
  • Look at how the game Fields of Glory has made their battles quick and fun using table-top rules.

Current Situation

Certain parts of the terrain give defensive bonuses.

Why?

  • To try and make the tactical maps more meaningful.

Issues with this

  • There is no easy way to see them.
  • The large scale tiles make them macro rather than defensive points.

Suggestions

  • Make the different terrain clearly identifiable (icon, colour code, etc).
  • If this is applied with much smaller tile scale it could lead to much more interesting battles - but only if the game becomes more about strategy and less about process.

Current Situation

Can't switch between ranged and melee.
Ranged units will keep firing even when attacked by melee troops

Why?

  • Because it is simple that way.

Issues with this

  • No reason to really protect your missile and magic troops.

Suggestions

  • Don't allow missile troops to fire if next to an enemy. Or fire at half attack strength.
  • Allow them half strength reaction when attacked melee

I've run out of time and was going to discuss:

  • Fog of war.
  • Neighbour morale bonus and penalties.
  • Shouldn't be able to shoot through obstacles.
  • Hexes.
  • Initial placements.
  • Maximum number of combatants.

 

 

Finally, I really wanted to focus on the negatives created by the large tiles (which I mentioned first). Really Stardock, time to turn your thinking on its head. Making things fit a weak idea only leads to a weak execution. By all means keep it simple, but also keep it strategic.

Thanks for reading. :)

elemental
3,976 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

"Get rid of the whole concept of parties, squads etc and just allow simple abstraction like other tile-based TBS games."

Please don't.

 

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

I always find the inability of archers to counter attacked a fairly good reason to protect them myself.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

I was just about to make pretty much the same post (@OP), but since you beat me too it, I don't have to bother. I agree with most of the things you're saying though. Not getting rid of parties, though.

One thing that you didn't mention that I think could make a big positive impact is in movement. Right now, the game seems to be based around a movement of 1 or 2. This should be at least doubled. Standard movement should be 5 squares, with cavalry getting 8-10 and things like catapults getting only 2 or 3. This can open up a lot of tactical depth in combat. If you also go a step forward and add positioning bonuses (more damage if attacking from the side/behind) then there's even more to it.

That, along with changing the way the grids are (I agree exactly with the OP, the grid should be smaller with larger units taking up more squares), could help make tactical combat a lot more interesting than the fairly monotonous affair it is today. It could also make it feel like it's going faster, even if it's all balanced out so it's actually taking the same amount of time.

With these two changes, you start having situations where frontage matters. That big dragon is powerful, but it also takes up a lot of space, so you can both have more people attacking at the same time, and it can have a harder time maneuvering to get in a good striking range of important enemy units.

I realize that changing the way the grid works could be expensive from a dev standpoint, but I think it's important to salvage tactical combat. It does seem on the level of a feature that could show up in that free expansion, though...

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

i agree it looks ridiculous and the squares are far too large. however i'm a realist and don't expect that fundamental a redesign. your point about terrain is a good one though: it's something i've never even thought about in game: it's that well hidden.

the best i'm hoping for is a redesign of combat speed (which i will be creating a rant about very shortly), better battlefields with more space to maneuvre, and mechanics that make maneuvering worth while (ie, no counter attacking units that flank you).

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Dude, this is way overboard.  I agree the tactical system is too simple and easy to manipulate the AI. And I agree it can't be fixed only by modding. But this post is ridiculous.  If you dislike this much about the game, go design your own.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

I would get rid completely of combat speed. Just do something simpler like DnD or Fire Emblem: units can move and make an action (attack, cast, use item,...), and that's it. Some units may "multi-attack" with one attack action (like dragons, high level fighters,...).

Slow weapons are two handed, do more damage, can't carry shields. Fast weapons are one-handed, can be double wielded or wielded with shield.

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Anyone remember Lords of Magic?    OMG that was the ultimate pathetic attempt at integrating tactical combat and strategy.  

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Big, reply 5
Dude, this is way overboard.  I agree the tactical system is too simple and easy to manipulate the AI. And I agree it can't be fixed only by modding. But this post is ridiculous.  If you dislike this much about the game, go design your own.
End of Big's quote

Why is pointing out the perceived shortcomings of the current implementation or suggestions on how to remedy them ridiculous?

While the odds that his proposed remedies will be implemented are small, it is the sort of constructive cricitism that many developers like: "What don't I like and why don't I like it from a gameplay perspective"; Even if they don't end up doing anything about the issues raised in the game that causes them to be raised, it can be valuable feedback to bring forward to new development projects.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

i Definitely agree that advantages to flanking and rear attacks, as well as free attacks on withdrawal, were an essential part of any tbs that i really enjoyed, which added much of a strategic feel to the game.  That way, big units that were powerful had to be planned on how to take down, rather than the "ok, now i'll hit you....now you'll hit me" ad nauseum that we have now.