Dungeon/Tactical Battle Revamp???

First I would like to ask everyone with even the slightest opinion, negative or positive, to respond to this thread. I would like to know how many others think what I am about to say would be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

Well, since the entire game, per Frogboy, is being reworked from the ground up I thought it would not be a far shot to ask to completely change how instanced battles in notable locations/dungeons occur (Brad said what is needed is not 'modification' but an entire overhaul of the fundamentals - he said something along the lines of 'modifying' a 3 out of 5 star game does not make it a 5 star game).

First I would like to say that I would like to see high-level dungeons that are not Exploration/Adventure tech spawn related but instead are there from the start and allowed to be entered at any level one chooses (Edit - this does not mean do away with the Exploration/Adventure concept, which is great, but simply in addition to it). There is always a thrill at a low level of walking by these places and anticipating what sort of loot/creatures await inside for when you are ready to tackle it. There is always the thrill of taking a stab at them even though you may be a few levels lower. There will also be a competitive edge to it, as everyone else should be thinking quite the same thing. Place them in remote , but central locations. Remote in the sense that cities cannot be built near them lest the Sovereign piles huge amounts of prestige/influence into a single city (so that people do not hug them within their borders easily). Central in the sense that paths of multiple Sovereign starting-points meet there.

Now, you may say that this is easily exploitable with the tactical battle system in its current state. I would agree - this ties into my second idea. Change the tactical battle system; make it a semi real-time combat system similar to Baldurs Gate (using Baldurs Gate as an example to show how old of technology is required for this and how easy it would be)!  Have a space-bar-pause to sort out orders for units, incorporate cool down time for spell-casting that can be manipulated via combat speed, et. al.....With this type of battle system in place, the current state of tactical battles being one wherein first attack has huge advantage would be done away with. A real time combat system would not allow for it, nor would it be so kind to a squad of glass cannons - especially if there is a combat speed multiplier that directly affects who/what has initiations and how often they engage/defend/dodge/parry, et. al...

I hope noone will critique this approach from the angle that it takes away the tactics of tactical battles. Some of the most engrossing, memorable, frustrating, ect., battles I have had in games have been on this type of engine. This type of engine is extremely difficult to exploit relative to the current one employed - 'First Turn' advantage is simply done away with and stats are the sole determinant. This type of engine also makes battles MUCH more difficult - a major problem that I see over and over again on these forums is the ease at which people get through this game - this would make most people think twice about entering a battle that was less than even for them and add much needed difficulty and depth to decision making to this aspect of Elemental. It would require a complete revamp of the statistics system as it currently stands in Elemental - an addition of myriad resistances, combat bonus....amongst other things - however I believe that Stardock is already considering that to begin with.

 

More when time permits - Tell me your thoughts.

6,494 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top

I could really do without a real-time system, semi/pausable or not.  That isn't the game I bought at all.

 

Keep in mind how horrendous that would be for multiplayer.  That sort of gameplay reduces down to twitch gameplay mechanics which are generally far more frustrating and exploitative than anything remotely resembling fun.  Keep in mind Baldur's gate was singleplayer...

 

It would be nice to be able to pick your starting locations however.  I can understand first turn going to the attacker, it makes sense.  And i can understand unfavorable placements if you are attacked.  That also makes sense.

But if i'm attacking, why the hell would I put my pioneers in front of my lord of ice and stone giant?  What kind of tactical decision was that? =p

 

Reply #2 Top

I agree that this is much more fluid in single player games, however I disagree that it is unworkable in multiplayer. I actually think it is far more workable than this current system which completely hijacks the game by making only specific units worth training. A combat system should exert zero influence on the combat units being built - in this system the inverse relationship holds; a relationship that is not possible in the type of combat system I am talking about.

Simple rules can remedy the 'twitch game-play' aspect; for example, limit the amount of pauses per instanced fight (in multiplayer, not single player) to some value based on the size of the armies in combat. For example, a 3 unit army would have 2 pauses, whereas a 10 unit army would have 6 (both arbitrary, just giving a conceptual example). More from the top of my head (for multiplayer): have every pause give penalties of some form to players army (morale perhaps - make it useful); limit pauses absolutely instead of relatively; auto pausing only (i.e., not under player control) every X seconds to have an evenly allocated time-frame to make new decisions; when one person pauses, it pauses the other, and when one person completes turn, a count down clock begins for the other......and on and on. Remember, most people who want to play this game multiplayer are considering it with friends or acquaintances. They want a good game, and if it comes to simply pausing it and waiting for friends in the same room as you or wherever have you to finish, I am sure most Elemental players are mature enough to have the patience. The same amount of patience is most likely required for this tactical style of battle already! The only scenario I can see where a simple straight pause way of doing things would be an issue is online play with leet gamers - not the type of crowd that Elemental people seem to roll with.

A real time (pause-able) combat system incorporates all the tactical decisions and more. The only difference is instead of watching turns go by you give all orders at once and watch them play out in real time. Could also allow for initial deployment of troops in tiles of your choosing (limited of course to specific areas for each army) in the setup of your choosing. Much more hair-pulling fun, IMO.

Reply #3 Top

If noone likes the real-time battle option, what about the request for global dungeons that are not tied to tech but are there from the start (read initial post)?

Reply #4 Top

real time multiplayer battles work pretty well in the total war games. and wasn't the whole point of having multiplayer in this game the caveat that it wouldn't be allowed to hinder the single player?

 

regardless, as much as i think big total war style battles with the addition of epic magic should be the ultimate goal of the game, i think it's better we work with what we have for the present.

 

they could at least give us the option to show all enemy moves imultaneously. watching the ai move 10 men individually is such a chore.

Reply #5 Top

Dungeons, yes. Master of magic did that. They work well.

Realtime in tactical battles, no.

No, no, NO. I'm fed up with real time. It's been pushed down my throat all the time since MoM came out. With the notable exception of Age of Wonders. NO.

(Sorry for the emphasis, but this is a life-and-death question for me :p)

Reply #6 Top

I bought this game for the TBS  TURN BASED part...  There are plenty of better RTS' out there so dont even start a dialogue going that route.  But I do like the idea of Dungeons that spawn mobs in a degree of decreasing difficultly that once you can successfully navigate to the entrance you can probably succeed, albeit it should be no cake walk.  Until the dungeons are cleared, they should spawn mobs in a AOI to encourage players to deal with them either through Attrition of townsfolks or the Sov's Champs or just keeping the entrance guarded and bottled up... i.e. managing the spawns.

Neat thoughts on the TBS side... Let us see what comes... I am still frustrated and plagued however witht eh win7 64-bit OOM crashes...

Reply #7 Top

Well, I think you are exaggerating the effect that real time combat with pause options will have on the combat system. Either way, if Stardock can fix the combat system and maintain the turn based approach I dont have a problem with it - I just do not see how it will not be easily and necessarily exploitable .I think going into a multi-leveled dungeon and exploring the whole thing in real time would be a nice turn of events from the world map turn based style and would flow nicely.

I am glad that, even if most people do not like the idea of real time pause combat, most people in turn seem to like the idea of epic global dungeon spawns that are not determined through adventure/exploration research in some form.

Reply #8 Top

I just like turn based games so i can stop make a coffee,smoke a cig etc ..with no rush :grin: .

Reply #9 Top

Yes, you can do that with a pause option as well!!!! :grin: