Alleviating "First Strike"

Another idea would be to have initiative and have units take turns based on that, rather than all ove both sides taking turns.

Defensive actions such as...?

I can't think of a way to protect an army from the spells and bow attacks that are to follow.

Without larger maps and LOS / sight range rules, the attacker inevitably gets the first strike and can hit everything on the whole map.  The defender may be able to spread out the units so "fewer" get hit with the first AE but will still take a pounding anyway and probably lose all channelers guaranteed.

It is possible to create weapons that grant defensive abilities (The can be set to grant a spell as a special ability, then just give it 0 mane cost), they just have not done so yet.

This is where it needs to go.  Of course attacking armies would get a slight bonus to their initiative. Of course it would have to be small enough so that fast units(thieves /small creatures) would be able to react before the attacker. Also higher level spells need to take time to cast giving the defender time to counter with a defensive spell or focusing attacks on the spellcaster.  It would be implemented with an initiative timer in the top corner(somewhat like grandia 3 if anybody knows that one)  where you can see when units actions will take place.  Low level spells would still be instantaneous.  I also think that counterattacks should be removed except as a special ability or spell.  This makes more sense in an initiative based system since your initiative is your ability to make any move and if you don't have it how could you counterattack if still recovering from the last attack or are too slow compared to the attacker.  Of course heavy armor and weapons would drop you initiative score which will encourage people to use lower level lighter armor for some of their units(bowmen etc.) late game.

In v1.09, we are looking at letting the defenders go first. This isn't a "Final" solution to it but it's a fairly straight forward change that alleviates this a bit.

You think people are complaining now about the teleport/economy issues..

 

This won't help.

This will be completely game breaking.   No one will want to be an attacker for fear that their army will be wiped out before a turn..  Think of it in multiplayer terms where every game is an automatic stalemate cause no one wants to be the attacker.

*shrug*  Make it random as a quick fix.

Either side should have an equal chance to get wiped out without a chance to strike back. =P

 

Shield wall to harden a unit against ranged attacks?

More defensive terrain to hide behind (including city defensive features)?

brace for charge when equipped with polearm/spear?

 

this would be a decent quick fix.  maybe have a number roll at the beginning of battle to determine who goes first... 1-10 for defensive army and 3-10 for the offensive so that attacking armies still have a slightly better chance to hit first.

Another thing that would help against first strike would be to give both sides a "planning" phase before the battle begins so they can arrange their units.

Defender-first wouldn't necessarily lead to stalemate, it would (I think/hope) make us pick our targets better and pay more attention to the defense and magic-resistance of our main attack forces.  Hit some weak non-magic forces 1st to gain exp.  Cast "protect friend" to give critical units some magic protection.  Buy some armor.  Then go after foes with some magic power.  Ought to work.

Might help a bit if they cut back a bit on the area spells though.

Would probably help A LOT if they implemented a "raise dead" spell you whoever got zapped on turn one wouldn't be lost forever if you won.  Or maybe let us buy an "amulet of resurrection".  I'm halfway tempted to start a new thread to push for these.

Defender 1st worked fine in MOM, just had to be careful about sending a lone flying superhero to attack a nature node with spiders who could web you and those big wrym critters who could tunnel-teleport to kill you 1st turn.  And don't send valuable heroes without good magic resistance to attack storm giants with that big magic ranged attack.  Do your homework and know your weaknesses.

But an initiative-based system like HOMM 5 would probably still be better, once they have time to do it.

Some good points there as well.  I'll talk to the team about this. 

Historically, the way to counter archers was cavalry and, to a lesser extent, cover.  I don't think it unreasonable that archers should be lethal to infantry at long range.  Playing with the starting distances between forces, and the ranges of bows/catapults might provide interesting opportunities, particularly in combination with stealthed units and ambushes.  Like if a unit moves into a stealthed unit, the stealthed unit has surprise and can choose what range to start the battle.  Plus, those treestumps/boulders on the tactical map could provide enhanced cover (I know there's already a terrain bonus, but maybe a boost beyond that for specific obstacles?  And a significant penalty for archers attacking moving cavalry would accurately model why cavalry was deadly to archers caught in the open. 

Right now, basically just moving and buffing.  Your channelers could cast non-offensive spells such as haste, so you'd at least get SOMETHING out of them before they get nuked. Certainly the addition of even a handful of defensive abilities would work wonders.

I don't think that making the defenders go first or making it random would work.  This still leaves the problem that whoever goes first has a massive advantage, and if channelers are involved it's probably an automatic win for whoever goes first.  My proposal would help matters in that the defender would get the first move, and the attacker would get the first attack.  This still advantages the attacker, but not by as much.

The problem is that one archer can pick off a group of infantry before they even close the distance, and they can pick off targets of opportunity with impunity.  That's a pretty big problem.  I don't know what needs to be done about archery, but I think the most important thing is to get some half-decent melee gear into the early-game.  If that can't be done, bows need to be pushed further up the tech tree, because the stuff they're equivalent to right now is many orders weaker.  Buffing shields (they're kinda pathetic right now) would be an excellent place to start. 

If the side that goes first only got half their actions points the first round, it would make it a little more fair. I think the core problem is that you can burn through so many spells a turn. Being able to cast chain lightning 4 times in a turn is pretty unfair. Casting times probably need to vary per spell and be much longer, on the whole.

There is one word which i have seen used in some older and forgotten games - the word is 'overwatch'.  If a unit has movement points left over when its turn ends, it can use the left over movement to perform overwatch actions during the enemy turn - Overwatch actions are triggered by enemy actions during the enemies turn.

I have seen games that allow the player to specify what overwatch moves their units should make.

Units with movement points left over may have an icon that glows so the player knows that unit (theirs or the enemy) can potentially react.

Usually overwatch is available for ranged units only, and those ranged units can fire (in response to enemy actions during the enemies turn) until they have used up all the left over movement points from the turn before. Some fast melee units may also be activated in overwatch and charge out and attack enemy units that approach during the enemies turn.

I have even seen overwatch moves that can work not only during the opponents turn but also during the current turn! So for example, you move a melee unit forward which is then overwatch fired apon by the enemy ranged units and then your ranged units fire on those ranged units in an overwach counter response! It almost looks like real time combat!!!

 

Does any of the above sound like it could work in Elemental?

 

 

The idea of initiative for each unit would be wonderful. 

 

The overwatch concept sounds like it would add a great deal to tactical decisions - like it.  Also, saving some cavs to opportunity charge?

 

Also, the idea that higher level spells take progressivly (longer / more action points) to cast.  And the caster's current level (how many above cast spell level) may shorten cast time for that spell? 

Another idea to alleviate first strike might be to have each side (AI issue here) give general orders to its units, (dig in and defend, assault, volley approaching units, etc.).   and only allow user it change orders according to a frequency based on initiative,battle leadership skills, experience with leading battles, etc.   If Multi-user game sever gets implemented, this would also be a handy way to do battles.  

 

basically, the idea is that in the heat of battle, commanders and soldirers don't always do the thing that is precisely the 'best' (given the user's omnipresence in the tac screen).  Soldiers took orders from commanders. They charged, dug in to defend, etc.   BTW, missing from the weapons for footsoldiers are polearms, very good anti mounted weapons.  Implementing such orders, etc.,  Mounted units could be ordered to charge full out, or wait for enemy to close distance, and then charge.  The possibilities for batlefield tactics, decisions, etc, would be greatly enhanced.  The opportunity for planning enhanced.  Someone with a better battle plan might carry the field against a stronger opponent.  One additional thing, add facing to units, making side /and/or rear attacks to eithe rcause more damage, and/or slow the defenders response time...

 

Overall, the "soverign" might give general direction to the battlefield commander:  hold at all costs - army digs in and wont / cant withdraw.  Delay (skirmish) / fighting retreat...   and Run for your lives.

 

BTW, a commander with good rallying ablity maight be able to "recover" some of the troops that 'died' in a battle.  Here I am assuming that some of the 'battle deaths' are actually some soldiers 'hiding out' etc. and not fighting anymore. 

It would be nice to have a Tower Shield as equipment. It would reduce attacking potential by combat speed or attack reduction, but have extra protection against arrows. Shields in general should be good against arrows.

There is some pretty compelling ideas happening in this thread. If we got a well executed set of initiative and "response" abilities I think it would create a VERY robust tactical experience without bogging down the interface or speed of combat much.

 

Some refinements upon above ideas;

 

Initiative - I'm a little uncertain whether i prefer a "defender first" or a "movement by unit initiative" approach, but in my head, the unit initiative approach adds a great deal of options. Sword-bearing units will act before hammer bearing units, Cavalry units act before non-mounted ones, units with more experience act before "greener" units, etc. Everyone gets one turn before anyone gets a second.

 

Alternately, a system in which units have a speed value could also be interesting. All units move on the first "turn", then act again every <Initiative Value> turns. A really fast unit might have an initiative value of <5>, which means that every 5 initiative steps, it takes an action. A unit with an initiative of <8> would only get to act every 8th step, which means that the <5> gets 3 moves for every 2 of the <8> unit.

 

"Overwatch" Abilities - I would be quite excited about these. Allowing units to give up their entire action in order to act responsively would be quite cool. Pikemen bracing for a cavalry charge, Archers attacking units as they move in to attack another unit in melee, swordsmen getting a "first strike" against an oncoming melee unit. These would definitely take some fidgeting to get right, and would certainly require some form of UI notification for players (so we know easily which units are braced for response). In order to make these things work right, though, you would want to have a more fluid initiative system (such as the <Initiative Value> system I discussed above so that units hold their actions, and then get their initiative order reset upon acting.

 

The one thing that I would REALLY emphasize as critical for the combat update is for melee damages to be calculated and applied for both sides simultaneously. That will make the combats more realistic (which is what we need for a fantasy game, right?), and make it less possible to really "game" the system, making the high defense units kill the first few models while taking low damage, and then have the high damage low armor units finish them off with no casualties. It's silly.

FWIW, what I think of asl "initative-based" is more like Malsqueek's "speed value" system than his "unit initiative approach".  My model in this is HOMM5, though I wouldn't take it as a model for much else.

Overwatch abilities would certainly be cool/fun.

 

Initiative based movement would probably be better than Army 1 vs Army 2.

 

I still say that Initiative/Combat Speed ... should be separate from "run speed" ... to separate DPS from distance traveled.

 

For instance, a Knight could have an initiative of 5 and a Run Speed of 5 ...

while a Thief could have an initiative of 10 and a Run Speed of 2.

 

The Thief moves twice as often as the knight does ... however for each move, the theif can run a max of 2 squares, and the Knight can run a max of 5 squares (heavy cavalry)

 

Edit: I don't think we will even need "automatic counter attacks (in melee)" if we use Initiative + Overwatch ...

because with Overwatch, we could save Initiative/AP  for an overwatch "counterattack"

Also, for mounted and ranged units, we could have attack/charge first person to come within range (for saving Initiative/ AP)

 

In that way, a planned defensive line would give a finite "counter" to an opponent's moves ... while attacking someone under equal conditions does not inspire a counter. A unit wouldn't be able to "save" any more than its full initiative. And a unit cannot possess any more than its full initiative at any one time.

I favor an initative system for unit movement order in battle:

Initiative = Random Factor (D20) + Experience Factor + Leadership Factor + (Talent: Tactician)

Random Factor = d20

Experience Factor = Veteran +2 bonus, Elite +4 bonus

Leadership Factor = Wisdom of the highest level sovereign or champion in an army gives all units in that army a bonus or penalty

• Wisdom <9 = -1 initiative penalty
• Wisdom 10 = 0 initiative bonus
• Wisdom 15 = +1 initiative bonus
• Wisdom 20 = +2 initiative bonus

Example - the elite unit has a greater chance, but not a guaranteed chance, of moving first in battle 

• Elite Unit = D20 + 4 (Elite Training Bonus) + 1 (Army Leader Bonus) = d20+5
• Peasant = D20 + 0 (no training bonus) + 1 (Army Leader Bonus) = d20+1

Sovereign Talent: Tactician - +1 initiative bonus to units in tactical combat with their sovereign (i.e. this bonus only affects one army - the army commanded by the sovereign). 

I'm:
In favor of an initiative role per unit

In favor of modifiers to the initiative:
    Equipment (heavy armor gotta slow you down!)
    Speed
    Spells and/or Magic items
    Leadership
    Special Attributes (morale?)

In favor of some kind of Stealth ability, it would really spice up the combat and make a good unit differentiation. Maybe Stealth units can be placed on the map in a pre-combat phase. This allows ambushes and surprises the current system doesn't allow, kind of giving that 'oh no' effect when your champion is immediately at risk.

In favor of Resistance attribute, which is quite a bit higher on Champions.  If not Resistance, more HP to balance Champions, or armor deducting from direct damage spells.  Their combat experience, abilities and Resistance should help them survive some magical attacks.

In favor of a penalty for archers to hit units who have just moved at full movement rate. It is harder to visualize in a TBS, but those units that are running toward the enemy don't really stop for the enemy's archers. So, if a unit moves full movement give a -3 to archers to hit.

In favor of a system like GURPS, cuz it had a lot of this stuff down pat.