RE: Initiative > Movement and Armor > First Strike

Being encumbered (armored) does not mean a unit reacts slower when talking about unit movement. 

Example: Knight in Armor sees peasant and he instinctively charges - he has the initiative - and this is not affected by his armor (encumbrance). That said, the knight can not move as fast or as far as an unarmored peasant during a comparable movement period.

Armor (encumbrance) and your weapon strike range (length) should affect your chance to make a first strike during actual combat. An unarmored peasant may be able strike first with a spear when attacking a knight in plate-mail armed with a dagger. 

Though the knight may have the initiative in terms of unit movement - the peasant with his longer spear may be able to strike first when both units meet to engage in combat.

Thus:

1. Initiative controls when a unit moves.

2. Armor & Mount affects movement points (i.e. Heavy Plate moves 2 tiles. Leather, Chainmail & Magical Plate moves 3 tiles, Mount Moves 4 tiles)

3. Armor & Weapons Strike Range (i.e. Dagger vs Longsword vs Spear vs Polearm) affect chance to strike first during actual combat.

Those are some good points, Edwin.

For the sake of gameplay, however, I think that it would serve better for the vast majority of weapons to strike at the same time, and have "first strike" as a trained ability which increases the value (and therefore cost) of the unit.

Certainly require those units with first strike to be armed with a certain selection of weapons; I mean striking first with a hammer when your opponent has a Poleax is just silly.

Hello Frogboy, et all.  May i suggest this relativly simple adjustment to the battle screen, changing it from a one side moves, then the other, to a round system.  Following that I have added some other items to flesh out -enhance the round system.

Tactical Battles

Current system uses the ‘combat speed’ of the unit to determine its APs allotment.  One side acts, then the other.  Repeat until only one side remains on tactical field.  Side that acts first has immense advantage.

First change:  Determine APs based on the unit’s movement. Higher movement = more APs.

Now use the units ‘combat speed’ and change it to ‘initiative.’  (Actually, can leave the ‘label’ alone if you want…just change its function to initiative in the tac screen)

Finally, change the combat acting queue to be unit specific, not ‘side’ specific.  Now assign every unit (of both sides) a place in the combat acting queue.  Ties are decided in favor of the unit currently having more APs. 

Each unit now is given commands when its ‘turn to act’ comes up in the combat acting queue.  When the last unit in the current queue ‘acts,’ the round is over.  All units (except those ‘frozen, etc.) are now assigned a fresh set of APs to use.  The number of APs is based on their respective current initiative.  The PC now assigns all units a place in the next ‘combat acting queue.  Rinse, repeat.

Initiative per unit – not side.  Action points refer to how much a unit can do (already in game).  Initiative refers to when it can expend its APs.

This, all by itself, would remove the horrible advantage given to whichever “side” ‘moves (uses all its action points) first. 

Definitions of words/concepts:

APs = action points. 

Act = unit uses its APs to move/attack/fortify/cast. (User may now give it commands)

Initiative = units current ‘combat speed’ (as in current code)

Round = completing one combat action queue.

Combat action queue = the order/ sequence in which each unit of either side is assigned to act. Each unit ‘acts when its turn comes up in the combat action queue.

Initiative = determines where in the ‘combat action queue’ each unit is placed: highest initiative first, lowest initiative last, etc. Ties in the sequence are resolved in favor of unit with more APs, and if APs are =, then a random roll.

Immediate commands: (unit expends its APs immediately)

Move, melee, volley, cast, fortify.

Next design steps:

ALL UNITS: Reduce the strength of units that have zero AP’s remaining.  (say 10%?)  Defenders should have an advantage, just not the all or nothing of the current system.

ARCHERS: Redesign archers so that as range increases, the attack strength of the volley decreases.

Create various types of bows with various strengths and ranges.  Give archers a sight range increase if on higher ground then their target.

CONDITIONAL COMMANDS:

“Round” refers to when all units, both sides have, as permitted by each unit’s initiative, either expend their APs obeying an immediate command or have been given conditional commands. 

Immediate commands: (expends units APs immediately)

Move, melee, volley, cast, fortify.  (Already in game)  

Conditional commands are assigned to units so that they don’t use their APs immediately.  The APs are stored in the unit (for the duration of current round) and used to act (implement/do) the conditional commands currently given the unit.  Unit waits and responds to actions of enemy units.  APs are not, however, accumulated from one round to the next.  Once the round is over (all units of all sides have acted), any unused APs are gone.  The unit used its time doing the conditional command.  It may have acted in response to enemy actions, or it may have waited for an opportunity that did not happen.

Suggested conditional commands: Once unit expends its APs, it will only defend.

Close and Melee = engage if enemy approaches within x (trigger) distance.  X is assigned per unit, 1,2,3,4, as part of conditional command.  When triggered, the unit immediately moves towards E and melee attacks.  ((so, some units with an enhanced ‘counterattck’ would just defend, while units with enhanced attack strength would move towards E and attempt to attack first.))

Volley engage = archers volley at E if it gets within x distance.  X may be assigned per unit, 1,2,3,4,5.

Counter volley = archers volley against archer unit that just attacked it.

MAGIC USERS: Redesign MU (magic users) so that as spell levels increase, so does the related casting times.   Also, the number of levels the caster is above the actual spell being cast reduces casting time of that spell.  The following is illustrative.  I really don’t know what percentages, etc. would be effective.  However, consider the pace of the battle given the above ‘round’ system…  Developers decide percentage, AP cost, etc… [or allow user to modify these in a game customize input page.]

Level 1 MU casts level 1 spell = uses 100% of base cast time.

Level 2 MU casts level 1 spell = uses   90% of base cast time.

Level 10 MU casts level 1 spell= use   10% of base cast time.

Level 10 MU casts level 5 spell= use   50% of base cast time.

Each 10% of MU time consumes an AP.  So, some spells take a long time to cast – perhaps the MU will stand and work on casting a powerful spell while the troops go through several rounds of movement.  Interesting?

BTW, i did post this oneother place, before i found this more appropriate place.  Sorry for the double post.

I like the idea of whomever going first only getting half of their action points on the first turn (be it attacker or defender).

Something else that might be implementable on the short term would be to allow ANY unit that is attacked (be it ranged or melee) to immediately conduct one counterattack, up to their counterattack allotment.  This way, if an archer or channeler is targetted, but not destroyed, they can immediately counterattack 'at range'.

Also, you could allow melee units that are attacked at range to move 1 square towards the attacker as their 'counterattack'.  This would use up 1 or 2 'counterattacks', depending on what is deemed 'balanced'.

In the case of spells that target multiple squares, perhaps only one of the surviving units should be allowed to counterattack?  Not sure what would be best here.

This would make targetting channelers a little more risky...

This also got me thinking.  If some 'instant' defensive spells were implemented, such as deflection or spell negation, this might make things a little more interesting... Deflection would add 'x' value to the players defense, and cost mana each time the player was hit, for as long as the spell was active.  Negation would work similarly.  That's a topic for another thread though.

Tactical Battles

Current system uses the ‘combat speed’ of the unit to determine its APs allotment.  One side acts, then the other.  Repeat until only one side remains on tactical field.  Side that acts first has immense advantage.

First change:  Determine APs based on the unit’s movement. Higher movement = more APs.

Now use the units ‘combat speed’ and change it to ‘initiative.’  (Actually, can leave the ‘label’ alone if you want…just change its function to initiative in the tac screen)

Finally, change the combat acting queue to be unit specific, not ‘side’ specific.  Now assign every unit (of both sides) a place in the combat acting queue.  Ties are decided in favor of the unit currently having more APs. 

Each unit now is given commands when its ‘turn to act’ comes up in the combat acting queue.  When the last unit in the current queue ‘acts,’ the round is over.  All units (except those ‘frozen, etc.) are now assigned a fresh set of APs to use.  The number of APs is based on their respective current initiative.  The PC now assigns all units a place in the next ‘combat acting queue.  Rinse, repeat.

Initiative per unit – not side.  Action points refer to how much a unit can do (already in game).  Initiative refers to when it can expend its APs.

This, all by itself, would remove the horrible advantage given to whichever “side” ‘moves (uses all its action points) first. 

Definitions of words/concepts:

APs = action points. 

Act = unit uses its APs to move/attack/fortify/cast. (User may now give it commands)

Initiative = units current ‘combat speed’ (as in current code)

Round = completing one combat action queue.

Combat action queue = the order/ sequence in which each unit of either side is assigned to act. Each unit ‘acts when its turn comes up in the combat action queue.

Initiative = determines where in the ‘combat action queue’ each unit is placed: highest initiative first, lowest initiative last, etc. Ties in the sequence are resolved in favor of unit with more APs, and if APs are =, then a random roll.

Immediate commands: (unit expends its APs immediately)

Move, melee, volley, cast, fortify.

Next design steps:

ALL UNITS: Reduce the strength of units that have zero AP’s remaining.  (say 10%?)  Defenders should have an advantage, just not the all or nothing of the current system.

ARCHERS: Redesign archers so that as range increases, the attack strength of the volley decreases.

Create various types of bows with various strengths and ranges.  Give archers a sight range increase if on higher ground then their target.

CONDITIONAL COMMANDS:

“Round” refers to when all units, both sides have, as permitted by each unit’s initiative, either expend their APs obeying an immediate command or have been given conditional commands. 

Immediate commands: (expends units APs immediately)

Move, melee, volley, cast, fortify.  (Already in game)  

Conditional commands are assigned to units so that they don’t use their APs immediately.  The APs are stored in the unit (for the duration of current round) and used to act (implement/do) the conditional commands currently given the unit.  Unit waits and responds to actions of enemy units.  APs are not, however, accumulated from one round to the next.  Once the round is over (all units of all sides have acted), any unused APs are gone.  The unit used its time doing the conditional command.  It may have acted in response to enemy actions, or it may have waited for an opportunity that did not happen.

Suggested conditional commands: Once unit expends its APs, it will only defend.

Close and Melee = engage if enemy approaches within x (trigger) distance.  X is assigned per unit, 1,2,3,4, as part of conditional command.  When triggered, the unit immediately moves towards E and melee attacks.  ((so, some units with an enhanced ‘counterattck’ would just defend, while units with enhanced attack strength would move towards E and attempt to attack first.))

Volley engage = archers volley at E if it gets within x distance.  X may be assigned per unit, 1,2,3,4,5.

Counter volley = archers volley against archer unit that just attacked it.

MAGIC USERS: Redesign MU (magic users) so that as spell levels increase, so does the related casting times.   Also, the number of levels the caster is above the actual spell being cast reduces casting time of that spell.  The following is illustrative.  I really don’t know what percentages, etc. would be effective.  However, consider the pace of the battle given the above ‘round’ system…  Developers decide percentage, AP cost, etc… [or allow user to modify these in a game customize input page.]

Level 1 MU casts level 1 spell = uses 100% of base cast time.

Level 2 MU casts level 1 spell = uses   90% of base cast time.

Level 10 MU casts level 1 spell= use   10% of base cast time.

Level 10 MU casts level 5 spell= use   50% of base cast time.

Each 10% of MU time consumes an AP.  So, some spells take a long time to cast – perhaps the MU will stand and work on casting a powerful spell while the troops go through several rounds of movement.  Interesting?

In terms of Flanking attacks, I dont know if it makes more sense to give a unit sides, or to penalize its defense for having more than one of its primary sides (flat sides, not diagonal) in contact with an enemy unit.

If facing matters, then you're going to have to deal with what happens when the unit turns to counter attack a unit. In other words, you will be able to game a unit into exposing its backside to a strong unit by simply having a fast unit move up and attack it.

For ranged units, I see very little reason for a ranged attack not to require a unit to not move, and use all of its actions. I'm willing to sacrifice quite a bit of realism for the sake of a compelling tactical combat experience.

I might be good if units got a chance for a 'free hit' (that might use AP, but if so it should be optional to take the chance) whenever an enemy moves out of an adjacent square (even if it is moving into another adjacent square), making it hard them from running passed the front line a beat up on archers and spell casters. Then flanking would be going around the front line as it usually refers to in large battles.