I was going to start this post by counterpointing the previous post. But after chiding someone else on the forums recently for their emotional attachment to a stance... I realized that I have just done the same thing in these threads when it comes down to RT vs TB.

  And in all fairness it is doubley horrible on my part since as I said I had chided others for the same behavior.

So let me start with "To those who I might have offended, attacked or beltittled making my point.

I Apologize.

I have obviously gotten a little more wrapped up in this one aspect more than any other. As Raven said this is a war game and as such this particular mechanic would most probably be the make or break one.

okay now that that is out of the way.

Anyone who has read my post knows I fall into the True TB category. When I first heard about Elemental I read that is was going to be a TBS fantasy game. This sent me through the roof with joy because while there are alot of fantasy wargames on the market atm. There are almost no True TB games on the market anymore. I immediately came to these forums and did my reading and all that fun stuff and loved what I saw. The Tile based combat screenshot almost gave me an orgasm.

So I pre-ordered... 

Then later I saw that combat was to be CT. I can say my disapointment was so palpable that my neighbors could feel it. I felt like I was let down. I can find CT or RTS fantasy wargames almost anywhere. But trying to find a AAA Fantasy TB wargame is almost impossible. I still play MoO2 because of the lack of a good TB choices. The game concept was still sound. The principles behind the build were solid as ever. So I figured I would soldier on, the game still looked like it would be stunning.

Then came the announcement that the game was reverting to a Tile Based TB. OMFG I had just died and gone to heaven. Now alot of people are decidedly not for this, hell mabey I am in the minority.  And mabey.. just mabey I went a little overboard defending against the RT people...(sorry)

But one factor for the TB is that it will make this game more unique then almost everything that is out there. It is an under repersented market for us older gamers. and hopefully with the RTS engine built mabey a mod could be made to give people RT (and you can keep your smelly RT ) But I for one am looking forward to a game that breaks all the current molds, even if it is using older and mabey what some would consider outdated ideas in some parts.

Another point is favor of a TB model. Most people have said they want alot of abilities or even just a few abilities on a wide selection of units.

And while abilities on a party of 5 are manageable in a CT. If you have 30-40 units on a CT, and each of those units have spells or abilities or special attacks. Trying to manage all that while playing in CT mode is going to become a nightmare..

Especially since alot of the abilities will have to be used once you are within melee range and though the game will do turns under the hood. Multiple units joining into melee combat will not happen uniformly. By extension if one is having to pause the action everytime a unit enters melee range...wow that is going to make for a huge unmanageable amount of puasing during combat,

Where as in TB you are probably already deciding which abilities are going to be used on who during your opponents turns, which in of itself will lend to a deeper combat system more fluidly even at the price of longer combat turns.

I wouldn't worry a whole lot. In any close fight, the loser is going to think they lost due to autoresolve doing stupid things. Unless tactical battles are so slow that it isn't feasable to play with them enabled (a very real concern in multiplayer), they'll get used.

No, people remember. People have also bought the game with the ability to play multiplayer in mind. If MP isn't going to be built to be playble, 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 multiplayer" box on the feature list?

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

I argue against the entire "Winner Takes All" concept because in practice, it produces several noteworthy distortions to strategy mechanics, none of which are realistic or necessarily positive.

1. Games are prone to dragging on anyway because an attacker cannot attempt an attack unless he is absolutely certain of overwhelming advantage. This means that you will get a Trench War where two sides face off against each other in a staredown, neither side having sufficient advantage to win as the attacker. However, instead, the dragging on will now occur in silence rather an action.

2. It introduces distortions into unit values: Weaker units become disproportionately undervalued relative to their cost/effectiveness because you can no longer skirmish with them. If all battles are forced to be decisive, only units suitable for decisive battle have reason to continue existing, which cuts out a large number of unit possibilities. You can see this in Civ: Light cavalry are of little or no use in any combat because battles are generally forced to be decisive, so they will be easily destroyed, rather than being allowed to survive and fulfill their roles as skirmishing units.

3. It introduces tactical exploits where the defender intentionally runs down the clock by picking units designed to run down clocks.

4. It tends to punish the AI. AIs are not as adept at force concentration and trickery as humans are, and not being able to withdraw from a fight that has gone sour will cost the AI many more units.

In theory, it should be enough that a failed attack costs whatever strategic movement and resources were expended to conduct the attack, as well as the effort of having to extract your units from the fight. Both sides should be permitted to retreat from a fight if valid strategic conditions (available move remaining, perhaps?) are met, although it need not necessarily be easy: Walking off of the side of the map across an impenetrable red line of safety should be out: A victorious force should have the option to pursue the defeated and harry them the to death if he can!

As for randomization vs. richness, I argue: Are battlefields really RANDOM if they are, in fact, generated based on the local terrain? If every battlefield is a preset piece, even with hundreds of such battlefields, the sheer number of battles which will be fought are going to cause them to get awfully repetitive. But if each battle is fought in a terrain generated based on the actual place it is being fought, then every battle will be new and how, where, and from which direction you attack matters. With all the potential things players might do to the terrain, there could be a huge number of possible combinations.

Lol I have to wonder if any devs actually have enough time/interest to read all these wall-o-text posts. I imagine a good number of us are shouting into the wind.

On some things, probably. Continuous turns are likely not coming back no matter what we say. But on stuff like combat speed and tactical combat maps? The point of the thread was to get feedback on that stuff, so someone is reading it.

[quote="article"]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.
[/quote]

We want it all.

If the benefit of Randomization (R) over Pre-made (P) tactical maps is simply that it can more accurately reflect the terrain, then lets look to mitigate that advantage and include it as a feature of a (P) implementation.

Assuming:

You have a decision tree that determines which (P) to use under certain circumstances, including pre-dominate terrain features of a given tile in the world map.

If you make one of those decision points to be based on the pre-dominate terrain, then modders could help to create a (P) library of tactical maps, with one of the (P) map definitions based on a list of terrain types.

This allows Stardock to focus limited dev resources on a setr of (P) maps, which modders and map-makers can then use as a basis for their own versions of (P) maps.

An implementation scenario:

The game defines different terrain types.  For example, such identifiers for terrain include:

Forest

Desert

Mountain

River

And a given tile may have one or more terrain identifiers.  For example, you may have a river flowing through a forested mountain.  That tile would then have the appropriate tags [Forest][River][Mountain]

Stardock would create their base set of (P) maps, and those maps would have various combinations of such tile tags.  The game looks at those tags, and determines which (P) best matches for use as a tactical map.  If more than one map has equal relevance based on tile terrain tags, then roll the dice and pick one.

Modders can extend the Stardock provided library of (P) maps at will - as long as they have the mechanism to include a terrain tag or tags for those maps.  Players can then download those maps, add them to the appropriate custom-content subfolder, and the game then includes those maps, and uses them based on terrain tags and whatever other qualifiers are part of the decision tree used to pick a given (P) map.

Multiplayer:  I have no idea if Stardock is including a facility to DL custom content if multiplayer users don't have the same custom content.  The easy way out is to not include a given custom (P) map if all players don't have the same custom player-created map.  The hard way out is to provide the option to sync up custom content when players join an MP game.  I have no preference either way.  I will rarely play MP.

Why I think this works:

* It lets Stardock devs allocate their time to a fewer, but perhaps better looking and more detailed pre-made maps.  On the other hand, it requires Stardock to provide the hooks, in the form of terrain tags, for the map definition files.  I don't see this as being too resource-intensive, but I don't manage your dev budget.

* It lets modders directly extend the base content.  Given enough interest in map-making, you may find enough custom maps to come close to the potential assortment of (R) maps, while providing for an overall more detailed and rich map design model.

Random vs. Crafted maps - I'm for the random maps to reflect the actual terrain that you’re actually fighting on the big map. But there also should be crafted maps for certain areas as well and these should also be created by the players/modders in a USER FRIENDLY manner (no having to download a bunch of programs just to mod the map. or and please don't make the editor a pain to use like a lot of games do, User Friendly is the key)

For example lets say I create the Middle Earth World and most battles fought would be random based off the terrain they are on but there would be some places were a custom map would be called for such as the Battle of Helms Deep or the Siege of Saurmon’s (sp?) Tower.  Places like that should have the same fixed Tactical maps.

Combat Speed

The way you describe 'combat speed' only makes sense if you think of them as "action points" with different actions (movement, attack) having different costs.  For example a horseman and a footman armed with swords should not have different # of attacks per turn (or even a different speed stat).  They should be differentiated by the COST of the movement action.  For example:

Footman: 20 speed, movement cost 4 speed points per tile, attack with sword: 10 speed points per attack

Horseman: 20 speed, movement cost 2 speed points per tile, attack with sword: 10 points per attack

Footman with dagger:  20 speed, movement cost 4 speed points per tile, attack with sword: 5 speed points per attack

Footman with Heavy Full Plate: 20 speed, movement cost 5 speed points per tile

Elite Knight: 30 speed ?

In the above example horsemen move at twice the speed of footmen across the map (maximum 10 tiles vs. 5 tiles) but they attack with swords at the same rate (two attacks per turn max).  However if you equip a footman with a dagger he can attack four times per round max.  Put a Full Plate on a footman and he moves more slowly across the map.  Gain veterancy and you get more speed (AP).  This makes so much more sense.

This would not be too complicated because this would all be enumerated in the unit design screen.  A player will immediately see the consequences of giving a soldier a dagger, claymore, horse, or heavy armor so he won't have to think about this during combat.

Winner Take All

I'm against it for the same reasons already posted in this thread.  One should be able to harrass an encroaching army with light cavalry, taking out a few units before fleeing.  Also this would make it easier to split one's forces and retreat if necessary.

Random Battle Maps

You already have a random map generator for the strategic map.  It only makes sense to have a random map generator for the tactical map, taking into account the terrain present on the tile.  World generation should never get boring because of the randomness.  Tactical maps should never get boring either.  Imagine how many games of Elemental we'll be playing and how many hundreds of battles we'll fight.  If the tactical maps are pre-generated they'll get boring FAST as we discover the optimal way to play on each map.

Well said Raven, well said.

Froggie I've made a reply in this topic yesterday, but I say it again:

Do not implement this automatic morale "drop" system. Its just silly, and I think that it makes no sense. Why should the attackers start to loose morale after a period?..but we have talked about this already. Also, retreating must be allowed, this shouldn't be a question at all, but we've talked about this as well. I had to mention these once more, because these are very important things. The tactical combat system is one of the most important gameplay elements, so it must be decent enough.

 PS. Combat Speed ; Morale ; Terrain & Combined Arms -> I like these ideas. Just a side note: Natural morale [+modifiers & caps] should be based on a racial basis. IE. It should be easier to "scare" a goblin than a minotaur.

I think there are some great ideas earlier in the thread for randomization vs richness, so I'll only comment on Length of Battle.

To be successful at anything I think you first have to define success.  Here are the goals I would suggest for tactical battles although I'd be interested to hear what others think as well.  Plus i love bulleted lists...

1. # of units in a tactical battle should be fairly small so that it doesn't become micro-management hell.  I assume this will be maintained via restrictions in the economy settings

2. An entire game of elemental should be relatively quick - normal players should be able to complete a small map game in a few hours (2-4).  This means tactical battles should also be fairly quick (5 minutes avg)

3. Tactical battles should have interesting tacical decisions so that every battle is exciting and can feel different from other battles.  Terrain, movement, unique unit skills, magic should all combine to make the battles different and fun.

4. Multiplayer games with more than 2 players should not have to wait a long time while battles are being fought.  Imagine 3 players where only 2 are currently in a tactical battle.  What does the 3rd person do if the battle takes a long time?

If those are the correct goals (which they might not be) we can then start to decide how a tactical battle could fit.

A. Tactical maps should be sized so that even ground units can engage each other within 2-3 moves from the beginning of the battle. (about the size of HOMM tactical battlefields)

B. To ensure everyone can enjoy the game and not wait for a long time while tactical battles are fought I would suggest the following: When a tactical battle starts the two people fighting open the tactical screen and start to take moves.  They get 3-4 moves in "tactical time" for every 1 move in "real world time".  So they make a few moves, and then the tactical battle pauses while everyone gets to make a turn on the big world map.  This allows reinforcements to move in and impact battles, or it could even allow you to sneak around a big enemy by engaging them with a small force and while you use delaying tactics in that battle your other forces sneak behind and take a city or other defensible position from the enemy.

C. As mentioned in other threads, tactical battles should also be able to auto-resolve.  A player should be able to see what their odds are in auto-resolve (like CIV4 shows it where you see all the bonuses and negatives and then know your percentage chance of victory).  Auto-resolve should also tell you approximately how many "real world" turns it will take to complete the battle.  It may take multiple real-world turns just like a tactical battle that you play out.

Open questions:

Should units be able to stack on each other in the tactical battlefield?  Or must they all have their own space?

Should units gain experience from their individual actions in a tactical battle, or from what their entire squad did in the tactical battle?  For example, should a unit get experience when they attack another unit.  The first choice makes active units grow faster, but it also doesn't provide experience very well for support units who actually may have been the most critical unit in a battle even if they did zero damage.

Finally I agree with everyone else that said people should be able to retreat.  I think there should be strong consequences for retreating (morale, 1 round of being defenseless before being able to retreat, moving 1 spot back on the world map and potentially losing control of a key reseource, etc).  One reason I think retreating is important is for assassin type attacks.  What if one guy has his weak mage behind a bunch of pikemen.  I would like to be able to attack, engage his pikemen and use stealth skill to sneak my assasin through the battlefield and go stab his mage in the back.  Then quickly retreat before losing too many men.

- Icehawk

Frogboy et al,

Longtime listener/reader, infrequent poster here. Lots of ideas (and rants) being thrown about. I like some, don't care about a few, and think most depend entirely on your implementation.

I'm actually really curious why you've thrown out the real time aspect of the tactical battles. I can't say that I have a strong preference here, but the real time aspect definitely made me consider the game more unique. Something about the implementation must have been causing battles to be un-fun? or was there programmatic problems in achieving what you envisioned? At any rate, just curious.

FWIW -

Combat speed - This is one that completely depends on your implementation IMO. On surface, I agree with some other posters that think this should be broken out. Something like initiative (which determines who attacks 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.) and action points (where attack, defend, cast. etc. take up 'x' # to perform). Sounds like there is some conflating this concept with area of attack weapons/spells judging by your Sauron example. Thought should be given to make these distinct as much as possible I feel.

Morale - Again devil is in the details. I like your initial thoughts and some ideas tossed about, but will wait before recommending tweaks.

Terrain Randomization v. Richness - Well, I really liked the idea where these were combined and tactical maps get randomly generated for the most part while there are also some key points of interest (POI) with pre-constructed tactical maps. If this is straight-out not feasible, then I would hope some sort of compromise of these two would be possible (e.g. Mostly pre-constructed but considers major territory on main map). If internal resources/cost are a limiting factor in implementing this design, and its an either or choice, then I would vote for randomly generated.

WTA - Lots of concepts to deal with here. I'll strive for brevity and clarity.

1) I don't really like an arbitrary end to the battle in a given number of turns 'N'. Perhaps, you could implement a feature where you ask the attacker at the start of battle what type of attack they will be conducting (siege, guerrilla, regular army clash, etc.) and this determines how morale, retreating, losses, etc. are determined. Or you can ask how many turns 'N' the attacker thinks is required for their attack. Anybody looking to run a guerrilla attack enters 1 or 2 and then retreats with minimal effect to their army, siege takes long time (might be determined by supply lines), etc. Just some thoughts.

2) I think it makes more sense to allow retreating in some fashion, but perhaps penalize the attacker/defender differently. An attacker wishing to conduct guerrilla raids won't see a massive loss or his army separated at the end of battle, while a defender (if they can retreat at all) incurs heavy losses and an army dispersed at battle's end.

3) Definitely don't like the construct where heroes always escape. Don't like it either that losing a battle means your hero doesn't have a chance to withdraw (unless in a siege situation). Implementation will make or break this concept me thinks.

Combined Arms - like it.

Thresholds - like the direction, will wait for implementation. I really like the concept that you can fight some or most of a tactical battle then hit auto-resolve at any time. This lets you carry out a few key decisions like 'cast fireball' or 'mass heal' then let the computer handle the grunt moves.

Battle Length - Not sure how this maps to a TB tactical battle. Time limits make more sense in the paradigm of Real time  or multi-player battles. Since you've moved past real time, perhaps you can have players set this "battle length" at the start of a multi-player game, or set tactical battle turn time limit. If we're talking about number of turns, See WTA #1 for my only real value add idea on this.

The guy you're attacking might have a problem with that.