Improvements to Tactical Combat

I think SD has said that the whole tactical combat is getting overhauled. The new system is supposedly completely different to the one we have now, so I'll refrain from giving out suggestions before I know what kind of combat we're going to have.

1 thing that bugs me are ai archers.

 

as in sometimes there just isn't any point to play hide and seek. they have same or less movement points and they run when they are last unit and you move next to them.

 

it's not like they can retreat.. so why bother waste another turn or two to get to the edge of the map.. and then die anyway?

As I have mentioned before, it would be very nice to have the automatic combat button allow you to watch the combat play out and allow you to stop auto combat and give new orders or cast new spells as needed. I dont like that I have to manually control the entire fight or hit auto combat and have no control at all.

I would prefer if the ranged units could hide behind other units or obstacles. If they stand directly behind another unit, this unit should not block their line of fire.

 

I suppose it makes sense that a friendly unit would cooperate with the archer trying to get a shot, but if the unit is engaged with an enemy that might not be possible. If the archer is firing across the map and a friendly unit is directly in front of his target for example, I don't know how he could possibly avoid hitting his own. Personally I would like to see archers having to be manoeuvred into strategic firing positions, or used mainly against isolated units and at the opening of the battle for example. IRL I doubt archers were used often after the two sides had clashed in melee.

 

Definitely they should be able to hide behind obstacles, firing out while retaining a cover bonus from incoming fire.

No of course, then he would hit the friendly unit. If the ranged unit is engaged he can just aim at the unit in front of him, no problems.

This is how it works in Age of wonders. There are also bonuses for high ground and, when you aim and there's a friendly in the line of fire you get a hit chance percentage over the friendlies' head. Imo they could just copy TC from AoW and improve it, but Stardock seems to like to do things wrong first and then redo it over and over...

I would very much like this as well. Kind of to allow you to fast forward parts of battles that you are confident the AI can fight for you. It would need to have an option to disable/enable the AI to use magic, so it wouldn't waste your Mana if you don't want it to.

thing about archers are... they shoot upwards. so.. it's not inconceivable to hit the enemy with your mates closeby. just difficult if it's really close.

 

perhaps they should think about having units locked in melee. after all, the animations are there already (beat me why they want to run around facing different directions.... just to get hit!)... those you can't shoot.. but whose just standing around in the next squares you can.

 

but it'll be tricky as you have to work out flanking damage, etc, for units already engaged in melee. obviously if you kill their opponents, they'll no longer be locked.

I think there's a threshold. The farther an archer wants to send his arrow, the higher he must arc it. The higher he arcs it though, the more inaccurate it becomes. They can shoot straight in front of them if the enemy is close enough. But archers shouldn't even be allowed to use their bow if the enemy is standing next to them.

Actually that's not a bad idea. So then when you attack them, they would stay facing the direction they are facing. Calculating flanking damage would be fairly easy, and it would add a lot of depth to the combat.

How would that work if a unit is flank attacked when not locked in combat? Would they turn to face their attacker or no? What about multiple flank attacks?

I don't really want D&D rules for combat, they are actually not that great, in my opinion.  I would prefer more Final Fantasy Tactics, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Brigandine ideas of combat, than dungeons and dragons.  Or, there was a game created by Lucas Arts called "Gladius" that was pretty much all tactical combat, it was the best tactical combat in any game I have ever played, it had magic and everything, fantastic combat mechanics.

I think they can do better than AoW TC if they put their effort into it. It is a really good starting point though, and the archers line of fire with hit% was a great feature. They did all that in AOW without actual 3D terrain, just simulated with tiles. I think Elemental can do so much more.

(too bad they don't use hexes, but ah well)

I thought they were pretty similar, can you elaborate? I have never played Gladius. I had in mind a cross between AoW, FF Tactics, and Kings Bounty. Neverwinter Nights wasn't all that different except you couldn't see the grid.

They are pretty similar, actually, Gladius might be even more similar to D&D than the others, I guess the only reason that I said I don't want D&D rules is because the games I have played that used them had terrible combat, I've never played a D&D video game that didn't have horrendous combat. 

 

Gladius had 3D battle fields, heavy medium, and light warriors that worked a kind of rock-paper-scissors combat with heavy>Medium>light>Heavy, and they had a number of different characters that had magic, summoning, fireballs, etc and monsters.  Position, range, skills, flanking, terrain, were all important.  Best tactical combat ever, IMHO.

my concern is - if for now AI is horrible, any added complication to tactical combat would result in even easier (if it is possible) winning for a player ...

 

of course, everything will change if multiplayer will allow tactical combats

 

 

 

so it gets more inaccurate if something (a hill tile even) is in the way.. that's better than a ... "can't shoot".. shooting next to someone right next to you is fine as long as they aren't actually engaged in melee.. friendly fire is probably a pain... so forget it. also get rid of silly things like... suicide atk to just change someone's facing to give you more flank bonus

... well.. if they aren't locked in combat... then don't see why they can't turn to face you. for free... unless you want to add more stuff like facings after movement ... but it just gets cumbersome. complicating movement points is unnecessary.

let's say you are facing east. someone whacks you from that direction.. so you are locked in combat there and will face that direction until you kill them or disengage.... which probably would incur extra damage to you as you can't just leg it like that. so if someone else hit you in any other flank whilst you are locked,you'll still be facing east and thus taking flank damage. (probably done by lowering your stats or raising their stats)...

 

you can even have things like simultaneous atks.. you move 2 or 3 blocks into position around enemy unit and give 1 command and attack the enemy together with all of them. (yes.. that's very koei)

 

as you can see.. gets right complicated... you don't want to think about what would/should happen when you have a squad of whatever number of men locked in combat with some squad of similar number... when a dragon or some big thing comes around and give you a bash. you would think it'll squash everyone in that pile.

 

or if you have 10 men.. you get bonus for outnumbering 1x 1 man... or shouldn't get flanked penalty if facing 3x 1 men

 

pausible real time combat anyone?

If the obstacle is high enough they shouldn't be allowed to fire over it. That's where the hit% comes in.

If someone tried to pull a bow on me when I had a sword, he's probably get his arms cut off. Deciding who is 'too busy' to fight the archer could be a real pain for the design. I would just make a rule where you can use your bow at point blank if it's a rear flank attack. Either that or not at all, already most games don't allow it.

I agree that being attacking shouldn't change a unit's facing. That flank is your advantage for the whole round.

If you run towards the enemy for flanking and are beside them... oops they now get a flank against you because you're facing the way you came. Flank doesn't make sense if the units can't choose their facing. The unit should not be able to turn to his attacker, sometimes you want to face him towards a bigger threat anyway.

I completely agree with you here. I crossed it off my list cause it didn't make sense. What you describe is good.

Another great suggestion. I would love to see types of combos, or even just group attacks in general. If you have a unit surrounded by 3 units, you should be able to group attack for maximum bonus. Saves some micro-ing too.

(you could get different group attacks based on unit types, and placement around the enemy)

Ya, that's true. In games like Total War the battles get messy. There's still AOE spells in this game, just no physical from say a dragon that I know of. Might make a nice addition though.

Not sure what you're describing here.

Very doubtful

I would like to see some kind of terrain and line of sight considerations a la AoW:SM. So you could protect weak spellcaster units, need to fly or teleport to get to them etc.

I'd also like to have a smaller grid on the battlefield. Single hero units bouncing around their oversized squares to face different attackers looks silly and it makes it hard to actually know who is in which square and how close to what.

Something like...

Hero units = 1 square

Basic troops or large monsters = 2x2 squares

Huge monsters = 3x3 squares

 

that's nonsense. it's a turn based game... so until combat is joined, there's no reason why they can't do anything. it's like saying.. you can't move a unit next to someone.. because they'll chop you up. but they haven't and can't because it's not their turn to move yet! or if someone pulls a sword on you... you'll chop their arms off. you will.. when it's your turn to whack them.

 

at risk of contradicting my own point above (on it not being their turn to do anything...).. flank should have no meaning until you are actually locked into melee. imagine 1v1... walking around each other just to get a flanked 1st strike when the whole map can be seen... boring waste of time. whole idea of flanks is the concept of being locked into combat.

1 block of 10 men vs 2 block of 2 men each. the 1 block of 10 men shouldn't be flanked because they can split the square up into 2 squads of 5 men facing 2 flanks and still outnumber the 2 blocks of 2.

 

see... gets well complicated.

Between the lost combat points spent moving around back of the unit, and the Attack of Opportunity(s) made against you for strolling about in the middle of combat, I seriously doubt walking around to get flank is going to be a problem. That's something they need to bake into the design though.

You do have a point about locking a unit into combat and flank being meaningless until then, but I can't envision how you decide which unit you are locked to. What about attacking someone with a harmless unit to lock them into place, then manoeuvring your big unit behind for the coup de grace? That's just as silly, a unit would never ignore the bigger threat, they should just be able to choose their facing. That's basically the same as being "locked" whenever it isn't their turn.



I think it's perfectly reasonable to gain flanking attacks from two small units against one big one. Every played RTW or MTW? Flanking a large unit with your cavalry is one of the best tactics available, especially if you can attack both flanks at once. If you want to split your squad you send 2 squads of five, not one squad of ten. Remember the entire squad is supposed to be focusing on your target, that's what gives them the advantage.

Recently, I thought about making a thread similar in theme to this one with my own thoughts on tactical combat. In truth, I still might. Yet, I felt like I should take a moment and give some insight as to where I stand.

Any improvement to tactical combat starts with the units themselves. Any change to tactical combat, which does not serious rethink a few things about the units, simply put a band-aid on without addressing why tactical combat is less fun than it could be. A standard unit in Elemental is a faceless automaton who will never be much more than it was made to be. Some here will say, "Well, we need to allow units to upgrade their weapons and armor". Yet, this does not make really make the game more interesting, as these units merely move towards the best armor and weapons without making any one even remotely unique. Other might say, "Well, units level up and they get more HP. This makes them unique". Perhaps it gives them something resemble uniqueness, but all units level the same way as they are all inherently the same unit underneath the equipment.

At this point, one should not misunderstand me, as I am not suggesting Elemental move towards a system of pre-defined units as in AoW. In fact, I would like to see unit's level up most of their stats, but have it be based on their equipment. That is, give a unit a bow and they find their dexterity raising, or a sword and shield raising their strength and base defense. On top of this, units should be given special abilities and passive skills based on their equipment that unlock as they level. This way, your first peasant units slowly develop to the point where they enjoy good stats and a myriad of interesting skills. By changing the way that units are handled, one finds tactical combat a much more interesting endeavor, because both the units are now more differentiated and combat loses mean losing units you real effort into gaining.

On top of everything, by defining distinct level up paths, one can being to confer combat roles to units. As it stands, units can be classed into three basic categories, Weak Melee Strong Defense, Strong Melee Weaker Defense, and Ranged. Yet, as most who have played the game for a while know, Weak melee Strong defense is an inferior class to the others, and all are inferior to magical units which fill a much more diverse set of roles. These magical units, which include summons and the sovereign, can be buffers, rooters, debuffers, support units, defensive units, DoT'ers, DPS'ers and AOE'ers on top of those roles applicable to normal units. By allowing players to work with their units to promote these kinds of roles, tactical combat becomes a much more interesting back and forth where players must make real and hard tactical decisions.

 

haven't touched total war stuff since seeing shogun butcher the historical aspect of it. imagawa with lands all over the place? what?

 

the stuff about big lump of unit stay as a lump of unit forever is that it only ever happens in a game.

being in a squad should give some sort bonus - for the training in acting as a unit as opposed to a bunch of random joes who don't know how to fight together. nothing huge... but a bit more than just you get to whack 8 times.

 

though... if it's like 1 man vs 8 men... you would actually wonder how that works... 8 people darting in and out to chop the 1 man? they surround him, despite the screen not showing it that way? the browser game battlemaster has a concept of overkill. basically means, you can only fit so many people to attack a particular unit, depending on its size... eg.. 10 men vs 1 man.. you can probably stick 2 or 3 people side by side.. if it's like a dragon, you can fit a couple of hundred maybe. but combat there is pretty much 1 dimensional (ie.. 1 axis)

 

so you could conceivably imagine there's an overkill counter somewhere that allows certain number of men to attack a particular unit. but then you wonder why on earth your 10 men won't just split themselves up to surround the poor bastard. if they happen to be the only units in the battle.

 

hence the stuff about pausible realtime/simultaneous turns so you hide all the annoying detailed stuff that doesn't fit and it'll seem to work a lot better.. gets rid of grids too. (it's still there... just a lot smaller and invisible!)

 

as i said. too bloody complicated. come to think of it... sounds a lot like the stuff that got ditched in beta, from what i've read (i didn't play beta)  not so much improvement... but like a complete overhaul into a different game.

 

I agree that many changes need to be made along the lines that you have suggested. I tried to keep the focus narrow for this thread, limiting to just the actual dynamics of TC without getting into the units. I know everything is connected to everything else so it's hard to know when to start or stop, I've been holding my tongue about a few things as well. If you want to start a thread about unit/equipment balance I would be happy to weigh in with some suggestions.