Tactical Combat and Special Abilities

Gratz, Kenata!

Derek - when is Xia booking his plane ticket?

I'm so Jealous!  I want to hangout with you guys!  I would be totally nice and everything! 

And yea, I agree, the tactical combat could be drastically improved with a few changes.  I like the extra abilities, and attacks, but you really need to shorten range and make units attack only once a round.  That would help with speed of combat and fun factor.  Bigger issues that would be added are ZOC which makes moving around units more difficult, this creates defense lines for your linebacker units like magesand archers, and positioning, meaning its easier to hit someone in the back than the front.  Also, some terrain features instead of just a flat board to fight on.  I will totally bring my copy of Brigandine and show you good linear combat in a fantasy tactical TBS game.

Special abilities are great but specialized equipment would also bring welcome depth. Examples:

• Spears doing extra damage against mounted units
• Grouping weapons into damage types: magical, elemental, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning.
• Grouping armors into damage resistant types: magical, elemental, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning.
• Unit visibility: let units with certain gear or traits to hide in tall grass / trees.
• etc

Also bringing more depth and consistency to the actual battle grounds would be great:

• Use specific visual indicators to represent bonuses and penalties to defense. Wall ruins, tree stumps, etc. I need to essentially mouse over every tile every battle to determine where units are getting bonuses.
• Add destructible elements to the battle ground: city wall fortifications, cover, etc.
• Add elevation tiers to the battle ground: cliffs and such where unit positions matter.

>.> I still say line of site would make things more interesting. <3

equipment with magic bonuses and diferent stats could make it more fun too

Giving users more options than they have resources would make tactical combat more interesting.  If you give a Hill Giant a smash ability with an AOE attack, that's great, but giving him that, a terrifying yell, defensive stance, moving, and normal attack makes him tactically interesting.  This forces decisions each turn, instead of there being a clear-cut optimum choice.

Oh, and daggers - sweet idea.

Line of site and initiative based turns would do a lot to make it great.

.

Many Many good suggestions here.

I completely agree that these things would be cool and would add a lot of flavor to the tactical experience, but these are not exactly necessities to making fun or engaging tactical combat. In fact, specifying damage types and resistances places additional strategy into party creation, but actually shallows the combat by further defining the results of player choices. For instance, say you have a battle between a mounted unit and a spear unit. In general, this battle should probably be skewed towards the spear unit, but it should not be won before its fought simply because one unit has x equipment and the other y. If this is the case, then why even have tactical combat. The reason why abilities make the biggest difference in tactical combat comes from the fact that the player himself must read the battle and make the best choices for his position, instead of relying on in-game mechanics to decide the fate of the battle.

offtopic

i cant se the winner for the quest contest

Yes to one attack per turn, yes to unit ZOC with Attacks of Opportunity for units leaving or moving through ZOC.

Yes to special abilities, and not "just a replacement of the old attack". I would like to see special attacks that are combination attacks requiring more than one unit in certain positions around an enemy. Also some special attacks that must be done individually, but some that must be done as part of a group.

Examples:

Shield Rush - A line of units equipped with shields may advance forward as one while pushing back the enemy line X number of spaces. Can be used to push enemy units into terrain hazards (think 300 movie).

Rain of Arrows - A special archer attack where accuracy is sacrificed for speed. Archers rapidly fire arrows into an area of effect, not accurate against individual targets but causes greater damage when firing into a crowded area. The more archers that participate in the attack the greater the effectiveness.

Roundhouse Attack - Units equipped with an axe may make an attack in all directions around them, useful when surrounded. Individual damage against a single target is reduced in exchange for greater overall targets.

Berzerk Attack - Unit gains 50% attack bonus and +2 movement for one round, while receiving 50% armour penalty for one round.

Defensive Stance - Unit can not attack but gains increased defense and improved counter attacks.

False Charge - Unit makes an attack with a 50% penalty. If attack is successful unit may move past target unit to the tile behind them. If attack is not successful it incurs a counter-attack with a 50% bonus. Risky maneuver, useful for getting out of tight situations.

Relentless Assault - If attack is successful, unit may move one space and attack again. Unit may continue to move and attack as long as each attack is successful. Unit is exhausted next round and may not take any action, also incurs a large defense penalty.

Dual Flank - A special attack against enemy unit who is flanked on both sides. Combined attack from two units is greater than both individually.

Ambush - Unit with ability may conceal themselves in trees or other suitable cover. An enemy crossing their ZOC immediately incurs a double damage attack, and loses movement/action for that turn.

There can be lots more. I would suggest certain special attacks be limited not just by gear but experience level as well.

Yeah I was just outlining concepts that would add depth to the overall experience but not things that are absolutely needed.

I'd have to disagree with your statement that damage types would make tactical combat shallow. Yes, the results of tactical battles would be derived from the units that are brought in, and the player's previous choices but at the same time it emphasizes a number important components that are missing at the moment. Scouting enemies for army composition and placement would become more important. Producing more balanced armies composed of a wider range of units would be encouraged (and as a result unit spam could be easily turned against players by smart opponents). The tactical battles themselves would also get some new depth as unit placement, covering and flanking would all take a higher priority than what they have now.

And as tactical battles are now, are their outcomes already not predetermined by what units that are brought in? Glancing at unit numbers and strengths already give players a preview of what to expect. Adding defined damage types, bonuses and penalties would actually muddy this pre-battle information of larger engagements.

I would say that one of the main historical reasons for giving troops a variety of training and equipment is to deal with different kinds of terrain. With a battle map that was more than a simple field of squares, you would need to be mindful when designing units what kind of terrain they might face. Heavy armor is great unless you have to cross a bog filled 3 feet of soft mud to attack the enemy. Archers with rock climbing gear could find a nice ledge over a battlefield and fire down with impunity. There's lots and lots of stuff you could do with terrain, and the Elemental engine can do alot in this regard.

YES! Special Abilities! I have been asking for this for a while!

To me Final Fantasy Tactics did this so right. Having lots of units and combinations of special abilities is what made the game so satisfying.

Adding anything to do other than move and attack for units would be amazing.

I actually never liked this mechanic at all. It is one of those D&D mechanics that I always felt was odd. So I am fighting a person with a sword and move back, now you get to attack me without using an action. The only reason to have this would be in the normal D&D sense where a unit could simply move into range attack and then out of range again without reprisal. However, since every unit counterattacks at current, if you even attempted to attack the opposing unit gets x amount of counters (which are nearly indistinguishable from Attacks of opportunity) where x is their AP.

In Updated Weapons, the idea was to give every weapon 3 attacks - the normal attack, an alternate attack, and an ultimate attack. Thus, you might have an ability which is much better than the normal attack, but you can only use it once ever x turns. Honestly, special abilities could be used to do all sorts of crazy things. As for your multi-unit ability idea, you could make create a stat called flanked, then have one unit have an ability which sets the flanked stat to 1 for the duration of the turn, and another which only does damage if the flanked stat is 1. Thus, you could have combination abilities.

Wow, i didn't know that "outsiders" were allowed in your compagny . I would be a great mascot with Xia, I don't bite.

Okay, please don't hate for suggesting this.

Rather than dumping more special abilities why not increase the value of tactical combat instead by limiting it to hero lead group fights only.  This way tactical combat becomes somewhat less repetitive and makes those guys even more valuable but still not necessary.  The option for tactical combat should come up for if any side has a hero.

I strongly suggest all Stardock staff to check all man-sized objects that are brought in by visitors. Just saying...

Seems like the ideas for improving tactical break down into two major pieces:

 Mechanics: Modifiying tactical combat to make terrain matter (Line of Sight, elevated terrain, more blocking terrain), adding in the flank modifier Kenata has discussed, adding a flag so that it can be specified that a special ability can be counter attacked (PLEASE DO THIS ONE!)

Special Abilities: This is the focus of the Updated Weapons mod, adding abilities to units via equipment.  Obviously this one interacts deeply with the above mechanics. 

Figuring out  the mechanic changes allows the special abilities to naturally follow.  Any information on how those might be shifting?

In general I am against the Attack of Opportunity mechanic, as it just does not make sense in relation to actual sword fighting.  You don't just turn you back and run, you withdraw at guard past their reach.  The current counterattack mechanism is more realistic (you CAN attack while they move within range to attack you)

One needed suggestion of my own: I really think you need more varied  and larger maps.

Limiting units to one attack per turn would make weapons much harder to differentiate. What advantages would a dagger or short sword have over a heavy mace....

Agree with Xia that with current tactical map size range on bows is to high. You should have to position your archers not just let them sit back and snipe from the other side of the map.

Agree on more unit abilities. I would really like to see monsters get some abilities as well. Every monsters in the game basically just rushes you. Just adding some diversity in stats would be great. Some extremely short range weapons like the before mentioned knives would add spice. Just plain mixed range and melee monsters would work wonders. Fast attack monster that have 4 or more movement and slow pondering ones with only 1 or 2 would be great. Monsters should come in all shapes and sizes, the standard low armor high attack 3 movement thing gets really old really fast. Of course some cool abilities would still be welcome like Monsters that have Aoe like frost breath or something so you have to spread out your units. Or teleporting monsters that target your weak ranged units.You should be forced to change tactics to combat certain monsters, right now every fight is the same.

For player created units I think I would rather see some difference between attacks rather then just adding a whole bunch of abilities, although there would still be some abilities. For instance maces could do Aoe dmg, hammers could pierce armor, spears could have one range, and daggers do extra dmg from behind. Teslacrashed is right in saying that FF:T is the place to go for tactical combat done right.

The combat system right now isn't that bad. It just needs a initiative system, to have movement and attacks separated somehow, some balancing, and some more content. I do kinda like how moving to much cuts back on possible attacks as is though. Maybe instead of completely separating attacks and movement you just add a max attack stat. So units can only attack so many times a turn even if they have action points left. 

I like ZOC attacks because it feels weird to let units run right past your troops unhindered, but instead of attacking units when they enter your ZOC it could be only when they enter and leave without attacking. That works better I think maybe......

But ya I'm really looking forward to Fallen Enchantress, more so with every dev post it seems.

I guess what I like about the ZOC is it keeps units from casually strolling past enemies to get into a flanking position. If there is a break in your line big enough for one unit to pass, do you really think the two on either side should let him past to get to your archers? I can agree it doesn't make as much sense to have AoO for moving out of ZOC, but it could be used to exploit in the same way as moving through. I also see it as a retreat-penalty mechanic, presumably you've got to turn your back if you're running away.

Nice idea, I haven't tried your mod yet as I've been busy putting together an outline for my own and don't want to be influenced. Being objective I have to ask if gaining more powerful attacks with a longer cool down is actually significantly different from a replacement attack, that crops up less often. If the special attack was much more effective in some situations than others, then the player would have to balance whether to waste the special attack and wait a long time for a new one, or perhaps wait for the right opportunity for maximum damage that might not come. I'm thinking about bonus damage vs multiple units / unit configurations / unit types.

*Gasp* The Special Abilities Guy was pushing for more special abilities? Now, that's suprising. Seriously, though, while I do agree with most of this, I would imagine that for tactical combat to be deep and fun, this would have to be one change of several. Honestly, I think that you get to a point of diminishing returns and to where they no longer feel "special" pretty quickly.

Consider though that, ZoC in D&D is about 5 feet around the unit in question, where as a square in WoM tactical combat is enough to hold 12 troops. On top of this, the average moves per turn for a unit is 2. This is not enough to simply move through without still being in attack range at some point for most units. As for the retreat-penalty, this would be something better placed when a unit actually retreats from combat instead of moving out of combat range.

I understand the idea of not wanted to be influenced by other mods, but you should take a look at the mod post as it outlines all of the abilities for each weapon. Some weapons do have ultimate attack which are more powerful than their normal attack, but others have knockbacks, chances to lose turn, and stat debuffs. Thus, for instance, A player might choose to use their debuff attack in the openning turns to gain an early advantage, while other might wait to use them to dampen an enemy push.

I have personally made around 60 special abilities, and while after a while there is some sameness, there is more than enough to difference to fill out all of the weapons 2 or 3 fold. In all honesty, this was not the only thing that Derek and I discussed, but was merely the one thing I would change if given the chance to only change one thing. In general, most of us have become a bit spoiled with respect to tactical combat and have forgotten that a simple tactical model can be both fun and engaging.  We look at AoW or HoMM and point out how deep those games took their tactical experience. Yet, we forget that games like fire emblem, advanced wars, and shining forces all give incredibly engaging tactical combat with incredibly simple mechanics.