Possible solution to the 25% speed combat problem

from AshesoftheSingularity Forums

So, at the moment when armies meet there is a game system in place that brings their movement speeds down to a crawl. This makes it effectively impossible to retreat from an engagement and is just frustratingly slow. Not great for a game about strategy.

As far as I can tell the Devs have not really expounded on the why’s of this system but it would appear they don’t want players to take their army and simply bypass other armies while the defending player cannot catch up.

The Devs working on the game are experienced with turn based strategy and unit zone of control is common in those so I figure that is where they have got the idea from as no other RTS really has it. I believe this TBS mechanic is mainly to benefit the defender.  So that is what we want, something to aid the defender. Something that would be an equivalent for RTS but that is different from the current system.

My solution is quite simple and fits well with the current game mechanics. After I had thought of it I realised that I believe StarCraft also has a similar mechanic with the Zerg. (If I am remembering correctly)

OK: Units in their own territory move a little faster than in neutral or enemy territory. Simple huh J It would have to be play tested but I guess somewhere between 5% and 15%. There would be no penalty for moving in enemy territory.

So for example, speed 10 in neutral and enemy territory, speed 11 in own territory (10% faster). This means that in their own territory the defender can catch up if the enemy just tries to run past.

It also means when defending a particular node the defender has the speed advantage within the node. This is good for helping to address the criticism that when one side has the bigger blobs/more territory the weaker side has very little way to recover.(In the new system the defender always maintains this slight home advantage)

Nodes which are owned but are cut off from the nexus would not get the home base speed advantage, this adds further strategic choices.

It could be added as an upgrade, say first upgrade gives 5% home speed advantage, next couple give 2% and last few give 1% until a total of 15%. This is probably not a good idea though because the more powerful player will be able to put more resources into research thus compounding the problem of making it very hard to come back from a power disparity. Damage and Health is one thing but seeing the enemy get to the front lines faster than you can as well is a bit of a kick in the teeth.

The other benefit of this system is the sense of progression. At the beginning all the territory is neutral but as you capture more you know you are enjoying greater speeds for it.

I haven’t gone into all of the disadvantages of the current system here as it has been done already on other topic threads, but I really believe it detracts heavily from what the game could be. I think the system I have outlined above could work well, still aids the defender and fits nicely within the existing framework of the game.

The normal speed could be what it is now and the home advantage speed could be a touch faster. This might help to refute some of the criticism levelled at the game for its slow speed.

Seems like a win-win all round.

I think it is a good idea but if it isn’t then in my defence I’ll just say that I am trying to think of solutions rather than just bashing the current system :p

(Finally, if it was felt that this was not enough, a defensive building that slows down enemy forces in a circle of influence around it could be an option. I would make it fairly tough, very expensive (don’t want them everywhere!) and perhaps not reduce speed as much as the current system)

73,869 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Updated from my original reply.

I looked back in the August 2015 FAQ where Frogboy initially brought up the issue of Front Lines and groups moving right through each other. You have to go down to reply 40 before the first and only mention of unit suppression affecting speed in combat. That's the only clue have as to why they went this way in patch 0.50.

I had mistakenly believed the speed penalty would eventually be removed in favor of a global ability that would slow down enemy groups. Now I don't know why I thought that was happening because I don't see the devs saying that anywhere. So as it stands right now the combat speed penalty seems here to stay. I'm sure the devs will say "we can change it from 25% if it makes sense with pacing". It seems a number that can  balanced right only after all the core game elements are in place.

Your idea might be a good one, and there are many others, but there is no indication the devs are interested in exploring anything beyond a combat speed penalty.

Reply #2 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Hey Tatsubj, I updated my post to reflect some searching I did while you were drafting your reply. Sorry for disrupting the flow of the discussion, but I wanted to avoid providing incorrect information in reply #1.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I usualy dont dont link diferent groups in 1, i make them all separate or that slows the intencion off make individual units attack diferent points and slow some attacks .

 

But i have notice some problems when link groups ,some units are faster then others and when in group they dont work well.

 

So when we want attack poin A to point B there where problems start ,some units go, others go other way, othes dont even moove so i think formations are a big problem for now because not all units have same speed ,and you find problems when you want send units to a distance bit far from where you are.

Since not all have same speed  ,the faster units arrive there first so without backguard they and up die first, the others that arrive  attacks and win ,others die ,but the group isnt work all toghether ,the group formation dont use the full potencial.

 

I think is bether when link a group since we still dont have formations that i think work bether they all must have same speed,that way when they need to fight all arrive at same time with exeption of T3 units.

 

In this case most units are lost i have send them to finish the game  but only some attack the others even when link to the group just stay watch .

 

Reply #4 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Boy this discussion has me really wishing the devs would tell us whether the combat speed penalty is here to stay and if so why they think it is necessary. The design is touting strategy over APM, and with funneled maps, tactical focus on group composition, and units that must commit to win or loss battles, they seem to be trying to take movement tactics completely out of the equation. I would like to see in-game evidence that group composition actually matters, and not just "my group has a T3 killer so I win". We need to see where they go with teleports and global abilities. These things are going to change the dynamics of this game, and then we can see if defenses and the combat speed penalty works.

Reply #5 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 2

here's why I think the ZERG creep idea doesn't fit much more : 

it's just a encouragement to use air and if it affect air and navy as well it's just an encouragement for two things :

death blobs (the two opposing strategists naturally opt for the method that'll give their attack the best running chance : stacking units untill their sheer amount will suffice to render the discouraging factor a small digit after the zero (Setons air players know this all too well) and simultaneously the most optimal defense becomes the same thing. a blob which is the only thing to deal with this threat efficiently and also seize the chance to strike if ever it defends so well that the opposing force is annihilated and you're left with a big kill force and no defendants ahead (this is often the result as a result noone wants to attack accentuating the deathball even further).

Stalemates. I think the above my have made this explicit. but even without that. it should be obvious that a game at it's core being unbalanced as to the defense/attack equilibrium is only begging for it. Higher level play will exponentialize what may be thought of as the most minor imbalance between the two.
A true strategy game will have sought to solve it's balance issue without ever touching the defense/attack lever.

 

I don't quite understand all of that but I will try to answer it.

The Zerg method (being a bit faster in your own territory): This is in Starcraft, a game with 3 distinctive races and importantly a game that really is very well balanced. So 1) Unto itself it is not suddenly a win all strategy. 2) The other races in that game don't have it and it is balanced, in this game all sides have it so it is even more balanced!

Death blobs? Really this is a negative way of saying big groups of units or armies. This game is about big groups of units/armies so you will get them regardless. Composition and where you put them and how you use them is what will win the game.

I think you are over estimating the slightly faster speed within controlled territory. I cannot see it leading to stalemates at all. In fact the current system is more likely to have battle-stalemates as as soon as the battle kicks off they are essentially frozen in that position until one side is vanquished. With my system the battles will be faster and more dynamic than now.

On bigger maps I think it even adds strategy. Player A thinks Player B will attack though the faster (slightly) route of its controlled territory and prepares static defences etc. accordingly. However Player B charges through a load of neutral territory in a wide flanking attack and attacks player A in their unprotected belly.

I won't go in to static defences here as I don't think they relate directly to the system I am suggesting. (A slight aside: I have seen a line of those powerful cannon things be quite effective against a Dreadnought lead army. In the really big maps I suspect we will have to have a fair sized army sitting near the core of our empire to act like a rapid reaction force as point defence won't be enough. (Having commanders is cool but it might be that that game setup is so synonymous with SupCom that the Devs might not want to put that in and be seen as an imitator)

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick with your post.

Cheers.

As an aside, I realised perhaps this system is more parallel to TBS games where the holder of the territory gains extra speed from its road/rail while the attacking opponent doesn't. I think the lore aspect of the system would be easy as nodes spread the influence of the AI or Humans and that allows a little finer control over their armies hence the small speed improvement.

 

Quoting eviator, reply 5

Boy this discussion has me really wishing the devs would tell us whether the combat speed penalty is here to stay and if so why they think it is necessary. The design is touting strategy over APM, and with funneled maps, tactical focus on group composition, and units that must commit to win or loss battles, they seem to be trying to take movement tactics completely out of the equation. I would like to see in-game evidence that group composition actually matters, and not just "my group has a T3 killer so I win". We need to see where they go with teleports and global abilities. These thing are going to change the dynamics of this game, and then we can see if defenses and the combat speed penalty works.

Agreed.

They have said the new map will be an example of open maps and there will be a map editor so I don't think they have designed the game for corridor play. Though it seems their pathing might be? I wonder if the armies will form long columns in big open areas or if it is smart enough to know it doesn't need to do that. 

they seem to be trying to take movement tactics completely out of the equation. 
With the current slowdown system it really looks like that. A big shame if true I think.

 

Reply #6 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Oh, i copy here my ideas from my thread, which is in core about strategic thinking in combat, defenders bonus and preventing snowballing:

Front/side/back armor

i already talked about that in another post, making strategical decisions like flanking actually somewhat useful. I know this is probably semi-impossible to include, but similar mechanics could be used. (Reducing enemy armor and speed in a certain area with a global spell, making it possible to strike the slow units of an enemy army before the rest of the group can reorganize to protect them)

 

Flying transport

This would give the chance to use smaller parts of my army for greater targets, like dropping ~20 units in unprotected areas of my opponent, destroying his infra structure.

 

Mobile defense

I am thinking vaguely about a turret that can move, and switch to defensive mode. This enables to build defensive spots in critical areas, and might stop an opponent army just steamrolling to the centre of your area. If they have to take a longer route, it would give more time to prepare, or to choose another strategical option.

Reply #7 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I think to get to the point "why is blob benefitial?" we have to ask: "Why is actual War NOT about one big group of units moving towards the opponents capital?"


- Armies that are overconcentrated require a lot of supplies over a single route, making it very vulnerable. (Look at the german army sorroundet in Stalingrad)

Since supplies are not needed in Ashes we can drop this one.

- the territory somebody gains for sure doesnt equal up for the territory the opponent gains everywhere else

Again looking at WW2, the ardennes were the last big offensive against the allied forces by the germans. Anyway, If you look at maps back then, it was one sad little spike into allied territory. Not being able to be properly supported and pretty much encircled north and south, there was very little this was actually good for. A similar setting can, and probably will occur in ashes. When you dont have 5 or 6 Nutrinioum places, but 20 or 30, one big blob of units is just too slow.

- The opponent might not be where you hope he might be

Even if you have your big army heading towards the enemy mainbase, if there would be some mechanic that would allow you to move your buildings ("teleporting", "crawling"), you can sacrafice parts of your army to buy time to relocate your base. Making the enemy strategy of just walking through and removing you from the game void.

Last example of WW2, when the sovjets finally got half of Berlin, it was pretty much useless, since all major german officers and staffs were moved to other places.

 

 

Reply #8 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 8

sorry to not agree. You know you're my home-bruh

haha, I disagree with you too, but as you said it was at least better than the current system I guess I can forgive you ;)

EDIT: Interesting read Shiny and tat. I should clarify that I was not saying kill-all-super-blobs-of-destruction are good or unavoidable. I just meant there will be big armies. And on big maps lots of big armies. I am not a fan of kill-all-super-blobs either.

I wonder if they made the maps narrow to try and discourage the use of huge killer blobs.

Reply #9 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

You can't make a blob and win. We've tried it ENDLESSLY.

A single Zeus, for instance, can annihilate a ton of cheap Brutes.

Similarly, a bunch of well placed Artemis's can wreak havoc on an advancing enemy.

Generally, good players create a combined army. 

However, this combined army can be justifiably be called a "death ball" which is an issue in all these games. This is where the other two dimensions come in. First, bringing in air support (the AI is terrible at it right now).  Second, the orbitals. This is where the whole Act III comes in.

In Supreme Commander, knowing when to upgrade was crucial.  Your higher tiers largely replaced the lower tiers. In Ashes, the lower tiers remain important.  But understanding their differnces is not currently well communicated.

 

Reply #10 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

There's an old saying, "Don't tell me, show me." If you have to communicate the differences between units, whether verbally or in tool tips, then it's not obvious in the gameplay. And if it's not obvious in the gameplay, are you sure they are really that different? Numerically they are distinct. But if the T1 units can, in practice, be interchanged with one another, which I find to be the case, more work is needed, not more communication. Just a humble opinion, not a rant.

I wouldn't mind a sandbox mode to test out various unit and group compositions. Beta would be best so we could offer feedback.

Reply #11 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

@eviator, some things go would take too much effort to show. For instance, armor levels And how armor piercing different weapons are. You ca t really show that.

and yes, tat, the supcom unit tiers were mostly the same unit but better, your fantasies about supcom notwithstanding.

Reply #12 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 12

You can't make a blob and win. We've tried it ENDLESSLY.

A single Zeus, for instance, can annihilate a ton of cheap Brutes.

Similarly, a bunch of well placed Artemis's can wreak havoc on an advancing enemy.

Generally, good players create a combined army. 

However, this combined army can be justifiably be called a "death ball" which is an issue in all these games. This is where the other two dimensions come in. First, bringing in air support (the AI is terrible at it right now).  Second, the orbitals. This is where the whole Act III comes in.

In Supreme Commander, knowing when to upgrade was crucial.  Your higher tiers largely replaced the lower tiers. In Ashes, the lower tiers remain important.  But understanding their differnces is not currently well communicated.

 

Getting back on topic.

Sure you need to make more than 2 unit types and Zeus are very good at close combat e.t.c., but in the end the winner will always be the one with higher unit count and who expanded the fastest, not the one with tactical positioning or smart controll of his units.

i think the issue here is that it all bogs down to one almost uncontrolable massive blob of combined units vs another massive blob (like you have said) as the game progresses to an epic standstill that no possible tactical decisions can be made rather than just a-move because if you try to position your units and controll where they should be the game activly discourages you by slowing them down to a crawl and in the end they choose whatever they want to target instead of shooting where you tell them too.

And i truly believe that trying to controll Zeus/brutes so they stay/reach the front and get in range while having missile units at the back is very very fiddly.

The key thing about Supreme Commander is that in low unit counts there is some tactical decisions that can be made, and generaly the maps themselves are more open allowing for flanking and kiting with range units.