Tactical Combat, Hopes and dreams

Another post and a reply from Sethai got me thinking about tactical combat.

https://forums.elementalgame.com/410986/page/1/#2980002

We haven't heard much about it from the dev team recently on this topic, and I wanted the throw out some ideas to get a discussion started. Hopefully someone on the dev team is listening and we can get some info on the direction they're taking

So we know we have some sort of initiative based system with various damage and armor types. Initiative is based on action points, action points are based on weapon type and possibly other traits. mounted, etc. Most of this info came out of the Weapons Dev post.

Possible Ideas (deffinitly not my ideas, but just wanted to put them all down):

Weapon Reach:

Not sure if FE is continuing with the simultaneous attack counter attack but this is an interesting idea to deal with it.

"Personally I think it would be better based on weapon types. If weapons had a Reach stat, this could be used to determine who struck first (say, both sides roll 1-10 + reach + 5 charge bonus and the winner strikes first), and if you beat them by a high enough margin, they wouldn't be able to counter-attack at all. Balance this with a mobility stat that determines how many sides you can defend yourelf from (ie, a spear has a long reach but a mobility of only three, so can only counter-attack enemies in front and on the two squares either side, while a sword has 5 and can defend itself from flanking attacks (and possibly higher basic damage)" -Sethai

Unit Facing/Rotation:

Combine this with a system of unit facing and rotation. Your pikemen are either facing north, south, east, or west. During their action sequence, if they are about to get flanked you have the option to rotate them to cut off the flanker. Some units can rotate faster than others (see the next idea).

Lower/Higher cost actions:

Weapons dev journal lays out the system for movement like this: each tick units add their action points to their total, when that unit's total ap hit 100 they get an action (all this occurs behind the scenes). Unit takes an action and returns to zero to wait their turn again. Would also be interesting to have "Fast" or "slow" options. Slow actions would actually cost more than 100 action points dropping your unit into negative totals. Fast actions would cost less than 100 so you would potentially only drop partway down the queue. Thus something like a berserker attack that hits multiple squares might be devastating but it would keep you at the bottom of the movement queue for several turns. A quick action like a shield bash that just knocks your opponent down but does no damage could only cost 50% of you AP. So you could potentially knock them down and then go in for the killing blow just a short time later. 

This could also be an interesting system for additional spell balance. Some spells will cost more AP that others, a fast spell like a quick fireball may only drop you halfway down the movement queue, but a battlefield wide firestorm will leave your mage out of commission for multiple cycles of the queue. 

Combine this system with something like unit facing and rotation, but make a simple action like rotation only cost a smaller percentage of your action points. Certain weapons and units cost more to change facing. A single spearman can change direction quickly, a group of swordsmen can also change direction quickly, however a phalanx of spearmen takes much longer. A group of light cav can manuever quickly, but your armored knights had better be pointed in the right direction early on because turning them on a dime isn't happening, and if they need to turn they'll be very vulnerable to that light cav coming up on their flank.

Pre-Battle deployment/formations:

A lot of people have been asking about this and it seems like a pretty critical addition. Hopefully, there's some way to set up units prior to battle so we can at least get archers in the rear and melee up front. If you have this you could also add some interesting traits like ambusher (you get set up your forces but your opponent just gets a blob of units), General (you get a wider area over which to deploy your forces, including areas to the sides and rear of your opponent), Spymaster (you get to see how you opponent is set up prior to making your decisions), etc.

 

Obviously, in addition to this stuff, really interesting terrain would be a huge addition to tactical battles. But if we added in systems like these I think i could still get very excited about tactical combat even on a completely featureless grid.

28,719 views 39 replies
Reply #1 Top

I completely agree with pre-battle deployment. That is a really glaring lack right now. As part of that, you will need good AI code to ensure that enemies use intelligent deployments. I like the idea for facing, but I think it might be a bit too complicated for the current system. I think a simple flanking bonus of some kind would do a good job and place more importance on tactical positioning. Mind, I'm not against adding in facing, but I'm not sure if it is really needed in this style of tactical combat. I like the lower / higher cost idea for actions, but I need a chance to evaluate the FE system before I can really say if it is needed. Same for reach.

 

Here are the things I would like to see:

 

1) Animated Combat: This is purely asthetic, and probably not something the team will implement. If you have played the Fantasy Wars series of TBS games, you will have a good idea what I would like to see. When a unit attacks, the men in each unit run into each other's squares and fight it out. Cavalry charges through infantry, spells send men flying, etc. It is a minor thing, really, but I think it makes the combat much more interesting than the current static model. I like that the current system has physics and guys can be sent flying, but it is so limited, especially for unit vs. unit fighting. This may be an engine limitation, but I'd like to see it changed.

 

2) Line of Sight (LOS): LOS would require greater tactical planning. If a unit is blocked by a wall, terrain feature, or other unit, it will have a reduced chance of hitting. If you fire through your own troops, you may hit them, or hit both. AoW did this well from what I remember.

 

3) Terrain: I want the terrain to better reflect the location where the battle takes place. If it is in a forest, have there be trees that block LOS and impede unit placement. If it is a city fight, have the map be a city with buildings, streets, etc (ideally based on the actual settlement's placement of buildings.) Buildings would block LOS. If I was really going to dream, allow buildings to be occupied and fought over (not likely, I know). Better use of battlefield terrain will give more variety to combat and create interesting challenges.

 

4) Siege Warfare: A common request of course, but it would be great to have to break down city walls, emplace archers on defensive towers and walls, etc. I know it has been shot down already, but maybe for the next expansion.

 

 

Reply #2 Top

All these things seem to be hard to get the AI to do. If we could absolutely know that the AI is not going to be able to use most of these features for a few months after launch, would you still want them? Keep in mind that multiplayer will not have tac battles.  :hugme:

Reply #3 Top

True, all of this depends on the AI being able to handle it. But in all honesty, if you just keep tactical combat as basic as it is now in WoM whats the point of having it anyway? Two armies in random configurations march at each other, wail away for a few turns, outcome is primarily determined by armor and attach ratings. Why not just autocalc?

@Goontrooper

Completely agree on all those things, LoS, Better terrain, Siege warfare, but the developers have already said that none of them are going to make it in to FE. I was just trying to come up with changes that could make it interesting even if you keep an extremely bland and uniform battlefield. 

Reply #4 Top

The new combat system will likely allow for tactical positioning. That is a good assumption given the depth of this redo of WoM. The combat values I have seen in the dev journals also seem to indicate a shift to meaningful tactics, just not LOS. That was my major point.

 

As to Terrain, I would really think that meaningful terrain is going to be added. Bonuses for placement are already in the game, just not useful or relevant as they only ever game me a 10% defense bonus. The terrain you fight on is linked with a number of randomly selected premade maps. It is logical that these maps will be redone and expanded upon. You can actually use the cartographer's table to make your own and if you are xml versed, you can make your own bonuses. 

Siege warfare seems like a pipe dream to me. It would be epic, don't missperceive me, but it would take so much time and effort to make it any different than a regular battle, I don't see it for FE. I hope I am wrong. You would need to have a much larger tac map for this and maybe even several maps that link in order to have the level of siege that TBS fans would appreciate. Also, there are like 10 types of walls that would need to be interchangeable. That would need to be moddable so that we could make our own walls. Walls would need to be accessible by units to stand on and behind. All of this would need to be balanced with regular gameplay. Special siege units and Siege defense units would need to be made. Talk about something to do with an expansion once you have the core game finished. And magic would screw all this up invariably. 

That said, I would be willing to help if its something the devs want to have in the game. A good siege game is worth so much more than a standard TBS or RTS. It is the most fun part of any game I have ever played:

-All Total Wars

-GalCiv2

-Stronghold 1-3

-Every Tower Defense Game (Over 1000 Titles)

-PlantvZombi

-Dead Rising (When you get tired of the unskippable cut scenes and you just stay in one store and hold out.)

-Left 4 Dead 2 (Survival Mode)

-Minecraft

-EVO

-Red Orchestra

-Tank Wars (Malinkova Map)

-The tree fort I played in as a child

 

Its certainly worth considering.

 

Reply #5 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 2
All these things seem to be hard to get the AI to do. If we could absolutely know that the AI is not going to be able to use most of these features for a few months after launch, would you still want them? Keep in mind that multiplayer will not have tac battles. 
End of seanw3's quote

 

Hold on. Is that official that MP will not have TC? If that is the casre then there is no point in playing MP.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting jpmcconnell, reply 3
True, all of this depends on the AI being able to handle it. But in all honesty, if you just keep tactical combat as basic as it is now in WoM whats the point of having it anyway? Two armies in random configurations march at each other, wail away for a few turns, outcome is primarily determined by armor and attach ratings. Why not just autocalc?

@Goontrooper

Completely agree on all those things, LoS, Better terrain, Siege warfare, but the developers have already said that none of them are going to make it in to FE. I was just trying to come up with changes that could make it interesting even if you keep an extremely bland and uniform battlefield. 
End of jpmcconnell's quote

Because Auto Calc is simply not fun at all. And in my opinon is worse than the current TC.  Personally I never use auto cal in any game were I could us TC, even if the odds are heavily in one sides favor

Reply #7 Top

We will probably get better Tactical Maps. Right now we have very few. Remember too that FE will get more updates than WoM did. If the core game is nailed down from launch, we can expect to see additions to content. Adding things from the ideas section is probably something the devs want to do, but first they have to make sure the basics are solid. 

I know that the mods for WoM pretty much owned the vanilla version. Wonder if there is some way to have modder contributions added to the vanilla via patches. That would be so nice to have. 

And I just realized that A wall without LOS means that you can shoot right through it.   ^_^

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 5

Quoting seanw3, reply 2All these things seem to be hard to get the AI to do. If we could absolutely know that the AI is not going to be able to use most of these features for a few months after launch, would you still want them? Keep in mind that multiplayer will not have tac battles. 


 

Hold on. Is that official that MP will not have TC? If that is the casre then there is no point in playing MP.
End of Bellack's quote

Since WoM MP doesn't have tactical battles and they've shown absolutely no interest in improving on that for FE, there will still be no point in playing MP. MP in this game is a joke, sadly.

As for the AI being able to do those things... the AoW AI could handle those things. Crazy siege battles were the best part of the game.

Reply #9 Top

Don't lie Tridus. AoW sieges were good, but the AI couldn't use walls correctly. They come out and are easily tricked. I remember I was halfway done building my Trojanic Horse when they just came out to fight me. 

AoW is one of the greats, but it has very different core rules to work with. And the AI for this game has much more complexity potential. That is kind of Frog's selling point as a person. That and the Bees.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 4
The new combat system will likely allow for tactical positioning. That is a good assumption given the depth of this redo of WoM. The combat values I have seen in the dev journals also seem to indicate a shift to meaningful tactics, just not LOS. That was my major point.

As to Terrain, I would really think that meaningful terrain is going to be added. Bonuses for placement are already in the game, just not useful or relevant as they only ever game me a 10% defense bonus. The terrain you fight on is linked with a number of randomly selected premade maps. It is logical that these maps will be redone and expanded upon. You can actually use the cartographer's table to make your own and if you are xml versed, you can make your own bonuses. 

 
End of seanw3's quote

I hope you're right, I just haven't seen any of the developers mention anything about it. In fact the only thing I remember hearing was a comment by either frogboy or derek about how they thought tactical combat should be over fairly quickly in order to get back to the strategic game.

And unless they add things like impassable terrain for choke points or terrain that block LoS and spells/arrows in some way a few % bonuses sprinkled around just don't really do it for me. Even if those bonuses are arranged in an interesting way.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 9
Don't lie Tridus. AoW sieges were good, but the AI couldn't use walls correctly. They come out and are easily tricked. I remember I was halfway done building my Trojanic Horse when they just came out to fight me. 

AoW is one of the greats, but it has very different core rules to work with. And the AI for this game has much more complexity potential. That is kind of Frog's selling point as a person. That and the Bees.
End of seanw3's quote

To be fair, the AoW AI would come out if it thought it couldn't win at ranged. If you're blasting away at it with cannons and it's got 1 archer and 6 third tier melee units, coming out to attack the cannons isn't exactly a dumb thing to do. I rarely saw it come out when it had enough ranged power to make staying inside make sense.

YMMV. No AI is perfect, but I found that one pretty playable for quite a while. :)

Reply #12 Top

Okay I guess AoW is pretty much the ideal competency for AI. The end game of Elemental should be adaptive AI. I would really like to be able to mod in new logic and tactics for it as the game ages. This is the only game I have played where that might be a possibility.

 

Hell, froggy might just be persuaded to continue updating it for a few years after we figure out how to beat it.

Reply #13 Top

I think the goal for the AI in FE will be in a completely different league than that of AoW's. I for one am glad tactical combat will be limited to features that the AI can properly handle.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting Sir_Linque, reply 13
I think the goal for the AI in FE will be in a completely different league than that of AoW's. I for one am glad tactical combat will be limited to features that the AI can properly handle.
End of Sir_Linque's quote

 

I agree 100%. Right now the focus needs to be on making a good game, not a game that has tons of features that aren't fully implemented or useable by the AI. I'd rather have a game with 5 great features that the AI and player can both use well, than a game with  10 features with limited implementation.

 

As long as there is a degree of depth and choice within each feature, I'll be happy.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Sir_Linque, reply 13
I think the goal for the AI in FE will be in a completely different league than that of AoW's. I for one am glad tactical combat will be limited to features that the AI can properly handle.
End of Sir_Linque's quote

Considering that the AI for WoM is in a completely different league (in the wrong direction), I'd be happy if it got into the same league. TBH I'm not sure where all this wellspring of confidence in the FE AI is coming from. There hasn't been a whole lot to suggest it's going to make a quantum leap forward.

People were hopeful about WoM's AI too, and it's pathetic.

Reply #16 Top

How do you suppose WoM could have a decent AI when its features change with every new patch? The confidence comes from GalCiv.

Reply #17 Top

Then maybe they shouldn't be drastically altering the game every patch if the AI can't keep up? This is effectively a SP game, the AI being able to play it matters.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 9
Don't lie Tridus. AoW sieges were good, but the AI couldn't use walls correctly. They come out and are easily tricked. I remember I was halfway done building my Trojanic Horse when they just came out to fight me. 

AoW is one of the greats, but it has very different core rules to work with. And the AI for this game has much more complexity potential. That is kind of Frog's selling point as a person. That and the Bees.
End of seanw3's quote

But this games WOM AI sucks compared to AOW:SM. Oh and AOW:SM AI did know how to use walls

Reply #19 Top

Tridus, WoM is a mess. You shouldn't use it to compare FE and AoW. That's what I was trying to say.

FE is being developed completely differently compared to WoM. They don't compare.

Reply #20 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 2
All these things seem to be hard to get the AI to do. If we could absolutely know that the AI is not going to be able to use most of these features for a few months after launch, would you still want them? Keep in mind that multiplayer will not have tac battles. 
End of seanw3's quote

I wouldn't want any feature to be left out because the AI can't handle it "yet" - if a feature isn't in 1.0 because of AI, we'll never see it, they're not going to remake tactical combat with patch 1.1 to add in facing or what have you. Whereas if they include it for 1.0 without AI support, the AI can always be patched to make better use of it.

But note the key word "yet" - I wouldn't want them to include any features the AI will never be able to use properly, either. I'm just saying if we can get a feature in for 1.0 and have to wait a couple months for the AI to catch up, that's better than never having it. With the caveat that too many "it's not quite right yet but we can patch it up later" features results in another WoM - still I'd suffer a few features that were well implemented except for the AI knowing what to do with them, if it meant better tactical combat in the long run.

Also on FE AI: Frogboy does their AI, and this time around he's not trying to wear six different hats; with Kael (Derek) taking over lead, Frogboy should theoretically have some time to focus on AI? Of course that falls under the more general argument of "because they've hired new talented people, we expect everything about FE to be better" - either you buy that or you don't :P I do, but it's a matter of opinion until we see FE itself.

Reply #21 Top

Beta waiting is like waiting for painters to paint something. I just want to watch it dry dammit!

Reply #22 Top

Quoting Sir_Linque, reply 19
Tridus, WoM is a mess. You shouldn't use it to compare FE and AoW. That's what I was trying to say.

FE is being developed completely differently compared to WoM. They don't compare.
End of Sir_Linque's quote

People are going to compare the two games no matter what anyone says, as they should. I keep hearing that FE is completely different than WOM but if both are TBS games set on the same world and Sandbox then they can't be that different.  No more different that any game in the TBS Fantasy genra.  Which allows us to make comparisons between the games.  It is not like comparing a TBS game like CIV to a RPS game like Battlefield 2, they are not even remotely related. However I think it is safe to assume that FE will not be that much different than any other TBS game to where they cannot be compared.  Yes they will have differences just as most TBS games are different from one another but they are still in the same class of game ....Fantasy TBS.

Reply #23 Top

The AI is blatantly underdeveloped in WoM, which is known by the developers and FE will not be handled the same way, and FE is developed in a completely different manner to WoM. That's why you shouldn't use WoM to compare AI in FE and AoW.

Do you really disagree with this? It seems like you read my post completely out of context, Bellack.

Reply #24 Top

As the proud owner of a bachelor degree in The Comparative History of Ideas, I can absolutely compare something to anything else, including itself. But ya, I think Sir_Linq just meant that they are in different leagues development wise.

Reply #25 Top

My dreams are simple but not sure what will be possible:

1. Line of sight.

2. Line of Fire. (obstacles)

3. Meaningful terrain

I'd love to write an AI to handle this stuff.

But you'd be surprised how hard it is to code these things that work well on older machines at the resolutions we want today.

If anyone here is running 32-bit Windows still, please stop. You're ruining things for the rest of us. ;-)