jpmcconnell jpmcconnell

Tactical Combat, Hopes and dreams

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.

28,724 views 39 replies
Reply #26 Top

If the game is good I will buy a new Motherboard. :drool:  

I am actually just trying to find one that will use all my other hardware so I don't have to buy new everything all at once. I might cancel my trip to New York to get some Alienware if any of the new games require the 64bit. I do like how the cart table allows me to edit the xml so that I can have an infinitely large map. In 2020 when I have a 6400bit desktop in my used Geo Hovercar ++ I will be able to play on some really big maps!

Reply #27 Top

Screw the 32-bit players. Be a 64-bit gaming pioneer, since you don't have to worry that much about revenues!

Reply #28 Top

frogboy, I have six computers with 64 bit windows on them,

and have 32bit only on those where it is of significant benefit(eg disc burning/movie playing) or hardware prevents 64 bit,

but I have had atleast two 64 bit windows comps for the LAST four years,

so WHEN are you going to release a 64 bit game?

harpo

 

Reply #29 Top

I would get a 64 bit OS if FE is good and the game after that is 64 bit.  I say, if you still have money after doing a development extension for FE, make the next game 64 bit with huge maps and all the other benefits that entails and sell your pioneering vision and forward thinking to the world! :w00t:

Best regards,
Steven.

Reply #30 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 25
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.
End of Frogboy's quote

 

Because the older machines are slow you mean?

Would 64-bit Windows help with any of that on older hardware?   You make it sound like it.

And I thought 64-bit was only for bigger maps, but if it helps with other things then good cause I'm not interested in bigger maps.

 

You could always cut support for anything lower than a certain resolution. People have a responsibility to have good hardware. They can't come with 800x600 or something ancient like that!   Besides, here in Sweden the most selling monitor today is a 1920x1080 one.

So if they come with crap hardware it's like coming with a Playstation wanting to play Playstation 3 games.

 

But Line of Fire, wasn't that done in Age of Wonders ?

 

Reply #31 Top

It is completely possible to get the game performing what is required in a 32 bit architecture. I am running 64-bit as well, but claiming it is the solution to all of the game's problems sounds like anoraking to me.

Never mind 64-bit, when will the game be localised for esperanto?

Line of fire has got to be a distant goal. The game doesn't even have any cocept of height yet, and even if it did what about parabolic flight arcs? You'd do better waiting until elemental 2 when the game has proper total war style battles.

Reply #32 Top

Finally upgraded, now I have a 64-bit machine.. full of 32-bit programs. It also has 8GB of RAM, which is at least 4GB more than it ever uses. At least I can join the club of 64-bitters hating on the 32-bitters for holding us back?

 

Quoting Campaigner, reply 30
Because the older machines are slow you mean?

Would 64-bit Windows help with any of that on older hardware? You make it sound like it.

And I thought 64-bit was only for bigger maps, but if it helps with other things then good cause I'm not interested in bigger maps.
End of Campaigner's quote

32-bit machines are limited to using 4GB of memory; the limit for 64-bit is.. a very large number, which is practically unlimited with current hardware. Which is great all around, although the effect is more pronounced when you're trying to compute with/display a lot of stuff, i.e. playing on a big map, or in a battle with huge armies of detailed units.

Reply #33 Top

I really want the game to allow for more fancy buildings using the tile editor. My Robust Cities mod fell flat due to a lack of ram to behold my awesome cities at level 5. They were designed to never have any gaps between tiles with patchwork walkways and vendors on every edge. I think a 64bit design level would greatly help us make zooming closer a pleasurable experience, while each tile could hold more tiny but well designed buildings. 

Reply #34 Top

Quoting Austinvn, reply 32
32-bit machines are limited to using 4GB of memory; the limit for 64-bit is.. a very large number, which is practically unlimited with current hardware.
End of Austinvn's quote

The limit is 2^64 / (2^10)^2 GB or 17,592,186,044,416 GB. Or more that you can have HDD space in a desktop computer.

-------

As I see it, memory would only be a problem in TC if they are keeping the world map data in memory in order to reduce loading times when switching.

Reply #35 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 25
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.
End of Frogboy's quote

Not being able to do those things sounds more like a proformance issue than a memory issue. Unless as I said in a previous post that too much from the world map is kept in memory, in which case it is a engine issue.

Reply #36 Top

Quoting Campaigner, reply 30



 

But Line of Fire, wasn't that done in Age of Wonders ?

 
End of Campaigner's quote

Yes it was and done well I might at.

Reply #37 Top

Quoting Austinvn, reply 32
And I thought 64-bit was only for bigger maps, but if it helps with other things then good cause I'm not interested in bigger maps.

32-bit machines are limited to using 4GB of memory; the limit for 64-bit is.. a very large number, which is practically unlimited with current hardware. Which is great all around, although the effect is more pronounced when you're trying to compute with/display a lot of stuff, i.e. playing on a big map, or in a battle with huge armies of detailed units.
End of Austinvn's quote

Normally a process on 32 bit windows is limited to 2GB, but there's no reason why this stuff isn't doable in 2GB of memory except that something isn't being effecient with it.

64 bit isn't a solution if you're bad with memory, because the next problem after that is that your average computer doesn't have 12GB of RAM in it to deal with the problem. Unless Elementals's sytem requirements are going to be substantially higher then something like Rift that is, and that would be kind of sad.

Reply #38 Top

Quoting Gwenio1, reply 34
As I see it, memory would only be a problem in TC if they are keeping the world map data in memory in order to reduce loading times when switching.
End of Gwenio1's quote

I could be remembering this incorrectly, but I seem to recall 32-bit memory limitations being brought up when scale of tactical battles was being discussed. Like they could have given us huge numbers of units (i.e. Total War-style, hundreds or thousands) being displayed at once, or customizable units where each might have unique equipment and appearance, but not both at once due to memory, which is why we now have customizable units but no massive battles.

Graphics aren't exactly my specialty, but I'm told Total War-type games get away with those kinds of numbers through instancing, rendering many identical copies of what is essentially one unit, which obviously doesn't work if each unit might have a different set of customized equipment and therefore different appearance.

Reply #39 Top

Quoting Austinvn, reply 38

Quoting Gwenio1, reply 34As I see it, memory would only be a problem in TC if they are keeping the world map data in memory in order to reduce loading times when switching.

I could be remembering this incorrectly, but I seem to recall 32-bit memory limitations being brought up when scale of tactical battles was being discussed. Like they could have given us huge numbers of units (i.e. Total War-style, hundreds or thousands) being displayed at once, or customizable units where each might have unique equipment and appearance, but not both at once due to memory, which is why we now have customizable units but no massive battles.

Graphics aren't exactly my specialty, but I'm told Total War-type games get away with those kinds of numbers through instancing, rendering many identical copies of what is essentially one unit, which obviously doesn't work if each unit might have a different set of customized equipment and therefore different appearance.
End of Austinvn's quote

Maybe, but World of Warcraft manages to put hundreds of people on screen at once in cities (and open world battles when those used to happen) and every one of those is going to be a different race/class/gear/particle effect weapon enchant combination in under 2GB (and that's with 100MB of UI addons running).