Sethai Sethai

So long as I can conquer a town in 5 turns, the game will be a pushover

So long as I can conquer a town in 5 turns, the game will be a pushover

This is how war in elemental basically works: I’ve reached the midgame, I’ve got a few towns and I’ve run into a faction on my borders. Having largely reached the limits of natural expansion, I realize going to war and taking the first enemy town is the next step towards expanding my power. So I move my sovereign to my most vulnerable border town and begin training troops there in preparation for an attack. Whether I am at war or not, it never comes. I click on the enemy town and (for some reason) am able to see what troops it has. I realise that it has a smaller army than the one I have assembled. I move out. In four turns I am at the town. I fight one battle against a couple of units and militia, using magic if it looks like being close, and the town is mine. I receive a significant boost to my economy and the opponent a significant decrease in theirs. They try to retake the town with units that were nearby but not garrisoned and fail miserably as my forces now benefit from defence bonuses and militia. After this first conquest, every subsequent one follows this pattern, only getting easier.

To summarise, problems that contribute towards the ridiculous easiness of war:

1 – The AI is awful at concentrating force at crucial locations. The AI in Galactic Civilizations was similar, with many small fleets buzzing around in a homogenous cloud, which could be easily picked off. Galactic Civilizations got away with it however, because in order to conquer a planet you didn’t just need to beat the defending ships, you needed to bring in ground troops as well: ie, establish complete aerial supremacy. While it may be possible to improve the AI, most AIs in other games struggle with this and we would do better changing the mechanics to make this flaw less obvious.

2 – I can see what units are in an enemy town, even if it’s out of visual range. This was also in GalCiv, and it’s a completely braindead feature. There’s no reasonable explanation for it. No one on here ever asks for it to be removed, because no player ever asks for functionality to be removed. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. It confers an obscene advantage, and while many of us choose not to use it, I suspect many who complain the game is too easy DO make use of it. When most of us are still complaining the game is too easy, handing the player this obscene advantage is unjustifiable.

3 – It’s far too easy to move from one town to another in a couple of turns with three or four units and quickly conquer an enemy settlement before the enemy can see you coming or prepare. If the town is an important one, this can decide a war almost as soon as it begins, especially once you add the garrison and defence bonuses to your invading ones. Equally importantly, the moment you get there, the game is up and even a powerful AI has no time to react with any nearby units.

On a related note, the game has other problems which I hope my solutions will also help to address. Hopefully, this will become clearer later.

4 – Adventuring still gets hemmed in by enemy territory. For all the increased emphasis on exploration, you usually do not see the shape of the map until you have conquered it.

5 – Both the player and AI are massively vulnerable to attack in the early game. A few lucky champions and items in the early game can win you the whole thing if you really want to cheese it, and unlucky monster generation can make some starting positions impossible.

So my solutions are broadly as follows:

Spying on enemy towns out of visual range needs to be killed as a feature. Kill it. Kill it with a shovel. Burn the remains. It’s the only way to be sure.

I should not be able to conquer a town with champions alone. You should need troops to police the streets.

Removing this ability from champions would improve the usefulness of infantry, but, since it would reduce the danger posed to cities by champions, we could therefore give champions the ability to enter other faction’s territory when unaccompanied by troops. This would allow champions to keep adventuring later on in the game, and prevent the potential problems of quest objectives spawning in inaccessible locations.

You should not be able to attack a walled settlement without either A a siege weapon (either a catapult, or troops with ladders and grappling hooks) B an equally powerful monster or C some serious magic or magic item. Enforcing this rule would, providing the player remembered to build a wall, fulfil the same purpose as the Planetary Invasion tech in GalCiv2: giving the player and AI a brief kindergarten period in which to establish a functioning empire before the real wars started, but would also have a believable justification.

Essentially, these kind of mechanics could be easily enabled by giving all troops (and humanoid monsters, like darklings) a “garrison” trait, and all siege weapons a “wall-breaker” trait. A unit with “wall-breaker” would be required to attack a city, and a unit with “garrison” would be required to hold it. Only units with these traits would trigger a territory violation.

I would also impose a minimum time period before the invading army was able to benefit from the city militia. This could be enabled by requiring players to build a cheap, early game building with no maintenance in order to benefit from militia, which would be automatically destroyed on any invasion.

EDIT: So these measures would more or less fix the problems I mentioned earlier. But it still allows players to take enemy settlements very quickly if they have everything in place and makes blitzkrieg still the best tactic. What is needed for this is a proper, total war style siege system. When I say this I am NOT talking about big, impressive siege battles. Please don’t start debating which game had the best siege battles because we’ve had that thread before.

What I am talking about is simply a system that forces the besieging army to wait a few turn on the world map, between attacking a city and fighting the actual battle. The time involved would depend on the quality of the defences and the number and quality of catapults and other siege equipment. Enforcing this waiting time would give the defending player time to prepare his forces, and maybe bring in a relief force from another city, which is an essential component of any fun siege.

51,310 views 43 replies
Reply #26 Top

Well, maybe we just need to slow movement on roads in enemy territory to 1 square per action point.  It might not be totally realistic, but there is some gameplay justification for not being able to go speedy on roads when you are in enemy territory.

Reply #27 Top

I think that would be a big mistake. This game already has quite a number of features that, while well intended or unavoidable as they might be, add to the gamey feel and lessen immersion. Making roads non-functional if you are not on friendly terms with the owner is just weird. Sieges on the other hand make sense, and the effect is basically the same; increasing the time between crossing the border and conquering the city so the AI or player has time to respond.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if there were ways to slow down an enemy army in your territory. Domain-type spells like in AoW could work well here. Just some ideas:

Life - Force of Nature: Nature is actively fighting enemy troops in your domain. Trees move to block paths, vermin raids food supplies, clouds of insects sting men and beasts alike. While not doing any significant damage, the distractions slow down the army's advance.
Death - Domain of Darkness: Your domain is shrouded in darkness. Visibility is reduced, movement is slowed.
Air - Sandstorm/fog/freezing winds: effects would basically be the same, just depends on the flavour you want to give it.
Water - Flooding: Rivers expand, flooding plains around them. Rainstorms reduce roads to thick mud.

I'm sure you could think of a spell for Earth and Fire as well, but not every spellbook has to be identical right?

Reply #28 Top

I really like Satrhan's idea.  But the AI still needs a lot of work to use such spells, unless it just gets them for free, like "Tireless March".  We already have "Tremor" / "Freeze" which the AI does not use.

Reply #29 Top

I've also been thinking that a siege mechanic should be introduced, it would give both the ai and players time to respond to attacks. Or cities could be given a civ5 style attack. A lone weak unit - be it a sovereign or a monster - should not be able to take a city, and certainly not raze it.

 

I'm also of the opinion that outposts need some kind of defense, although obviously not as strong as cities.

Reply #30 Top

Quoting Kalin, reply 14


Adding a siege mechanic does nothing to help the AI, it hinders it. Instead of building combat ready units, it now has to worry about including wall-breakers in its armies, and properly protecting such armies. Afterall, if the player cast a strategic spell to destroy or immobilize that wall-breaker army... what is the AI going to do? It'll stand around doing nothing. The player? He'll have his wall breaker ready outside enemy territory, merge that wall breaker into his main army the moment war is declared, rushes the city, nothing really changed.

 
End of Kalin's quote

I agree that it can cut both ways, but on balance I'd be happy to have the AI slowed down if it forced me to do so as well. At least we might end up getting to the late game and having chance to see what the AI can do before I blitz it.

But I'd point out that in the Total War games, you can still attack cities without bringing siege equipment. The siege equipment is just a requirement for assaulting immediately, otherwise you have to wait. Maybe this is the answer for FE? It would deal with your worry of the ai never being able to attack cities.

Can I get a show of support or opposition for some of the other suggestions:

- Solo champions shouldn't be able to conquer cities, and should be able to enter neutral territory

- You shouldn't be able to see the troops in a city out of visual range

- Conquering armies should not benefit from militia immediately. They should have to rebuild an automatically destroyed building or something.

- No speed benefits for roads in hostile territory: I'm warming to this, especially since roads are now an automatic feature, and it seems unfair to punish players for something that happens automatically.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Sethai, reply 30


Can I get a show of support or opposition for some of the other suggestions:

- Solo champions shouldn't be able to conquer cities, and should be able to enter neutral territory
End of Sethai's quote

Might work, on the other hand, if I can create a group of heroes powerful enough to take a properly defended city, why not?

- You shouldn't be able to see the troops in a city out of visual range
End of quote

That's a no-brainer.

- No speed benefits for roads in hostile territory: I'm warming to this, especially since roads are now an automatic feature, and it seems unfair to punish players for something that happens automatically.
End of quote

Don't like it, see my post above.

Reply #32 Top

I don't really mind the solo champion thing, but I think it might turn heroes into scouts (especially since they can't be perma killed). You'd hire some random guy send them in to scout out your enemies and prepare for a strike. It's basically the exact opposite of your 2nd point regarding seeing troops in city when out range.

Regarding that point, I don't think that's going to be in the final build, it's probably something to help players identify problems with the AI and report it. Basically something to give better feedback for the beta process. Of course, I could be wrong.

As for militias... to be honest, it's not the militias that are dangerous, it's things like barracks (init bonus) and walls (which are now being destroyed). I don't think you need to have some special mechanic, all you have to do is link the amount of militias you get to the amount of unrest the city is experiencing. That way, if you just took over a city and getting occupation penalty, you get less militias. Same thing if you have super high tax and no morale improvements.

Yeah, I think roads shouldn't work in hostile territory. It's not really a super realistic thing, but you could say that the roads have obstacles or something to slow you down. If you use tireless march (and who doesn't), even if you don't stack it, you can go like a dozen tiles in enemy lands. More if you are marching with a mounted army. That just can't be right.

Reply #33 Top

Quoting Satrhan, reply 31
Don't like it, see my post above.
End of Satrhan's quote

 

Assume the bonus from roads is with a supply chain and locals aiding the travelers. Armies outside of friendly territory have to either hunt for their own food or raid nearby homes to supply themselves in enemy territory.

Reply #34 Top

Ideas:

 

Right now, the AI is really annoying when it comes to razing, which is a little too easy.  Maybe resources should take 2 turns to raze, or an outpost within 2 squares makes razing impossible, you have to take out the outpost first, and razing eats up your movement for the turn?

 

I wouldn't mind siege engines being required to take down a walled city, which you can't get until level 3 city, so it wouldn't wreck the early game.

 

 

Reply #35 Top

I say turn the ability of being able to peer into enemy towns into a spell. One that enchantment wards can block.

Reply #36 Top

Quoting Dhuran, reply 35
I say turn the ability of being able to peer into enemy towns into a spell. One that enchantment wards can block.
End of Dhuran's quote

 

More Spells! Someone write this one down!

Reply #37 Top

Newly conquered towns need to be unstable ,unless seriously garrisoned.This means -

*up to NO resources of any kind generated,BUT all the expenses incurred.

*no defense bonuses

*no unit production

*enemy partisan unit spawn when garrison force is to low

Unrest is currently in the game, though i have no idea what it actually does....flesh it out.Give it some real teeth like above,and you'll greatly slow down the rush conquests.

Reply #38 Top

Players are very good at creating a very sharp tip to their spear. AIs, by contrast, are good at defense in depth.  

The general problem in FE, is that the current design gives a big advantage to the player with the sharpest spear and that's inevitably, the human player.

End of quote

Can we still expect sharper spears from the AI? It isn't impossible for the AI to learn how to choose its units well and how to build a decent offensive army with them. I don't know if you've ever played Sword of the Stars, but it certainly shows that it can be done (the AI designs ships that counter the ones players build and produces them in large quantities/groups them into adequate fleets).

I think it's critical for this game that the AI stops sending isolated light troops into enemy territory. It needs to learn to mass light troops before sending them away, and it needs to learn to build stronger, heavier troops when appropriate. Fallen Enchantress allows for combined arms and smart army construction - if the player can use these tools and the AI can't, the AI will be systematically overwhelmed.

The .915 changes seem to help (the AI seems better at research civics than warfare - I seldom see leather clad units - so putting the groupsize advances in there is a good idea), but if it continues making armies of 2-3 groups of 3 unclad spearmen against my better constructed armies, it's just going to be free XP for me.

 

(Really, I think one of the problem is that it shouldn't send the units away before the other units of the army are produced. Armies should move in number, or they should not. Divide and Conquer, or so the saying goes - the player doesn't even have to do it, because the AI already divides its armies).

Reply #39 Top

I agree.  The AI needs to (and could) get better at making armored troops, and not splitting up its armies.  One thing that might help is getting players to submit unit designs for different pre-built kingdoms and empires, phases and tech levels of the game (and depending on resources available), and choose the ones that would aid the AI the most.  For example, it is almost always suboptimal to not have units with the full three trait slots filled (except perhaps for Pioneers).  And to a lesser extent, not having all three accessory slots filled and not using horses/wargs in troop designs when those resources are available.

Reply #40 Top

If you play on hard/ridiculous, you'll see the AI field legions of champion geared (best armor) troops later on in the game (don't rush them early and give them a bit of a chance to build up). They will also use your troop design against you, so if you play all the faction and leave behind good unit design (with traits and good accessories), you'll see them being used against you later. The problem isn't really the gear they use or the design (although I agree that the base design needs updating), but rather the size of the unit they build, and perhaps the general makeup of their army overall. For example, every time I run up against one of my own troop design I'm glad that they only build them in groups of 3 or 5 (most likely due to the cost of those units), if they had built those same troops in groups of 9, I'd be in a bit trouble. But they don't. It seems like there is some time/cost calculation that they are doing, and it's affecting the group size they field. Human players will take the cost hit, build the best troops they can possibly field, then keep those units alive/leveled, and run over everything with it.

Reply #41 Top

Quoting StevenAus, reply 39
And to a lesser extent, not having all three accessory slots filled and not using horses/wargs in troop designs when those resources are available.
End of StevenAus's quote
Except for Gilden, because traits cost so much more for them than the weapons and armor.


Also, horses and crystal are rare resources, so if it uses mounted troops, it should make good, escorted mounted troops.

Reply #42 Top

Quoting StevenAus, reply 39
I agree.  The AI needs to (and could) get better at making armored troops, and not splitting up its armies.  One thing that might help is getting players to submit unit designs for different pre-built kingdoms and empires, phases and tech levels of the game (and depending on resources available), and choose the ones that would aid the AI the most.  For example, it is almost always suboptimal to not have units with the full three trait slots filled (except perhaps for Pioneers).  And to a lesser extent, not having all three accessory slots filled and not using horses/wargs in troop designs when those resources are available.
End of StevenAus's quote

I agree, but my experience before with games development is that usually when the fanbase says "just make the AI better," it never seems to happen, or at least not to the degree we'd like it to. Look at the Total War games, and (even with all their resources and iterations) how shockingly bad the battle AI still is.

That's not to say don't make it better, but sometimes I think we'd be better served making a game the AI could play, rather than struggling to make an AI that could play the game.

Reply #43 Top

Well, I don't see the game change radically, unless they removed almost everything related to unit customization and armies. So unless a multiplayer patch is really in the work, the AI is going to have to learn military strategy.