A More Tactical Battleboard

[Troy_Costisick]

Hi all,

First of all I really appreciate the direction the game is heading and the purity of the game mechanics. Simple mechanics means that anyone can pick up the game and I think with a game like WoM that is a real asset. Having said that (here's the 'but') if any elements of a strategy game are too simple or can be formularized by a player then that game largely stops being a challenge and has a short shelf-life.

My fear at the moment is that the tactical battle map can be dominated by ranged units. If that is the case then there is no reason to specialise your cities into other areas or to use combined arms with your unit stacks. I love games where a player is rewarded for using combined arms because it makes you think and plan your stacks as well as your approach to problems presented on the strategy map.

In basic terms I would love the following sort of elements in the tactical battle map (written in order of preference):

* Diverse and randomised layouts based on terrain where the map elements impacted the strategy (providing cover, defence bonuses, attack bonuses, slow movement, etc). A good example of this is the game Eador and their battle map.

* I like the idea mentioned of an ammo limit.

* Cover also provided by units as well as terrain elements. So having cheap meat-shields can be used as a strategy.

* Zones of control to stop units by-passing to the rear ranks (particularly employed by spearmen/pikemen).

* Support from proximity of units (like a shield wall). A good example of this is Dungeon Bowl.

* Unit facings so that flank attacks become viable. Age of Wonders 3 does this very well.

I know that this would all change the game design too much but thought I'd put it out there.

Thanks

Das24680

Welcome to the boards, Das. Been really enjoying your vids!

[War Troll]

Improved terrain and features I definitely think can improve the battemap. Streams can slow/halt movement, elavated positions grant defence bonuses, lessen range penalty etc. I support limited ammunition as I feel it is more conducive to tactics. On the whole though I think the D20 system and the battlemap size is great.

Also unit abilities. Not neccesarily activated ones but rather ones gained through experience e.g Spearmen could gain 'Brace Spears' at level two gaining a defence bonus vs mounted units, Swordsmen gain 'Shield Expertise' giving a bonus AC vs ranged. It would improve tactical play and make me want to husband my units.

[Aaron]

We may want to limit the range of some of the units with thrown weapons. As it is now the range penalty makes it where they have almost no chance to hit at very long range, but we may want to put a hard limit on it. If we do that we'll probably need to come up with a way to display the attack range. Really, that would be good even for the range penalties.

And welcome Das! It's good to see you here

(I'm going to let a few other people get a word in edge-wise before I weigh in on your suggestions, lol.)

[zdsdead]

We may want to limit the range of some of the units with thrown weapons. As it is now the range penalty makes it where they have almost no chance to hit at very long range, but we may want to put a hard limit on it. If we do that we'll probably need to come up with a way to display the attack range. Really, that would be good even for the range penalties.

Im guessing some sort of colored square option, like movement has?

[Hoverdog]

Some developer ideas:

- Ammunition is a must, I think, given flying-ranged units are an enormous exploit otherwise.
- Starting positions closer to each other. We're planning to try it out ASAP - cuts down on empty movement, somewhat diminishes ranged units.
- manual unit placing. Available only as an option (doing it every time is awfully boring), increases the tactics value. We've already done it for the side-project so it shouldn't be much of a bother.
- more unit abilities, some of which were proposed by the community: large shields (increased AC vs. ranged, should be easy), no retaliation attacks, splash damage, multi-tile attacks
- some kind of "overwhelming": when several units are up against one but powerful, they should wear it down with each melee attack. I don't really like the proposed limited number of retaliations, I'd rather simply see them weaker (like, -10%/-1 to hit & damage for each attack, limited to 5 times?)

[zdsdead]

Some developer ideas:
- Starting positions closer to each other. We're planning to try it out ASAP - cuts down on empty movement, somewhat diminishes ranged units.

A BIG step in the wrong direction IMHO. This really does not sit well with me at all. How fast do cavalry move, or large creatures? can they reach you in 1 turn? Totally removes tactics for me, its ok for ambush scenarios, but not every battle.....


Also affects the effectiveness of a lot of spells.


I cannot put into words really how vehemently against such an idea I am. It would remove a huge part of the game for me, personally. :-(

[War Troll]

- more unit abilities, some of which were proposed by the community: large shields (increased AC vs. ranged, should be easy), no retaliation attacks, splash damage, multi-tile attacks
- some kind of "overwhelming": when several units are up against one but powerful, they should wear it down with each melee attack. I don't really like the proposed limited number of retaliations, I'd rather simply see them weaker (like, -10%/-1 to hit & damage for each attack, limited to 5 times?)

+1 this, abilities add greatly to the tactical element. Not keen on putting armies closer together though, it just eliminates maneuverability.

[Das24680]

I would love to see things like the possibility of streams and choke-points on the battle map. It would make each battle very different. The trouble with terrain features that slow units down is that it gives even more advantage to ranged units so a much shorter range would be great along with an ammo limit. A much shorter range on the same scale map would lead to a structuring phase of battles where claiming terrain is important before the arrows fly.

So the sort of terrain features could be something like (this doesn't require a cover behind mechanic - only a bonus or penalty as terrain is entered:

TERRAIN	MODIFIER
Rise/Hill	+1 movement to enter. Extra range. Defence bonus vs melee. Vulnerable vs ranged
Trees	+1 movement. Ranged units can't fire from or into.
Logs/Rubble	+1 movement to enter. Defence bonus (extra vs ranged).
Cliff	Can't enter. High cover behind. Snakes across terrain (like rivers). Makes chokepoints
Mud/Swamp	+1 movement to enter. +1 movement to exit.
Stream	As per mud but with defence penalty vs melee and ranged
River	Can't enter. Snakes across terrain.
Lake	Cant enter.
Bridge/Crossing	Provides access across rivers/streams.

[Battledawn]

tldr version:
+1 Ammunition limits
Moving armies closer together dependant on how much closer
Unconvinced regarding terrain features
+1 Unit Abilities



Moving the armies too much closer together limits tactical options due to less time for set-up spellcasting. That said, I don't think moving them slightly closer than they are now will impact spellcasting very much while still providing for a round less of the Volley of Doom that's decimating the enemy. It's also worth considering, though, that while having an enemy start closer might cut down a round of ranged fire, that enemy will also be within optimal, no-penalty firing range that much sooner, as well.

Big supporter of the Large Shield-type option. It's a minor thing, but it might have a worthy impact in the long-run.

Ammunition limits can certainly play a big role in dealing with ranged weapon dominance. That said, finding the right ammo level balance will take some looking into. Too much, and it may as well be unlimited--I'm not sure I've seen a battle last longer than six or seven turns yet, and that's been with only three Crossbowmen slicing through the enemy ranks so that by the time anything reaches my Swordsmen (who are mostly just hanging out chatting with the Clerics mid-field, discussing the weather, having a tankard of ale, laughing at the goblins, that sort of thing), there's only one or two figures left in any given enemy unit to clobber. Too little, and more of the brunt of the fighting falls to the melee units who, at the moment, feel nigh-useless in battle overall against the enemies they're up against, from my limited playtime--I may not be qualified to really comment on that. (Note how it doesn't stop me.) Maybe that's just because the lairs near the starting area need tweaked, though.

Terrain modifiers give me mixed feelings. On the one hand, they open up the possibilities for additional spellcasting options, such as using Water Walking to move attackers over lakes and rivers or Flight to bypass cliffs and chokepoints entirely. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the time and resources it could take to properly implement; it may or may not be worth it in the end, but the real question is whether those are available to begin with.

[Das24680]

If ammo was limited to say 2 turns worth of usage then was only available every second turn after that (foraging for supplies) that might create a workable limit but still keep ranged units viable for long battles.

A limit on the range as well as the existing distance modifiers would be good. Especially if there was a sweet-spot at say 4 tiles with it being ineffective at say 8 tiles but also at 1 tile (imagine a donut).

The combination of range limits and ammo limits along with a 4 tile sweet-spot would give players a choice of trying to hit at distance and kite; or to hold on to their ammo and wait until they see the whites of their eyes before releasing their two initial volleys.

I like the big battle fields but only if the field itself offers strategic choice - such as using a turn or two to move into favourable terrain.