Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: A More Tactical Battleboard

  1. #21
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Well after reading all this I figured to put in my 2 cents.
    as for the size of the battlefield it should stay the same and not moving the units closer together keep them where they are. I wouldn't mind seeing a few more obstacles to the battle field for cover, slowing units ect. but just a little bit we don't want to completely over crowd the battle field. I like the idea of creating flanking opportunites for units. As for limited ammo for archers remember they should have a full quiver and I would expect at least 2 dozen. The javelineer I could see carrying 4-6. A good way of dealing with the range attackers would be have an accuracy/damage penality with range, less effective farther away. A limited range on the javelin makes sence but an archer should be able to fire the whole distance. Also I feel that the elf archer should be able to fire further than a crossbow. I believe a longbow can go a greater distance than a crossbow but a crossbow may do more damage or more accurate. Remember in dealing with be swarmed by range attackers part of the strategy of this game is magic and there are several spells that with prevent them from attacking, attacking some one else, having them miss or killing or hurting them. Its not just trying to move slow melee units up to the archer to attack only.
    Also during siege battles would it be possible to put the entire walled city you are attacking in the middle of the siege battle board(maybe larger board) to offer opportunities to attack multiple sides around the city vs. just the one wall. It would give more options to maneuver units to break through or climb over the walls and could distract and spit up a defending force.

  2. #22
    THE GRAND BACKER zdsdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    middlesbrough, UK
    Posts
    686
    Instead of terrain/obstacles blocking LoS how about a "To Hit" penalty every time you fire through/over friendly troops or obstacles.

    If starting opponents closer together, is going to be pushed through anyway, at least give a perk, on character creation for 1 point called" General, or Tactician", or something similar, allowing a player custom setup of his troops, if he/she, wishes.

    Would It not be possible to have preferred battleboard sizes in the options, before the game starts small/medium/large ?. This im sure would satisfy all camps?
    Last edited by zdsdead; 09-16-2014 at 05:42 AM.
    Elder Dragon, Grand Chancellor x 2, Conjurer x 2, and some other type of Backer

  3. #23
    Yeah, I feel maximum range would help a little bit. I really wish LOS could be a thing, but I understand the difficulty lol.

    Another thing as I mentioned in another thread is the ability to tell your units to be in different formation that give them different bonuses. Also having something like adjacency bonuses would be cool. (bonuses you get for being next to other friendly units).

    I'm unsure if limited ammo will help. In the early game it would still be too good. But if archers could only have like, 5 shots, then archers wouldn't really be worth it except as an anti-aircraft weapon lol.

    Walls and fences would be cool, or areas of the board that can give you cover or concealment bonuses, or give ranged attackers penalties because there is a tree ceiling above them, what have you.

  4. #24
    Neophyte Sorcerer
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SK, Can
    Posts
    40
    MoM had ammo limits of 6 or 8 depending on the unit, with some units toting only 4 shots (spellcasters and dark elves, as I recall). That tended to prove sufficient; either the battle was over before ammunition was consumed, or the enemy was weakened enough that melee could mop up. MoM also had unlimited range, but the range penalty beyond five (I think) squares made it so that low level units weren't doing much the first round or two of an engagement unless the opponent had poor defenses. I think part of the problem right now is that ranged units don't feel like they have any penalty at long range, but to be fair, I've only used Crossbowmen so far. If they have Long Range Shot, that's probably just what I'm feeling, and I'll figure out later why their damage varies so much between 4 and 45.

    I do like the idea of a tohit penalty to ranged attacks or a defensive bonus to ranged attacks (amounts to the same thing, just different ways to get there) for units near potential cover. The rocks and boulders on the screen are just window dressing right now. They're also about mid-field, so strategy for each side would be to get there before the opponents while trying to maintain cover from incoming ranged attacks that are, hopefully, attacking at a penalty, then secure midfield using the defensive bonuses provided by the terrain until the enemy is out of ammunition and it's possible to move in to kill them. Since both sides are doing that, it becomes worthwhile to have a mixed army that includes infantry to secure midfield, ranged attackers to harass the enemy who is trying to do the same, and support to keep the infantry on its feet and provide extra hitting power. Meanwhile, the wizard can be raining death and dismemberment.

    This could also provide an opportunity for spell buffs as well as unit abilities that assuage hit penalties for terrain or counter terrain bonuses. One can imagine, for example, that trained elven archers don't let a little thing like a tree stop them from making a lethal shot in the same way that other races struggle when they are fighting in the pristine and ancient wood.

    I can only speak from an early game perspective so far, though, utilizing primarily standard units. But that does sound Fun.

  5. #25
    What about a Bramble Patch or shallow Lava Pit that damages a unit as it passes thru?
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  6. #26
    Alright guys, me and the team have read through this. Most of the suggestions are very good and many of them are feasible. I'm going to go down the list in no particular order.

    First, we can probably implement Zones of Control simply by enforcing the D20 rules on attacks of opportunity more strictly. We already have the system in place, we just need to expand it. This would prevent units from being able to run past enemy units and things of that nature.

    We can also add a number of new unit abilities. Large Shields could add an AC bonus vs. ranged attacks. Braced Spears could provide an AC bonus vs. cavalry (or some other kind of bonus). Shield Wall might add an AC bonus to the unit if it's adjacent to another unit with Shield Wall. These are just examples, of course. When the time comes to talk specifics we can flesh out the details.

    In addition we can give certain units “auras”. For instance, a Paladin could have an Aura of Courage giving nearby units a bonus to saves vs. fear.

    We can add a passive AC bonus vs. ranged attacks to any unit standing adjacent to any of the battle board obstacles (the idea being that they do their best to take cover).

    We can also add a to-hit penalty if a ranged attack has to pass through an area occupied by a battle board obstacle.

    Most of that is both simple and flavorful in my opinion. So, I feel we should seriously consider implementing them.

    Now, I like the idea of choke points, but that's not as simple a matter. The battleboards are hand crafted. Adding things like cliffs or rivers randomly can be difficult. And I don't really like the idea of having a set of battleboards with set rivers or cliffs. The idea of a choke point is good, but we would need to come up with a way to randomize it without making it ridiculous. (I don't want a line of rocks blocking movement all the way across the battlefield, lol.)

    So, there's our feedback on your feedback so far. What do you guys think? Do you have counter-suggestions?
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  7. #27
    What about tiles that slow movement or damage units as they walk through?
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  8. #28
    There are spells that cause effects like that. I think we should be able to add battleboard obstacles that do the same thing.
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  9. #29
    THE GRAND BACKER zdsdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    middlesbrough, UK
    Posts
    686
    I like the ideas, you have listed, Aaron, I fully realize the difficulty in implementing, some of the things not mentioned, at this stage of development, but you have not mentioned the reduction of battleboard/shortening of distances between forces? whats happening in this regard? as you have probably worked out it is quite important to myself, and other people.
    Elder Dragon, Grand Chancellor x 2, Conjurer x 2, and some other type of Backer

  10. #30
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    25
    Ranged Units: after seeing 1 unit of Paladins and 2 units of Pikemen decimate my 11 units of Skeleton Archers, I assume that ammo limit is not something that is missing so much. With zone of control and long range penalty, this would be considered solved, but there is more: spells that confuse, put into slumber, or give ranged protection..
    When there will be space to implement line of sight> shooters could be split into 3 categories:
    A: direct line of sight (basic archers, crossbowmen), in this case any obstacle, or enemy unit would prevent shooting at object hiding behind. Against such shooters one could protect his own weaker units by placing them behind sturdy swordsmen. (It should be possible to ignore own units, but not enemy)
    B: barrage, ballistic trajectory (rangers, catapult) : shooters will aim into the air, delivering damage when the projectile will fall down (area of impact could be bigger than 1 square), weakness of such attack would be not the distance alone, but much obstacles, although the projectile can pass over trees/rocks/walls, if not seen, it may end one or two squares away.
    C: shooting stars (spell casters): they manipulate the basis of the magic world, all they need is to focus. As soon they pick their pray, they call fire, lightning or ice directly from heaven to their unfortunate targets. Only damage reduction can really help (or traits that help dodging..) and maybe resistance

    Mounted/melee units: these may have (as mentioned more times before) random obstacles in their path, other then just walls or rocks (that our archers may hate so much), swamps or thorny bushes that slow down on grass-like battlefields, lava lakes on fire battlefields, cursed pits reducing stats and slowing down on unholy grounds, webs with poisonous spiders. Of course hills, providing benefits of defense but slowing down. Rivers, not passable by mundane units (only flying, water walking, levitating..)
    I also liked (and hated) cursed stones that were implemented in Kings Bounty (remake) that did cast random positive or negative spells on nearby units.

    Flyers: there could be gust of winds on battle map, that may, if strong enough, move flying units... this may be too crazy, but wind is the only strength (and weakness) of any flying monster.

    Whirlpools or random occurring wild sea beasts on water battlegrounds (hitting ships and water walkers or trying to grab flying units)

    I also miss the option to fall back. I know, that the actual battlefield is big enough, but somehow I got used to tactically retreat few squares before deciding which way to escape (shot n run tactics). Now my units are with their backs just to the battle margins with only option to "retreat" / regroup at right or left wing. (real retreat is not considered, they have to fight till bitter end! No escaping will be tolerated while I am the Sorcerer)

    Among "wild" visible (and also invisible) traps (that slow, damage, curse, poison..) unlucky trespasser, similar such traps could be also placed on battlefield while defending cities. (One wall without traps, moat, turrets gets boring over time)... and casting firewall in each city takes time and even if I could afford it, I would be lazy to do it.
    Last edited by Gatts; 09-16-2014 at 06:21 PM.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer