Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: A More Tactical Battleboard

  1. #31
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1
    Hello everyone,

    nice and very much needed discussion on an important aspect of the game.

    First of all: INFO. Tool tips. The rules, every single one needs to be documented. Thanks

    My opinion, in short, design wise, is that the game needs reasons for a different placement of the troops on the field.

    Many good ideas have been proposed already, and it is a shame to see that some are not feasible like the LOS.

    I was wondering, as I read about a good work around like increasing the AC for units under cover, if it is also possible to implement things like friendly fire?

    Something like make a check to see if ranged unit (bow equipped) is firing against an enemy unit currently engaged in melee combat with a friendly unit (so if enemy and friendly units share "borders"), and put a % roll to hit the friendly unit instead? If xbow equipped, the penalty would be double, because the penalty would apply even from the origin of the shot (since they fire as a straight like instead of an arc).

    This would force you to move and place ranged units strategically if you don't want to risk to decimate your own units, and would consequently contribute (along with the other suggestions so far) to decrease the efficacy of the ranged units.

    For what concern melee units, an unlimited swarm bonus would probably become overpowered (legendary heroes) for whoever moves and get to attack first, I think that the key is giving positional bonuses for attacking from more sides but at the same time to limit the possibility of flanking the enemy units thanks to the zone of control.

    Also I think there should be a morale bonus, be it to AC or maybe better to HP, for having a friendly unit on every side. For example: +x for one unit on the left side, +2x for one unit on the left and one on the right, +3x for one unit on the left, one on the right and one in front. This would make protecting weaker units and using formations more meaningful.

  2. #32
    Moderator Asmodai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA (USA)
    Posts
    794
    Not a fan of ammo limits.

    The biggest things I would have liked to see in tactical combat were some version of attack of opportunity (threatened squares, facing, etc.) and line of sight/cover (hide weak units behind units with shields, rocks, trees, etc.)

    That said those are things that were suggested from the beginning so I believe they were consciously cut due to their complexity to implement.

  3. #33
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodai View Post
    Not a fan of ammo limits.
    MOM had ammo limits if I remember correctly...sucks to run out but seems like it's needed for balance (to avoid over-powered ranged units)

  4. #34
    The only issue I see with ranged units is that there is no paper-scissors-rock for them. Only way to win against them is to simply bring more ranged than your enemy.

  5. #35
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodai View Post
    The biggest things I would have liked to see in tactical combat were some version of attack of opportunity (threatened squares, facing, etc.) and line of sight/cover (hide weak units behind units with shields, rocks, trees, etc.)
    Yeah, I agree. And I was also pondering with the option of special defense of pikemen, who could stop or extra-hit approaching units (especially charging flyers or mounted units). So attacking pikeman in defensive stance would be extra painful for fast units (while shielded and slow units could negate the extra first-strike of pikeman)

    Quote Originally Posted by Russonc View Post
    MOM had ammo limits if I remember correctly...sucks to run out but seems like it's needed for balance (to avoid over-powered ranged units)
    MoM really had ammo limit, Colossus or Giant head only 2 ammo. Nightmares only 4. But MoM had also units limit per army, so the ammo limit from MoM would not add up properly in WoM where can 15 units fight on one side.
    Also there will be this real urge to trample all archers down ASAP. So building an army only from archers could backfire when fast or teleporting strong melee units will engage against them. Not to mention dozens of spells that make missiles futile (city spell : Darkness, or unit spell: Immunity against missile..and others)
    Also in MoM was cheap Chaos spell that prevented any shooter from using their missile weapon. From what I played so far, archers are not OP, nor spell casters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miradus View Post
    The only issue I see with ranged units is that there is no paper-scissors-rock for them. Only way to win against them is to simply bring more ranged than your enemy.

    Actually my strong archers based army, defended only by 2 melee units, was trampled over with fast mounted units. I in contrary beat up those mounted units with my pikemen. So even if I have experienced some unbalances, I also can confirm rock-paper-scissors system. Which of course may be polished and improved.

    But why I feel comfortable with unlimited ammo is the "chance-to-hit" and armor. So even strong archers will mostly miss enemy units the first round, then there are only few rounds before enemy reaches the shooter ranks but are close enough to be hit. But still the damage could be minor. So even when my archers started to hit Paladins, the damage was between 2 and 6... but even then, some of my archers missed and no damage was done. In melee Paladins were able to kill one whole stack of my archers in one hit... And even warewolves or dragons or phasing efreeti or unicorn riders may all smile in the faces of my archers. Not to mention that enemy sorcerer with good AI will cast few spells and my so-called-OP-army of archers can just pick their teeth with their useless arrows. I only wanted to remove additional counter slot in memory for counting ammo, as unlimited ammo may not be equally problematic.
    Last edited by Gatts; 09-16-2014 at 10:27 PM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Miradus View Post
    The only issue I see with ranged units is that there is no paper-scissors-rock for them. Only way to win against them is to simply bring more ranged than your enemy.
    You can get to them pretty fast with cavalry units, especially Unicorn Riders. They're weak on AC and hit points.

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Russonc View Post
    MOM had ammo limits if I remember correctly...sucks to run out but seems like it's needed for balance (to avoid over-powered ranged units)
    It did. They also increased with level, though. WoM doesn't have to go that route, but I do worry about how strong flying ranged units can be. I don't want to see a lot of content trivialized because of such a simple mechanics combo.
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  7. #37
    Neophyte Sorcerer
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SK, Can
    Posts
    40
    Fair points. My experiences come from early game where the ranged units are stronger compared to other available units in the early game. If stronger units are proving capable of withstanding their attacks, then there's definitely a case to be made for making sure that ranged attackers have the staying power for engagements of extended duration. Certainly there are more people here who are better qualified to speak on that than I am.

    That said, I'd still be in favor of Large Shields and other Fun abilities to make army building a more strategic experience and open up interesting tactical options. I'm definitely not a fan of friendly fire; it may be more realistic, but I'm playing an immortal sorcerer who is dedicated to bringing seven planes of existence and hundreds of thousands of goblins, elves, dwarves, and stranger creatures under my banner through force of will and military might backed by my extensive repertoire of arcane knowledge. There are certain parts of reality that I'm willing to sacrifice. To demonic quasi-gods. In exchange for more mana crystals.

    If obstacles granting a ranged defense and the addition of learned unit abilities across the spectrum are the initial major considerations for opening up deeper options, that is perhaps a good starting point. Additional tweaking can certainly proceed beyond that as seems appropriate.

    ---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by [COLOR=Silver
    [/COLOR]It did. They also increased with level, though. WoM doesn't have to go that route, but I do worry about how strong flying ranged units can be. I don't want to see a lot of content trivialized because of such a simple mechanics combo.
    There are also more -Fly spells here than there were in MoM, as a counter-point. For the non-magically backed, maybe a high-level unit ability could be added to some appropriate critters along the lines of a thrown net inferior to the magical versions?

    Edit: Actually, maybe not even that, given that there are some factions to come that might, just based on what I'm reading on the wiki (which could change at any time) be able to handle that just as easily, and I wouldn't want to steal a shtick from them.
    Last edited by Battledawn; 09-16-2014 at 11:03 PM.

  8. #38
    Moderator Asmodai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA (USA)
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Russonc View Post
    MOM had ammo limits if I remember correctly...sucks to run out but seems like it's needed for balance (to avoid over-powered ranged units)
    It did. But it's a maintenance thing that's fallen out of favor in games and I think for the better but it's wouldn't be a killer to me if they added them. I just PREFER not to have them.
    For balance SOMETHING is needed but I'd prefer ranged units be offset with LoS and Cover not ammo limits but it seems complexity is too high there.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by tanktop4158 View Post
    Hi all...didnt know if this was a similar question, which would you rather have on your board, a group of Paladins the human build, or a unit of doom-drakes the draconians build?


    Hopp;ng to find out as i play both races a lot
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatts View Post
    You can also test both units in ARENA.
    Due the actual glitch I would prefer Doom Drakes, as they can hit for 300-800 fire damage each first hit. (and sometimes on retaliation). But in general Paladins seems to be more sturdy with higher armor and resistance.
    Hi guys, this is actually a really cool conversation, but it's a little off-topic for this thread. This is the sort of thing that is absolutely perfect for the General forum. In fact, I really hope to see lots of these types of threads in the General forum too once people are really able to get to the strategy part of the game. Anyway, if you could move your conversation about which units are best for what there, I'd really appreciate it.

    Peace,

    -Troy
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  10. #40
    Weighing in:

    Zdsdead, we don't intend to shrink the battleboard. And don't worry, if changing the unit's starting location messes things up we can always move them back


    Gatts, let me touch your points one by one:

    First, not all archers are created equal. There is a wide gap between skeletal archers and crossbowmen.

    We have spells that accomplish everything you mentioned. We just don't have them all in-game yet.

    http://wastelands-interactive.com/me...p?title=Spells

    At this point I think your ideas on the three types of ranged units are too complex. It's interesting, but it falls outside the scope of what we're doing at this point. It seems more like the kind of thing we could look at for future expansion (and make optional).

    There are going to be obstacles that can slow cavalry

    There are a number of spells that directly effect fliers. In my opinion they'll be enough. (If that proves not to be the case we can change it.)

    We haven't done a lot of work with the water battleboards yet. There's a lot we can add.

    I don't quite understand your “fall back” point. Can you expound on it?

    Traps might be something we can look into in time.

    We could add an ability that would make charging a unit of pikemen a bad idea

    And, yes, there already is a bit of rock-paper-scissors, but there is room for a bit more.


    Pendragon, welcome! Glad to see you here.

    Documentation is certainly needed (that you can get to right from the battleboard).

    LoS is something we may be able to work in some time in the future. It's just not feasible at this stage. (Other than our kind of LoS shortcut.)

    Until we implement a true LoS solution I want to forgo friendly fire. Again, it's something we can look at in the future. (When we take a real look at it we can consider your proposed method of implementing it.)

    If we have a “swarm bonus” it will have a limit

    Moral bonuses are something we could consider.


    Asmodai, I think the ammo limits will work well provided we handle the numbers correctly. I think it's just going to be a matter of getting the balance right.

    Attacks of opportunity are already in to a very limited degree. We are thinking of expanding them so they can effectively serve as Zones of Control.


    Russonc, good to see you here


    Miradus, there's more rock-paper-scissors on the way. And keep in mind, there are spells that work specifically against ranged units. A great deal of the game's tactical balance comes from spells. Still, a little more “anti-ranged” may not hurt the game.


    Battledawn, thanks for weighing in. Fun unit abilities are fun, and we can give more melee units thrown weapons if we need to for balance reasons. Of course, as you point out, some races aren't going to have a problem in that area anyway.
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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