Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68

Thread: A More Tactical Battleboard

  1. #41
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4
    I'm liking the direction being discussed. The mechanics are still simple and intuitive. I'd avoid things like friendly fire because that will complicate the game for casual players.

    I don't like ammo limits if there is no way for the unit to replenish stock. They become a useless unit after they have loosed their volleys unless they also have melee skills (and it would be good to have most ranged units poor at melee). I think a simple turn limit after the ammo is depleted to bring back another ammo is simple and still keeps those units relevant. It would also make getting to them an important objective before they can reload (adding strategic choices to the player)

    I'm a bit worried about a couple of points - mainly to do with the terrain.

    In a nut-shell, I feel terrain should be intuitively simple for players to understand and procedurally generated.

    Rather than using proximity setting around say rocks and logs to give protection, I'd prefer rocks and logs to act more like bunkers or trenches in traditional war games where you can enter the tile. Would prefer this also for forests and hills. This way it becomes an intuitive item on the battle-board and wouldn't stop movement from one side to another. That way blocking terrain such as cliffs could have enter-able tiles of rocks/rubble at their bases to indicate natural protection. But maybe another way around keeping bonuses intuitive would be if the board had colour overlays indicating movement and protection modifiers - particularly if units will also have proximity benefits (an idea I really like).

    Second thing that concerns me a lot is that the battle boards are all hand made. I'd much prefer these to be procedural based on strategic map terrain. A procedural map presents unique puzzle solving opportunities each battle and can stop frustrations of a particular map coming up at specific times (there are maps in Fallen Enchantress that I absolutely hate - so much that after playing a battle or two on a specific battle map I stop playing). I think that placement of tiles that can be entered such as hills or swamp could be placed using a fractal model; rivers could run either east-west, or north-south tending toward the middle of the map, and if there are to be choke-points I really simple maze generator could be employed and then randomly remove x number of blocking tiles to further open the maze up. A maze generate with paths 2 or 3 wide and walls 1 wide would not be overly complex on the map - especially if there where a fair number of the wall tiles randomly removed.

    The argument for having hand-crafted battle maps is that you can provide balance. But for me the massive negative is that players can get bored with them and they just become another element where the approach can become formularized (something that kills strategic choice and longevity).

  2. #42
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,662
    Ammo limits are a very strategic design limitation to the ranged units. I think ammo limits work wonderfully. The trick is in setting the limit to balance with the expected length of battles.
    MoM had wonderful ammo limits. I hardly ever ran into the limit, but when I did I made my decision to stay or retreat a lot more strategic.
    In my experience, games that have ammo limits, the archers are weak, thus I never build them unless they are needed as a specific counter to some other unit.

  3. #43
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    25
    battlefields that would reflect strategic maps have something poetical and yet realistic.
    Wanting to run enemy archers with my cavalry: I would avoid attacking them on swampy terrain (or hills). In the same manner one could consider rivers, forrests... for his advantage.

  4. #44
    I appreciate all the feedback guys!

    Procedurally generated battleboards would certainly be an interesting addition, especially if the obstacles on the board could be used for cover or slowing movement. However, creating a solid procedural generator for the battle boards would require a great deal of effort at this point. It simply wasn't in our original design. We decided to do something very similar to MoM. Which is why we have a set board with a few random elements sprinkled around.

    Now, although I don't think it's feasible at this stage I think that procedurally generated battleboards would be excellent material for our first expansion. As I've said many times, we want WoM to be a living game. We intend to keep building on the foundation we've laid.

    That having been said, there's only so much room in the core game. Only so much can be considered "foundational". So, I think we need to put the idea on the shelf, but I think it needs to be on the front row. I don't believe we'll be able to get it in place before release, but it's something we can look at soon afterwards
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  5. #45
    Mage of the Lesser Tower
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    So guys, what would you add or change about the battleboard if you could?
    Assembling an army and then watching it fight an Auto-combat was one of my pet joys in MoM. I'd fight manually until I wanted to test the army's capabilities and let them fight their own fights.

    I'd like to see an Auto button on the tactical map.

  6. #46
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    25
    Oh, and speed options. Fast Forward
    And Automated unit behavior, or custom orders:
    I have 3 archers and 3 swordsmen. I want the whole combat keep my swordsmen at on square. So I would welcome an option that these swordsmen would not be part of the "unit rotation" (next turn) for the rest of the battle (If I would like I could click and order them, but if I would press TAB, they would be excluded. So next turn I will start with archers selected, they shoot, next archers, they shoot, last archers...done. Ready for "T".
    Also an option to jump from tactical to automated (well, I mentioned automated once before, but there are two options, one that happens on the battlefield, when I see it and can stop it, and the other one, which can be executed by clicking the wooden shield with two swords - calculated combat.)
    Let's say that enemy has one strong unit, which I don't trust calculated combat can handle, so I will manually defeat that one super strong enemy, but each side will still have x units left... boring... my army would win anyway... so now if I could start the calculated (without graphics) battle, I would be happy)

  7. #47
    Archmage of the Outer Ring jamoecw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,047
    i'd go with ammo limits. a good rule of thumb i think would be archers = 8 shots, javelins = 4, flying units have 1/2 ammo. battles last about 4-6 rounds on average, so only flyers will have ammo issues most of the time. i'd make human crossbows fire every other turn (like heavy crossbows in DnD). this means that a ranged only army would really only be feasible with the elves, and this assumes no anti-ranged stuff is present (magic, unit abilities). this means that keeping your range with your units can help mitigate damage, or closing the gap quickly. this is remnant of MoM and could be used to keep the DnD stats balanced without much alteration. i always figured something like this was planned for development.

    the only other thing i'd look at for the initial build would be either a DnD tower shield, or a MoM large shield. the DnD tower shield would make the unit untargetable/immune to ranged attacks (not magical attacks though), unless it was in melee, along with a -2 attack penalty. the MoM large shield is just a +2 vs missiles.

    i'd wait for a DLC for terrain stuff, to make sure it is done right.

  8. #48
    An auto-button and speed options are good ideas.

    And we'll play around with the amount of ammo during the balancing phase (or phaser for ST fans, lol).
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  9. #49
    Mage’s Assistant Belgariad87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    121
    things that complicate combat without adding real tactical depth is bad. Adding everyday things like hills and trees to the mix, plus little dumb things like morale, are just not realistically fun.

    As for the VERY balanced but limited ammo, i approve. things like building city walls to have better AC when defending a city are also recommended. Aaron's thoughts on making abilities for lots of things is gorgeous, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

    The idea to add terrain that makes you slow, etc. is cool, and maybe could be added later when there's time to implement it right. Buffing the simple things is truly what made MoM combat my favorite.
    Malleus the Magician + Fang the Draconian = OP

  10. #50
    Mage of the Inner Tower War Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    62 Troll Drive, Troll Town, Plane of Myrror
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by Belgariad87 View Post
    things that complicate combat without adding real tactical depth is bad. Adding everyday things like hills and trees to the mix, plus little dumb things like morale, are just not realistically fun.
    That's somewhat subjective. Morale was the factor in any battle so quite how you describe it as dumb and little is beyond me. Removing weapons would be less remiss. Werewolves, Dragons, Demons, undead that don't affect the psychology of a combatant is just bizarre. Same for if you outnumber them significantly. At the very least fear effects from scary monsters should be implemented as in the D20 system.

    Fear

    Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 + ½ fearsome creature’s racial HD + creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects. A failed roll usually means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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