Repel attempt bonuses

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Pocus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:


Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK

A long time ago we tried to implement simultaneous moves, but it introduced several problems and the battles were much more difficult to inspect and understand with mages casting spells from side to side. We decided it was not a good solution.

---

this is very intriguing. Would you care to expand your answer? Why it posed problems? A system with simultaneous moves seems to be far more realistic AND fun. Was it a balance question, or a coding problem?

Have you played the GMT serie of ancient battles? There was this kind of system, with better leaders trumping the weaker ones. I always liked the game flow resulting from this mechanic.

---

Hm actually this is a good suggestion. I guess it wasnt a coding problem btw. KJ will let us know propably.

[PvK]

My counter-suggestion on the simultaneous issue, would be to have spellcasters and missile attackers alternate from side to side as they currently do, but have units who are moving or doing melee attacks, have their sequence mixed up between sides. This would keep the efficiency and clarity for missile and magic events, and keep the nice "barrage" missile attacks. Melee would look a bit more chaotic and it might be harder to see who hacked whom when, but it would help the "balance" issues of entire armies moving and attacking all at once while the enemy front units can't do much.

PvK

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by PvK:
My counter-suggestion on the simultaneous issue, would be to have spellcasters and missile attackers alternate from side to side as they currently do, but have units who are moving or doing melee attacks, have their sequence mixed up between sides. This would keep the efficiency and clarity for missile and magic events, and keep the nice "barrage" missile attacks. Melee would look a bit more chaotic and it might be harder to see who hacked whom when, but it would help the "balance" issues of entire armies moving and attacking all at once while the enemy front units can't do much.

PvK

There's a problem with that suggestion: the same unit can move and fire in the same turn (happens all the time when firing at fleeing enemies, in fact).

I don't really like the advantage given to the army that strikes first, either, but I think it's a symptom of a deeper problem: melee combat is too deadly too fast. That is why missile troops are less effective, battlefield magic is weak, armor is too powerful: melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, before missiles or magic can do much damage and before fatigue can accumulate. Because melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, the first strike is much more important.

[PvK]

My intention was that missile/spell units who move and and attack would all move and attack on a per-side basis, like they do now.

PvK

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
melee combat is too deadly too fast. That is why missile troops are less effective, battlefield magic is weak, armor is too powerful: melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, before missiles or magic can do much damage and before fatigue can accumulate. Because melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, the first strike is much more important.

strange, most of the melee I see can process for more than 10 rounds, when things are equilibrated that is. Dont base your facts on solo play where the player bring prot 18 HI against an unsupplied rabble of milicias. In pbem I have often see HI fall from fatigue after a long fight, especially when there is 100+ units for each side. The combat Last so long in fact that the quivers of archers are depleted and they start to charge with daggers.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Pocus:
this is very intriguing. Would you care to expand your answer? Why it posed problems? A system with simultaneous moves seems to be far more realistic AND fun. Was it a balance question, or a coding problem?

Have you played the GMT serie of ancient battles? There was this kind of system, with better leaders trumping the weaker ones. I always liked the game flow resulting from this mechanic.

I don't remember really (it was maore than a year ago), but I believe it was a coding problem and a 'clarity' problem. Several small bugs and unwanted effects on the battle mechanics appeared and it was difficult to get an overview of the battle. PvKs suggestion with a differentiated turn sequence (archers, mages, move and melee) might remedy some of this, but it would take some remaking i believe.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Not quite the right analogy Nagot as I did say spearmen and a Giant not a pike block or even a hopilite phalanx. Better to use the example of an elephant crashing into spearmen (...)

Then you should explain what you mean by 'spearmen'. Some sort of tribal horde fighting with short throwing spears perhaps? That's not the most common meaning of 'spearmen' in ancient and feudal warfare. Eg, Scottish and Flemish spearmen fought with long spears (3 to 5 metres long) in very close formations, not that very different from hoplites or pezetairoi. And BTW, I've seen the term 'spearmen' used for hoplites in several sources.

[Arralen]

Is the 1-point-damage from repelling "generic" or does it take into account special weapon properties, e.g. can repelling trigger poisoning, special (added) weapon damage or damage type (elfbane: dissolve magic beings)?

A.

[ December 30, 2003, 07:33: Message edited by: Arralen ]

[Taqwus]

Hm. If so, banshees would have a pretty impressive repel (length 6, area-1, MR-or-die wailing attack that takes no ammo).

[SurvivalistMerc]

I am also very intrigued by this thread.

It might help balance the races a bit more. I would like to see the morale checks modified by the likelihood that the unit would take significant damage from the attack...so for instance black plate infantry of Ulm would not fear a spear just due to its length if it would only rarely cause them harm but would fear it if it were weilded by a giant or someone or something that appeared to have great strength. The nation that I see coming out on the losing end of a change in this area which is not well thought-out would be Ulm, which has low-morale infantry, no priests (unless IF theme is used) able to improve morale, and units that can barely be hurt by most other nations' standard infantries.

I would also hope that these morale "failures" would merely result in a failure to attack that particular target that round and not count for "routing" purposes. Unless they already do and that is what the devs intend.

If a new system is implemented, I would think it would be important to re-evaluate all the units in the light of the new system for both balance and "realism." For instance, a giant weilding a spear is probably using a giant-sized spear, and it may be that a normal giant axe or sword would be longer than a regular human spear. This would apply to all supercombatant units of large size. As things stand now, the size of a weapon is independent of the weilder. Perhaps this could be done by adding in a "reach" attribute to account for the inability of a regular infantryman to poke at anything other than the giant's well-armored arm as the giant reaches to slash the infantryman with a sword.

I see all sorts of complexities here. But complexity is one of the things that makes Dominions great.