Combat Survey

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Combat Survey

This topic contains 156 replies, has 78 voices, and was last updated by  Cyrus_Mortis 6 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #221318

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    See News post and participate in the poll! (need to be registered to vote!)
    http://aow.triumph.net/combat-survey/

    #221331

    First.

    #221332

    Gloweye
    Member

    Some notes:

    I would prefer to keep the adjacent hexagon rule as-is, instead of looking into alternatives

    How mutually exclusive is this? I love the AHR, but some bigger battlefield in comparison to AoW 3 would be a blessing. Since it seems to be a kind of brainstorm version, I’d love the ability to micro my fortresses – if I build fortifications in a cavernous corridor, I’d love to be able to start with a wall from one side to the other and then place the gates myself, in such a way that I can account for obstables, and such that I can shape the wall the way I want.

    I would prefer having fewer, but more meaningful battles in a match

    Here, define “meaningful”. I’ve yet to get a battle that I found meaningless, and I’ve got my 1500-odd hours of game time by now. Sure, scout battles are a bit less exiting than 3v3 stack battles, but they can be meaningful nonetheless. Overall, heading back to the explanation in the start, I’d really love it if we were able to have bigger battles than we have, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the amount of battles that we are going to have.

    A kind of side-solution could be that you get armies instead of stacks, AHR rule works, and armies, if to big for one hex, start spanning multiple hexes. Potential for strategic flanking here, if the micro isn’t to much.

    #221334

    Damm you Sikbok, I want bigger battles AND sometimes I want fast battles.

    My answer to all of these questions is that it depends.

    #221336

    madmac
    Member

    While I have a nostalgic fondness for the AHR system, I am very much in favor of at least looking for alternatives that are less clunky in MP.

    Everything else I’m in the “it depends” camp.

    #221341

    Gloweye
    Member

    First.

    Troll. I started my post before your’s was there…

    Damm you Sikbok, I want bigger battles AND sometimes I want fast battles.

    My answer to all of these questions is that it depends.

    While I have a nostalgic fondness for the AHR system, I am very much in favor of at least looking for alternatives that are less clunky in MP.

    Everything else I’m in the “it depends” camp.

    “Depends” is a good answer indeed. Dunno though – I’m kind of in the “”screw MP” camp when it comes to changes like that…

    #221342

    Didymus1492
    Member

    Having bigger stacks … well, maybe heroes/leaders unlock bonus slots? By itself, cuts both ways. I don’t like the idea of bigger stacks without heroes because that makes heroes less special. Essentially the army leader slot should be a bonus slot, and the army leader might have extra slots as well. The Leader Unit for a side might start with the ability to fill one bonus slot with a hero?
    That is, something like this:
    Normal Stack:
    ….six standard slots
    Led Stack:
    ….Hero or Leader Unit
    ….6 standard slots
    ….one or two bonus slots from Hero or Leader Unit
    Ultimate Stack:
    ….army leader(Hero or Leader unit)
    ….six standard slots
    ….bonus slot (special, only available to Leader Unit): hero only
    ….bonus slot #1: any unit
    ….bonus slot #2: any unit

    Since the bonus slots can only come from the army leader, this adds another build decision.

    #221343

    Kaiosama TLJ
    Member

    Like madmac ad BBB, everything here is on the “it depends” camp. Well, except this one:

    “I would prefer having deployment, even if it interrupts the flow of combat”

    Depending on how deployment is done, I really want to see that. Sometimes I end up with some Infantry far behind because the leader of the army is always deployed in the front lines, and most of the times is a hero that I don’t want to be in the front lines.

    #221344

    madmac
    Member

    “Depends” is a good answer indeed. Dunno though – I’m kind of in the “”screw MP” camp when it comes to changes like that…

    It’s not exclusively a MP problem, just a lot more noticeable when you lose a three hour game because you had a stack one hex out of position or because one person gets an arbitrary 4/3 fight advantage because they clicked faster or a billion other pixel-bitching sort of things.

    I don’t know what Triumph in considering, but the first ideas I come to mind are a more EL or Total War type system where defending stacks can be pulled in from a larger area or even show up as mid-battle reinforcements so that super precise hex dancing is less of a concern.

    #221345

    ExNihil
    Member

    I have proposed this several times and think this function would really benefit MP and also the idea of deployment: configurable combat round timer, either as a direct timer or as a configurable time unit multiplied by each unit (e.g. each unit equals 20s).

    #221347

    Wrt deployment, in theory this will naturally scale up or down depending on the size of the battle, so shouldn’t overly affect the battle length.

    After all, the first few turns are usually effectively deployment moves anyway.

    Also, similar to Troll Gloweyes idea of armies instead of stacks, how about simply extending the hexes to include armies that are up to 3 hexes away? They could trickle in as reinforcements, so split stacking only gains you positional advantage on the battlefield (by being between 2 enemy armies for example) without the sometimes silly/annoying situation where the faster clicker can actually split the stack.

    #221349

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I agree with BBB – I can’t answer the questions, because:

    1) The AHR is fine as it is – but MAYBE you can come up with something even better, so I’m loathe to answer thbis categorically. Suggestion: If you could present a concrete alternative, I’d certainly answer the question, but as it is…

    2) I wouldn’t want a full deployment phase prior to each battle, because that would lead to extreme formations and stacks, which I wouldn’r like. However. SOME control would be good.
    Suggestion: How about a simple 3 or so buttons to chose a formation from (so that there would be more than one)? The late Heroes of Might and Magic 4 had such a feature. Wide formation, tight formation and tight with 1 unit especially guarded in the back. You could also determine the position of the units in each army (which would be the “stack” in AoW)?

    3) I would like to get the Dungeons back, where you had to SEARCH your enemies. 🙂 Anyway, bigger battles. We currently have a 42 unit max, and with a view on 3d siege geometry this is fine. Sure, 56 units (and 8 units per stack) or 49 (why not 7 units per stack? 6 units and a leader sounds like good compromise) would be ok as well, but in my opinion, the current situation is fine. It’s no problem to have a 3-digit number of units all and all, and battles shouldn’t GENERALLY become bigger (I also like the amount of battles in all). That said, Suggestion: if you’d add the 3rd dimension, and allow fliers to take up space in the air, above the land hexes, you had potentially double the size…

    4) Define meaningful. 🙂 I do NOT want to have fewer battles. I consider the one-steck battles in mystical structures like Ziggurats as meaningful.
    Suggestion: Create Multi-hex sites to enter. What I mean is, let some structures cover 2 and 3 hexes and let them be guarded by 2 and 3 stacks (that you can bring with you as well). Would that fit your definition? If yes, I would be all for a couple of those sites!

    #221357

    It’s not exclusively a MP problem, just a lot more noticeable when you lose a three hour game because you had a stack one hex out of position or because one person gets an arbitrary 4/3 fight advantage because they clicked faster or a billion other pixel-bitching sort of things.

    That is a tricky one. In total war games, I don’t think it actually worked that differently, but you could have some troops controlled by the ai and others as your reinforcements.

    For AOW III, I think you could do a “legion” type system, where the only way to have large multi stack battles was to form up to like 4 or five stacks into a coordinated, named army. It would move as one unit, and you could select out either stacks or individual units.

    It could gain traditions, specialize, have experience, etc. You’d have a limited number of them, and stacks would otherwise just fight one on one.

    As for deployment, that would probably work better with a legion set up where you could have basic pre set formations, and slowly unlock better ones. That way, there is no painful micromanaging at the time (you’ll only have like 3, later 5 or 6 options for attacking or defending) and there is choice.

    Army governance, if you will.

    #221360

    Bob5
    Member

    A kind of side-solution could be that you get armies instead of stacks, AHR rule works, and armies, if to big for one hex, start spanning multiple hexes. Potential for strategic flanking here, if the micro isn’t to much.

    I actually like this idea. Would allow for major battles, but I think the downside is that if the amount of units becomes ridiculously large the combat maps may become too large, taking a long time to load (or too much computer resources). Some have 16GB (or even more) RAM and SSD to load from so don’t have trouble, but others have maybe 2GB RAM and are still running on an older HDD.

    #221367

    LordCameron
    Member

    “I would prefer having deployment, even if it interrupts the flow of combat”

    For those who have played the Homm series the Tactics skill which allows unit by unit placement slows down the game almost unbearably.

    As Jolly Joker said the few pre-defined set ups in the series worked great in comparison.

    I also like Gloweye’s flanking idea and Didymess’s leadership skill idea, but again as others have said I have troubles voting for anything but the AHR unless I have clear alternatives.

    #221369

    madmac
    Member

    That is a tricky one. In total war games, I don’t think it actually worked that differently, but you could have some troops controlled by the ai and others as your reinforcements.

    Saying “Like Total War” is kinda vague I admit because they change game to game, but I mean specifically working off Zone of Control rather then strict hex placement and/or having some kind of reinforcement system.

    The army idea isn’t bad either though I’m not sure if it’s better or worse in practice then what I was thinking of.

    Another useful TW thingie to steal would be to give the Rogue something similar to Night Fighting, basically the ability to ambush a single stack with no reinforcements on either side.

    #221371

    Gloweye
    Member

    I don’t know what Triumph in considering, but the first ideas I come to mind are a more EL or Total War type system where defending stacks can be pulled in from a larger area or even show up as mid-battle reinforcements so that super precise hex dancing is less of a concern.

    Also, similar to Troll Gloweyes idea of armies instead of stacks, how about simply extending the hexes to include armies that are up to 3 hexes away? They could trickle in as reinforcements, so split stacking only gains you positional advantage on the battlefield (by being between 2 enemy armies for example) without the sometimes silly/annoying situation where the faster clicker can actually split the stack.

    I really like the larger pull-in radius added – and this could be with a timer, so the new stacks could arrive on a 3 turn cooldown, with warning to everyone. A bigger army you might start at a disadvantage, but get reinforcement halfway the battle.

    3) I would like to get the Dungeons back, where you had to SEARCH your enemies.

    YES YES YES THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Never agreed so much with you before…

    That is, as long as Night Vision and Vision Range Upgrade continues to work, AND the defenders suffer the same(but may have Night Vision more common…)

    #221385

    Bormak
    Member

    The only issue I have is that in big battles it feels kind of claustrophobic (especially if it’s a city siege) because the tactical maps seem significantly smaller than back in AoW1. But if I remember correctly this was a deliberate design decision so I made my peace with it. I voted ‘Strongly disagree’ to the deployment phase question, but having larger tactical maps back would essencially be a kind of deployment phase because there would be practically no way to attack the enemy in the first round with the exception of casting spells. And having more AoW1 style tactical combat back is definitely something I could live with.

    #221391

    Deployment
    Personally I don’t need this but if it were implemented it would very much need presets that can be automatically applied like melee front, ranged back, cav to flanks which can then be manually quickly adjusted if needed.

    As for the rest, like others have said, it’s so hard to say for sure. Too many unknowns.

    AHR
    Voted disagree but not because I want AHR gone, I’m simply curious about alternatives. AHR has a lot of strategic value (not just for size of battles) and the 3v4 stacks issue isn’t a problem imo because it’s up to the players to make the right moves and overcome it. If you don’t want to end up in a 3v4 situation move your armies in such a way that it doesn’t happen. AHR allows for a lot of strategic maneuvering.

    The alternative here would have to be really good.

    Bigger Battles
    Bigger then they are now or just big in general? Being primarily a single player I lean towards bigger but I don’t necessarily want them to be larger then they are now. I just don’t want them to get smaller. 😛

    Fewer more meaningful battles.
    Heh, it depends. AoW3 is in a pretty good place when it comes to this imo. Yes, playing an XL map might get grindy and tedious but map size is a choice as is the amount of cities, resources, etc.

    But let’s say AHR was removed and instead one army could hold like 20 units so instead of many smaller armies moving around individually you had fewer larger ones. In such a case you might have fewer, larger battles too and I’m not necessarily against that but again…it depends. Something like that could also lessen your strategic options.

    If Triumph has some kind of smaller game planned on the side it could be good testing ground for these ideas.

    #221399

    Saying “Like Total War” is kinda vague I admit because they change game to game, but I mean specifically working off Zone of Control rather then strict hex placement and/or having some kind of reinforcement system.

    That is a good idea, especially since aow iii has all kinds of defensive city enchantments that get too little useage.

    So a Rogue Army could have night wish in its zone of control, or a sorc could bring the wards, etc.

    It will be interesting to see what is in the pipeline.

    #221403

    Arioch
    Member

    Please don’t screw up the single-player game to try to please the tiny minority that plays multiplayer.

    #221407

    Elderin
    Member

    Adjacent Hex Rule
    It can definitely be tedious to have to move multiple stacks at a time and keep them within range. I wouldn’t be opposed to a an alternative system that allowed you to have larger stacks that included substacks/groups, each with their own leader.

    You do lose the option to outmaneuver your enemy to take out a small portions of their army, something I do a lot in single player. This may be something that needs to be tested out in practice.

    Deployment
    I would rather us be able to simple set the formation and order of our units and have that carry into every battle. Most of the time, I’ll be using the same formation/order and having to redo that each battle would be tedious.

    Bigger Battles
    I think the battle sizes are fine as they are, any bigger would be too much and smaller may feel less epic.

    Fewer, more meaningful battles
    AOW3’s greatest strength imo is its combat system. Although this idea sounds interesting, the concern is that fewer battles would mean shifting player attention to other parts of the game which are less enjoyable than combat.

    #221414

    shaman
    Member

    If we talk about tactical combats I say one more time about my desire.
    It is in battle saves as the requisite condition for manual pvp batles in PBEM mode.

    #221417

    Griffith
    Member

    I voted disagree on “I would prefer to keep the adjacent hexagon rule as-is”, cause the current system isn’t as fair as it could be. More often than not the defender can charge on attackers lone stack in a multistack battle, killing it before it can regroup with other units. Which isnt very sensible.

    And another reason multistack battles can be unfair, is because one side can have at least 6 more units than the other. Often the weaker side would have more units, but cannot bring them into battle. This don’t make much sense either imho. Maybe it would be ok that defender could have slightly less units in walled city battles or such, where they have tactical advantage.

    I’d like to see larger stacks with, lets say 20-24 units. It would also incidentally solve the stack-splitting issue. There are some obvious issues with implementing it to current system ofcourse, but maybe they can be solved. Like for hero passive buffs for instance, could affect on a certain radius on tactical map (instead of stackwide boost).

    Or maybe the adjacent hexagon rule could be operational simultaneously, but with a limitation that neither side can have more than 24 units in battle?

    #221418

    Zorrino
    Member

    I have a thought about keeping everyone happy, put it in the options, people want AHR check mark it, people want the stack sizes check mark it. Seems simple enough for Triumph to add in the options for all the other stuff like max amount of heroes or Observe manual combat on or off, so why not the freedom to add in the option to turn on/off stuff for the battles? That way the majority of players who play single player games will still be happy along with the other group of players who play multi-co/vs, all in all i think the more options to select from will result in a better game for all. =D

    #221421

    Gilafron
    Member

    Related to stack limits, I would like to see larger stacks. I would also really like to see units take up X spaces in a stack. That way, a stack could have more T1 units vs T4 units, which would help the value of lower level units. In addition, some T4 units (i.e. Leprechaun) could take up the same space as a T1 unit. Cavalry might take up more space than infantry.

    Overall, I think it gives more possibilities.

    #221423

    Ultimatum
    Member

    I’m all for keeping the adjacent hexagon rule,and I’ll be very sad if it goes away

    #221426

    Zorrino
    Member

    Now regarding combat, my personal favorite subject. =D

    So I have a great idea where AHR and units sizes can both benefit for AoW 3 small and big battles.

    1: Before a battle takes place and you see what armies are involved, and possible reinforcements could enter in the battle with an estimated amount of rounds they arrive in, then from there you click and drag the units that are involved (non reinforcements) around so that the top of the list will determined whether they are in the front lines or not.

    2: Now we are in the battle field, units are already setup and awaiting orders. (This is my main idea I had awhile back) Both players at the same time plan out there strategies, be it movement, attacks, casting spells, maybe not moving a unit at all, it’s all up to the player(s), now after they plan it out they click on the continue button and watch as the battle commence.

    3: During the commence stage units will follow the easiest path to get to their target or you decide the path during the plan stage before battle, so you can have the option to Attack, Attack to the death, Intercept, defend yourself/another, shoot range weapons, cast a spell, move then cast, move and attack, attack then move to another target, I mean there are so many options to put in there I’m sure we can all come up with different commands, maybe even have special commands that need to be researched in able to use them. So what do you guys think? If Triumph is looking for a new way to do combat why not something that will take less time and more fun into a game that AHR will still have a meaning, and for the sizes I believe that should be something either Heroes or researched should be a good one to have as well. Maybe have this idea as an on/off switch in the game setup before you start a game. =D

    #221433

    Garresh
    Member

    I have no opinions on the size of battles, and how many battles are had. It varies based on game flow, and stuff. I’m 100% for a deployment phase.

    The only thing I’m iffy on is AHR. I’m aware of its many problems such as how it affects multiplayer, but it is, honestly, probably the single greatest thing about this series. Lots of things about it lead to incredible strategy, such as the ways that larger forces become harder to conceal, and strategic map choke points actually translate to how many troops can be committed. This is especially noticeable on bridges, mountain passes, and rivers.

    With all that being said, I’m not exactly one to cling to tradition either. I like progress and innovation, so long as the developers are aware of what is being lost along the way. If it was any other developer I’d probably say no. But with the track record being this good in terms of innovation and development, I’m all for a new idea. Just keep in mind how often those “clunky” movements in regards to AHR actually make for good play.

    There was a game I had once involving a bridge, which because of a clever juke and 2 stacks on a bridge allowed me to delay the enemy’s 3 stacks while I burned his cities. Strategic choke points are handled in AOW3 unlike any other series. It would just be a shame if that were lost.

    So screw it. Lets experiment and try new things, but lets not lose the heart of what makes Age of Wonders good!

    #221435

    Hasbulat
    Member

    AHR Voted disagree.

    I am lucky with current system and I really cann’t imagine the alternatives. But I trust to developers of Triumph and I am sure, they could offer a great new solution, which makes even more sense and brings more fun.

    Deployment. Voted strongly agree.

    I played with huge pleasure games of HOMM (2-5). So, I miss a deployment feature in AOW 3 very much.

    Bigger Battles. Voted agree.

    I am satisfied with battles we have now, but I would wish more units in the army and, perhaps, with weighting according to tier of units or with a limit for high tier units for each stack.

    Fewer more meaningful battles. Voted with agree.

    I like tactical battles, but with a time I am really boring with lot of battles on the same basics, so lot of them I let make automatically, even, if I loose more HPs or even units I could hold alive with manually battle. So, I voted for less boring monotony and I am open for something new.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.