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 7 years ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #222396

    @ Drax, you put my reinforcement thinking very well.

    #222398

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Moving multiple stacks together… not likely to happen, and frankly, not really that important. It’d be hard to program since a LOT can factor into speed from different speed of the slowest units in each army, different position of the armies, different terrain they have to cross when they are moving next to each other… Too complex and not worth the effort to program.

    You can already use the cursor to see how far a stack can move, just use it to measure distance and keep your armies together. I never had a problem with this.

    Any ideas on how to bring back the “encircled” town sieges without making the battle arena even more huge and hard to see through?

    And finally, something that have wanted for quite a while – bring back the Minimaps in tactical combat. Especially when 9 armies are in a battle, it would make it easier to locate your units and coordinate them better instead of scrolling or using Tab.

    #222416

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    Thanks participating in the survey and discussing it in the comments. Jumping in here to answer some question, and highlight some of the suggested solutions.

    @AHR
    An alternative to AHR would be a single hex army with an increased number of units. Without reinforcement system – or similar – discussed in this topic.

    The fact that all the units on one hex move into battle with all the units on another hex allows us to do some things that are otherwise not possible/feasible, such as:

    • Treating domain as a ‘zone of control’ by stopping armies in their tracks
    • Allowing people not in a battle to take actions on the world map.

    @Deployment
    People mention deployment templates, presets, etc.

    Note that if we’d go for an in-between option like this there are a lot of edge cases where deployment will still be sub-par.

    • You can’t exploit features on the map, such as cover and chokes.
    • If the slot in the army display maps to a position on a fixed formation – e.g. three wide, two deep – in combat, an army with two melee and four ranged will have a ranged unit on the front row.
    • If – given AHR & a three wide, two deep formation – you are attacked from two sides, what is the correct facing of your formation.
    • If – given AHR – you have multiple armies moving in a triangle you can’t have things like cavalry at the flanks as a defender, since the attacker picks the direction of attack.
    • If you change the units that are in an army – split it into two smaller armies, add units to a stack, units got killed and you get attacked – the previous deployment no longer holds, meaning you’d have to keep updating your deployment settings.

    Picking a deployment template before entering a specific battle solves most of those issues. However, if you are offered 3 deployment options for a three vs four stack battle would that be enough control over unit deployment?

    @Reinforments
    While this seems like the solution – for stack splitting, etc – I’m not sure it is.

    • If we pull in units from two hexes away from the attacked hex, wouldn’t that just mean I now have to move my armies in groups of seven to exploit that range?
    • Again with a range of 2 hexes from the attacked hex, do we want battles with up to 114 units?
    • Do we pull in: builders & settlers, armies which have builders & settlers, city defenders for a battle outside the city?
    • If there’s a choice here, which choice should the AI make when the other player picks auto?

    @option – the thing, not the user ; )>
    Unfortunately some of the things people asked to have turned into options – army size, AHR <on/off> – are core systems that we build the rest of the game on. Turning these into options would not be feasible.
    It would involve making, testing and supporting multiple versions of interfaces, AI, etc. In addition, each possible setting for those options will likely require the game to be rebalanced.

    Hope this ‘from a dev’ perspective shines some light on these subjects.

    #222427

    madmac
    Member

    An alternative to AHR would be a single hex army with an increased number of units. Without reinforcement system – or similar – discussed in this topic.

    The fact that all the units on one hex move into battle with all the units on another hex allows us to do some things that are otherwise not possible/feasible, such as:

    Treating domain as a ‘zone of control’ by stopping armies in their tracks
    Allowing people not in a battle to take actions on the world map.

    Allowing people not in battle to do other things alone would be an amazing benefit. Anyways, a single stack system simplifies a lot of things so things like reinforcements and so on may not be necessary. It sounds a lot like Total War though those games also have a sort of complicated reinforcement scheme. I’ll have to think on this a bit.

    As for Templates, I think the best way to implement them is to have a list of presaved formations or templates and still allow people to tweak their formation during set-up. The presets will save a lot of time because it’s way faster to, say, drop that one ranged unit back 2 hexes and hit start than to set up all your units from scratch, every time.

    #222428

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Hi, SikBok, a couple of comments:

    @AHR
    An alternative to AHR would be a single hex army with an increased number of units. Without reinforcement system – or similar – discussed in this topic.

    The fact that all the units on one hex move into battle with all the units on another hex allows us to do some things that are otherwise not possible/feasible, such as:
    @AHR
    An alternative to AHR would be a single hex army with an increased number of units. Without reinforcement system – or similar – discussed in this topic.

    The fact that all the units on one hex move into battle with all the units on another hex allows us to do some things that are otherwise not possible/feasible, such as:
    •Treating domain as a ‘zone of control’ by stopping armies in their tracks
    •Allowing people not in a battle to take actions on the world map.

    Cant you just treat the 7 hexes now as a domain as well and give it a ZOC?

    People mention deployment templates, presets, etc.

    Note that if we’d go for an in-between option like this there are a lot of edge cases where deployment will still be sub-par

      <List of special cases>

    Isn’t that just a matter of finding the right formations to pick from? I think that being able to change the ORDER of units (that is the unit position in the army bar) is actually the most important thing, allowing, for example the standard 1-5 with hero or support holding the back position. Second, an important question would be “tight or wide”. The formations as such probably won’t matter much. 2-4 tight would obviously make things very small in multistack battles, avoiding immediate attacks. You shouldn’t win or lose a battle because of formation anyway.

    #222433

    Gloweye
    Member

    Again with a range of 2 hexes from the attacked hex, do we want battles with up to 114 units?

    YES.

    Do we pull in: builders & settlers, armies which have builders & settlers, city defenders for a battle outside the city?

    Only when owned by the defender? Or optional whether you want to “pull” reinforcements into the battle? AI could default to “combat units only”, and only when after reinforcements the odds are in AI’s favor, never city guards. Can’t really go wrong I think…though I could of course be.

    #222439

    RedChameleon
    Member

    If we pull in units from two hexes away from the attacked hex, wouldn’t that just mean I now have to move my armies in groups of seven to exploit that range?

    That’s fine I suppose, but you could impose penalties on such movement. As it will be unavoidable that in such formation some of the armies will march on the road and some part of that formation will be crossing forests, mountains, etc. So, the overall army should move as it’s slowest element.
    That way you have to choose, either move fast in marching formation with 7 units one behind another or slow and having all army intact.

    Also, “splitting” tactics should be allowed in such case, i.e. if the army crosses river for example, it has to be split and it is valid tactics to attack just parts of it…

    #222454

    Khelle
    Member

    Isn’t moving away from AHR a solution to the small problem that itself can end as game breaking? Is it really worth fixing something not broken risking the whole game becoming unplayable?

    #222462

    madmac
    Member

    Eh, lets say they upped the Stack Limit to 18 and disallowed multi-stack fights. Functionally this isn’t greatly different from moving around 3 full stacks in triangle formation at all times it’s just less of a pain, and has a few small side effects like not allowing opportunistic stack-splitting and choke points being slightly* less effective.

    *With Zone of Control and single stack battles you’ll still be able to choke point very effectively by parking armies on bridges and such, it’s just a little bit different in effect.

    Also you’ll still be encouraged to create small homogenous stacks under the system because otherwise your trebs will still be slowing down your flyers and so on.

    I think it’ll probably require some tweaking or perhaps even allowing limited reinforcements under some circumstances but it’s not some huge change from the “linking armies” suggestions several people have proposed in this thread.

    #222466

    RedChameleon
    Member

    Also, I think that the more units enter the battle, the longer it will last. Not just sieges, but ordinary battles as well. Some battles already take for almost an hour, with epic battles I am just not sure, how long it will take to finish the game.

    Might be quite fun for SP, a bit more difficult for MP, for which as I understand it this feature is primarily intended.

    The same goes to more siege combat features… Some of the staff BBB and other guys proposed on the previous pages is great, just wonder how long the battle for the town will last…

    #222470

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    As for Templates, I think the best way to implement them is to have a list of presaved formations or templates and still allow people to tweak their formation during set-up.

    If it’s just an interface convenience to help speed up the process, I can see that working in theory.

    Cant you just treat the 7 hexes now as a domain as well and give it a ZOC?

    Domain would do other things besides ZOC, which I don’t want linked to any old unit.

    Isn’t that just a matter of finding the right formations to pick from?

    Supporting multiple formations would make the system more complex, harder to understand and likely a bit more clunky to use. Also, it doesn’t solve all the issues.

    YES.

    Can is read that all-caps as a ; )> ?

    Can’t really go wrong I think…though I could of course be.

    That’s fine I suppose,

    You could pull units from a defensive location and snipe them to set up for the main attack on that location. Which is exploitable since the units leave the benefits of the defensive location – e.g. walls, city buff spells, no-magic-area.

    #222472

    RedChameleon
    Member

    You could pull units from a defensive location and snipe them to set up for the main attack on that location.

    I think there could be the rule, saying that if defensive location is within 2 hex from the attacking point, then defending army fights within the defensive location boundaries… with all benefits.

    #222476

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Great responses, thanks SikBok.

    I’d say if removing Adjacent Hex Rule would just mean a large army stack but only 2 armies can battle… Nope, keep AHR. Part of the fun of AoW as a series is how you can attack from multiple sides. I always feel like each small army of 6 (8) is a group of adventurers or soldiers, who trained and fight together, sometimes losing member, sometimes gaining new ones, each with their own story. And well there is also the tactical element that lets you encircle a stronger opponent with many weaker armies. Replacing that with just a larger stack size for armies… the game would FEEL different. Like it was say, these poor man’s Master of Magic clones like Worlds of Magic or Warlock.

    Not saying I would not play the game anymore, but… it’d make it far less enjoyable, for me. I hope you will not make such a drastic change to the combat before making more surveys. People comparing it to Total War do realize that is a real-time game with hundreds of units, right? Totally different genre.

    #222479

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Also since you are reading the topic SikBok, how’s about having a combat minimap back again like old times? 😉

    #222480

    madmac
    Member

    BTW, on the subject of reinforcements, you can easily have a reinforcement system and still cap the number of units involved in one battle at whatever arbitrary number you choose, it basically just requires players to select which units they want to join as reinforcements, which coincidentally also solves the problem of pulling in non-combat units and such.

    #222482

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Cant you just treat the 7 hexes now as a domain as well and give it a ZOC?

    Domain would do other things besides ZOC, which I don’t want linked to any old unit.

    I don’t understand the “old unit” comment.
    Anyways, if you have a, say, 30 unit stack – what about Leaders and abilities influencing the other units in the stack?

    Isn’t that just a matter of finding the right formations to pick from?

    Supporting multiple formations would make the system more complex, harder to understand and likely a bit more clunky to use. Also, it doesn’t solve all the issues.

    However, you simply don’t have the time prior to battle to start moving your troops around: if you play turnwise and you are attacked, you are either ambushed or you saw the possibility and should already be prepared when the battle commences. The enemy won’t give you the time, because it’s the enemy’s turn, and they SHOULD be prepared indeed.
    With SimTurns, it’s a matter of being fastest. I wouldn’t see any reason to wait for opponent; if my formation is good, I attack. If he isn’t ready then – bad luck.

    Then there is the matter of optimizing position. Why would you be allowed to “prepare” your position, when attacked, by finding the sweet spots offering best cover and so on? Or why allow players to find the best spot for a Grimbeak to place on, in order to beat the time limit and flee from any and all attackers that cannot match its speed?

    Imo, a deployment phase in the sense of the word, where you could place all your units would create more issues than solve any. Afaik, the only problem people complained about is the fact that often the wrong unit hangs back, like a 4-square Inf. Being able to pick positions – or correctly, to assign each unit its position in THE formation -, would be the decisive step. Additional formations would only be icing.

    #222491

    Shakey
    Member

    You could pull units from a defensive location and snipe them to set up for the main attack on that location. Which is exploitable since the units leave the benefits of the defensive location – e.g. walls, city buff spells, no-magic-area.

    (putting aside cities as they should be unique)

    Why wouldn’t the fortress still be in the combat? Shouldn’t each hex on the Strategic map correspond to an area of hexes in the tactical map?

    Wouldn’t the no-magic area of hexes affect a small part of the tactical map?

    #222502

    Wallthing
    Member

    I don’t understand the “old unit” comment.

    The pertinent part of the sentence is “any old” – used like “just any” and indicating something not particularly special. “You don’t let any old soldier into the special forces.”

    #222511

    The same goes to more siege combat features… Some of the staff BBB and other guys proposed on the previous pages is great, just wonder how long the battle for the town will last…

    Good point, I should have mentioned that really the system I had in mind for sieges factored in many things such as population (city size) and fortifications etc to make it so that only the biggest, best defended cities were subject to sieges.

    Noone ever laid siege to an outpost after all…but a metropolis?

    @ Sikbok, a single hex stack might lead to stacks of doom, however it also might not. As Madmac points out, it effectively means less clicking for the same effect, and if you introduce zones of control, then in theory you could dominate more ground with a single huge army than you currently can with 3 stacks.

    And if it allows people to do other things whilst others are fighting, that will be of tremendous benefit.

    However:

    I’d say if removing Adjacent Hex Rule would just mean a large army stack but only 2 armies can battle… Nope, keep AHR. Part of the fun of AoW as a series is how you can attack from multiple sides.

    I think the attacker here could, as part of the ‘deployment screen’ not only choose the formations (and let’s keep them simple, e.g. melee front, ranged rear type of thing) but also which angle to attack, as he is the attacker after all.

    Ofcourse, the defender is also positioning his units on this screen, trying to second guess the attacker, so you could get a delicious mind game going on, and if they both pick the same spawn point – well that represents the chaos of armies trying to manouevre in proximity to each other muahahahah!!!

    Put a timer on his deployment screen. Your options are:

    1. where to position your units on the tactical map (you could position all of them on the same hex)

    2. what base formation (Cav flanks etc.)

    I think it’s worth mentioning here that the one mega stack should imho be a strategic thing, and in combat it becomes 3 (or whatever) normal stacks.

    So, an “army” can hold up to 72 units (7 current stacks) and when it attacks, the player deploys 7 stacks. Each stack can have a preset formation (which can be set anytime, not just before combat).

    This stack now meets another uber stack, which gives us a 14 stack battle (basically one player is going home now) but recall that on current tactical maps there are 7 positions.

    That means the attacker gets 7 positions to place 7 stacks. He could place all of them in 1 stack if he chose (like if he knew his enemy had no area of effect spells and he wanted a mega meatshield for his Shrine).

    Now his opponent is doing the same.

    Each combat position would need to be bigger than it is now however, say twice the size – but this scales according to the number of stacks involved – or simply expand the battlefield to include more of the strategic map, so the bigger the battle, the more strategic it gets because the fight can extend onto forts etc.

    So, in most battles, the tactical map stays as it is, but in the truly massive massive fights it expands.

    Now, reinforcement: 14 stack battlefield maximum, and as units die off, reinforcements trickle in. In the deployment screen there are arrows indicating where reinforcements will come from (concealed units’ reinforcement angles are hidden from opposing players) so players may wish to “camp” near their reinforcement areas, but the other guys knows where the reinforcements are coming from (except concealed units), so he might try and cut you off…

    It gets really messy however when there are 3 or 4 players, each with an uber stack, because if the 14 stack rule is to be followed, but there are 4 players involved, then most players have to have half their army in reserve.

    It would all depend on zones of control (a mechanic which also opens up some interesting sub mechanics based on avoiding it, e.g. Rogues being able to mitigate zoc).

    It also potentially allows de-cluttering of the strategic maps.

    TL;DR: It has great potential this idea of a mono stack if it controls the same area as x number of previous stacks (using 7 as the max) as it effectively translates into an interface improvement. The economic system means it is somewhat unlikely that a player could, for example, have 7 of these large armies, but to avoid this, simply make it so that 2 armies can’t be in the same zone of control (or if they are, they suffer hp loss or something, to represent logistics etc). ZOC here basically builds on the area the equivalent number of armies would have controlled, with a minimum of one hex radius (so you control more area by having 7 armies with just one stack than having one army with 7 stacks, but this opens you up to strategic – and in this case legitimate – division of forces)

    wrt reinforcement, I still think this is a great idea, dependent on mp as Chrys pointed out earlier. And I think a battle with 100+ units is realistically late game, ergo decisive*. It also allows the player to recreate the battle for Minis Tirith, something which isn’t currently possible!

    * settings dependent. I have yet to count the armies Ericridge posts screenshots off.

    You could pull units from a defensive location and snipe them to set up for the main attack on that location.

    which you can kind of do now with split stacking (deliberate and opportunistic).

    #222515

    Zorrino
    Member

    Gals, Guys, and Triumph of the Combat Survey, What does everyone think of my idea about combat? I feel like my post has been overlooked because it was posted awhile ago on page 1 of this survey.

    My concerns about removing AHR would ruin the game, mostly because this is what makes this series unique from all other games out there at the moment, plus I can see that bringing in reinforcements into the ongoing battle would be fun, tho what would happen to the reinforcements X amounts of hexes away after battle? Would they go back to where they were or stick around the battle hex?

    I still think my idea would solve allot of time issues and make battles faster and more fun strategy wise, for example, why wait for the other person to move one unit at a time, when you can plan out your actions at the same time and watch it take place together and keep doing so till end of combat. I can see so many combat possibilities taken place in a game.

    For deployment, I can see this would work best in a battle for phase 1, then the battle begins on phase 2, that way we don’t have to have many templates to look at that would take extra time in playing the game, plus what about surprise attacks on a battle hex, shouldn’t we have an option to surprised our opponent? Example, planning ahead to where your opponent might be moving to and hide in the woods (of course they would have to have the stealth ability) and when they get within 1 hex of your units then you can strike at them, causing your opponent to skip phase 1 in the battle and create a random setup for the defender. I can see the Rouge class or even the Partisan specialty benefiting from this ability quite well.

    So with all that said I have one more comment to be made in this statement, Isn’t planning ahead the purpose of an empire building game? =D

    #222540

    Wolfstone
    Member

    Whatever is planned, I highly suggest to let people decide on what and how they play the battles. So that they can choose to play with the old or new variant.

    However, for both, I could imagine some new skills heroes could learn to expand the parties they carry, or new units that all to increase in size.
    For example, let us imagine we have 3 units of infantry and let them join together to form 1 new, bigger type of unit.
    The advantage – you carry one unit, mixed of your infantries that form big armies. They move and act like one unit. If such units can be splitt up during battle or not should be discussed.

    #222544

    Khelle
    Member

    The big benefit of the single stack containing up to ~18 units would go to AI, since it will be much easier for computer to operate single stacks instead being tricked by smarty players to wasting units on wrongly placed formations. I think this is also quite important.

    @sikbok I think you guys should analyze output of this thread, put some thoughts on final alternative for AHR as well all pros and cons from here and create dedicated dev journal / poll for it.

    #222575

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Big stacks would require a total rework of the Leader system (+1 Resistance for 18 units?).

    #222606

    @ JJ, it would require a total rework of everything I believe, not least of all the size of the current battlefields….

    #222613

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Bit needless, don’t you think?

    Wouldn’t it be enough to rework PART of the town sieges? Leave everything the way it is, but Cities and Metropolises get just 1 Hex more battle radius?
    What I mean, is treating the SEVEN Hexes of a City or Metropolis as ONE attacked Hex, and the 12 Hexes around that as possible attacker hexes.

    This would gain the following:

    1) RARE more meaningful and potentially bigger battles;
    2) No need to change a lot about the mechanics.

    What would be needed apart from the work necessary to define and allow such a battle, would be tactical battlefield for city sieges – but that would be a bonus, because it’s a 3d compromise solution anyway that is somewhat unsatisfactory. What we would probably need for that, is a scrollable ring of a battlefield (the center is pretty much not interesting).

    #222618

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    k, there we go again.
    My apologies in advance for the wall-of-text that is to follow ; )>

    I think there could be the rule, saying that if defensive location is within 2 hex from the attacking point, then defending army fights within the defensive location boundaries… with all benefits.

    That rule is already in AHR, but I think it becomes harder to understand and justify the larger the AHR area becomes.

    BTW, on the subject of reinforcements, you can easily have a reinforcement system and still cap the number of units involved in one battle at whatever arbitrary number you choose, it basically just requires players to select which units they want to join as reinforcements, which coincidentally also solves the problem of pulling in non-combat units and such.

    True, however the AI would have to be able to make good decisions here too. However, given the complexity its not unlike it’ll make a bad decision every once in a while, which could be painful if it has to decide for you in something like a PBEM match – i.e. classic turns, autocombat between players.

    about deployment

    I imagine deployment to be like setting up for a Warhammer tabletop battle. I.e. both player see the combat map and can place units within the deployment zone(s) on the map. Neither of them sees the other units. Given AoW3 numbers, that would be placing up to 28 units per player.

    That removes the got-to-be-quick issues with setting deployment on the world map.

    Why wouldn’t the fortress still be in the combat? Shouldn’t each hex on the Strategic map correspond to an area of hexes in the tactical map?

    Wouldn’t the no-magic area of hexes affect a small part of the tactical map?

    Sound like the battle system from Endless Legend.
    Trick there is that – iirc – Endless Legend doesn’t have things like terrain effecting morale, city enchantments, hazards on the map, etc. They do have multiple hex cities – which give a bonus – but otherwise combat is simpler then that in AoW3. I assume one of the reasons for that is so the reinforcement can work.
    I would not like to sacrifice AoW3 type combat to be able to have an Endless Legend style reinforcement system.

    Removing AHR as an interface improvement.

    If we drop AHR I think we should have the new system make sense by itself, not have it be a wrapper for AHR. Else we run the risk of making this too complex and unintuitive. That’s no problem for most hardcore players – like most people posting on this forum – but it’ll be very hard to have new players understand the how and why.

    Gals, Guys, and Triumph of the Combat Survey, What does everyone think of my idea about combat? I feel like my post has been overlooked because it was posted awhile ago on page 1 of this survey.

    In AoW3 it’s not only what each unit does but also the order in which you do things, much like in a pen&paper rpg, tabletop wargames and TCGs. So, I hit a dude, see if I kill it, if I don’t I hit the dude with another of my dudes.

    While planning actions and then executing them at the same time – like in Frozen Synapse or Doorkickers – works for tactical shooters, I think it would remove complexity from the AoW3 battle system that people enjoy.

    Whatever is planned, I highly suggest to let people decide on what and how they play the battles. So that they can choose to play with the old or new variant.

    As noted earlier, this is not a thing we can add options for. That’s because that would boil down to making two games in one, which is not feasible.

    The big benefit of the single stack containing up to ~18 units would go to AI, since it will be much easier for computer to operate single stacks instead being tricked by smarty players to wasting units on wrongly placed formations. I think this is also quite important.

    Yes, it will certainly help the AI be better.

    I think you guys should analyze output of this thread, put some thoughts on final alternative for AHR as well all pros and cons from here and create dedicated dev journal / poll for it.

    If only it would be that easy ; D>
    Imho this is only something that could be judged in a beta. a hands on with a system gives much more insight than just theorycrafting.

    Big stacks would require a total rework of the Leader system (+1 Resistance for 18 units?).

    Yes it most certainly would.

    #222621

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    BloodyBattleBrain, my problem with all the various ways to replace Adjacent Hex Rule is… that it is not a broken or bad system. It works fine. Why fix what works?

    Heroes of Might and Magic V tried to do that with Turn-Based combat, making it more dynamic with the intiative system – which made things confusing with units acting multiple times per the still-present turns. Or X-COM3 tried replacing the action point system with a pausable real time… Neither were very good solutions.

    Frankly, I am afraid the game would change irrevocably, and perhaps not for the better, if such a crucial part of it was removed which has been unchanged since the first game. It’s even weirder if this happens not between two different games but within the same game.

    #222622

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    @BB Shackwave

    No worries, we don’t plan to drop changes like the ones being discussed in a patch to AoW3.

    #222623

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Thanks!
    Frankly I liked all the changes you made to the game so far, so I trust in your judgement when updating the game.
    I do hope once the surveys are done, you guys can give us a peek at what we can expect in the future. 😉

    #222625

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I don’t think deployment like in a table top is a good idea. It just prolonges things – when MP is played Autocombat mostly, anyway, and when in manual battle the AI is handicapped enough even without the player out-deploying it.

    So I would STRONGLY DISAGREE with tis feature (in the survey I woted NO OPINION, bause I’d AGREE with A FEW deployment options, but disagree with prolonging things (needlessly).

    Sorry, but that would be wasted, imo.

    Then there is the matter of big stacks.

    Stacks are a psychological matter. Since you have leaders that give bonusses, this makes decisions necessary which units to take and which not. Smaller stacks are easier to handle as well. Battlefield is intuitive and so on.
    If you have a 1 vs.1 with stacks having up to 18 (or more) units, it becomes just another game where you move armies around that have no natural (realistic) limit. Your initial forces leave awfully much room and I don’t even want to think about how strange Leaders would work in that regard.

    Please, please, just keep in mind that AoW 3 is very probably the game with best tactical combat, which means, the need to RADICALLY change something in that regard is just not there.

    At the least you need a convincing concept for all this, otherwise chances are to make things not better, but worse.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.