Combat

[tigersfan]

I was just thinking that with the increasing forum and Mantis volume and number of similar issues I've seen recently (although that might just be because I read through about four days worth in one afternoon) it would be good to have someone around to help wrangle them into some sort of order so Chris and Keith don't have to spend so much time on it. I can't think of anyone with better credentials for the job. :-)

:-) Thanks jerith

[Cinth]

Nice to see you're still around Tigers.

Thanks, clearly I'm not full time here anymore, I've been contracting for a while, but my focus has been on handling stuff coming in from other places (Steam, stuff like that). For the next few weeks I'm going to be focusing on getting SBR suggestions into Mantis and stuff like that.

Yeah, I remember.  Still good to see you around.   

[kasnavada]

I love the idea of dedicated phases for building and war. Having the latter one resolve things simultaneously might just be the idea to resolve the ongoing issue of first hitter advantage!

If this is feasible, that is  .

About that one, the "battle" and "construction" phase don't have to be separated actually. What they did in M.A.X. was introducing "sentry" mode and  "reaction" fire. Basically anything that didn't shoot in its turn, was woken up by "incoming" fire and, if possible, would shoot back at the offender as a reaction.

That's not my video but it tests the mechanics, and does a "decent" explanation of how it worked (first 50 seconds only).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNaYGtlmxQ

In the video it reacts to movement, but in game it reacted to shooting too, and other stuff (like failing a hack).

[ptarth]

I don't think separating build and combat into different phases is going to accomplish anything. You can simulate the effect now by building everything first in a turn, saying "Start Combat Phase" and then performing your combat actions. For your suggestion to work you'd need a long period of turns between combat phases, which I'm imagining would be very awkward to experience as a player.

[kasnavada]

@Ptarth. Sorry. Are you taking into account the simultaneous part of the combat ?

Anyway, I agree that it could feel kind of awkward and would require lots of planning - not to mention probably a large rework of coding. However, the "main" issue I see with that proposal is combat on a large scale, if everything happened at the same time in 2 different places it would be complicated to work out a system which would enable the player to understand what happened.

Anyway, whether it may or not be possible would not be my decision =), I'd have to work at Arcen to decide and I don't. And maybe it'll create some idea in Chris or Keith's head. He mentioned territories in another thread, and targetting territories instead of buildings, then having a combat phase sounds leagues ahead of what I proposed. This could also allow "replaying" last turn combat for each territory, and solve the above-mentionned problem of combat in multiple places (since it could be by solved by territory). Then again, maybe it's something completly different that he has in mind.

Looking back to it what I proposed in my 6:11 post sounds simpler, more intuitive and easier to implement for close results to a simultaneous resolution.

That said, if, possible, I'm more interested in gathering other opinions / ideas that debating that one - I know it has flaws. Could you share your thoughts ?

[ptarth]

The major concern was the sequential problem. That would lead to the "Now I have twice as many "turns" but only 1% more interesting activities" problem. Plus the AI has its turns after us, so it would have the initiative against us or we would against them, because building isn't simultaneous. If everything was simultaneous, it then turns out to be a completely different game system that what is being done now.

As for combat my basic thoughts are here:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,17586.msg189761.html#msg189761

Given that Chris is re-balancing combat to fit an unknown design document, I haven't wasted too much energy on thinking about it further. I skeptical of any design that takes its influences from Risk, but I'm guessing the comparison is very weak. I'll see what Chris comes up with.

The problem of combat simplicity is that it leads to: Phage Wars and clones (e.g., http://recessive.wikispaces.com/).

[kasnavada]

I skeptical of any design that takes its influences from Risk, but I'm guessing the comparison is very weak. I'll see what Chris comes up with.

Couldn't agree more with that part. I really don't like that game - but the "dicey" and "one player eliminated in the first 20 minutes while the other play 4 hours" is kind of a major part in my disliking it, compared to territories and conquering stuff being the "good" part in that game (as in most board games, like smallworld, or endless legend).

That said, I'm rather waiting for what's coming here. I'm probably not imagining what's coming.

The problem of combat simplicity is that it leads to: Phage Wars and clones (e.g., http://recessive.wikispaces.com/).

That's an endless debate you know ? That's heavily based on personal preferences. Complexifying for the sake of complexifying leads to grindfest among other things. Rest assured that I'm not proposing simplifying for the sake of simplifying - my main focus is to ensure that the game "flows".

[jerith]

Complexifying for the sake of complexifying leads to grindfest among other things. Rest assured that I'm not proposing simplifying for the sake of simplifying - my main focus is to ensure that the game "flows".

Yes. The trick is to have the right complexity. This is something AI War does better than any other strategy game I've played and Arcen has a pretty good track record in this department in general.

[Misery]

I can agree about the combat, it really does feel very static and stale.  This is one of the things that has me currently pushed away from the game quite a bit (thus my lack of any sort of presence during most of this beta) is that it has this feel to it.

But to me it's not JUST the combat, but pretty much.... everything.  I just dont find any sort of flow or momentum to it, and when the combat happens, it almost feels like tower defense... without the waves of enemies that make such a thing work.  Towers VS other towers just constantly feels strange to me.  Unintuitive, as well.  It doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

Currently I'm just waiting and watching to see if anything major changes soon (not just with the combat), but for now I havent really had any desire to fire up the game in awhile.

[Billick]

The combat doesn't feel tactical.  Positioning and terrain aren't really that important.  If you're in range you can hit, if you're not you can't, and that's that.

[MayhemMike]

I agree that the combat feels indeed very static and using buildings instead of units to attack gives it an additional odd feeling.

I think having your own units would really give it more momentum. Use the buildings as a garage where the units "sleep" and don't use additional resources and when deployed they become really expensive and only move very slowly, that could add much more depth to wars and form real frontlines between neighbors and since you can not quickly move them from one side of the city to another you would have to pay more attention to your surroundings.

[bormoth]

Personally when I heard about no unit combat I thought something akin, barracks as representation of your city military power and military camps as sorta units. So when you build military camp it has construction time but it is not there until it arives, so you have chance to prepair but not kill it before it is finished.
So my idea would be this:

Camps:

• as described above, is way to represent incoming army, and place it would arive, some expensive units(stationed in camp, and is no more then Risk-like abstraction at this point) or defensive buildings may start damaging early(1 or 2 turns before arival, or reduce amount of units once incoming army is detected in range, by certain percentage or amount once in 10 turns or so), plenty of things to add to combat imo.
• Camps take soldiers from the city (Less soldiers to man defensive buildings, and less units to unwarp defensive camps.
• Each camp attacks closest hostile object and only one per turn at end of turn
• Camps can't be moved, but can be deconstructed.(retreat)
• Retreat takes few turns, camps are harmless at this point(defensive units stop intersecting and offensive units stop attacking)
• The time to build camp is dependant on range and speed of each unit(military airtransports may speed up process)
• Require logistics center for each camp


Barracks -- backbone of military power, used to man other military assets, And turn part of your population to soldiers.
Also barracks used to increase efficiency of defensive structures nearby and soldiers are required to man them for full efficiency.

 Soldiers :

• Provide HP to camps in indirect ways(Aka reserves, and soldiers having highier chance to be lost instead of useful missile launcher, tank or plane)
• Used for supply(-hp to camps depending from hosting city range).
• If there is not enough soldiers to supply army then army strength considerably drops down.
• Required to man defensive structures in city. Othervise they become understrength


Other units (Missile, artilery tanks, aviation) require proper academy or base to train and soldier to be trained into and give some abilities and bonuses to military camps, and usually require extra supply.(even more soldiers to waste on supply.

Scouting camps give early information about incoming army depending on

• how large army is
• Range of incoming army destination to other camps, or buildings(Closer to city or forces easier to track)
• what units it contains (Simple soldier armies harder to track then full on)
• The amount of scouts compared to city buildings you have
(Or some other judgement of larger empires requiring more scouts)

• Scouting is performed in four stages:
  
  • preamptive: Place of incoming camp
  • Early: Incoming time left
  • Late: General Strength and inacurate composition aproximation
  • Detailed: If your scouting is good enough at this city then you see pretty accurate army composition soon after you gether "Late" scouting information aquired

With simultanious combat it may give quite a big tension of checking and countering as well as bringing surprise attacks. Because each camp is weakening attacking city and camps can be used defensively, offensively, or counter offensively.

[kasnavada]

Thanks for that post bormoth (sorry for the late answer).

Basically the system changed so range isn't that important an issue now, but we're full blown into the "same range" so "next to impossible to attack battle ready opponent with fixed building requiring large amount of time to build".

I'm at a loss about finding "unit-less" solutions here. You guys have ideas ?

I'd pick ideas from bormoth and what's in the game. Basically, I'd propose that:
- A limitation to the number of military buildings (maybe via the "command" military building ?),
- Military buildings can create "camps" from population, each one enabling a "single" camp.
- Camps are established in a single turn (or maybe tie that to the diff level, easy = 1 turn, hardest = 3 turns).
- Camps can be placed anywhere within teleporter range.
- Camps have the "current" attack capabilities of military buildings (attack / defense)
- Military buildings (not camps) would gain an attack bonus if not deployed, making it easier to defend key areas.
- Camps have a limited lifespan (to avoid abuse) and then need to "replenish".

Basically it would be an equivalent to the AI's saucers to assault other places, more or less.

[Gwmngilfen]

I'm liking this, I think, kasnavada. It's the equivalent to the scouting solution, for the military; in the sense of having some deployable "units" without too much of the tedium that comes from having to move them around. I particularly like the possibility of attacking a strong enemy on two fronts, forcing them into difficult decisions of where to deploy the camps.

One possible tweak (I'm just ruminating here, do point out flaws) is to limit the camp system to counter-attack buildings. That way your war might go like:

* Wipe out an edge territory
* Deploy guardpost/countermeasure camps to protect under-construction buildings
* Finish construction of new military
* Move forward into new territory and press the assault

This means the defender gets some breathing space - your camps can't be immediately deployed into the new territory and used to assault the next one. Instead, they form a defensive barrier (if you have enough) to get the new military buildings built. As the defender, you have some time then to prepare yourself for the next offensive (possibly investing that time in diplomacy... ).

[bormoth]

Well for me it is a bit strange to see barracks o missile bases on frontlines. Sorta if you forced to train and quarter full time your troops on front line, most likely you have no choice. Hence my idea. Though never played this game and have seen only one short video, which is hardly representation and read forums, so if every one thinks another way is better then so be it.
The whole idea of long time attack camp building and invulnurability was to hinder wrecking ball  strategies(well invulnurability protects them from utter obliteration the turn you put them) and retreat time vulnurability to hinder blinking annoyance from redeploying camps.

In general your idea is just slightly resembles mine, completely different and looks band aidy for current system, I'm not sure it would help alot.

 Gwmngilfen
Not sure your idea would work, considering that  PC is not dumb and targets your actual military buildings in construction, you would have pretty small chances to establish covering with camps. This forces to farther confrontation already with camps and lucky military  building survivors for next territory, so basically your main military sorta never fights, but rather stands behind.