|
| Thread: Alternative Combat system |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Brawlermatrix
Thinking Outside the Box
|
posted February 22, 2010 02:52 PM |
|
|
Please excuse any missunderstandings straight off the bat as i was writting this on the fly as a set of thoughts resulting to the above conversation and the thoughts regards it.
Advanced Battle Field Simulation:
Level 1 - 100 Unit Stack
Level 2 - 75 Unit Stack
Level 3 - 50 Unit Stack
Level 4 - 25 Unit Stack
Level 5 - 10 Unit Stack
Level 6 - 5 Unit Stack
Level 7 - 1 Unit Stack
this allows for a battle field to be set up utilising both ranged and melee units in greater numbers and utlise a ranged units ability to attack a single stack and several stacks as suggested already but in a more basic method.
if 1 peasent does 1-2 damage then 100 peasents do 100-200 damage against a devil that has 200 health that equates to a 50/50 battle without supporting effects and if we wish for more realistic combat than that besides the suggested idea of extending a melee range to +2 instead of the realistic +1 excluding long range weapons like the pike that would have a +2 attack style.
if a grid battle style is used than a standaised refernece needs to be implemented simular to H5 standards but with extra additions of units being attached to each other to created larger starck groups;
basic single unit dimentions:
Inventry (Small) - 1x1
Inventry (Medium) - 2x2
Inventry (Large) - 3x3
Cavalry - 1x2
Cavalry - 2x4 ?
Ram - 2x4
Ballista - 2x2
Cattapult - 2x3
thus you could create a 5x5 group of peasents resulting in 2500 peasents moving in one movement but this battle system can only really apply to a land based battle for a ship to ship battle would require a different set-up for the primary weapon would be the cannons, archers and flyers and only when the ship is being borded would the melee units be called into battle but that is if the battle is more realistic when each ship attacking broadsides over several turns then moves in for bording.
this system would work as it would still use the stack on stack battle system common to TBS for the usage of a fluid dynamic battle style must be remembered that -
if a attacking army attacks the centre of the enemies battle lines resulting in the left and right flanks to fold on the enemy and resulting in the entire attacking and defending forces in battle.
now you could time these by turns resulting in the flanks moving over 1 turn to attack the sides of the attacking forces but the result is still the same - all units will attack or be attacked, simular to 100 attacking 100 the two forces will attacking and penetrate each others stacks, the only thing is that the first two or three lines would take heaver damage then the lines behind and yet again the result is that all forces both attacking and defending stacks result in full out battle, there is no real middle ground between a group of units taking no damage.
for the above a simple math could be used;
line 1: 100
line 2: 75
line 3: 50
line 4: 25
line 5: 10
line 6: 5
line 7: 1
line 8: 0
now this is putting it simplistic but it takes into account how a attacking force attempting to penetrate a defending force would result in deminishing effectiveness as it forces its way deeper into enemy lines but this model is based on a inventry charage rather than a cavalry charge that would be more like;
line 1: 100
line 2: 90
line 3: 80
line 4: 70
line 5: 60
line 6: 50
line 7: 40
line 8: 30
line 9: 20
line 10: 10
line 11: 0
----
the difference between number of soldiers in two opposite armies affecting the morale(when you have more soldiers then enemy your mean will have morale bonus and the enemy morale penalty) and when a stack takes 75% damage it retreats to a non-combat zone that will also effect the morale of forces on both sides of the battlefield.
----
____________
Think outside the box and see
true potential, stay inside the
box and say the same.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 03:08 AM |
|
Edited by Daystar at 03:09, 06 Mar 2010.
|
The idea, while having merit for a different game, would be too much of a shift. there's something classic and iconic to the Heroes series of having ridiculously large numbers of creatures, sometimes over a thousand, represented by a single stack of creatures. Also, having multiple stacks in large battles would slow it down far too much. Creatures with low initiative would be sitting there for AGES.
It might be interesting to have this as a Castle Specific Skill thing, being able to split stacks in combat into two, allowing surrounding of an enemy, (very unwise against hydras) but even that takes away from the feeling of playing chess with dragons.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Snatch
Promising
Known Hero
Proud Kappa
|
|
posted March 06, 2010 01:28 PM |
|
|
I have not read the whole thread but I think this system needs a restrictment of army size or late game battles would be too confusing and too big for the screen and the cpu.
A rather simple way too increase the tactical component of battles would be to allow the splitting of stacks in more than seven. Maybe a hero has seven army slots but can split them in battle in up to fourteen stacks or the like.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 15, 2010 12:58 AM |
|
|
This just wouldn't work for Heroes unless some kind of unit limit is imposed.
You'll pretty much have to eliminate or greatly reduce the number of wandering monsters since it'll take forever to kill off some of the larger neutral armies. Not to mention the fact that attrition rates against neutrals will be much higher.
Another problem is that you'll have to get rid of or change a lot of the old special abilities and spells. Invisibility, stunning and poison will be effectively useless. The Mage's piercing attack, Royal Griffin's battle dive, Archer's scatter shot, Paokai's lightning attack, etc., will be extremely overpowered. Single target offensive spells like lightning icebolt, implosion, etc. will all have to be improved. Blind, Wasp Swarm, Phantom Forces, Armageddon, Word of Light, and Word of Darkness all need to be changed.
Something must done with flying units. They have to have a different mechanic than land units. If the whole point is to strive for realism then what's stopping a dragon to just land on top of an enemy stack? Why can't the dragon just fly over an enemy stack while breathing fire down on it to avoid getting attacked? What about a flying stack splitting formation in flight to attack an enemy stack from different sides when they land?
Plus if you're going to make battles more "realistic" then changes would also need to be made to the adventure map, with bigger armies being slower and taking up more space.
The easiest way to add more depth to the combat system is to just add the ability to change which direction a stack faces when you move them and give bonuses/penalties based on which direction you attack an enemy stack. For example, if you attack an enemy stack head on then retaliation will be simultaneous. However, if you attack from the back, then the enemy stack can only retaliate after the attack.
|
|
lumpor
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 15, 2010 11:08 AM |
|
|
|
Similar stuff already exists in strategy games. I think if there's gonna be a complete rehaul of the combat system, it should be to something unique, that you've never seen before (the current heroes system is pretty unique for example). A complete remake just to copy another game I feel would just make lots of layers abandon the heroes series.
|
|
ckukner
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 29, 2010 10:34 PM |
|
|
This is Heroes not total war. No one snowes when a peon destroys a keep(sorry don't know the english term but the guy that goes forward and sideways ) in a chess game, that it is unrealistic or nonsense. This is a game and it has certain mechanics to it, changing it will ruin the gameplay as seen in Heroes 4 and Heroes 5. If complain about 500000 dragons can only kill 1 pixie or 1 peasent, please play something else.
Ubisoft you want to make a great game.
Just copy Heroes 3. No crappy 3d. And no crappy DRM protection.
|
| |
|
|
