Seek wrote:
Maybe I'm just too used to Civ, but it seems to me that both unit movement and sight range are too great in the start of the game. I also miss the line-of-sight mechanics from civ, where mountains are visible from farther away and forests block LoS, etc. I suppose LoS and MPs have to be greater than civ so that winter's effects don't completely paralyze units, but I'd rather units start with a LoS of 2 and 3 MP by default (rather than 3 and 4, respectively): it would make exploration more drawn out and perilous, give watchtowers greater usefulness and make room for a "scout" class unit. Perhaps to compensate there can be extra vision range of the area surrounding the initial units at turn 0 so settling is less of a chore. (Disclaimer: obviously these are impressions based only on video footage, and my opinion certainly may change after actually playing the game.)







Didn't Pan also say that was a bug (that there should be a ZoC effect in combat as well)?

Regions are already wide, even in 'small' setup.

So, no, 3MP would be like crawling.

You need those MP to travel, and remember you can't always go straight ahead.

Interesting idea ! Watchtowers could also have a choice in bonuses : you could chose to give an MP malus instead of a health regeneration.

PANCZASU mentioned in Pt3 of his Wild Walker playthrough that armies create MP penalty for surrounding hexes (a Zone of Control-type effect). This effect appear to happen on the Adventure map, but not in Battle mode. Perhaps Watchtowers could do this too...

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
It might be a nice feature in lands that you control to be able to set traps such as caltrops, pits, deadfalls, etc. that could harm and slow down invading armies.

That sounds cool. Could make way for a 'move carefully' order for your units that slows them down but also makes them immune to hidden traps.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
That sounds cool. Could make way for a 'move carefully' order for your units that slows them down but also makes them immune to hidden traps.

Or perhaps a later game "scout class" that can locate traps and neutralize them?

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
Or perhaps a later game "scout class" that can locate traps and neutralize them?

hmm, I was thinking about that. I obviously know very little about EL's combat, but what if there was a Fog of War effect on the battlefield? It might create some possibilities like stealth and evasion.



Otherwise the other player would probably just prioritize the weaker scout and stop him from springing the traps, But not if he could hide in some trees or something.



Like I mentioned earlier it would be nice to have a scout that is useful in battle and not just there to be destroyed.

The battle field is a bit too tight : a fog of war on the battlefield would lost its interest.

What would be better is a stealth option that would let you be visibl eonly when you're adjacent. You could "lure" your enemy thanks to the reinforcement :

you let an army A with 1 or 2 units. It's the bait, then you have another army stealthed at less than 3 hex from A. If A is attacked, your stealth units enter the combat

Speaking of the battlefield being too tight, in the late game when (if) armies get bigger, won't the battlefield need more room? even though there is enough space it looks like it would take all the tactics out of combat if units are swarming everywhere.



So I hope the battlefields expand with the eras, which might give a fog of war allot of meaning. Personally I think it would be cool to mount sneak attacks on my enemy's flanks and scouts hiding and giving vision etc.



Either way I think your stealth system is good too, especially for the early game where fog of war would indeed be unrealistic.

Judging from Pan's videos, as yet there is no such feature but it sounds like a good idea. However, for the deployment phase the enemy would already be able to see your scout and any other troops you are trying to hide.

But they would face an opponent with more unit than they thought, like an "ambush".

Maybe I'm just too used to Civ, but it seems to me that both unit movement and sight range are too great in the start of the game. I also miss the line-of-sight mechanics from civ, where mountains are visible from farther away and forests block LoS, etc. I suppose sight range and MPs have to be greater than civ so that winter's effects don't completely paralyze units, but I'd rather units start with a sight range of 2 and 3 MP by default (rather than 3 and 4, respectively): it would make exploration more drawn out and perilous, give watchtowers greater usefulness and make room for a "scout" class unit. Perhaps to compensate there can be extra vision range of the area surrounding the initial units at turn 0 so settling is less of a chore. (Disclaimer: obviously these are impressions based only on video footage, and my opinion certainly may change after actually playing the game.)

Propbuddha wrote:
[ZoneofControl] effect appear to happen on the Adventure map, but not in Battle mode.

Didn't Pan also say that was a bug (that there should be a ZoC effect in combat as well)?

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Speaking of the battlefield being too tight, in the late game when (if) armies get bigger, won't the battlefield need more room? even though there is enough space it looks like it would take all the tactics out of combat if units are swarming everywhere.



So I hope the battlefields expand with the eras, which might give a fog of war allot of meaning. Personally I think it would be cool to mount sneak attacks on my enemy's flanks and scouts hiding and giving vision etc.



Either way I think your stealth system is good too, especially for the early game where fog of war would indeed be unrealistic.

Judging from what we've seen so far (ie, Pan's videos), there seems to be a "reinforcement" mechanic where one nearby unit enters the battle per combat round - there are three rounds between each combat turn, so each turn three new units arrive, nine units if the combat goes through all phases. Presumably this is in place to prevent the issue you describe as well as to prevent swarming with many stacks and creating a "Stack of Doom" situation.

It might be a nice feature in lands that you control to be able to set traps such as caltrops, pits, deadfalls, etc. that could harm and slow down invading armies.

Seek wrote:
Didn't Pan also say that was a bug (that there should be a ZoC effect in combat as well)?

Yeah he seemed surprised that it happened. I get the impression that the tactical combat is relatively new to the Alpha testers (correct me if I'm wrong) and/or it is changing rapidly.



I see opportunities for mechanics that would add depth to the Tactical combats without adding control baggage that would slow combats down...



- (previously mentioned) zone of control mechanics so that units can block/slowdown enemies trying to bypass them.

- Opportunity attacks or bonuses if a unit moves away from an unengaged enemy

- Units supporting adjacent units for attack/defense bonus

- Attacking a unit from behind when it's already engaged gives a flanking bonus.

- Forcing units to retreat/morale

- Line of Sight for ranged units (can shoot past a forest or hill, at least without a penalty)



All of the above would be "under the covers" and not require actions from players other than the existing placement/targeting controls. Looks like a lot of fun already though...

Seek wrote:
Judging from what we've seen so far (ie, Pan's videos), there seems to be a "reinforcement" mechanic where one nearby unit enters the battle per combat round...

Perhaps one of us is misunderstanding, but I'm talking about the initial spreading out onto the battlefield. If its anything like ES, there could be upwards of 20 units in a single stack, which may mean that the two opposing armies could be rubbing shoulders immediately without even calling for reinforcements.



Obviously there's no GDD on combat so I could be wrong, but the battlefield just seems to small to facilitate large late game armies, even without reinforcements.



By the way, is there any chance of an option that allows multiple unrelated actions to happen at once during battle? I think it could make the battles flow more and feel more cinematic without ruining initiative.

VieuxChat wrote:
Regions are already wide, even in 'small' setup.

So, no, 3MP would be like crawling.

You need those MP to travel, and remember you can't always go straight ahead.

Well, I've already voiced my opinions on region sizes, I think in conjunction with slightly smaller region sizes the lower sight range and MP would work well - though again, these are just initial impressions without playing the game. I suppose when we have options for slower game pace and larger maps I could simply choose those options.

Propbuddha wrote:
Yeah he seemed surprised that it happened. I get the impression that the tactical combat is relatively new to the Alpha testers (correct me if I'm wrong) and/or it is changing rapidly.



I see opportunities for mechanics that would add depth to the Tactical combats without adding control baggage that would slow combats down...



- (previously mentioned) zone of control mechanics so that units can block/slowdown enemies trying to bypass them.

- Opportunity attacks or bonuses if a unit moves away from an unengaged enemy

- Units supporting adjacent units for attack/defense bonus

- Attacking a unit from behind when it's already engaged gives a flanking bonus.

- Forcing units to retreat/morale

- Line of Sight for ranged units (can shoot past a forest or hill, at least without a penalty)



All of the above would be "under the covers" and not require actions from players other than the existing placement/targeting controls. Looks like a lot of fun already though...

Yes! I'd love to see these features added (except maybe morale as it is really hard to get right in my experience).

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Perhaps one of us is misunderstanding, but I'm talking about the initial spreading out onto the battlefield. If its anything like ES, there could be upwards of 20 units in a single stack, which may mean that the two opposing armies could be rubbing shoulders immediately without even calling for reinforcements.



Obviously there's no GDD on combat so I could be wrong, but the battlefield just seems to small to facilitate large late game armies, even without reinforcements.

Oh ok, I see what you mean. Well, we don't know what the upper limit for stacks will be late game, so this may or may not be an issue. It's too early to say.

If regions would be even smaller, the choice of "where" you choose your city would be less meaningful.

VieuxChat wrote:
If regions would be even smaller, the choice of "where" you choose your city would be less meaningful.

Ok, I get you. I hope I don't sound too critical, these are just initial impressions without playing the game, as I said. I will wait (with baited breath) until the game is available and I get the chance to play a bit before commenting on these design decisions further.

In fact, I found the game surprinsigly "balanced" whith the "small" regions. And the "lack" of units is in fact a good thing : your faction will always have a strong background, even with 4 minor factions assimilated.

Remember that accessories and armors/weapons can create a lot of different design from only one unit.

In fact, I find that there's more diversity than with the usual civ units.

But it needs to be "played" to "feel" it

On the contrary, I know it's "my" feel, so your mileage may vary.

Propbuddha wrote:
Yeah he seemed surprised that it happened. I get the impression that the tactical combat is relatively new to the Alpha testers (correct me if I'm wrong) and/or it is changing rapidly.



I see opportunities for mechanics that would add depth to the Tactical combats without adding control baggage that would slow combats down...



- (previously mentioned) zone of control mechanics so that units can block/slowdown enemies trying to bypass them.

- Opportunity attacks or bonuses if a unit moves away from an unengaged enemy

- Units supporting adjacent units for attack/defense bonus

- Attacking a unit from behind when it's already engaged gives a flanking bonus.

- Forcing units to retreat/morale

- Line of Sight for ranged units (can shoot past a forest or hill, at least without a penalty)



All of the above would be "under the covers" and not require actions from players other than the existing placement/targeting controls. Looks like a lot of fun already though...

Add an "Intercept" command along with that list and I would be a happy camper. This would add a nice dynamic to the combat where you can command a unit to screen for support and range units as well as providing some interesting choices about whether to use tankier (Clearly NOT a word ) or speedier units. Hopefully I will have some productive comments after I get to log some more time. The game is already amazing btw...this has been a couple of phenomenal months for TBS games...I haven't had so much fun in a long time.