I've noticed a lot of people asking for flanking bonuses to be added to the combat system. I'd like to make the case that flanking bonuses would actually be BAD for the game with the current combat model.



In most hex-based wargames, there are indeed flanking bonuses; flanking bonuses represent superior maneuver and superior manpower.



In EL, however, superior maneuver is represented by initiative; units with inferior initiative that are forced to defend themselves frequently lose the benefits of their special abilities, and can be easily swarmed by quicker foes.



Furthermore, superior manpower is represented by the single-combat rule, wherein one unit can only damage one other unit per turn. Two weaker units already have a significant advantage over one stronger unit with the current system even without any form of flanking bonuses.



A flanking bonus would serve only to multiply the disadvantages already faced by slower, smaller forces; disadvantages which, in the current game, are already cripplingly severe. If the single-combat rule were discarded, then a flanking system would be crucial to maintain these two benefits of maneuver and manpower, but any flanking system layered on top of these already built-in disadvantages would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

That is...actually a really well-reasoned, good argument. I'd been thinking about flanking bonuses since my last game and how I would have liked to have had them in a few battles. But I see your reasoning here. Combined with how Glassteel seems to be the only worthwhile material right now on top of it, because of how well it ties in with the mechanics you just described, pretty much just seals the deal.

Faust wrote:
A flanking bonus would serve only to multiply the disadvantages already faced by slower, smaller forces; disadvantages which, in the current game, are already cripplingly severe. If the single-combat rule were discarded, then a flanking system would be crucial to maintain these two benefits of maneuver and manpower, but any flanking system layered on top of these already built-in disadvantages would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The battle system should be about tactics, otherwise why bother? Units lining up and whacking at each other until one side dies is not "tactical". A tactical battle is about taking advantage of terrain and maneuverability, not just attack stat vs defense stat. Flanking is a real thing in combat, not a gamey trumped up bonus.



Yes a slower, low initiative and outnumbered force should lose to a superior enemy. However, tactics can tip the odds in your favor. Force the enemy into bad terrain. Encircle them for bonuses ("flanking"). Avoid them if they are stronger. You are proposing removing tools that a player can use to help a "statistically inferior" force perform better.



Please don't ask to water down the battle system due to current imbalance and incomplete features.

Is he asking to water it down or telling it's actually enough with the new coming soon abilities ?



Because I totally agree with Faust. No need to add another layer.

The system doesn't seem robust enough to even be called tactical in its current state, though. You give general commands, and the units try to follow them as they see fit (to greater or lesser degrees). "Units lining up and whacking at each other until one side dies" is pretty much 100% of the current system, and the biggest advantages one can create throughout the majority of the game are having more units and ensuring those units get to move and attack first. That will hopefully change as combat gets tweaked and added on to, but right now, his argument isn't wrong.

Propbuddha wrote:
The battle system should be about tactics, otherwise why bother? Units lining up and whacking at each other until one side dies is not "tactical". A tactical battle is about taking advantage of terrain and maneuverability, not just attack stat vs defense stat. Flanking is a real thing in combat, not a gamey trumped up bonus.

Right, but it's already represented in-game by the fact that units can only defend themselves from one attack per turn. The "flanking bonus" in EL is that a flanking unit literally takes zero damage when it attacks. As I said, if that factor were removed then I'd agree with the need for flanking bonuses, but as-is the bonus for flanking in this game is actually far greater than the real-life malus of being flanked.

Korthulhu wrote:
The system doesn't seem robust enough to even be called tactical in its current state, though. You give general commands, and the units try to follow them as they see fit (to greater or lesser degrees). "Units lining up and whacking at each other until one side dies" is pretty much 100% of the current system, and the biggest advantages one can create throughout the majority of the game are having more units and ensuring those units get to move and attack first. That will hopefully change as combat gets tweaked and added on to, but right now, his argument isn't wrong.

I disagree. The battle system right now is more like a puzzle game than it is like a tactical wargame. Issuing the correct orders to get the units on the field to do what you want them to is an interesting challenge, and there are occasionally sacrifices you need to make (I often give units a "move here and be aggressive" order to make sure they don't block my other units, but then I have to hope they decide to attack the unit I want them to once they get there).



I agree that it would be desirable to make the system more tactical; I just don't think flanking bonuses on top of the current penalties outnumbered units get would be a good idea.

Korthulhu wrote:
"Units lining up and whacking at each other until one side dies" is pretty much 100% of the current system, and the biggest advantages one can create throughout the majority of the game are having more units and ensuring those units get to move and attack first.

• Are two weaker attacks a "significant advantage" over a single stronger one? (HINT -It depends on the target's Defense value)
• Is rushing a fast/high init unit out and attacking first always the best tactic?
  
  
  
  

Even in it's current state the system is not as simplistic as you describe...



Movement and Initiative need to matter, and require investment just like attack and defense do. Devaluing these things will turn combat into a "damage per turn" calculation.

Okay then I will rant a bit ^^

Most of you are complaining about the "dull" combat system, the lack of control, the lack of tactic and choices.

The only point I agree with all of you is the inconsistencies regarding the units behavior and focus.



Right now we have a simultaneous commit on two rounds (and I would explore a bit more this base before giving permanent control of each unit each turn but that's another matter), 3 behaviors freaking useful to plan the 2nd round of each phases, initiative telling who will move first (even if I don't fully understand why the order changes sometimes from one round to another), different types of attack and some support abilities already implemented (beam, sweep, stun, ranged, etc) and more coming (charge, other support abilities, passives and buffs), cliffs and stairs providing ways to set up chokepoints, forests slowing down all units (for now, flying creatures will then maybe come in handy). Why adding another layer ? When you will have a decent IA as an opponent or an actual player, it will be far enough to provide strategies, choices, deepness and all those other fancy words.

Did you try to minimize your loss ? to "perfect" a fight giving you unfavorable estimations ? there is lot to do rightnow with the current system.

Faust wrote:
Right, but it's already represented in-game by the fact that units can only defend themselves from one attack per turn.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation. Units can only counter-attack vs one attack per turn. Defense value does not erode and if it is high enough a unit can take no damage (you knew that though ).

Propbuddha wrote:
That's a bit of a misrepresentation. Units can only counter-attack vs one attack per turn. Defense value does not erode and if it is high enough a unit can take no damage (you knew that though ).

Yes, although embarrassingly it wasn't until relatively recently that I realized you could equip your non-hero units. lol



But yeah, I meant "doing damage."

My post was admittedly hyperbolic on the state of the combat system. You guys are right, in that there are influential decisions to make in a battle. I still stand by my point that the system isn't particularly deep or tactical in the classical sense, though, and that turn order at the moment is the largest factor to winning. Anecdotally, that is the one thing I concentrate on, and the only time I lose battles is when my units have inferior Initiative scores. Like you said, Propbuddha, movement and initiative should matter. It just seems like they matter far too much compared to other unit or command variables.



From reading dev posts and the Community Feedback list, I'm going to restate my caveat that the devs are obviously going to change the battle and equipment systems somewhat to address these kinds of things. But as it stands, I agree with Faust that a flanking bonus isn't needed or warranted.

I am all for flanking bonuses, as well as ampitude bonuses, and terrain specific (forest), and everything they can bring which make some sense.

For me it is just a definicion of fun. The more pro-active and more combinacion of effects the system can generate, the more field for some "superior tactics". Also if we already have terrain based tactical map, futher usage of it and unit interaction with map is most welcome.

And the pleasure from "smart" usage of cavalry/flying units to sneak them behind enemy lines is hard to beat. Not to mention focus fire from ranged units to enter your mobile units through the hole breaking the line.



Generally the more combinacion you can squeeze from few limited number of elements, the better. And the tactical map, and unit representacion are already here.



Also there is the auto-resolve option, so if someone switches to manual maybe better make it indeed different.



There is no need to support smaller, less mobile, poorly equiped forces, since why should we?