In a thread about the overpowered Glassteel and Initiative, I, without intention, found problems of the system and how it works in Single Player. I know a lot of it has to do with the AI and is probably already known and also probably not easy to fix.



Glassteel is overpovered because Initiative is King, and Initiative is King because the tactical Combat System has its problems. Below I explain why:





Lets note the good things first

The Battle unfolding on the terrain of the Worldmap is super nice. The terrain features are super nice. Hexes with "walls" are super cool and in theory allow for great combat when combined with terrain features like altitude, forest or flat land and unit diversity.



Now lets look at the Problems

The tactical combat system forces you to use Glassteel/Initiative. If you dont have higher Initiative not even your OWN Units do what you tell them.



The Prediction is not fun because the AI seems to do random stuff, attacking random enemies, not focusing, shooting worthless militia, running around ridges for 10 tiles. Its impossible to contro the battlefield without zone of control and opposing units being able to run directly past your line of units - This ultimately makes the combat non strategic. I assume this is not the goal and I also assume this is not fun for most people.



But you are FORCED TO use the tactical combat system because of the abilities of some units. Autoresolve does not account for all of these abilities.



If you have higher Initiative with all your units, you turn the tactical combat into a turn based combat system where you act first. You can now make tactical desicions. Your Units will do what you tell them to. This makes Units, Equipment, Abilities, everything that gives Initiative inherently stronger than the alternative. Only if you know what happens with your own units you can make a strategic desicion.



If I have Initiative with all my Units the battle is fun but easy. With equal army size this is Ok. Its always like this, in every turn based game. A stronger Player will crush the AI a little bit harder. He will be able to Conquer, Defend, Attack a abit more efficient. Working on how good / effective your strategic desicions are is the "Fun" part. The process of you knowing and learning what works when, how effective, with what equipment, on what turn, with what units AND then improving. THATS THE FUN.



Another consequence; the situation right now inherently "removes" all the non-glassteel/initiative options from the game by them being inferior. And this as a consequence "eliminates" content of the game(it is there but never used) - this is bad. But its not a balancing problem of glassteel but from the tactical combat system. As soon as you remove Glassteel, the best units in the game are the units with the highest initiative. And you have removed not only glassteel but also all units with low initiative, because they are no longer viable.



If content is removed from the game in this inherent way - the system has flaws - in this case tactical combat has flaws.



Its not an easy fix without changeing the system. And that is what needs to happen.



I would either go full tun based, like in Civ or unit by unit turn based (then you can keep the Initiative stat).



In Multiplay just leave it as is because against humans it is not that bad (zone of control still needed).



ADD ZONE OF CONTRONL AND MAKE TACTICAL COMBAT UNIT BY UNIT TURN BASED (in single player).



And you have a nice game.



EDIT: The Speed Argument - Combat needs to be fast. Solution: In Unit by Unit tun based Single Player tactical combat; Left-Click selects, Right-Click Moves, Next Unit gets select automatically (AI moves automatically). No end turn button needed. While AI moves, your commands are locked. Animations are double the current speed (this is needed anyway).

I beg you guys, test it, I know it will feel awesome!

I have trouble with my own units' AI behavior at times that make me pull at my hair. Mainly things like unit A moves two tiles to the right to attack its target, instead of one tile forwards, and in doing so, completely blocks unit B from moving, causing unit B to forfeit their turn.



I would love it if unit movemet AI took into account the orders you gave to your other units, instead of just doing what they think is best for themselves, without context.

Since this thread hasn't gotten any attention, I'm starting to doubt myselft.



Am I really the only one who sees a Problem here ? I feel strongly about this matter but if I'm on a lonely quest here, maybe I missed something...

No I'm totally with you here too. Having low initiative means the (not smart) AI takes your turn for you. It's sort of an all or nothing stat, with it being much better to go "all". I like your idea of giving a unit orders then it moves, then the next unit, repeat... But it would also be nice to try and keep multiplayer using the same mechanics as single player. Is it possible to make a system similar to Endless Space, that is where both sides take their turns simultaneously?

Initiative is only an "all or nothing" stat when the opposing army is composed of the same type of units. If their army is mixed however, there are a few different combinations, ex: you going first, their units going first, some of their units going first then your units then the rest of their units, etc. While the AI will have to react in a way that may be different than what you wanted to the enemy unit's movement, with mixed armies they won't always get the ability for all of their units to move first, and it could be the worst or best unit. Also your thread may not be getting much attention due to the fact that there is a more visible thread on the main forums. Link: /#/endless-legend/forum/6-game-design/thread/3391-glassteel-is-ridiculously-overpowered

Silly blitzy, Prisms was the 10th post in that thread, and that post apparently inspired him to write this one.



Also.

[Quote=]"Am I really the only one who sees a Problem here ? I feel strongly about this matter but if I'm on a lonely quest here, maybe I missed something..."[/Quote]

.. From my perspective? I wouldnt normally have chimed in on this. I find that every competitive game ever produced in the modern age of vidjerrr games has unfailingly produced hoards of people perpetually disagreeing about balance. This is particularly evident with games of the MOBA genre, each of which has a forum pumpin' out posts on balance every day forever. From that history we can observe that people are often wrong; they are limited by their experiences, perception, and talent. "Balance" can shift wildly when top players simply play the game differently.



I do not think that initiative is flat out obviously the best thing ever. Battles involve many added factors.

I do not think talented players have had enough time to mature a pro-grade comprehension of overall balance in EL.

I think its too early in a system too multifaceted to make a definite statement that hinges on an observation without variables, such as "If all your dudes have initiative you kill one of their dudes first." -- Adventurer_Blitz's post was good on that subject.



I also do not think combat needs to be re-envisioned to give more precise control.

We couldve gone point by point addressing your thoughts but thats such an ordeal when I cant even agree with base statements like

• "If you dont have higher Initiative not even your OWN Units do what you tell them. "
• "The Prediction is not fun because the AI seems to do random stuff."
• "Its impossible to control the battlefield without zone of control"
  
  

There are problematic occasions, but player skill varies wildly and has a lot of impact there. I do not have the problem Lynneiah has. The system, as it is, is interesting to me because it isnt final fantasy tactics advance, civ, ogre battle, heroes of might and magic, sins of a solar empire, and on and on. This game is EL, EL works like this, and I am okay with that. It tastes like [frozensynapse].



SO THAT, GOOD SIR, is why I wouldnt normally say any of these things that I just said just now. Theres any number of people who agree or disagree or agree but think a lot of weird side-things and just arent inclined to say them or dont even know you exist.

I also tried to bring up the lack of depth and missing features of combat which in the ends make it very dull, but without luck.



At one point a developer stated ZOC would be included with the following beta update, but we are one update after the full release and still nothing.



/#/endless-legend/forum/6-game-design/thread/3202-new-combat

I don't think its that initiative is broken - its just that the combat AI is so bad, and that initiative is needed to avoid giving the AI control of your units.



The way to fix this is either giving us more control (cases, targeting orders (A>B>C), etc), or making the tactical AI not awful anymore.

My Post from the Glassteel is OP thread (i dont think its Op).

Some Brainstorm Ideas to solve some Problems with Combat regardless of the Weapon/Armor Problems itself. (go Tier 3 hexa, palla, ada, or hyp weapons armor and you see real numbers guys).



Archers:

Range Units should deal nearly no damage especially counter attacks when they are stuck in Ground Melee Combat.

So no counter Attack for Archer Units when engaged in Melee Combat, if stuck in melee 25% Attack/Damage on Melee.

Can Counterattack Flyers for 100% Attack/Damage. Not Stuck in Melee Combat with Flyers.



Crossbowmen:

Crossbowmen ignore Defense to x, but at the cost of 1 Range lower then Archers. Crossbowmen deal 75% Attack/Damage on Melee. 150% Damage on Free Line of Sight shots. Stuck in Melee Combat with Flyers.



Cavalry:

Can only be intercepted, by spear units.

Cavalry get damage bonus vs all non Spear ground units beside Heroes.

Suffers only bypass attacks from Spear Units.



Guard/Intercept Function:

Infantry/Cavalry with spears can intercept Cavalry, when the cavalry is their Target and has higher initiative else they need to go Guard.

Guard Function. Infantry can actually Guard Range Units/Supports (target = Guarded Unit).

So they intercept the attacker if THEIR initiative is high enough (Guard initiative = >= of the Attackers, Attacker intercepted, movement blocked).

Guard Initiative < Attackers = counter attacks after Attacker attack when next to the guard unit, on top of the Counter attack of the attacked unit and attack in the Attacker. (so guard = 2 attacks on the Attacker)



Bypass:

Also Melee Units can get bypassed but get a free hit on the bypassing unit (like in AOW3). If they didn't move before (lower initiative or hold position or Guard).



Melee Units:

Deal extra Damage to Support Units. And their Special Function's are basically tied to their Weapon Choices. Can either Guard or Attack, can't do both.

Spear = anti Cavalry like bonus to intercept.

Sword/Shield = bonus to Guard. Edit: takes half Damage from Range due to Shield.

2 Handed Sword = Bonus Damage to Flyers/Spear/Archers but no Guard/Intercept.



Support:

I really don't have ideas for now for them. beside they do less Damage on Guard. So they can Guard and do their support stuff together.



Flyers:

Flyers cant get intercepted beside from other flyers.

Archers can counter attack Flyers.

Crossbowmen cant.

Flyers do less Damage vs Units with Shields (75%) but their Attack is not reduced.

Suffers only bypass Attacks from other Flyers.





Now Initiative as Problem:

Its a Good idea but has the Flaw of equality considered by Faction/Race Units.

Units don't share the same base Values.

Mainly initiative would be more for Round Based Single Unit Battles (D&D Rpg's, Warhammer (40k)).

In this kind of Battle Design initiative should not only count as who goes first, actually it should be who HITS first when engaged in a clash. So we need a Move and Fight Phase.

Or a bit like in Endless Space Range/Move, Melee Phase.

And yes Range always hits first anyway (medieval, ancient times). Endless Space had a good system, but what People really want is round based fights like in AOW3, etc. So initiative is not the main problem, its the orders for units and battle system mechanics.



English is not my native Language thanks for your effort to try to understand what i wrote.

I have felt that initiative is a little too important myself. If I have initiative on all my troops, and a good mix of troops I pretty much dictate who I attack, and who my opponent attacks. This is a tremendous advantage. However many things about the combat system I like, such as being able to somewhat control your opponent by thinking things through when you have initiative.



Combat almost becomes a puzzle game. Send this infantry there to attack this opponent, forcing him to counterstrike and not moving, focusing a couple ranged here to down that enemy before he can go etc. However, this is only if you have initiative on all your opponents and enough troops to take advantage. On the flip side, if you hit a group of opponents that completely own you in initiative your choices are often voided. It doesn't matter what you tell your units to do because they can effectively force you to attack who they like. The AI isn't the best at this but humans can be.



So in the end, I think what I would propose is the turn order not be absolutely controlled strictly by who has the highest initiative stat but rather make it a random order weighted by each unit's initiative stat. A straight forward example could be that at the start of each turn every unit has an "acting initiative" that is determined by generating a random number between 1 and thier initiative stat. The order of the turn is based on "acting initiative". Initiative would still be very important because a very high initiative gives you a far better chance of controlling the situation than a low one, however it still gives lower initiative units a chance to be able to act. This would shake up the combat somewhat, at the cost of introducing a rng.



Just a suggestion, feel free to do with it as you wish.