Propbuddha wrote:
The problem with increasing the battlefield size is there's too much room for ranged units to play keep away. The size is perfect as is, it's supposed to contain a battle, not an entire war...

+ to that, my good chap.

I voted other.





The main problem with ranged units as I see it is that the tactical AI is utterly incompetent and the strategic AI not much better. There are a number of interesting consequences of this:

[list=1]

The only units that the AI reliably manage to make attack if they aren't already adjacent to enemies are ranged units, because they have much lower positioning requirements. Many other units will frequently be out of position in many phases of the battle in large battles.

The AI doesn't understand that it should concentrate firepower to eliminate units when planning its moves, so those of its units that do attack often attack what any rational player would consider the wrong targets.

The player, who unlike the AI idiot is not utterly incompetent, will manage to attack with most of his units in each phase of battle, and he'll focus on eliminating the enemies that are most threat first - typically high damage/low hitpoint enemies.

If faced with massed ranged units, the player is smart enough to know that equipping his troops with a single trinket will significantly reduce the damage they suffer from ranged. (This will normally not happen in singleplayer, because the AI will happily prioritize non-ranged for most factions despite being utterly incompetent at using them in battle, but if it does happen, the player will know how do deal with it.)

If faced with massed ranged units, the AI will die, because it doesn't realize that using the anti-ranged trinket is a really smart choice.

[/list]



If I were to desire anything changed in the game mechanics rather than the AI, it would be to give a huge defensive bonus to any unit that is not adjacent to an enemy unit to reflect that it has some sort of time to take cover/reduce its profile when shot at and not locked in melee.

MetroRanger wrote:
I'm going to write a little bit of an essay here...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say that infantry cannot form a line. I make mine form a line all the time. They just require adjacency without gaps. They exert a zone of control: that control is total, but the zone constitutes only the tile they stand on.



Historically, one of the reasons that cavalry are unbeatable is that they can get away. That's part of the historical rock-paper-scissors of cavalry-castle-cannon. In endless legend, limited battlefield sizes mean limited ranges and limited movement, and so your "artillery" stands right behind your infantry, which can then always reach any flanking cavalry. Still, cavalry can do some useful operations to interrupt support or prevent focused fire. A lot of people complain about the fragility of Endless Legend cavalry, and in some of those cases, it's because using cavalry is hard. There's a fine line between flanking the enemy and being trapped behind enemy lines.



Regarding changes, I didn't vote, because I think multiple changes are appropriate:



1) Line of sight needs to be instituted. Historically, the top of a hill is not the best place to hold (at least for short ranged, direct-fire units): you want the side. That way, you can pick off individuals as they crest it, without exposing yourself.

2) Forest defense bonuses need to be removed for melee range, or else applied to both units involved. It really makes no sense: if there's a tree between them and you-- well, then there's also a tree between you and them.

3) Morale should provide defensive bonuses only, and not attacking bonuses, for both melee and ranged. I understand why Amplitude instituted morale, and it generally works, but toning it down this way would mean that flankers had actual bonuses, and it would tone down massed ranged.



Note that none of the above actually say anything about ranged units in specific, yet all of the changes would tend to reduce the lethality of massed ranged.



and 4) There may need to be some unit tweaks. I think infantry could live with higher initiative and lower move-- that would allow the potential for a deadly killing field, yet prevent focused fire once enemy lines were reached. Line of sight might require the development of overwatch mechanics.

What about doing something with the rock, paper, scissor system thats sort of already in the game?. You already have the ranged slayer, cavalry slayer, flying slayer, and similar stats in the game. But they dont seem to make enough difference right now. A rock, paper, scissor balancing system is not that difficult to do either.

A ranged slayer should be able to crush a ranged unit 1vs1 with the same tech lvl. Even 2vs4 should be doable. In EL you do have the item system so it can break the immersion of say weapons both give bonus damage and bonus defence against ranged.

Maybe javelins can be a ranged weapon thats very strong against ranged but not much else.

Propbuddha wrote:
If this is an issue how is it that everyone is building, using and complaining about Ranged units, but no one uses Cavalry?



This may be a problem in the future after some balancing happens but today it simply doesn't happen.

I'm not disputing that the stats need adjustment, but I do still believe that adjustment alone will not be enough.

I have sometimes used Cavalry successfully against armies of archers, but only against the AI, which just confirms that archers are too powerful compared to other units at similar tech level. And again, initiative is king, since otherwise the archers decimate the cavalry before they can ever attack, but the specific problem of initiative is a topic in a different thread.

LaznAzn wrote:
Effectiveness once the gap is closed should be reduced, you can't fire a bow when you are engaged in close combat. Crossbows should counter this weakness but have reduced range (-1) and stats compared to a longbow.



Terrain should play a larger factor on positioning of ranged units and also the terrain their targets are in. Perhaps give ranged units higher benefits for being on high ground but give larger penalties for firing into cover (forests) or targets at higher elevation.



There needs to be more benefits for using a mixed army of different classes, (i.e. Cavalry, Ranged, Melee) than just using a boring stack of doom composed of one unit.

You're quite capable of firing a bow in short-range combat. Whether you can HIT your target or not is a different matter.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
Infantry really needs some way to stop enemy cavalry from just slipping past and butchering your archers, unless they actually move around the flanks at a reasonable distance.

If this is an issue how is it that everyone is building, using and complaining about Ranged units, but no one uses Cavalry?



This may be a problem in the future after some balancing happens but today it simply doesn't happen.

Some of the options proposed in the poll might help, but I don't believe any one of them will be enough. MetroRanger's post accurately describes the problem the game currently has, and until each unit type clearly performs an intended roll in the tactical battles, there will be no reason to use anything other than your favorite unit type. Zone of Control, Attacks of Opportunity, or whatever other mechanic: Infantry really needs some way to stop enemy cavalry from just slipping past and butchering your archers, unless they actually move around the flanks at a reasonable distance.

Morale is a poor substitute for ZoC, as it doesn't stop enemy units from just walking through a line. Unless you have enough infantry to stretch from one side of the battlefield to another, there is no way to hold a line. With this in mind, why would I ever buy anything other than ranged units?



AOO's are different (but usually conjunct) with ZOC. I would take AOO's either way, but I really think ZoC or something similar is necessary for a game like this.



As for ranged units, what do people think of having greater differentiating between longbows and crossbows. Mechanically - Longbows have further range, but are drastically reduced in melee (Say the archer has to use an arming sword or dagger.) - Conversely, crossbows have drastically shorter range (only 1/2 spaces beyond adjacency), but can be used in melee?

I'd like to see ranged units have their damage output scale with the distance of the shot, percentage wise. The longer the shot, the less damage (to represent reduced accuracy at longer distances). I'd also like to see them remove Point Blank Power, as it unduly punishes non-ranged units for doing what they do best: engage in melee. It's counter intuitive and gives ranged units an unnecessary boost in the one situation where they should be at their weakest. And combined with my first suggestion, they'd already be at "max damage potential" firing at an adjacent enemy unit.

Maybe instead of a zone of control that has been proposed, the moral system could be tweaked a little for the same affect. For example how about only infantry units receive moral bonus, that would encourage them to form a "line" and possibly include a smaller buff from support units. But i do not think that ranged, flying or cavalry should receive any moral bonuses. Ranged and support should have the least movement points making them even more susceptible to cavalry and flying units. One way a flank attack could be implemented is by making a distinction between 2 types of moral bonuses. The first would be if an infantry unit has more than 1 unit on a side of it for moral bonus (well protected?) for example in the middle of a line of other infantry. The second would be an infantry unit that has only 1 other friendly unit on a side (protected?), this would be the unit on the edge of the line and the best target for a flanking maneuver. Flanking would only work on units that are protected and not well protected or units that are not receiving any moral bonus. Lots of great ideas here! I will continue to come back to see more of them and add my 2 cents occasionally

With a mod anyone can try and see for itself.

I'm not sure the action points are not for combat. I didn't find other tags in the files. There's a number of steaks, but I'm not sure it count for the specials used by the support units.

LOL @ Mod first, test later



Doesn't action points have to do with abilities on the world map, not combat?

Propbuddha wrote:
Amplitude has consistently stated that EL's combat is about map positioning (terrain, movement, "tactics") and not raw stats. ZoC is a mechanic that enhances this. Morale is not the same thing. ZoC is not about keeping units together, it's about applying an effect when you are close ("engaged") with an enemy. You mention "opportunity attacks", that is a ZoC effect!



Not saying that the game "needs" ZoC, but it's a welcome feature.

Yep, attacks of opportunity are a ZoC effect, but usually, when wargamers speaks about ZoC they speak about stopping enemy movement and preventing enemy from moving through.

Morale is all about getting together (it's a positional thinking). So you should always try to cut the front lines to prevent too much morale (because 15% per morale in att and def can be very deadly once you get some).



What I wanted to say is that units don't need ZoC to give them a "role" in battle. Some changes in stats are enogh.



I've done a small mod that change the following :

• Infantry get 20% more HP and their upkeep are halved.
• Cavalry get 30% more damage, -20% in defence and have 6 movement points in battle and 8 movement points on the map. (I wanted to give them a "cost" penalty, but it seems the cost calculation aren't in the same file.. I'll try something like that after)
• Ranged are as before.
• Flying have 4 movement points in battle and 30% more defence.
• Support units have two action point (but I need testing to see if the game will recognize it and use it twice. At least it should let support unit defend AND attack), and -25% in damage.
  
  

The thing I'd like to try : less cost for infantry units, support units with less HP, cavalry with less morale boost (10% instead of 15%) but with better overall stats and a higher cost (or why not them taking 2 slotsin army instead of 1 ?), flying with bombardment rules (that one may be hard to implement).



The file >>>> SimulationDescriptors[UnitClass].zip

Amplitude has consistently stated that EL's combat is about map positioning (terrain, movement, "tactics") and not raw stats. ZoC is a mechanic that enhances this. Morale is not the same thing. ZoC is not about keeping units together, it's about applying an effect when you are close ("engaged") with an enemy. You mention "opportunity attacks", that is a ZoC effect!



Not saying that the game "needs" ZoC, but it's a welcome feature.

MetroRanger wrote:
@ Propbuddha



That is a good point. Light cavalry harassment outside a battle is a great tactic. In my first Vaulters game I used small heroless bands of Ice Wargs to scout either flank of my army, picking off AI reinforcements, and 'encircling' the enemy when the attack came. While that is great on the strategic level, I still think the tactical level leaves something to be desired. The point is to be able to move and threaten a flank or rear from outside of archer range, so perhaps a simpler implementation would be to increase the battlefield size by about 50%, so it is not too boxed in for effective cavalry movement.



@Tigregalis



implementation is hard. The main idea was to assert the thesis that each class has a battlefield role that is needs to be allowed to fill, and I thought some suggestion of possible implementation would give substance to the idea and promote discussion. I agree with your point on having ranged units have generally poor defence and HP (But I'd add that should be poor defence vs melee, perhaps not so much vs other ranged units), but I must say i'm against locking initiative into classes like that. having a wide variety of initiative between classes, units and factions gives variety to the battles. I'd hate for it to feel like 'cavalry phase, infantry phase, ect ect'



@VieuxChat



I do like the trait system you have set up there, but the problem with 'just' passive bonuses like this is that it doesn't address the mechanics side (ie, ZoC)

The game doesn't need ZoC. It's not a real wargame. Most wargames at the skirmish level don't have such a function.

The morale mechanic should already push the units to stay close to each other. But the AI still need to emphasize it more. Because even if a Zoc mechanic was implemented, the units wouldn't use it well, you would have them moving everywhere trying to reach at least an enemy each round.

I played an old fantasy wargame (Dragon Noir 2 - Black Dragon 2) where it was handled differently : the units that moved around other units were hitten by an attack of opportunity. So there wasn't a ZoC, but you wouldn't move anywhere unless you were suicidal. And there was a "momentum" mechanic, where you could take the hex freed after your attack without trigering the attacks of opportunity.

The only thing, apart the bonus I talked about, the gameplay need is a better AI that would keep the units together to protect themselves.

The game also lacks the possibility to "push" enemy units or "pull" them.

And to give more room for cavalry movement, give them more movement points so that they can hit anyone on the battlefield. Everyone should think "damn, they got some cavalry ! I need to protect my weaker units".

There's a lot of good discussion going on regarding balance between Ranged and Melee units.



A problem is that there's a lot of interesting suggestions on how to fix spread all over the place. I think it would be helpful to the devs to know what approach(es) are preferred. Please pick all that you think are good ideas...

The problem with increasing the battlefield size is there's too much room for ranged units to play keep away. The size is perfect as is, it's supposed to contain a battle, not an entire war...

@ Propbuddha



That is a good point. Light cavalry harassment outside a battle is a great tactic. In my first Vaulters game I used small heroless bands of Ice Wargs to scout either flank of my army, picking off AI reinforcements, and 'encircling' the enemy when the attack came. While that is great on the strategic level, I still think the tactical level leaves something to be desired. The point is to be able to move and threaten a flank or rear from outside of archer range, so perhaps a simpler implementation would be to increase the battlefield size by about 50%, so it is not too boxed in for effective cavalry movement.



@Tigregalis



implementation is hard. The main idea was to assert the thesis that each class has a battlefield role that is needs to be allowed to fill, and I thought some suggestion of possible implementation would give substance to the idea and promote discussion. I agree with your point on having ranged units have generally poor defence and HP (But I'd add that should be poor defence vs melee, perhaps not so much vs other ranged units), but I must say i'm against locking initiative into classes like that. having a wide variety of initiative between classes, units and factions gives variety to the battles. I'd hate for it to feel like 'cavalry phase, infantry phase, ect ect'



@VieuxChat



I do like the trait system you have set up there, but the problem with 'just' passive bonuses like this is that it doesn't address the mechanics side (ie, ZoC)

MetroRanger wrote:
I'm going to write a little bit of an essay here...



I have a very strong 'mechanics view' of how games should work, and I come from a certain 'philosophical' position that all military games - regardless of their level of abstraction - can learn from and model the real behaviour and tactics of what they are imitating. Let me elaborate on that here. We have three basic classes of unit - Ranged, Infantry, and Cavalry. Each has a specific purpose on the battlefield. Now, Ranged units achieve their purpose fairly easily, because all they need for that is the ability to attack distal enemies.



Cavalry and Infantry are not so easy. My thesis is that the problem isn't that ranged units are overpowered (I think they should more or less remain as they are), but that the simplicity of the battle mechanics prevents infantry and cavalry from achieving their military roles.



Lets take a look at infantry first. The role of infantry units in medieval warfare was to hold and break lines, but there is currently no way to hold a line with infantry because there is no kind of zone of control. If infantry units were given some kind of zone of control, they would effectively be able to lock down a line and hold it, protecting the ranged units behind them. This could be used defensively, where a line stands ground and lets the ranged units behind pepper the enemy, or offensively where a line attempts to push an opposing line into disarray. Introducing zone of control abilities might not make infantry any more resistant to ranged units, but it would reinstate their purpose in an army. That, I believe, is the solution to the problem and I believe passive buffs and most of the stuff in the poll will lead to a weaker tactical experience. For flavour, flying units should be able to ignore zone of control, which would provide an interesting level to them, and make them a priority target for archers.



it might also be a good idea to give ranged units a secondary attack used for Melee, that is much weaker. We already have the longbow/crossbow distinction but we could elaborate on this. Have it so longbows have significantly greater range (as is now, crossbows range reduced), but crossbows can be used in melee (Nothing like a disciplined Vaulter Marine volley at point blank.) Longbow-armed ranged troops could have a secondary attack (based on their weapon so we don';t have to introduce new items) for melee. Combined with the zone of control, this would mean people would be incitivised either to use infantry to defend the archers (as an archer caught in zone of control is basically ♥♥♥♥ed), or use crossbowmen as a sort of intermediate (with short range, 2-3 spaces). In either case, ranged units can provide firing support over a line of battle.



On to Cavalry - What is the role of cavalry in a battle? Historically, there have been two major classes of cavalry. Light cavalry has been used for scouting and harrying routing enemy units to prevent them from reforming, and Heavy Cavalry is to make a decisive charge and threaten flanks. A important note is heavy cavs are meant to brake an enemy regiment in the initial charge, and if the regiment stands, the cavalry is ♥♥♥♥ed. For Endless Legend, I think it is fine to collapse heavy and light cavalry into one class. The Scouting is obviously at the strategic level, so I won't discuss that. Furthermore, the game does not model broken morale and routing like a real army, which is fine, and means I don't need to discuss it. That leaves a decisive charge and threatening flanks. Cavalry achieve the charge nicely already - the charge bonus is an excellent mechanic and it encourages charge-and-retreat tactics, just like most real cavalry operates. With the zone of control, a cavalry troop would need to break the enemy or be caught in a melee, which should be bad for them.



However, cavalry do poorly at threatening the flanks. I would suggest allowing cavalry to move off the normal battlefield map - this would allow cavalry complete freedom to circle an enemy and threaten the flanks and rear, which would strengthen their role. Cavalries could then have a secondary skirmish outside the borders of the normal battle, which often happened historically. Again, the idea is to look at what the 'point' of cavalry is in a real battle, and attempt to recreate it within the mechanics. To many games just shove a man on a horse and call it cavalry, or shove a sword in a man's hand and call him infantry. In my opinion, it is not the weapons or the look or the title that make the unit, but the function of battle. The importance of cavalry is to threaten the flanks and rear to force the enemy to remove troops from the front to guard against them, and to deal a decisive charge at opportunistic moments.



The cavalry idea does have one major problem which I'd like to address quickly - that of the unkillable cavalry. Say we were fighting, and I had some cavalry off map. All my units were dead, except the cavalry, who was staying out of range. Furthermore, you have no cavalry. Come the end of the battle, I would get my hero back. One way to overcome this would be to ensure the 'last stand' trait of heroes does not apply to cavalry. So say I have an army with a hero, two ranged units, three infantry units, and one cavalry unit. If my cavalry is out all alone, and everyone else is dead, come the end of the battle my cavalry would be all that is left (the hero would be disabled.) This would encourage the use of combined arms (as opposed to Genghis Khan hordes), but it would also have the other effect of dropping the priority of attacking cavalry. This would also mean an all-cavalry army is not viable - which may be something we wish to avoid, or maybe something we wish to encourage. But, what would happen to my cavalry unit? Would it be allowed to continue in the next turn, and potentially siege a city and stay out of combat indeterminately by being outside the normal sphere of battle? One way to avoid this would be to have defeated armies with cavalry sent back to the owners nearest city. So, upon the defeat of my army, my cavalry retreats towards my closest city, but this would discourage the use of cavalry-only scouting parties as they would return home after every battle. Another way would be to limit how far cavalry can go 'outside' of the battle, based on combined arms. If I have an army of only cavalry (including or excluding a hero), the game categorises it as a 'skirmish force' and it can't go out of the normal combat area. But, with combined arms the cavalry can be extended. This would mean in a large-scale combined arms battle, cavalry can fulfil their flanking and threatening function, but if the army id destroyed and only cavalry is left, they would either have to fight on skirmish terms or run.



One might worry this makes cavalry too powerful. If you have infantry holding a line against other infantry, and archers/support behind the line, how do you protect your flanks and rear from the cavalry? This is an intriguing puzzle that has been put to many commanders since ancient warfare. There are a few methods, and in my opinion at least the mechanic would not make cavalry OP because of them. A tactical battle is a puzzle, and it comes down to force composition, prior preperation & planning, geography, and skill in battle.

1- geography; defending your rear/flanks with mountains, rivers, ect, where possible. Endless legend has great geography, and I love that it comes dynamically into battle. Lets try use it a little more.

2- Counter-cavalry. Cavalry units should be able to equip Lances, and be able to skirmish it out outside of the infantry battles.

2 - More infantry. Infantry units should get pikes that deal more damage to cavalry, and commanders worried about cavalry should ensure they have one or two anti-cavalry units. They may have to move units from the frontline, but this is how it should be. interestingly, infantry have the advantage here. Imagine for example a circle, in the middle is a support unit, the 'target' at r=.2 is an infantry unit, and at r=1 is a cavalry unit. For any given angle of attack the cavalry unit chooses, the infantry unit has less to move to cover that angle than the cavalry must move to attack it. This is an axiomatic truth that comes from the geometry of the circle, and means the infantry actually as an advantage here. Even more so, given the relatively closed space of an endless legend battle (This is less so, say, in a total-war style battle.)



So, to finish up, I think the best way to Endless Legend (or any other game) to have good combat mechanics is to imitate the function of the unit at the level of abstraction of the game. Ranged units are the easiest to do because all you need to give them is ranged attacks. You woudn't have ranged units that can't make use of range (I'm looking at you, Battle for Wesnoth!), so why would you have infantry that can't hold a line or cavalry that can't threaten the rear and flanks? Ranged units are currently so powerful because neither cavalry nor infantry fulfil their battlefield roles, and remedying this would better balance the forces (some minor nerf/buffing would still probably be in order), encourage the use of combined arms, and greatly increase the tactical depth of the game.

In fact, in the game you could abstract that easily :

The inf always have a very low cost. (that's the main reason they were inf on battlefield.. they were the least expensive ones)

As the inf are a lot, just give them a lot of HP.

The cavalry should be like a stuning fist : a heavy damage dealer. But with low HP because they are a "few".



Just add the fact that inf woul dget twice the morale bonus for other inf units and you're done.

Ranged would lessen units, cavalry would create openings and infantry would just crush those that detach from others.



To sum it up :

Inf with high HP (for instance all inf units would have the +20% HP trait) and twice morale bonus.

Cav with high damage (for instance all cav units shoul dhave a +20% damage trait)

Ranged would remain as they are.

Flying units are more resistant because they're hard to reach. They would get a very high defense (like +30%)

Support would have two action point per turn, allowing them to cast their special AND attack. Or cast twice or attack twice. But as support they all would get a -20% damage.