The problem is that the interrupt mechanics by themselves make initiative far too powerful, because it completely lets you dominate the battlefield and decide who's getting high ground/forest/city/morale advantages, it lets you completely determine who gets sweep strike boosts, it's the only way you get to use beam, circular and chain lightning attacks(beam and chain lightning definitely being huge steps up from a basic attack). Simply by virtue of how it works, it's a massive force multiplier.



To counter it, you need some sort of ZoC/Guard mechanics, or perhaps an option to, every turn, give one of your units an Initiative Boost, so even if you're losing out on the init race, you can get one unit actually deciding what to do besides countering or getting kited. Hell, maybe say that every round, the hero leading an army gets to boost attack, defense or initiative for one unit, perhaps in exchange for the hero not getting a move of its own that turn(aside from being able to counterattack). That would mean leading in Init would still matter a lot, since the majority of your army would still get to go first, but you wouldn't get to COMPLETELY dominate the fight effortlessly.

Changing movements wouldn't do much except make archers even more powerful. Besides, units like the Silics only have one movement point in battle anyway, making other infantry move 1 unit wouldn't make much sense.

From my experience the problem of initiative would be easily solved by lowering the amount of hexes units can move during a battle and as well lower the amount of move bonuses gained from items/heroes. The reason, i think, initiative is over powered is because you get to go first AND reach the enemy by a units movement. I do not know if its possible, but it would be good to differentiate world map movement and battle map movement. So an infantry unit could move 1 hex in a battle, but two on the world map.



So changing infantry to 1 hex, cavalry to 3, and so forth, makes initiative less important. Still important, but less. So again the key to why initiative is so powerful is that its coupled with the crazy amount of movement you can achieve with a single unit.

I'm willing to believe both that Glassteel is too powerful AND that ranged is too powerful.



A skirmish mode would definitely be easier to test.

I'm still of the opinion that archers in Titanium would take down archers in Glassteel, but I still haven't found anyone to test that with. It seems to me more a matter of archers being over-powered than Glassteel. One way that we might more easily resolve balance issues like this would be to institute something like Heroes of Might and Magic 5 uses, eg- in addition to full games players can also have one off battles against each other with pre-defined armies on pre-defined battlefields.

Sure, but he doesn't get any actions when he's dead. Which he will be if you focus fire your ranged on him.



You can wipe out the enemy army before they get in range if they're slow.

AgentTBC wrote:
You don't get counterattacked when using RANGED glassteel units!

Yes and you also don't cancel the target's action...

You don't get counterattacked when using RANGED glassteel units!



Glassteel is OP for a whole host of reasons.

I think "massive force modifier" is being a bit dramatic. You suggesting that none of the other stats matter.



Yes, having high Initiative and activating first is a big advantage, as is picking where you fight. But remember that you are always going to get counter-attacked. So in order for a high initiative unit to be dominant, it needs to have high everything. It needs to hit first, hit hard, and be able to survive the counter attack.



And that's the issue with Glassteel, you get everything. It gives you the Initiative and damage/Life similar to other choices. If Glassteel just gave Initiative, I'm not sure we would be having this conversation.



I think there's room on a case by case basis to look at the special abilities and see if it is appropriate for them to work in a counterattack or not. Maybe the "cancel special" should be a special unit ability, rather than global. I think it's interesting tactical game play to be able to cancel powerful specials, so I just don't want to see it tossed.

I think the issue is that combat is unbalanced, making initiative *the* attribute. The order of combat in this game is fatal, because a simple focus-fire of 3 archers can kill a whole unit. There is a fragile balance here, but maybe if the game had 6 phases of 2 turns (with quicker animations, of course), and the damage were reduced by half, initiative would make a much less powerful attribute.

You'll have to search the forums, but I recall these conversations. I don't agree with them but they were happening.



Note that as VC mentioned above, special attacks not triggering for counter attacks was added late in the game. There was discussion on how certain special abilities (particularly area of effect, like chain lightning) were super powerful before.



I think the key here is stat balancing and making equipment distinct. If Glassteel is the "initiative" equipment, OK, just don''t give it loads of damage/Life bonuses too. I'm confident Meedoc recognizes this (he said stat balancing was #1 for him in the AMA) and we'll see adjustments soon.



I'm going to conclude by saying until Amplitude has balanced the items, we shouldn't go too far on whether or not mechanics are broken.

Propbuddha wrote:
Just a note - The devs commented on this in the AMA today.



The response was "You guys said it was too weak pre-release"...

Who said that? I was pretty much on board with it being an issue even pre-release. Needing to re-adjust the combat was one of the reasons I begged for a delayed release...

Ironshield wrote:
So, what does AMA stand for?

"Ask Me Anything"

Propbuddha wrote:
Just a note - The devs commented on this in the AMA today.



The response was "You guys said it was too weak pre-release"...

Well, I'm assuming that you aren't referring to the American Medical Association. So, what does AMA stand for?

Propbuddha wrote:
Just a note - The devs commented on this in the AMA today.



The response was "You guys said it was too weak pre-release"...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. lol

But pre-release you didn't lose your attack and the specials that comes with it when defending first.

Just a note - The devs commented on this in the AMA today.



The response was "You guys said it was too weak pre-release"...

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.

Well, they could just scrap initiative completely, and just have each side alternate (player 1's first creature goes, then player 2's first creature), going in an order decided at deployment.



I'm not sure that would change the power of ranged units that much though - they'd still be able to do a lot of damage to infantry before the infantry reached them.

Tanel88 wrote:
I find this to be a huge problem with the game. Glassteel has a bit too much damage, health and armor and makes you feel like your not giving up on anything that much. Especially when you get tier 3 Glassteel and Titanium tech which can sometimes be ridiculously early. Palladium and Adamantian tier 1 armors feel weak in comparison.



In my opinion the following suggestions previously mentioned would greatly improve the game:

1) Implement ZOC so that defensive melee units actually have a purpose and can better defend supports/archers.

2) Make initiative roll each round instead of being a constant all or nothing stat. This way it's worth to have some even when enemy has more.

3) Items need more balancing to make Glasssteel weaker and give some others a slight buff.

So... I don't really think this is a problem anymore? Because of the abundance of Sweep Strike Back Lvl3/4 on so many units, it isn't always better to go first. In fact, it is now a matter of always finding out what units your opponent is rolling and somehow countering it.



Fighting against enemies with sweep strike back, you try to keep your initiative as low as possible. Fighting against shooters/melee units with proccing abilities (like stun), keep your initiative high.



And beyond that, I've found the different techs of equipment mostly comparable in terms of overall stats....



That said, I haven't investigated closely. I know since release (and before) people have been complaining about weapon balance, but I honestly just don't notice it that strongly. Sure, getting T3 Glass/Titanium weapons before anyone else, or generally getting any higher tier weapon tech before it is generally available makes a massive difference, but once everyone has access to these I found that making strategic decisions regarding your enemy's armies makes a bigger difference than just spamming one weapon type.