Prismatic wrote:
Glassteel is overpovered because Initiative is King, and Initiative is King because the tactical Combat System sucks.



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



And you have a nice game

I don't agree that it sucks at all, though it does get very frustrating. ZOC would go a long way to temper the frustration. I'd also add either a larger battle field to keep everything the way it is, or slow down movement and reduce ranges on ranged combat (especially evident during winter).

Combat system sucks - are you kidding me. I am sorry but you lost me in that sentence.

Prismatic wrote:
Glassteel is overpovered because Initiative is King, and Initiative is King because the tactical Combat System sucks. It is not personal preference it is just the truth. And it makes me so so sad...

But that IS personal preference - And an opinion to boot.

Glassteel is overpovered because Initiative is King, and Initiative is King because the tactical Combat System has flaws. Below I explain why. And it makes me so so sad... Another example of a super nice game with ♥♥♥♥ed up core features to the point it becomes almost unplayable.



Now why is that so: - 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 Freatures like altitude, forest or flat land.



Why does the current state has flaws ? - It forces you into the Glassteel. All other options become worse. If you dont have higher Initiative not even your OWN Units do what you tell them. If you have higher Initiative you get turn based combat.



But you HAVE TO use the tactical combat because of the abilities of some units.



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 Units being able to run through your units - This ultimately makes the combat non strategic and therefore not fun.



If I have Initiative on the other hand, I have not lost a Single Battle (in most cases not even a Single Unit) - This inherently removes all the Non-Glassteel options for equipment from the game by being inferior and therefore eliminates content of the game - this is bad.



If content is removed from the Game in this way - the system sucks - therefore tactical combat has flaws !!



Its not an easy fix. I would either go full tun based 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 IT UNIT BY UNIT TURN BASED (in single player).



And you have a nice game



EDIT: Posted a better version of this in the suggestions forum

Mansen wrote:
But that IS personal preference - And an opinion to boot.

No it is not. I actually like what the combat system is going for, and it adds some interesting depth and randomness that somewhat mimics real life situations. Absolute control over everything isn't very realistic, but is sadly the industry standard, so i like how endless is trying to give a more "give orders and see how they unfold" thing.



That said there's several problems with their execution:



1. No zone of control. This is huge. If the combat occurs in a spot that doesn't have small bottlenecks, there's absolutely no way to handle cavalry, especially if they move before you. Sometimes there's an easy chokepoint to block up/defend, but if it's not there, it's impossible to stop them from zerging the unit of choice, which makes tactics much worse. This absolutely should be implemented, especially on melee/tanky units. Make it an ability if you must, but it needs to go in. Heck even if the game was decently balanced right now, just having ZOC adds more depth to the combat with a somewhat simple(all things being relative) change. I know it's something they said they were going to do, so i'm hoping it's still on the table. It could change a lot.



2. The system heavily rewards higher initiative. While i like the system, making initiative so easy to modify with almost no downside(someone else posted the stats, the payoff is negligible) doesn't help. Units cannot get "wounded"(does less damage if not at full hp) so essentially you either have a unit, or it's dead. Being able to go first not only ensures that your units will follow your orders to a T(while the opponents will not) but it lets you choose who's going to take counter attack damage(if any) and eliminate their units before you lose yours. In short, it's MUCH too powerful of a stat to be so easy to manipulate.



3. Ranged units have WAAAAY too much range, and can't be tied up in melee. Even with ZOC added, ranged units need to not be godly snipers from tier 1 who ignore melee threats. It's extremely easy to use a fast moving ranged army to sniper off whatever targets you want in whatever order you want, again, with almost no penalty. Even if i had ZOC and could put up a decent line of infantry, the range in this game is so huge that it's hard to imagine a situation where they wouldn't be able to pick off what they want regardless. Given that ranged units don't suffer counterattacks(and are the the only units with such an advantage) it's paramount that they have significant drawbacks. At least when you bumrush my line with cavalry, i get to deal some damage and trigger counter attacks, but if you can get fast archers, it's completely over.



Most of this can be pretty easily fixed, and it'll make the combat system much better. If they add zoc, change the range values/rules, and make glasssteel give something else you could actually see mixed armies. Right now i see no reason to not run either glasssteel cav or glasssteel archers though.

This is not good balance, as anyone who doesn't is essentially steamrolled in combat the moment you have.

It needs to be better - you're using two or more techs each era on it.

I have to agree with the OP.



Glasssteel/initiative is one of those things that once you reach a critical threshold, is just instantly overpowering. Having 1 guy go before your team is whatever, having 2 cavalry armies go first means i'm essentially bringing my 8 units vs your X-Y, where Y is however many units my cavalry can focus down before you even get to move.



Once you reach the threshold where you can alpha strike down units in one turn, combined with the insane move and 0 zone of control in this game(hell, make it an ability), it makes certain units essentially obsolete, and really limits the depth of the combat system. Hell the system even benefits the first strike strategy, because the defender cant watch the entire enemy platoon move, and then somehow creatively punish it, they just have to hope they've setup right. That's not to say i don't like the combat system overall, but initiative as it stands seems very poorly balanced.



Either you also boost initiative, which now means we're both sitting there with essentially the same units, or I get to kill 1/2/3 units for free every battle, which is almost always going to be a tremendous advantage. There's something to be said for terrain causing issues, but it's way too much of a threat right now to ever use much else.

They become irrelevant TOO FAST, by the second research age, literally, as long as you have a source of glassteel.



Also, glassteel has very little lessened damage/defense compared to Titanium, definitely not enough to give a reason to pick Titanium over it. Besides, you can just slap on a Titanium ring for a general damage boost, plenty of space for that

Against the AI I find Titanium is more effective than Glassteel for most armor and definitely for weapons. In multi-player higher initiative is definitely a big advantage, but since most everyone is working toward that end, it just becomes one more strategic consideration. As for minor factions becoming irrelevant, that's kind of what minor factions should do. If they continued to pose a serious threat to the players as your empire expands and develops, they wouldn't be minor.

While glassteel provides great bonuses to initiative, I personally prefer them only for ranged, support, and cavalry units. While being attacked does negate many of the standard abilities, I believe that some good tank units in full titanium, possibly with claws, could overpower an opponent using glassteel with their better damage and defense. Also, at times a mixture of the two works as well. For example, I think that you should get glassteel armour for units that require initiative, but I usually give my units titanium weapons due to the better damage.

titanium is more economy focus imho. more buildings require titanium (granted a few require glassteel as well.) glassteel as vaulters also nets you dust bonus that can be used for both economy or millitary while titanium gives you science that is more purely an economy advantage.



But I think the balance between the two is actually fine. If i get a lot of glassteel I ponder more aggressive stance. If i get titanium I ponder a more financial stance. both both still open to attacks with tier 2 weapon depending on the situation. I have more problem with glassteel/titanium armor being so low bonus compared with what the weapon tier 2 tech does. (others have discussed this on the forum so I will not comment further other than I agree.)



when it comes to minor tribes the fact is they have no resource weapons. As far as I see it the game intends you to by this be able to conquer smaller stacks of minor factions. You can also up the minor faction difficulty in settings if you wish for this to not be a part of your early game consideration. For me it is fine as it is. If we compare with other games it is very easy in civ5 (I only compare with this as most new gamers play civ5 but a better benchmark for the genre is civ4) to gain a city state after you get your first siege units.

Ironshield wrote:


I'll still stick with Titanium against the AI and would split my forces 50/50 fast vs strong against a player fielding ranged in only Glassteel. That way my fast trade shots with your fast, but then get left in range of my heavy hitters before the round ends.



+1

Thats not how that works. Vs a competant player(or if the AI is ever decent) as it stands, if i mass glassteel i get to a point of critical mass, and then I can just focus fire down your units before you even go. Damage is all or nothing(either alive at full damage, or dead, being injured doesn't matter) so maybe i'll need one more glasssteel archer, but i'll still get to kill you before you even move, which actually weakens your army. It's not as effective in a 1 on 1 situation, but there's a critical mass point where you have enough archers moving faster than their units, to where you can focus down at least 1 unit, and then there is no trading. You essentially just come to the field with a -1. The more glass archers i get, the more units you lose before you can even move. titanium might make me need more archers to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are is an arrow sponge, and the numbers in no way make the tradeoff worth it.

Isn't the OP nature of initiative boosts pretty easy to mod? I'll look into it.

That could help keep old units at equal levels to new units but if you want to make older units more valuable, you'll have to add something else to them. Perhaps you could add some sort of buff to units made in earlier eras, maybe a small damage and defense buff? Such a mechanic would probably make the amount of units produced in the first few eras go up higher, and with your suggestion about increasing amounts of xp per turn based on the era the unit was made, these early units could become the elite of each faction's army. Also, another way of getting older units to get more xp per turn, could be putting them in a garrison. They are taken out of offensive battle and would block production of new units, which could balance it.

I would like to see the passive xp gain increased by 1 per tech age. This would help your older units stay more current. Possibly instead, give each unit that is alive during a tech era changeover a buff that gives an extra xp / turn. Something to make keeping older units alive and upgraded more valuable.

PurpleXVI wrote:
Mechanics-wise, it makes sense, because level 10 units of equal equipment to level 1 units will stomp them mercilessly, and it's not exactly hard to keep a few units alive from start to end of game, so without this mechanic, one guy being careful with a single army could steamroll the entire endgame effortlessly. Fluff-wise, the argument could be that as the empire learns more about battle, it has more to instill in its recruits before turning them loose on the battlefield for the first time.

I understand the reasoning, and I'm not saying the current mechanic should be done away with entirely, just toned down a bit. I've had several situations where my new units were higher level than my veteran units. That just doesn't make sense and also completely removes any incentive to keep veteran units alive. I think starting new recruits off with as much experience as a unit which had been in a city garrison from turn 1 would have (ie- free exp = # of game turns) would make more sense and still encourage players to work at leveling their veteran units. Something like this is obviously not a high priority in terms of improving the game, but it's still something that I'd like to see implemented.

Ironshield wrote:
Yep, you're right. That particular mechanic makes so little sense to me that my mind completely blocked it out. I still like my idea though and think the Matrix style unit training should get nerfed. I mean, how else does a unit fresh out of boot camp get as much experience as a unit that has been on the battlefield from day one? Dozer loads a training program; they bat their eyes for a couple seconds and viola!

Mechanics-wise, it makes sense, because level 10 units of equal equipment to level 1 units will stomp them mercilessly, and it's not exactly hard to keep a few units alive from start to end of game, so without this mechanic, one guy being careful with a single army could steamroll the entire endgame effortlessly. Fluff-wise, the argument could be that as the empire learns more about battle, it has more to instill in its recruits before turning them loose on the battlefield for the first time.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
The thing about tying an archer's effectiveness to level is that you don't have to train them and keep them alive, you can just wait and they'll automatically be trained at higher levels as you progress through the eras.

Yep, you're right. That particular mechanic makes so little sense to me that my mind completely blocked it out. I still like my idea though and think the Matrix style unit training should get nerfed. I mean, how else does a unit fresh out of boot camp get as much experience as a unit that has been on the battlefield from day one? Dozer loads a training program; they bat their eyes for a couple seconds and viola!

Eji1700 wrote:
Thats not how that works. Vs a competant player(or if the AI is ever decent) as it stands, if i mass glassteel i get to a point of critical mass, and then I can just focus fire down your units before you even go. Damage is all or nothing(either alive at full damage, or dead, being injured doesn't matter) so maybe i'll need one more glasssteel archer, but i'll still get to kill you before you even move, which actually weakens your army. It's not as effective in a 1 on 1 situation, but there's a critical mass point where you have enough archers moving faster than their units, to where you can focus down at least 1 unit, and then there is no trading. You essentially just come to the field with a -1. The more glass archers i get, the more units you lose before you can even move. titanium might make me need more archers to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are is an arrow sponge, and the numbers in no way make the tradeoff worth it.

That's what most everyone keeps saying, and since nobody has taken me up on my offer to go one on one, I'll have to take your word for it. My archers in Titanium reach a critical level too though where they one hit kill most everything.



If it takes two of your units to bring down one of mine, but only one of mine to bring down one of yours then I should win a 6 on 6 fight with 1 unit remaining. Round 1- You kill 3 before they can move, but the remaining 3 kill 3 of yours. Round 2- You kill 1 and injure 1, the remaining 2 kill two of yours. Round 3- You kill the injured unit, the uninjured unit kills you.