Currently the way combat works, movement and attack take place on the same turn for a unit. This means that units with high initiative can lock down enemy units, depriving them of their actions, and give the player with higher initiative near total control of the battlefield. Now of course, there are cases where higher initiative does not always equal a win; but broadly speaking right now higher initiative is almost always what determines the outcome of battles.



This, broadly speaking, is how combat works now

• Player 1 moves and attacks with his high initiative units.
• Player 2 has few, if any actions left. This is when they start to lose horribly in most cases.
  
  

I suggest that combat be divided into a movement phase and attack phase. That way, having higher initiative would not automatically give you an upper hand (and could even be a liability). Example

• Player 1 moves
• Player 2 moves
• Player 1 attacks
• Player 2 attacks
  
  

This would require reworking initiative to be an army stat, possibly using the average initiative of all deployed units. This would be similar to the system used in table top strategy games like Warhammer (In Warhammer it's move, shoot, assault), and I think would solve a lot of the problems with the current combat system.

Sorry, but I fail to understand how this will solve the initiative issue. The main problem with high initiative as I see is not only how well you position your units, but that it becomes 100% predictable which units will deal damage *first*, and deprive the low initiative opponents from their special attacks / killing them before they can deal damage ... This can be "easily" solved by shuffling unit action order weighted by initiative... as I'm proposing here: /#/endless-legend/forum/5-general/thread/2492-annoyance-with-strategic-resources

If combat is divided into phases where the entire army moves all at once, like in Warhammer, then you can counter the positioning of an army with higher initiative. This means that the battlefield is not automatically under the control of whoever has the highest initiative. This system works extremely well in Warhammer (a nearly 30 year old game), and I see no valid reason why it can't work in EL.



I think another problem is that attacking a unit in melee deprives them of all actions because they counterattack automatically. This just needs to be done away with entirely, it's a huge part of the reason why initiative is the most important stat right now. Counterattacking should only be available to units that are ordered to do so.



I do agree that there should be some random element in determining initiative though. A simple d20 die roll added to the average army initiative would do this nicely.

I'm not familiar with the Warhammer game, so I may be missing some details... You are meaning the board game? The last time I've seen a game with movement x attack phases was Kampfgruppe for apple II... I've seen a small youtube demonstration on warhammer combat, and it seems the combat board is completely abstracted isn't it? So, one of the most interesting parts of combat for EL , that is the terrain specificities regarding heights, ridges and chokepoints would be lost...



Or am I wrong?



Another thing: I don't like this "average" army initiative you are proposing: you are transferring in an atomic level all individual initiatives to the whole army, forcing an entire army to "go first"... In my opinion, this would only aggravate initiative issues...



The idea of bypassing a counterattack to use the full attack have a certain appeal... However this would cause one of the biggest appeals of cavalry to be lost, that is to pin strategic units in place...



Another fear I have here is that movement x attack phases would exacerbate even more ranged units... Since melee have to get next to a unit to attack, and all movement order is 100% predictable and atomic... wouldn't we enter the pattern of melee approach ranged... ranged evades melee... melee tries to attack and hits thin air, because the ranged unit is far... ranged unit attacks, because it is ranged? In the current model, (no average army initiative), if you have a high initiative cavalry attacking a ranged unit, the cavalry have the advantage... How can this be if there is a move x attack phase?

Wingzero that is a very interesting idea. The main problem it's I doubt the devs could consider doing it, and I don't think the modders have the mod tools to realise it.



Anyway you off course have right to propose it !



I would like to recapitulate the thigs, because I did not immedietaly understood the idea, so I want to try to explain the things clearer for me. Please correct me I am wrong :



- During the decision phase, each players choose where their units move and attack. It is unchanged from what it is now.



- During action phase, begins the movement phase : units move according to each initiative valor, but they don't attack. So, the best position may be taken by the most initiative units (forest, cliff).



- When all units have executed their movement. Then begins the attack phase : units attack according to their initiative.



So, what it does change, it's the slow units can still move, whatever happenned (attacked or not). That is very intesting, but it seems that initiative become not much usefull. Because, ok you can move before the ennemy, and took interesting hex, as forest or cliff. But in some situations, the terrain situation does not create game change situation. I think it reduce too much the interest of the initiative. But maybe I don't see the picture as I should.





- I really like the idea that there is no counter attack naturally, but units need to decide this. But I see two problems in this idea :



* What is the point to put a unit on a counter attack mod if you can use this unit as attacking units ? Because, a unit in counter attack mode take the risk to not been attacked, whereas a attacking units not.



* Separating the attack to the counter attack increase the time needed to accomplish the combat, because there are more animations to do. Combat are already very longs (there should be an instantaneous animation speed...) and that would be bad if they are longer.





- A suggestion about the special attacks : why not autorise all specials attack even if the unit has not the initiative and is attacked ? After all, why a demon would not be able to use his electric power when he defend, or a harmonite his shock power, etc. ?



The system would remain unchanged, initiative would still give a big avantage, but slow units would keep their natural and equipement power. What do you think ?

Jojo_Fr wrote:
- A suggestion about the special attacks : why not autorise all specials attack even if the unit has not the initiative and is attacked ? After all, why a demon would not be able to use his electric power when he defend, or a harmonite his shock power, etc. ?



The system would remain unchanged, initiative would still give a big avantage, but slow units would keep their natural and equipement power. What do you think ?

I too don't think the Devs will break combat into phases, mostly because it would make battles take even longer. Personally I don't mind that, I used to play 4 hour Battletech and Warhammer 40k sessions, but I know a lot of people don't like long battles.



Still, initiative should be important but not more important than defense, attack, and damage ratings.



The only reason I'd want a unit to not attack is if they had sweep strikeback, which is wasted if they are not counterattacking.

wingzero890 wrote:


Still, initiative should be important but not more important than defense, attack, and damage ratings.

There are way too many examples in history where initiative proved to be the most important factor in deciding victory, even against overwhelming odds. But I digress, it's a game at the end of the day.



I should preface my post by stating I am not a competitive player by any means, and that I read in other threads people proposing the same idea that I will mention, which I find appealing.



What if instead of making initiative less important, we introduce ways to lower said initiative in battle. The most obvious way would be negative morale, which would *severely*, and I emphasize *severely*, lower initiative. That way, armies with lower initiative can turn the scales if they can isolate, flank, and encircle enemy units, depriving them of their main advantage. This would force players with high initiative units to not play with as much bravado, risking encirclement.



Now of course this would not prevent high initiative armies from killing many units in round 1, but to be honest if one goes to fight a high initiative army without having boosted defense and health as much as possible, then defeat is justified.



There are several ways to increase / decrease attack and defense, primarily through terrain. I think that having initiative be vulnerable to significant reduction at lower morale would be enough for balance, and would add more incentives to flank and isolate. More emphasis on formations and tactics in other words.

I´m somewhat familiar with the warhammer system. I think the main difference in EL, which imo would make this system not really viable, is that the equipment which increase initiative don´t really increase attack in comparison to their alternatives, while defense is always on the rise. That´s how EL tries to counter initiative tactics.



I´ve been trying to get good examples of battles to make a thread on the subject, but offline it seems hard because the AI usually only out initiative the player when the battle is already heavily on their favour for several other different reasons. I´d have to devote continuous time to a mp game, which I lack right now.



I did notice a trend however, when the mid/late game arrives. The lack of possibilities to reorganize an army internally makes defensive formations stiff and and their abilities unefficient before the Initiative side´s ability to move first.



Ex:

-Imagine a Blue army on a compact formation of melee units, 3 of which have shields and swords, 3 of which have claws.



-They´re up against the Yellow army which consists of 3 fast spear infantry and 3 ranged.



Ideally, the Blue side would notice their overall lack of initiative and deploy their armies as far away as possible to make the Yellow melee units not reach them in the first turn. Since the ranged can possibly reach them anyway, the Blue side would ideally place the shield infantry in the front line and the claws in the rear. This way, the units which will use their defence have a defense bonus.



Now comes the problem - in the perfect scenario (or, as it happened in analogous real life battles), the Blue side would not have to expose themselves right at turn one, by sending the damaged sword infantry to engage and keeping the claws just providing morale, in order to have any advatange whatsoever. Instead, they would simple bring the claws to the front to face the incoming melee (which will probably try to gangup, making the claws useful) and send the sword/shield units back. This way, the claw units would receive heavy fire for a turn with full health, while the anti-infantry outflanks the exposed initiative based one.



This simple ability, to tell two units to switch places, would make initiative strategies much more vulnerable.

Yeah, you raise a good point with the lack of unit position swapping in the current combat system. If you have a solid line of units in the current implementation of the game you can't reliably rotate out wounded units for fresh ones. This is something that is sorely needed and should be simple to put in.



I'm also going to just reiterate and state that units should not have their planned moves and attack actions taken from them just because they were attacked by a higher initiative unit. That is the real problem, imo. Even games like Dungeons and Dragons where your character moves and attacks in the same turn dont take your actions away just because you were attacked.

wingzero890 wrote:
I'm also going to just reiterate and state that units should not have their planned moves and attack actions taken from them just because they were attacked by a higher initiative unit. That is the real problem, imo. Even games like Dungeons and Dragons where your character moves and attacks in the same turn dont take your actions away just because you were attacked.

I understand you, it took me a while to be ok with that.



But in fact, in Endless Legends that´s an untold ability of melee units. You take the action away from the your target in order to offset the fact that you´ll trigger the counter regardless if that´s good for you or not. That´s why flying units melee attacking from cliffs won´t take the action from anyone - they´re not receiving counter.



The board is small. If conflict could be avoided like that, either the battle would have to last like 10 turns, or units woud have to be more expensive to account for the fact you´re not losing them as much and as often.



I like the idea. I´m trying to play devil´s advocate here to see if I can help you come with the most solid suggestion possible. I think what you´re proposing is a little of a change in philosophy, and that´s always harder to be taken well. I´m not a stranger to suggesting changes in the philosophy myself - my suggestion thread is full of it, but I don´t really have much hope of seeing any of it, I just feel like I have to send my feedback.



If you want to see suggestions implemented, it´s easier to try and polish their mechanics instead of coming up with new ones. And changing the rules of engagement is a fundamental difference. Perhaps simply making the battle board a little bigger - or progressively bigger which makes more sense - and adding more tweaks to the way we can control the armies is something more feasible.



I love the reference for the thread, everyone should read about warhammer if they don´t know what it is.

wingzero890 wrote:
I'm also going to just reiterate and state that units should not have their planned moves and attack actions taken from them just because they were attacked by a higher initiative unit. That is the real problem, imo.

Ok, but suppressing the counter attack creates new problems in the current combat system :



- Combat time increase because the game needs to make move and make attack all the units, which before were just stuck by the more initiatived units. It's a main problem especially in multiplayer, where combat are too longs today (instantaneous animation would revolutionne that).



- It destroy the interest of puting flyint units on cliff, to attack and avoid the ripost, because now all units avoid the ripost whatever the position. So flying units become less interesting.



But it solves some problems simply, and I really like it ! I make a grouped suggestions to divide the combat into move and attack phases, but I don't keep the idea of no counter attack :







Several suggestions of improvements to the combat system :



- You can give a new "position" order to an unit : don't attack any ennemy unit when she could. The unit may juste move, keeping his attack for a ripost. Usefull if you want to protect his life, or preserve his counter attack, which is usefull for the units which have a bonus in the counter attack.



- Units can swap their positions in the decision phase (it's already possible) but too in the combat phase. Between these two units, it needs your most initiative unit wait for the turn of your least initiative unit. It gives the possibility to replace your hurted units by fresh units coming from behind the front.



- A unit which has been attacked and riposted cannot attack anymore (as it is now), but she conserve his movement phase. This is for giving more tactical change in combat, and more valor to units which has a low initiative. Today a unit with slow initiative cannot decide anything new because she is entirely passive from the actions of the fast initiative unit.



- The counter attack of an attacked unit use the possible special power of this unit (as for exemple, the harmonite 3 hex damages, or the ghost electric charge). A way to reduce the initiative large domination.

I haven't played Warhammer in years, but unless the radically changed the system, Warhammer did not employ "alternating phases," but rather had one player complete all his movement, shooting, and melee attacks before the other player got their turn (though melee units did counterattack).

Battletech has been brought up, and that's a much better example of what you are proposing, with the slight difference that in that game high initiative goes last, since all damage only takes effect at the end of turn anyway, and knowing where your enemy went allows you to potentially avoid them.



Anyway, as BPrado said, it's unlikely we'll see a radical overhaul of the combat system. And I believe we may not need a radical overhaul, as long as we implement some changes to unit classes and capacities. Some examples:

- Cavalry charges are terrifying. If a cavalry attack imposed a large initiative penalty, then an army could support a line of slow heavy infantry with a few surgical strikers to throw the enemy plans out of order.

- Many abilities that only trigger on attacks could also trigger on counterattacks.

- Capacities that benefit from low initiative could be introduced. For example, on Driders, Caecators, and Dust Bishops low initiative is not a disadvantage, as it allows them to heal your units at the end of a turn. Similarly, spears could receive attack or damage bonuses when defending. Another capacity could provide a damage bonus when attacking an enemy who can not counterattack, since they are obviously not ready to defend. Swords are relatively agile weapons compared to hammers or axes, and can be put to great use in parrying, which might result in an initiative bonus after a counterattack, so the unit actually goes first int he following turn.

Yeah I think I mixed up 40k and Battletech a bit there, been a while since I played either.



I liked your ideas though, because it is indeed unlikely that they'd overhaul combat that much.