I came back to the came recently, I used to play a lot, played quite a bit now and the problems are still mostly the same. But this time I want to focus on combat and why it's fundamentally flawed currently.

The CORE issue:

- This is a turned based game that has simultaneous turns

- Whoever goes first gets a big advantage in combat

- AI's have virtually unlimited APM

Now the solution here is to eliminate some of the advantages that going first nets you in combat, but first, let's go over what benefits you get exactly if you're the attacker:

- The biggest advantage - Ranged units can attack without being attacked back when they do so. This means you can kill off entire units at no cost

(Late-game combat units are almost all ranged)

- Having allies nearby can give a +1 strength, combat masters can utilize this to great effect alongside the line of sight restrictions

- You can move out of rivers even if deployment forces you into them

- You can obtain high ground to attack for a massive +4 bonus

- You can use rear attacks for another +4 bonus

- Also, whoever goes 2nd cannot move out of rivers if their deployment forced them into rivers, meaning a -3 penalty to their survivability

Now the game tried to fix this in a couple of ways.

- The defender gets a +1 combat strength bonus on the first turn. This also applies to units that skip their turn.

- Later in the game, units gain a dug-in bonus that's much higher

So the problem is, the attacker's benefits VASTLY outweigh what the defender gets.

But why would it be bad if attackers have a massive advantage? Well, the problem is mostly down to APM.

Tell me, have you ever had a situation where you attack a city, but the AI clicks sortie before you can click assault?

Have you ever had a situation where you tried to attack a unit, but they attacked you first?

Have you ever gotten attacked by an enemy that you knew you could defeat, but they attacked you first?

Have you ever been frustrated by horse archers (Hunnic or Mongol)?

What about a situation where you wanted to run away, but couldn't move your unit back in time before they attacked?

Have you ever got a ton of pop up message boxes when you had to hurry and move your units quickly before the AI could move theirs?

Even the situations where it's outside of the combat map, if the combat was not so skewed towards first strikes, it would be less of a problem.

The devs did so much to try and fix horse archers too, but even now they're extremely good, though at least now they require a bit of skill to utilize them to their full potential.

(+1 strength for being near an ally is amazing with them, due to the way they move)

The goals:

- Being the attacker would no longer be crucial, no more APM battles against the AI

- Taking out an army in a single turn with 0 damage suffered would no longer be possible

My proposal:

- Ranged units would now retaliate against ranged attacks

(as long as they're abiding by line of sight and range rules - ex: Archers with indirect fire could still attack crossbowmen without getting hit in return, long range units attacking shorter range units from outside of their reach would not suffer a retaliation)

- Rebalance the combat strengths of ranged units to account for the changes (Especially short ranged units like javelin throwers)

- Rebalance dug-in/defense bonuses to account for the new changes - Maybe early melee units get a higher defensive bonus

This alone wouldn't be a perfect fix to everything, attackers would still get a pretty big advantage, but you could no longer defeat an army in 1 turn and get away with 0 damage suffered. Even if it's just hp damage and you don't lose anybody, it'd still take time to regen back the hp. In addition, if the AI hits you first during a siege or even an open battle, it wouldn't be able to kill your units entirely with no cost at all. Less frustration when they get the APM boost.

Also I like it because it's more realistic that archers and musketmen would fire back at the people shooting at them. I know realism in video games is a bit of a taboo subject, but if you are trying to simulate battles, you have to acknowledge the limitations of turn based combat.and account for them.

Extra ideas that'd require additional testing:

- Early musketmen can opt to move AND attack in the same turn if they do so with a melee (bayonet) strike - This would mean they suffer regular melee retaliation

- In addition to ranged retaliation, ranged units in melee range of a melee unit will also suffer retaliation - The 8 combat strength penalty for melee range wouldn't apply, also it may need to be reduced if this would be added to make early ranged units less of a wet noodle

- In addition to ranged retaliation, javelin throwers would no longer have a melee range penalty, or would have a drastically reduced one to balance them against archers

Tell me, have you ever had a situation where you attack a city, but the AI clicks sortie before you can click assault? - Yes, enraging. I thought the game was broken until I figured out what was going on.

Have you ever had a situation where you tried to attack a unit, but they attacked you first? - Yes, annoying.

Have you ever gotten attacked by an enemy that you knew you could defeat, but they attacked you first? - Yes, annoying.

Have you ever been frustrated by horse archers (Hunnic or Mongol)? Yup... 

What about a situation where you wanted to run away, but couldn't move your unit back in time before they attacked? Yup... reloading 3 times until I finally click fast enough is such a joy, thankfully I have a high end PC so the game loads in a snap. 

Have you ever got a ton of pop up message boxes when you had to hurry and move your units quickly before the AI could move theirs? - Yup. I DON"T CARE THAT I GAINED AN ERA STAR. F--- OFF! ooop too slow, reload. 

I do not get the simultaneous turns thing.... whole point of a turn based game is you have time to think, or its great when you are busy (like playing at work) and have to look away a lot. It's enraging. I for one would do away with the simultaneous turns... I can only assume they were designed for multiplayer, and I only play this game solo (I have other games to play online) but I don't like it. 

Your idea of units being able to retaliate is good... at the moment, yeah it's simply not fair  that whoever attacks first has a huge advantage. Another idea might be that whoever is on the defensive gains an automatic +3 (variable) to CS only while under attack for the first round of combat, just so it wouldn't be so easy to wipe units out at the start. Another idea is whoever is being attacked gets to see the formation of the enemy so they can smartly place their units on defense, it wouldn't save the unit who is going to get focus fired but might help at least somewhat. 

Cruor34 wrote:
Another idea might be that whoever is on the defensive gains an automatic +3 (variable) to CS only while under attack for the first round of combat, just so it wouldn't be so easy to wipe units out at the start.

Unfortunately I don't think flat bonuses would be enough, mainly because they affect melee units more than ranged. Melee would suck really badly and ranged could still try and focus fire down 1 unit at a time to get a leg up.

Cruor34 wrote:
Another idea is whoever is being attacked gets to see the formation of the enemy so they can smartly place their units on defense, it wouldn't save the unit who is going to get focus fired but might help at least somewhat. 

This is a really cool idea, I love it. Again, probably not enough on its own, but I do love it and it makes perfect sense too.

komodowaran wrote:
he better Solution: let the army with more movement points left go first.

I like this to an extent, but I don't think this fixes the issue, it only moves it along. The person moving first would still win the majority of battles, it's just that it wouldn't be the attack all the time now.

Plus, it could be confusing/unclear and have some edge cases with equal movement left and attacked cities would always get to have the first turn since cities don't move. I really think it's necessary to reduce the first turn advantage, it's not enough to change who gets the first turn.

Here's a different suggestion with two rule changes:

Step 1: Make units reinforcing unable to attack in the turn they enter combat
Step 2: Make all attacking units start as reinforcements instead of deployed (defender deploys as normal)

Or just bring back Initiative from Endless Legend that decides which units types go first (regardless of attacker of defender), with a coin flip for units that have the same initiative value.

docktorkain wrote:
Step 2: Make all attacking units start as reinforcements instead of deployed (defender deploys as normal)

This would make attacking even more advantageous. I'd much prefer deploying my attacking units at my will where I want them rather than being forced to deploy in a pre-determined frontline area before the battle. I could easily avoid restrictions that might be casued by rivers, elevations, cliffs, fortifications or districts. This way I could easily concentrate my flanking attack against widely deployed enemy from the very beginning of the battle instead of wasting a round for mobilization. 1 to 3 extra movement points that deployment before battle brings is not a significant advantage compared to this.

el-Fakir wrote:
This would make attacking even more advantageous.

Not when combined with Step 1 since the attacker would have one less attacking round

docktorkain wrote:

el-Fakir wrote:
This would make attacking even more advantageous.

Not when combined with Step 1 since the attacker would have one less attacking round

This does not make sense at all. You offer to make attacking impossible by swapping power balance between attackers and defenders. Attackers become defenders in your proposed system; for what purpose?

I think that simply reducing the movement points of units inside the battlefield will make it much more tactical and reduce the advantage of the attacker by a lot.

lbasil wrote:

I think that simply reducing the movement points of units inside the battlefield will make it much more tactical and reduce the advantage of the attacker by a lot.

Well, depends on how much you reduce the movement and how much roads factor in.

It would make it harder to set up flanks and the adjacency +1's, but I don't know if it would affect firing drills all that much. In most cases you only need to move 2 positions to move over the previous shooter and fire again. It'd make things snowball less and honestly the movement can be a bit unclear/high sometimes due to roads, but I am not confident that this change alone would be enough. Especially since this would affect both attacker and defender, so even if the attacker fails to do a complete firing squad and they take out only 1-2 units in the first turn, you still need to set up your riposte as the defender.

The goal should be that in the majority of scenarios the attacker cant cover the distance to the defender in the first round, without exposing himself to extreme retaliation.

StorytellerDave wrote:
If they can only move but can't attack, wouldn't this just flip it so the defender has the advantage of the first strike?

el-Fakir wrote:
Attackers become defenders in your proposed system; for what purpose?

Attacker does have an inherent advantage: it can choose when and where to attack, and thus influence how the battlefield will shape up and where the deployment zone will be. The system I proposed have huge impacts beyond "flipping the first strike advantage". I'll explain then with more details below, first for premodern war then for modern war.

Premodern War

Currently, the attacker attacks with full force against the deployed defenders, THEN the defenders get to reinforce. WIth the proposed changes, not only the deployed defenders get to strike first (and only the deployed defenders, with the reinforcements also only moving in the first turn), but the first strike is much muted because a) the attacker managed to move first so it can get more advantageous positions and set up its adjacency bonuses; and b) the defenders' reinforcement won't take part in the first strike. With the attacker choosing where and how to strike, it can decide how the defender will use its first strike. In addition, this have two extra impacts. Strategically, this can create "stalemates" where both parties are too scared to attack, pinning down those troops and allowing for feints, side attacks and pincer attacks, allowing for cavalry forces to shine with its greater strategic movement range and giving an extra incentive to use saboteurs and other stealth units. Tatically, it increases the power and role of Army Size bonuses, as it empowers the defenders' first strike capability to deploy more troops as the bigger army gets attacked.

Modern War

Beyond all the changes highlighted in the premodern section, theres one extra effect that takes place in Industrial era. After Line Infantry is researched, a new modifier takes place: Dug In. By having the defender deploy before the battle, it allows it to start the battle with Dug In active, while the attacker won't have it. This means that defending becomes much stronger in this era, helping create the WW1-style trench warfare stalemates, and highlighting the impact and necessity of weapons such as artillery (mortars/howitzer/siege art), naval support and planes to break dug in and allow for sucessful attacks. Ambushes and manuever become crucial to achieve to victory.

Of course, all this only impacts forces that are roughly similar. Once a side achieves a vast superiority (either through quantity, bonuses and/or tech), this whole discussion becomes meaningless.

docktorkain wrote:
Currently, the attacker attacks with full force against the deployed defenders, THEN the defenders get to reinforce. WIth the proposed changes, not only the deployed defenders get to strike first (and only the deployed defenders, with the reinforcements also only moving in the first turn), but the first strike is much muted because a) the attacker managed to move first so it can get more advantageous positions and set up its adjacency bonuses; and b) the defenders' reinforcement won't take part in the first strike.

Here's the problem, in an equal battle, whoever strikes first in turn based combat will always win. If we factor in literally everything, no terrain modifiers, no tech or experience, everyone does the best moves they can mathematically do in a 4 infantry vs 4 infantry battle, the person striking first, has a severe advantage because they can take out an enemy unit before they themselves lose one and that is a huge DPS loss on their side.

Focus fire one unit down, you take it out in 1 or 2 turns, and bam the opponent's damage is reduced drastically compared to yours and it keeps snowballing with each passing turn. Having the first strike is crucial. This is a problem because an equal fight should result in equal losses ideally.

We will not really ever reach a point where equal units result in a draw, and we don't need to, we just have to get close enough that the player cannot tell amidst the not so equal battles you normally encounter and therefore the player is not frustrated with the game.

1) Mix up the turn order, so one player doesn't get to move all their units before the other does - Whoever gets to strike first will get a boost still, but it's so minor in large battles that it's insignificant next to the tactics, terrain and randomized damage.

2) Give the units retaliation so both players suffer damage when they attack each other - Whoever strikes first will still get an advantage, since the damage is spread out on their units, whilst they're able to focus fire, but strength maluses for damaged units make up for some of this in longer battles, plus the other player can focus fire down the weaker units once they get their turn.

3) Give the defender enough of a combat strength boost that they suffer damage, but don't lose a unit drastically before the other player

I favor the 2nd solution, but I also like the 1st solution since it's even closer to equilibrium. My favor towards the 2nd is mostly because the 1st would make taking turns in a battle more time consuming, whereas right now you can take your entire turn, then look away to manage your cities for a couple seconds then go back when the AI finished taking their turn already.

The only one I don't really like/trust is the 3rd one, and mostly because melee units have retaliation already and it doesn't feel great to attack and do no damage.

With all that said...

Late game:

1) If reinforcements come into play, then yes this could depending on a lot of variables this could get pretty close to equilibrium, but if there are no reinforcements then it's not close at all.

2) In cases where the battle lasts multiple game turns, reinforcements that pour in after the start of the battle, from both sides, it would start to increase the first strike bonuses as the battle drags on.

Some simplified examples - Detailed breakdowns of the combat will be left at the end.

Example One

8 units vs 8 units. 4 in the base army and 4 in reinforcements on each side. Each attack does a fixed 25% hp in damage. At the end of the battle according to your suggestion, the Defender would win with 1 unit at 100% and one at 25% hp.

Pretty dang close to equilibrium here. First strike gave the defender a 15% bonus.

Example Two

4 units vs 4 units. No reinforcements. Attacks deal 25% hp in damage.

Defender wins with 1 unit at 100% and 1 unit at 50%.

This is fairly far from equilibrium, the first strike gave the defender a 37.5% bonus.

Example 3

Ranged retaliation. 4 units vs 4 units, no reinforcements. If each attack deals 25% damage and retaliation also deals 25% damage, then the result is a draw, regardless of focus fire.

First strike gives 0% benefit.

Of course in the actual game due to adjacency bonuses and damaged penalties, the first strike would probably give some benefit. The larger the battle the more advantages the first strike gives.

Example 1 breakdown:

Defender strikes first with 4 units, kills one. It's 4 to 3 now.

Attacker brings in 4 more units, it's 4 to 7 now.

Attacker hits with 7 units, kills 1, reduces one to 25% hp. It's 2.25 vs 7 now.

Defender brings in their 4 reinforcing units, hits with 7 units, kills 1, brings one down to 25%. It's now 6.25 vs 5.25 now.

Attacker hits with 6 units, kills one fully, finishes off the wounded one, and damages another by 25%. It's 4.75 vs 5.25 now.

Defender hits with 5 units, kills one fully, finishes one off, it's 4.75 vs 4 now.

Attacker hits with 4 units, kills one fully, it's 3.75 vs 4 now.

Defender hits with 4 units, kills one fully, it's 3.75 vs 3 now.

Attacker hits with 3 units, finishes one off, it's 3 vs 3 now.

Defender hits with 3 units, damages one by 75%, it's 3 vs 2.25 now.

Attacker hits with 3 units, damages one by 75%, it's 2.25 vs 2.25 now.

Defender hits with 3 units, finishes one off and damages one by 50%, it's 2.25 vs 1.5 now.

Attacker hits with 2 units, finishes one off and damages one by 25%, it's 1.75 vs 1.5 now.

Defender hits with 2 units, finishes one off, it's 1.75 vs 1 now.

Attacker hits, damages one, it's 1.5 vs 1 now

Defender hits with 2 units, it's 1.5 vs 0.5 now.

Attacker hits, damages again, it's 1.25 vs 0.5 now.

Defender hits, finishes the last unit off.

Example 2 breakdown:

Defender strikes first with 4 units, kills one. It's 4 to 3 now.

Attacker hits with 3 units, damages one by 75%. It's 3.25 vs 3 now.

Defender hits with 3 units, damages one by 75%. It's 3.25 vs 2.25 now.

Attacker hits with 3 units, finishes one off and damages another by 50%. It's 2.5 vs 2.25 now.

Defender hits with 3 units, finishes one off and damages another by 50%. It's 2.5 vs 1.5 now.

Attacker hits with 2 units, finishes one off. It's 2 vs 1.5 now.

Defender hits with 2 units, finishes one off. It's 2vs 1 now.

Attacker hits, it's 1.75 vs 1 now.

Defender hits with 2 units, damages by 50%, it's 1.75 vs 0.5 now.

Attacker hits, it's 1.5 vs 0.5 now.

Defender hits with 2 units and wins. It's 1.5 vs 0 now.