Other Games: Combat Systems

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

since I am currently not modding I have more time for playing / checking other games.
So I was recently playing "Age of Wonders: Planetfall".

Small comments on the game itself:

Spoiler :

Well, I had been playing "Age of Wonders Series" before. All parts from AoW 1 to AoW 3.
So I already knew what to expect and I was not surprised by the Combat mechanics.

The game is an ok game generally and I had fun for a couple of days - now I am bored already though and will try the next game on my list.
Single Player got really boring after a couple of days and I am generally not really a fan of Multi Player.

I have uncounted small issues with the game though and feel a lot of potential was wasted by trying to create a "streamlined" game for the masses.
It is simply neither a truly great strategy game nor is it a truly great tactical game. It is just mediocre at everything. Ok to good in everthing it does, but outstanding or innovative in nothing.

Also the campaign it has is not that interesting.
The story is quite predictable "standard sci-fi".

Do I regret buying it though: No, as I said I had fun for a couple of days.
(Each faction needs its own "golden strategy" and figuring that out is fun for a while.)

What I actually wanted to talk about though is:

The Turn Based Combat System on a Tactical Map (of AoW: Planetfall):

It lends aspects of XCOM series and many other games and is thus pretty fun for a while.

• Commanders are basically like in an RPG system heroes that get special abilities each time they level up and can use special equipment - even pretty cool vehicles
• Units level up to get stronger and there is also equipment called "mods" that give them additional abbilities, increase their attack strength, their defense, their speed, their ...
  
• It is turn based on a "hex" tactical map that is generated from the hex tile of the strategic map
• There are action points that force you to decide what to do and when to do: Move, Attack or Special
  
• There is an "Overwatch System" to lay traps for attacking troops.
• There is cover that troops can hide behind and which can also get destroyed (e.g. by grenades)
• Direction of facing matters (e.g. for flangking) and attack distances (for hit chances) as well.
  
• There are also dangers on the tactical map (e.g. barrels full of oil that burn or gas containers that explode)
• Some tactical maps have special effects (like heat, warp like psionic effects, poison, ...) based on the terrain of the strategical map they were created / spawned from
  
• Many Units also have "area of effect" attacks that can destroy cover or damage several enemies
• Special Actions (area attacks, heals, psionic stuff, ...) have cool down and need to be used wisely
• Adjacent Units can support each other by buffs or by creating cover for others or heal them or ...
• There many vastly different types of attacks that some units are more or less susceptible to (kinetic, heat, biological, psionic, ...)
• Close Combat Units always trigger automatic attacks if an adjacent Ranged Combat Units tries to move or attack
• There are also Ships and Flying Units.
  
• ...

Sounds pretty great, right?
Actually surprisingly no.
At least not longer than a couple of days.

• The number of tactical maps is extremely limited and after maybe a week you have seen them all.
• Also these tactical maps are extremely small (for many reasons, e.g. otherwise the Area of Effect Attacks would become almost worthless)
• The size fo an army is limited to 6 Units - which in most cases means fights of 6 vs 6. (Exceptions exist - because near by armies on adjacent plots will get drawn into the battle as well.)
• "Overwatch", Cover-System, Equipment System, Support System, ... all of that becomes pretty repetitive fast once you understood it.
• Playing a faction with mostly "Close Combat Units" instead of a faction with "Ranged Units" basically is no more tactics at all - because all you will do is try to rush to the enemy Units
• Once your Hero an Units are levelled enough, fighting a stack of weaker enemies is really boring.
  
• The system mostly matters only in early game until your technological advantage leads to a situation where your high tech Units simply cut through the low tech Units of AI like butter
• ...

----

For a couple of days I had a blast with that system.
(Especially since I played a faction mostly using Ranged Combat.)

But then I really did not care anymore.
(Most combats I had the game auto-resolve.)

Since the "Combat System" is actually the most important part of that game, it then also got extremely boring as a whole.
(Economy, Diplomacy, Exploring, ... is all pretty shallow actually after a while as well.)

Positively: AI is tactically good
AI is doing pretty well in Tactical Combat. - However it always does the same "best" == "scripted" action
In fact in early game an enemy army can seriously decimate your own.
I have lost several fights against other factions due to AI using really good tactical maneuvers.

Negatively: AI is strategically really weak
However on the Strategical Layer it simply does not keep track.
Your heroes and units will level much faster than AI ones and will be better equipped.
Also you will normally have much higher Tech level and much bigger mass production of units soon.

General consideration:
Having Stacks (max 6 Units) moving on Strategic Map and single Units fighting on Tactical Map works flawlessly.
But of course this only works if you have both types of "Map Modes".

----

Comment:

Age of Wonders: Planetfall has the best tactical combat system (on paper / conceptually) that I have ever seen in a 4x game.
However, it loses all its magic already after just a few days.

It is too limited in numbers (maps size, map diversity and army size) and too repetitive (once you figured out which tactics work).
A lot of stuff you could so simply does not matter anymore, once your army is really highly levelled or your technological advantage makes eveything else irrelevant

In the beginning I was really exited when I could level my weak hero or give my Units new equipment.
But after a couple of days it felt annoying that I had to click and level my vastly overpowered hero again.

----

Personal Opinion:

The best combat system will get ruined by too little map variation and repetitiveness.
Such a system only works to be fun for a longer time.

• Lots of diverse tactial maps exist which are also bigger
• Combat involves more than just a handfull Units to make it a bit more tactically challenging.
  
• AI is less predictable and golden tactics" for a faction would not be so obvious
• AI also competes on Strategical level (e.g. Technology and Number of Units)
• ...

----

Summary:

There are a lot of good ideas in the Tactical Combat System of Age of Wonders: Planetfall.
Still, after only 1 week it got so boring to me that I resolved all Combats by Auto-Combat whenever possible.

----

Personal Conclusion:

The system I described and experienced in Age of Wonders: Planetfall is way better than everything I could ever create in Civ4Col (WTP) - especially since Civ4Col was simply not designed to support such a good tactical combat system.
Thus my personal conclusion is to not even try to create such a "tactical map system" but to try other approaches that would focus more on the strategical decisions. (Army Composition, Promotions, Techs, Terrain, "Stone-Paper-Cissor" design, ...)

----

Well, at the moment I am still taking a break from modding anyways.
But maybe my report is interesting for some other modders.

 

[FlaviusBelisarius]

An interesting read. I would not dare to try making a tactical combat mode for WTP either.. Conquest of the new world has interesting and cool tactical combat (with full relevance to WTP context but very old game). I liked that a lot. It has leadership modeling, positioning and unit class interaction in a mini-chess-like environment. Still, I would not try to mix that kind of combat engine with WTP. Good for inspiration nevertheless.

Instead, I always return thinking about Fantasy General [FG] when combat systems are discussed. It has in my opinion very nice unit class system with clear roles and strengths / weaknesses. FG classes out from the top of my head: heavy infantry, light infantry, skirmishers, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, archers, siege engines, flying bombards and flying melee. Instead of simple rock-paper-scissors, a bit more complex context-dependent dynamic emerges. For example, skirmishers get reduced damage if their enemy is slower than them in the present terrain (guerrilla tactics, shoot and avoid). But in open ground especially against heavy cavalry, they cannot evade melee and will be cut to pieces.

Unit class ties integrally to attack modes; siege/bombard, ranged, skirmish, and melee. Terrain effects are nicely implemented too in my opinion. Higher range rating allows one-sided attacks and defensive fire before melee if charged. Siege > ranged > skirmish > melee. Light units fight better and can avoid less mobile units in rough terrain (skirmish logic in attack and defense). All units have melee attack mode and potentially another attack mode(s).

Also the damage model is simple yet brilliant. Dead, wounded, broken (morale lost). Dead or wounded do not contribute to damage so units get weaker at damaging enemies but do not lose combat strength directly. Wounded can recover by rest, dead only from cities / between fights. Beats basic HP logic any day.

Unit support function is present too. Archers can protect nearby units from melee/skirmish attack (free support volley against attackers that disrupts their offensive power if damaged). Siege engines give bonuses to melee attacks against fortified positions. And so forth.

Highly recommended even though the game is ancient and needs dosbox to run with present computers (or just buy a gog version for convenience).

 

[orlanth]

Those are good comments Ray and Flavius and I largely agree.

I also enjoyed Age of Wonders games for awhile, but felt they went too far in making the game primarily about tactical combat with much less depth in the "grand strategy" economic and sociopolitical aspects of empire building and management that I most enjoy. Overall grand strategy should be the primary focus of a game like Civ4Col (though Paradox games could be a good example of ways to make combat more nuanced and interesting than vanilla Civ "stack of doom" mechanics while keeping the primary focus on grand strategy and empire management).

Among upcoming games in development, I'm particularly looking forward to see what Victoria 3 will deliver in this respect:
https://www.victoria3game.com
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-0.1475078/

Among past games, one classic that I felt did integrate grand strategy with some turn-based tactical combat quite successfully is Imperialism 2: Age of Exploration. Combat uses a fairly simple turn-based tactical map (almost like Master of Magic etc); but they clearly put much more thought and attention into the economic, political, tech advancement, and trade aspects of grand strategy, and that made the game as a whole much more appealing and satisfying for me. Trade and transport systems were also really well done, such that players focus on building road, port, and fleet infrastructure and maintaining naval forces to defend against blockades, while not needing to micromanage numerous individual wagons/ships/routes (which does become exasperating for me in Civ4Col TBH). Advanced worker types consume certain goods, creating interesting strategic needs for specific raw materials and manufactured goods apart from selling for cash. A technology tree with a simple but thoughtful design lets players gradually unlock new options in economic, military, trade/transport, manufacturing, and diplomatic spheres, leading to some really interesting strategic decisions, particularly for a game of its time.

Anyway it's a largely unknown classic from 1999 but one that Civ4Col players might really enjoy; it's currently only $6 on GOG so feel free to give it a try if you like!

https://www.gog.com/game/imperialism_2_the_age_of_exploration