Except, as already noted, there's no defense. Having a a bunch of fortified units at the mountain pass doesn't do anything when there's no retal damage to wreck a unit that smashes into the bulwark. Want to charge into a wall of pikes? Go for it! That's playing ACTIVE, so why should it be a bad idea?O
No. You can't. That's an annoying option when you can. BUT! That doesn't, however, prevent you from positioning your *army* there, using forts, clearing (or keeping, depending on where they fall) forests, and building key roads. That route can still be where you decide you'll fight the primary battles to defend your holdings.
I feel similarly about the no defender DMG as well - I think it's brilliant and simply forces people who have literal decades of experience playing strategy games one way, to rethink the genre into an entire different way of playing..
Except, as already noted, there's no defense. Having a a bunch of fortified units at the mountain pass doesn't do anything when there's no retal damage to wreck a unit that smashes into the bulwark. Want to charge into a wall of pikes? Go for it! That's playing ACTIVE, so why should it be a bad idea?.
Right. It's not simply a matter of being a hidebound boomer. No retal damage and and units dealing full damage and 1HP are both affronts to how theis type of old-world combat actually functioned. Do not charge dug -n shied walls or pike squares with wild abandon. Soren's desire to innovate and disrupt what he calls "stalemate" tactics is nothing new. Stellaris, for example, tried to get rid of star lanes to eliminate all the fortified bottlenecks. They eventually conceded that their game was better off with turtling man without it.Units not taking return damage in Old World. To be honest, I'm not sure I like this. I understand the desire of the devs to encourage active play and avoid stagnant positions, but for me, as someone who usually prefers a peaceful builder approach, I like being able to play more defensively. I also think it doesn't make that much *sense* that melee units should be able to attack heavily fortified positions without taking any damage, nor that units which are almost completely destroyed should be able to fight as well as units at full strength.
It's an area where Civilization excels IMO. In OW, my concern with natural wonders is this'd be another area that is decremented by having fixed city-sites that translates into having the decision of how to leverage terrain taken out of the players hands. I'd like the idea of having mystery areas of the map with hidden elements. Players have to take control of the tile and "survey" certain tiles to discover what's there. That can take advantage of the fixed sites, as their can be some intelligent design to a discovering a hidden village, abandoned temple, or a library lost to time, for instance.Adding more stuff to the map. I would personally like to see something like natural wonders make an appearance at some point. For me, it adds spice to both the gameplay and to the map visuals. I also find that it is a way to make the game richer without necessarily increasing the complexity.
Maybe some civ's start with certain laws in place. Slavery'd be a ubiquitous one. Maybe it wanna be -1 discontent for every culture level (so no discontent at weak). Over time it becomes a bone of contention. Tho with it revised to being what seems to me to be something less essential than extra orders (+20% mines and quarries), it may be moot.[/QUOTE]The discussion on theme vs mechanics was very interesting. As he says himself, FiltyRobot is mostly focused on mechanics, and so choosing Slavery over Freedom makes perfect sense to him. Soren is a game designer, so he had an idea about people maybe starting out with Slavery, and then have an emancipation at some point to gain late game benefits. The statistics show that most people have more of a role-playing focus, though, and tend to pick Freedom right away, as that is the kind of leader they want to be. I think this is good, and as Soren points out, it shows that people engage with the theme.
It is turn based combat in every way. The most important way is that when it is one player's turn, all other players are statues that can't react. An alpha strike can obliterate the target before it can react. OW doesn't "solve" that problem, so removing retaliation damage isn't novel that leads to new decisions. It's simply a gaping, exploitable hole that lopsides combat.You know, the RTS genre doesn't have defense in the same way you and others are driving at either. In fact, in a lot of ways, I think OW combat sort of plays like an RTS fused into a turn based format.[
So I reiterate --- in my opinion, the complaints about the combat in OW primarily boil down to a subsection of people who came to play a strategy game the way they're always used to playing a strategy game.
Well, this isn't that game
All of the wonderful reasons to have combat like a civ franchise don't actually make the case that the combat in OW needs to be changed - it makes the case that some people don't like how it was done.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason people might complain about something is general resistance to change, that their complaints are somehow invalid and that they should just play a different game. As someone who tends to "complain" a lot about games I play, I don't think this is true at all. The reason I point out things I don't like, is generally to discuss with other players and also to provide useful feedback to the developers. It is not a general resistance to change. I often like change. Civ 5 brought hexes, better resource management, more tactical combat (still imperfect), and more situational elements. Civ 6 brought districts and more varied civ design. Old World brings orders and a different way of developing cities. All of these are changes I appreciate.So I reiterate --- in my opinion, the complaints about the combat in OW primarily boil down to a subsection of people who came to play a strategy game the way they're always used to playing a strategy game.
Well, this isn't that game
So, Old World patch #93 is live (tho there's no post for it here yet)
Lots of changes. One notable one for this thread is that the Tactician's General ability is now 1extra damage on counterattack (...)
Really? Interesting. Be interesting see this come down in the promotion chain, maybe after Guard II....and now in the freshly released update on the test branch they do full damage on counter attack Beside that this should make them really powerful (because even when down to 1 HP, full counterattack damage stays), this might open the gates for a quick mod changing the overall rule here (as the I imagine that an ability present doing this means that its easy to make it a general rule). If that should show up, I would for sure give it at try, as I'm curious how it would affect the game and how the AI copes with it.
No worries, I'm now steadily heading towards 100h of playtime with OW - and I still feel like a rookie with it, when sturggling over and over with the campaign missionsSorry, maybe I’m coming across as stupid here - in my defence, I am extremely new to OW - but are you guys saying that a unit by default takes no damage from melee attacking into another unit? I seemed to experience that my units took some damage, but is that a General bonus?
If an attacker receives zero damage, that is imo. horrible game design. I mean, I simply cannot find any argument to justify this as good design. I agree that we want to avoid one-man walls as is often the case in Civ5/6, but there has to be some middle ground, and zero return damage just skews the game super heavily towards attacker advantage.
I also feel ranged units are way too powerful in this game, like slingers are super annoying for half of the game’s duration, which imo. is not at all realistic, and this also makes it difficult to make a defensive stance. But maybe that’s just because I’m a noob.
Alright, thanx for explaining. I'm not against the "fixed counterdamage" solution they have gone for, although 1/20 HP is, like you say, practically negligible. I guess it makes it possible and probably easy to increase it to 2 or more HP through a mod, however, if one wants to play around with that. I do think attacking into fortifications - either fortified units, units in a Fort, or town buildings that adds defense like Fortress or Citadel, should increase counter damage.For the quesion - almost no damage. Melee units suffer a -1hp counterhit when attacking, but that can be neglected in most cases. I guess it was added to put at least a tiny price tag on an attack, as otherwise there would be (aside from spending an order) no cost at all, making going on the offense always a no-brainer. If you see more counter-damage, it is because the defending unit is lead by a tactican (in the current official version increased by 2hp to 3 and in the new test built full damage base on modifiers etc.) Of course the questions stands - is (practically) no counter damage a good thing? It for sure makes turtling harder - and it puts a lot emphasize on orders, as defending is only possible with both having a sufficient number of units plus the orders to opertae with them. That's why I'm so worried about the late game law allowing to store orders - I haven't tried it or found myself on the short side of the stick yet...but I doubt that defending in this case is really possible (unless you run it as well)