What I Really Like About the Combat System

[Elhoim]

The thing I like the most about the game in general is how it focuses on a few core concepts with its rules, keeping them at a manageable level so that you can juggle with them in your head. The same goes for combat bonuses:

- Bonus on high ground.
- Penalty on river.
- Forest bonus vs ranged.
- Flanking.
- Role bonus (vs cavalry, for example).
- Special ability (Hoplite when next to each other, Immortals on high ground).
- Fortification on Sieges.
- Unit experience.

I might be missing something, as I can't check with the game right now, but it's just 6-8 concepts that you can easily remember and just act more instinctively when creating tactics. It makes terrain very important, and unit roles quite clear. This makes the battles fast and satisfying to play once you learn core concepts.

Adding more modifiers that make sense (defense, flanking angles) might probably muddy up the numbers for very little tactical gain. Not saying that they are bad ideas or that I don't agree with them, but I keep thinking about the quote "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I believe that they distilled the system to the base concepts that make the most impact, and works very well.

About the damage per point difference, it might be a bit high, but I think it's needed for two reasons: To highlight the importance of tactic advantage, and to make combat faster. If it's toned down, it would be units slowly chipping away HP dragging the combat. And from the scenario 1 experience, you can create units really fast. If you queue them up, production overflows and you can even create 2-3 units in a single turn in a good production city and experience seems to be gained quite fast. I believe the game is designed around losing units in combat, so unless for some reason the player considers the only good combat outcome is the one in which he doesn't lose any units, the high HP loss per point difference is fine and balanced.

This doesn't mean combat is perfect, as many noted it needs some improvements on UI, animation flow and Line of Sight, and may need a few additions and numerical tweaks, but the base framework is extremely fun and well designed.

 

[Haig]

I just wonder is the separate tactical combat necessary?

I mean those combat rules are basically the ones from Civ VI & V but they are just applied on the normal game map.

I really didnt like it in Endless Legend, became a chore.

A good thing about is that armies are moved in ministacks, something that Civ VI & V should have done.

 

[Elhoim]

I just wonder is the separate tactical combat necessary?

I mean those combat rules are basically the ones from Civ VI & V but they are just applied on the normal game map.

I really didnt like it in Endless Legend, became a chore.

A good thing about is that armies are moved in ministacks, something that Civ VI & V should have done.

On a technical level is absolutely necessary as the game runs on simultaneous turns. So the game needs to cordon off a part of the map to work as turn based battles. The battle area is bigger than in EL, as well. Also, I think that it's also what makes the mini stacks idea work, as the rules of unpacking would be odd without the combat area. Plus it makes the AI much more intelligent in combat since it's working with a more limited number of tiles and units.

What I really hope for the full game is that they keep the number of overall armies fairly low, and battles big in general instead of lots of very small skirmishes.

 

[Mathias Rex]

On a technical level is absolutely necessary as the game runs on simultaneous turns. So the game needs to cordon off a part of the map to work as turn based battles. The battle area is bigger than in EL, as well. Also, I think that it's also what makes the mini stacks idea work, as the rules of unpacking would be odd without the combat area. Plus it makes the AI much more intelligent in combat since it's working with a more limited number of tiles and units.

What I really hope for the full game is that they keep the number of overall armies fairly low, and battles big in general instead of lots of very small skirmishes.

I think one of the reason behind the army limit is to make big, decisive battles instead of lot of little fights.

 

[Elhoim]

I think one of the reason behind the army limit is to make big, decisive battles instead of lot of little fights.

Yeah, that's what I mean with keeping the number fairly low. I know that in scenario 1 it was very high for testing purposes, but 20 seemed quite a lot to manage, and I'd expect it to be the cap in the late game. In the press tour build it was 10, but even then I find it a bit big for the early game, as something that the game should discourage is 1 unit "armies", IMO. I'm just pulling numbers out of nowhere, but around 5-6 might be good for early exploration and wars, and the cap goes up by around 2 per era.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, that's what I mean with keeping the number fairly low. I know that in scenario 1 it was very high for testing purposes, but 20 seemed quite a lot to manage, and I'd expect it to be the cap in the late game. In the press tour build it was 10, but even then I find it a bit big for the early game, as something that the game should discourage is 1 unit "armies", IMO. I'm just pulling numbers out of nowhere, but around 5-6 might be good for early exploration and wars, and the cap goes up by around 2 per era.

As I remember, the 'base army' in their earlier game Endless Legends was 4 units, rising to 6 and 8 later on. IF they are going to end up at around 20 units in the late game in Humankind, staring at 4 or 6 would allow similar 'even numbered' progression to 10, 12, 14, etc in later Eras or with later Technologies/Social/Civic advances.
This would also allow them to show the massive increase in army size in the Early Modern Era (Industrial) when in the space of a generation in Europe the average army in combat went from 50 - 60,000 to over 100,000 (1780 to 1810) - make that where the army size jumps from, say, 8 to 14 in one leap, then another large leap when mechanization and electronic communications in the 20th century (Modern Era?) makes even larger armies possible to control and maneuver.

The design philosophy appears to be based on the Soviet Admiral Gorbachev's favorite phrase:
"The Best is the enemy of Good Enough"

They could add all sorts of 'bells and whistles' to the tactical combat system, but as stated, that might add a nuance here and there and massive complication without changing most of the outcomes significantly.
Another point to remember is that they have hinted at long range combat effects from Outside the tactical display, like modern long range artillery and possibly air support, and as far as I know they haven't shown anything about naval or air combat, so there is a lot of the combat system still Unknown.

 

[Elhoim]

As I remember, the 'base army' in their earlier game Endless Legends was 4 units, rising to 6 and 8 later on. IF they are going to end up at around 20 units in the late game in Humankind, staring at 4 or 6 would allow similar 'even numbered' progression to 10, 12, 14, etc in later Eras or with later Technologies/Social/Civic advances.

I was talking about the total number of armies you can have, not the number of units in them =)

It seems to range from 4 to 8, but you can have any amount of armies reinforcing the battlefield.

About the number of "Generals" (army cap), it's 8 in the third scenario, which happens in the medieval era. That number felt quite right.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was talking about the total number of armies you can have, not the number of units in them =)

It seems to range from 4 to 8, but you can have any amount of armies reinforcing the battlefield.

About the number of "Generals" (army cap), it's 8 in the third scenario, which happens in the medieval era. That number felt quite right.

My mis-understanding: haven't had a chance to play the scenario, am hypothesizing from the outside, so to speak.
20 would be a number for Corps rather than Armies in the Modern Era, unless you were playing historical Germany or Russia/Soviet Union. That is so minor it approaches nit-picking, especially since the 20th century Corps is usually larger than the 18th century or earlier Army in any case . . .

 

[Krajzen]

What I like about combat system is that battles feel like

Well

BATTLES

TWO ARMIES MEET AND DECIDE FATE OF HISTORY

Instead of whatever is 1UPT in civ, where continents are covered with small scale guerilla warfare in the classical era, total mess resulting from the mixing of strategic and tactical layer.

Also: AI can manage this system. Thank God.

 

[Siptah]

It‘s certainly interesting to see some very smart moves of the AI in the streams. On the other hand, the player can beat clearly superior enemies with good terrain choice and smart tactics. Both is encouraging. I hope the AI is good at choosing where to start a battle (so not like in scenario 2-4) and where to deploy their units for optimal use of the terrain.

 

[Elhoim]

Right now, my only real complaint about that AI is how shy is with finishing off my units. It seemed to focus too much in taking a high ground castle with a longbow that decimating my pikemen with its elephant. And in general it wasn't targeting very low HP units (which I could use to provide flanking for full HP ones).

After playing scenario 3 I'm really happy with the combat. The only issues I have are more of a technical nature, like:

- UI has some issues regarding "collision": Many times I wanted to select a unit and selected my city, even though the banner is invisible. Or the smoke of Vesuvius overrode the tile under it and took me away of combat. Or a mountain hex in the middle that was not part of the combat area. These things kicked me out of the combat mode very regularly.

Here's an example:

- Combat UI is finicky with tooltips and combat preview: Many times I had to move to mouse around to get the combat preview to appear, or to remove a tooltip or screen component that didn't match what I was pointing at.
- Line of sigh rules regarding forest: The main issue IMO is that height should override the forest LoS blocking. It's unintuitive when you are on high ground, and a forest tile that's below your height blocks all LoS on lower tiles.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

- Line of sigh rules regarding forest: The main issue IMO is that height should override the forest LoS blocking. It's unintuitive when you are on high ground, and a forest tile that's below your height blocks all LoS on lower tiles.

I believe forests (and perhaps units, but I am not sure about that) block LoS on their elevation and one elevation above, but not beyond that. I agree that it is not clear, though, and this is on our list of feedback already.

 

[conorbebe]

I would love the ability to toggle on and off the battle lens/terrain filter. I'm increasingly finding that I actually find looking at flat, greyed out tiles more confusing than I would without them. For example, I keep mistaking the trees for pebbles, because in my mind it makes no sense that trees should be flat when displayed next to the 3D model of my units.

This is definitely a personal preference, but having the option to disable it would be nice, especially considering how beautiful the game looks under normal circumstances. If not, I think the graphic that is meant to represent trees in the battle area should be improved to actually resemble trees and not rocks.

 

[Elhoim]

I would love the ability to toggle on and off the battle lens/terrain filter. I'm increasingly finding that I actually find looking at flat, greyed out tiles more confusing than I would without them. For example, I keep mistaking the trees for pebbles, because in my mind it makes no sense that trees should be flat when displayed next to the 3D model of my units.

This is definitely a personal preference, but having the option to disable it would be nice, especially considering how beautiful the game looks under normal circumstances.

Yeah, I really liked how the battles looked in the first iteration on the proper terrain:

If not, I think the graphic that is meant to represent trees in the battle area should be improved to actually resemble trees and not rocks.

Yeah, Endless Legend was very clear in that regard:

 

[ost]

Yeah, Endless Legend was very clear in that regard:

Yeah, even if the battle area colouring was changed from sort of a sepia to muted pastel colours that might help a lot.

 

[Elhoim]

Spoiler :

I just love how positioning matters A LOT.

Moderator Action: Spoiler tags added for large images. leif

 

[Stringer1313]

I agree with OP that simplicity is so key for me. I think with the things OP listed, plus some unique features of unique units, is more than enough for me. If you make the battle any more complicated, it's just more fiddling and hemming and hawing. I'm already concerned about how long battles last as it is.\

But i think everyone agrees that visual clarity is a huge problem, though I think Devs are well aware of this.

 

[Atlas627]

The AI seems to be doing decently with combat, which is nice. It knows to grab/defend the flag, it knows to try to save some units, it knows to grab the high ground, it knows to be careful with rivers. However, it is still willing to give up the high ground to attack a unit crossing a river, which of course is sometimes a good thing, but sometimes means *permanently* losing the high ground. It seems like it is thinking strategically about the whole battle (grab the flag), but tactically only the current turn.

Also, I hope the AI has some different strategies when the game is launched. Right now, it seems to try preserving its units even if sacrificing them to me would be more economically hurtful to me than it. I hope it can recognize "I started this battle because I want to settle this area, so winning *this particular battle* is crucial, not necessarily eliminating/preserving units", vs "I started this battle because I am trying to win an offensive war, and since I can replace units to the front more rapidly than my opponent (combination of distance and economic ability), eliminating units is crucial, not necessarily winning this battle or preserving units", vs "my opponent started this battle in my territory, so as long as my units don't die I can heal them afterward and wait for reinforcements, so preserving units at any cost is best", etc.

 

[Elhoim]

The main issue with the AI that I saw was that it was VERY obsessed with attacking units inside the castles, wasting its strength there.