Repel attempt bonuses [Archive]

Calanor

November 1st, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by LordArioch:
I'd think once you got past the guy's spear a dagger would work as well as a sword, and maybe even better (less unwieldly at close range).
Of course I don't have much melee weapon combat experience here so I'm not sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I most certainly agree, but you have to get there first. As I mentioned in another thread, I would certainly be clapping my little hands if soldiers with unwieldy weapons would have to draw a secondary blade when forced into close-combat (e.g. a pikeman would have to switch to a shortsword), but I am not sure that such a feature could be easily implemented.

Alternatively, one could skip the whole secondary weapon approach and simply reverse the roles - the pikeman would now have to make rolls in order to distance himself from his attacker.

PvK

November 2nd, 2003, 12:48 AM

It depends on the nature of the longer weapon. Yes, a pike has a signifigant minimum reach, but a two-handed sword, for example, can kill just as easily at shortsword range as it can at spear range.

Trying to get to dagger range is generally easier against a broadsword, than against a longer weapon.

PvK

Calanor

November 2nd, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
It depends on the nature of the longer weapon. Yes, a pike has a signifigant minimum reach, but a two-handed sword, for example, can kill just as easily at shortsword range as it can at spear range.

Trying to get to dagger range is generally easier against a broadsword, than against a longer weapon.

PvK A two-handed sword - provided that we are talking about the ones found in Europe during the late medieval period and early renaissance - won't fare that well at close range. A two-handed sword relies a whole lot on momentum and force, which is hard to achieve if someone's a few inches away from you considering the great length of these blades. The edge wasn't that sharp, as it was mainly meant to penetrate armor (hello, Saber Cherry!). Again, I am refering to Western two-handers here. Eastern (Chinese, to be specific) two-handed swords tended to be much shorter, more akin to the Western "hand-and-a-half", and were used in quite a different manner.
Of course, there are always exceptions, but I think the above is true in most cases.

PvK

November 2nd, 2003, 04:50 AM

Unless the two-handed sword is way too heavy for the wielder, or the guy with the dagger has already managed to actually grab onto the guy with the two-handed sword, I quite disagree. If you have the strength and clearance to swing the sword, you can easily strike even if the foe is right in front of you, taking a quick step back if necessary. Granted, a shortsword will have a speed advantage, and grappling or tackling will tend to make the sword useless, but that's true of practically any hand weapon, and it's not at all easy to do against someone with a sword out.

Most spears can also simply be gripped closer to the point. Only rather long spears (e.g. pikes) and polearms are no good at shortsword range.

Maybe we're not really diagreeing, though. I agree that the shortsword has an advantage once at close range, assuming it can get through the opponent's armor easily enough. My point is just that a 2-hsd user isn't going to say, drop the 2-hsd and start using a dagger against a shortsword, because the shortsword guy got past his first stroke.

PvK

[ November 02, 2003, 02:53: Message edited by: PvK ]

Calanor

November 2nd, 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Maybe we're not really diagreeing, though. I agree that the shortsword has an advantage once at close range, assuming it can get through the opponent's armor easily enough. My point is just that a 2-hsd user isn't going to say, drop the 2-hsd and start using a dagger against a shortsword, because the shortsword guy got past his first stroke.

PvK True, such a move would probably kill the two-hander, heh. Thus, my second suggestion - that a soldier who's failed to repel his opponent must make rolls in order to successfully move away from the opponent - might be something that you'd agree upon? That approach would probably be far easier to implement as well. Mind you, the idea is that it would still be easier for the fellow with the longer weapon to move away than it was for the opponent to close in.

PvK

November 3rd, 2003, 02:05 AM

It would be interesting for the long-weapon fighter to sometimes try to back away.

I think it would be easier to program the original suggestion, but maybe you think that it's not a realistic suggestion?

Actually, what I don't understand is why (if I'm right about how it works, and I'm not sure I am) the repel attack doesn't do full damage. It seems to me that usually the way an incoming foe is repelled is by hitting them (with full strength).

PvK

Calanor

November 3rd, 2003, 02:44 AM

Chris Byler

November 3rd, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
It would be interesting for the long-weapon fighter to sometimes try to back away.

I think it would be easier to program the original suggestion, but maybe you think that it's not a realistic suggestion?

Actually, what I don't understand is why (if I'm right about how it works, and I'm not sure I am) the repel attack doesn't do full damage. It seems to me that usually the way an incoming foe is repelled is by hitting them (with full strength).

PvK Because that would give the guy with the longer weapon twice as many attacks - once on his turn, and again on the enemy's turn. (More than twice as many, if the repel succeeds and cancels the enemy's attack.)

This would be a bit unfair. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Worse, if one supercombatant with a pike were attacked by 12 guys, he could theoretically kill them all with his repel attacks - and then do it again the next turn - without paying any fatigue (IIRC). For some supercombatants this wouldn't be all that theoretical - one of the demigods with 6-8 Fire could easily have 25+ in both attack and strength, and a long armor piercing weapon (30+ armor piercing damage will reliably kill most normal troops).

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack).

Calanor

November 3rd, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Because that would give the guy with the longer weapon twice as many attacks - once on his turn, and again on the enemy's turn. (More than twice as many, if the repel succeeds and cancels the enemy's attack.)

This would be a bit unfair. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Worse, if one supercombatant with a pike were attacked by 12 guys, he could theoretically kill them all with his repel attacks - and then do it again the next turn - without paying any fatigue (IIRC). For some supercombatants this wouldn't be all that theoretical - one of the demigods with 6-8 Fire could easily have 25+ in both attack and strength, and a long armor piercing weapon (30+ armor piercing damage will reliably kill most normal troops).

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack). [/QB]Have I missed something? Do successful repel attempts lower the opponent's morale? I know that morale is used to determine whether or not a repel attempt is ignored, but I assume that this was not what you were refering to?

[Edit: So many typos, so little time..]

[ November 03, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Calanor ]

Chris Byler

November 3rd, 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Calanor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Byler:
[snip - multiple full-strength repel attacks would be too powerful]

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack). Have I missed something? Do successful repel attempts lower the opponent's morale? I know that morale is used to determine whether or not a repel attempt is ignored, but I assume that this was not what you were refering to?

[Edit: So many typos, so little time..] [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Successful repel attempts may wound the would-be attacker, which reduces his morale.

Edit: Unless it drives him berserk instead, of course. I don't know if berserkers automatically pass their morale check to continue with their attack after a repel attack is made against them (because they are wounded by the repel attack and thus immediately become berserk and have 99 morale). They probably should though (and have the increased att/str).

[ November 03, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: Chris Byler ]

Calanor

November 3rd, 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Successful repel attempts may wound the would-be attacker, which reduces his morale.

Edit: Unless it drives him berserk instead, of course. I don't know if berserkers automatically pass their morale check to continue with their attack after a repel attack is made against them (because they are wounded by the repel attack and thus immediately become berserk and have 99 morale). They probably should though (and have the increased att/str). Hmm, the more I think about it, the more odd it sounds that morale would be the only thing that determines whether or not you'll manage to avoid a repel attempt. The most obvious "problem" is that undead, mindless beings, berserk creatures (as you mentioned) and such will completely ignore the greater reach of the opponent. While I can understand that morale might be a factor, one would assume that it would not be the only factor. Oh, well, regardless of how one might feel about that, it's probably not likely to change.

[ November 03, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Calanor ]

johan osterman

November 3rd, 2003, 03:27 AM

The difference between attack and defense skill is also important. I think it is perfectly reasonable that morale factors in, and also that zombies march straight into the pikes spears or whatever.

PvK

November 3rd, 2003, 03:48 AM

I assumed that one repeller would only get one repel attack per turn. It would be silly to be able to shish-kabob 12 guys on one pike in that way.

In other words, I'd suggest this sequence of events:

1) When someone tries to move in range of someone who is "ready" and has a longer-reach weapon, do the current repel mechanic, but without the chance to do a puny amount of damage.

2) If someone succeeds in overcoming the repel, the repeller gets to attack them first. However, this makes them "unready", and unable to repel anyone else that turn.

3) Assuming the moving fighter survives the repeller's attack, they get their attack.

4) On the repeller's turn, he becomes "ready", but if he attacks, he becomes "unready". Therefore, he never attacks twice in a row, nor more than once per turn.

PvK

Calanor

November 3rd, 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
The difference between attack and defense skill is also important. I think it is perfectly reasonable that morale factors in, and also that zombies march straight into the pikes spears or whatever. Should they not suffer the appropriate damage if they show no regard for their own safety, then? I have no problems with zombies not caring whether or not a pikeman skewers him or not - and that outlook might very well be bad news for the pikemen (especially if there are several zombies around), but if this is the case the damage inflicted should not be as symbolic as it is now. A combination of, say, Defense and Morale would IMHO perhaps be more reasonable. A nice little formula (which I do not intend to construct now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) would determine the exact effect. Three different outcomes might take place - the target was either repelled as usual, managed to avoid the repel attempt or managed to close in, yet suffered the full damage of the attack in the process. The latter would happen if the Morale check went just fine, but the Defense was too low. Thus, zombies and berserkers would tend to manage to close in, yet might get impaled in the process, unmotivated troops would be frequently repelled as per the current rules, and light, fast and preferably disciplined troops (i.e. with high Def and reasonable Morale) might find themselves quite able to completely avoid the repel attempts. This would also mean that light infantry would have a certain advantage not usually shared by heavier troops, although a failed attempt might be serious news due to the frequently quite low Protection level of such units.

Psitticine

November 5th, 2003, 11:02 PM

The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly.

Chris Byler

November 6th, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Psitticine:
The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly. Speaking of knights: if their lance attack is cancelled by a repel, do they get to try again to use it next round? What if it's cancelled by failing an awe check?

Anyway, it looks from this sequence that berserking wouldn't help against repels (not immediately anyway) because the morale check is made before damage is potentially done to the attacker. But if the berserker makes his morale check once, and then takes damage from the repel, he will go berserk and automatically pass the repel morale tests in future rounds (and possibly have increased att/str this round?)

It also looks like mindless regenerators can ignore repel attempts (they automatically pass the morale check, and 1 hp won't seriously hurt a regenerator generally), and nature-9 blessed sacred troops can too.

PvK

November 6th, 2003, 04:13 AM

Not if they are advancing against many enemies with pikes. Sounds like each one would have to overcome a repel from every defender, possibly taking one damage from each.

It'd make a lot more sense if it were changed as I mentioned below - only one damaging repel per repeller, but at full damage.

I guess it sorta comes out in the wash on average, but it doesn't make much sense on a literal level to have everyone repellable by everyone, at one damage each. Not a huge deal, but I always like things to make good sense. So, a suggestion.

PvK

Keir Maxwell

November 6th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Although I'm a realism fan I'm cautious of attempts to understand ancient combat in a mechanistic fashion ie you do that, I do this . . . We simply don't know alot of the answers and can't be reasonably epected to.

What we can do is have a fair idea of the overall strength of troop types versus each other and the likely results of there interactions. From details provided by ancients we get clues as to the fashion in which one troop type defeated another and Dom does a reasonably good job of resolving a the combat in a way related to the details and still (hopefully) giving the right result.

The repel rules are an abstraction which represents the advantage of longer weapons. the main advantage of repel other than the morale hit is canceling the incoming attack which is huge. It is quite reasonable that the success of the repelling (or is repellant?) soldiers attack is resolved in their phase as they have just canceled their enemies attack and should they survive till their turn we will find out wether they managed to impale their opponent.

My doubts around the repel rules are wether or not weapons used in a largely irregular fashion should repel at all. Say barbarians with two handed swords vs men at arms. I find it difficult to imagine what the barbarians repelling the men at arms represents here? I tend to think repel is a function of a formed, drilled unit using weapons which utilise reach as part of their way of fighting - or even legionaries using their shields. But hey its not like I'm seriously concerned and if you changed this you would have to strengthen the weakened troop types in other ways . . . and so I think the existing abstraction is fine.

Cheers

Keir

[ November 06, 2003, 04:48: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

PvK

November 6th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Hmm. My main concern is a basic one - a significantly longer weapon should usually have the first opportunity to strike. This is generally a deterrant to closing ranks, so the repel morale check is nice.

One big weakness is if you take say units with strong attacks and high morale. In the current system, the high morale tends to let a strong attacker with a short weapon move in and attack, shrugging off a measely 1-point hit even from something like a magic giant-wielded flaming two-handed sword, and get the first real blow with the shorter weapon.

The artificial "1-point damage" and the "infinite repel attempts per repeller" seem to me like they don't model the basic situation very well, unless accidentally and abstractly in certain (perhaps many) situations.

Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK

[ November 06, 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: PvK ]

Nagot Gick Fel

November 6th, 2003, 07:23 PM

If I had to implement the effect of longer weapons in Dominions, I'd just deduce the (negative) length difference from all weapons in the target square from the attacker's AR. Examples:

A barbarian with a length 2 greatsword attacks a square holding 3 pikemen (pike = length 5), the barbarian gets a (5-2) x 3 = 9 malus on his AR roll.

The same barbarian attacks a square holding 1 pikeneer (lg 5), 1 hallberdier (lg 3), 1 swordsman (lg 1), the malus is now (5-2) + (3-2) + 0 = 4.

If a defender has several melee weapons, only the longest one counts. If the attacker has several melee weapons, every attack suffer maluses using the above formula (may yield different maluses).

This would emphasizes the effect of tight phalanxes formations better than the current system, I think. Historically deep pike formations were able to repel knights effectively, but in Dominions a high-morale knight will just accept a light wound before slaughtering his vis-a-vis as if they were slingers.

Kristoffer O

November 6th, 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by PvK:

Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK A long time ago we tried to implement simultaneous moves, but it introduced several problems and the battles were much more difficult to inspect and understand with mages casting spells from side to side. We decided it was not a good solution.

Keir Maxwell

November 7th, 2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Hmm. My main concern is a basic one - a significantly longer weapon should usually have the first opportunity to strike. This is generally a deterrant to closing ranks, so the repel morale check is nice. While we see the whole combat played out in detail in dom to me what is key is that the unit vs unit balence is good.

In understanding how different units interacted individual weapon usage considerations should largely be put aside in favour of trying to understand how the two bodies literally physically impacted upon each other - the results of which are very counter intuitive at times. We are not modeling a man with two handed sword vs a man with a spear but a body of men with two handed swords vs a body opf men with spears.

HI with two handed weapons fought very differently to how people often imagine. Some of the best known examples (Huskarls, Varangians) fought in a dense body wielding their weapon over handed in a regular chopping motion and relying on their close support of each other, good armour and a large shield hung over their shoulders. Others such as medievil halbadiers relied on the greated length of their weapon but must have still wielded in a fairly regular fashion or they would have become a hopeless tangle. Such troops were resilient to frontal knight charges because of their high morale, high defense, and dense formation. Despite the fact that the lances of the Knights are longer the knights are described as struggling to close. Hastings and Dyrrachium were won by the Normans and the Huskarls/Varangians beaten - but not through direct frontal assault and only after repulsing the Normans many times.

Hopilties vs other foot relied physically on acting as concerted unified body which litterly drove their oponents front ranks flying off their feet and then trampled them undefoot. One of the uses of the spike on the bottom of spear was to dispatch foe trodden underfoot.

Hopilites Vs other hopilties was a pushing match -if both sides stood up to the initial terrifying charge. Brave, veteran, soldiers pissed themselves and shook in fear as they approached the enemy - but when the crunch comes they did their job. Grind out the victory and the deaths don't really come until one side breaks. At times units were pushed back over long distances due to their high morale and refusal to break and be slaughtered.

Part of what I'm trying to say is that ancients combat is not something you reason out using commen sense. You need to read as many primary and secondary sourcs as possible and focus on what the ancients consider the salient features of combat. The Spartans focused on fear - phobos - and how to deal with it.

With dom the key for me is how the overall matchups work. The details are cute but I would not change one to be more "realistic" unless it improved general balence so I think thats the sort of question we need to ask. How does a body of Knights match up to a body of Pike, of armoured Axe men, of heavy cavalry and so on.

So how should a Giant hitting a body of spearmen be represented? I think if the Giant manages to close then there is no problem in it getting the first real strike. It has brushed aside the opposing spears as the holders trembled in fear and burst into their ranks.

Cheers

Keir

Psitticine

November 7th, 2003, 01:12 AM

As far as I know, one-shot attacks (like the lance) aborted due to Awe or being repelled are not used up. I can't confirm that though.

The repelling process comes into play when an attacker takes a swing at an opponent, so hitting a wall of pikemen is still going to create only one repelling attempt.

I suspect the limit on repelling damage is to represent the fact the unit doesn't lose its next attack. The repel isn't full-force, so it doesn't do full damage, but it doesn't cost the unit its regular attack either.

I do think a better system might be for a repel to do full damage but cost the unit its next attack. That seems more logical to me, and shouldn't unbalance things unduly.

Just my 2� though . . .

PvK

November 7th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
... While we see the whole combat played out in detail in dom to me what is key is that the unit vs unit balence is good.
... The details are cute but I would not change one to be more "realistic" unless it improved general balence so I think thats the sort of question we need to ask. ...


Keeping in mind my Version of the suggestion (i.e. as below, giving full-damage in repel attacks, but never more than one attack per turn, and no repel for units which had just attacked)... I would expect that the balance implications would be:

* Weapon length would be slightly more important.

* High-morale units would be more affected by enemy weapon length.

* High-damage-capacity units would be more affected by enemy weapon length.

I don't expect it would be unbalancing. I think it would just make the length factor a little more important, and a little more important in situations where it currently isn't important (especially, high-morale units who aren't about to die froma 1-point hit). I would expect balance to be improved.

Part of what I'm trying to say is that ancients combat is not something you reason out using commen sense. You need to read as many primary and secondary sourcs as possible and focus on what the ancients consider the salient features of combat.
I agree with that point, particularly for a game trying to be historically accurate. While Dominions has some nice elements of historical accuracy, however, it's about pseudo-historical units, often a-historical matchups, and also lots of fantastic and magical elements. There is a really enormous number of possible match-ups, most with no historical precedent, so I would contend that the main effort should be to have mechanics that make some sense, so that as many matchups will play out in reasonable, intuitive, and understandable ways.

Moreover, for the question at hand, for the point you made to be relevant, one would have to assume or imply that the existing mechanic is the result of careful historical research, and that it offers superior results to a more common-sense mechanic. I don't know the devs' reasoning for the 1-point max damage on repel, but my expectation is that it's not because of scientific/historical group-combat results analysis.

I assume the reason IW has repel do max one damage is a design decision to only apply so much complexity to the problem. It might be a bit of a chore to implement something more like I suggest, and the current mechanic at least gives some fairly-reasonable effect of weapon length, without the over-simplification leading to unbalanced results. That is, if you allow a full-strength attack, you need to keep track of who has attacked and when they can next attack, in order to avoid someone getting too many attacks per turn. That would be more complicated to implement and more complicated to explain to players, so I expect they decided it wasn't worth the effort and the current solution was good enough.

To stay on track, what I've been saying all along is that ideally, if IW agrees it'd be worth their time, I'd like to see it work this other way. Overall, the existing mechanic is ok, just a little bit silly and insignificant in some cases that don't seem to make sense, because of the 1-hit damage part.

...
So how should a Giant hitting a body of spearmen be represented? I think if the Giant manages to close then there is no problem in it getting the first real strike. It has brushed aside the opposing spears as the holders trembled in fear and burst into their ranks.
...How a giant plays out versus a bunch of spearmen is relevant, but is only one combination of a nearly-infinite number. However, it's as good example as many of how the current situation is somewhat unfair and inappropriate. Why would you say there is no problem and assume it has brushed aside spears? Why would anything do that without a specific ability to do so? I'd say it should only be able to do that if it in fact does manage to avoid, brush, or shrug off the attacks, and that ideally there would be appropriate mechanics for this. Mechanics that make sense are the best way to get results that make sense, when an infinite number of detailed combinations are possible.

PvK

Nagot Gick Fel

November 8th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
So how should a Giant hitting a body of spearmen be represented? I think if the Giant manages to close then there is no problem in it getting the first real strike. It has brushed aside the opposing spears as the holders trembled in fear and burst into their ranks.The closest historical equivalents I can think of are all those colorful battles that took place in the hellenistic era. Elephants routed light troops easily, but when facing steady pezetairoi they were in deep, deep trouble.

Keir Maxwell

November 8th, 2003, 07:02 AM

Not quite the right analogy Nagot as I did say spearmen and a Giant not a pike block or even a hopilite phalanx. Better to use the example of an elephant crashing into spearmen which is much more of an unclear issue and very dependent on morale and organisation of the spearmen in question. Repulse attempts should probably include the morale of both sides in the calculation.

In general I feel it is not worthwhile trying to amend the Dom II combat system to make it fit better with the realities of individual combat. Rather we should be looking at the troop type matchups and trying to get them right and improving the unit feel of the game. I'd love to see push backs and well trained troops showing greater cohesion etc. However I recognise these are major changes and not part of the immediate priorities.

I do think history has a huge importance for understanding the way combat in dominions should work. While there are obviously many departures from reality in dominions there is a historically inspired core to Dom and getting that "right" will make the rest fell more plausible.

Enough from me.

Ciao

Keir

Pocus

November 8th, 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:

Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK A long time ago we tried to implement simultaneous moves, but it introduced several problems and the battles were much more difficult to inspect and understand with mages casting spells from side to side. We decided it was not a good solution. <hr /></blockquote>this is very intriguing. Would you care to expand your answer? Why it posed problems? A system with simultaneous moves seems to be far more realistic AND fun. Was it a balance question, or a coding problem?

Have you played the GMT serie of ancient battles? There was this kind of system, with better leaders trumping the weaker ones. I always liked the game flow resulting from this mechanic.

Mortifer

November 8th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:

Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK A long time ago we tried to implement simultaneous moves, but it introduced several problems and the battles were much more difficult to inspect and understand with mages casting spells from side to side. We decided it was not a good solution. <hr /></blockquote>this is very intriguing. Would you care to expand your answer? Why it posed problems? A system with simultaneous moves seems to be far more realistic AND fun. Was it a balance question, or a coding problem?

Have you played the GMT serie of ancient battles? There was this kind of system, with better leaders trumping the weaker ones. I always liked the game flow resulting from this mechanic. <hr /></blockquote>Hm actually this is a good suggestion. I guess it wasnt a coding problem btw. KJ will let us know propably. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PvK

November 9th, 2003, 01:20 AM

My counter-suggestion on the simultaneous issue, would be to have spellcasters and missile attackers alternate from side to side as they currently do, but have units who are moving or doing melee attacks, have their sequence mixed up between sides. This would keep the efficiency and clarity for missile and magic events, and keep the nice "barrage" missile attacks. Melee would look a bit more chaotic and it might be harder to see who hacked whom when, but it would help the "balance" issues of entire armies moving and attacking all at once while the enemy front units can't do much.

PvK

Chris Byler

November 9th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
My counter-suggestion on the simultaneous issue, would be to have spellcasters and missile attackers alternate from side to side as they currently do, but have units who are moving or doing melee attacks, have their sequence mixed up between sides. This would keep the efficiency and clarity for missile and magic events, and keep the nice "barrage" missile attacks. Melee would look a bit more chaotic and it might be harder to see who hacked whom when, but it would help the "balance" issues of entire armies moving and attacking all at once while the enemy front units can't do much.

PvK There's a problem with that suggestion: the same unit can move and fire in the same turn (happens all the time when firing at fleeing enemies, in fact).

I don't really like the advantage given to the army that strikes first, either, but I think it's a symptom of a deeper problem: melee combat is too deadly too fast. That is why missile troops are less effective, battlefield magic is weak, armor is too powerful: melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, before missiles or magic can do much damage and before fatigue can accumulate. Because melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, the first strike is much more important.

PvK

November 9th, 2003, 02:02 AM

My intention was that missile/spell units who move and and attack would all move and attack on a per-side basis, like they do now.

PvK

Pocus

November 9th, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
melee combat is too deadly too fast. That is why missile troops are less effective, battlefield magic is weak, armor is too powerful: melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, before missiles or magic can do much damage and before fatigue can accumulate. Because melees are over in 2 or 3 rounds, the first strike is much more important. strange, most of the melee I see can process for more than 10 rounds, when things are equilibrated that is. Dont base your facts on solo play where the player bring prot 18 HI against an unsupplied rabble of milicias. In pbem I have often see HI fall from fatigue after a long fight, especially when there is 100+ units for each side. The combat Last so long in fact that the quivers of archers are depleted and they start to charge with daggers.

Kristoffer O

November 9th, 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
this is very intriguing. Would you care to expand your answer? Why it posed problems? A system with simultaneous moves seems to be far more realistic AND fun. Was it a balance question, or a coding problem?

Have you played the GMT serie of ancient battles? There was this kind of system, with better leaders trumping the weaker ones. I always liked the game flow resulting from this mechanic. I don't remember really (it was maore than a year ago), but I believe it was a coding problem and a 'clarity' problem. Several small bugs and unwanted effects on the battle mechanics appeared and it was difficult to get an overview of the battle. PvKs suggestion with a differentiated turn sequence (archers, mages, move and melee) might remedy some of this, but it would take some remaking i believe.

Nagot Gick Fel

November 9th, 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Not quite the right analogy Nagot as I did say spearmen and a Giant not a pike block or even a hopilite phalanx. Better to use the example of an elephant crashing into spearmen (...)Then you should explain what you mean by 'spearmen'. Some sort of tribal horde fighting with short throwing spears perhaps? That's not the most common meaning of 'spearmen' in ancient and feudal warfare. Eg, Scottish and Flemish spearmen fought with long spears (3 to 5 metres long) in very close formations, not that very different from hoplites or pezetairoi. And BTW, I've seen the term 'spearmen' used for hoplites in several sources.

Arralen

December 30th, 2003, 09:31 AM

Is the 1-point-damage from repelling "generic" or does it take into account special weapon properties, e.g. can repelling trigger poisoning, special (added) weapon damage or damage type (elfbane: dissolve magic beings)?

A.

[ December 30, 2003, 07:33: Message edited by: Arralen ]

Taqwus

December 30th, 2003, 08:02 PM

Hm. If so, banshees would have a pretty impressive repel (length 6, area-1, MR-or-die wailing attack that takes no ammo).

SurvivalistMerc

December 30th, 2003, 09:46 PM

I am also very intrigued by this thread.

It might help balance the races a bit more. I would like to see the morale checks modified by the likelihood that the unit would take significant damage from the attack...so for instance black plate infantry of Ulm would not fear a spear just due to its length if it would only rarely cause them harm but would fear it if it were weilded by a giant or someone or something that appeared to have great strength. The nation that I see coming out on the losing end of a change in this area which is not well thought-out would be Ulm, which has low-morale infantry, no priests (unless IF theme is used) able to improve morale, and units that can barely be hurt by most other nations' standard infantries.

I would also hope that these morale "failures" would merely result in a failure to attack that particular target that round and not count for "routing" purposes. Unless they already do and that is what the devs intend.

If a new system is implemented, I would think it would be important to re-evaluate all the units in the light of the new system for both balance and "realism." For instance, a giant weilding a spear is probably using a giant-sized spear, and it may be that a normal giant axe or sword would be longer than a regular human spear. This would apply to all supercombatant units of large size. As things stand now, the size of a weapon is independent of the weilder. Perhaps this could be done by adding in a "reach" attribute to account for the inability of a regular infantryman to poke at anything other than the giant's well-armored arm as the giant reaches to slash the infantryman with a sword.

I see all sorts of complexities here. But complexity is one of the things that makes Dominions great.

Teraswaerto

December 30th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Jotun giants have their own weapons. A Jotun spear is length 5, for example. Magical weapons don't scale to wielder size though, nor would it make much sense, since the gem cost is always the same and a Hoburg can wield the the same weapon as a Niefel Jarl.

Saber Cherry

December 30th, 2003, 10:35 PM

The way I modelled it in the simulator, which I'm pretty sure corresponds to the game, is like this:

A unit with a short weapon attacks a unit with a longer weapon. The following stuff happens, in this order:

ATTACK

If the weapon requires ammo (like a lance) and is out of ammo, the attack ends.

If the enemy has awe and the attacker fails the awe roll, the attack ends.

The enemy makes a repel attempt, and if successful, the attack ends.

If the attacker is no longer alive or awake after the repel attempt, the attack ends (repel attempts can kill or knock out the opponent with fatigue).

Now, the attacker gets to actually attack:

Ammo is reduced by 1 for weapons that use ammo.

The weapon gets one strike at the enemy per "hit". In other words, a flail has 2 hits and gets 2 strikes, but is only affected by 1 repel attempt.

Each strike, successful or not, lowers the enemy defense by 1 for the rest of the round.

REPEL ATTEMPT

The enemy attempts to repel with its longest weapon. This weapon cannot be ranged and cannot use ammo (like a lance), and it must be longer than the attacker's current weapon.

The enemy makes an attack roll versus the attacker's defense. If this fails, the repel attempt ends.

The attacker makes a morale save. If he fails, the repel attempt ends successfuly - the attacker loses his attack.

Otherwise, the attacker attacks anyway. So the enemy takes a strike at the attacker, calculated using the strike routine (a new attack and defense roll), but physical damage is capped at 1. A multi-hit weapon like a flail used in a repel only gets 1 hit.

Note that repel attempt strikes do not cause a defense loss like normal attacks do.

STRIKE

Attacker's attack roll minus enemy's defense roll must be greater than 0, or the attack fails.

If the enemy is ethereal, the attacker must pass an ethereality roll (25% chance, unless he is using a magic weapon) or the attack fails.

If the enemy is lucky, the attacker must pass a luck roll (50%).

In this case, the attacker gets to do damage, equal to the damage roll minus the enemy's protection roll. HOWEVER... if this is a repel strike, the maximum damage is 1.

If the damage is 1 or greater, the attack was a success, and additional damage (paralyze, poison, and fatigue) are added.

....

....

....so, does all that make sense? As far as I can tell, repel attempts can only do 1 physical damage, but they can still do the full poison, fatigue, paralyze, soul-slay, or whatever else kind of damage. So I like to use long, poisoned weapons=) And repel attempts are affected by luck, etheriality, armor-piercing, and attack rating (high attack = better repel chance). A high damage or armor-piercing or magic weapon will typically be more likely to do damage in a repel attempt... but the damage will still be capped at 1 unless the weapon has special effects.

[ December 30, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

SurvivalistMerc

December 30th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Teraswearto,

I agree that magical weapons don't scale to size...but reach is affected by size.

Does the typical repel attempt try to hit the attacker in the hand? Or to injure the attacker at other locations, such as where the armor might be weakest?

I would contend that a giant weilding the same weapon should be able to deal with repel attempts better than a shorter creature due to his better reach. And I have never finished a game as Jotunheim. They aren't my favorite nation, and I'm not exactly biased in their favor.

Saber Cherry

December 30th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
I would contend that a giant (wielding) the same weapon should be able to deal with repel attempts better than a shorter creature due to his better reach.Hmmm... yessss... a bonus to weapon length based on unit size would make sense. A Jotun with a dagger should be able to repel a Hoburger with a dagger, for example. Except that he'd have to bend over a bit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

SurvivalistMerc

December 30th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Saber Cherry,

Are you sure that luck and etherealness aren't factored in at the time of the repel attack roll? That would make the most sense to me in that the repel can't work unless it "hits," and these attributes really affect what "hits."

Chris Byler

December 30th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Hmm, if repel attempts do trigger special weapon abilities I have a sudden urge to repel with a Heart Finder Sword or Elf Bane. Unfortunately neither is particularly long, so maybe a Demon Whip, Vine Whip, Bane Blade (2-h), Thorn Spear, or if I have the construction and gems, Trident from Beyond. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Saber Cherry

December 31st, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
Saber Cherry,

Are you sure that luck and etherealness aren't factored in at the time of the repel attack roll? That would make the most sense to me in that the repel can't work unless it "hits," and these attributes really affect what "hits." The way I set it up, ethereal and lucky take effect at the time of the strike.

Therefore, for an ethereal, lucky attacker:

Being ethereal or lucky do not affect whether or not a repel attempt occurs. They do not affect whether the repel attempt is successful (meaning no attack). However, they DO affect whether the repel attempt does any damage, and associated poison, etc. So an ethereal, lucky unit is just as likely to be repelled, but if it is not repelled, it is only 1/8th as likely to take damage or be poisoned. However, ethereal units generally have very high morale so they almost never get repelled.

For an ethereal, lucky defender:

Being ethereal or lucky do not affect whether or not a repel attempt occurs. They do not affect whether the repel attempt is successful (meaning no attack). An ethereal/lucky unit gets a defense penalty from being attacked, just like a normal unit, regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. So they only affect the chance of being damaged by the attack, and nothing else.

Again, I'm not sure this is correct, but that's what I get from the manual. Anyway, repel attempts are only successful if they [/i]don't[/i] hit=) A repel attempt that hits and does damage is unsuccessful; a successful repel attempt simply scares off the opponent. I agree that the attacker should be less likely to be scared off if he is lucky, ethereal, and has heavy armor, but according to the manual, only the attacker's defense rating and morale (and the defender's attack rating) affect the success of a repel attempt.