Comments on: Turn-Based Tactics: a Battle System

By: roguelikemonkey

roguelikemonkey — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:53:37 +0000

Sounds good so far. The only thing that i am thinking of is maybe taking into account the atmospheric conditions for the ranged attacks.
maybe later there will be a weapon degrading and repair system? just a thought.
overall keep it up looks good

By: Stef

Stef — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:31 +0000

I forgot: For wizards etc, you could see what I mean by trying Spectromancer: http://www.archipelago-of-strategy-games.com/games/Spectromancer-League-of-Heroes_fantasy_game.html
It's pretty addicting and very original

Warlords 2 has also more unit types than you do. It's easier to get the player interested in this type of universe.
http://www.archipelago-of-strategy-games.com/games/Warlords-2-Rise-Of-Demons.html

My two cents…

By: Stef

Stef — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:00:24 +0000

Aahh what do I see… there is no wizard, mage, cleric and similar units. You're not winning the players in love with that type of unit (even if it only uses fireballs or lightnings). Good luck anyway

By: Screenshots From The Past Year | Gambrinous Blog

Screenshots From The Past Year | Gambrinous Blog — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:53:35 +0000

[...] 2009 sees a lot of vital improvements after spending some time designing our basic battle system. Zones of control are in (once you move next to an enemy you can't move further), and units now [...]

By: Claudiu

Claudiu — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:34:25 +0000

I haven't really read everything in detail, but the bottom line is that you have your system sorted out preety good. All of those are classic elements, tested and working :) Keeping the system simple should make battle strategy preety important.

For some time now I've been playing the Battle for Wesnoth which is very similar to your ideea. I find their battle system to be very effective and strategy is a key to victory :) No, archers don't shoot from a distance of more than one tile, but they can't be counter-attacked by melee units.

Have you considered enviroment's role in the battle system?

Good luck!
Claudiu

By: Colm

Colm — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:45:57 +0000

That's interesting about Dragon Warrior; having read up about it (never had a NES!) I'd agree its weapon/armour system is also pleasantly simple. I've got most of the battle system into a working prototype, giving me a chance to actually play it a bit. I'm now looking at making unit stats even more simple (combining STR and AGI into 'attack power' for example), but am finding differentiating weapons & units into interestingness a little tougher. More on this in the future :D

By: Porter

Porter — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:32:01 +0000

I can't help but think of Dragon Warrior 1 with the weapons and armor you have, good stuff. As far as the system itself goes, sounds pretty quality. I like the idea of focuses more on tactics and keeping the stats out of it as much as possible, while still keeping it an RPG of course. I've been wanting to do something like this for a very long time. I think I'll hop on it once I have enough money to afford some time to play around.

By: Colm

Colm — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:57:38 +0000

Thanks for the suggestions (and RT) Matt. I'm not totally sold on what I've come up with for ranged attacks (just being diagonal rather than a few squares like you say), so it's definitely one of the aspects to be scrutinised and tweaked in playtesting. Ranged units already use agility instead of strength - not exactly in a roll 'to hit', but in the exact same way strength is applied to melee attacks; and the heavier armours will give big agility penalties, making ranged weapons + heavy armour a bad idea. I've also not been able to think of a nice elegant way of differentiating bows (faster) vs crossbows (slower, armour piercing) in the current system. If ranged weapons could attack at say 3-4 squares range then it would be doable to make crossbows more powerful / piercing but only allow you to move OR shoot with them. Finally, thanks for the shield/spear suggestions. Spears in particular don't feel quite 'right' and will hopefully make more sense when we get to try them out.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:06 +0000

Nice work. The only things I would change would be the attacks.

Ranged units don't seem to have the advantage of range. Perhaps allow them to shoot over 2 or three blocks, rather than just one. This gives archers the advantage that they were originally created for – pelt the enemy before they get close enough to do damage. Also, you could then limit the armor they could wear, as you can't really shoot a bow or reload a crossbow in plate. Alternatively, you could make ranged units use their agility to hit rather than strength which means that their armour would affect their accuracy, but this means you'd need to factor penalties into the attack before determining hit/miss.

Weapons like the spear were designed to allow for reach – an enemy cant reach you with his sword if he's dangling on the end of your spear. Perhaps keep the 'adjacent' rule, but allow spearmen two blocks of reach.

With the shield, to eliminate the initial complexity, why not make Shield Block an ability that units can learn.

@Jacob – I disagree with you. The fact that units may only make one counter-attack per turn means that you could easily overcome the 'strongest character' with numbers rather than force.

By: Colm

Colm — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:28:47 +0000

Thanks for the feedback. That's not a bad idea about counter-attacks; at the moment you can't just put a super-strong character standing out front intercepting everyone because they will only get to counterattack once per turn. Adding a little randomness to that fact could work very well though!