Heroic: open-terrain (non-siege) combat

[Groovy]

This topic was spawned from here.

I would like to propose one core change to the combat model in an effort to increase the interdependency between combat and adventure map exploration. That change is to extend hero movement points to cover combat as well. In other words, to have a single figure (action points, say) that indicates how much a hero can accomplish in one day, which translates to movement points when on the adventure map, and combat turns when in the combat arena.

When a hero initiates combat, the number of movement points that he has left for that day becomes the number of combat turns that the battle can last for that day. Each combat turn consumes one of the hero’s movement points. This leaves the hero with a shorter travelling range following the battle. For example, if the hero has 10 adventure map movement points available to him when he initiates combat, and the battle lasts for 8 turns, he will only have 2 movement points left after the battle.

If the number of combat turns runs out before the battle is concluded, the battle resumes the following day. As a result, drawn-out battles can rage on for two or more days, with the participating heroes unable to move on the adventure map until the battle is finished.

Battles that spill over onto subsequent days give other heroes and town reinforcements an opportunity to enter the fray. Other heroes can join the fighting by targeting any of the heroes that are already engaged in the battle. This may cause the combat arena to become enlarged to accommodate the additional adventure map terrain over which the troops are now situated. Town defences can also be reinforced simply by placing more troops in the garrison.

Heroes belonging to other players can also join the battle after it has been initiated. Such a battle will rage on until only one alliance is left standing.

Action points can also be used to manage unit behaviour in the combat arena (I haven’t played the game, but from what I’ve read, King’s Bounty has done something similar). Basically, a unit’s turn is not limited to a single point-and-click action, but consists of a series of movements and other activities (shooting, changing form, casting spells, etc) that it can perform during a turn. Each of these actions requires a number of action points. Therefore performing combat actions reduces the distance over which the unit can move on the combat arena, and moving leaves fewer actions available for it to carry out.

Retaliation can be modelled along similar lines. It can be made to require available action points, like any other combat action. Therefore, how many times a unit can retaliate depends on how many unused action points it has left over from the previous combat turn.


I’m hoping that this change will have the following effects:
• Decrease the importance of suffering no losses during combat. If taking no losses results in reduced adventure map exploration time, sustaining some losses in a shorter battle might sometimes be preferable. This can help the game move along without tedious combat micromanagement
• Decrease the need to concentrate forces in a single army (by allowing heroes to reinforce one another)
• Give the player time to organise defences against an invading hero by sending armies to delay him (I always thought that being able to annihilate several defending armies and capture the town all in one turn was a bit much)

The downside is slower adventure map exploration. Not sure what to do about that.

Given the complexity of the proposal and the potential for abuse, I’d really appreciate you pointing out the pitfalls.

[intipacha]

Decrease the importance of suffering no losses during combat. If taking no losses results in reduced adventure map exploration time, sustaining some losses in a shorter battle might sometimes be preferable. This can help the game move along without tedious combat micromanagement

Isn't detailed combat micromanagement one of the unique "beauties" of Heroes? You're speaking as if you'd just rather get over with the battles and... what? Move faster so you can arrive more quickly at... another battle. You win the game by battle. Battle is everything.

[Pitsu]

For once i agree with the general idea. I have also thought that the time of combat should somehow reflect on adventure map time, but have not came up with a good proposal myself. Unlike Intipatcha i am glad that sprite vs zombie legion and blind+ressurect are still possible, but they will cost much more than real life time and opponent nerves. HoMM should be a strategy game, not defined by troop splitting and other mictomanagment in battles.

[Groovy]

Isn't detailed combat micromanagement one of the unique "beauties" of Heroes? You're speaking as if you'd just rather get over with the battles and... what? Move faster so you can arrive more quickly at... another battle. You win the game by battle. Battle is everything.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I wasn’t referring to all combat micromanagement, but specifically to the variety that artificially prolongs the battle in order to avoid suffering losses. For example, manoeuvring archers away from zombies until they are sufficiently far away (or get high morale) to shoot without being struck during the zombies’ next turn. Basically, the hit-and-run tactics that slowly wear the enemy down.

[parcaleste]

You ever played Disciples?

[Groovy]

Briefly, 12 years ago. I remember horrible graphics more than game mechanics.

[intipacha]

Isn't detailed combat micromanagement one of the unique "beauties" of Heroes? You're speaking as if you'd just rather get over with the battles and... what? Move faster so you can arrive more quickly at... another battle. You win the game by battle. Battle is everything.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I wasn’t referring to all combat micromanagement, but specifically to the variety that artificially prolongs the battle in order to avoid suffering losses. For example, manoeuvring archers away from zombies until they are sufficiently far away (or get high morale) to shoot without being struck during the zombies’ next turn. Basically, the hit-and-run tactics that slowly wear the enemy down.

You have a point there - those "tricks of the trade" to get 0 casualties are actually key to success especially vs. human, whereas maybe something else should really be the key.

But still, I find it enjoyable trying out and maybe even finding out new powerful tactics even though they may be such "cheap" tricks. It's something that was always there in Heroes.

[Panda Tar]

When a hero initiates combat, the number of movement points that he has left for that day becomes the number of combat turns that the battle can last for that day...Action points can also be used to manage unit behaviour in the combat arena...Therefore, how many times a unit can retaliate depends on how many unused action points it has left over from the previous combat turn.

Ah, a clever point. If you're considering then day-long battles, you could add some more attributes. In my Heroes design, battles engaged at the first movement points happened during the day. From half the movement points forth, happened during the night. It would bring some range of strategies regarding units abilities, races or else, giving that they all don't fight well at night and vice-versa. If we think about it, vampires shouldn't even fight at day...just as a suggestion to your nice battle-engaging system, you can add day and night features into it.

Regarding Action Points, it sounds like a micromanagement of ATM, a Heroes 5 scheme but controlled by turns. It's better to manage speed and initiative in this proposition, imho. It's logical. Some RPGs have features that look similar to this.

The downside is slower adventure map exploration. Not sure what to do about that.

I think it's not really something bad, given that it all depends on how many enemies you'll have around your lands. And it's a choice. You can evade some battles in order to pick resources or do something else.

A really big downside I think would come in MP approach. Turns amongst players would be far too long.

Given the complexity of the proposal and the potential for abuse, I’d really appreciate you pointing out the pitfalls.

One of the obvious abuses, altogether fair play nonetheless (war is a b1tch ), might be a third player entering the fray. You can wait your enemy get weaker and weaker in a battle and then enter it, kill everyone and get all the benefits from that battle, a battle that perhaps you did only the last few beatings.

If you allow this, it's a completely normal option in war, fair or not. But perhaps to make it a little less unfair , when another party enters the battle and you are already finishing off your first foes, the distance on the battlefield might be somewhat great, enabling you a possibility to flee back to adventure map, because I think there's a divergence in thinking here:

Example

• 1.You have almost finished your enemy off. Say that it's the second day, so you have still 15 movement points.
  
  2.Another foe comes in battle with 2 movement points only.
  
  3.So, in that same day, they have differences in timing and action. It wouldn't be fair/logical that your enemy would have done many things in that day, entered a battle against you at the end of his day, and you couldn't do anything else but to accept that battle and keep fighting, even if you could have ended that battle at the beginning of your day. UNLESS, you enabled your hero, who has all those turns to be used as to prepare for the upcoming battle, as if under TACTICS skills, because logically, you have priority in leveling your timing with the upcoming foe. For instance, you can take 3 Movement Points in penalty when fleeing a battle: if the remaining movement points you have is bigger than your foe when he/she entered your battle, you'll be able to flee. If not, you'll have to keep fighting.

For once i agree with the general idea.

[Groovy]

If you're considering then day-long battles, you could add some more attributes. In my Heroes design, battles engaged at the first movement points happened during the day. From half the movement points forth, happened during the night. It would bring some range of strategies regarding units abilities, races or else, giving that they all don't fight well at night and vice-versa. If we think about it, vampires shouldn't even fight at day...just as a suggestion to your nice battle-engaging system, you can add day and night features into it.

Definitely! This goes hand-in-hand with the racial vision attribute (light, thermal, etc) that I proposed earlier. And vampires should be stronger on nights with the full moon.

Regarding Action Points, it sounds like a micromanagement of ATM, a Heroes 5 scheme but controlled by turns. It's better to manage speed and initiative in this proposition, imho. It's logical.

What is ATM?

I think it depends on unit design. Some of my designs were quite elaborate because I expected them to make use of the action point system. For example, Shapeshifters could change form to bats (as Vampires) so as to fly and move further, or wolves (as Werewolves) so as to be stronger, or shadows (as Shades) so as to gain damage resistance. Careful management of action points would yield an optimal sequence of form changes combined with attacks and movement. I’m not sure how this would be implemented in any of the existing HOMM combat systems.

A really big downside I think would come in MP approach. Turns amongst players would be far too long.

Hmm... Why? Don’t turns take longer when combat has to run to completion during a single turn?

One of the obvious abuses, altogether fair play nonetheless (war is a b1tch ), might be a third player entering the fray. You can wait your enemy get weaker and weaker in a battle and then enter it, kill everyone and get all the benefits from that battle, a battle that perhaps you did only the last few beatings.

If you allow this, it's a completely normal option in war, fair or not. But perhaps to make it a little less unfair , when another party enters the battle and you are already finishing off your first foes, the distance on the battlefield might be somewhat great, enabling you a possibility to flee back to adventure map, because I think there's a divergence in thinking here:

Example

• 1.You have almost finished your enemy off. Say that it's the second day, so you have still 15 movement points.
  
  2.Another foe comes in battle with 2 movement points only.
  
  3.So, in that same day, they have differences in timing and action. It wouldn't be fair/logical that your enemy would have done many things in that day, entered a battle against you at the end of his day, and you couldn't do anything else but to accept that battle and keep fighting, even if you could have ended that battle at the beginning of your day. UNLESS, you enabled your hero, who has all those turns to be used as to prepare for the upcoming battle, as if under TACTICS skills, because logically, you have priority in leveling your timing with the upcoming foe. For instance, you can take 3 Movement Points in penalty when fleeing a battle: if the remaining movement points you have is bigger than your foe when he/she entered your battle, you'll be able to flee. If not, you'll have to keep fighting.

I’m tempted to keep it unfair because working through this makes my head hurt!

[Panda Tar]

What is ATM?

Active Time Mode, or Active Time Battle, usually present on FF games (and many other RPGs when engaging battles). In spite of having turns, speed and initiative of units might comprise units's actions within a turn, even if it's more than one action.

But ATB itself works constantly, you take an action then your timing starts to run again, you can act many times before your foe, and so on.

A RPG where you had "Action points" within your turn to act was Legend of Legaia, for Playstation. You had an action bar, and some combination of your attacks would spend more or less of that bar. The bar could bear 4 punches or 2 punches and 1 kick, for example, increasing in size as you level up. Depending on which combination you used, a special movement would be triggered.

Hmm... Why? Don’t turns take longer when combat has to run to completion during a single turn?

Perhaps I just had a wrong thought. It really doesn't matter for MP.