57 replies to this topic

[FeXoR]

In general I like the normal, 'simple' solution with structural points/health, attack and armor. A 'chance to hit' for ranged units can be added by checking if the tile that is passed by an projectile contains a unit that has at least the hight of the actual projectiles hight. That way a mounted unit may be hit more often than a foot soldier.

There might also be a chance to be hit smaller then 1 (100%) for smaller or more agile units. That would represent luck and avoidance though avoiding an arrow for example is quite impossible when you are in a battle facing an enemy in melee combat.

A chance to block may be added depending on the equipment. Peasants and archers have no close combat weapon or shield so they have 0 chance to block anything (though they may have a little higher chance to avoid attacks like 10%). Units carrying close combat weapons like swords, clubs/maces or axes may have a chance to block melee attacks of 10%. Swords are indeed designed to block melee attacks and so may have even 20%. Shields are designed to block both, melee and ranged attacks so they could give lets say 30% chance to block melee and 20% chance to block non-siege ranged attack. Units wearing spears or polearms could deal higher charge damage instead. Javelins get the bonus for the shield if present and can use their weapon for both, ranged and melee attacks, but don't get a block chance for their weapon.
The reason why I like the 'normal' system is that something like blocking/evading can be added by simple mechanisms that are understandable for the player and can be displayed to him properly and consistent.

A short list of example equipment with block modifier for the more detailed part below:
- Helm, chest/leg/other Armor: Adds armor as it is now, no block (perhaps lower chance of evade but evade is not that important IMO as stated above)
- Sword/saber: ~20% chance to block melee attacks (melee block 2) and of cause enables the unit to deal damage (as it is now)
- Club/Mace/Axe: ~10% chance to block melee attacks (melee block 1) and of cause enables the unit to deal damage (as it is now, perhaps a little higher to balance the block)
- Javelin: No block, grants an ranged and melee attack (as it is now), can hold a shield as well.
- Spears or other two-handed weapons: No block, enables the unit to attack at melee range and deals high (charge) damage. Some of them may be able to attack above 1 tile. Since such a unit can't hold a shield it has no block at all. Those units should get attack bonus versus cavalry IMO.
- Shield: ~30% chance to block melee (melee block 3) and ~20% chance to block ranged (ranged block 2) but adds no armor! Block values may differ type dependent.
- Bow/arrow: No block, for balance reason (and realism) they may get higher range.

Getting more detailed: In the code it may be useful to work with exponential functions to make sure no unit has 0 chance to hit a specific other unit. The chance to hit can be then calculated by 0.9^n where n is the sum of all 'melee/ranged block' values of the targeted units equipment. If a unit for example has a sword and a shield (somehow the maximum block to get) it has a chance to get hit in melee combat of 0.9^5 = 0.59049 and in ranged 0.9^2 = 0.81. The rounded values than can be shown in the gui:
41% chance to block melee (1 - 0.9^5 = 0.40951)
19% chance to block ranged (1 - 0.9^2 = 0.19)

This hast the additional advantage that moders may add raising block values and the chance to get hit will never reach 0.

With an attack/defense value system the chance to hit/get hit/block depends on the pair of units fighting and so cannot be displayed directly. Instead some values are displayed that doesn't tell the player much about the strength of the unit when he doesn't know the formula (and even then he will rather know due to gathered experience then actual calculation).

To randomize attack damage units could have a minimum and a maximum damage and the actual damage is randomly chosen out of this range. Indeed only a maximum damage would do (and actual damage = random number between 0 and the maximum damage).

As it is now is the armor just the value subtracted by the incoming attacks damage? Because that has to be kept in mind when randomizing damage. IMO an attacked unit should at least loose 1 health/structure point if hit. 

Edited by FeXoR, 24 March 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[Jonny]

I think it could be useful to add a very simple (and extremely quick) 3D approximation to each unit by representing them as a small bunch of spheres. Projectiles and even melee attacks could then be done on a more 3D basis, preventing arrows from flying through buildings and allowing some very believable hit detection. Each individual sphere would have different combat system attributes, so that a hit to a shield would do little damage but a hit to an unprotected head would instantly kill. An infantry unit could be made up of 4 spheres: legs, body, shield (offset to the front of the unit), head. This should allow far faster collision detection than using a polygonal collision mesh, and could be comparable to the cost of using trig functions to determine attack direction.

This might allow for the best of both randomised and predictable combat systems, as the predictable part chosen during the positioning of each unit would depend on the orientations of each unit whilst the effects of arrows would be far more random due to their deviation and would depend entirely on where they hit. Moving the positions of the spheres would allow certain formations to gain extra protection from archers by interlocking shields or raising them above their heads.

A similar system could be used for buildings, where a flaming arrow to a thatched roof would start a fire but a flaming arrow to a stone wall on the same building wouldn't. A full polygonal collision system might be more suitable there due to their flat surfaces, though.

Edited by Jonny, 24 March 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[Giani]

The combat system of Rome Total War is very good.
Look this video:

[ironbmike]

Honestly as long as there is a bonus for flanking I will be satisfied. Like Rise of Nations has. This would of course apply to all units and all attacks. And it would allow horsemen to completely destroy spearmen who weren't turned the right way. This would of course encourage formations and grouping of units to get correct frontages.

This is my first post here and I am incredibly excited for this project. I've been wishing for an "Aoe4" for years and for a remake of the original AOE games...and my wish has been granted. You guys have all done an amazing job.

Edited by ironbmike, 24 April 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[OrganicHallucinosis]

Kinda hoping that this is still being considered. I really like the idea of a more in-depth combat system.

I'm not sure if this is the area to discuss this, but how are you planning on implementing Javelins and Throwing spears to the melee troops of the Celts, Iberians and Romans? If so, will it be a unit ability with a cooldown ability? This is kind of an important thing for the Celts and Germans, since almost every man carried some kind of throwing weapon into battle.

Edit: Posted this really late last night.

Edited by OrganicHallucinosis, 18 May 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[Sighvatr]

^ I like that idea.

I made a suggestion in another thread, but can there be an alternative melee for ranged units? I dislike watching my melee troops attempt to chase down a ranged unit across the entire map. I have a friend whom abuses ranged units and currently the most useless troop to me is a hoplite which should be ironic. I would rather field an entire army of slingers and ranged units than melee troops.

[feneur]

Cavalry should be used to take out ranged units. I'm not saying it works perfectly yet, but just that using melee infantry to take out ranged units never should work well.

[Mythos_Ruler]

What if when melee units get too close, ranged units switch to a knife or something if they are set to Stand Ground stance. Otherwise they'd run.

[Geek377]

Mythos_Ruler, on 01 June 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

What if when melee units get too close, ranged units switch to a knife or something if they are set to Stand Ground stance. Otherwise they'd run.

I like that. But they shouldn't run in Aggressive/Violent stances either.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Geek377, on 01 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I like that. But they shouldn't run in Aggressive/Violent stances either.

Then when should they run? lol. Perhaps only two stances for ranged units then (Stand Ground and Avoid), where melee units have 3 (Stand Ground, Defensive, Aggressive).

[Mythos_Ruler]

Lion.Kanzen, on 01 June 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

i like that idea, im thinking the last days in that topic, the second weapon like TW series, and see before in Sparta Ancien wars/ Fate of Hellas Series.

Some units carrying two weapons, Immortals are a good example.

There would be a distinction between different types of "secondary" weapons.

1. Volley: For instance, when something is thrown, then the unit closes with its primary weapon. Example: Roman Principes throws a pilum initially, then closes in for melee combat with his sword. If the target enemy is too close to throw pilum, then the Principes will just attack with his sword.
2. Defensive: For instance, when ranged units are set to Stand Ground, they'll switch to this weapon if their target enemy is too close to use their ranged weapon. Example: Archer switches to a knife when his target enemy is too close to use the bow.
3. Proactive: Can toggle between Primary and Secondary weapons whenever the player wants the unit to. Example: Persian Immortal can switch between Spear and Bow upon direction of the player.

There could be additional cases as well.

[majapahit]

Alternative combat system...

• Add a general, like a hero that can heal itself, boosting morale like crazy but can be captured if hitpoints reach zero.
  
• After the hitpoints reach zero, it turns into a wagon with cage. The captors can move it and ask for ransom, or army.
  If ransom paid, or request for army given, the general will appear near its own town center. While the resource or army will appear near captor's town center.
  
• Players can free the general by attacking the wagon. The "former" general must be taken into the town centre to become "full-fledged" general once again.

I also like many features of the game below, I played it since long time ago when harddrive is still a luxury:

It has many intersting features, animated trees, roads, resources, etc.

Edited by majapahit, 12 June 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

From my experience, archery is hardly tiring.

[Pedro Falcão]

Hey guys! Sorry for my absence, but i'd like to express my humble opinion about this matter (i really appreciate discussions about this specific topic)...

@Mythos Then to most archers's, a knife would be a penalty (since a knife is useless, compared to what a bow can do). I see this as more of an annoying thing, unless arrow damage is significantly buffed (along with shield ability to ocasionally block arrows).

@Majapahit Nice idea, except for we have to rethink a thing: and if the enemy considers the hero to dangerous to be left alive and want to kill him? And if killing/ransoming a hero is implemented, we would have to think of ways of how to make it profitable both to ransom, to pay the ransoming charge and to bring the hero to the battle, instead of simply leaving him be in a highly secured town. (BTW, is that The Settlers I? I find it really looks like the second of the franchise).

[fiasco]

Please just keep it like AOE 2. Of course that combat system can be improved too. You also have to realize that what looks cool is often times not the best for rts play, especially competitive (non scenario, high level 1v1 or 2v2) rts play.

[Mythos_Ruler]

fiasco, on 09 October 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Please just keep it like AOE 2. Of course that combat system can be improved too. You also have to realize that what looks cool is often times not the best for rts play, especially competitive (non scenario, high level 1v1 or 2v2) rts play.

While this may be true, you haven't demonstrated that the proposed systems here is not "best" for play.

[fiasco]

You're right, I still need to play some more to draw a better conclusion. My opinion is also extremely biased since I have played AOM/AOE for nearly 10 years

[Lion.Kanzen]

I Lke Alternative Formula, its more than only, train units in a massive army to Rushing other units. and win.

i like more Strategic moves, Unit that hold live in Battle. than a unit that cannot survive 2 seconds "live"

Edited by Lion.Kanzen, 24 March 2013 - 10:18 PM.