battle resolution

[kafka]

how does the battle resolution work and be presented to the player? Though I liked the games based on the previous engine (BOA, ACW), the minimalistic presentation and absolute lack of control in the battle resolution phase was the thing which ruined these games for me - to the point that I don't play them anymore. I do not expect a fully implemented tactical layer to be add to this new engine (though I love what WCS has accomplished in Crown of Glory) but al least a minimal control and better presentation of the automatic resolution which doesn not make feel you like you are suddenly alienated by the very game you are playing

thanks

[Pocus]

There will be a better reporting on what's going on, rest assured. I won't give you details, but there will be one kind of reporting which should be easy to read, happening 'on the fly' during battle, and a more detailed one after battle. Now for control, we still don't plan to allow you to tweak your orders during the battle sorry. This is much more a design decision than an engine limitation, as the engine can already be put on pause to display the battle. If I were to take a parallel, you roll a dice and check the result somehow. Except that in the AGE engine, you roll some thousands dices

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

As owner of WIA I'd have to agree in part with the original poster. The game is excellent but I do feel that the battle resolution aspect is a more removed and abstracted experience than the rest of the game.

I to would like a modicum of control over combat resolution.

Having said that I agree with AGEOD's stated design goal of non-tactical combat resolution. Good decision. But the passive battle reports that currently exist in WIA (and other AGEOD games) are a bit of a let down.

So here's an idea. Probably not orginal but then none are.

You already have a measure of control pre-battle with your stance, etc. settings which is great. Having to interrupt the battle resolution for player-based decision making probably isn't a goer either as Pocus has already pointed out.

But what about giving the player a few choices at the start of the battle?

Decisions based from the point of view of the commanding general. This doesn't probably fit with the scope of the games (so you could make it an optional toggle in Preferences) but it would pull the player into the battle and give him some involvement and ownership of the outcome which is the aim of the exercise.

Here's an example. You are attacking. One of the pre-battle choices could be "Hands-on Command" which deliberately puts your general / commanders further into the fray than they normally would be.

The player recieves a bonus Dice Modifier (DM) to all his morale checks during the battle as a result of his commanders being able to rally the troops more effectively due to their close vicinity.

Against this he gets a negative DM for checks made for Commander casualties as the probability of this has increased.

The concept is to present the player with a number of 'general-point-of-view' choices at the start that all have the following characteristics...

1.They all act as DM's to various combat related dice rolls
2.None of the decisions have dramatic effects but they all are sufficient to make a difference.
3.Each decision has a positive and a negative aspect.

So the player then has to consider the make up of his forces, the terrain, the likely opponents etc. and make a educated judgement which option would be to his advantage in any given situation.

A bonus would be if you could show an icon in the battle report that showed how many times the particular DM helped him or hindered him so he gets feedback on his decision.

The programming overhead (I'm guessing here) is relatively small as you are effectively only applying DM's to an existing combat resolution process.

The concept could be further tied into the game design by such things as...

- The number of choices available (apart from the default 'none') depends on the commanders rating. Eg. Attack rating of 4 then 4 choices. A dud with a rating of 2 only gets presented with 2 choices.

- Some choices could be made dependant on your tech tree development (Vainglory has a tech tree, WIA hasn't)

- Some choices could be nation specific to add more flavour

- the choices presented could be tied into the commanders special characteristics. Certain characteristics allow or prohibit certain choices.

- the choices presented could be randomly drawn from a pool which itself is defined by the factors mentioned above (tech , traits, nation specific etc.)


This is a bit long winded but by now you've got the idea. The overiding thought being to give the player a measure of involvement and ownership of the battle outcome within the limitations of the current system.

Cheers,

Plugger

[arsan]

I like your idea Plugger

[Spharv2]

And for VgN, as Arsan knows, I don't. The problem is, the higher in scale we get, (And this will be the highest thus far) the less tactical decisions should enter into it. It simply doesn't fit, now in BOA, WIA, and NC, sure those would make sense, but in VgN and AACW, it just doesn't, IMHO. You're the political (In VgN especially) leader, not the front line general. The age of the warrior kings is long gone. Stay in the back and let your generals and troops do the fighting, then read the telegrams. Now, for RoP, I think something like that would make more sense.

But, as Pocus said, the battle reporting will take a large step forward.

[Banks6060]

Add me to the ranks of those who LOVE the way it is right now. As Spharv noted...you're taking the role of a nation's leader...not the role of every general in your nation's employ. If you had control over the battles in ANY way....it would make the ratings system (which I love) completely pointless.

All I would like to see changed is some sort of animation that shows, in more detail, what's happening as the battle progresses. I know that's probably tough to do considering the fact that showing complex calculations within a game engine is at times difficult to display in an asthetically pleasing manner.

[RtG]

I don't want to have any control over battles either. However it always seems a terrible shame to me that the great unit graphics aren't used in the battles.

I even started to knock up a quick vb simulator that I'll post if I ever finish it but something like this would be great...

[Banks6060]

See now THAT I can live with . Great model man!

[Nikel]

I don't want to have any control over battles either. However it always seems a terrible shame to me that the great unit graphics aren't used in the battles.

I even started to knock up a quick vb simulator that I'll post if I ever finish it but something like this would be great...

My god what is that, a simulator? Tell us more!

[kafka]

well, I really do not understand the arguments against any player interaction in the tactical layer, and giving the fact that it could be implemeted as an optional feature I really do not understand this dogmatic approach

[Flop]

well, I really do not understand the arguments against any player interaction in the tactical layer, and giving the fact that it could be implemeted as an optional feature I really do not understand this dogmatic approach

It would take time to do, that could've been used elsewhere, I guess. That said, unless it takes large amounts of development away from other aspects of the game, I'd like to see some form of interaction in battles.

[Clovis]

well, I really do not understand the arguments against any player interaction in the tactical layer, and giving the fact that it could be implemeted as an optional feature I really do not understand this dogmatic approach

You're forgetting AI. Any interaction needs AI work. A lot. AGEOD ressources being small, that would say less features elsewhere.

[Rafiki]

well, I really do not understand the arguments against any player interaction in the tactical layer, and giving the fact that it could be implemeted as an optional feature I really do not understand this dogmatic approach

If you open more of the game to human decisions, by extension, you are opening more parts that must be handled by AI. Doing so presents AGEOD with two choices:

• Pour resources into this new aspect of the AI to make it good enough, which means less resources devoted to other parts fot he game, or
• Give this particular aspect of the AI a skin-deep implementation, which will slant the odds even further in a human players favour, seeing as no AI has yet been made in any game that is able to match an experienced player of average ability.

Now, for players who prefer not to use such a feature anyway, it becomes a choice between plague an cholera; not a good one to face

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

So my idea doesn't appear to be a winner. Fair enough.

The comments from Rafiki about the need to program the AI to handle this are a good point. However I was thinking that the AI needn't have to deal with any of this.

They just fight battles as normal. Only the player has the choices. For all those that don't like the concept then they can toggle it off in the preferences.

As each choice has a positive and negative aspect then by not using the choices you aren't necessarily at a disadvantage. Same with the AI.

However my idea and it's permutations aside, I really do think you need to do something about the 'battle' aspect of your games. The passive reports with no 'interaction' or 'unfolding action' are really dry.

Too dry.

The combat resolution is the end point of all the strategic manuevring that has occured to date and it should be a bit more interesting than a passive screen of numbers and icons.

Somebody mentioned elsewhere (Pocus?) that they are working on improving this and I think that's a necessary step in the right direction.

Anything to give the player some interest in what's going on battle wise. You should be able to watch a battle unfold (even if you have no involvement in it's resolution) and experience a sense of tension ('can I hold the line') and interest ('that happened!').

A good example of this is Gary Griby's War Between the States. The player has no 'choices' or ability to intervene and the combat resolution display is pretty basic (coloured bars a.k.a DOS based games of yore) but because of the way the information is presented you find yourself hanging on the outcome.

Anyway, just a few more thoughts. I think you are doing an excellent job and I'm only highlighting an area that I personally find a bit lacking. Others might not be of the same view.

Cheers,

Lancer

[kafka]

You're forgetting AI. Any interaction needs AI work. A lot. AGEOD ressources being small, that would say less features elsewhere.

this is indeed a valid point I've not forgotten at all. But I do not think it is generally valid. Take the takeda series by magitech as an example which offers both aspects as two fully implemted parts in one game. Both of the them are indeed very good (contrary to the total war series) as even experienced players have a hard time beating the AI. And magitech being a small team too (contray to CA) I do think that this is not an impossible task to accomplish. But anyway I fully respect the decision by AGEOD not to include a full tactical layer in their design, whatever the reason may be. Though I personally think that such an optional layer (not necessarily fully implemented but offering at least a basical player involvement) would make their great games even better (not perfect, perfection being anyway a status we may approach but actually never reach ) and btw also increase the scope of the potential customers. So, on one hand I'm fully confident AGEOD will develop Vainglory of nations as a game I will enjoy on the other it still will not be the 'almost perfect' game I'd like to play and that I assume they basically would be able to develop.

[Mowers]

The difficulty in producing a game like this would lead me to think that simplicity over additional features is probably the way to go.

There are plenty of good tactical battle simulations, TW excluded

[Clovis]

this is indeed a valid point I've not forgotten at all. But I do not think it is generally valid. Take the takeda series by magitech as an example which offers both aspects as two fully implemted parts in one game. Both of the them are indeed very good (contrary to the total war series) as even experienced players have a hard time beating the AI. And magitech being a small team too (contray to CA) I do think that this is not an impossible task to accomplish. But anyway I fully respect the decision by AGEOD not to include a full tactical layer in their design, whatever the reason may be. Though I personally think that such an optional layer (not necessarily fully implemented but offering at least a basical player involvement) would make their great games even better (not perfect, perfection being anyway a status we may approach but actually never reach ) and btw also increase the scope of the potential customers. So, on one hand I'm fully confident AGEOD will develop Vainglory of nations as a game I will enjoy on the other it still will not be the 'almost perfect' game I'd like to play and that I assume they basically would be able to develop.

I don't palyed Takeda but the reviews are good indeed. But:

- the strategic part of Takeda seems to be ...just a littler simpler than VGN
- as far I may know, the tactical part is based on the TW schem, ie around 20 units per side with game mechanisms centered on a rock-scissor- paper engine. That's not to say it's simple to do a good game with such a basis ( TW anyone?) but the Ai task is certainly easier to manage.

[Franciscus]

I will voice a little dissent here, if I may

I believe that we as buying players of AGEOD's games owe nothing to the devs, and can play whatever role we feel better (and yes, I believe that even fanboys and haters have their place). Personally I think one of the most useful roles is trying to "push the envelope" on a game design.
I think that the main reason for AGEOD's games not having a tactical layer are lack of resources and will to design two different AI routines (and graphics, GUI, etc)
But I believe that in a few years it will be possible and real.

BUT, at least let me say that I will be disappointed if the new AGEOD games (and yes, I include VGN) don't include at least a couple of features that have been discussed for the last 2 years, namely, a battle log and "juicy" battle reports (and I do not mean some sterile "unit X threw a D12 for 3 in a range of 5 and inflicted 4 hits". ).

Some may argue that this are mere "bells and whistles". They may be, but so are tilting maps, fancy GUIs, extensive OOB (in a Corps level game :blink etc. If the games did not have those features, we might just well play in a excel spreadsheet.

Regards

[Spharv2]

I will voice a little dissent here, if I may

I believe that we as buying players of AGEOD's games owe nothing to the devs, and can play whatever role we feel better (and yes, I believe that even fanboys and haters have their place). Personally I think one of the most useful roles is trying to "push the envelope" on a game design.
I think that the main reason for AGEOD's games not having a tactical layer are lack of resources and will to design two different AI routines (and graphics, GUI, etc)
But I believe that in a few years it will be possible and real.

BUT, at least let me say that I will be disappointed if the new AGEOD games (and yes, I include VGN) don't include at least a couple of features that have been discussed for the last 2 years, namely, a battle log and "juicy" battle reports (and I do not mean some sterile "unit X threw a D12 for 3 in a range of 5 and inflicted 4 hits". ).

Some may argue that this are mere "bells and whistles". They may be, but so are tilting maps, fancy GUIs, extensive OOB (in a Corps level game :blink etc. If the games did not have those features, we might just well play in a excel spreadsheet.

Regards

I don't think you need to worry about that, Pocus has stated (In this thread even) that the battle log will be improved and expanded upon.

[AndrewKurtz]

If you open more of the game to human decisions, by extension, you are opening more parts that must be handled by AI.

It also would not work in a PBEM game at all. It would slow down the entire game to a ridiculous level.

[Rafiki]

It also would not work in a PBEM game at all. It would slow down the entire game to a ridiculous level.

Indeed

For the record, I do understand the point that the "tacticians" are making; it's just that I'm not one of them (I tend to auto-resolve battles after a short while in TW games too ), so I'd hate to see AGEOD's efforts wasted (from my point of view).

[Generalisimo]

It also would not work in a PBEM game at all. It would slow down the entire game to a ridiculous level.

This is a VERY important problem of an interactive tactical battle... that I am surprised nobody raised it before.
If you want to directly interact on the battles... it is imposible to do a PBEM game.
Also, part of the "turns play" is lost, because you are creating a real time battle simulation that you have to follow to "squeeze" as much as you can from it by leading directly your armies to beat the AI.
This goes directly against the design of the game, a game that is suposed to be played "on turns", like all previous games.
So, something "different" from what you have suggesting must be thought... something that CAN coexist with a PBEM feature and the "play on turns" philosophy.

I understand that people wants more control on this aspect... but I really think that with the current design of this kind of game, the idea doesn't fit very well... apart from all the time it will take to make Athena as intelligent as the player to use those new features....

And sorry for this, but making a complete set of new features and making them ALL OPTIONAL (like some here stated) to please a set of players is NOT cost effective in any way for AGEOD... how much time of Pocus will be invested in this OPTIONAL feature?... probably a LOT of precious time that could be use in improving the diplomatic engine, the AI, the economic engine, etc, etc, etc...

Of course, this is ONLY my opinion...

[Evren]

Indeed

For the record, I do understand the point that the "tacticians" are making; it's just that I'm not one of them (I tend to auto-resolve battles after a short while in TW games too ), so I'd hate to see AGEOD's efforts wasted (from my point of view).

+1..

[Franciscus]

This is a VERY important problem of an interactive tactical battle... that I am surprised nobody raised it before.
If you want to directly interact on the battles... it is imposible to do a PBEM game.
Also, part of the "turns play" is lost, because you are creating a real time battle simulation that you have to follow to "squeeze" as much as you can from it by leading directly your armies to beat the AI.
This goes directly against the design of the game, a game that is suposed to be played "on turns", like all previous games.
So, something "different" from what you have suggesting must be thought... something that CAN coexist with a PBEM feature and the "play on turns" philosophy.

I understand that people wants more control on this aspect... but I really think that with the current design of this kind of game, the idea doesn't fit very well... apart from all the time it will take to make Athena as intelligent as the player to use those new features....

And sorry for this, but making a complete set of new features and making them ALL OPTIONAL (like some here stated) to please a set of players is NOT cost effective in any way for AGEOD... how much time of Pocus will be invested in this OPTIONAL feature?... probably a LOT of precious time that could be use in improving the diplomatic engine, the AI, the economic engine, etc, etc, etc...

Of course, this is ONLY my opinion...

I am pretty much convinced that in a few years we will all laugh at how we thought some things were impossible...

But I am not asking for tactical battles in VGN. I am merely asking at least (again) for a decent log - history of battles fought - in the future AGEOD games, both from the perspective of the engagements itself but also from the perspective of the units and generals involved, and decent (well, very good ) battle reports, preferably online during each battle, to increase immersiveness.
It is a pity if devs and betas will not find this important, but I can live with it

[kafka]

well, noone in this thread asked for a fully implemeted tactical layer but for a better presentation of the results and a basic player involvement in an aspect of the game which is otherwise completely unimmersive to the the player

btw

If you want to directly interact on the battles... it is imposible to do a PBEM game.

well, crown of glory has a fully implemeted tactical layer and from what I can see at the matrixgames forum there are a lot of pbem games going

[Generalisimo]

I am pretty much convinced that in a few years we will all laugh at how we thought some things were impossible...

But I am not asking for tactical battles in VGN. I am merely asking at least (again) for a decent log - history of battles fought - in the future AGEOD games, both from the perspective of the engagements itself but also from the perspective of the units and generals involved, and decent (well, very good ) battle reports, preferably online during each battle, to increase immersiveness.
It is a pity if devs and betas will not find this important, but I can live with it

You are REALLY... REALLY wrong...

On THIS thread, you could read from Pocus himself:

There will be a better reporting on what's going on, rest assured. I won't give you details, but there will be one kind of reporting which should be easy to read, happening 'on the fly' during battle, and a more detailed one after battle. Now for control, we still don't plan to allow you to tweak your orders during the battle sorry. This is much more a design decision than an engine limitation, as the engine can already be put on pause to display the battle. If I were to take a parallel, you roll a dice and check the result somehow. Except that in the AGE engine, you roll some thousands dices

On the other hand, as you can read from my post, I was mainly answering to the people that were asking for more tactical depth & control during the battle resolution... that doesn't mean that the battle reports cannot be improved.
There is a BIG difference between "tactical control" and "a better report"...

[Generalisimo]

well, noone in this thread asked for a fully implemeted tactical layer but for a better presentation of the results and a basic player involvement in an aspect of the game which is otherwise completely unimmersive to the the player

I think it is obvious that we are not talking about a TW engine inside VGN, nor ROP, nor AACW... so I will not get into that.

By saying "I do not need a fully implemented tactical layer, just more control over it" doesn't make sense to me... Really, you want control over the tactical layer but you do not want the tactical layer fully implemented ( )... ok, let's just code a part of it then?

There is no option in there, or you get into the tactical layer... or you do not get into the tactical layer...

Anyway, as you could read from Pocus itself, the battle resolutions are being worked on:

There will be a better reporting on what's going on, rest assured. I won't give you details, but there will be one kind of reporting which should be easy to read, happening 'on the fly' during battle, and a more detailed one after battle. Now for control, we still don't plan to allow you to tweak your orders during the battle sorry. This is much more a design decision than an engine limitation, as the engine can already be put on pause to display the battle. If I were to take a parallel, you roll a dice and check the result somehow. Except that in the AGE engine, you roll some thousands dices.

[Franciscus]

You are REALLY... REALLY wrong...

I HOPE I am wrong . And I have read Pocus's post. I admit that sometimes I can be a pain in the ass, but the lack of this (proper logs and reports, and BTW, better graphic presentation of OOB, army organization, etc) was one of the few disapointments AACW ever gave me, and I really want this feature implemented this time (and retrofitted ?? )

well, crown of glory has a fully implemeted tactical layer and from what I can see at the matrixgames forum there are a lot of pbem games going

And BTW, that's an interesting point

[Generalisimo]

I HOPE I am wrong . And I have read Pocus's post. I admit that sometimes I can be a pain in the ass, but the lack of this (proper logs and reports, and BTW, better graphic presentation of OOB, army organization, etc) was one of the few disapointments AACW ever gave me, and I really want this feature implemented this time (and retrofitted ?? )

Well, I am sure you will always want to squeeze more and more from poor Pocus ... so, you will probably not be 100% happy with the end product because it will lack X or Y thing that is a must for you... but I am sure you will be A LOT more happy than now.

[Pocus]

What's for sure is that before having tactical control, if we ever reach this point (for solo games, PBEM would have to stay with full automated battles), there will be a period in the future where more and more visual feedback on battles will be shown to player. Such time has already begun, as we are improving the reporting on battles for VGN... perhaps not to the extend many would like but we are doing our best.