This game would be a lot better if...

[BlueRaja]

the smaller army didn't get more moves in each "round" of moves.

For example, right now if I have 4 characters and you have 2, each of your characters gets two attacks for one of mine. Since attack-power is based on health, killing an enemy almost always makes their army stronger, which makes no sense.

This means the best strategy is often "reduce all enemies to 1-2 health before killing any of them!"

This is also why even battles that are extremely easy to win (which is most of them) are almost impossible to win without losing someone.

If you just set the turn order at the beginning of the battle and didn't change it when a character died, the game would be immensely more fun.

[Aleonymous]

Hello there, BlueRaja.

There are a lot of threads in these forums about that exact "problem". I personally don't mind it so much, but I understand how people find it frustrating. I hope that Stoic hears all these comments and tries to address this in the future games.

An indirect way to balance things is limit the number of enemies to 6-8, and/or give enemy units some "dangerous" active-abilities (e.g. Armor-bypasing damage) that will make you wanna take the out as soon as possible and not leave them lying about with 1STR...

[Quineloe]

When you kill an enemy, it shouldn't advance the existing order of the turn. If you kill the enemy that's up next, it should let you do two turns in a row. I agree with the general principle of alternating turns, but having to pay attention to the order of combat 6 turns deep, so that Dread Scourge doesn't get to attack too soon again, that's not exactly fun and deep gameplay. If the enemy killed is more than 6 turns away, ie not on the visible queue yet, by all means advance the turn order. But not on such short notice.

[BlueRaja]

No, that would still make the enemy team stronger whenever you kill one. It *needs* to be, the turn order doesn't change. There's a reason no other games do it that way, it's unfair and not fun.

[NogardDerNaerok]

Worms games do it this way. Shockingly, it works, and nobody complains about it because they're not used to something else in that particular artillery subgenre of turn-based strategy.

[Aleonymous]

For the record, as we've always said to complaints about this turn-order debate, the turn-system was designed and fine-tuned having 6-vs-6 PvP battles (i.e. Factions) in mind. There, this particular system allows for come-backs in case something goes wrong in the beginning of the match for one player. Else, the first team to down an enemy unit, would surely win... The other "come-back" mechanism typically used in games is RNG (i.e luck, dice-rolls), but that was almost entirely removed from the game, on purpose.

The above offers some explanation on the choice of the particular turn-system. Changing that fundamental aspect would probably mean that all unit stats & abilities would have to be re-balanced, something that is not so trivial. I know that vs-AI battles are quite different from PvP, but I am just laying out the background.

[Celeb]

If what Steam shows is true about your time you spent on the game you shouldn't complain on the forum, let alone argue with people who actually finished the game.

I am not a PVP player but at least I finished the game. At first I was against this mechanic (I was a newbie) but I got used to it and it is actually pretty good way to keep some challenge in the game. It would be too easy to annihilate enemies without drawbacks to this.

Aleonymous a écrit :

An indirect way to balance things [...] and/or give enemy units some "dangerous" active-abilities (e.g. Armor-bypasing damage) that will make you wanna take the out as soon as possible and not leave them lying about with 1STR...

Something like Bloody Flail[bannersaga.gamepedia.com]? Not a bad idea.

Loncaros a écrit :

When you kill an enemy, it shouldn't advance the existing order of the turn. If you kill the enemy that's up next, it should let you do two turns in a row. I agree with the general principle of alternating turns, but having to pay attention to the order of combat 6 turns deep, so that Dread Scourge doesn't get to attack too soon again, that's not exactly fun and deep gameplay. If the enemy killed is more than 6 turns away, ie not on the visible queue yet, by all means advance the turn order. But not on such short notice.

That's what I was thinking about as well and while I think it isn't a bad idea (it works very good in Heroes V, one of my favourite strategy games) I'll admit it could be easy to take advantage of. Besides it makes me feel better when I check all enemies' place on initiative bar and calculate which is the best to hurt. Dunno, it's just me.

[Aleonymous]

Celeb a écrit :

Aleonymous a écrit :

An indirect way to balance things [...] and/or give enemy units some "dangerous" active-abilities (e.g. Armor-bypasing damage) that will make you wanna take the out as soon as possible and not leave them lying about with 1STR...

Something like Bloody Flail[bannersaga.gamepedia.com]? Not a bad idea.

Exactly! Bloody-Flail is the paragon of "maim-proof-ness", making Thrashers dangerous to their last drop of willpower... Now, analyzing stats and abilities, we notice the following:

• Most Dredge have low Break, low Exertion and low Willpower. Perfect targets for "maiming"
  
• Some Dredge have no active abilities (Grunts, Slingers) and carry "negative" passives (Splinter, Back-Off)
  
• The most powerful "maim-proof" Dredge abilities: Kindle (Stoneguard) and Shatterstone (Fire Slinger) are handled quite poorly by the AI
  
• Scourge's Tremble ability (a.k.a. "summon Dredge") can only summon the lowest tier of Dredge Grunt; and, what's more, is has to sacrifice two of its turns to make that happen. That's quite UP.
  
• Only the Stonesinger's abilities (active and passive) seem to work nicely. I'd like to have seen more of them, as mini-bosses.

[Celeb]

Aleonymous a écrit :

Some Dredge have no active abilities (Grunts, Slingers) and carry "negative" passives (Splinter, Back-Off)

They are the lowest tier units so it's kinda understandable. I kinda like Back-Off.

Aleonymous a écrit :

The most powerful "maim-proof" Dredge abilities: Kindle (Stoneguard) and Shatterstone (Fire Slinger) are handled quite poorly by the AI

I agree. Shatterstone often hurts my enemies more than me (or helps with running away). Ironically, with this AI, this skill would be better if its range was reduced to just 1 side, not all adjacent units (like Battering Ramactually).

Aleonymous a écrit :

Scourge's Tremble ability (a.k.a. "summon Dredge") can only summon the lowest tier of Dredge Grunt; and, what's more, is has to sacrifice two of its turns to make that happen. That's quite UP

They could get bonus armor points while they summon IMO (like 2 on easy, 3-4 on medium, 4-5 on hard).

Aleonymous a écrit :

Only the Stonesinger's abilities (active and passive) seem to work nicely. I'd like to have seen more of them, as mini-bosses.

I'd like too see them more often and maybe even upgrades of this unit as well. As it is now, this unit is underpowered IMO. Yes, Rupture and Disease Strike are good, no doubting that but AI screws itself with casting Umbrage. Firstly, like Tremble, it takes two turns to use it. That's a big drawback, player can do a lot of things in 2 turns. Secondly, AI sometimes tries to use it TWICE meaning more turns are wasted plus enemies are probably near death after the second Umbrage takes place (and a bunch of 4-6 hp enemies is not a problem). Finally, it removes Armor points from enemies leaving the possibility for Gunnulf to annihilate 2-3 enemies in 1 shot.

[Aleonymous]

1. Back-off is interesting due its random nature, and, many times its actually helps the slinger (e.g. escape) rather that hurt it. Except when you impale them, of course! But, Splinter is definitely a negative passive. On the contrary all human & varl "rank-0" units have a positive passive: shield-wall, puncture, return-the-favor, heavy-impact.

2. That could work for Shatterstone: Damage just the target-unit (and not the AoE 5-tile area) and compensate this decrease by having the stones explode immediately, or in the following turn (and not of the slinger's next turn). In my opinion, Kindle is even worse. There's situations where it can deal catastrophic amounts of break to 2-3 of my units, but the Stoneguard repositions itself and ends out doing 1AB to me and 4-5AB to his allies...

3. For Tremble, I'd suggest either summoning another Scourge, or at least a random Dredge (not always a Grunt). Also, the summoned Dredge could spawn in a 2-tile range from the summoner. Finally, the summoner could "die" (leave the battlefield) when the summoned Dredge arrives, and it could take up his turn immediately.

4. I don't think the Singer is UP, but it can surely get much stronger! The 2-tile movement range is a big handicap, so maybe they could have hybrid range/melee attack range (like Hunter), or 2-tile range like Spearmen. A small problem I got with Singers is that we can't tell if its casting Umbrage or Rupture. I've had almost-finished battles turn into point-counting struggle due to Rupture killing 3 full-armor/health allies!

[Celeb]

1. True.
2. I wrote "Shatterstone" instead of "Kindle"... *sigh*... Sorry. I've meant that Kindle could push enemies on 1 side (that's why I compared it to Battering Ram). However, I like your idea with the Shatterstone. Or the stones could explode immediately when user dies.
3. Actually, it would be awesome if summoned Dredge would spawn near summoner instead of near the weakest of my characters (this is a horrible move from the game and sadly it does it often)... Tremble could always summon Enraged Grunt instead of regular one, that's always a buff. Summoning another Scourge could end up in a nasty loop. Instant summoning and dying is a neat idea.
4. Yea, the lack of difference between those two spells are devastating. Although only ONCE Singer used Rupture in my game.

[Quineloe]

Something definitely needs to be done about 6vs2 situations with 1 strong enemy remaining who gets three free hits on your guy before he can react though. It sucks to lose one character like that.

[Aleonymous]

Loncaros a écrit :

Something definitely needs to be done about 6vs2 situations with 1 strong enemy remaining who gets three free hits on your guy before he can react though. It sucks to lose one character like that.

Yup, that 6-vs-2 is the most extrapolated scenario of the current turn-system. I believe it should be addressed too.

For what it's worth, when there's one full-health enemy and many maimed ones (in Factions), one typically tries to do something we refer to as "clean the board". This consists of having such a positioning that you can kill-off one maimed foe at each of your turns so that this full-health enemy gets ganged-up (in Pillage) as soon as possible. Of course, in Factions, you don't care if a couple of your units are downed in this process, as long as you can secure the win...

[arealhumanbean]

Why not just have pillage initiate when there is a 3 to 1 ratio?

[Aleonymous]

arealhumanbean a écrit :

Why not just have pillage initiate when there is a 3 to 1 ratio?

That would work nicely for 6-vs-2. But, apart from the clear situations of X-vs-1 (where X=3,4,5,6), the only real question about this "3:1 ratio" rule is what happens when in 5-vs-2... I guess that could go to pillage too.

[Sambombe]

A round, normally on RPG systems simulate a piece of time where all characters act at the same time in a combat. Faster characters (high iniative), tent do act earlier. This turn system does not represent that. Its more like chess, where each party has a turn in sequence, so you have to choose which piece to move (or sacrifice, mostly). Thats why you will always loose a piece or two, cause enemy will focus on a character at time, to reduce your army sooner than you reduce his. I prefer the D&D system, where all characters have a chance to act, every round.