One of the worst turn based strategies I've ever seen - Here's why

[T Dubs]

Turn based strategies are not new concept. They're not a difficult concept and there are plenty of good ones out there to learn from.

So why have the makers of Banner Saga managed to make an unforgivable mistake?

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS GAME:

In any normal, turn based strategy, each piece gets one turn per round. That is to say, at the end of a round, each piece has moved/attacked once. Contrast this with chess where movement bounces back from player to player regardless of the pieces on the board. In chess, you don't have rounds; you can move your knight three times in a row on your turn if you want. Either of these turn based approaches is fine - Either do rounds where each piece gets to move once, or turns where players can move any piece they choose.

Banner Saga has managed to screw this up. They've merged these two turn based approaches together in a way that is on a level of stupid usually reserved for congressmen.

In Banner Saga, you take turns moving your pieces (just like in chess). However, you can't choose which pieces to move. Each piece gets one move per round (just like Xcom). This is fine if there are an equal number of pieces on the board for both sides. However, in order to maintain the back and forth of a chess style of play, any side that is down a piece, gets extra moves per round. If I have four pieces on the board an my opponent has two, his pieces each get two moves versus the one for each of mine.

Example: I have six pieces on the board, and my opponent has one. Five of my pieces are in one corner, and the sixth is by himself at the opposite end of the board. My lone wolf is facing the single remaining enemy. My lone wolf attacks. Then the computer attacks my lone wolf. Everything is fine so far. However, now I have to move each of my five units at the other end of the field. After each one of their moves, the computer gets to attack my lone wolf with his one unit. I can't do anything with my lone wolf until I've cycled through all my units. Meanwhile, the computer gets five attacks against my unit before I can do anything.

This doesn't happen in chess because you can choose to move or attack with any unit you want on your turn. This is solved in xcom by allowing each unit only one move/attack per round. Here, outnumbered units get extra moves and attacks per round based on how outnumbered they are - which not only takes away the advantage of reducing enemy numbers, but can actually put you at a disadvantage when you thin out the enemy numbers.

[ANSAR]

Hint: leave enemy units with 1 str :)

[Aleonymous]

There's been a lot of complaints about the turn-order system. Approximately 1 in 4 new threads, in each Steam-sales, will bring this matter up :)

As I always say -- This turn-order system is just different from others (e.g. chess or XCOM, like you mentioned). That doesn't make it worse, IMHO. But, you'll disagree, so everyone can have his opinion and I'll live happily (and you miserably) with TheBannerSaga :P

Seriously now, I believe the problems with this system is mostly due to the fact that the AI does not actively try to take advantage of it, namely use what I refer to as the "Maim Don't Kill" tactic (as the previous poster suggested, leaving units alive but at low Strength). Instead, the AI will focus fire your units, killing them one by one, and thus giving you "turn-advantage" in the process...

TL;DR: A better AI would mitigate the problems of this turn-order system.

[Omnicide]

I really liked this system. It's all up to your tastes but they accomplished so much with such a simple set of rules. It would have had to be a totally different game otherwise free choice of which "piece" you move would stagnate the game in spots. You could forego any offense on your varl and just use them as meatshields, and 1 guy would chase 1 other guy around the map the entire time.

Everyone moves, everyone contributes, and any weak links either from lack of promotion or from wounding bring down the entire group.

[Vehementi]

I have to agree with the orange guy: you have to divorce yourself from the idea of how it should be, and just deal with how it is and what the tactical consequences are. The answer isn't always to leave a bunch of 1hp enemies because they might have strong shield breaks or other support abilities, so you have to balance eliminating those abilities from the enemy's arsenal with them getting "extra" actions. You also have to keep your dudes together and just predict the consequences of this.

This bites me in the ass mostly when I leave some "harmless" 9 str archers alive as I kill everything else, and suddenly my armor's worn down and a few of my guys are separated and get crushed by the now hasted archers.

But it's predictable and just different: not worse. It certainly feels bad at times, but that's you not being adapted to the rules.

My personal opinion is up in the air - it's a unique (afaik) take on TBS that inarguably adds extra factors to consider, but I don't know if it's worth it.

[Myll_Erik]

Thanks for the feedback and we understand we can't make everyone happy, but we do like our system. However we are making improvements to combat and the system for Banner Saga 2.

[Face]

I'll add my voice in and say that I dislike the combat/turn style in this game.

almost unplayable for me.

[Vehementi]

Originally posted by Myll_Erik:

Thanks for the feedback and we understand we can't make everyone happy, but we do like our system. However we are making improvements to combat and the system for Banner Saga 2.

What was the motivation behind the way it currently is? Are there other games with this type of turn based ordering that you're inspired by, or did you want to strike out in a different direction? Maybe some extra insight would be handy. Can you say what type of things you might change for the next game?

[Aleonymous]

Originally posted by Vehementi:

What was the motivation behind the way it currently is? Are there other games with this type of turn based ordering that you're inspired by, or did you want to strike out in a different direction? Maybe some extra insight would be handy. Can you say what type of things you might change for the next game?

In my experience, the combat system (abilities, stats, movement, turn-system) was playtested a lot in Factions, in 6-vs-6 battles using a number of balancing restrictions on unit types etc. Needless to say that it works very well, in Factions. Now, I believe that Stoic relied too much on that playtest, whereas a single-player game (especially the AI part) differs greatly from a PvP game (i.e. how a human would play): give me control of a Dredge team and I won't let you win a single match, on Hard Finally, the Saga tends to pit you against enemy team with a much larger number of units, and considerably underpowered (ability- and AI-wise), which somewhat enhances the problems of this turn-order system (abusing the "Maim Dont Kill", to gain turn advantage).

[Peter B]

I can only agree with OP. This system is very poorly implemented.

[Vehementi]

Originally posted by Aleonymous:

In my experience, the combat system (abilities, stats, movement, turn-system) was playtested a lot in Factions, in 6-vs-6 battles using a number of balancing restrictions on unit types etc. Needless to say that it works very well, in Factions. Now, I believe that Stoic relied too much on that playtest, whereas a single-player game (especially the AI part) differs greatly from a PvP game (i.e. how a human would play): give me control of a Dredge team and I won't let you win a single match, on Hard :Dredge: Finally, the Saga tends to pit you against enemy team with a much larger number of units, and considerably underpowered (ability- and AI-wise), which somewhat enhances the problems of this turn-order system (abusing the "Maim Dont Kill", to gain turn advantage).

That doesn't really answer the question though. The way the current turn system is, they must have very deliberately chosen to break the mold. So what was the motivation/inspiration? Five seconds after considering this system you realize that it's somehow better to not kill your enemies and that teams with fewer units have a sort of advantage. What were the initial thoughts that got past those "obvious downsides"?

[Aleonymous]

I don't know what the initial thoughts were (you can wish for a meaningful dev-post here, but I honestly doubt you'll get one), but this turn system, in its balanced version in mutli-player game, worked with the following provisions:

(1) There's a lot of abilites that can harm enemies even if the unit is "maimed"; these are called armor-bypass abilities and examples include Bloody Flail, Slag-and-Burn, Rain-of-Arrows, Sundering-Impact etc. So, if these units have willpower, you are often forced to kill them, instead of leaving them maimed.

(2) Break+Puncture. Maimed archers can deal massive damage to armor-broken enemies. Especially bowmasters, from a safe distance. So, if you got an archer and an armor-breaker alive you can turn matches, even if those two are maimed.

(3) The "team power" and the skill of the two matched players was approximately the same, so battles were really tight with a max of 1-2 (out of 6) units left alive at the end of the match.

[Ishraqiyun]

I'm used to FIre Emblem, X-Com, FF Tactics, Disgaea, and while I disagree with the language of the OP, I agree with it in principle. I don't think that it was 'screwed up', it was a choice of design. I just happen to prefer it when the game gives you some choice beyond where to move in each turn.

The real problem here is that each battle ends up in a clump, determined only by who has the most armour left...

[Face]

my biggest gripe is how the more people you kill, the more turns the survivors get. it's just stupid IMO. it honestly dosent even make sense. you are punished for doing well.

[Ishraqiyun]

Originally posted by Mcface:

my biggest gripe is how the more people you kill, the more turns the survivors get. it's just stupid IMO. it honestly dosent even make sense. you are punished for doing well.

Don't the turns just aternate? I have a go then the CPU has a go?

[Face]

yes, but in a 4v2 situation, the 2 still get to go every turn. Meaning they get extra turns as opposed to the 4 man team.