Love the look, but combat mechanics are lame

[Skor]

Its a broken system. Especially with the whole take turns until only one unit remains. Somehow a unit magically gets more attacks per turn after his team mates get killed. pfffft. It artificially makes you focus on the heavy hitters first in every battle.

[las]

tirionoyara původně napsal:

Its a broken system. Especially with the whole take turns until only one unit remains. Somehow a unit magically gets more attacks per turn after his team mates get killed. pfffft. It artificially makes you focus on the heavy hitters first in every battle.

I understand how people are used to standard TBS game, in its unit of the same team can make thier turn altogether,while it certainly fit how number=strength sense,but it do fail to depicting how cooperation can be carried out in real time, and it is unrealist too, yet some won't call it broken because they are used to it.

Now back to Banner Saga, while I agree too it's weird at first sight,but that is still explainable, and not really against logic. why? My explanation is because the game focus on mentality, as to why unit slow down or fasten by the number count, it's probably because they are not that nervous and keen to fight when they outnumbered the foes,and losing ally will make them realize the threat or go in berserk, while weakend/dying ally might turn their attention away and provide a distraction.

Althogh the above explanation might not apply to all circumstance,it do provide a base for understanding, and from that point,things certainly arent absurd,actually it fit in well in situation told in story and epic,how hero ,down to number ,fight their way out of many,and how distracted baddass boss is killed in mid-fight.

[Voodoo]

las původně napsal:

Now back to Banner Saga, while I agree too it's weird at first sight,but that is still explainable, and not really against logic. why? My explanation is because the game focus on metal, as to why unit slow down or fasten by the number count, it's probably because they are not that nervous and keen to fight when they outnumbered the foes,and losing ally will make them realize the threat or go in berserk, while weakend/dying ally might turn their attention away and provide a distraction.

Please try to understand that most of those who hate this specific mechanic are not looking for explanations as to why this has been implemented.
I do not care for realism, I simply hate having to play like that instead of being able to focus on forging strategies in cleverly designed battle arenas, for example.

The Idea of less Health equalling less Damage is a fresh concept, I can get my head wrapped around that. But the rest, not so much.

[Hermit]

It's not that lower HP = lower damage is a new conscept, ever play advance wars?, it's that combined with armour as a secondary pool to create an interesting mechanic.

I agree that the combat isn't as fleshed out as it could have been, nor is any other aspect of the game tbh, other than the presentation of course.

Still, I am really liking this game so far; the presentation and tone of the story/game create a fantastic atmosphere.

I don't think people should compare this game to Fire Emblem and FFT, and others, so much though. It's a different type of game completely, though in the same genre.

Turn based strategy is probably my favourite genre btw. Anyone who hasn't played the Tactics Ogre remake for PSP should definitely check it out, It's very polished, yet still faithfully old school.

[Skor]

Orbins původně napsal:

tirionoyara původně napsal:

Understanding a poorly implemented combat mechanism does not mean its a good system. People will learn how to artificially squeeze the most they can out of any system, regardless of its poor design. Point is, its unrealistic and pigeon holes your tactics.

You do realise that your damage is equal to the strength of your character minus the armor of the oppenent right? Because otherwise you're stupid

No, what's stupid is not reading the thread or understanding what argument is being made here and assuming its about something its not. Come back and join us once you know what we are talking about.

[las]

Voodoo původně napsal:

las původně napsal:

Now back to Banner Saga, while I agree too it's weird at first sight,but that is still explainable, and not really against logic. why? My explanation is because the game focus on metal, as to why unit slow down or fasten by the number count, it's probably because they are not that nervous and keen to fight when they outnumbered the foes,and losing ally will make them realize the threat or go in berserk, while weakend/dying ally might turn their attention away and provide a distraction.

Please try to understand that most of those who hate this specific mechanic are not looking for explanations as to why this has been implemented.
I do not care for realism, I simply hate having to play like that instead of being able to focus on forging strategies in cleverly designed battle arenas, for example.

The Idea of less Health equalling less Damage is a fresh concept, I can get my head wrapped around that. But the rest, not so much.

But overlooking my explanation kinda explain why you hate this mechanic,otherwise why would you hate them for no reason? Didn't you hate them because you are not used to it and not ready to face it? Didn't you hate them because you are not famaliar with the above mentioned mindset?

Let talk a little more about the tactical impact of this mechanic in game,
1.Intentionally losing ally to boost efficency of the rest?
It's worked,but come with consequnces,because there are injury apply to those who fall in battle,while most of the time it's only take a couple of day to heal of,but thing may get tight in some situation.
2.weaken enemy instead of killing them?
actually,for my play-though experience,dealing with AI is less about weaken them then to set them together for chain effect,or picking a perfect moment to raid into their rank for less resistance,also chosing when to switch from weaken to kill them is pretty tricky too,you might have just overdone the weaken part. not to mention there are things in game preventing you from doing it,like weakend guy can still hit armor,or big guy may summon reinfocement,

All in all I'm not really trying to defend the game,because even if my explanation is true,they did not mention any of it in game,my hypothesis actually came from my mutliplayer experience in "faction",therefor I'm just trying to share it.

[Nice]

Major problem im seeing in this topic is people failing(or more likely refusing) to abstract. Unless you're only gaming the initiative, just some battles after a point suffer from this take on initiative alone. I find the lack of wounds(that hinder a character) in 90% of TBS games more 'bad abstraction' then this here.

Whats with abstraction? You need to overlook the way its abstracted and look at the biger picture. Despite the irrational hp on most games if you take an step back and look at the bigger picture it doesn't seem to bother much. Same here.

Facets that are being ingored/overlooked(looking at the biger picture):

1-You ignore the big, dangerous and deadly guy on the field and he takes the opportunity to wreck more havoc- it ain't unfeasible at all, makes total sense.
Forget the abstraction- the same could be made with half a dozen more rules; this system reach this without extra fat.

2- Sacrificing units for opportunities in battle- makes total sense. Vulgarly 'cannon fodder' is a real practice after all.
If its really hard to see past the abstraction, imagine an attack of opportunity like mechanic- you sacrifice a unity, and as the enemy wastes a turn/attention on it another unit jump at the opportunity with extra attack.
It only gets far fetched if you made too much dumb decisions(see the end of the topic).

3- Leaving enemy units alive makes total sense, grounded on realism even. You would focus on the guy that can harm you, not the barely walking almost dead fighters who haven't fleed yet(on an actual fight).

4- This gaming of the initiative system only works so well when theres a bunch of grunts for few heavy units. In many fights(and more of those as the game progresses) im having more success not sticking strictly to this tactic, better then doing it(ive had to reload some batles, having to quit mid battles and all).


People are forgetting of the importance/value of each turn(unit acting). Different scenarios(including not only the units at play but the actual positioning in a turn) demands different aproachs(talking about best choice). Sometimes heavys must be dealt firstly, other times are better left for later on. Units wiht 3 to 1 str are as good as dead unless you're pressed to far; Its like fallen soldiers still taking unprecise shots in shooters(and real firefights) or that zombie you've taken down but is still crawling. 'If i kill them all im wrecked'- bs. You 'killed' them, you won those grunts, get over it.

Is it hard to get over the idea that wasting a turn in lesser thread is bad, in reality and in any game out there? Its the way its presented, layed out in our faces that people are bugged at, while this is part of the dynamic in lots of other games(TBS and non TBS).



Only scenario this system gets those oportunities and dynamic too far is if you kill lots of grunts(wasting turns at non-threats) while mostly ignoring the heavy units- a dumb tactic in ANY TBS. Only then you're left with heavys with lots of extra turns for too long- only then it becomes very unrealistic... but game wise its well deserved, i wouldn't do that in any TBS. Bad choice, live with it.

[GUY]

tirionoyara původně napsal:

Point is, its unrealistic and pigeon holes your tactics.

Um...Giants with horns...

[Pothocket]

‎George Lincoln původně napsal:

tirionoyara původně napsal:

Point is, its unrealistic and pigeon holes your tactics.

Um...Giants with horns...

Why do people keep bringing this up as if it's a valid point?

Yes, it's fantasy. Are only non-fiction tactics games allowed to play out in a way that makes sense?

[That Guy]

Huggles ` původně napsal:

A mechanic that META-GAME's you into leaving weak enemies alive so it is EASIER to win = fail.
It's a 'strategic decision' whether to land the killing blow on a dying, ineffectual enemy or not? because if you do, it makes the battle harder for you?

the turns well it was built for multiplayer . if you are 1 unit lower you would be at a disadvantage without adjusting the turns of your side . some one mentioned chess and the loss of a piece doesnt mean you lose a turn

if they gimp a unit and leave it with 1 hp/str they still have to deal with armor break and/or abilities . i won in factions against people who left any of my units alive. people just QQ because of bellower mostlikely . he will steal turns if you dont kill his sides guys lol but its not impossible to beat him

there is much but hurt on the forums... but not about how short the game is ?!?!?! huggles you dont own the game and expecting any sequel to be different or for them to bother with a sequel is unrealistic

[Voodoo]

Gwion původně napsal:

But what about classic games like Panzer General & Fantasy General, where units attack back each time you attack them? So the more you attack a unit, the more it gain attacks in a single turn. Do this break your immersion?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most TBS games I know let your unit attack back ONCE, or as often/as much as you have "movement/attack points" or something like that, and not every time you attack them.
In a Melee Situation, you hit someone, they hit back if "time" permits. That is quite believable, isn't it? But again, we're not talking about realism here.

Besides, this does not advance the discussion that is going on in this thread in any way. Invalid Comparison.

[Voodoo]

las původně napsal:

But overlooking my explanation kinda explain why you hate this mechanic,otherwise why would you hate them for no reason? Didn't you hate them because you are not used to it and not ready to face it? Didn't you hate them because you are not famaliar with the above mentioned mindset?

I'll simply describe what it was like for me playing this game for the very first time.

I got into the first fight, some grunt of mine got killed. Since the Game does not explain anything, I was wondering if this was an important Characer? Someone from the Story? Do I have to restart? I didn't know then.

Does the Game do a piss-poor job in explaining its core combat mechanics? Yes. Does this prevent me from enjoying the Game? Not to a signifcant extent, but...

...maybe I hate it because having to use the combat mechanics they way they apparently need to be used is simply counterintuitive for me. With so many great TBS games out there for a dime a dozen, it's hard for me to devote time to the Banner Saga.

[drake_hound]

I found the tactical combat quite boring simple , sadly it is simply watch who computer is ganking , and move him out of the way , while you gank whatever you can and then finish them in sequence .

If AI switch to a different target , see what you can finish , before you lose one or 2 pieces .
What is tactical about this system ?

It shows limited and simple AI and childishe system , is this what people praises ?
I mean instead of emulating master strokes with combination .
It is acting like a NOOB zerging a player piece .

So move that piece out of the way ASAP and use it as lure .
While gaining free hits on other pieces .