Ever played Final Fantasy XII? I loved it as a kid, too bad many players considered it a black sheep due to its deviations from the traditional gameplay. One such deviation was gambit, showcased here:
Basically it’s a player-customizable AI. How does this fit into Stonehearth?
As an example, le’ts take a look at how soldiers currently behave, that is: 1. execute personal orders. 2. execute party orders. 3. attack nearby aggro enemies. 4. attack nearby enemies (also heal injured people if you’re cleric). 5. satisfy needs. 6. patrol town.
Now imagine you could customize that, you could tell your footman to retreat from battle when at 30% health, you could tell your cleric that he should focus on healing knights before civilians and archers; you could have your footmen split up to chase archers while knights and clerics take the aggro of wolves and ogres, or you could tell your party to hold a rigid formation to shield the squishier members or block the access to an area.
But wouldn’t it be overwhelming, or overpowered? Probably, and that’s why FF makes you start off with a restricted amount and variety of options, unlocking more and more as the game progresses. So, translating that to this game, recruits would only be able to remember the basic schedule and require your direct intervention (also known as “micromanaging”) for better tactics, whereas veteran fighters would be able carry out the most complex battle plans.
While I’m certain this system could work for hearthstone. I’ve always had a passionate hatred for the gambit system. It’s not just in final fantasy games, FF games are known for having many unique battle systems so I don’t dislike it because it’s a “black sheep” or anything similar. Other games that use similar things: Ni no kuni and nearly ALL the tales games.
I dislike it because robs me of absolute control, yet it teases me with the illusion of making a difference.
Actually, now that I think about it. I don’t think it’d really work with hearthstone. Lets give this system the benefit of the doubt and try to apply it to some warriors.
Knight:
Attack strongest enemy
Attack nearest enemy
Footman:
Attack enemy that the nearby knight is attacking
Attack strongest enemy
Attack nearest enemy.
Cleric
Heal lowest % health target
Archer
repeat from footman.
I don’t see how any of this really adds anything game changing to the game. Changing the “gambits” wouldn’t really make much of a big difference in general either cause all units a VERY straight forward. there is no potions they can use, there is no magic that footmen can use. And there already is a button to have all units attack the same target. or even individually! so that’d make the non-cleric gambits completely worthless. As for retreating from combat, they do that at 25% already. if they are below that, it usually means they were unable to run away and will most likely die anyway. (You can’t run away from wolves as they chase you and kill you regardless cause they are faster)
Please do note, I have a huge bias against this suggestion. So by all means it can still be a good addition. I personally don’t see it or don’t want to see it due to bias.
I think you forgot to add: attack waekest enemy… also this game’s called stonehearth, not hearthstone, even if it is confusong indeed.
Now, i agree, even with a system like this you won’t really be able to control what’s going on, at least not if you don’t want to make it increadibly complex. I adapt different strategies for different enemies and this system doesn’t really account for that. And for example with kobold archers, i normally send an archer with spiky arrows and a footman after each of the kobolds. How should i ever tell my game to do that with such a strategy system?
When playing Stonehearth and overseing a fight everyone is bound to follow his patterns; like ganging up on the strongest enemy, as you said. Personally I prefer to gang up on the weakest one instead.
Well gambit is just that, your tactical logic written into an AI. Depending on the amount of combat micromanaging you are prone to do, you might find it more or less useful.
As for retreating from combat, they do that at 25% already
That is not a retreat, that’s running away in panic (and in a very bad way).
And for example with kobold archers, i normally send an archer with spiky arrows and a footman after each of the kobolds. How should i ever tell my game to do that with such a strategy system?
In gambit system you can specify your targets; maybe you could group your archer and footman and give them the priority to attack kobold archers not targeted by any other group?
Or maybe, if you have multiple footmen but only one archer, you could set the archer to attack kobolds which don’t have the slow down buff with the spiky arrows and program your footmen to attack archers not targeted by other footmen.
You see? Already you were suggesting complex logic systems like grouping guys together, checking if monsters are attacked by other guys etc. etc.
This system will not make the game easier. And as I said, this is a tactic I would only use against Kobolds. And what when these two soldiers are supposed to help against a single Ogre, will they not attack at all, as their orders tell them not to attack an enemy who is targetted by another group? So i can only habe two guys fight even strong enemies? No thank you.
Remember such kind of mechanic in dragon age: origins too. With a little extra the more skillpoints invested in tactical ability and the fitting attributes, the more possible reactions could be selected for one chracter.
So high minded characters were able to react more automatic while “dumb” ones needed more micromanagement.
This could also interesting for our hearthlings so mind would have also an important role for soldiers.
“Complex logic systems like grouping guys together”… well that is already in the game, it’s called “parties”… Just add the possibility to make commands for all parties at once, and we’re golden.
this is a tactic I would only use against Kobolds. And what when these two soldiers are supposed to help against a single Ogre, will they not attack at all, as their orders tell them not to attack an enemy who is targetted by another group?
They just have the priority to attack kobolds who are not pursued by other groups, but if there aren’t any they will just refer to their second priority which, unless otherwise specified, will be to attack an near enemy or the one you indicated by the “Attack” command.
Honestly I think this system could drastically Stonehearth, but I agree with Reedo that it may not add much to the current combat system. If a lot more options for combat are created, then it very well could do some amazing things there as well, but combat really doesn’t have that many options - often micromanagement would still be needed anyway. That said, I do see it as being able to improve current combat - just not revolutionize it.
What I really see this ‘automated micromanaging’ as improving would be tasks which the Hearthlings are required to do. For example, I could set a Hearthling Worker to prioritize Building over Mining over Hauling - so if there were any sort of building needed, he would not do the other two. Currently you can only disable Mining and Hauling so if you run out of tasks, the Hearthling just stands around idly. You could also tell a soldier - ‘guard this spot’ with a higher priority that says ‘when you are hungry, go eat’. You could potentially have something in the AI that says ‘do this specific work unless enemies are near, else ignore this task’ - so you could have farms outside your castle gates, and whenever an enemy raid attacks, your people would automatically go inside and keep working on other tasks.
Depending on how complex this system is, you could even give them specific tasks like ‘eat food at 6am’ or ‘go to this specific point at this time’, and create little vignettes throughout the day of hearthlings doing pre-programmed tasks (more an artistic fluff thing, but would be adorable).
…On the other hand, most of this could be done on the back end instead, and would probably be much easier to code and you wouldn’t have to worry about UI or letting the player create these priorities.
Would definitely need more than 4 groups than though… right now, i’m only using obe, as individual orders fulfill my needs anyways, mostly. To me, any system like the one you suggested takes away a lot of player choice and ability to react and responde to specific situations. It would require the player to exactly plan out any possible combat scenario. Could I choose the arrows for my archers for each situation? What happens if i say I want a wolf attacked with fire arrows but one of my archer doesn’t have them yet. Will he attack at all? There is tons of possibilities to change the outcome of combat, if the player can manage his troops, where combat orders determine the outcome before combat has even started.
On a different note, would you be able to change commands during combat?
To me, any system like the one you suggested takes away a lot of player choice and ability to react and responde to specific situations.
No, the point would be to automate what you can automate but still leave the player the ability to take over and change the plan.
What happens if i say I want a wolf attacked with fire arrows but one of my archer doesn’t have them yet. Will he attack at all?
Yes, attacking with wolves with fire arrows is the priority, but since that cannot be fullfilled he would just skip to the following the successive priorities.
Ok, now i understand. What you are suggesting is no where related to the screenshot you posted originally, but all you really want is the perfect AI and the perfect combat system, that allows everything but isn’t too complex.
