Huzzah. I wrote a bit about the ambiguity of the triangle and why the fast > range > slow can emerge in a simple rule set, without adding resistance or special abilities.
The linked TVTropes page is a great example of the ambiguity in unit type matchups. There are just as many cases of speed beating ranged as speed beating slow.
I think the tiny example I wrote up is the most intuitive. If range is an advantage then a speedy counter mitigates that advantage while a slower counter exacerbates it. Not saying your solution isnât also reasonable. I think as long as thereâs a footmen ability before level 3 that heavily hints at an advantage over either footmen or knights then weâll be in good shape.
I know we two have diskussed this in ten different threads here, but i still donât understand where you take the notion that micromanagement shouldnât be a thing. I think itâs more of a personal preference you projected into the game than an actual premise this game makes.
I didnât say youâre doing combat wrong, I more question the decision not to use an option that would make the current combat easier. Sure itâs tedious right now, but it gets the job done in combatâs current state. I wish I could have a combat unit selected and a right-click on an enemy would mean attack⌠some dayâŚ
On the Kickstarter page, thereâs a note in the FAQ about some micro needed for combat. I do agree that combat needs improving but I know thatâs what theyâre focusing on right now with the additional tuning and military strength tweaks. Did someone from Radiant truly say ânever microâ for combat? Honestly curious here for the discussion as I havenât been on the forums long.
From the combat tuning desktop Tuesday, thereâs this note: âMonsters in general got more HP and less damage per attack, so combats would last longer, giving you more time to make tactical decisions.â Tactical decisions would suggest some micro in combat would it not?
I would say during a balanced combat scenario, there is no need to mico manage combat and I see that on my smaller skirmishes. However, when you tip the scale and move up into the next difficulty of mobs, they will be stronger than you for a few fights so thatâs where some micro should be necessary. Iâm not saying micro is always necessary, but should be expected when youâre on the wrong side of the strength scale. This wouldnât be micro management just for the sake of having that mechanic, just more the necessity rather than the expectation; this is what I think of with regards to âsomeâ micro in Stonehearth.
If they implement an easy mode, sure lets put no micro in that difficulty. But a small amount of micro in normal would be nice.
Maybe it would be beneficial if we established what âmicroâ means to everyone. For me, micro management in a game would be similar to StarCraft where thereâs no automation or intelligence beyond repeating the last action I told them. Be it, mine this crystal or attack this unit until dead.
For me, in Stonehearth, I like being able to tell my units individually to move here, attack this area or person and then let the AI kick in for granularity. Thatâs the level of micro I want but not for every fight; let my farmers take care of all their fields without being told âok guys, pumpkinâs ready, go pick it.â also let my small group of fighters take on a small group of baddies. I also wouldnât want to see unique skills added as buttons, leave those to the AI.
I think this is a very good discussion about combat mechanics. We all have our preferences but itâs important not to forget weâre all just trying to express what we like and for myself I simply want to understand a persons point of view as I donât believe my opinion is 100% correct.
Do Be more civil about it, thereâs already micro in the game in the form of building, a truely AI driven building system will require you to only make an area or use a template and the game will do the rest for you, ar this point, if you want storage crates, you canât just drag an area and say âplace crates here in an orderly fashionâ, you have to do it yourself and that is micro and it is fun to have.
Combat is the same.
Though, i doubt the current system of clicking and ordering and targeting will stay, there will always be micro, otherwise, the combat will only relie on sheer luck and the cards, and the only tactical part of it will only be composition and not necessarily formation and roles, ad not all people will enjoy ânotâ participating in combat tactically themselvs(including myself)
The Devs are who they are, and they want to make the game good, you have to believe in their decisions and respect the players that follow and the ones that disagree
My exact words, for the last couple of weeks. I want to be able to react and win fights which donât look favourable. Which is impossible without mikro.
And as we have said, if you are outnumbered or underpowered in a combat scinario, and you can win whithout much effort, that just means that the game supporte you not having a well-powered army
Most players that go through hard-mode (or at-least me) with at-least 9~10 combat units and more, and truth is, as long as a knight takes the first brunt, you usually just win without doing anything besides watch them fight
And if you donât have a powerful army, you have to use the brain as much as the bron
Historically thereâs a lot of stories of legendary commanders winning fights that were utterly against their favour throught tactics, and thatâs what youâll have to do if the fight isnât in your favour
Say you have 10 footmen and youâre up against 20 archers, youâre in a huge disadvantage in number and range, but what if you were fughting in a forest?,
You could use the terrain and your movement speed to your advantage to close the gap petween you and the archers and potentially win the fight,but if the enemy descided to spread out and surround you, then youâr in a even worst place, but tactical movements will help you close thegap regarless, though it isnât really a reliable at this state of the game, you can see what i mean
If youâre strong enough, you just win because you are so strong,
But if youâre not, then youâll have to give it all youâve got, and that includes your brain power
Mate, if you havenât, play total war: attila. Thatâs exactly where you have mechanics like forest cover in place and you can win a 4:1 battle with good strategy.
See⌠That isnât the pont, thereâs always a game that does it differently and thereâs always advantages and disadvantages.
And the example isnât the point of the post,
Itâs that if youâve underpowered, tactics are the way to win, and obviously if the enemy uses their heads, youâll be in a even worse place
And itâs not about examples.
A game should ânotâ put a system that alows the disadvantaged one win just because itâs the player, and not because they did a smart move
This conversation isnât about winning the other community member through examples, and nitpicking, itâs about making sense of the issue and mentioning it
Ahm⌠i am totally on your side here. I was just recommending a game to you of which i thought you might enjoy it. Didnât want to suggest you play it instead of stonehearth, sorry if it came across like that! I want stoneheart to be more tactical, not less.
Oh, wait, i think we both have a little bit of a misunderstanding, i thought you were talking about the scinario of the opposit benifits of mine, i was thinking something like a tile-based game where you canât enert a tile that is occupied, and so on
See, when I think balanced combat scenario Iâm thinking balance in terms of both sides being equal in strength, which would be the type of encounter youâd want to put your focus into since you need any edge you can get.
But youâre talking about balanced as in âon par for this stage of the gameâ no?
There is though, units will automatically attack whatever is closest to them, and retreat on a leash if theyâre being attacked by units who canât attack back.
Iâm going to try to just avoid the phrase, that might get us to a more meaningful conversation. It will keep me from removing my thought process from whats concrete and happening in the game and through the controls.
We say âsomeone place a box here when they get the chanceâ, not âYou place that box there nowâ. And thatâs the dissonance I feel between combat and economy. The rest of the game is about setting goals and watching your citizens achieve them (even if the goal is âplace a box hereâ). The only thing you specifically tell a particular unit to do is change their job.
This is the heart of it isnât it? If this isnât true then combat is just who has the bigger number.
I think the easiest way to keep it from being âwho has the biggest numberâ is by using the tactical rock paper scissors. That said, it still wonât be meaningful unless you can âreactâ to the enemy composition by making your own decisions.
Yeah, with the way classes work, you cannot change them in an instance to meat your rock paper scissors needs though⌠therefore i donât see how you could influence combat that way without micromanagement.
I wonât make much comment on the first few sicne i kinda agree and itâs very subjective and depends heavily on the personâs personal definition of the subject
The box thing, what i meant was that the game is less automated than it couldâve been, you could imagine a game where you set a area (like 20x20 or something) and the AI places boxes according to the space and recources available
The last point i thimk weâre o the same position where we mean that if we want to win a fight that is disadvantaged on us, we need tactics, which often is what some would call âmicroâ
Yeah, balance for the stage of the game. My team is built just the way the should be to easily handle a specific group. But itâs a fine line of balance at stage game and the balance youâre thinking. Both done well would be nice eh?
That sentence wasnât worded the best, thatâs more what I see as full-on micro management. Not in the StarCraft unit sense, their combat units donât retreat unless I tell them. Retreating is the AI in Stonehearth that adds some automation; itâs that fleeing action that might be enough delay for my Clericâs aoe heal to save them.
+1 to this. Good combat without relying on numbers or luck of the dice; not every battle but just a few as we increase the difficulty. I think we can agree we want some tactical decisions to have purpose yeah?
Also, how do you guys quote easily? I had to quote this whole post and then edit the blocks adding the begin quote and end quote syntax. Whereâs the easy button?
Well, job switching is all ready a high priority task - above town defense I think,because I know Iâve upgraded to footman while defending before. The biggest problem I see would be equipment swapping, as how long to take finding the best equipment versus the urgency of getting to the front line would vary according to the situation, whereas job switching will always be the top priority because the player has to specifically say when to do it.
Which is often what some. Yeah, it might be better if we just explain what we mean without using those terms since it pretty obviously is the terminology is a source of more miscommunication than contribution.[quote=âVelerin, post:36, topic:22178â]
thatâs more what I see as full-on micro management
[/quote]
âŚas opposed to âmicroâ? See what I mean about the terminology?
No, i think you are nitpicking more than necessary. The player having to give orders is micromanagement. Weather you change jobs or tell your guys what to do, both are taking influence on combat and require player action. Only that controlling units has greater effect, is more responsive and much better in my opinion, which is why i want this mechanic to be improved, rather than removed.
Ordering the combatants to prioratize in a sertain type of enemy before the actual battle begins
So of exaple youâd order
Knight : tank = fighter > ranged
Footmen : ranged = tank > fighter
Archer : tank > archer > fighter
As a fighting priority and theyâd follow thoes rules when the actual fight begins
