Well that's too bad, but it's hard to argue with that reasoning. Thanks Derek.

What about a strategic map level defense where stone walls around a city prevent attacks until the attackers camp outside the city and use a "siege" ability for two turns?

Derek, your comment about Tactical Battles needing to be fast has me quite worried. I really believe that this focus led to the poor tactical battle application we currently have in War of Magic.

Also, the problems you list don't really sound all that big as far as getting the AI to act effectively (or even half effectively). As has been highlighted in a previous post, the logic shouldn't be too difficult. Even the old Age of Wonders battle scenario shown on the previous page follows simple logic.

I still think the main game-play focus where Elemental is concerned, where the gamers will get the most enjoyment, is the Tactical Battles. Nerfing this is dangerous. Some games like Europa Universalis don't need engaging tactical combat - but that is because the game-play is focussed in other areas.

I think we need something to judge the speed by. What does "fast" mean? 1 minute? 2 minutes? Or is 20 minutes fast? It would be compared to some games where tactical and strategic are separated.

E:wom combat usually lasts around 30 seconds for me, and I really hope there will be more depth to FE tactical combat than that.

Excellent point.  The heirarchy for me is:

1. Not repeating turns.  If I'm clicking the same actions over and over again something is wrong.  That may be fine in an rpg, but isn't fun with army combat.  Each action should have tension.  Crits help with that, deciding if I want my unit to run away (when they are almost dead) or try to take one more swing that might take out that enemy.  Hit points are a smaller ratio to damage than in rts games or role play games (unarmored foes might fall in 2 attacks form a unit of similar power, possible to die to a good crit, possible to live to 3 attacks if they get lucky).  Powerful creatures may take many more.

In general playtesting so far spell damage has been creeping up, as have mana costs.  With the thought being that you shouldnt be spamming spells, but when you do whip out a fireball you want it to mean something.

2. Not breaking focus (to much) from the main game.  If this is a cleanup combat (like killing a bear or taking out a few bandits) it should play out quickly.  I dont autoresolve combat intentionally as i want to make sure combat throughout a game is enjoyable.  But i dont want to spend time walking my units around the map either.  I dont mind more time for significant battles, but if I have two armored guys and an archer against some bandits it should be less than 60 seconds to send my armored guys out to throwdown, my archer to throw in some damage and my sovereign to watch it happen.

  Abeix, for example has 170 hit points and the data modeler shows him as being extreme in hit points, even for his level.  In the following monsters with stats higher than the normalized red are green, monsters with stats below the normalized range are red.  So its an easy way to see that Abeix has a high Attack, Defense and Hit Points, but low Dodge.  You can see the stats it measures form at the top.  It expects a base of 10 hits points plus 4-8 per level of the monster.  That's about where I aim for hit points.  If attack if 6 and 3-5 per level you can see that attack is about half of hit points.  Average damage is about half attack (in general) so it takes about 4 attacks for a monster to kill someone with his same stats.  Players tend to have a little higher attack from cool equipment or large groups so they are closer to the 2 hit ratio (for even forces) that i discussed.

http://screencast.com/t/Q9mUJnC6

  As always at this stage of the process, dont be to concerned abotu the numbers, those will be moved around significantly when real playtesting begins.

I'm assuming the combat system in FE is a good bit different from WoM. Before the latest beta series, I've had some very long peasant v peasant duels.

Some pretty interesting sounding monsters in that link, I must say.

Yay! Although we really don't know much about the combat system, I like the sound of that. Annoys me to no end in E:wom when every spell in the game is weaker than auto-attacks.

Thanks for the mouth watering scrap that is that monster list... when does the beta start?

Labor Day Weekend, September 2011.

Is there no one at Stardock who likes Tactical combat?

Elemental: City management. How exciting...

I can see why you want to allocate resources elsewhere to make it right when you do it -- too bad you do not have the resources for it, however!

Don't mean to be nitpicky, but of the 2 things you list as defining what tactical combat is in FE, one of them has really nothing to do with tactical combat whatsoever. Bringing the right army to a battle is a *strategic* evaluation. I do not think it is a question of niggling over terminology, I think it is important for what you will be spending your precious design and programming resources on: Tactical combat is all about what you do once you get on the battlefield, and there is a lot that still needs to be done there, including (IMHO) some of the things you mentioned for what would be required for siege battles: avoiding enemy (and friendly) fire and plotting the best pathing, considerations of safety and movement -- you will need all of these considerations for the AI in tactical battles in Elemental with or without siege warfare!

I still think one of the best things which help vs. "click on attack again -- repeat" is giving different units different special abilities that can be activated for a cost, usually with some kind of pro-vs-con attached to it (e.g. short-term +attack for a longer-term defense penalty, or +damage for an attack and defense penalty, etc.).

I had been posting about this here (https://forums.elementalgame.com/400669) and for more than a year in other places (https://forums.elementalgame.com/369399 and here https://forums.elementalgame.com/378701 )

cheers!

And the ability for multipule races armies to be involed in Tactical battle like in AOW:SM to include independants.  Basically if you attack a unit or a unit attackes you and there are units adjacent to you then all will appear in the TC which is how it should be.

So basically there are no walls that that the defender hides behind like in AOW:SM. Very disappointing so these city buildings will just provide more units when attacking towns but other wise it will be the same as in WOM no real difference between a normal battle and attacking a town.  Unless I'm missing something.

It's a step up, hopefully the next expansion then! As well as water things!

Agreed Tactical battles for me are the most important part of the game. Please lets not brush them to the side in the name of speed.

I hope the tactical battles will be an important of the game, because they are the reason why customizing units with equipment and traits is fun. I think city walls should delay an attack by 2 turns (standard walls) or 3 turns (reinforced walls) and siege weapons or spells should reduce the time by 1 turn.

Personally I think we should have to destroy sections of walls with catipults/wall crusing abilities etc.  Gates we should be able to attack them to destroy them (so not special wall destroying abilities need for gates. Each section of walls and gates should have HP.  Yes basically like in AOW:SM.  Defenders should get a Def bonuse when behind the wall and a attack bonuse when shooting missle weapons from the battlements to the attacker.  Flyers/tunnelers/Teleport and Phasing abilities should let you pass through the wall/gates unhndered.

Yep that would be much better, but i think the other suggestion is easier to implement.

Exactly what is the main game then?

There is nothing wrong with fast combat, it makes a lot of sense. However excuse me while I be more than a little critical.

Bringing right unit to battle = 100% strategic, and actually has nothing to do with tactical combat at all. May as well autocalc it.

Which means that combat is all about "Using abilities at the right time"... Like what, hitting closely grouped units with AOE spells and using your special moves at the start of combat? I hope you develop a good AI because this sounds like something the AI would be really really bad at. Honestly it seems to me that the tactical map will still be utterly superficial and units will still rush at each other, except now instead of just hitting eachother they will use abilities as well. It's a improvement anyway but as you don't actually choose abilities tactically, it still seems like tactical combat is still pretty redundant unless you are abusing a bad AI. The only advantage to tactical combat is you get choose how much mana to blow....

You really need to make tactical maps more then useless scenery. Just having blocks you can't walk over would help. Each map should be different and force the player to adapt.

I be a supporter of siege battles for sure, hurts to no end to hear they won't be up to aow:sm standards.  I certainly would've gone with the borrow this and that from other games that had nailed that particular mechanic, then build upon those 'already polished' versions. 

Sometimes, i don´t understand you guys. I mean, its not possible to judge one part of the game without playing it alltogether. (exploring, citybuilding, recruitment, research etc.) You could always take the description of one part of the game and then complain about it. No problem. What matters is, how all parts work together. Its not possible to say anything about that, because we can not test it. We have to wait and see and hope that Derek and rest know what they do.