|
| Thread: Regarding Flanking |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted December 28, 2014 03:51 PM |
|
|
Poll Question:
Regarding Flanking
What we know of flanking so far is that a stack attacking another from the sides or from behind will result in increased damage. From one point of view, this can be considered an improvement as players will be more careful moving their units around if they want to avoid getting flanked. It might also serve as a downside to attacking first, which has always been an advantageous thing to do.
On the other side I don't like this implementation for a number of reasons. First, it breaks all immersion when one stack watches passively when its enemy marches all the way around it to attack it from behind. It makes no sense, you can see the enemy move and you should be able to turn and face him. Second, it does not make for rewarding gameplay. There is little skill involved in flanking a stack whereas it could be so much more. Third, the bonus should be pretty minor considering how easy it is to get flank a stack but.. that would defeat the purpose.
I believe that this mechanic should involve two allied stacks to flank an enemy stack so as to make it harder to plan ahead but also make it more realistic.
1) One stack attacks the enemy to make him turn in one direction. The second stack attacks from the exposed sides for flanking bonus. That would assume that a stack cannot turn to face a second attacker when it has already retaliated against the first stack.
2) One stack attacks an enemy with a second allied stack already positioned at its sides or its back. When the first stack attacks, the second gets an attack of opportunity(at reduced damage of course).
Two simple solutions off the top of my head that probably have flaws of their own. I am sure there are plenty of other possibilities but the point is to illustrate that there are beter alternatives to the flanking that is currently planned.
The question is, are you satisfied with the current plans or would you prefer something a little more complex and rewarding in gameplay? Do you even like the idea of heroes featuring flanking?
On to the voting!
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
posted December 28, 2014 04:03 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 16:11, 28 Dec 2014.
|
My only additional expectation is fact that when unit is defencing itself, the flanking bonus should not exist. Otherwise I am okay with. Up to the point when we get exact values of those bonuses I have nothing more to add.
Concerning the fact of lack of realism in current system of flanking: we are talking about fantasy video game, where movement of units is limited to specific poles on a grid and where living gargoyles can attack ghosts physically? There is not much sense in it either, yet no one never complained about it.
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 04:48 PM |
|
|
I think it's completely useless and detrimental to the gameplay.
The fact that you can not turn on the spot without moving or attacking makes it impossible to defend against unless you order the stack to defend which results in the loss of the strategical use of the wait command.
Not to mention that it only makes sense with single units or unit formations and not some vague number of armies. 5 pikemen can be flanked but a stack of 5000 can easily spare a few to rearguard duty. Each stack can be of itself considered a small(or big) army.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 07:31 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 19:59, 28 Dec 2014.
|
Doing extra damage for flanking is IMO, not a great idea, the unit being flanked should instead have a weaker retaliation.
fuChris said:
Not to mention that it only makes sense with single units or unit formations and not some vague number of armies. 5 pikemen can be flanked but a stack of 5000 can easily spare a few to rearguard duty. Each stack can be of itself considered a small(or big) army.
Bad choice of creatures. Historically, pikemen were actually a bit prone to getting flanked, because they couldn't turn around quickly, thanks to the length of the pikes.
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 07:46 PM |
|
|
I agree with MattII. Personaly i would go for simultaneous retaliation, but when flanked, the flanked stack retaliates normaly. But reduced damage from retaliation is simplest to do and would work fine.
However I understood that you need 2 stacks as it is? I taught you can only flank already engaged oponent ... I was wrong aparently. And I feel defenitley it should be more to it.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 08:45 PM |
|
|
I share the fears that they might put numbers too high for flanking bonus and make for boring gameplay. I hope I'm wrong.
MattII idea sounds interesting.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 09:25 PM |
|
|
Flanking is already part of the game - it's called RETALIATION LIMIT 1.
Recap: the game works that way that a stack generally has 1 retaliation - which means, you can't "flank" a unit that has a retal left: it's on guard.
However, the second the unit is attacked it retaliates - which means, it's busy with the first attacking unit.
Which further means, that the next unit attacking it is already profiting from flanking - it doesn't get a retaliation.
The concept of "flanking" the way it is suggested introduces a new thing: unit FACING.
Which means, if I move a unit turning it after ending the move would be part of the move, either with MPs spend for turning or without, both ways making things needlessly complex.
To avoid dacing loops round each other, you'd have to add Zone of Control rules as well, opportunity attacks and whatnot.
Bottom line is - half-baked flanking rules will suck; useful flanking rules will have to be very complex, so it's the question whether that will be worth it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 09:52 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
Doing extra damage for flanking is IMO, not a great idea, the unit being flanked should instead have a weaker retaliation
This.
And even if it's not this, it shouldnt be something too complex, forcing people to calculate some overdesigned math problem before moving each unit. The reduction in retaliation power shouldnt be over the top either. Flanking would only be a nice flavour if it's just a sprinkle of seasoning, not a spoonful of heavy sauce.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
dark-whisperer
Famous Hero
Darkness feels no mercy
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 10:19 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
Doing extra damage for flanking is IMO, not a great idea, the unit being flanked should instead have a weaker retaliation
This and,
artu said:
And even if it's not this, it shouldnt be something too complex, forcing people to calculate some overdesigned math problem before moving each unit. The reduction in retaliation power shouldnt be over the top either. Flanking would only be a nice flavour if it's just a sprinkle of seasoning, not a spoonful of heavy sauce.
This.
Keep it simple.
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 10:27 PM |
|
Edited by TDL at 22:31, 28 Dec 2014.
|
Well, prior to even posting this thread, me an Elvin discussed this on Skype and I think I came up with a certain way flanking could be an enjoyable and tactical addition. That said, it would require the return of a single obnoxious mechanic (to most): simultaneous retaliation.
If a target stack is attacked from the front (its line of sight), it performs a simultaneous retaliation: both stacks suffer damage, unless there is:
a) an ability indicating otherwise (multi-directional attack, multiple eyes, some kind of incorporeality, etc.)
b) difference in unit speed/initiative/movement
It a target stack is attacked from the sides or the back, retaliation follows after the attack. No additional damage is dealt. Certain abilities allow no retaliation using flank attacks.
This way, multiheaded enemies as well as those with unlimited retaliation would have a bonus as they would simultaneously retaliate against either simultaneously.
This would also enable first-strike ability to make a comeback, to make the retaliation occur before the strike takes place. Moreover, there could be limits to how first-strike could be used: for example, first strike would enable a retaliation before the attack takes place before the target gets hit from the front, whereas it'd turn flank attacks into simultaneous retaliation.
Additionally, flanking mechanic would take into account creature adjacency. Creatures who are within adjacency radius (1 square from the creature) block potential flanking options simply by standing rear guard. So as to limit reduction in potential flanking options, adjacency should be limited to certain surrounding squares only. Therefore, small creatures with flying capabilities could flank a certain creature if there was a sufficient gap behind the target stack.
This latter feature should actually be considered irrespectively of the former's inclusion in/exclusion from the game.
As it is now, I believe flanking should pretty much work only against creatures who have used up their retaliation or at least have those potential damage bonuses work only against them. I sincerely hope against making flank attacks @ the back impossible to retaliate against -shivers-. The feature is difficult enough to balance it out.
Also, this flanking feature might force the map-builders to make the battlefield cluttered (as we've seen adventure map objects impact the combat map) and it would only make turtling a more viable option to preserve units.
Hope you followed my train of thought. It's hard to transform skype conversations into legitimate content 
P.S. Elvin did not condone my point of view in any way
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 10:32 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 22:34, 28 Dec 2014.
|
Something along the lines of my suggestions should be simple enough.
Problem with the idea of reduced retaliation is that it only affects the first attack which.. favours the first attacker even more. I think that attacking first is a decent enough advantage as it is. It would have made sense if we had simultaneous retaliation and flanking allowed you to attack before the retaliation but then I really despise simultaneous retaliation
Edit:
TDL got to it first 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
cleglaw
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 11:33 PM |
|
|
it means more tactical depth, of course it is "yes, i want it."
why the heck you dont want it? too old for new stuff?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
|
All your questions and more are answered in the masterpost
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
cleglaw
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 11:41 PM |
|
|
i was speaking generally, not as a reply to you, but yeah i get your point.
i say, lets just wait and see, im %99 sure that they will bring this topic up to discussion with fans. theres probably tons of details to share.
|
|
yasmiel
Supreme Hero
Former Chessmaster
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 12:39 AM |
|
|
I don't see this working out well. I'm just hoping the damage won't be huge and detrimental to game-play. Completely unnecessary "feature".
Just a hunch, but unfortunately in past few games these few "interesting on paper but extremely unlikely to work out" ideas tended to be executed extremely poor. Yes, I'm looking at you, "pick your skills freely" model.
____________
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 12:46 AM |
|
|
cleglaw said:
im %99 sure that they will bring this topic up to discussion with fans. theres probably tons of details to share.
I'm 99% sure that they won't. It's not their style to discuss these things. Maybe we'll get an article or 2 but nothing that will change their minds. Considering that they already included it into the skilldecription of the Hydra, I belive that the basic concept is already sealed and probably not going to change much.
The best I can hope for is something like #GURS where it will be turned into an optional feature due to fan pressure.
Anyway, I agree with JJ that for this to work properly too many things need to be implemented, but first and foremost the return of hexes instead of squares and that is not going to happen either...
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 01:38 AM |
|
|
I'm in favor of a system as indicated by TDL, actually. Simultaneous retaliation should be restricted to melee combat only, by the way - not for ranged attacks. But flanking should be restricted to melee combat as well, anyway, so that doesn't do harm.
I don't see flanking working in any other way, since it requires battlefield micromanagement, which is hampered by squares instead of hexes and the fact that each stack is represented by just a single unit with a digit at its feet indicating how many there really are. You could never manipulate the facing of a unit before because it was irrelevant so far. It becomes important here if they introduce flanking as being dependent on facing of the defender. I dislike that.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 08:39 AM |
|
|
|
I'll second that, TDL's system is the the best yet proposed IMO.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 12:12 PM |
|
|
Look, flanking comes with a couple of problems:
a) FACING. Suddenly unit facing is important and you need to be able to turn. (Example: There is an obstacle on the map and you want to have it in your back; you move to it, but now you face the obstacle; so you must TURN now; does turning cost MPs?)
b) plotting your path. That will become very important- you will need to move in increments.
c)opportunity attacks: why would a stack that waits currently watch while you move around it? Wouldn't that stack be able to hit you if you moved adjacent?
d) Big units will be double disadvantaged: they will offer more squares to be flanked and it will be more difficult for them to find the path and the MPs necessary to move into flanking position. It will also make FLYING UNITS extremely valuable-
Example: Imagine Harpy Hags. Axtually they have Strike and Return and No Retaliation - but No Retaliation is either of no or reduced value with Flanking; and its high speed and mobility will make "flanking" a synonym for a positive damage modifier
A mechanic that basically increases attack damage and decreases retaliation damage (which is what does it amount to) might have made a lot of sense in the defense dominated HoMM VI. Yes.
But if we go back to the HoMM 3/5 world of resolving attacks, then regular game is favoring attack, speed and initiative anyway.
The fact that under regular circumstances a unit has ONE retaliation only means that a unit has no defense once the retaliation is spent.
A flanking system that would lower that single retaliation would make units even more defenseless as they already are.
Bottom line is that a flanking mechanic doesn't make sense in combination with the other battle mechanics.
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
|
posted December 29, 2014 02:08 PM |
|
Edited by TDL at 14:10, 29 Dec 2014.
|
I think my system deals pretty much with every aspect you spoke about, as it heavily relies on the H4 system rather than H5-H7. Which in turn makes it easier to realize flanking. It is possible as I think I described to make flanking a viable option without much further ado.
(my response also governs the default view of flanking mechanics, so don't be confused)
a) Facing is already indirectly in the game. Your creatures face a round of about of 3-5 squares (~6 for 2x2 creatures). In H4, LoS was already there, so in such a system as I proposed, it is not problematic at all.
b) Plotting a path has already been a huge part of the game, if I understood this correctly. It pretty much governs the cautious movement mechanic over the battlefield as well as exploiting slow moving creatures. Might have been much more prevalent in h3/h4 than further installments. That said, it will allow you to coordinate your attacks better, somewhat, knowing what the risks are. And it will add a tactical element to sieges.
c) Opportunity attacks are already a part of the game. We saw grim raiders do that in H5, not to mention opportunity retaliation in H7 in haven. As many other have mentioned, wait/defend functions as well as opportunity attacks would make much more sense with flanking involved (and we know already that haven's chick (forgot the name of the unit) has opportunity retaliation). It won't necessarily overcomplicate things, it's just a matter of implementation. If they are excluded from the game, all that remains is creature placement on the battlefield and unit adjacency.
d) That is not a problem, that actually is the purpose of flanking system - give offensive creatures more firepower by leaving them vulnerable to attacks. However, if we have unit adjacency involved in the system, you practically just need to have creatures line up in a certain way along the obstacles for no flanks to be possible, if you want a defensive roster. For example, having a 2x2 shooter such as titan in the corner of the battlefield with a 1x1 creature nearby eradicates any possibilities of a flank. Also, if we have limitations to how many squares are "flank-able", it might make 2x2 units impossible to flank under certain battle placements (for example, this will provide much more use to tanks such as golems and slow moving hydras/treants) as they will block off flanking positions for other units.
The one thing where I can think of about flanking mechanics where there is a significant disadvantage coming our way is ranged units. Unless they think of some weird method to include flanking without having them move around the battlefield, I don't see how they can flank units. That said, they have no retaliation vs non-ranged units anyway, so that is good enough even without the flanking. Might even be a way of balancing this out. Plus, teleporting or moving creatures via other creatures' abilities (or displacement) will then prove much more valuable in case of shooters (make some 2x2 tank fly over towards the enemy to block off potential flanks, then teleport a shooter BEHIND the enemy stack and watch it crumble, muahahaha)
____________
|
| |
|
|
