Discussing the Units

Discussion in 'EMPIRE (by Crazy Monkey Studios)' started by keithburgun, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    So obviously the combat system right now isn't quite working. I think most of you probably get what I'm going for at least, so maybe you can help me improve it.

    The problem is currently it's very "whoever attacks first wins, so have an odd number of spaces between you".

    Some of the basic things we should do:

    - Increase HP (a LITTLE) so that it's not so one-shotty.
    - Make patterns of attack more specialized, so that you have to move stuff around to attack properly

    Some of the ideas I'm playing with:

    - Soldier: 4 HP, +1 Damage when adjacent to other soldiers, 1 Damage, can only attack in front. Can attack multiple
    - Archer: 1 HP, 3 damage diagonal range, 1 damage up front
    - Cavalry: 2 damage, all directions. When exactly 1 tile away in an orthogonal direction during the attack phase, charges up and deals 3 damage.

    Basically just to help you guys come up with suggestions:

    Soldiers: Meaty, hard to control, linear, move forward, attack mostly forward. Should be something like a counter to cavalry.

    Archers: Glass cannon. Should be something like a counter to Soldiers.

    Cavalry: The surgeon unit. Useful but requires a lot of attention. Should be somehow good at killing archers.

  2. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    "can only attack in front" does not allow "can attack multiple". And you still have the problem of not having the card support necessary to form a ball reliably.

    No more 3-damage diagonal attacks? But they can move themselves downwards?

    Counter to cavalry won't happen as long as cavalry attack diagonally and soldiers can't hit other rows.

    Can't take a soldier to the face, but can kill them diagonally.
  3. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    We can change the soldier support to be more like "move two soldiers" or something similar to allow a bit more soldierballing.

    Yeah the cool thing about the cavalry rule I proposed is that maybe they could do like a side-attack thing, sort of.

    Well that's not quite true. We could also give soldiers a special anti-cavalry ability, like pike or shield or something which either makes them take reduced damage from cavalry, or maybe better, whenever a cavalry attacks them, they attack back on the same turn (assuming they lived).

    In fact, the counter-attacking might be a cool rule to implement on a unit.
  4. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    One huge problem is that soldiers are not working as intended as fodder. Cavalry are completely filling that niche because you get them for FREE whenever you tech. Any time you would want to build a Warrior, you can "build" a Cavalry instead by getting the tier 1 building.
  5. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    Right now, materials are cheap and outposts don't care about teching to tier 2. So warriors that survive one hit would actually be better fodder than cavalry that don't, assuming such warriors existed.
  6. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Yeah, I suppose I'm still in the mode where Cavalry dominate Warriors. If there are actually pros and cons to getting either, then yeah maybe. But isn't it bad flavor that you get a tech unit for free, and not your fodder unit?

    How about this:

    Warriors: 3 HP. 2 damage. Same attack pattern as now.

    Cavalry: 2 HP. 1 damage. Same attack pattern as now. If there is ever one *diagonal* space between them and a target, charge in that diagonal direction and do +1 damage that turn. I'm not sure what happens if there's 2 units that are both in range of this ability. I guess player picks?

    Archers: Unchanged, except reword "When an adjacent friendly unit is hit in melee, that enemy takes 1 damage." Like wtf is that. It should be "when archers attack from range, +2 damage."

    Now your RPS system works, I think. Warriors laugh at the puny Cavalry hit, then chop them to bits. Cavalry move into archer range, then laugh and kill them before the archers can fire a shot. And then archers go pew pew on derpaderp warriors.

    My one concern with the above system would be that Grit and Valor suddenly matter a lot more. But maybe that's a good thing.
    keithburgun likes this.
  7. Nachtfischer

    Nachtfischer Well-Known Member

    It probably is good, IF you have some ways to actually do something about having them in your hand besides just hoping to get them at the right time. Like the "Improvisation" card is interesting in that aspect, because you can use it to redraw for Valor/Grit. And obviously playing well should yield you quite some of both of those...
  8. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Yeah, I've been suspicious of this free cavalry for a long time actually. It's kind of a horrible rule because it's like "hey do you want to tech AND rushdown at the same time?!?!?"

    I guess my favorite option would be to just have it be like some rule, like "always the higher one".
  9. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Another thing that's worth mentioning: right now, unit production is tied to when cities upgrade. What this does is put a double-bottleneck on Food. If you run out of materials, you just explore less for a few turns. But you absolutely can never ever run out of food, or your army production (and every other kind of production, for that matter) withers.

    I'm not saying this is a mandatory change, but what if you could just buy units... whenever? It would make materials much more important, because they would be the main bottleneck instead of some secondary thing that you barely care about.

    Of course this would *totally* fuck with difficulty balancing, but I think we're still at the stage where we could do it.
    keithburgun likes this.
  10. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    The nice thing about a 4 HP version of current Warriors is it means they win one-on-one against archers one row over.
  11. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I thought archers were supposed to counter warriors, though. 4 HP warriors sound like you just build them always.
  12. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Viva, I've been thinking something similar myself. I don't mind the "rebalancing" work, since we're far from balanced right now as it is. One thing that I am constrained by is dev time, though. So what we might do, I was thinking this just yesterday, is, WHEN you upgrade, you can buy as many units as you can afford.

Share This Page