A crazy, but awesome idea

Users who are viewing this thread

Manifold

Recruit
This is far-fetched, and I'll probably get only mixed support for this, but hear me out.

What if, instead of being given the option for the auto-fight, the battlefield turns into a full-3d, overhead view RTS? How unbelievably awesome would that be? We're not that far away from being able to make this happen. When you choose that option of combat, the camera goes to an overhead view (but of course you can zoom in and change your viewpoint) where you can command your units. Even now, if you only had the commands available from the menu, it would still be amazing. Imagine having complete control of your units, as in an RTS like Age of Empires.

The biggest challenge would be making the interface, but I think this would be a really fun addition to the game. Plus, if you wanted to fight an important battle or mission, you would still opt for the first person fighting, which ensures the original spirit of the game is still there.
 
Hmmm... well, I would like to be able to tell my infantry to take up crossbows on yonder hillside...
 
Being able to order your units is totally absurd. That would make you more dangerous than you are as a half decent twitch action player who plans two seconds ahead. There should be spectating simply because the battle you order should be an actual 3d battle that happens and you have to option to watch it or not.
 
Worm said:
Being able to order your units is totally absurd. That would make you more dangerous than you are as a half decent twitch action player who plans two seconds ahead. There should be spectating simply because the battle you order should be an actual 3d battle that happens and you have to option to watch it or not.

Exactly. Being able to mystically command them from afar is just ... ****e.
 
Captain Black said:
Are we still mostly agreed that the command system needs to be enhanced when you ARE in the fight?

C.
Though it really can't aside from grouping your troops into different sections so you can tell one group to this and another to do that. Anything more than a few numbers to issue orders would be intrusive, and ultimately isn't needed as your troops aren't needed.
 
Captain Black said:
Are we still mostly agreed that the command system needs to be enhanced when you ARE in the fight?

C.

When you are physicall there, you should have more command over your troops.
 
Yea, I've already posted a rather indepth idea on that:
http://taleworlds.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=149&start=0
I wish it will be implemeted one day :smile:
 
Would it be possible to add a 'move to location of target' based on your mouse position? Point at a hill, and your troops will move to that hill.
 
Unit Control System that I propose for the game:
I think a feature should be added so that you can organize your units into "groups"/"units"/"task forces"/etc inside your Party window. After organized, once you get into a battle you can select those groups with the F1-F12 keys on the keyboard, then give them orders with the 1-5 keys like you do currently.

This would allow you to completely customize the unit make-up of each group. So you can do things like set up archers into one or two groups, then order them to different areas. Do a Agincourt even, two groups of archers placed on your flanks.

And for the 1-5 keys, I think they should be expanded to the whole number row, ~-0. I'm not sure exactly what each key should do, but I'm going to try an example set of keys:
~ - halt! (cancels last order, they stop moving or stop firing or whatever)
1 - move (point your crosshair where you want the unit to go, pressing 1 will make your men move to that spot, and take a defensive stance while moving there. They'll fend off enemies attacking but their priority is to move to that location)
2 - attack (point your crosshair where you want the unit to go, pressing 2 will make your men attack whatever lies between them and that spot, then they'll defend the spot when they get there. They won't go too far out of line going after someone to attack, but they're more aggresive than when Moving)
3 - defend (whereever the unit is, they'll stop and defend their location.)
4 - line formation (tells your men to form and maintain a line formation, depending on their defensive or offensive stance they'll keep a tight formation or a loose one, tight for defensive, loose for aggressive)
5 - column formation (tells your men to form and maintain a column formation, depending on their defensive or offensive stance they'll keep a tight formation or a loose one, tight for defensive, loose for aggressive)
6 - break formation (forget formations, your men will stick with each other though, but in a mob and in not in a set formation)
7 - defensive stance (shield up if you have one, defend yourself from attack)
8 - offensive stance (see someone to hit, go hit them)

I'm running low on ideas, I think the number key thing needs a lot more work, especially the thing on stance since it seems to duplicate other orders. I'm not sure what they keys need to do, but they need to do something like that.

Anyways the main idea was just about using F1-F12 to select between "Groups" anyways, so that's that.
 
jothki said:
Would it be possible to add a 'move to location of target' based on your mouse position? Point at a hill, and your troops will move to that hill.
This would be a cool compromise. I know of a game called Sacrifice which has pulled this off. It is an RPG/RTS in the third person, that lets you control your character while directing your units in a pretty intuitive way. You can command them to attack certain enemies, get in a formation, or protect units via a nice pop up mouse menu.
 
This might get a little lengthy.

It just occured to me, that I don't use my army. Battle starts, I tell them to hold position and only use them as fail safe in case I get knocked out. Mostly because all the other knights are busy getting killed, getting in the way (as in stopping me dead) and hence getting ME killed as well.

An additional option might make combat a bit more tactical and retain some realism (though it might be too complex to add).

I'd like to call it battle plans. No complex orders during the battle (you can't just say "out time" and discuss a new strategy), but a couple preset orders linked to signals (horn signals, colored flags or even shouts).

Basically before the battle starts you would be offered to go to the tactics screen (top down view of the battle field). Here you could group your army into seperate units and prepare a couple of orders to be executed on a given signal (that and you could deploy your army if the situation allows it).

The bare minimum order would be "move here" and "attack move here", with "here" being a selected point on the map. In practice that would mean you deploy 10 archers behind a hill (for various reasons explained later) and set a waypoint on top the hill. You set their orders for "signal 1" to be "move here". At the same time you could place your knights behind another hill to the side and prepare "attack move here" (for demonstration reasons also on "signal 1").

In the battle itself you would press '1', the archers would take position on the hill while the knights charge around the hill, attacking all enemies on the way.

You could hence prepare "rally points" just by selecting and creating the order "move here" on "signal" 9. Except for the kind of complex interface it shouldn't add too much complexity to the AI, but would allow for to set ambushs or traps, regroup your troops and still maintain some degree of realism, by only having preset orders (along maybe a few general orders).

Bonus would be commands like "defend unit x" (most likely to tell troops with spears to protect the archers or something).

Now, how would the tactics skill be useful for this? Tons of ways. It could limit the number of signals you can set or the number of orders to give a unit (though the latter might be more a consequence of leadership). Your deployment zone could depend on it as well, so the higher your tactics the more flexbile is your troop deployment. Spotting could be abused to make out enemy positions on the map during the planning phase or how much of the map is visible to you in the first place. If many different skills affect your options there might be even more reason to have multiple npcs in your party and sacrificing the slot for a single "unit".

The point behind it is that I wouldnt want to make changes to the combat as such AND I would prefer it as an option, because some players might simply want to get into the fray and have fun without spending 5 minutes planing the battle. I'll try to create a dummy screen to illustrate the interface a bit more.

Another reason I thought about it were the infamous sieges which were the result of a thread about making merchants more interesting. Basically the chain was "hm, buying/building houses would be neat", "castles would be even nicer as an 'endgame'-like feature", "castles need to planned well and withstand sieges", "sieges would require new machinery and units", "sieges wouldn't work with the current combat system". Eventually I watered it down into preset "move" commands, hoping that would make it at least remotely doable ,-)

Edit: ok, try to ignore that it's an ugly and confusing mess and as far as interfaces go it's about as screwed up as it gets. Arg, also try to imagine small symbols representing the groups and their position for deployment.

interface.jpg


Speaking about data structures to implement it:

-waypoints (2 ints or floats)
-2 ai commands (move and avoid fights, move and engage enemy), thinking about it, plain move could also be dropped
-order (signal + list of command/waypoint pairs -or make it one instead of a list)

In its easiest form, whenver the player gives a signal all orders assigned to this signal will be executed, ie. the units will move to the specified waypoint.
 
Trienco, I would LOVE to see all the suggestions listed in your post being implemented into this game. While it would make it a bit more complicated and less newbie friendly, it would be tremendously more rewarding for the experienced player. The way I see it, the main problems would occour when trying to make the enemy AI use similarly well functioning tactics.
 
Rogge said:
While it would make it a bit more complicated and less newbie friendly, it would be tremendously more rewarding for the experienced player.

That's why it would be optional. Or maybe one could even "hide" the option behind a requirement like tactics 2 or higher.

The way I see it, the main problems would occour when trying to make the enemy AI use similarly well functioning tactics.

Woops, I forgot that part, mostly because it would be tricky to make it "true" AI. Creating a handful of "plans" for each map and randomly pick one would work, but the units could be extremely different, so they would have to be pretty simple and straightforward. But maybe the AI as it is now would work even better. They seem to simply head for the closest enemy and attack it, which could be used to lure them wherever you want them. So I don't see a real reason for the AI to use the same tactics.

Actually, I wouldn't even know where to begin with decent AI that's more than "each unit for its own". One can dream up cool concepts of unit leaders and generals and how the AI should become less organized when they die, but the real trick is to make it organized in the first place, especially when it has to be generic and should work with all maps you throw at it.

Another question would be: what would the representation of the "signal" be like? A simple cry like "now!" or "move!" wouldn't keep you from fighting, while a fancy animation of getting out a horn and blowing it would mean sudden death in the middle of a fight (or at least limit you to do nothing but block for a few seconds)
 
I think most importantly, we need a better orders system. Either by unit type(Infantry, Ranged, Cavalry) or by unit class(Swadian Footman, Vaegir Horsemen, etc.). From there it could be as simple as attack, hold, follow. To slightly more complex.
My ideal system would be like mentioned above(or somewhere previously mentioned).
Number keys would select the unit type/class:
1 - Infantry, 2 - Ranged, 3 - Cavalry
Or
1 - unit slot 1, 2 - unit slot 2, 3 - Unit slot 3, etc.(ignoring the player slot)

And then select the order to be given:
Select unit(class or type), give order.
Orders could be:
1. Move here(move to whever player is looking)
2. Hold(stay whereever unit is)
3. Follow(follow player)

Additionally setting aggressiveness would be nice
4. Offensive(Units attack and will chase opponents encountered)
5. Defensive(Units stay in general area, tend to block/parry more)
6. Stand Ground(Units do not move and only attack within range. Almost exclusive blocking/parrying)

The next big thing would be grouping, either Loose or Tight(although this seems more difficult than the above suggestions).

With these additions, players have a wide variety of strategies they can use.
Currently, the only strategies I can find the least bit useful with gameplay as is are these:
Army hold position, player draws enemies and keeps them at distance. Works well with ranged units.
Army hold position ontop of a hill.
Army hold position at a choke point(water, valley, canyon, etc.)
Army follow player and player disrupts enemy army(if grouped).

Even then these strategies aren't that effective.

I actually think the most practical/effective additions ATM would be aggressiveness settings or unit type selection, since units can currently be led to defendable/advantageous locations and be told to hold, although a simple "look and order" would be better.
 
i like the idea to command my troops in that way it would be like a total war game. However it would be better if there was more men...and even if not a way to group some men togather you know to keep your knights togather and your infantry/archers into task groups.
 
Prehaps if the AI was capable of more sophisticated stuff its own then having more orders would be helpful.

As it stands the 5 orders are short and sweet. No need to complicate matters. Plus what you're mainly delaing with are small squads and enemies that 'trickle' onto the battlefield meaing that tactics don't really come into play apart from numbers and line of sight for your archers.

It sounds cool to be ale to micromanage and arrange seperate units and change alertness levels but this game really doesn't need it. Look at Operation Flashpoint- your squad could be commanded in detail even down to ordering individual units to specific points on the map- but it was damn complicated and left little room for your own death-dealing and general excitement.

So yeah, play Full Spectrum Warrior or Op Flash for Squad-based combat. Admittedly though it would look cool to have things like lines of archers/pikemen and formations in general.
 
Back
Top Bottom