COMBAT

[VM]

Ok so now im preparing to do the combat part.

I need to make some decisions:

-should I allow for infinite summons?
-shuold I allow for infinite turns? Or is the 50 turn limit ok?

Also, I need info on combat. If you know something about it, dont hesitate to post it in this thread!

[MelvinBates]

Not sure about the infinite summons as they are limited by your spell skill and that of your heroes/units or do you mean over the 9 unit cap?

As for the turns, We could just as easy make it a setting. Limit turns yes/no, max turns 20,50,etc...

[VM]

Yes I was thinking about the 9 units cap. Should I keep it, should I raise it to what, or should I abolish it?

[novisionary]

I say increase or abolish it.
If it turns out badly it´ll probably be very easy to reinstate it, no?

[WhiteMage]

Since I am interested in AI programming getting started I have a lot of ideas about combat.

First, the 9 unit per overland map square cap should change to “leadership based” army size: each unit will have a “leadership” statistic. Army will have a leadership limit. Heroes with “leadership skill” are to be allowed to lead larger armies: see King’s Bounty. A simple idea results in remarkable game play. Also, cities should be allowed to have larger armies then usual moving armies. As city size grows “larger leadership army” is allowed in the city. Outpost can have same as an outside army. Because of this cities will be hard to attack. As an option I would recommend simply keeping the old 9 unit rule (and +- modifiers) too for those players who do not like my new idea.

Second, in battle the 9 unit per side cap should not apply. Actually, no limit should apply. Summoning new units per battle should be allowed with no limit. That is, wizard’s mana, hero’s mana, unit’s mana, items, etc. will pose a natural limit anyway, but I do not want to get to a situation where I have to lose a unit in order to get another during the battle.

Third, to stay as true to the MOM battle concept as possible, let’s keep the “defender moves all units first” and “player selects unit acting order” concepts as default. Again, options may tweak it, but this concept is sufficient for now. The new King’s Bounty’s initiative based acting order looks good too as an option.

Fourth, 50 turn battle limit: very bad idea, major exploit in MOM, which is beyond repair. Also, it’s time waste, micromanagement, unrealistic, and can totally impact game enjoyment, player’s strategy and more. Instead, do this: Unlimited turns for battle, but after 40 turns systematically penalize both sides of the battle. Defender side receives 1HP fixed damage per turn to the weakest unit. Attacker side receives 2 HP fixed damage per turn to the weakest unit. Weakest is defined as lowest active HP on battlefield, breaking ties by lowest cost of unit, breaking ties randomly. This should punch through regeneration, so units will start to die slowly. Army defending a settlement does not suffer penalty.
Explanation: the attacker’s are getting tired, running out of supplies for the battle and are getting hungry and losing morale for not being able to win the battle (defenders too to a lesser degree). They gradually desert or die from hunger, and untreated wounds. Weakest, cheapest units suffer first until completely disappear/die.

Our goal is to eliminate exploits like the auto-retreat and the boredom, like running around the map so the battle ends in a "draw" after 50 turns.

Add retreat and flee options as below:

Retreat is allowed on the per unit basis. A unit that stands on the edge of the battle map may retreat with large (say 99%) chance of success if there is no enemy unit standing next to it and it has move left. Units that are not on the edge of the map cannot retreat or flee. Units retreat in the correct (one of 8) direction on the overall map and the units that retreated may have taken an extra move by doing this and are tired of running and regrouping so these units will not be allowed to move in the next overland map turn. Retreating in directions that would initiate another battle or invalid map square are not allowed and appropriate message is displayed if attempted. With this we can eliminate attacker’s auto-retreat exploit, and solve many other problems. Also, retreat takes time, so unit that initiates retreat stays on the edge of the battlefield for 8 full turns for a speed 1 unit and can’t do anything, except retaliate. Speed 2 unit retreats in 4 turns, speed 3 unit retreats in 3 turns, speed 4+ retreats in 2 turns.

Flee
Similar to retreat, but unit wait times are cut in half, but fleeing unit can’t retaliate and defenses are cut in half during this time. Probability of success is same as retreat.

In case enemy unit steps next to retreating/fleeing unit, the probability of success drops to 50%.

Once retreat/flee of a unit is complete that unit is removed from battle map and will be added to overland map in the correct direction from battle.

While units try to flee they can’t do anything else, no retaliation, not even changing their mind and turn back to fight. Why? They are running for their lives and disorganized. They also don’t listen to their generals. Retreating units can abandon plan to retreat and turn back to the battle.

2 AI’s fighting battle: the above plan helps to resolve deadlock with, say, 2 weak melee regenerating units. That’s another reason to start penalizing after about 40 turns. AI battles will be played out in reMOM, not like in MOM.

Add terrain dependent variety. It should be implemented on both the strategic and the tactical level. In combat there should be bonus/modification for standing on a small hill, forest, swamp, etc. I think we should reward the defenders overall, like in Civ.

Strategic:
1. Battles on forest: +1 shield for all defenders, hill: +2 shield for all defenders, mountain: +1 attack and +2 shield for all defenders, swamp: -1 shield for all defenders, desert: -2 shield for all defenders. Shore: -1 shield for all defenders. Settlement: +1 shield for all defenders, Settlement with city walls +2 shield for all defenders.
2. Ignore the terrain where the attack comes from.
Tactical:
3. In addition to the overland map square that is already being considered, any unit standing on any obstacle that slows down movement gets attack and defense modification equal to the numbers above. This applies to both attackers and defenders.

Once the ideas are implemented, player and AI testing can begin. Tuning of these numbers will likely happen, but as a start should suffice.

[VM]

While most of these are excellent suggestions, I think I want to change only a little at first. These can wait until after version 1.0 is done.

I think Ill go for skipping the 9 unit limit tough.

[Morningkill]

I think Ill go for skipping the 9 unit limit tough.

I think you should set it as a parameter .

I tried to browse the forum, but I was not able to find your gameplay philosophy re:OriginalMom.

Rules (including units/spells) are going to be in XML, as much as possible, I read that.
But in this post, you're going to change something which is quite specific to the Original Mom. Most people would consider it an improvement, I think, but you're forking from the original design.
So, my question is : is ReMom a pure copy of the gameplay of OMom, or is it going to "improve" on oMom's gameplay before 1.0 ?

(My humble opinion being that, we should first make a "perfect" copy of MOM gameplay/mechanics (this does not include the UI, of course), while always keeping in mind that it should be able to be changed easily. )

[VM]

Its a close imitation of the Original, if not an exact one. I do not try to improve, original MOM is the guideline when questions arise, but I also dont really care for beeing exact. 'Close enough' is close enough for me (for example, food is calculated in a 100 units basis). Currently, 9 units are max, but this can be changed at a later date, should it be needed.

[b0rsuk]

VM, I hope you've decided by now how faithful your remake is going to be. I think strict imitation of MoM is not good, because there are bad design choices in MoM. I write this disclaimer because I have an idea how to replace the "50 turn limit" mechanic.

40 turns (or whatever) is a TERRIBLE mechanic. People have learned to use and abuse it, but it leads to ridiculous exploits. They center around artificially stretching the battle so that defender wins by default. Even when it makes no sense whatsover !
- if I have an invisible unit, I can retreat forever and not lose the square.
- if I can make city gate impassable, I win by default. Invisibility, flying.
- faster unit...

My proposal: Each battlefield contains a flag, and whoever holds the flag, conquers the square. In cities, the flag would be in the middle of the city. In open field, it would be in the center. After the first 20 turns, you can win by holding the flag square for 10 consecutive turns.

Related idea: flying creatures shouldn't be impassable obstacle for walkers. My proposed fix - if a walker steps into a flying creature, it displaces it. Unless the flyer has been given "Defend" order, in which case they will clash.
-----------------------
I like Whitemage's idea about Leadership score. Current system promotes stronger creatures for no good reason. If I use my resources to field a horde of orcs, and can assemble them in reasonable time, why disallow it ? Additionally, Leadership would be another number to tinker with for heroes or wizards. There could be associated perks or abilities.

[WhiteMage]

b0rsuk’s ideas on flying creatures being pushed and flags appear to be good, but will need testing to see if they are exploitable.
Regarding leadership, I further developed my idea. I think that leadership is the trait of the overland wizard, which they can increased in the same way as casting skill, by adding a fourth choice in addition to mana, research, and skill foci. Leadership can be modified a little by spells and heroes on the battlefield. Different units have different need for leadership, which is roughly in liner relationship with their cost. Tuning will be needed. I am very good at tuning.