Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

TBS Age of Wonders: Planetfall - AoW gone to space

Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,704
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
hits&misses are back

:decline:

That was one of the things I liked most about AoW3. RNG cancer has no place in a strategy game.
Yeah, that is unfortunate.
Reload button, here I come (at least if it really cost me a fight)!
The reasons I prefer RNG are
1) it means you never have to calculate exactly what sort of hits, from who, it will take to kill a target - because you can't. In AoW3 I found myself having to add up little bits of numbers in order to attack in the most efficient manner. I would far rather just have ''lol fuck you the giant rolls max damage and splats you with one hit''.
2.) it makes people cry
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
hits&misses are back

:decline:

That was one of the things I liked most about AoW3. RNG cancer has no place in a strategy game.
Yeah, that is unfortunate.
Reload button, here I come (at least if it really cost me a fight)!
The reasons I prefer RNG are
1) it means you never have to calculate exactly what sort of hits, from who, it will take to kill a target - because you can't. In AoW3 I found myself having to add up little bits of numbers in order to attack in the most efficient manner. I would far rather just have ''lol fuck you the giant rolls max damage and splats you with one hit''.
2.) it makes people cry
You are confusing RNG (which is fine) with hit & miss.
RNG based damage as it was in AoW3 is fine. Even in the worst case, you still do some damage. Something was achieved, at least. The psychological factor is very important here.
It also makes you be more careful as you know none of your units are truly safe.

But as soon as there is a possibility to fully miss in a game like AoW, you start wasting entire unit turns. If it was a dire situation and you can reload, that is just a waste of time. If you can't reload, that is just frustrating.
Especially in turn-based games, where things are slow to begin with, misses make everything drag on even longer. Combine that with shit like unskippable combat animations and you have a recipe for a very quick uninstall.
I fail to see how that is a good thing.
It's not that it requires any more tactical thinking - I'd argue it actually requires less, since, as you said, you cannot really plan ahead, you just react all the time, plans become rather useless. If you know that all strikes will do at least minimal damage, you can really pull off some crazy shit.

And don't come with risk management. This is AoW, not Blood Bowl or Mordheim.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,522
Missing can be fine as a mechanic if implemented carefully.

In Aow 1-2, however, it was very possible (I would even say: normal) to play the exact same encounter in the exact same manner two times and come out with two completely different results. This is never good.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,522
I mean, no one will convince me they liked it when a single low tier cavalry unit murdered like 3-4 archers in a row without taking a hit while laughing and farting in their faces.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
By that logic you should be reloading when it wins you the fight.

Yes, I'm an RNG fanboy (kinda)
Of course you should. Why wouldn't you? Play the entire map again because one roll ended up being a miss? What an absurd waste of time. Better to reload until the miss doesn't happen.
That doesn't mean reloading whenever a miss occurs, that would be absurd, too.
But everyone knows there are these very close call situations where every single hit or miss can decide if you win or lose. In such a situation, I'd usually reload. And why wouldn't I? I want to progress in the game while losing as little time as possible.

However, in AoW this is somewhat different as you cannot reload during combat. So in case such a close call situation happens and you lost due to a row of unlucky hits (or misses), then you have to play the entire combat again.
This isn't as bad as replaying an entire scenario or map, but still VERY much a waste of my time.
If there are no misses, the difference between "all went well" and "too many RNG fuckups" isn't that big and thus such situations are way less likely to happen.
 
Self-Ejected

DakaSha V

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
436
By that logic you should be reloading when it wins you the fight.

Yes, I'm an RNG fanboy (kinda)
Of course you should. Why wouldn't you? Play the entire map again because one roll ended up being a miss? What an absurd waste of time. Better to reload until the miss doesn't happen.
That doesn't mean reloading whenever a miss occurs, that would be absurd, too.
But everyone knows there are these very close call situations where every single hit or miss can decide if you win or lose. In such a situation, I'd usually reload. And why wouldn't I? I want to progress in the game while losing as little time as possible.

However, in AoW this is somewhat different as you cannot reload during combat. So in case such a close call situation happens and you lost due to a row of unlucky hits (or misses), then you have to play the entire combat again.
This isn't as bad as replaying an entire scenario or map, but still VERY much a waste of my time.
If there are no misses, the difference between "all went well" and "too many RNG fuckups" isn't that big and thus such situations are way less likely to happen.

The whole idea of playing the campaign in a 4x is a waste of time to me, so i think we have a fundamentally different idea of whats "fun" in this regard.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The whole idea of playing the campaign in a 4x is a waste of time to me, so i think we have a fundamentally different idea of whats "fun" in this regard.
What else is there?
Skirmish? Okay, but that loses its charm after a few times.
Scenarios? That's actually just like a small campaign. But afaik the main "lure" for most people still playing. After all, this always gets new content from fans.
Multiplayer? lol... right. For the handful of people who have time or desire for 2-5 hour sessions of a single game per day - and have friends with an equal desire. It's not even like Dominions where single turns take long enough for PBEM to make sense.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
I certainly won't replay a map in a 4X because of a miss, lolol. I wouldn't mind if it is an ability some units have (to be missed), but other than that I don't really see the point outside of allowing smaller armies to win due to RNGesus being on their side. Multiplayer is indeed too long in these types of games and I play only hotseat extremely rarely.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,704
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
You are confusing RNG (which is fine) with hit & miss.
RNG based damage as it was in AoW3 is fine.

Hit&miss is also RNG based so I'm not exactly confusing things, but I see what you mean with the distinction between hit chance and damage roll.
IIRC AoW3's damage ranges were quite small, it didn't have the full range from 1 to X damage, so there were occasions where I was adding up numbers to distribute damage efficiently, which was tiresome.

Even in the worst case, you still do some damage. Something was achieved, at least. The psychological factor is very important here.
It also makes you be more careful as you know none of your units are truly safe.
But as soon as there is a possibility to fully miss in a game like AoW, you start wasting entire unit turns. If it was a dire situation and you can reload, that is just a waste of time. If you can't reload, that is just frustrating.

I agree that the psychological factor is important.... but in the opposite direction. Instead of being pandered to with automatic hits and guaranteed minimum damage, things are unpredictable. I find that unpredictability and high variation in outcomes fun, rather than frustrating.
Quite a lot of the time you have a high chance to hit; on the occasions when you have a low chance to hit, you shouldn't set your hopes so high to the point of getting frustrated by missing.

I'm usually never one to say ''this is just a matter of taste'', but perhaps RNG is; what many people speak of as frustrating is precisely what I find enjoyable about it.

Also, nowadays I don't reload because I exclusively play PBEM.

Especially in turn-based games, where things are slow to begin with, misses make everything drag on even longer. Combine that with shit like unskippable combat animations and you have a recipe for a very quick uninstall.
I fail to see how that is a good thing.
It sounds like you haven't turned up unit animations to the Very Fast setting, which you should. Aow2's animations aren't that slow, and AoW1's probably only have 8 frames per action or something.

It's not that it requires any more tactical thinking - I'd argue it actually requires less, since, as you said, you cannot really plan ahead, you just react all the time, plans become rather useless. If you know that all strikes will do at least minimal damage, you can really pull off some crazy shit.

And don't come with risk management. This is AoW, not Blood Bowl or Mordheim.
You're right, there's less tactical planning, and especially less detailed planning. I prefer that.

But muh risk management!!! This IS AoW - a franchise where most of its games have to-hit chance and damage rolls that can come out with a 1.

Multiplayer? lol... right. For the handful of people who have time or desire for 2-5 hour sessions of a single game per day - and have friends with an equal desire. It's not even like Dominions where single turns take long enough for PBEM to make sense.
But I do play PBEM games.... nothing wrong with playing for 10 minutes and waiting half a week for the turn to come round to you again.

I mean, no one will convince me they liked it when a single low tier cavalry unit murdered like 3-4 archers in a row without taking a hit while laughing and farting in their faces.
I don't merely like it, I find it amusing.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I'm usually never one to say ''this is just a matter of taste'', but perhaps RNG is; what many people speak of as frustrating is precisely what I find enjoyable about it.
Maybe so. I just wish there was an option for this. Turn hit/miss on or off. If it is off, the AoW3 system is used.
It won't even imbalance things as it applies to everyone the same way.

But unfortunately, most developers are very stingy with gameplay options like these.

It sounds like you haven't turned up unit animations to the Very Fast setting, which you should. Aow2's animations aren't that slow, and AoW1's probably only have 8 frames per action or something.
I wasn't talking specifically about AoW here. AoW thankfully has some speed up option - even if not an optimal one.
But many games, turn-based games no less, do not have such an option. Just look at the recent BattleTech.

For me, an absolutely critical feature - I uninstalled BattleTech as I couldn't speed things up and it wasted 80% of my time - and they had to get shit flung into their faces in the form of negative reviews and now will implement in a patch.
In a few months. Which means nothing else than they had not even planned such a feature.
It is such an incredible contempt for a player's time that it makes me angry just thinking about it.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
RNG has the same psychological effects as gambling, so it's not surprising some people like it and some don't. A modest helping of RNG in an RPG is good, it stops the game from feeling like a duel between mathematical formulas that will get you the same result every time. I'm not sure if it has a place in a strategy game (the misses thing), however, the idea is to use superior strategies to win fights, not pray to RNGesus. It's like if the pieces on a chess board had a 5% chance to land on another square than the one you want.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,503
Maybe so. I just wish there was an option for this. Turn hit/miss on or off. If it is off, the AoW3 system is used.
It won't even imbalance things as it applies to everyone the same way.

But unfortunately, most developers are very stingy with gameplay options like these.

That would kill game design, and kill game balance.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,704
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
I'm not sure if it has a place in a strategy game (the misses thing), however, the idea is to use superior strategies to win fights, not pray to RNGesus. It's like if the pieces on a chess board had a 5% chance to land on another square than the one you want.
To be fair, AoW has a powerful D&D vibe with a good-evil alignment system, powerful heroes that can use magical items, dungeons that can be looted, dragons, and of course it's where the to-hit and damage roll mechanics come from.

While combat is affected by chance, map movement and scouting is still wholly deterministic, and it's movement and scouting which are the more important part of the gameplay in multiplayer.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,704
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
I wasn't talking specifically about AoW here. AoW thankfully has some speed up option - even if not an optimal one.
But many games, turn-based games no less, do not have such an option. Just look at the recent BattleTech.

For me, an absolutely critical feature - I uninstalled BattleTech as I couldn't speed things up and it wasted 80% of my time - and they had to get shit flung into their faces in the form of negative reviews and now will implement in a patch.
In a few months. Which means nothing else than they had not even planned such a feature.
It is such an incredible contempt for a player's time that it makes me angry just thinking about it.
I feel you man. Nothing worse than turnbased+slow animation with no setting to speed it up.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
You can have RNG elements, but that doesn't mean it necessarily has to be the hit and miss thing.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Maybe so. I just wish there was an option for this. Turn hit/miss on or off. If it is off, the AoW3 system is used.
It won't even imbalance things as it applies to everyone the same way.

But unfortunately, most developers are very stingy with gameplay options like these.

That would kill game design, and kill game balance.
It would certainly not.
One worked just fine in AoW3, the others worked just fine in AoW1-2. All the games are extremely similar in design and combat mechanics.
But just to see you flail a bit, how exactly do you think such a change would kill game balance?

Imagine hit & miss was applied to AoW3. I cannot see a single example of the change killing the game balance - a change that affects everyone the same way cannot change the balance.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,503
Maybe so. I just wish there was an option for this. Turn hit/miss on or off. If it is off, the AoW3 system is used.
It won't even imbalance things as it applies to everyone the same way.

But unfortunately, most developers are very stingy with gameplay options like these.

That would kill game design, and kill game balance.
It would certainly not.
One worked just fine in AoW3, the others worked just fine in AoW1-2. All the games are extremely similar in design and combat mechanics.
But just to see you flail a bit, how exactly do you think such a change would kill game balance?

Imagine hit & miss was applied to AoW3. I cannot see a single example of the change killing the game balance - a change that affects everyone the same way cannot change the balance.
Do you remember Fallout 2? What would happen to groin critical hits without RNG? And how would you resolve deflections and misses? Removing RNG from Fallout would have to change whole combat system.

Now lets concentrate on AoW games. In AoW3, imagine goblin swarm darters would have an actual survivability. 29HP is bit squishy, especially against another swarm darter, but with shots possibly missing, you can't reliable dispose of the most dangerous unit.

Another combat change you'd need to solve would be change in unit direction during defense. Would they expose its back even when the first attack is a miss? Would they expose its back against charge when all other attacks were misses as well?

I might list about 30 more reasons for AoW games. But, considering computer game development theory can talk at 500 pages about design and RNG. Talking about 500 dimensional cubes, or statistic modeling would be bit out of topics. Especially considering AoW2 games simply used an external factor, which was result of certain calculation (I think it was 1.8), to avoid mishaps and to keep balance sane.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,704
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
I see no problem with a conversion between 65% chance to hit, and 65% damage. Only issue might be on special effects, but AOW3 handled those fine too.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Do you remember Fallout 2? What would happen to groin critical hits without RNG? And how would you resolve deflections and misses? Removing RNG from Fallout would have to change whole combat system.
Nobody is talking about removing RNG. As was said multiple times, AoW3 also had RNG. Damage was random. There were critical hits, randomly determined. Status effect application was determined by resistances, randomly.
The only thing it did not have was determining randomly if an attack hit or not. Attacks would always hit.

In AoW3, imagine goblin swarm darters would have an actual survivability. 29HP is bit squishy, especially against another swarm darter, but with shots possibly missing, you can't reliable dispose of the most dangerous unit.
And when shots reliably hit, you CAN dispose of them more reliably. But you ignore that when shots can miss, swarm darters can also miss.
So shots always hitting makes units such as swarm darters both more dangerous and more squishy, as can be seen in AoW3.
And the same counts for all archery units, across the board. The situation is different, but it is still well balanced.
Because the change is applied globally to everything.

It is like a mathematic formula:
X + 3 = Y + 3 | apply +3
X + 6 = Y + 6 ---> still the same balance

It is also not like units, especially ranged ones, would always do their full damage range. Units have resistances, being far away means ranged units do less damage.
Again, just as it was in AoW3.

The more you compare AoW3 to the older titles, the more you will see that they really don't have much difference in how combat plays out.
Ignoring sieges for a moment ;)
The biggest difference is not having to deal with misses, thus being able to plan ahead better.

Another combat change you'd need to solve would be change in unit direction during defense. Would they expose its back even when the first attack is a miss? Would they expose its back against charge when all other attacks were misses as well?
Attacks from behind, IIRC, in AoW3 would simply do more damage.
And they cannot miss, so they are extra powerful (and of course extremely hard to achieve).
But again, since the same is true for all units and players, the situation is different but still balanced.

I might list about 30 more reasons for AoW games. But, considering computer game development theory can talk at 500 pages about design and RNG. Talking about 500 dimensional cubes, or statistic modeling would be bit out of topics. Especially considering AoW2 games simply used an external factor, which was result of certain calculation (I think it was 1.8), to avoid mishaps and to keep balance sane.
I'm really not sure what you want to tell me with this.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,503
In AoW3, imagine goblin swarm darters would have an actual survivability. 29HP is bit squishy, especially against another swarm darter, but with shots possibly missing, you can't reliable dispose of the most dangerous unit.
And when shots reliably hit, you CAN dispose of them more reliably. But you ignore that when shots can miss, swarm darters can also miss.
I don't ignore that. It's a situation where originally none could survive to attack, and with a possibility to not hit every time, they have chance to survive and do quite a bit of damage on walls.
Of course it's a cheap unit, so previously some loses were expected even when they would have numerical superiority. With possibility to miss, theirs survivability is massively better. (And note theirs advantage is using big poisonous mosquito/wasps to hit units behind obstacles, no range penalty.)


So shots always hitting makes units such as swarm darters both more dangerous and more squishy, as can be seen in AoW3.
And the same counts for all archery units, across the board. The situation is different, but it is still well balanced.
Because the change is applied globally to everything.

It is like a mathematic formula:
X + 3 = Y + 3 | apply +3
X + 6 = Y + 6 ---> still the same balance

A damage in AoW3 is <15, 3*d, 36>
With a posiblity to miss damage would be <0, for 1/3>;<1, fa(4*d), 36>
Now from the statistics, it's obvious the combat would take longer.



Also, it's weird that siege weapons don't have chance to miss.

Another combat change you'd need to solve would be change in unit direction during defense. Would they expose its back even when the first attack is a miss? Would they expose its back against charge when all other attacks were misses as well?
Attacks from behind, IIRC, in AoW3 would simply do more damage.
And they cannot miss, so they are extra powerful (and of course extremely hard to achieve).
First attack from behind has no retaliation, and causes unit to turn towards new enemy. They wanted cheap units to have some combat value even in later game.
But, attacks from behind are not hard to achieve. There are 3 tiles of vulnerability, thus the situation is often as trivial as landing one Zephyr bird behind, then do cavalry charge.

I might list about 30 more reasons for AoW games. But, considering computer game development theory can talk at 500 pages about design and RNG. Talking about 500 dimensional cubes, or statistic modeling would be bit out of topics. Especially considering AoW2 games simply used an external factor, which was result of certain calculation (I think it was 1.8), to avoid mishaps and to keep balance sane.
I'm really not sure what you want to tell me with this.
The math behind balancing few hundred unit types is somehow complicated, in addition games are not only about obtaining perfect balance, but these units should feel correctly. Cavalry as cavalry, infantry as infantry. Big Dragon as BIG DRAGON. Thus while solving complex system of non linear equation is complicated, even correct solution isn't guaranteed to be sufficient.

As I said if I had time to write textbook, that part would require about 500 pages, some of them quite hard to read math.
 

whatevername

Arcane
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
666
Location
666
For me, an absolutely critical feature - I uninstalled BattleTech as I couldn't speed things up and it wasted 80% of my time - and they had to get shit flung into their faces in the form of negative reviews and now will implement in a patch.
In a few months. Which means nothing else than they had not even planned such a feature.
It is such an incredible contempt for a player's time that it makes me angry just thinking about it.
Doing that should take like 1 hour tops of messing with a debugger for someone without any stinking source code.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Are they going with multiple people per unit? Because then, miss and hit seems like a wonky concept. They would have to define how much people is per unit - a squad? A platoon?
Not really.
In AoW3, the multiple people per unit was just a representation of health points, nothing more.
Which is something many people did not get and were somewhat pissed about. "How is it there are less units now but the damage is the same?! Memememememe....!" :roll:
It's a turn-based game, highly abstract to begin with. I don't think it matters how a unit is represented beyond visual clarity.

Of course, if they went the extra mile to have multiple units really mean something, that would be nice. But I don't see it as important. And I doubt it, given how it wasn't the case in AoW3. It would also mean a serious balancing impact.

For me, an absolutely critical feature - I uninstalled BattleTech as I couldn't speed things up and it wasted 80% of my time - and they had to get shit flung into their faces in the form of negative reviews and now will implement in a patch.
In a few months. Which means nothing else than they had not even planned such a feature.
It is such an incredible contempt for a player's time that it makes me angry just thinking about it.
Doing that should take like 1 hour tops of messing with a debugger for someone without any stinking source code.
How the hell would a debugger help anyone? It's not like they released their binaries with debug symbols.
Or did they? That would be incredibly amateurish.
Of course, developing a turn based game in which nobody thought about animation speed-up as a feature is amateurish to begin with, if we're honest.

I mean, the animation and waiting times are tied to the playing sounds, ffs. As is proven by the workarounds to do the speed-up yourself by editing some config files.

Because the change is applied globally to everything.

It is like a mathematic formula:
X + 3 = Y + 3 | apply +3
X + 6 = Y + 6 ---> still the same balance

A damage in AoW3 is <15, 3*d, 36>
With a posiblity to miss damage would be <0, for 1/3>;<1, fa(4*d), 36>
Now from the statistics, it's obvious the combat would take longer.
Look, I think I repeated myself about five times already. By now I'm suspecting you are not willing to get the point, so I'll simply cut it short and say it one last time:
Nobody says that switching hit & miss to always hit would not change anything about the combat. But it would still be balanced, because such a switch would affect every faction in an equal way.
If you look at how AoW3 did it, it should it obvious. A lower chance to hit a unit behind a wall (or far away) was simply translated to doing less damage. While melee was always full damage (+ resistance calculations, of course).
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom