Ranged combat in AoD

[ad hominem]

Also, I do believe many RPGs and wargames do have rules for combat against multiple opponents, be it bonuses for the attackers or penalties for the defender; I believe even a single block chance and auto-hits for all attackers but the first are used.

Age of Wonders II had this mechanic where the defender could only counter-attack for the first three attacks; additionally, those counter-attacks counted as MP for the next turn. So if you had a fairly weak soldier on all six hexes surrounding a strong enemy, you could just whack him to death eventuallly. He'd counter 3 times, but you'd get 12 attacks on him and he wouldn't get a turn at all. Maybe not a perfect implementation, but an interesting one nonetheless.

 

[galsiah]

...If you assume that ranged guy should perform well at close quarters, to be consistent, you should also assume that melee guy should perform well in distant combat...

That's an oversimplification though. VD has never said that a ranged guy will perform well in melee - just that he won't have any particular penalties. Even without such penalties, melee weapons are sure to be significantly more effective than bows in melee. Balance is not black and white.

Taking that as given, a purely ranged character will always try to keep his distance from a purely melee character. That includes getting out of melee range if possible. The aims of the combatants will make sense.

The choice of what penalties to apply for ranged in melee is similar to the choice of penalties for multiple attackers. Realistically, both should carry significant penalties, but balance is more important than realism (though I don't agree with VD in thinking that realism/coherence is a non-issue).

The most important thing coherence-wise, I think, is that major qualitative questions have reasonable answers. For example:
Does a purely ranged guy do best by avoiding melee?
Does a fighter do best by taking on one opponent at a time where possible?

Once you can answer "yes" to those, the precise mechanics are less important (in coherence terms). There's an incentive for ranged characters to avoid melee, and an incentive not to get surrounded. This will mean that fights tend to play out reasonably, even if the particular bonuses / penalties don't quite make sense in some situations.

 

[Astromarine]

in terms of balancing ranged combat, my thoughts are:

PRIMARY combat mechanics are always going to be melee. That's where the tactics are, as well as most of the fun. Two archers fighting each other in a TB game are kinda boring, I think. As your game is a solo affair, we can't have the two lines of combat that make ranged users seem much more useful in party/based systems. Therefore, ranged fighting should be balanced around melee.

You said that the danger of having powerful ranged weapons is making them uber. I agree, but it's simply a matter of straight numerical balance, and maybe some AI rejiggering.The current system is as follows:

A heavy melee character should focus on relatively stationery combat, soaking up damage, and beating the other guy to a pulp.

A light melee char should focus on agility, movement, and many small hits wearing the other guy down.

That's the core of AoD combat mechanics, I believe. You then specify a certain number of weapons, each with a different strategy that complements the styles above. In the current system, I think, bows and xbows are simply melee weapons whose perk is "range: 10 squares" or whatever, instead of a knockdown or knockback or whatever.

My idea for bows and crossbows is to make them "softeners". A player that specializes in bows isn't as skilled in melee weapons as a pure melee fighter, BUT he will mostly fight opponents who *are already at a disadvantage* when they reach him. I believe this is a sufficient tradeoff. When the opponent gets into melee, the player will pick up a melee weapon to fight with, just like every single archer, hunter, sniper, or whatever in the history of mankind.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The current system is as follows:

A heavy melee character should focus on relatively stationery combat, soaking up damage, and beating the other guy to a pulp.

A light melee char should focus on agility, movement, and many small hits wearing the other guy down.

That's the core of AoD combat mechanics, I believe. You then specify a certain number of weapons, each with a different strategy that complements the styles above. In the current system, I think, bows and xbows are simply melee weapons whose perk is "range: 10 squares" or whatever, instead of a knockdown or knockback or whatever.

Pretty much, athough they too have traits: knockdown and sniping, not to mention different arrows/bolts (higher versatility).

My idea for bows and crossbows is to make them "softeners". A player that specializes in bows isn't as skilled in melee weapons as a pure melee fighter, BUT he will mostly fight opponents who *are already at a disadvantage* when they reach him. I believe this is a sufficient tradeoff. When the opponent gets into melee, the player will pick up a melee weapon to fight with, just like every single archer, hunter, sniper, or whatever in the history of mankind.

That's one of the builds, so you can definitely play a game like that, but I don't want to force this setup on everyone. Am I wrong?

 

[MacBone]

That's one of the builds, so you can definitely play a game like that, but I don't want to force this setup on everyone. Am I wrong?

Choices are good.

 

[John Yossarian]

PRIMARY combat mechanics are always going to be melee. That's where the tactics are, as well as most of the fun. Two archers fighting each other in a TB game are kinda boring, I think. As your game is a solo affair, we can't have the two lines of combat that make ranged users seem much more useful in party/based systems. Therefore, ranged fighting should be balanced around melee.

This is what im afraid of. I don't see why melee combat should be more important or more tactical. This tendency probably comes from the "heroism" associated with close quarter combat, but I think historically ranged combat (even pre-gunpowder era) has played an equally important part in battles.

When the opponent gets into melee, the player will pick up a melee weapon to fight with, just like every single archer, hunter, sniper, or whatever in the history of mankind.

Historically battle archers did not fight alone, so they usually did not get into close quarter combat. About snipers, modern snipers spent 99% percent of their mission avoiding to get into a close fight, and they dont even use silencers so that they can fire from longer.
However seeing as this is a game which might not be based on our history, and also VD's obvious preference of balance and fun over reality, I don't know how much of this is relevant.

That's one of the builds, so you can definitely play a game like that, but I don't want to force this setup on everyone. Am I wrong?

Not IMO. Although I'd still prefer damage and accuracy penalties for ranged weapons (maybe just bows and xbows, not throwing knives and smaller weapons) at arms length combat. :wink:

 

[galsiah]

That's one of the builds, so you can definitely play a game like that, but I don't want to force this setup on everyone. Am I wrong?

No, but does a character who has say 70 bow skill and 50 dagger skill do better in melee (by switching to dagger) than a character with 70 bow and 20 dagger who sticks with his bow?

Having a secondary weapon in case of melee, but specializing in bows, is a reasonable build (or ought to be). The secondary weapon ought to be more useful in melee than the bow a lot of the time, or such a player is going to feel cheated for wasting so much skill on melee.

If such a character needs to improve his melee skills to the same level as his bow skills in order to get a melee advantage over a pure bow specialist, then he's no longer a bow-specialist-with-backup-weapon. He's a plain mixed fighter.

It'll always be reasonable for a mainly melee character to have a backup ranged weapon, since that's a definite advantage. Having a backup (i.e. not as skilled as the ranged weapon) melee weapon probably ought to be reasonable too.

Can you give an estimate of the skill you'd need in a backup melee weapon for it to be more useful than a bow in melee combat against a significant proportion of adversaries? [if the relative skill levels are less important than the style of opponent, that's fine - so long as the backup melee weapon is preferable in many cases]

 

[Vault Dweller]

]No, but does a character who has say 70 bow skill and 50 dagger skill do better in melee (by switching to dagger) than a character with 70 bow and 20 dagger who sticks with his bow?

Depends on way too many things: what kind of bow, what kind of dagger, your APs, your opponent (light, medium, heavy), shield, weapon traits, etc. Let's say you have max AP - 12, a large bow, and a dagger. You may shoot twice per turn - 6AP/shot, and then fast attack with a dagger 6 times, hoping to score a critical. Hard to compare.

Can you give an estimate of the skill you'd need in a backup melee weapon for it to be more useful than a bow in melee combat against a significant proportion of adversaries?

Depends on the adversary, his skills and equipment. If I could give you a number that works well against a significant proportion of enemies, that would mean that the system is poorly designed.

 

[ad hominem]

You know it's going to be a great RPG because VD's answer to everything is "that depends." :D

 

[Nutcracker]

I find the whole concept of a "pure ranged fighter" unnecessary and unrealistic. It goes without saying that any adventurer should not be able to get by only exclusively using his bow - that makes no more sense than someone being able to beat the game with his mercantile skill alone.

A better way to do it would be to give the marksman perks/bonuses (such as havealready described), but give big penalties for using his bow in hand to hand. Thus the bulk of the work would be accomplished by the bow from range, but the character would still need to "finish off" the opponent in melee combat, which would be far more effective if done with a proper melee weapon (shortsword,club,dagger etc). This is far more realistic than making a pure bowman uber in hand to hand combat, which will be very annoying to come against i would think.

In reality, any opponent who is facing a crossbow wielder in hand to hand, all he has to do is grab the end of the crossbow and push it away, preferably while the guy is trying to reload (rendering it useless), smash the guy in the face with his other hand (forcing him to drop the crossbow), then he will be facing an unarmed man for teh win. There is simply no logical way a guy with a crossbow can beat a hand to hand fighter of any description without resorting to a secondary weapon. As for a normal bow, there is no way a bowman would even have the chance draw in hand to hand, so the argument is even more ridiculous.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I find the whole concept of a "pure ranged fighter" unnecessary and unrealistic....

Once again, the rpg genre is riddled with unrealistic concepts that are too numerous to mention. That's what makes the genre fun and interesting. That's why you don't need to worry about sleeping/eating/recovering from wounds. That's why a guy who lived in a vault all his life can be expected not only to survive in the wasteland, but to save it, becoming an expert in gunfighting and electronics. That's why you can carry a small warehouse. Etc, etc, etc.

So, where do we draw the line? Do we accept some unrealistic elements, but refuse to accept some other elements that your inner LARPer can't live with? What are the critera?

 

[Balor]

Well, *shrug*.
Bows and crossbows were actually more of a 'salvo fire' weapons (when used in warfare) or 'hit&run' weapons.

Anyway, talking about of recently mentioned Evil Islands and it's most realistic combat:
Bows were poweful, deadly... but your chance to deflect a blow (your AC, so to speak, not PV, though) was based purely on your weapon skill (which is extremely logical. Your ToHit was based on it too).
However, your bow and crossbow skills were NOT adding to your defence value, therefore you could run up to a bow-user and, unless he'll switch to melee, just make a few 'headshots' with your old trusty axe, making a sure-hit and usually kill him in those two hits (sometimes even one).

However, you can easily get killed (with a literal headshot) if you will just charge up to that bowman.
I think that is the best approach to ranged combat in a game... and when combined into old faithful tank+ranged damage dealer it really shines.

 

[Balor]

Oh, and I think that allowing player to shoot faster-then-life to boost gameplay - fine.
But allowing him shoot point-blank dodging all the way Legalize-style... it's not fun, it's lame. Well, lame in a funny way as abovementioned Legalize killing that elephant thingy with his obviouly flimsy bow, while MUCH smaller elephants in RL were killed in similar fashion, yes... but with a huge metal spike rammed into the back of the skulll with a few furious bashes of a hammer!

Well, if you'll make a system like I proposed - dodging on your 'free time' (unspent time left from prevous turn), and if you really fast, you may be able to shoot and dodge attack of at most one enemy, that sounds at least somewhat realisic. However, since you didn't like that idea...

 

[galsiah]

Can you give an estimate of the skill you'd need in a backup melee weapon for it to be more useful than a bow in melee combat against a significant proportion of adversaries?

Depends on the adversary, his skills and equipment. If I could give you a number that works well against a significant proportion of enemies, that would mean that the system is poorly designed.

Not really.
If you could say e.g.: "At 29 it's not useful but at 30 it becomes really useful." then the system would be badly designed.

The following sort of thing could be said about a well designed system:
Given a bow skill of 100, and a dagger and bow of similar value:
A character with dagger < 20 (approx) would almost never find daggers useful.
A character with dagger > 130 (approx) would almost never find the bow more useful in melee.
At around 30 to 40 daggers would become occasionally useful (against some opponent types).
At around 60 to 70 daggers would often be useful (for many opponents).
...

Of course it's going to be vague, but it's possible to give a similar analysis to the above - at least once you've tested the system exhaustively (which perhaps is impractical).

If an increase to the dagger skill would always be helpful in a significant (if small) proportion of combats, then that's great. However, I'd be surprised if increasing dagger from 1 to 10 would be any help at all for a character with bow 100 (not that it necessarily should be for such an extreme case). In that case, there's a point where it starts to become worthwhile for many situations. If that's somewhere around 30 to 60, that's great. If it's over 90, that's not good.

I doubt that this is a problem, considering that you think ranged-with-backup-melee is a reasonable build. I'm just saying that it's something to bear in mind: the more you make it reasonable / effective to use a bow in melee, the less a character gains from having a backup melee weapon.
From the sound of things, there's enough opponent variety to prevent this being an issue.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The following sort of thing could be said about a well designed system:
Given a bow skill of 100, and a dagger and bow of similar value:
A character with dagger < 20 (approx) would almost never find daggers useful.
A character with dagger > 130 (approx) would almost never find the bow more useful in melee.
At around 30 to 40 daggers would become occasionally useful (against some opponent types).
At around 60 to 70 daggers would often be useful (for many opponents).

Once again, too many factors. You are used to different systems. There are *some* light fighters who can dodge most attacks that are < 200. Then there are slow heavy fighters who won't dodge anything faster than 50-70, but is your dagger strong enough to cause any serious damage? Of course, there are criticals, but you need to invest in that skill. Then there are shields & blocking. So, I can't really say what's good and what's not unless I know skills, style, and equipment of your opponent, and your own setup.

 

[galsiah]

Once again, too many factors.

Sure, but my question is not about what happens in a specific situation (which clearly depends on many factors) - it's about what the odds are of usefullness on average over all possible situations with all factor combinations. Clearly you can't have tested that exhaustively, but you know the gist of things I'm sure.

I guess it doesn't make sense to use that basis for the player character, since he's not randomly generated. Therefore, I'm not asking on average about character setups, but rather whether there is any setup whereby it's useful to have, say, 50 dagger together with 100 bow. Presumably the answer to that is yes (e.g. with high critical strike, dagger might be more useful than bow against well armoured foes(?), and generally be more useful than bow against shields(?)).

 

[Bar Tec]

I *believe* that realism has got nothing to do with RPGs, and thus, shouldn't be used as an argument.

Oh, really? You didn’t make toothbrush an ultimate weapon, you assume that higher strength means greater damage, you want the choices to have consequences - what is this, if not the care about realism on a very general level? Yes, you are willing to sacrifice realistic archery mechanics for better gameplay, but these are things of secondary importance...

In other words, let's make ranged weapons uber, so you can kill people before they reach you. Ok. Now let's turn it around a bit.

Exactly the opposite. Make ranged weapon uber in ranged combat, and melee uber in melee - simple as hell. Problem lies somewhere else - in the environment - whether a melee fighter is forced to attack archer in open area, or there is a way out etc. Alternatively, is there anything wrong with the assumpion that there are combat situation that pure archer or pure melee fighter simply cannot deal with. IMHO, if such situations are optional (do not affect main quest) there is nothing wrong with it.

Many people here seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea of pure archer (while archer with secondary melee proficiency is perfectly OK). The reason may be, there are no real archetypes for pure archer. Even Robin Hood had some decent melee skill and did not rely 100% on his bow.

before you can strike him even once. Sounds like a frustrating reload fiesta, followed by uninstall and a conclusion that TB games are lame as fuck.

Some people may be frustrated if their melee character is beaten by crossbowman who shoots and reloads several times at melee distance, completely ignoring the swings of their two-handed blade.

...it is well documented...

It's not a history channel, son.

Sorry, daddy, I did'nt know. I am so ashamed

So, where do we draw the line? Do we accept some unrealistic elements, but refuse to accept some other elements that your inner LARPer can't live with? What are the critera?

There is not definite answer to this question, but maybe some approximation. Imagine a ingame combat translated to high-budget movie scene with good special effects. Some unrealistic things would look awesome and "quasi-realistic", like whirling attack decapitating three opponents, or shooting two arrows at one. Some things would look grotesque like time freeze to reload a crossbow in melee. On the other hand, using crossbow as a proxy melee weapon is very acceptable

 

[Vault Dweller]

Once again, too many factors.

Sure, but my question is not about what happens in a specific situation (which clearly depends on many factors) - it's about what the odds are of usefullness on average over all possible situations with all factor combinations. Clearly you can't have tested that exhaustively, but you know the gist of things I'm sure.

I guess it doesn't make sense to use that basis for the player character, since he's not randomly generated. Therefore, I'm not asking on average about character setups, but rather whether there is any setup whereby it's useful to have, say, 50 dagger together with 100 bow. Presumably the answer to that is yes (e.g. with high critical strike, dagger might be more useful than bow against well armoured foes(?), and generally be more useful than bow against shields(?)).

Let's try that again. As you may recall, we have two opposite styles - light fighter and heavy fighter. It's very hard to hit a good light fighter, it's very easy to hit a heavy fighter. That alone makes it hard to name one number that works for everyone. Throw in more factors and the task becomes impossible.

In Fallout one number setup worked, which was a flaw. You hit 100+ and the game suddenly becomes less challenging, because now you can "go for the eyes" with 80-95% accuracy. I tried to fix this flaw in AoD.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh, really? You didn’t make toothbrush an ultimate weapon...

Too many players were confused which end was the deadly one.

...you assume that higher strength means greater damage

Merely game mechanics to reward higher stats. You actually get a strength damage bonus even when you are using a crossbow. Doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever, but when in Rome...

...you want the choices to have consequences

Game mechanics to make a game more interesting, not more realistic.

Yes, you are willing to sacrifice realistic archery mechanics for better gameplay...

Ok, I see that it's important to you. I'll make another thread in 5 min, so we can explore archery mechanics.

Exactly the opposite. Make ranged weapon uber in ranged combat, and melee uber in melee - simple as hell.

Not that simple. I do that and then rangers have no choice but to retreat a few steps, and melee guys must follow. So, combat becomes twice as long and as interesting as hunting rats in Klamath.

Imo, this is one of the common mistakes in game development. A developer goes for some realistic/interesting in theory mechanics, but the end result is either painful or boring.

Some people may be frustrated if their melee character is beaten by crossbowman who shoots and reloads several times at melee distance, completely ignoring the swings of their two-handed blade.

What about daggers? Would they be frustrated if their heavily armored melee character is beated by a punk with a dagger? I bet they would, but such are the horrors of war.

 

[Balor]

Bar Tec
Notice how skillfully he debates our arguments?

Hey, VD, if you cannot be assed to implement this, just say so, ok? Or at least come up with something else then realism != funzor!!1
Cause it CAN be made both realistic and fun. And besides, 'pure archer' build is bullshit anyway. At least when played with strightforward 'stand and shoot' approach... in my book it's neither realistic nor fun.

 

[galsiah]

VD - I still think it's possible to answer such a question (perhaps you don't think the answer is useful, but there is an answer). Still, the fact that there are so many factors probably means that a secondary weapon skill will be useful some of the time at any reasonable value, so that's fine.

Problem lies somewhere else - in the environment...

So you would suggest a combat system which relies on the environment having fairly specific characteristics? That might be reasonable in theory, but it's a silly way to develop a game. With a combat system that will work in any (reasonable) environment, level design can be done without any worry about breaking combat. If you rely on the environment, you need to design every area with that in mind, test every area, redesign everything when your combat system is tweaked...

You can fix the undesirable situation once in the combat system, or hundreds of times in the environment. Once is easier.

IMHO, if such situations are optional (do not affect main quest) there is nothing wrong with it.

They can be optional but still affect the main quest. It's a nonlinear main quest.

The reason may be, there are no real archetypes for pure archer.

Legolas? (I'm guessing VD needs some way to tie in the Orlando Bloom voice over material).
Pure crossbowman is more unlikely, however.

 

[galsiah]

And besides, 'pure archer' build is bullshit anyway.

Sure, but would you play a pure archer in that case?

Personally I don't see a big problem, so long as bow (highly skilled) with a backup melee weapon (reasonably skilled) is a reasonable build. If it turns out that the bow is more useful in melee most of the time with such a build, I'd say that's a problem. If the backup melee weapon is usually more useful, I don't think it's much of an issue.

As far as archer combat being fun goes, I'm not sure we're in a position to make a clear judgement. I don't think standing toe-to-toe with bows is great fun, but then nor is a marathon with occasional pauses to shoot.

Again, it will clearly always be preferable for a ranged character to keep his distance, rather than engaging in melee. The only odd situation would occur when a ranged fighter is caught and can't retreat. In that case, the ranged fighter won't have a shield, and won't be able to block - his attacks are likely to be less damaging than melee weapons too. He's still at a disadvantage - just less of one than is realistic.

I don't think it's easy to know which is the better system without play testing.

 

[Bar Tec]

Problem lies somewhere else - in the environment...

So you would suggest a combat system which relies on the environment having fairly specific characteristics? That might be reasonable in theory, but it's a silly way to develop a game. With a combat system that will work in any (reasonable) environment, level design can be done without any worry about breaking combat.

By the word "environment" I meany something more than physical layout of the game area - NPCs, critters and their AI also fall under this category. Tweaking the environment is unavoidable, sometimes it is done in indirect way, for example, through limits imposed of construction set or some gereral assumptions. For example, in order to allow diplomatic character to finish the game, you have to eliminate hostile NPCs that shoot/attack on sight - this is example of "adjusting the environment" I was thinking about. As far as I remember, VD said there will be no "shoot-on-sight" situations in AoD. Taking this into account, you can slightly adjust combat mechanics etc. etc.

 

[Nutcracker]

Todd Dweller?

 

[Gambler]

Imo, this is one of the common mistakes in game development. A developer goes for some realistic/interesting in theory mechanics, but the end result is either painful or boring.

Common? Realism is very rare, especially in RPGs. The most common mistake is an oversimplified game mechanics that is supposed to be fun, but really is totally random and boring. Like hitpoints. What's so fun about hitting your enemy for gadzillion times before it dies? Nothing. But everyone uses hitpoint anyways, because proper wound/bleeding/fracture/pain system is difficult to implement.