[mechanics] Combat and land

[Chris]

Economy part:
- resources: land, workers, soldiers, gold
- each day player gets X turns
- there is a button "Next Turn", when clicked  (1 turn used) workers produce gold, soldiers use up gold for maintenance and land produces new workers
- option: you can use gold to train worker into soldier
- option: you can use gold to get new land (progressive cost)

Military Part:
Now, how to make it...
The purpose of combat/invasion is to steal land from another player. There must be an invasion limit like you can't attack if you have much more land than the target. Everything else is to be discussed.

I want to avoid "do not keep army at home" style like in Travian or Ogame (there is a timer, you send army and wait, once they arrive they fight, then they return. Defender can spot the army  and withrdaw leaving the home empty to avoid soldiers casualities. In short the point of the game is to avoid fighting and keep army on the move, which is, let's face it, very uncool .
I also would like if the combat was consistent with the economy part.

My idea:
I was thinking about some military turns, which are given the same way the usual "economy" turns are given. These can be used to launch invasions (in such case invasion is instant, all is ressolved at once and land gained or not). There is an additional limit that a player can be invaded only once per day by the same player (althrough I'm not sure if such limit should be implemented). As for combat casualities I have no clue yet


Your ideas?

[Sinzygy]

I want to avoid "do not keep army at home" style like in Travian or Ogame (there is a timer, you send army and wait, once they arrive they fight, then they return. Defender can spot the army  and withrdaw leaving the home empty to avoid soldiers casualities. In short the point of the game is to avoid fighting and keep army on the move, which is, let's face it, very uncool .
I also would like if the combat was consistent with the economy part.

My idea:
I was thinking about some military turns, which are given the same way the usual "economy" turns are given. These can be used to launch invasions (in such case invasion is instant, all is ressolved at once and land gained or not). There is an additional limit that a player can be invaded only once per day by the same player (althrough I'm not sure if such limit should be implemented). As for combat casualities I have no clue yet

So you want to keep the players from saving their army. Why not let the players only attack? If a player is attacked, his army will stay home and defend or even more interesting, meet them in the field (based on user reaction. stay home should be default).
Meeting an army in the field will increase casualties, but if successfully defended, the defending player will lose neither land nor gold. If he choses to stay in his town (secure his borders) he'll minimize his casualties and be stronger(time to prepare, etc.), but might lose gold and land.

To prevent the player sending his armies away, simply say a user can only attack if he is not attacked himself. This makes war a lot more interesting, as a player can be attacked while his army is away (think coordinated attacks from guilds, etc.)
The problem here could be an attack-blockade on one user (a guild only attacks one player so he cannot counter attack), maybe a limit of X attacks per day on one target will solve this.

I do not like the idea of attack turns. I'd simply give a fixed time it takes to launch an attack (say an attacking players army is away from home, "on attack" for one hour), during this period, the attacker has only his defending army at home.

Maybe you can use some of those ideas. Let me know how it turns out

[edit]: I might just use something like this mysql

[Harkins]

Sounds like you're building a farming game. I'm really not a fan of the genre.

It sounds like you recognize there's a problem, for instance you mention limiting attacks per day. These ideas are only going to limit the extreme abuses of farming, though, they're not going to actually stop it.

Do something fundamentally different. Maybe attacks give bragging rights but don't bring home loot or slow the defender's economy. Maybe the players don't attack each other, only band together to better defeat AI opponents. Maybe attacks aren't about army size at all, they're decided by comparing the series of tactics the players pick. But the world doesn't need another game that's about the oldest and most aggressive player beating up everyone else forever.

[Nox]

There's one very good czech game on the very similar principles and it works - 120 turns per day/360 max, 20max attacks per day, 3 max attacks in 120 turn to get 120 turn protection, land and gold are the main focus, although getting new land price is constant, but you get only very little from it (thus forcing players to fight) and you get only a little land from someone with less land and less (or negative) fame from assault

There are more aspects to think about, but from experience - these should work
Yeah, Ogame style is kinda...em, not really well designed...also almost no viable target so one sits there in base polishing the fleet
The instant attacks although not as realistic are imho much better.

Limit of attacks to player should surely be limited...otherwise just groups of people will destroy <number of military turns> players per day,
players are resourceful and this would really decrease fun from game for those destroyed players. Although being under attacks player's statistics should
at least slowly grow and he should be able to function.
This is provided the game lasts for longer time, if the timespan of one * is like from hours to week than it's probably no problem in being completely destroyed, week to month there should be at least some fair chance of comeback...
On the other hand the assault should have some results, so the player enjoys it and is happy about what he gained from attack and don't consider it pointless, so it has to be carefully balanced

I hope this was at least a bit helpful, I'm not sure...

*) I ask for this word in almost every thread, but I won't give up How would you name a game time between two replays? In rought translation from my language it's something like eon, but that just sounds bad

----
Harkins
I believe a proper set of rules and game mechanics can significantly reduce constant beating of weaker players... if you can only attack players with similarly powerful army and what you gain is affected by comparison with your and his stats (amount of land etc.) there should be no way and reason to do it
I got also an idea now that each player could have some counter rising when he attacks weak player and the more points you have the more benefit in defeating you will attacker have, so it would "force" (softly, couldn't find the word now) players of equal skill to attack him and discourage players from attacking weaker ones.
I don't thing victory conditions (quantity vs tactics) has something to do with this, but surely an interesting combat system about tactis is a good way to go

[Chris]

Do something fundamentally different.

Nah, I'm tired of making original games, at least once I want to make something "normal"
But I'm eager to hear of any twisted combat ideas.

There's one very good czech game on the very similar principles and it works - 120 turns per day/360 max, 20max attacks per day, 3 max attacks in 120 turn to get 120 turn protection

Red Dragon. But last time I checked they had 12-13 turns a day (but I was checking it like 8 years ago I think ). Anyway, I never got to the combat part there, how it was ressolved? How the attack limits work? What "3 max attacks in 120 turn to get 120 turn protection" means?
What turned me off from Red Dragon was the kingdoms-attacks, in short you had to be in a group to stand a chance. What I'm trying to do is to make something more solo-play friendly.

*) I ask for this word in almost every thread, but I won't give up Smiley How would you name a game time between two replays? In rought translation from my language it's something like eon, but that just sounds bad

Period between resets? Then: round, era, age.

[Harkins]

*) I ask for this word in almost every thread, but I won't give up Smiley How would you name a game time between two replays?

Yeah, if you mean the game itself, Chris's are all good. There's also match, session, cycle, stage.

If you mean the time between two rounds, maybe intermission or recess. Interregnum would be a great word for the type of game talked about here, but it's uncommon.

[Nox]

Oh my...I wrote "replays" and meant "resets", guess I my brain had a time off (happens a lot that does...)

Thank you both, yes, I guess Chris's are the ones, I like cycle as well

Chris
Nn, I meant Melior Annis.
It means, that if between your first and 3rd defence you spent less than 120 turn you get protection...imho it has 2 reasons
1) it somehow measures frequency of attacks, making it "if you're attacked often"
2) on the other hand it gives you some turn to restore at least part of an army, but not too much, because if it would be too much, you probably don't need the protection

I'm not sure but it's most probably 20 attacks from midnight to midnight ... I was actually not that aggressive and also:
- there you can attack only in range 80%-120% of your power, but after that your victim gets "counterattack", which means that in next 72h it can once attack you without this limit and even through protection, so making too many attacks is a bit dangerous, but there were many people who could do it successfuly, but I'm lamer

Their combat system is actually pretty complex, but winner is the one with less % of casualties, and they are ranging mostly in like 20-30% in the first defence
---
Sorry for derailing

[Chris]

I'm not sure but it's most probably 20 attacks from midnight to midnight

I'm mostly intertested in this part. How were the attacks launched? A time delay? Or did you get 20 attack turns (counter displayed on interface?) and you could do them anytime within 24 hours? Was there any connection with economy turns and attack turns, like you can attack once per X economy turns?

Another popular combat solution
- there is one kind of turns
- whenewer a turn is used it generates gold as described on the first post
- there is no "next turn" button, instead all actions use turns
- action: generate gold - this is only for new players, you just pass time and let your workers generate gold
- action: build - each building has certain turns requirement in addition to resources used for building it
- action: explore - get free land
- action: attack - each attack consumes turns
- all actions described above generate gold in addition to the described effect (so after attack report you immediately get "turn gold income" report)

In such solution there is almost always an additional limit put on players. Every time someone attacks you, your "threat level" decreases, everytime you attack your "threat level" goes up. It goes down over time. Only players with certain threat level can be attacked (which makes me wonder what if no one attacks for a while and threat level goes down so there are no targets at all?)


Anyone knows other combat models (usable with the given economy model)? I'm trying to find solution better/other than "realtime troops movement" and "one turn to make all actions".

[jannesiera]

To begin with: a simple restriction on the players someone can attack is stupid. In my opinion war games should be about war, strategy and tactics in this case. So it's about applying the principles of war.

Now, a good general will first gather as much information as possible. About his own army, adn about his enemy. Then, he will decide which one is the strongest (this is a combination of many factors, which will be parts of the game). If he is the strongest, he will engage. If he's the weakest he will take a safe possition, or will try to turn the table.

That is, my friend, because a stronger player wins. And if a game can't deal with this very simple fact, how can it cope with more complex mechanics and serious gameplay?!

Offcourse we do this to make it so new players stand a chance. That's obvious. But the one's who want to put up a simple restriction of percentages based on economic succes, aren't looking at the bigger picture.
What I mean?

1) Playing a game is about making decisions. If all decisions are already made by creating a good economy and gathering the right resources, why don't you make a sim? There is to little involvement of player decisions.

2) The designer isn't exploring uncharted terrain. I have said it before, and I'm saying it again, read the art of war. Read articles or books about war. Go to wikipedia, there is so much information, inspiration, for new ideas. All these problems can be solved by logical thinking, by looking at the real world. It's all the obvious stuff.

I can give you an example of a game design I was working on. (if you want I can explain more perhaps somewhere next week)

In this game there are towns spread over a map. They are connected by roads. Armies can walk on roads. There are no restrictions abou who attacks who. Strong players can (and will!) attack weaker players. My idea was that strong players should be whealty, but more vulnerable. And weak players should be able to effectivly defend a small amount of towns.

I came up with some ideas, but it's not finnished yet (nor are these ideas ever tested in any game I know).

1) Very town has "happiness" and "reputation". The more happiness a town has, the more income it will generate. The more Rep. it has, the stronger the soldiers from that town will be.

When a kindom is being attacked, happiness will go down in all towns of that player. (thus, a big player will lose huge income, a small player not so much)

The thinking behind this is that people in the whole kingdom will be afraid. If a kingdom is not being attacked happiness will improve a little bit each turn.

Now when soldiers fight Rep goes up. This means that happiness will go down though. When a players looses a fight, Rep. will go up slightly. When it wins it will gain more Rep.

2) Bonuses: I have incalculated 2 kinds of bonuses (besides Rep).

 - Defending player gets a bonus. (he's in his town, behind walls)
 - Seasons and weather. Each x turns the seasons change. Each turn the weather changes (or some days you can have the same weather to). This adds some chaos (which makes it intresting!). Some troops will have bonuses with certain weather. And with certain weather attacker or defender will get a bonus.

Consequence:
If a small player is able to defend a few attacks of a stronger player, he'll get a huge Rep. bonus and stand a chance again. If he's lucky with the weather he can even fight back or have some peace if the attacker decides to leave him alone.

Also diplomacy woth other players will be important. (and there are other things in it that are not relevant)



Now I need to ask you: Does it make sense what I'm saying? About how combat, or better, conflict should be handled? (Now I'm going to read what was posted while typing )

[Chris]

In this game there are towns spread over a map.

In my game there are only 4 variables connected to resources: land, gold, workers, soldiers. There is no map of any kind, only list of players to attack. So, this combat system will not work.

I had problems with "inventing" the topics name, so to clarify: What I look for is a combat system that will work with the economy system described on the first post. Also, the game will not be a war game, or at least not fully war game. I think in the end it will be an economy/strategy game with a solid warfare elements (but warfare will not be the main activity). Anyway, all other elements (like decision making) are irrelevent, at least for now, once I get the solid combat then I will worry about these. But first, combat, it is the weakest chain in my design and I need to deal with it first

[JGadrow]

Maybe attacks aren't about army size at all, they're decided by comparing the series of tactics the players pick.

Awww... has someone dug up my old posts about the game I'll eventually get around to making? lol

However, I kind of agree with Harkins. That's why I decided upon such a system because I abhor 'numbers games' as it's almost impossible to get started as a new player. This is a choice for the sake of playability. The more 'playable' your game feels, the easier of a time you will (theoretically) have converting guests into regular users.

[travo]

Isnt that why we implement features like beginner protection and having new people start around the same area?

I dont think there should be a restriction on attacks. If it is a war game, attacking is what you should do.

[JGadrow]

True, but restrictions only limit the abuses. And, a system similar to the one I would utilize has just as much war in it it's just harder to abuse because newer players and older players would have fairly equivalent units and there's a VERY restricted size for fleets. I was thinking around 20 vessels or something similar.

Plus, add in random factors and the ability for players to determine their own targetting priority and you have combat that's decided mainly by player strategy then by who has the most of X unit.

[Scion]

Ultimately in any game where you are able to attack someone else experienced gamers will inevitably tend to attack the weakest opponent possible...

this can be allieviated somewhat by removing in game rewards....but there is still the external pschological reward of beating the other player....and theres nothing you can do to eliminate that....

As a game designer you need to figure out how much you want to control bashing, and then implement in-game controls that enforce the rules youve decided on. (I have seen plenty of games where bashing rules were decreed after the game was created without ingame support and needed to be administered by staff...what a nightmare).

as for making combat be decided on strategy....or any other factor for that matter....this doesnt actually solve the issue...now instead of selecting targetrs that are numerically weaker i will select the strategically weakest....im still selecting the target that i am most likely to beat....after all this makes sense....

The problem lies with a players ability to determine the relative strength of a player in advance....eliminate that and bashing goes away.......ok i lied...you also need to make stregth between battles independant....now bashing is not relevant...but then outcomes of a single round of combat become random....combat would need to take place in multipl rounds to allow for any use of tactics.....and Now we are a very long way away from a standard RTS...and youve probably just eliminated a large volume of your standard RTS player base.

Cause lets face it...if youve played several RTS's then your familiar with the whole bashing situation probably both as bashee and bashhed.....you know that you just have to buckle down and get through it...untill you can start bashing on those weaker than you....

ps bashing is nothing new....Sun Tzu specifically recomends it as the prefered method of winning.

as for chris's game plan....sounds good, pick a common game type and just evolve it slightly...low risk....sound buisness decision

IMHO turns should be supplied in a steady flow....otherwise you will have people that save them up do one batch just before the tick and then the next just after the tick....efectively doubling their attacking power over that short period around the tick....the down side to a steady flow however is that it means its often advantageous to login regularly....swings and slides....

[Nox]

jannesiera:
really nice ideas, although I don't thing it's really big problem to just have restrictions because players are used to them, I''m sure they accept it without really thinking about that, I believe every game has some limitation since the dawn of games. If the limit is somehow explain in game's story (like after three attacks on player the king sends army to guard them => protection), it's an added bonus.

On the other hand I do not say that to have a game mechanic like yours is not better, it surely is.

travo:
After the protection passes you mostly would be still much inferior and helpless against stronger players.
And if it is a war game - above all it's a game and the main focus is fun and imho the game mechanics
should support that, even if a bit illogical or unexplained or against the style or whatever.
It's not fun to be completely annihilated the moment your protection ends.

Unless you mean the protection in ogame-style, which is not really protection but attack limitation, but then you'll be contradicting yourself.
At least for me "protection" means completely but temporarily restricted attacks to a player

If your game has some distance measuring than it's not a bad solution, the cons are that if you have inactive players around yourself,
you're screwed and secondly an experience player might start later and bash all those newbies or if there are restarts you although being
newbie can join early and be eaten by pros... not that any system would be perfect, just...

Chris
To one of your original questions

As for combat casualities I have no clue yet

I believe here are some ideas http://community.bbgamezone.net/index.php/topic,2104.msg13336.html#msg13336

[jannesiera]

In this game there are towns spread over a map.

In my game there are only 4 variables connected to resources: land, gold, workers, soldiers. There is no map of any kind, only list of players to attack. So, this combat system will not work.

I hope it won't work, I invented it, thief!

I just wanted to share that to illustrate my point. Your game is very different than the one I'm designing.

I had problems with "inventing" the topics name, so to clarify: What I look for is a combat system that will work with the economy system described on the first post. Also, the game will not be a war game, or at least not fully war game. I think in the end it will be an economy/strategy game with a solid warfare elements (but warfare will not be the main activity). Anyway, all other elements (like decision making) are irrelevent, at least for now, once I get the solid combat then I will worry about these. But first, combat, it is the weakest chain in my design and I need to deal with it first

If it's not about combat then why worry so much? When you're designing other parts this will come as naturally. And if you don't want something original and refreshing then just put some restrictions here and there. So what's the problem?

[Chris]

as for chris's game plan....sounds good, pick a common game type and just evolve it slightly...low risk....sound buisness decision

That exactly is my plan Now I'm looking for the best base combat model and a way of evolving it. I'm definitely far from inventing a completely new one.

If it's not about combat then why worry so much? When you're designing other parts this will come as naturally. And if you don't want something original and refreshing then just put some restrictions here and there. So what's the problem?

It's purely personal. I consider my combat design skills inferior compared to my economy design skills. That's why even when making non war game I start with combat

[jannesiera]

If it's not about combat then why worry so much? When you're designing other parts this will come as naturally. And if you don't want something original and refreshing then just put some restrictions here and there. So what's the problem?

It's purely personal. I consider my combat design skills inferior compared to my economy design skills. That's why even when making non war game I start with combat

But really, if you start with your strong economical design combat should follow naturally. (offcourse your design is probably different from mine)

It would be nice to help you think though, but is there any more information about the other game mechanics and economy available other than what you posted before? I would be happy to help thinking, but only if I can find the time.

[Chris]

But really, if you start with your strong economical design combat should follow naturally. (offcourse your design is probably different from mine)

It won't, my design process is indeed different than yours

Another thing that is very interesting to me is the "threat level" used in some games, I never really got to understand it fully. It affects how often you can be attacked, sometimes it is increased by your agresiveness. Many games also have a paid option to "decrease your threat level". My understanding of this is still blurry
If someone cound explain to me how it works (no need for a new outstanding ideas, I just want to know how the popular systems work) I would be grateful (yes, I saw it in many games already, I have read the manuals of these games several times, but still... for some strange reason I still can not fully get it )

[jannesiera]

I guess it's something like this:

Each player has, let's say, 100 "threat". Each tick his threat goes up with 10 (but 100 is the limit). The higher your threat the higher on the list of attack targets you are. When you are being attacked, your threat goes down. When your threat is below 25, you can't be attacked until your threat is higher again.

I'm not really sure this is the most popular "threat" system, but that's what I understand .