Posts from 60. Battles in the city. Auto-translated

Issue # 60: BATTLES IN THE CITY

As far as I know, this topic hasn't been touched upon at all. Although some individual ideas slipped through at the very dawn of the project (#31 - Storming the Castle):

Paladin:
Castle walls and towers destroyed during a siege must be rebuilt.

KYA:
During a storming, buildings are destroyed/damaged. Primarily the higher levels (via misses from long-range attacks). Buildings are destroyed in stages: minor destruction (reduction in unit production), medium (cessation of unit production), and total. Magic towers are destroyed floor by floor. Money must be spent on repairs. A city (during a long siege) can be completely destroyed, as neutral monsters can raze it to the ground.

Letyashchiy:
Like in real life... Storming a castle from different sides... Of course, the walls there are stronger and there are no gates. But instead, there is a chance that a flying army will bring an element of surprise and not all troops will be mobilized. That's more room for maneuvers.

As usual, the truth can be found somewhere in the middle. It's not worth overcomplicating things with repairs — players won't stand for it. So, the solution I'm envisioning is this: when storming a castle, not only the wall/moat/towers are involved in the battle, but also some of the buildings, which can also take damage or even collapse.

This will introduce some variety to the garrison placement — corners, passages, and pockets will appear, allowing for more effective use of the terrain during defense. Otherwise, all the pleasure is just hiding between war machines and managing to cover yourself, preferably in Tactics mode.

And sometimes there is a real urge to move the combat to narrow city streets — that's the only place where fragile archers can hide from huge monsters. Especially if the shooters have low health, while the monster runs fast or even flies, and moreover occupies 2 cells. Now imagine: a small building standing by the castle wall, a narrow vertical street between it and the next house, where our unfortunate shooters huddle. And at the edge of the entrance, a Beast runs around snapping its teeth — it has no chance whatsoever of squeezing inside. So it will either have to "gnaw" through the wall itself or wait until it is knocked down by an accurate catapult shot.

Next are the details. Only those buildings located in the immediate vicinity of the walls will be involved in the battle (remember, I suggested creating the layout yourself, placing buildings on the free areas of the castle). Here, a choice of distance can be made by the defenders: whether they wish to place troops right up against the wall — which is what we have now (then internal buildings will not be affected at all), or perform the placement with an offset (let's say, up to 10 cells deep into the castle).

In the first case, after the battle, only the walls and towers will have to be restored. In the second — all buildings that sustained damage. I dare say that this is a very modest price for the advantage of additional cover for troops. Furthermore, there is room for the idea of storming from different sides: since the castle is built asymmetrically, there will be an opportunity to choose which wall is preferable for attack!

Now to the main point. Each building occupies several cells (or possibly one). Each cell has its own health (HP) and a full set of parameters characterizing resistance to each type of damage (fire, magic, physical damage, ...). When health is at zero, the cell is considered destroyed: the fragment is ruined and units can now stand in that place. Catapult shots and massive spells can damage several cells at once; other types of influence are pinpointed.

After the battle, the repairmen summarize the sad results — so many cells destroyed in so many buildings, and so many resources will be required for their restoration. If you have enough — press YES. If you don't have enough for everything — choose the most important ones; others will have to be sacrificed — they will collapse immediately. Moreover, if you chose REPAIR for at least one object, nothing else can be built this turn (but instead, all buildings will be restored in 1 day)! Well, if neither of those warms your soul, press NO and start rebuilding the city in a new way, since there is plenty of free space now.

By the way, if all cells of a building are destroyed, then in theory, it should be considered demolished. But I would really not want to do that — let there remain the possibility to restore it from the ruins the very next day, even if paying its full cost — this saves time for other buildings.

This idea has three far-reaching consequences. First, while sitting in a deep defense, you should take care in advance of a substantial supply of materials, at least the same stones and wood for walls and towers. Second, if several armies attack the city in one day, the buildings don't have time to be restored, i.e., the destruction accumulates! And third, the attacking side receives additional experience — since there is significantly more HP on the battlefield!

That's all for now. Anyone who wants to discuss the topics of this or previous issues is welcome. Next time, I intend to put an end to the question of the change of day and night in the game.

By the way, here's an idea: sometimes sieges last for several days, or even weeks. Why not tie the battles within cities to the global game time? For example, after all the troops have retreated three times – once the defenders, once the attackers, and again the defenders – a day passes in the overall game time. And reinforcements might arrive. Then, it could be done in two ways: either the reinforcement forces "join" the stacks of the defenders, or a new battle begins between the surviving attackers and the reinforcements...

Well, what can you do?
The prospect of synchronizing global and arena time remains one of the most exciting. However, I have become disillusioned with it.

Imagine:
Two heroes (blue and green) have a falling out, and a small skirmish begins. And it seems that green is starting to gain the upper hand...
But on the next turn, blue receives reinforcements in the form of a garrison from his castle, along with his fellow hero. And now, together, they begin to push back the enemy.
The enemy is having a hard time and cannot expect any help. But then his ally, red, appears, and with cries of "fight, fight!!!" jumps into the fray.
After a couple of turns, the heroes of the other colors join in with fresh forces.
As a result, for half the game, a huge mess is brewing somewhere on the map, and it is even difficult to imagine an interface for managing so many players.
Some of the heroes are already fighting, while others are left without units (!)
In general, complete chaos - like World War II.

I have only seen something similar once - in the game Dungeon Keeper, with the Armageddon spell. At the same time, all the enemy creatures rush to destroy your Keeper's Heart.

Well, what can you do?
The prospect of synchronizing global and arena time remains one of the most exciting. However, I was disappointed in it.

Imagine:
Two heroes (blue and green) have a falling out, and a small skirmish begins. And it seems that green is starting to gain the upper hand...
But on the next turn, blue receives reinforcements in the form of a garrison from his castle, along with his fellow hero. And now, together, they begin to push back the enemy.
The enemy is having a hard time, and there is no help coming. But then his ally, red, appears, and with cries of "fight, fight!!!" jumps into the fray.
After a couple of turns, the heroes of the other colors join in with fresh forces.
As a result, for half the game, there is such a chaotic battle somewhere on the map that it is difficult to even imagine an interface for managing so many players.
Some of the heroes are already engaged in combat, while others are left without units (!)
In general, complete chaos - World War II.

Heh, no need to be so verbose. There is a lot of information that can be expressed in a few words. This scares users away.

In general, complete chaos - World War II.

That's not true. A simple system: two warriors are fighting. Three turns have passed in the battle. A new day begins. You click on a button in the battle interface, and the game switches to global mode. Technically, the battle ends, losses are displayed, but - no one wins, and none of the heroes disappear. A new day, everything is as usual, but the heroes who are engaged in the battle cannot interrupt it, and they cannot leave. They stand in place, and two squads fight. But then your hero approaches that place. On the global map, he orders to attack the enemy, and - he attacks him, already with losses from the first battle. But he attacks only with his own forces.

This does not create an imbalance, because the forces are not combined, and it will not be much more difficult to attack a city.

This doesn't create an imbalance because the forces don't combine, and it won't be significantly harder for the attacker to take the town.

Alex's question, as I understood it, was different: what happens if a hero from a third faction approaches instead of your hero or the defender? Does he have to wait? Does he join the battle? And if so, how? That's where the difficulties began.

Alex's question, as I understood it, was different: what happens if a hero from a third party approaches the battlefield instead of your hero or the defending hero? Does he have to wait? Does he join the battle? And if so, how? That's where the difficulties began.

Oh, that was quick. Okay, as I understand it, the question is this: what happens if an ally approaches the battlefield. He will join the battle, logically - he shouldn't just stand there and wait. I already said that battles are interrupted after the end of each day - an ally cannot be the third participant on the battlefield physically, and there is no need to develop an interface for 3 players.

an ally cannot physically be the third participant on the battlefield; there is no need to develop an interface for 3 players.

This means there is a flaw in the game model: "two are fighting – the third doesn't interfere!"
And what is he supposed to do?

Third. Can safely engage in battle with the enemy. Because during the third turn (if it's an ally, of course), the two units simply stand still and don't fight: they have "finished" the battle, although they can't move apart. So, it can go and fight the enemy.

And it can also approach an ally and transfer troops to them, using the regular menu that appears when your hero approaches an allied hero.

The third one. He can safely engage in battle with the enemy. Because during the third unit's turn (if it's an ally, of course), the other two simply stand still and don't fight: they have "finished" the battle, although they can't move apart. So, he can go and fight the enemy.

He can also approach an ally and give them troops, in the regular menu that appears when your hero approaches an allied hero.

Are you kidding me??? You've been asked the same question THREE times, but what if it's NOT an ally? Give an answer, instead of saying "if it's an ally" again.

Is a third-party player, an enemy to both fighting heroes? Well, the same thing happens – these guys finish the battle and stand side by side. The third player can attack either of the two opponents and then the remaining one.

A player from a third faction, an enemy to both fighting heroes? Well, the same thing happens – these guys essentially finished the battle and are standing side by side. The third player can attack either of the two opponents and then the remaining one.

But they haven't finished, the troops are mixed, some are under spells, etc., and how will this look?

Hmm... Spells aren't persisting. The battle restarts, and we have to position the troops again.

Perhaps a limit of 6 moves per day could be implemented — heroes move six times — and then that's it, they've fired their shots and disperse. On a new day, the onslaught resumes.

6 moves is, of course, a bit much from a tactical standpoint, but previously there was no such "bonus" at all; and from the perspective of battle realism, it actually fits — the first assault, with 3 moves for each side. On one hand, heroes with small armies won't be able to hold off the enemy for a day — they'll definitely be cut down in 3 moves. But a more or less large army is capable of waiting for reinforcements if they are a day's journey away.

Such a system aligns with both battle realism and increases tactical possibilities. Moreover, everything remains balanced.

This system aligns with both the realism of combat and enhances tactical possibilities. Moreover, everything is balanced.

Balanced, you say??? Hmm, I'm afraid I'll have to change all my priorities... Before, I could cast a slow spell for 15 turns, summon a unit of elementals, and resurrect units during battle... but now, three turns and it's gone?? And why?? If a spell says it lasts for 15 turns, why should it be interrupted?? After all, even with nightfall, 15 turns will still last for 2-3 days... And the blinding spell... will this unit be carried away in the arms of allies, or what??
Then, imagine a battle for a city lasting four days, which is 12 turns – perfectly normal for medium-sized armies. But while this is happening, an enemy is running across the open field, and if the battle lasts for 20 turns, followed by a portal, and then the attack of a second hero for another 15 turns, and at the end, in just ONE day, they reach the castle (which is not under siege) and start a battle – they make THREE turns, and the day is over.... Doesn't it seem like this is utter nonsense???

Balanced??? Hmm, I'm afraid I'll have to change all the priorities... before, you could cast Slow for 15 turns.

How often do you cast Slow for 15 turns?!

summon an elemental unit.

Elementals... Well, what do you suggest? We could introduce a limit of 6-8 turns for each side. We could even make it dependent on something - after all, you get elementals in the second month and later. We could do it like this:

The first 2 weeks of the year - a limit of 7 turns for each side.

The next 2 weeks - a limit of 8 turns.

The next 2 weeks - a limit of 9 turns.

The next month - 10 turns.

Then always 10 turns. But then the new feature would make less sense - neutrals wouldn't be able to hold you back (which is what we want), and most battles would be over in 10 turns. That would be boring. Maybe we should make a triple system - during a battle with an enemy hero, with neutrals, and during a castle defense. And also, make the number of turns per "day" increase, but not too much.

Let's say, against neutrals:

1st month - 5 turns.
2nd month - 6 turns.
3rd month - 7 turns.
Then always 7 turns.

Against an enemy hero:
The first 2 weeks - 6 turns.
The next 2 weeks - 7 turns.
The next month - 8 turns.
Then always 9 turns.

Siege:
The first 2 weeks: 6 turns.
The next 3 weeks: 7 turns.
The next month: 8 turns.

Doesn't it seem like this is nonsense?

Don't be so harsh. I'm just making some schematic suggestions.

How often do you cast slow for 15 (!) turns?

Is a mage with 15+ Spell Power some kind of rare guest to you?? When I play as a mage, it's the norm.

The point is that I'm suggesting not to force the game, whose engine isn't designed for such functions. And all the fans of sieges and so on should go play Total War. Believe me, if you come up with a WORKING and, more importantly, BALANCED version, it will be good. But if you evaluate your last post, you'll notice that my criticism has pushed you forward significantly compared to the start of the thread.

I understand these are only schematic suggestions, but I'm just pointing out the first stones you're going to trip over.

P.S. Sorry for the bluntness; I've just gotten used to identifying flaws in projects at work.