| Author |
|
Gasterix 
New Poster
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
 Topic: Horrible Combat Mechanics
Posted: 07 May 2012 at 23:21 |
|
The combat mechanics in this game are horrible. I'm sorry, there is no other word for it.
Try sending 50 Charioteers against 5 Dogs, Now open http://illyriad.varda.nl/battle/ and send 5000 Charioteers agaist the same 5 dogs. Same result.
I just received a combat report for attacking 4000 Longbows with 50 Charioteers, result: you failed, so you died. No enemy casualties. Fair enough I guess, if you have an elevated opinion of the Longbows range, penetration and firing speed; or maybe because the Charioteers were not running fast enough next to their non exsistant chariots.
Warfare has always been about fire and movement, everything else is seconday. Of the seven principles of war, terrain is just one. The principle that wins battle is combined arms, it started in 3500 bc and it's the same today. A bunch of unarmed peltasts (javelin wielding light armoured militia type troops) routed a group of Spartans because they had mobility,
You do not calculate battle winning odds by comparing stats (and your stats are a little weird). Light cavalry will try to attack missile troops, or at least keep them at range. Spears will be on the flanks ready for cavalry. Heavy cavalry will either attack the center to break formation (if they have stirrups) or try to ouflank after they have dealt with opposing cavalry. Swords and shortspears will hold the main line and/or attack enemy infantry. It's all about rock-scissors-paper with a few missile equalizers thrown in.
It takes 10 minutes to read up on this on Wiki (don't trust it all) and I bet any business analyst with respect for himself could write the pseudo-code needed in 30 mins.
So, why are we stuch with this garbage?
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 07 May 2012 at 23:45 |
|
The "stuff" we have is the result of a philosophical avoidance of "rock, paper, scissors" balance which, in large numbers abstracted to a simple algorithm, actually results in oversimplification and promoting blanket use of mixed armies.
Illyriad's goals happily sacrifice realism wherever it conflicts with the greater goal of fun and tactical diversity. And it is quite right in avoiding rock, paper, scissors balance, as doing so merely reduces tactical and strategic decisions to an elaborate 50/50 gamble or the consistent mediocrity of aforementioned mixed armies. In a mess like that, all that ultimately survives is the general principle that the biggest army wins. Many other browser-based games have in just that fashion reduced tactics to a farce, and I'm far happier that my tactical choices have actual impact that is both more diverse and more profound.
I had some sympathy for your point of view right until you spoke on what a "business analyst" could accomplish. That alone shows how little you comprehend the complexity involved in reducing realistic warfare to a scalable and efficient multi-variable agorithm that uses minimal lookups and produces near-instantaneous results without taxing a busy processor.
You need to understand the difference between
simulating battle and
modelling the results. This difference (and the fact that the diversity is applied through the defending unit instead of the attacking one) are the primary reasons that the games unit stats tend to differ from what "realists" expect. The results are actually quite appropriate, especially when you take into account the effect of guerilla tactics (which the presumed inappropriateness of your examples seems to discount).
Ultimately, the results do sometimes differ from what many would consider realistic. But it is a mistake to presume that realism is the primary goal to which a fantasy game should aspire in the first place, let alone do so ignoring how broadly even experts in a non-fantasy setting would differ on what constitutes "realistic."
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 |
Posted: 08 May 2012 at 01:20 |
Agree with HM; every calculation is a compromise on reality, and we're just modelling rather than simulating. This isn't Rome Total War (nor its successors), and for good reason: the Illy servers would simply choke if they were expected to process detailed simulations.
I think the level of detail is fine, but not overwhelming. For every combat approximation, someone will always shout that it's not realistic enough because it doesn't take account of x or y (think of silly examples yourself).
When we play a (modelled by implication) game, we accept the symbols and the rules of the game world, suspending our disbelief. We work out how to play by the game's rules and mechanics. Personally, I would only be disappointed with the modelled reality if I felt cheated by the inequality of players' understanding of it, e.g. (a) most other players understand the game better than me, or (b) I wished for a far more complex model that I was capable of understanding, while others wouldn't understand it.
 Gasterix wrote:
... any business analyst with respect for himself could write the pseudo-code needed in 30 mins. ... |
I'm one of those analyst/coder types, and I agree that fairly workable combat systems could be written on a napkin. However, I wonder what proportion of those business analysts could then refine the variables and 'run the numbers' to ensure good game balance while getting 95% of cases correct-ish, and code it to run in a few milliseconds in a safe transaction on a busy server.
Ideas can be expressed in a few minutes. Fitting those ideas into a game can take 10000 times longer.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 08 May 2012 at 03:09 |
Your understanding of the mechanics of sending 50 bows vs. 4k troops is incorrect. You were crushed so totally that you did not receive a report. That does NOT mean that there were no enemy casualties. You could scout before and after to determine the number of casualties inflicted if you wish.
Illy combat mechanics tend to be less responsive to "gimmicks" than those of many other MMORTS I've played (such as zerging with spears in Evony). When a gimmick is discovered, as with the 10-10-10 armies seen in the last tournament, the developers are proactive about closing the loophole.
There is no one "guaranteed" strategy that will always win in Illy, and that makes the game far more interesting than many of those with the allegedly complex battle mechanics you profess to admire.
You are a relatively new player whose main understanding of battle mechanics seems to come from reading the wiki rather than from actual experience. Perhaps you should build your cities and create armies, then employ them in a variety of tactical and strategic situations; this might allow you to come up with a more intelligent and articulate critique of the battle system.
|
|
Diomedes
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 208 |
Posted: 08 May 2012 at 08:50 |
Well said, Rill. I, for one, abhor the cold analytical processes that seem to excite a small minority of players in Illy. The essence of the game is surely to experiment with what might work in practice - which, if one thinks about it, is more in tune with real life. I thoroughly enjoy the inherent uncertainties of combat, and would lose interest quickly if I had to depend on a calculator before sending troops into combat. "Go, my brave warriors - go and kill, and if perchance you fail, I'll just send some more."
|
|
"Walk in the way of the good, for the righteous will dwell in the land"
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 08 May 2012 at 12:46 |
|
I wouldn't want to discourage the use of such calculators as means of experimentation and understanding gained at reduced cost. New players will especially learn a lot if they pit specialized forces of relatively similar strength against each other while playing with the choices of specialization and terrain (and which side attacks).
I've never made much use of them myself, but then I gained a feel for combat tactics before such tools were available, and my position more frequently relies on words than troops.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Gasterix
New Poster
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 18:56 |
|
Thanks for the feeback. I agree that the comment on business analysts was a little below my standard. Hold on there ... my standard is pretty low.
(thinking about the best way to respond to get my point across; without doing collateral damage to the Illy dev team).
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 18:58 |
Gasterix wrote:
Thanks for the feeback. I agree that the comment on business analysts was a little below my standard. Hold on there ... my standard is pretty low.
(thinking about the best way to respond to get my point across; without doing collateral damage to the Illy dev team). |
I've met some of the devs, and they are pretty sharp people. I'm pretty sure they can handle anything you might choose to dish out, although your motivation for doing so would be murky at best.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 19:06 |
HonoredMule wrote:
I wouldn't want to discourage the use of such calculators as means of experimentation and understanding gained at reduced cost. New players will especially learn a lot if they pit specialized forces of relatively similar strength against each other while playing with the choices of specialization and terrain (and which side attacks).
I've never made much use of them myself, but then I gained a feel for combat tactics before such tools were available, and my position more frequently relies on words than troops.
|
I think using battle calculators is great for many people, although it's not to my personal taste. My comment was more in reference to the complexity of planning a campaign in Illy with regard to coordination of forces, choice of troop types to build in the first place and then deploy, use of Raid vs. Attack stratagem, decision to reinforce a city to Sally Forth vs. a siege rather than using repeated Raids, that sort of thing. I think that these are the situations that can't really be captured by a battle calculator that reveal the depth of Illyriad gameplay.
My point was to encourage Gasterix to experiment with some of the complexities of actual troop use so that he could gain an appreciation for these factors, which in my mind outweigh the question of whether combat is all-at-once or round-based. My intention was to encourage engagement with and enjoyment of the game as a gestalt, the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
And Gasterix, I do hope that you will stick around and do so.
|
|
Gasterix
New Poster
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 19:18 |
|
quick question: is HonoredMule a Dev in disguise? (it actually rhymes)
|
|
Tweet
Horrible Combat Mechanics
Topic Options