I think a big factor that can be used is "Frontage". This is the effective way a weapon can be used in a particular situation.

take a knight for instance. A lance can really only be used to the Front of the troop (and only on one side or the other). Where as this might be good for a charge, once the knight has engaged, the lance is next to useless. However, knights also had swords and the Sword (from horse back) could easily attack to one side or the other (but not forwards). This would allow them to rapidly kill any enemies that surrounded them. So if knights can get in amongst an enemy squad (ie a panicking squad), they can cause a lot of damage, but if the knights can't get in amongst them (ie tightly packed infantry) then they can't do much danage at all.

So, if you use this in your games, then knights with lances might be good at the initial charge, but useless in an sustained melee. They would, in fact, be good at breaking a group of infantry up (pike are different again, I'll get to them later) ready for the knights with swords (or just switch to them).

In a game, this could be done with micro management. You could tell your knights to use their lances or swords. However, if the knights switch to a sword in melee, their must loose the lance (but can regain it with a resupply) as it would be hard to holster the lance and draw your sword while people are trying to pull you off your horse and stick other weapons into you.

The lance charge would be devastating against any infantry that did not have reach melee weapons. This makes archers especially vulnerable. But this is not because of a hard counter where Knights are explicitly counters to Archers, but because of the ability of knights to charge with a lance and break up the massed infantry. IF the archers can form up and hold the line against the knights, the knights will not be nearly as effective against them (and knights being expensive - the armour, the horse, etc) they would be out numbered by the archers and so the archers would win. The knights would have to pull back and begin another charge (and the archers would shoot them all this time).

It's not a hard counter as it depends on weather or not the infantry can maintain a packed formation or not.

With Pikemen, these weapons have a reach longer than a lance, so any knights charging into this would be hit first by the pikes. However, the length of the pike makes it hard for the pikemen to turn around. So a fast moving unit, like light cavalry could out flank the pikemen and gain the advantage. The other weakness of the pike is that once an enemy is in melee with the reach of the pikes, they can't really hurt him. So if a unit can deflect the pikes (say with shields) then the pikemen will have to discard their pikes and use a weapon with less reach.

So, how does this all relate to the concept of Frontage?

Well, the squads of knights with the lance has a Frontage that is directly in front of them. However, they have no frontage in an overlap. The knight with the sword has a Frontage only in the overlap, but no frontage in front of them.

Pikemen have a frontage with a reach, but none up close.

Melee (swords, axes, etc) all have a Frontage up close, but none at reach (but some can have a defence against reach).

Archers can shoot from any place in their squad and hit any target in another squad, however, the chance that their shot will hit and do damage is low (and because of this they can't actually shoot targets in an overlap - unless they wish to also hit friendly units).

Another factor is terrain. Some weapons work better in certain terrain than others. In trees, the archers can not shoot from anywhere in their squad, as the tree branches will block and overhead shots. So this changes their frontage rules. The can only shoot in a line of sight, which means that only the enemy in direct line of sight can be shot at (they can no longer hit everyone in an enemy squad). Also, pikemen have a much harder time in forests as there is more obstructions to their movement (pikes are long and will get caught on things).

The other effect forests have on squads is it is harder to maintain large formations while moving (those damn trees again). Also cavalry will find it harder to charge as the lower branches will effect them (clunk!).

This changes tactics and strategies and unit counters somewhat. It is harder to break squads up (unless they are moving themselves) so knights aren't as effective. Archers can't send volleys into enemy squads, limiting their killing rate and reducing their psychological impact. Pikes will be less effective except in static lines (and then will have to positioned so as not to interfere with the Archers lines of fire). What seems to occur is that fast infantry become far more effective in these situations and the advantages of other terrain (like hills, ridges, etc).

On hilly terrain, the troops higher up have an advantage. The archers have a greater range, they can see the enemy squads clearer (and therefore easier to hit), the knights can use the momentum from the hight to increase the power of their charges (and enemy knights are slower charging up the hill and so do less damage).

With marshy ground cavalry and heavy infantry find it difficult (if not impossible) to move, so this would slow down (or stop) the charges of the cavalry. This makes Archers very effective in this terrain as they are usually lightly armoured and can attack at range.

Frontage combined with terrain can be used to completely rewrite the weapon "Counters" chart.

Most hard counters that are devised only consider the effects on open, flat, hard terrain. Most of the time (in fact in all the games I have played) Terrain only effected the movement rates of troops. Adding in terrain (with more than just the movement effects) will make the combat more tactical and adding in the frontage mechanics will make microing more effective and eliminate the Hard counters (because the positioning of the troops and hown they relate to the group they are attacking is important).

Another aspect that can be considered is to make the stats as an enhancement of particular weapons.

In a game I am designing (not an RTS though) I have 4 close combat weapons: Swords, Axes, Short Blades and Staves. Although not historically accurate, I created a system that uses the character stats to enhance the weapons.

Axes will do more damage the stronger the character is (but the lower the stat the less damage it does). Short blades will increase the attack rate the more nimble the character is (but the lower the stat the lower the attack rate it has) but not change the damage due to the character's strength, Swords use the character's strength to increase the damage (the lower the stat the less damage it does - although not to the extent that the Axe does) and also use the characters nimbleness to increase the rate of attack (the lower the stat the lower the attack rate it has - but not to the extent that the Short blade swords do) and finally the Staff is not influenced by the character's stats at all (so a character with low strength and nimbleness stats will benefit from using a staff).

Using a system like this, you Orcs would do more damage with the Axe and a Human would. Goblins (and Elves) would end up doing more damage (damage over time) then if they used Axes, and Humans might do more damage with swords (balanced stats).

Rather then have counters build advantages and disadvantages into the different weapons stats. Then allow the players to build their own strategies around those advantages and disadvantagies.

For example:
Axe
Damage: 2 ;Determines amount of damage done if a wound is inflicted
Effective Range: 0-1 ; The distince an enemy has to be in to be able to use the weapons.
Pentration: 0; The negative to the enemy's armor save
Weight: 5 ; Factor in determining how often the unit can attack

Pike:
Damage: 1
Effective Range: 2-6
Pentration: 10
Weight: 15

Bow:
Damage: 1
Effective range 6-60
Penetration: 20%
Weight: 3

Plate Mail:
Armor Save: 70% ; Chance in resist damage when hit.
Weight: 20

Shield
Armor Save: +10%, +30% versus arrows
Weight: 5

Every weapon and armor then has its uses, advantages and disadvantages. Without the need for any sort of hard counters.

Thanks for your outfilling replies, I'll consider all ideas. I've also thought about something similar to what you said, Edtharan, on the buttom of your post. For example letting the Wood Elf get an increased chance to do critical strike the more agility he has, and that a 'backstab' ability requires daggers. Furthemore, with the weight/attack speed-system by TechnoGoth it would make sense to make heavy two-handed axes for the Orc so he has a slow attack speed.

Do you suggest morale is included, making morale a deciding factor on how well a pack of soldier is able to hold lines before they run away in panic?

I'm not sure how many yet, but I don't want too many soldiers in each squad.

I'm going to use significantly time on weapon counters. I've not decided wheter I want to include heroes or not, and if I do, I'll probably stack them up with a group of soldiers, or I would have to make them extremily powerful compared to "normal" units. I've just gone through many ideas lately, and I've not come any longer, to be honest. The only ideas I've decided to bring on is that weapons type should have different functions and that terrain will be a strategical factor. I also want unit abilities and attributes to be important.

The system I want (yet to come up with) may seem complicated under the surface, but players don't need to go under the surface, they will only get the information they really need in-game (some players might want to ask for all the detailed stats, and this can of course be published somewhere) on unit stats et cetera, and a discription of units and other will suite well in adition.

What is going to be included?
- A unique tech-tree for each faction. Players earn tech-points by engaging in battle, and can use these points to unlock 'faction-techs.'
- All units in the game will have uniqe abilities
- A system of attributes
- All units are aimed to be as unique as possible and have several functions, not only one, like they have in many RTS-games I've played
- Weapons should have different functions and I want a 'cool' counter system that contributes to make the game strategically, while at the same time adding twists to micro-management
- Terrain should play a role
- There will be siege (ups! more questions incoming), magic and huge beasts like dragons, trolls etc.
- I would also like to remind you that this is a fantasy-setting. Maybe the Human faction has the ability to engage in formations, but what about a small pack of Elves, or berserking Orcs? It's a great idea for at least the Human faction, Edtharan, with the "Frontage," but I would need other factions (different types of units) to counter them too. Like pikes for example (not saying it's right or wrong) being vulnerable to archers and pikes spread out being stronger againt spesific huge beasts, or the opposite. There are tons of other factors I also have to consider, and I fell I'm pretty blank on this area... :( There's so much information to deal with.

So the question is how deep everything should be, before it is to hard to learn? What I have in mind is not complicated for the player. The player should not have to worry about lots of lots of numbers, they should test all the options themselves and learn stuff while playing, and have a discription of the main functions of a unit/ability/upgrade/magic. I want the player to be able to play creatively.

However, I want a lot of numbers, I love to balance a lot of numbers and include lots of cool attributes and skills (that might be a problem?). What I have in mind is that players will get a discriptoon of what abilities do and what attributes increase, but not get the numbers in-game (if hardcore-players want all the detailed numbers they can be published somewhere else), only the most important. Like when something increases, they want to know how much it increases. Somtimes it's enought writing: very small inc, small inc. medium inc, significant and so on, while others want to know specifically number of 7% or similair. Many game companies have similair solutions. Some numbers have to be included though.
--------------------

I've put some thought into your ideas, and I like them. :)

[Edited by - ManaSky on March 13, 2007 10:15:56 AM]

Quote:

Original post by ManaSky- I would also like to remind you that this is a fantasy-setting. Maybe the Human faction has the ability to engage in formations, but what about a small pack of Elves, or berserking Orcs?

Well, there are two ways that I can think of to handle this:

1) Come up with a series of roles that you want for your counters, and then come up with creative ways to fill them. For example, the Humans will have Pikemen, while the Orcs might control some hideous tentacled beast that serves the exact same purpose. Another example would be to match the Orcish berserkers with Elven Animal Handlers that control wolves.


2) Build a morale/discipline system. Make it so that your Human Pikeman, Orcs with really long Axes, and Elves with Long Spears can all form up. But make it so that they can all screw it up differently. For example, Orcs might get bored and charge the first enemy they see, the Elves might panic and flee, and the Humans might get distracted and stop paying attention.

WarCraft III is a good model. But be careful, you have to keep it simple so that players can remember what beats what quickly, and also it should be pretty much intuitive, so that players who never read the charts etc can still play well just by feeling it out.

The problem with hard counters is that it changes the gameplay from strategy to an exercise in learning what beats what, plus a bit of micromanagement to ensure that the right thing is attacking the right target at the right time.

In a fantasy or sci fi RTS with highly imaginative unit types, this can be extremely unintuitive. How do Tree Elf Doom Spiders fare against Troglodyte Headcrab Slingers? And where exactly do Trollish Fungusmongers and Gnomish Poopsock Throwers fit in?

Soft counters such as those you describe in WCIII don't really help the situation all that much IMHO. They just shunt the mechanics a bit further under the hood so then you have to learn wether Tree Elf Doom Spiders count as heavy armour or hero armour, and whether Troglodyte Headcrabs do piercing or bludgeoning or whatever. I want my strategy games to involve more actual strategy and less memorizing huge lists of unit stats.

Things are far more interesting with situational counters, e.g.
Under some set of circumstances, X beats Y, but under another set of conditions, Y beats X. Ideally those conditions should involve use of terrain and positioning. This occurs to some extent in all RTSs, but few really take the idea as far as they could do.

The Total War games are actually good examples of this done right. Although the counter system itself is relatively basic, the concept of formations turns the relatively hard counter system into a situational one. My light cavalry can still murder your pikeman if I can out manouever you and charge them from behind. You can pull off wins against terrible odds by out-thinking and out-manoevering your opponents armies. Furthermore, the rules are simple and intuitive, and you can get a good idea of how best to use a unit just from looking at it's graphics on the screen.

One thing you have to look out for is making a system too complex. The more complex the system the more likely you will find a missed Dominant or Dominated Strategy (a situation where some choices are either over or under powered).

Quote:

The player should not have to worry about lots of lots of numbers,

Quote:

However, I want a lot of numbers, I love to balance a lot of numbers and include lots of cool attributes and skills

Here you have a problem. On one hand you don't want lots of numbers, but on the other hand you do want lots of numbers. Unfortunately you can't have it both ways.

Including lots of numbers, attributes and skills just for the desire for them to be in the game is not a good reason to include them.

Quote:

So the question is how deep everything should be, before it is to hard to learn?

Chess is quite easy to learn. There is only a few pieces and they only have a limited way they can move. You can teach a person all the rules of chess in a few hours. However, it can take a lifetime to really master the game.

Chess is a very deep game, but that depth does not come at the cost of making it harder to learn.

Having lots of stats, abilities, skills and attributes makes the game broader, and not necessarily Deeper.

Think about the broadness of a chess game. Each piece has an X/Y position and a single algorithm that describes the way it moves and there are only 6 types of pieces (Pawns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, King and Queen).

This is not a very broad game. But, it is a very deep game because of the way the elements (pieces and their positioning) interact.

That last word is the important one: "Interact".

A deep game will have lots of interaction between its elements. A broad game will just have lots of elements.

The depth of a game can sort of be measured by the average number of interactions for each element, where as the count of the elements is a measure of how broad the game is (this also means that Depth and Broadness are not mutually exclusive - you can have a Broad game that is also deep). However, usually to development restrictions (like the time it takes), usually only one of these paths are worked on, not both.

Quote:

Things are far more interesting with situational counters

Yes, this is a good point.

You can take a Hard Counter system, and by using situations effects you can blur the edges of the Hard counter system until is is more of a soft counter system.

Example:
Lets us the Hard counter system of Knights -> Archers -> Pikemen -> Knights. This is a simple Scissors/Paper/Rock hard counter system.

Now, lets add in some situational effects.

1) Pikemen can only beat Knights if the knights attack from the front.

2) Archer only beat Pikemen if they can fire massed volleys at them, so that if the Pikemen or archers are in the woods, this can not occur.

3) Knights can only beat Archers if the Knights can out run the Archers, so in marshy or boggy ground the knights, being heavier can not keep up with the lighter archers.

This blurs the counter system somewhat. Now the outcome of a battle is not so clear cut. The terrain and how you use it now makes a big difference.

However, this is still a fairly hard counter system. Either the troops have the advantage of the terrain or not.

Lets play around with this a bit more. Lets give them formations and morale (this is where it gets a bit more complicated).

Morale is easy to use. Each group has a morale value and if this exceeds an initial threshold the unit becomes slower to respond to orders. The attack slower, move slower, etc. The player will be able to change the formation of a group and the morale will effect the rate that this change occurs (this is important for the micromanagement aspect of this).

A second threshold is the panic threshold. Once the morale level exceeds this, the unit becomes almost impossible to control. They revert to a Dispersed formation and react even slower than before.

A basic formation is the "Dispersed". This would be a formation where the individual units are not acting in a coherent manner. They can move fairly rapidly (full movement speeds) but moving faster than 2/3 normal will cause morale damage as the group becomes more dispersed. They don't use their weapons as effectively, but because of the larger spaces between the units, it does make them harder to hit with volleys of arrows. However, as the group is not coherent they are harder to control. This should make any checks of Morale harder to overcome.

The next formation is the Rank/Line formation. This is a formation that can move fairly rapidly forwards (say about 2/3 normal movement speeds), and is easy to control. Pikemen can attack with several ranks and offers a very dangerous front. Morale is easier to maintain in this formation, but volleys will give more casualties. This formation is slow to manoeuvre and turn (about 1/3 normal) so it is vulnerable to being out flanked.

The Wedge formation is a formation designed to break up an opponent group and effect it's morale. This suffers the same weakness to ranged volley attacks as does any packed formation like the rank formation. It is easier to move the formation forwards (full movement speeds allowed) and it can turn and manoeuvre at a moderate rate too (about 2/3 the normal turning rates). The main weakness is that it is very weak to morale damage, about as weak as the dispersed formation, so it can't take much damage. This is an offensive formation and not a defensive formation.

The last formation is the Box formation. This is the most defensive formation. It is impervious to being outflanked as each side of the box is able to be used as the front. It can turn at a moderate rate (2/3), but as each side is a front, it can actually move in any direction at will. It has ranks, so pikemen can use their weapons to the most effect as well. It does, however have tow major drawbacks. First it is very slow (1.3 normal movement), and being a packed formation it is extremely vulnerable to ranged volley attacks.

These last additions show how by increasing the number of interactions make much deeper gameplay.

You might notice that these are not just arbitrary links, they each serve a specific role. They either enhance or suppress the advantages or disadvantages of a particular interaction between two unit types (including the interactions with the same unit type). And they have also been selected to correspond with known tactics of battle fields too.

When doing a system like this pure common sense is required. As you said, a pikeman is likely to kill a mounted soldier. This is because like in the Total War games, a horse has a hard time dodging the long weapon and it pierces them thouroughly when they can't jump over.

Same with the 2h sword and the 2h axe. If you've ever watched a movie with medieval action such as this like Lord of the Rings you will notice the different fighting styles of each weapon. A 2h axe requires a backstroke into a cleave or hack towards the torso of a foe. A 2h sword is more versatile, you can slash, stab, hack, lunge, and many other things with such a weapon as well as parry. However, how easy is it to parry an axe with a sword? Not too easy. The blade of an axe was in an arch to make it hard for a straight sword to meet it head on and parry it. As well as that, more strength is put into the swing of an axe than in the parry of a sword so naturally, the swordsman's parry will be broken and the axe will tear through him. But an evasive swordsman can easily slip through the poor blocking ability of an axe. As hard as it is to parry an axe, it is just as hard to block with one.
Thus, doing an armor/attack statistic for each would take this into consideration. A swordsman will have more armor than attack, and vice versa for an axesman.