Call for an Erfworld Video Game

[depricated]

I like the idea of a large hex display with more detail. My thought for unit display is this: show strongest unit in stack OR leader if one is there. Show one unit for each stack on the hex. If there are too many stacks for one faction(say, 5+ stacks?) it shows the highest level leader or stackhead for the faction with a number indicating the number of stacks.

The sub-hex idea is interesting, not sure how we could work that. I mean, the actual subhexes would be easy but the unit display zoomed in concerns me. I actually had a similar idea which involved the entire hex being the battlefield and having the player control their units. But this brings up another topic:

Is a battle 1 Stack vs 1 Stack or is it 1 Hex vs 1 Hex? Or does the player decide which of their stacks will fight? I don't think this would clash with anything from HOMM because, if I recall, HOMM was just stack vs stack, unless the stack was too big to fit on the battlefield in which case it took the largest number of units it could?

[privatepepper]

I would assume that with hex sizes that when your zoomed out you would see a regular hex, but when you zoom in the sub-hexes would slowly become visible. Also I would go with option C on battle displays. Maybe when your zoomed out (to full Hex) the stacks are shown as one unit with a number, but as you zoom in (to the sub-hex layer) you see many units where that one unit was, though you control them as a group. Do I need to clarify the sub-hex idea?

Well, I think the sub-hexes would _only_ be applied to the cities if they were used. Other than that, there would just be hexes- there's no move required for moving around within a hex.

Another thing: The game will have to handle pretty huge maps, assuming units with 52+ move can move 52+ hexes. After all, Erfworld is a whole world, isn't it?

Alternatively, we could have smaller maps / less move, BUT: set up a server running a giant Erfworld map. This would be the main game people can connect to that has the Arkentools, certain unit types (including orlies, gwiffons that actually -have- 52 move rather than, say, 12) , and multiple players-per-side. Have an "endless war" thing going on here, much like the comic.

[Drunut]

The sub hex idea would only really come into effect during sieges and battles with leadership involved. If there is no leadership the battle is auto-resolved. (meaning it takes the unit strengths and bonuses and pits it against the enemies strengths and bonuses and the side with the largest strength wins)

Also, battle would be commenced by an enemy faction moving units from one hex into the hex your unit is occupying. So the battle would take place inside one hex. (or 2 hexes worth of units fighting in one hex for control of said hex.)

EDIT: With the 52+ movement, that could count for 52+ sub-hexes (so moving through one World-hex would take 3 movement or 2.5 movement if you take it literally.). The actual map is made of many many many sub-hexes, and the larger hexes are just to make it less daunting and easier to manage large groups.

[privatepepper]

I really think that sub-hexes won't work out well at all, sorry.

Edit: Auto-resolution for battles, however, would be fine for unled stacks- but free movement throughout a hex MEANS free movement. Sub-hexes would certainly mess that up.

[Drunut]

I see your thinking there private, but I can't help but cry. I even made visuals

Anyways yeah I can see what youre saying. It is essentially a RTS world with Super-imposed hexes on top of it. I'll get a visual in a second.

[privatepepper]

*hug*

[Drunut]

Now, FEAR MY MSPAINT VISUAL!!!


Yeah the dots are units, get creative with what they are its not that hard. Ignore the black hexes they lead into THE ABYSS. And thats a desert thingy up top.

[zeekgenateer]

So to sort things out we're doing a 2d world map and some 3d battle system?

This seems to be the Total War way then (never played HOMM) with each faction having a turn, being able to attack on their turn and being able to control battles in real time. Though in erfworld to stick with cannon it would have to be some sort of sudo RT (battles/skirmishes still take place in turns?).

I understand the sub-hexes for/against argument, and I like the super overworld map dealie. So we have different maps with different hex sizes ie Erfworld map hex is 100mi across to area map with hexes 10mi across then the battle map with hexes 1mi across. So the game when put into battle mode would generate a map based on terrain features in the hexes the battle would take place and you would take the battle from there.

Agree with auto-resolution if leader is not present as their would be little discipline for troops. And not very good options for mediocre leaders. You can tell them to attack something, but throw something weird at them and they'd quit.

[privatepepper]

Well, I think there should only be hexes on one level. There might be a "super" map of all of Erf and a smaller map of just the active area, but the hexes we see are the hexes that Parson saw at the Eyemancer combo board- nothing else, because there are no other hexes.

Combat would be seperate from the overworld map. Battles would take place automatically when unled stacks are nearby, or on command with led stacks, then enter some sort of seperate combat system, the details of which can be worked out later- but it probably shouldn't be hexes, because

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F063.jpg

One move is one hex. There are no other sizes of hexes, no other amounts of move.

[malekith]

The way I'd imagine sub-hexes is as a way to define areas and a unit/stack's direction.
More for ease of calculation and improved battle tactics etc. Move is movement on the World map, 1 move = 1 hex, subhexes are free to move around but used for calculating things like direction (if we so decide it's needed or the comic suddenly throws us a curveball - get it? ). You following me? that's how I'm assuming we're using them over in the TT/PnP thread.
some examples from games:
you're using HoMM as a good one right?
So You're saying that you'd have hexes on the world map but not on the encounter map? doesn't sound logical to me, but I'm no coder
Why not have both as this is meant to be TB, but I suppose it doesn't say anywhere that battles in Erf are TB.
Another example is D&D (or most PnP RPGs for that matter)
this is a system that can have any style of map, board or nothing at all but you're imagination! And it can be as turn based as you like . So say for example a DM has a world map with a marker for the party, this marker can move so far in such a time (usually a day or session) but when the group gets to a town or dungeon they get out a map of the location with a hex grid on it and drops miniatures/models on it, the DM then says: whilst you're here there's no limitation to your movements or turns until an event happens (e.g. going to a specific position or encountering an enemy) then we roll for initiative and play it out by sensible movement and action allowances within the space of a turn and the hexes are used for directional calculations (i.e. sneak attacks and such).

Now that's a very loosely DMed game of D&D but it's much more fun than having a Rules Lawyer for the DM and allows for a good bit of roleplay. But that aside it also sets a good example for how an Erfworld game could run, in my view, maybe with a bit of modification.

M

[JohnnyEgregious]

Well we need a way for units to use formations during a battle. These sub hexes wouldn't exist on the overworld, they'd only show up during battles. Without something smaller and a unit of movement during battles, then there is no screening for weaker units or ranged units. Sub hexes seem logical for encounters since they would fit inside of our normal hexes and we need a way for units to run away, or block off areas, and etc.

[depricated]

Or we could simply give Leaders the ability to put their stack into a formation, which modifies the stats of the stack as a whole in some way.

[Drunut]

But which would be easier to code ('cause I can't tell i'm no coder) The sub hex Idea or using leader-formations on a free-form hex?

[depricated]

Well if combat is handled as say a doombat has 2 swords and 1 shield, attacks a marbit who has 1 sword and 1 shield, the doombat gets first strike and kills the marbit. Formations wouldn't be anything more than just a bonus & penalty to the stats of everything in the stack. It could also determine positioning if we want to involve the player in each independent fight.

For instance, if we micromanage each battle, we could have formations with the following effects:

+10 initiative, -2 defense - this would be a "responsive" formation
+2 defense, -2 attack - this would be a basic defensive formation
+5 move for all flyers, - 5 attack and defense - a travel-based formation that really hopes they don't run in to a trap. Maybe for veiled units and scouts.

These are just examples, of course. They would play out on the battlefield as only starting positions for each unit.

But what I had in mind is more along the lines of how combat runs in Elven Legacy, but on a much larger scale. It's animated, but it's also the same as a stack-attack in Civilization, for instance. The unit attacks the target unit(usually adjacent hex, though ranged can reach out 2 hexes) and the rest is RNG'd. We see the fight go down, and the results, but we don't control the actual fight. Make sense?

p.s. I had this in mind before playing the Elven Legacy demo - I only observed that it's an excellent parallel

Another question: how big is a single hex?

[malekith]

a single hex is fairly whopping.
That's a good idea and what I'd imagine a alternative to mine would be, but I dont like using world level hexes to work it out. If they attacked over a hex line then how do units with 0 move left attack? and I'm sure I've never read in the comic about range units firing over a world hex. If they could then Parson would definitely have used it to thin the column out before they got to GK...

M

[BLANDCorporatio]

privatepeeper:

(pretentious_git)Awesome graphics?! Morrowind?! That washed-up RPG morass, along with the muddy grey and brown palette that's all the rage in FPS-es, has soured me from 3D. On the other end of the spectrum, the sparkly-glowy nonsense that was Warcraft 3, and that Starcraft 2 is almost shaping up to be, are not helping one bit.(/pretentious_git)

3D can look awesome ... in Wall-E or Shrek, or a few cut-scenes in some games.

zeekgenateer:

3D battle-system? Explain. Why the impression that this is what we are heading for?

Drunut:

In principle, having only one kind of hex is easier on the coder. BUT, that's not what matters.

The thing is, most TBS games use a different screen/map for combat than the exploration one. In effect, one goes to sub-hex level when one enters combat. One reason probably is so that turns won't be inhumanly long (which I dubbed "the Wesnoth trap"): you may have several heroes, each with several units under his/her/its command, but until they enter combat the hero and underlings behave as a monolithic whole. So, you don't need to order around too many units, and wait for them to finish the order. When you do enter battle of course there are not too many units in the field anyway.

ADDED: in general, when discussing issues of gameplay, coding is NOT an issue imnsho.

For one thing, seriously, you can code for any kind of turn-order, world split or what have you. All those things are easily doable if you can describe exactly what it is you want. This is not statistical signal processing where you could get the math wrong or use the wrong math, nor graphics/physics engine where you need to be very efficient.

What IS an issue is whether the game will be playable. Get too creative with the game-play and the result could well be, like many experiments, disastrous.

malekith:

A DnD style system like you described, with turn-based entering in effect when an event like an engament happens, is probably not applicable here.

In DnD, you have one party of allied human players, against a world. Here, you may have parties on opposing sides. It is the most comfortable abstraction to act consistently turn-based, or consistently real-time. Or, third option, have real-time battles on a subhex map but movement through the world, exploration and so on are done turn-based.

[privatepepper]

Actually, Bland, the D&D system has rules for party v. party and world v. world. Have you ever heard of the Miniatures Rules? Or perhaps Warhammer-type games? (PvP follows the normal combat system, of course)

[BLANDCorporatio]

privatepeeper:

Heard of DnD, and Warhammer of course, but that's pretty much it. I've got no great familiarity with the rules or gameplay, nor experience, even second-hand, of those systems.

EDIT: recently, I did peruse the Player and Monster Manuals for DnD 3.5. In German, which I don't master yet. Hardly know anything about more subtleties of the rules, alas, than player party vs. monster infested dungeon.

[zeekgenateer]

Ok in regard to your question I was confused as to the nature of 3d people were bringing up. I think it would look great in 2d, even better than it could in 3d. You just confuse the user by putting 3d in strategy games (unless that's your goal Homeworld). I was refering to the look of Rome: Total War (which I assume is not atypical to the TW series), where the map is a 2.5d and the battle system is in 3d.

The question here is if we want the warlord to have direct control during battle. Meaning that during a skirmish he/she would be presiding over tactics at every moment. While the alternative is that after each skirmish he/she would recieve a pop-up window on how his/her troops did, what losses they sustained and total move left (attacking should take up move so that a unit may attack more than once) and if they want to press the attack.

This is simalar to a cival war game I played that used hexes (I'll try to find the name). Where an attackers stats and the defenders estimated (army intelligence) stats were listed. The player would fight and based on the two stats the computer would randomly select an outcome (sometimes the little guys can pull it together).

Update: I think we need to examine how some of the battles in erfworld have played out and decide if they existed in real time or the sort of sudo real time that exists in erfworld (where people are suspended so it seems to be real time up to the moment when everything stops). Then we must also decide which would be better for the user.

[moose o death]

so essentially you guys are removing everything that is erfworld and just making a hexagonal chessboard? that's fine if your into that kind of thing...but why call it erfworld under the circumstances. you capitalise on the naming of units and shoot yourself in the foot for potential earnings if you do a good job.

erfworld focus's on the story behind the game, if you want to build an erfworld game you should too. otherwise all you have is a tbs that looks like saturday morning cartoons are engaged in war.