Hero Revamp

[Pillager]

Magic hey?!

I had a bunch of ideas of how to implement magic (never much cared for the DLR system). But... honestly, I think I like the idea of scrolls. Its simple, you don't need another form of currency (mana crystal or whatever) or any special buildings, you can make magical effects powerful (since they have a limited number of uses, or 'charges') and it's based around heroes (i like heroes being central to the game).

Perhaps a magical hero could use scrolls more efficiently (a % chance not to burn up a scroll charge when casting)..or they could boost a scroll's power when using it (extra strength fireballs, extra distance teleports)..or perhaps both options. The first could be called 'Arcane knowledge' the second could be 'Arcane Power'.

Perhaps scrolls could occasionally be offered for sale (in the same way as heroes) by travelling merchants.

[KGB]

Piranha,

The only reason I mentioned it is because I know you are paying for portraits/graphics for heroes. If you went with the Warlords 5 model you'd only need 5 graphics for all the heroes you cared to create. 1 initial basic hero. Then 4 profession graphics (Warrior/Mage/Priest/Rogue). When a hero picks a specialization you don't need new graphics if you don't want them as you could just adjust coloring slightly to differentiate specializations.

No rush on a magic system as it will take a big discussion before being implemented. So if it's 2-3 beta's away it's not a big deal. I only mentioned it for the idea of how heroes could be customized by players instead of having to select one at hero offer time.

Pillager,

Actually I thought DLR got just about everything right with it's magic system. The only thing that really needed to be redone was the mana crystal concept. Replacing crystals with scrolls could be a viable alternative.

One thing I definitely don't want is a Fireball type spell that can be used to damage other stacks on the map (ie not being in combat with them). That's totally not Warlords and goes into the realm of other games like Elemental: War of Magic/Heroes of Might and Magic etc.

Spells should be limited to:

Enchantments: Persistent spell on the hero stack until canceled by player/enemy spell. An example would be a spell that allowed flight or group move +4 or +1 command or increased gold income from all cities by 5.
Summoning: A spell that summoned a unit to your hero stack. An example would be a spell that summoned a Demon.
Invocation: An instantaneous effect spell. An example would teleport, dispel magic spells, shatter items, create item, bless the stack, clear fog of war on the map.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

I can tell that we are not going to see eye to eye on this magic issue.

[KGB]

Pillager,

No surprise there. LOL.

That's a good reason to delay introduction of spells as long as possible. Because that's going to decide exactly what type of game Warbarons becomes.

KGB

[LPhillips]

That's a good reason to delay introduction of spells as long as possible. Because that's going to decide exactly what type of game Warbarons becomes.
KGB

Amen.

For the sake of balance, it has to be implemented in the far future anyway. It needs to be added on top of a balanced combat system and selection of units and effects. We also need to remember the intentional limitations built into the Warlords/Warbarons system when discussing these things.

You begin to violate the basic premises of the game when you create effects and combinations that cannot be countered by 8 units or less. Another violation is the idea of spells that damage or afflict enemy units outside of actual battle. Maybe something that slows an enemy stack from a short distance, but the limitations for aggressive spells have to be strict. Casting an offensive spell that will take effect during the stack's next battle would be a very good alternative. Standing orders: "Cast Fireball(1) if attacked by 3 or more units simultaneously" (something you could set to protect your hero during other players' turns), "Cast Deathly Pall during next battle" (you might set this just before attacking a defended city).

[piranha]

That part I find really tricky.

Stuff that you can do on the map with your own army on your turn is simple but battle spells that will be used when someone else attack you on their turn. You don't want to throw away charges/mana or what is used vs 1 crow. The idea to set 'use fireball' if 3+ enemy units attack is not very good, if you would change that to 'use fireball' if enemy total STR > 15 for example you would be a bit closer but I think it seems like a lot of annoying spell managing and quite difficult for newbies. Lets say you are approaching a well guarded enemy city with your hero. There is a lot of things that can happen and creating a working trigger for your fireball that can be 'cheated' will require quite technical settings.

Ideas of how to deal with battle spells when you are defending are surely welcome .

There wont be anything like a battle spell to kill units without entering a battle.

[KGB]

Piranha,

I'd avoid battle spells all together. That's why I listed the 3 types of spells that DLR supported. Those were simple to use and didn't overly favor the attacker.

Warlords IV went with battle spells as described by LPhillips. It didn't work well at all unless you were playing simultaneous turns (ie both players in the game at the same time deciding whether to cast or not). It seriously favors the player who has the turn because they can cast and the defensive player can't.

Triggers don't work well for all the reasons you described. You literally need an AI to figure out defensive casting when it's not your turn. I coded a fair bit of defensive AI in Warlords IV for that reason but it still wasn't anything I'd trust more than half the time to cast spells in a limited charge game.

KGB

[Pillager]

Setting spell triggers seems way out of line for a warlords game..much more so than 'on map' blasting spells.

If summoning a demon is OK, then what is wrong with 'summoning' a fireball and zinging it off to damage an enemy stack? You could do that with a summoned demon anyway... not seeing a huge difference here.

The scroll mechanic could make battle magic fairly straightforward. Have a box (like an item box) on the hero screen specifically for casting scrolls. To use a scroll you would pick it up from your hero's inventory and drop it into the 'spell casting' box... this would use up one charge on the scroll. That hero would cast the spell on that scroll in every battle until the start of her next turn.

If you put a 'chain lighting' scroll into your hero's spell casting box, that hero would use it in every battle until the start of your next turn. So, every enemy stack that the hero attacks, gets a shock. Then every enemy army that attacks your hero gets zapped. This way an opponent couldn't send in a bat to absorb the spell before attacking with his main force.

You could make the mechanic more limiting by having the spell end after your hero's first attack. That way you could choose to use a spell offensively (for only one battle) or defensively (for every battle until the start of your next turn).

Maybe some heroes (like a warrior) don't have a spell casting box, and have to buy one with ability points. Other heroes (like a sorcerer) could have multiple casting boxes..allowing them to use more than one spell at a time.

[KGB]

Pillager,

If summoning a demon is OK, then what is wrong with 'summoning' a fireball and zinging it off to damage an enemy stack? You could do that with a summoned demon anyway... not seeing a huge difference here.

Differences:

1) The battle history screen makes it easy to see you were attacked. There is a battle report showing all units involved. Yes, you could in theory have a spell report menu too, but then you'd need a way to see where the spell came from plus a host of other potential things adding more complexity to what should be a simple battle report screen.
2) Map squares are fairly large. On the Middle East map or your Westeros map a square is probably 20x20 miles. I've never in any fantasy world heard of hurling fireballs 20+ miles to attack enemies.
3) Presumably you want your fireball spell to do damage to the whole stack or at least more than the front unit. A demon attacking only fights the front unit, it can't target other units in the stack for mass damage or a particular target.
4) Actual battles require a chance for you to take losses. Hurling fireballs is riskless because you can't be harmed in return. The game then degenerates into a move, cast, move back type game where players endlessly hang back and shoot never risking themselves in battle (basically my same complaint about the Siege concept where you could retreat after X number of losses). It also means that you immediately need a 'magic resistance' skill on all units (or one unit that protects the whole stack) to resist such long range attacks.

Maybe some heroes (like a warrior) don't have a spell casting box, and have to buy one with ability points. Other heroes (like a sorcerer) could have multiple casting boxes..allowing them to use more than one spell at a time.

I was not imagining that any hero could cast spells. Only magic heroes. Warrior types would have to make do without spells entirely and be compensated in other ways (cheaper upgrades to command type thing). In the same manner, I don't expect Wizards to be blessing units, that's a Priests job, nor should a Priest have Chain Lightning etc. If you are going to let any hero do anything then there is really no reason to have Paladins/Dreadknights/Valkyries etc.

So I would not expect to find a 'chain lighting scroll' with 4 uses on it that anyone could use. I was rather expecting to have each spell caster have a list of spells they can cast (and must purchase with ability points ala DLR) and then what you found were the equivalent of mana/charges (either 1 power/charge per scroll or a scroll with multiple charges). A chain lighting spell might cost 2 charges. As you cast, the charges/scrolls got used up from your personal inventory. That's why the 'mana' concept of DLR worked so well because mana was simply a pool you used to cast any spell from. The DLR downside was you had infinitely lasting crystals (bad) and one pool for all heroes (better to have individual pools).

If you put a 'chain lighting' scroll into your hero's spell casting box, that hero would use it in every battle until the start of your next turn. So, every enemy stack that the hero attacks, gets a shock. Then every enemy army that attacks your hero gets zapped. This way an opponent couldn't send in a bat to absorb the spell before attacking with his main force.

Incidentally, how is this different that just having Enchantment spells that last forever? You can can cancel those at any time just as you can take back the scroll in your example. You have to pay upkeep for that spell every turn so it does in effect use up a scroll/mana/charges over time. That just removes the need for a battle spell concept and simplifies the whole magic model.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

these 'differences' you listed are your own creations. You are inventing things to vehemently object to.

An 'On map' battle spell could behave exactly like a unit that auto disbands at the end of your turn. And this precognitive vision you had, about how the game will decay into fireball slinging, doesn't take into account that every fireball uses up scroll charges, which could be very scarce and valuable resources.

Having individual spell lists for every hero class, and a window where you select what spell that hero will cast in no way simplifies the system I was talking about, quite the opposite actually. What you are proposing seems like a fairly solid mechanic..but simpler, it isn't. If you have a spell tied to a scroll (like I suggested), you just pick it up (like an item) and put in in the right box (like an item)...and that's it, you have cast the spell.

I agree that not every hero needs to be able to use spells. So, fighter types wouldn't have a casting box. But, I don't have any problem with a priest casting a lightning spell or a wizard blessing a stack. And I don't think that allowing multiple hero types to cast the same spell invalidates the concept of different hero classes.