Classic RPG battle system.

[Aleksi]

I don't know if any of you played "Ogre Battle". it is one of the best games i've ever played. In fact, the first time i saw Wesnoth i saw a similarity to this game! Anyway, i wanted to know how people would feel having a different battle system. Here are some shots of Ogre Battle:









Of course, i'm a musician and i have no idea how long it could take creating this... Lets say a battle system like OB is more RPG type. Game lenght will be much longer and strategic. I am just curious about people's advice. Thought i could mention this idea... Another interesting point of view is that items and weapons could be incoprporated! I know it has been discussed but i wish there would be shops and stuff. But maybe its not the goal of Wesnoth. Anyway, cheers!

Aleksi.

[Sithrandel]

I view Wesnoth as a wargame, not an RPG. Hence keep the battles unmicromanaged

I don't want a game which stretches forever and requires huge micromanagement. I play on lunchbreaks so don't have much time to dedicate to it

Perhaps if I had more time, or battles were less frequent I'd feel differently.

[Lithorien]

No.

Wesnoth is not an Ogre Battle clone and never will be.

[Ave]

I think Wesnoth's battlesystem is already set. Maybe I would like another battlesystem, and definitely I like RPG's but that wouldn't be Wesnoth Keep Wesnoth as it is, and create new games for Linux!

[Aleksi]

No.

Wesnoth is not an Ogre Battle clone and never will be.

I am NOT proposing a clone Lithorien... it was just an idea... I didn't say it had to be exactly like this! This is classic style of rpg's. I think Wesnoth is perfect like it is, it was just opening possibilities for futur changes.

Aleksi.

[Dave]

I've always wanted to write an RPG, and perhaps after Wesnoth I will try to. However I think that Wesnoth works well at what it tries to be -- a strategy game with some RPG elements.

David

[Aleksi]

Yeah, i unerstand. I didn't intend to change anything. As i said, BFW is a great game and doesn't need much more... I was just expressing what i thought. Anyway, maybe in Wesnoth 2? ...

[telex4]

Not having played any RPGs for a long time (since I don't like them ) I don't really understand the kind of system you're proposing. Could you explain it a little more?

[turin]

Not having played any RPGs for a long time (since I don't like them ) I don't really understand the kind of system you're proposing. Could you explain it a little more?

as i understand it, you have a hero walk around, and when you get into combat with someone you go into 'combat mode', where all your army is displayed (previously it was assumed that all of your troops were in the same space as your hero). this is, at least, the system in HoMM, and it seems to be what he is describing.

if it is, i am against it, because it would make the games too long. that was always one of the drawbacks of the HoMM games, they took WAY too long to play. (3-4 hours per scenario sometimes)

[Dave]

Okay, this is something I just have to understand...

Lots of people seem to talk about HoMM as the epitome of fantasy/strategy games. They suggest their most beloved features from HoMM for Wesnoth, and talk as if Wesnoth becoming half as good as HoMM would fulfill their deepest dreams.

I've only played one HoMM game very briefly -- whichever one it was that Loki ported to GNU/Linux (3?) -- and only the demo at that, and frankly it was one of the most pedestrian, boring gaming experiences I have ever had.

As far as I could tell, you move your little men (heroes?) around the map, picking up items, and occasionally enter battles. Battles enter you into a new screen, where you have to order your men to move around the area the battle is being fought in.

Apparently a single scenario could consist of numerous battles. Every single time you entered one you would have to tediously order your men around the battlefield, with an insane amount of micro-management. The game seemed to consist of many, many of these battles, that were all very very similiar, and little else.

Am I missing something? What was so good about the game?

David

[Darth Fool]

Am I missing something? What was so good about the game?
David

Coming from somebody who also has not played more than a handful of scenarious, I think "an insane amount of micromanagement" does sum up the HOMM games pretty well...

[Aleksi]

Yeah, i just got HOMM 4 and its just perfect... Very creative in all means!

[Sithrandel]

Am I missing something? What was so good about the game?
David

Depends which one you played... if it was HoMM 2 or 3 then yup... you missed something

If it was HoMM 4, then you didn't

In my opinion...

The strength of HoMM is the large number of resources... 6 or 8 or something. Also your heroes appeared at random with a choice of only two at a time and they changed every week (7 turns). Also the creatures you could buy changed every week. You built up heroes with skills learnt on the map. You could see where skills would be learnt, but not which skill until the building was visited. Magic was randomly allocated. All this meant:

1) You would never be sure what sort of hero you'd end up with. There was some choice, especially if you used a hero for scouting, but still did you maximise early or hope for more applicable skills later. Skills applicable in one scenario would not be applicable in another.

2) You had to think very carefully about the army balance and also upgrading given the resource level.

3) The unpacking of armies was linked to traits so only some heroes would see the actual composition. Knowing the opponent only has a handful of units doesn't describe the battle the same way if those were Arch-Devils or merely skeletons.

4) It was possible to lose your castle then recapture it in the week and not lose out bigtime... if the enemy had it when the creatures re-populated that would cause problem.

5) The heroes were aloof from the battle. So even the most powerful hero could get trounced if his army was too weak.

All in all great games... which sadly I no longer have time to play. To me the strength of the game was the range of choices and strategies. You couldn't develop one favourite strategy and use it all the time.

In my opinion they killed this in Heroes IV where they removed lots of the random element and added heroes to the battlefield... because some players got frustrated that they couldn't pick their favourite hero, or because their super-strong hero died because they picked the wrong battle. So rather than being an evolution, it step backwards.

Lessons for wesnoth
I think HoMM is a classic lesson for wesnoth. Be very careful about "enhancing" the game with good elements from another game. Rather like wildlife. Those elements may be wonderful in one setting, but destructive in another setting.

I love global enchantments and magic in Dominions II (the best magic system around at the moment, though bloodwych had the best for true RPGs), but don't think they have a place in wesnoth as they are different games.

[Gafgarion]

I'm a big fan of Ogre Battle (I'm an OB god if I don't say so myself ) and Dominions, and they are both fantastic games... however! Wesnoth is Wesnoth, not Ogre Battle, HoMM, or Dominions... Let Wesnoth be unique.

Anyway, Wesnoth already has many similarities to Wesnoth like character advancement, battle system (although Ogre Battle was done with squads, the they share many elements), etc.

I'd love to see FreeOgre, an open-source Ogre Battle clone, however this is Wesnoth.

[turin]

Okay, this is something I just have to understand...

Lots of people seem to talk about HoMM as the epitome of fantasy/strategy games. They suggest their most beloved features from HoMM for Wesnoth, and talk as if Wesnoth becoming half as good as HoMM would fulfill their deepest dreams.

i think i was the one who first talked about HoMM in this thread, and it was to argue AGAINST implementing a system using the HoMM system.
i don't really like the HoMM system, and i was using it as an example of a game gone bad with too many features.

sorry about the confusion...