Warhammer Dark Omen Forum

That's a general thought, when I look at the last pic: I think it's important that there are not hundreds of regiments which a player have to control. In Dark Omen itself it's hard to control more than 3 mortars e.g. and the more regiments are on the field the harder it will be to play tactical.

Absolutely. Most RTT games for some strange reason only allows you to control one unit at a time. In larger-scale battles with many units (as in the later Total War games) you must be able to meta-formate your regiments, that is, order several regiments at once, or, as you say, it will be unplayable.

First of all, I must salute this ambitious enterprize! (click my heels and salutes)
Second, a question: If I understand correctly, this project is not only about graphics but is an attempt to create or modify gameplay mechanics, a "rule-set" if you will?
If so, I would like to share my view on what makes a great RTS,RTT.

You have already pointed out two important factors; ease of command and overview.
One other thing to consider is; by how many factors that you can control, do you win or loose the game?
The more the greater the tactical game.

Examples:
Games like Warcraft, C&C etc. gives you this: You either kill your opponent or not. You can also use terrain to create a bottleneck to your advantage, but basically it is a mechanic of rock-paper-scissors.

Our beloved Dark Omen is based on Warhammer mechanics, that is what makes it so good  ;D, meaning we can hide our units, bind units in combat and flank them, and Moral in addition to the above.

Total War:Shogun (I'm not impressed by their following games) contains the above and adds Fatige, High Ground and terrain, and Panic.

I have yet to find the perfect tactical game, but I do not despair!  ;)
So much for the general suggestions, the specifics will have to wait.
It is late and I have to sleep.

/Mr Shadow
Ps. Lycka till med projektet Mikademus!

first of all, yeah, thank you all there who participating in that project. looks pretty good idea to make another dark-omen-like game.

i dont actually know why we love DO so much. i tried to figure out few reasons, comparing, for example, to Total War (Rome, II or w/e) and i think we need to remain it to be sure that we will get what we really wanted:

1) whole wargame idea - there is no many wargames at all so any wargame feels rather good
2) very well made creatures -  not only good design, but idea as well. by idea i mean three races and creature size - not that small (comparing to map) as in TW and not too much "crowdy" (16 creatures seems very nice). also DO allow us to play a litle RPG style, cause each unit is unique and we really enjoy every of them and use properly (not like in TW when u have tonns of similar units and its like chess)
3) magic and magic items in the game - very big part of the game;
4) moral factors - very important factor, incl. some fearfull creatures.
5) not very big statistics about each unit - like in WH: mark of chaos you see all these "morale factor" or "dmg factors" which i think ruins the game a little, allow us to choose only the best units, and not the most sexy ones and also some reasons i cant describe
6) good archers and whole archers mechanism (like again in WH:MC these arrow so suck - you cant even see it sometimes, and at DO you may see every arrow, which is sometimes nice and funny)
7) good or not - graphics! yeah, graphics is very colourfull and nice looking, compared to boring Rome TW or "standard" graphic as in WH:MC
8 ) nice working experience system. in WH:MC units capped at 3rdlevel if im not mistaken and actually doesnt seems to be really increased at power
9) ncie looking banners. and also this button (dont know how to say) which you ahve to hit many times to get bonus streight
10) voices, music and these animated portraits. - very big parts of the game, and it will suffer a lot w/o it.

well i think it most of main lines why we love DO. please add some ideas if you think i missed - we need to keep all/most these ideas to be realized in future project, or...

Shadow, thanks for the nice words! :) Svensk taktik regerar! 8)

First, if you're curious about the WARTBED project the wiki is constantly updated. A good starting point is the WARTBED article itself (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/WARTBED (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/WARTBED)). Yes, at its core the WARTBED project is a meta-engine encapsulating the rules and circumstances of regimental warfare. Though it is written with Dark Omen foremost in mind, the idea is that also other games will be implementable in it. This of course requires some forethought.

Therefore, your questions about units states are very welcome; in fact there is a discussion about that very topic with some criticism of the Warhammer and Dark Omen set at the WARTBED data structures page (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Data_structures (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Data_structures)) and your opinions would be very welcome there! If you'd rather not edit the article itself please use the talk pages! You might also be interested in the WARTBED Unit Data article (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Unit_data (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Unit_data)) with the currently suggested unit state set. You input and feedback would be very welcome!

As for graphics, games will be imported from and use original assets in Dark Omen (thus making it a formal requirement that you own the games to import, unless the games have been released into the public domain). However, by default, WARTBED will spiff up the existing data algorithmically where suitable (f.i. the DO sprites are filtered through the hq4x filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_art_scaling_algorithms#hqnx_family)) which significantly perks them up. Also of course, all modern bells and whistles such as anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are available, which makes the presentation nicer even with the original assets. WARTBED supports 3D models though, so there's nothing stopping you from replacing sprites with proper models, both will work together.

What makes games like DO and S:TW special is that they introduce true LoS and terrain, and a certain realism, into the equation. Since I am an avid RTT fan you can rest assured that the WARTBED system will not in any way dumb down DO. I can't and won't guarantee to make the ultimate tactical wargame ever, but I will try, damn it!

As usual, any programmers that want to be part are welcome to join! Also as usual, however, we haven't gotten our source server straightened out yet, though, so you're welcome to join and welcome to some patience :-/



Alavet, your point #5 really made me think! You are absolutely correct, in most RTT games where we attach or relate to certain units we DON'T have any statistics (Dark Omen, Close Combat etc). Then again, in WARTBED any data will principally be available for anyone to read directly in the data files... Also, thanks for point #10. I myself haven't given the voices much thought, but almost everyone mentions them so obviously they must be significant. Voices are a must! :)

I'm hoping a large array of new units to allow the splitting of the empire into proper races (humans, dwarves, high elves, dark elves, etc) will be included in the remake! Any information on this aspect of the game available yet? :)

Hello again!

I realized that I have neglected to mention the following.
You are quite right that the game needs a way of controlling several units at the same time, and there are many ways of doing this, most common to select and to group, manually, the units you want to control.

How about changing the focus from regiments, to Brigades
Before the battle you organize your units into larger groups that work and move together on the battlefield.

A rather nice example of this can be found in "Sid Meiers: Antietam", not a perfect but interesting tactical simulator.

Hörs senare!
/Mr Shadow

I would prefer to be able to have the option to just move everything solo, or be able to group if you really want. But i personally would not ever need to do more than groups of 2 at once i think.

Tjena! :)   (<-- Swedish slang for "hiya")

The way this is currently planned to work is through a flexible formation system. Basically, a regiment is a set of units in a formation. Though this is usually a box or some kind it can be anything, and f.i. in Myth you can have a circular formation and Empire: Total War allows you to formate your regiment into an infantry square (highly efficient to defend against harassing cavalry). Now, in WARTBED regiments are also considered "units", which allows the to be structured into meta-formations with the same code as regular formations (which is actually a bit similar to Sid Meier's excellent American Civil War games). Mark of Chaos tried to do something of the kind too, in that the game tried to retain the same relative positioning of the regiments when you moved several at once, but failed dismally in that area too, probably because they had no advance plan of how to accomplish this and tried to add it as a bonus at the end. Whatever, aggregate movement sucked as much as every other aspect of the game.

What I tried to say in too many words here was that your suggestion is a really good one and that multi-selection and multi-regiment meta-formation will certainly be part of the WARTBED code base.

Your Talk of Formations made me think of the Scatter Formation tactic ,

that will reduce your chance of being hit by arrows etc , (perhaps in Total War).


However, the ability to control larger Groups of Units into their own Regiment formations

and also to then be able to alter individually will be a Truely Fantastic addition to WARTBED.


:)

Aaahh yes, that brings back sweet memories!
Myth, Myth, Myth -Now that was a hoot to play online, and generally I'm a modest guy, but I was King of the Hill in that one!  8) ;D
The most amusing part of that game was the aftermath, with recorded gameplay and the Battle statistics!
It was not uncommon for me to get 70% or more of the total casualties inflicted  ;D

Hey! Maybe that is something to include? Would be very fun for the players, and besides, if gameplay is easy to record and show, the game is almost self-promoting thanks to the internet.

Now I have to retire to get some grub!
/Mr Shadow

More nice ideas! Keep 'em coming! There is a wiki article dedicated to these things, so if you feel like it please feel free to jot down your thoughts and suggestion in the brainstorming article (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Brainstorming) as well as here in the forum!

Olly, yeah, the only RTT game I know of with solid meta-formations is Shogun: Total War, where you had special army formations. The other TW games have multi-unit movement but I think the army formations had to give way to rein in complexity or something silly like that.

few suggestions:

1) improve pathfinding (dunno how)
2) allow units to go through another units (like in TW)
3) imporve turns and rotation of units. like now its very hard for big army of units to rotate especially when they coming to the battle. its hard to describe with my poor english but i hope u udnerstood :)

Also feel free to post your suggestions in the WARTBED brainstorming wiki article (http://wiki.dark-omen.org/do/Wartbed:Brainstorming).


Pathfinding will be improved in that everything (LoS, terrain elevation, pathing) will be based on the same system of nodes, that are also provided with meta-data. However, pathing might also be different, in that in DO units prefer scripted preset paths to on-the-fly pathfinding. True pathing may create more dynamic unit movement and tactics, but may also contribute to a more reactive, less intelligently apparent AI.


Undecided. Movement through units is anathema in the Warhammer TT. Not allowing movement through other units is one of the centralmost tactical considerations in Dark Omen, and is associated with a shitload of military concepts such as regimental stability, weight, solidity etc. In actual military history only some VERY skilled armies allowed friendly penetration, much less moving through, tactical formations. The lack of formation solidity is one reason for the pitful tactical experience of MoC. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions. We could allow movement through other units, but at the cost of slowness and unordering both (which means they can't formate and will rout at the drop of a hat). Also, skirmish formations might cross. Worth further consideration, but has VERY low priority since it is against the core of the tactical system aimed at.


It is intended to be improved in two ways: first, meta-formations, that is, that a selection of regiments (including the entire army) can be manoeuvred in the same way as a single regiment. Secondly, the single-unit movement and rotation interface will receive considerable attention.

When my mind was on war-games and such, I thought I'd pop in here again and write a few lines.
I don't know how difficult such a thing would be to make, but I wonder if you've thought at all about a different way of giving orders?

What I had in mind was something like this:
I would like to select a unit or brigade, select a position on the battlefield and give the order (for example) Take that position and hold it!
Then ofcourse the unit/units would try to execute that command.
And even more lovely would be if I got regular reports back, describing their progress.
Let's say that the attack failed or sustained heavy casualties, and the troops requested support/reserves
-and then I could (if I wanted) select new units and ask them to support that previous command!

Oh well, I'm allowed to dream aren't I ;D
I've been reading too much about the Napoleon Wars lately, maybe I'm coming down with a complex...
Cheers!
Mr Shadow

p.s. Lycka till med ditt nya jobb! -all play and no work makes a mal-nurished wallet.

intresting idea. actually never seen such ideas implemented yet, unless semi/strategic game Majesty where you can make a "rewards" for compelteing your tasks and "independant" heroes will either take or no take your proposal. hovewer whole mechanism wasn't much elegant.

im afraid such approach will be interested only for few scenarios, maybe im wrog, but it seems to be little boring if you cant manage thats good..

some kind of a game when you cant make direct orders to your units was a very good scenario at Warcraft 3 (if you familar with that) - Castle Defend. In thiat game you had to make special buildings which were generating troops, but main factor there was your choice of units at every stage of the game and how to counter other units of the enemy.. still not what you meaning but nice game :)

Already in the making ;) The order as right now system contains different types of attack and engage subtypes, one of which is attacking a position with the intention of holding it.

Also within the scope of the current order system. Another order is called "support", which does exactly what you request, that is, sends the ordered unit away to defend (that is, support) the target friendly unit.

I can give you a short and simplified rundown of the order system architecture (pseudo-code warning):

| Order (abstract)
|     SettingOrder
|         ... all orders that sets unit parameters
|     TargetOrders (abstract)
|         Approach (takes an unit or position as parameter)
|         Engage (takes an unit or position as parameter)
|         Defend (takes an unit or position as parameter)

Realistic dreams, friend! ;)


Tackar för lyckönskningarna, hittils har det varit kul och bra, bortsett från ett skituppdrag ;)

I'm still reading into the WARTBED program but I'm excited about it :). Gameplay above graphix!

Now I don't have a real background into the warhammer games and their workings, but I suspect a few ideas outside of those type of games wouldn't be amiss.

My first suggestion has already been mentioned somewhat: Keep it simple enough. Every unit needs to be intuitive in it's use. When you select it, you should know instantly what it can and can't do. If it has abilities they would be easy to use with as little selecting and targeting as possible.
Games like the lates Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 failed in that respect. Every single unit had a different ability, most of them not very intuitive and it's hell to use a mixed-army ability.

Second: give every unit a 'fortify' command. Each regiment has their own bonus gotten from it.
Example: Pikemen dig in their pikes and ready themselves for a Cavalry attack. If charged by Cavalry the Pikemen get a bonus attack and damage for the first round.
Normal footsoldiers get ready to deflect incoming arrows with their shields and whatnot.
Any ballistics team sets up their stuff. Archers put arrows in the ground in front of them style or something to fire faster. Other groups could prepare fire-arrows for bigger damage potentials.
Bad stuff of fortify is that it takes longer for units to get moving again. Pikemen need to drag pikes out of the ground, Bowmen etc need to extinguish their fires and/or put arrows back in their packs, footmen need to get better bearings after lowering their shields etc.

Third: Siege battles.
Especially nice in case of multi-team games. But absolutely possible in small fortresses. Allow one team to assault a fortification. This can be a full-fledged castle, with mounts where your artillery can be placed, others could be small outposts. Nothing more then a few wooden walls or even just a hill with a circular ditch at the top to slow down enemies, and anything in between. While full-fledged siege warfare with ladders, giant towers and rams would be great I think it's best to keep it simple: Doors and gates can be broken down with simply attacking it, perhaps place a few items on the ground that can function as oil or tar that can be used to burn the gates down or function as a Ram item, basicly just giving them a large bonus attack when in 'combat' with gates.
Futher get a few routes into the fortress. Some elevations and special spots for archers to besiege enemy attackers, both outside and inside the gates. Allow infantry to go through small gaps between buildings (if attacked while going through a gap it counts as a flank or rear attack) while mounted divisions are forced around the bigger paths inside the fortress.

Fourth: Terrain obstacles
From what I understand, maps will have a much larger scale. This opts for much more refined obstacles, from a small group of trees to entire forested area's. Rocks, jagged peaks, rips in the ground, rivers, lakes, bridges (destroyable?), battles inside villages with houses and narrow streets where smaller regiments can move much faster.
Allow for destroyables! Burn down houses (stay clear or you might burn a few of your own), break down bridges to prevent flanks, trample high-grass to get more vision (in fact, a whole map filled with high grass where you can't see any enemy until you are on top of them... Trample grass in stragetic swathes and set up scouts watching them, set up archers nearby that can cover the swathes and you can spring ambushes, would be great!)

Fifth: tactical retreat.
Currently any fleeing regiment is pancaked instantly. I would rather have a system underneath to allow for skirmishers to hit&run.
Imagine this: You attack an enemy regiment in H2H combat. But you want to disengage. You can rout your troops manually. At this point a few things are taken into consideration.
1: speed of both groups. The faster the routing group is compared to the enemy, the more likely they will not 'rout' but 'tactical retreat'
2: Current morale of the routing group. Once routing starts, a morale check is needed. If they fail the check they will rout and flee, if they succeed they will go into 'tactical retreat'. Having higher speed then the enemy boosts their morale.
3: if necessary, the enemy team can complete part of it's last combat phase and deal damage as the regiment retreats.
4: A regiment in tactical retreat will be able to receive orders, but has a penalty on pathing until they regroup.

Once in tactical retreat, they will run away from the enemy regiment. They will not flee the battle and when attacked by another regiment will act as if they weren't fleeing. A regiment caught in a tactical retreat will have a penalty on strength in the first combat round.

What would this accomplish? You would create the possibility to create real skirmishers and hit&run melee regiments. Skirmisher infantry groups could get a large benefit when charging, 2 attacks the first round for instance instead of one or a good strength bonus. After the initial attack they can retreat and regroup somewhere else for a new attack.
Cavalry groups with lances would be able to act more like middle-age knights, who would sometimes charge in, disengage en charge again once they created enough distance.
While effective, there are ofcourse enough drawbacks to make it something tactical and not spammable. If your morale fails you have a fleeing regiment that can be crushed underfoot. If you manage to catch a regiment in tactical retreat you are probably attacking them in the flank or rear. Lastly, a regiment in tactical retreat will not regroup instantly. So if you disengage in a multi-regiment battle to get some extra attacks in you will have to wait for it to reform before you can engage again. If you make it so that it takes at least one up to two battlerounds before they reform you are effectively losing possible attacks in the battle.

Another suggestion:
In the data sheet it is opted to have units size determine their solidity and/or power.
You could add in something like Size+armour. Armour is affected by the creature size. So a creature size 10 (in a scale 1-100) is a small Goblin. 30 a Human. 60 a Human on a horse. 70 a Giant and 100 is something truly massive and heavy.
The bigger something is, the more weight is added for each additional armor. A giant carrying a shield won't be carrying a goblin shield. So the final result of solidity, required to determine if they can be pushed back, would be the size and armour combined. An unarmoured human is much lighter and easier to push back then the same human in full plate and shield that is heavier then the human carrying it. Not to mention the added weight on a full-clad giant...