![]() And you can add stacks to an ongoing combat - you justy move your stack up to the border of the map and the units will be able to join from a new reinforcement point in your next combat impulse. Where EL and Humankind are unique is that they create a tactical map from the strategic map itself and you need to pay some attention to how it works. While you move stacks of units about on the map, the units unstack for 1UPT combat just like 'other games' do. It's not an intuituive system, that's not being disputed but overall, the combat system is pretty similar to that in 'Fallen Enchantress', 'Age of Wonders' and the 'Endless Legend' game which was probably inspired by the first two. Both approaches address some problems and sustain others. I guess with HK you can split stacks when battle is anticipated and deploy more effectively, but with quasi-simultaneous moves, you can't have the full group deploy at once and the enemy can cut off movement before everything is set as intended. ![]() The former makes units take up way too much space on the top map scale, and the latter excessively reduces strategic placement prior to a battle. HK stacks with mini battle maps is ultimately a problem with abstraction. I just don't think many squad leaders would be as foolish as that, and the result could be catastrophic. I get that it was intended to simulate a general's orders followed by the chaos of battle, but when a ranged unit charged to the front after some other unit didn't get the expected result. ![]() One mechanic I did hate in EL (I think that was where it was) was programming all your units up front then having the battle execute. But IN tactical combat, the 1UPT approach comes back, and the restricted battle zone mechanic does come with a lot of problems, too. I never accepted that recent Civ combat was terrible - I understand people like stacks and that outside of tactical combat stacks really streamline space and management. Every other aspect of humankind combat is absolute garbage and inferior to comparable 4x games in every way. But those are the only things that Humankind does right. I like that cities can have expanded wall areas. In humankind they get these silly little deployment zones, so instead of controlling the land with unit placement, combat shuffles you into this little trashy minimap that doesn't reflect the world map, forces you to lose access to certain paths or tiles arbitrarily, and reinforcements are forced to come in on unoptimal locations, rather than just being on the map. People talk about reinforcements being some great mechanic, but in civ 6 reinforcements are just where they are. It allows a unit double movement in a turn, sometimes to run directly into the heart of enemy land. Retreating is a horrible mechanic, at least as it is implemented. ![]() Also the combat zones are arbitrarily drawn so you have no idea what the battlefield will be, and you can't make tactical decisions based on the land. The combat zones are a mechanic that slows down gameplay and makes multiplayer combat completely pointless. Unit stacking is an old mechanic that should have stayed dead. Originally posted by Nathrakh:For the most part combat is way better designed fundamentally than it is in Civ 6.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |