Tactical maps

[trigorin]

Hi,

I'm just interested in how exactly tactical maps are present in the game. So do we have a set of fix maps and the game selects from it by each battle or are tactical maps also procedurally generated similarly to the world map? I unfortunately haven't managed to find an exact statement in this topic searching the web.

 

[NINJEW]

pretty sure each map is designed, not procedurally generated

 

[TibblesTheCat]

They are handmade, but some pieces of cover change afaik. Not sure if its only visual or if cover actually moves around.

 

[trigorin]

This may provide with some info on the topic: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ll-dev-diary-27-tactical-combat-maps.1149285/. So it seems maps are hand-made and some elements can be randomized like you said @TibblesTheCat.

How often do you guys run into the same tactical map (not counting battles on the very same tile on strategy map)?

 

[NINJEW]

Enough to recognize them but not enough to have developed especially sophisticated tactics or strategies for each one

 

[Iguanaonastick]

It depends. Battlefields out in the open are pretty varied, but specific map sites have specific battlefields linked to them. Some of these battlefields (like basic resource nodes and especially the various city battlefields) occur very regularly and become familiar. Others are only found on one or two tiles on the map and are much more unusual. They may not even be in every game. Yet others occur on only a few tiles, and you might not even fight on those tiles most of the time because they're not guarded by a garrison by default. Then it can be a real surprise to encounter such a battlefield.

In short: there will be battlefields you encounter often. There will be battlefields you encounter rarely. And there will be battlefields you encounter almost never.

 

[DragonZee]

I think the biggest chance to get a similiar layout is in the map structures (like Exploration Sites, Landmarks). While debris and other cover might be randomzied, the general layout is similar enough for repeated tactics. And ofc siege maps

But imo overall Triumph team put a lot of work into making tactical maps varied and enjoyable.

 

[trigorin]

Thanks guys for replies.

I'm just wondering why no procedural battle map generation still has been introduced in this series. You get more familiar with hand crafted maps the more you play the game. And periodically visiting the same maps by different locations gradually weakens the immersion, too, I think.
In XCOM2 the battle maps are procedurally generated by combining a lot of pre-defined chunks. Similar solution may have worked here, too.

 

[Luke_Falcon]

Seems like a good opportunity as any to be old and reminisce how Age of Wonders 1 maps were cool: they could have mixed biomes (e.g half covered in snow, while half was a lush, temperate forest), some maps had a fog of war and needed to be explored almost like in an RPG, and sieges included the whole city and it's fortifications, (unless it was a big city that took up multiple hexes on the strategic map). I'd really like to see some of these mechanics to come back to AoW one day.

Below as an example a battle during the siege of a small, wall-less city with three different biomes. just to prove I'm not an old man yelling at clouds

 

[Zenicetus]

I'm just wondering why no procedural battle map generation still has been introduced in this series. You get more familiar with hand crafted maps the more you play the game. And periodically visiting the same maps by different locations gradually weakens the immersion, too, I think.
In XCOM2 the battle maps are procedurally generated by combining a lot of pre-defined chunks. Similar solution may have worked here, too.

Just guessing here, but the reason for not having fully procedural battle maps might be related to the AI. The battle AI in this game is very good. One of the best I've seen in this kind of turn-based game, especially considering how asymmetrical the units can be.

Handmade battle maps may be a factor, where the terrain is created in a way to let the AI shine, whereas a procedural map requires more flexible AI that can handle any random situation. I don't know to what extent this is true, but I suspect it may be a reason why the AI armies fight so well.

 

[NINJEW]

i've done a decent amount of ai observation and i don't think there's a whole lot of map-specific programming or behaviors. if you made some really wide open spaces without any cover (like a lot of the aow3 maps) the ai might have its more uh, quirky behaviors exposed a lot more though

 

[Iguanaonastick]

Seems like a good opportunity as any to be old and reminisce how Age of Wonders 1 maps were cool: they could have mixed biomes (e.g half covered in snow, while half was a lush, temperate forest), some maps had a fog of war and needed to be explored almost like in an RPG, and sieges included the whole city and it's fortifications, (unless it was a big city that took up multiple hexes on the strategic map). I'd really like to see some of these mechanics to come back to AoW one day.

Ah, I remember those days.

You could also move faster over roads in tactical combat, set grain fields on fire by running through them with a fire elemental, set wooden walls on fire to burn them down, and fight battles IN a big 4 hex city, (first battle: break through the walls. Second battle: fight the rest of the garrison, but you both start inside the walls.) You would also be unable to even attack a city without siege equipment or some other way to bypass the walls, so you'd get these battles where your tiny garrison tried to destroy the enemy battering ram so they would have to retreat their entire army.

Dungeons with fog-of-war in tactical combat where also something I really missed in later titles. The AI couldn't really handle it well, but there was some real tension in sending your pikeman slowly scouting forward, only to see a Syron wakling from the dark. But on the other hand you could actually pick up the loot from the ground and escape the dungeon without killing the defenders, if you wanted.

I also remember having to spend 2-3 turns walking to get to the enemy. More if they started on the opposite side of the map because my army attacked an empty city with an enemy stack on the other side of it on an adjacent hex. And having to click on the "fire bow" ability EVERY time you wanted to make an archer shoot. That was less fun.

 

[Zenicetus]

I was mostly thinking about how the maps are designed to let the AI use a wide array of melee, ranged, and AOE attacks without having to deal with too many complicated line of sight and blocking factors. Like the cramped building interiors and rooftop climbs in XCOM. There are enough obstacles to force maneuver and allow taking cover, but the maps are actually not that complicated.

As far as repetition, I've had some moments of "Hmmm... haven't I been here before?" but my army composition is usually different from the last time, so I have to improvise anyway. You could also just role-play the similarities. You're always stumbling across remnants of the Star Union civilization, and a Biodome complex (or whatever) might be built to a standard pattern.

 

[Avoxel]

Hey Everyone,

As the resident Tactical Combat Map designer on Planetfall i'm glad to hear they are overall pretty well received. The repetition is something that we really wanted to address, even though the maps are all hand made there should be plenty of variety within them. This is achieved through a few factors:
- Most TC maps have 6 possible attack angles and the center deployment zone, these can each be active in any combination, leading to different areas of the map being the focal point of the combat.
- We introduced a relatively simple concept to TC maps we refer to as 'Shufflers' a shuffler is an obstacle entity that links to a list of possible entities. It will pick from this list when the map is loaded in (or if the shuffler has a 'spawn chance' it may not appear at all). This is generally how explosive entities such as cars are setup, meaning there is no guarantee as to which entities on a map will be explosive and which will simply function as cover.

There is the possibility in engine to link multiple maps to a hex entity, but this is not used as the sheer work required for a single variation is rarely worth it, and the above two factors should provide plenty of gameplay variety.

The odd one out in these is Silver/Gold Landmarks, the Colony and Dwellings. These each have a fixed 'half moon' deployment layout and are generally a lot more controlled. We tried our best to ensure these maps had a good focused combat area that featured it's signature variation on the TC well. The Colony defense map in particular features no randomization whatsoever, and was thoroughly tested as this is the most 'competetive' map. All these maps also had to feature a strong defenders' advantage, which required a bit more tight control than the randomization of the shufflers might allow. (that is not to say those maps feature none of them however)


The AI is indeed a consideration when making these maps, but it is reasonably adaptable. It needs cover in decent reach from their starting position (about 3 hexes) and must preferable not be in cover in their deployment zone. Other than that the AI generally adapts quite well to a TC map, 1-hex gaps and hallways are generally avoided as the AI may get stuck on these (The AI moves a single unit at a time, thus they can clog up such gaps and prevent their own movement easily).

I hope that all shines some light on the questions i spotted in this thread. And hope you enjoy the game ^^

 

[Iguanaonastick]

Very interesting. Thank you for your input.

The Colony defense map in particular features no randomization whatsoever, and was thoroughly tested as this is the most 'competetive' map.

This part surprised me a little, though.

From Age of Wonders III players a regularly recurring bit of feedback was that the city sieges got repetitive and boring after a while, because they all took place on the same map and usually required the same handful of tactics to deal with the walls.

It's a bit less of an issue in Planetfall, mostly because the AI at least tends to charge out of the colony first chance it gets.

But the general point stands: the colony map is the SINGLE most common battlefield in any game. A landmark will only occur in one or two spots. There are lots of different maps for open terrain. But EVERY game will feature a dozen or so colony sieges at the very least. And we don't even have the different levels of wall (stone, wood, none) anymore, so turret types aside all colony maps are exactly the same.

So why was it decided to make all the colony maps the same? I do not really understand the competitiveness argument...

Making two or three new colony battle maps seems like it would yield a MUCH bigger divident from a player's perspective than making even 10 new non-colony battle maps, simply because the colony maps happen so much more often.

Even something like 1 colony map per colony size (if a random element is considered a problem) like we had in AoW1 would make it less... same-ish.

 

[Mauer]

Reading the thread, I was going to mention how the maps repeat but starting locations can change, giving a completely different fight sometimes, but I see the devs already did.

Personally I find the map variation good, at around 400 of playtime there's only two or three maps I'm kind of tired of, but mostly because they put my units in a precarious starting location with little cover. However I would definitely buy a DLC introducing more TC maps if there was such a thing, more diversity is always good!

I also agree with having more colony maps, competitiveness is good, but I think fun matters more.

 

[TreborTheTall]

I made this image to help out with colony sieges:

Got a video explanation too:

 

[Luke_Falcon]

Even something like 1 colony map per colony size (if a random element is considered a problem) like we had in AoW1 would make it less... same-ish.

I'd say you don't even have to go as far as creating new maps for sieges because even giving different race/tech combos different defensive option would go a long way in making the maps feel different. We already have turrets with different damage channels and with special de-buffs for each race, so why not go step further and give:
1. a perimeter defence building e.g. a minefield for the Dvar or acidic moat for the KirKo.
2. reinforced walls + gates e.g the Dvar could have explosion-proof walls and physical gates, while the Amazon could have thorn re-inforced walls (deal damage to units traversing the ruined wall) and laser fences instead of gates (traversable but deal thermal damage).
3. built-in defensive ops e.g Arc Manifold equivalent for the Assembly; Emergent unit spawning for the Kir'Ko.
These could be included with every defensive building tier.

Additionally some defensive options from Secret Tech. We already have defensive operations, but other defensive options would also help mix things up. Even something basic as giving an alternative turret to build in the colony (but not just different damage type: PyrX fumigator that reduces thermal resistance and causes Chocking de-buff; Hacking Node that automatically tries to control mechanical units and applies Compromised De-buff)

 

[Rubidium]

So why was it decided to make all the colony maps the same? I do not really understand the competitiveness argument...

Competitiveness is pretty clearly a synonym for balance here. For instance, if you had a different map for each race's colony, and one was slightly easier for the attacker than others, that would be a stealth debuff for that race.

For random field battles, that doesn't matter (as anyone could be the attacker or defender with roughly even probability), but for colonies that obviously does (you will be much more likely to be defending colonies of your own race than of any specific other race, just because you always start with some of your own colonies).

 

[Iguanaonastick]

Competitiveness is pretty clearly a synonym for balance here. For instance, if you had a different map for each race's colony, and one was slightly easier for the attacker than others, that would be a stealth debuff for that race.

For random field battles, that doesn't matter (as anyone could be the attacker or defender with roughly even probability), but for colonies that obviously does (you will be much more likely to be defending colonies of your own race than of any specific other race, just because you always start with some of your own colonies).

That's a good point. So having different city layouts based on faction may not be the greatest idea. But we could also have different city layouts depending on:

• City size
• City terrain
• Randomness

If a size 2 city is a bit easier than a size 4 city, that wouldn't be a balance problem since every player would have a similar distribution of city sizes. Terrain could actually introduce some trade-offs: do I place my city for defensivess, or for economic benefits? And randomness is simple and should work well enough for the same reason random field battles work.