Julian Gollop wrote:The introduction of the retreating mechanic was designed to give more of a role for the agility attribute and to add some more positional dynamics to the battle tactics. If a creature receives a killing blow, it may possibly retreat to avoid death. A creature/wizard may retreat to a space it may normally move to by walking that is not adjacent to an engaging enemy creature/wizard. The chance of retreating is never very high, certainly very unlikely to go above 50%.
The precise formulas for determining retreat probability, for those who are interested, are as follows:
for ranged attackers: defenders_agility / (defenders_agility+ 25);
for close combat attacks: defenders_agility / (defenders_agility + attackers_agility * 2 + 5 )
So the important questions are :
Does it add anything interesting to the game?
Is it easy to understand whats going on?
Does it make things too complicated?
Could there be any alternatives?
I've presented several comments. I've also considered the many great comments of others. I look forward to seeing how it will all resolve. Meanwhile, here are my answers to the presented questions:Does it add anything interesting to the game?
Not really. Sure, I've survived longer and pulled victory from the jaws of defeat more often because of retreat, but I rather I lost the game quicker so I could go on to play more games. So long as Retreat is used to reduce the % of killing creatures and wizards, Retreat's primary effect will be to make games last longer. Is it easy to understand whats going on?
Yes. I'm quite impressed by the visual representations and such. It's very well done. That said, it is unclear what the %'s actually represent. E.g.
, as stated in an earlier comment, the % attack chance seems now to represent only the % chance of invoking a retreat test rather than a true % of defeating a creature.Does it make things too complicated?
Yes. It is harder to assess the true chances of success in attack. Also, as more creatures survive longer in the arena, there are more actions to assess and move each turn.Could there be any alternatives?
Yes. The introduction of Retreat seems to have been motivated to give Agility some importance in addition to determining engagement. There are other ways to do that. Here are some ideas:
- Find another way to introduce Agility into the primary attack resolution equation. For example, where Magic Resistance became Magic Power, make Attack into Physical Power and Defense into Armor. Then Melee attacks can be resolved with ((Attacker's Physical Power + Agility)/2) versus ((Defender's Armor + Agility)/2). And Ranged attacks can be resolved by (Attacker's Agility) versus ((Defender's Armor+Agility)/2). Heck, Magic Bolts could be resolved by ((Attacker's Magic Power + Agility)/2) versus ((Defender's Armor + Agility)/2). [Edited to correct math error.]
- Give a +1 advantage to the combatant with the higher Agility. Agility already determines engagement, which is a big deal. So maybe abstract the benefits of Agility by giving a defender a +1 to their Defense if they have a higher agility than the attacker. Perhaps the attacker also could get a +1 in their attack if they have a higher agility.
- Test for Retreat only if a creature survives an attack rather than if it is defeated. Retreat currently applies only if a creature is otherwise killed in an attack. Instead, apply a Retreat test if the creature survives. This has subtle, but important, consequences. Creatures with high Agility get a head start if they want to try to run away from the aggressor or else press an attack against a more vulnerable victim. Also, the aggressor will need to use movement in order to press the attack. While not sexy, these are potent advantages. Maximizing movement for your own creatures while taking it away from your opponent's creatures is a valuable tactic.