I still think the best solution is cavalry being made avaliable earlier, run those archers down.  The problem would be horse archers - but you can make horse archery its own tech tree.  At least that would force a spearmen screen unit (Spearmen should get bonus vs cav)

Use existing tools before adding a bunch of gamey stuff.

In history, efficient horse archery is a special technology. Mongols use specials assymetric bow, and kity tactic are one of their strength.

@Frogboy: Please, don't use some strange mechanics. It is one of the things that breaks the gameplay of WoM. Fatigue like you describes don't seems to simulate something credible. Furthermore, that implies a new bunch of mechanism, special ability and spells if you don't want to have the feeling it is a "rough patch".

Sounds like kiting is an initiative issue.  Maybe a soft cap on initiative, where you can potentially get 2 turns before an enemy gets one (MAX 2 actions to the enemies 1). The requirement would then be that the enemy has a very low initiative, rather than the current requirement of having a very high initiative, subtle difference but important to note.  Then give very slow units some cool down ability that will let them close the gap.  Such as: Sprint, ranged snare/root.

If you manage to get a fast unit to be slow through magic or ability, then the reward should be going multiple times before the enemy does. 

However, units that are naturally slow should have a cool down ability or spell that will allow them to close the gap every couple turns.  Generally speaking naturally slow units tend to hit like dump trucks and have the hit points/defense to match.  Where fast units tend to be lightly armored and squishy, this is a natural trade off.

I don't think you should remove the effectiveness of fast units.  I wouldn't want to see a situation where I would not build a fast unit due to the fact that it will be just as fast as the slow units after "several" turns, where the slow units then mop up due to higher def/hp.

Is this a real problem of fair tactics? I rather fall into the second camp.

Core Problem about the current implementation (0.77, possibly 0.80?) might be, that strategic move = tactical move and that thus tactical move is very easy to come by (I'm all in favor of keeping easy options to increase strategic move / maybe implement a waterwalk/flying/forestwalk/mountainwalk/pathfinder movesystem simmilar to MOM [without keeping the tac / strategic parity from mom], would make very interesting options. Especially the terrainwalk ones and might be interesting perks / reasons to include heroes in a normal unit stack) .


Cavalry and similar units (Panthers, things with charge) should be what can counter this. Not possible with the way move is implemented (I am not much enthused by the thought that strategic move would be neutered as well... Overland is slow enough as is). Army logistics isn't equal to battlefield tactics so why keep them at parity (unless there are major systemic / resource reasons which are well beyond my capability to understand even though I can hardly imagine it being a big deal...)?

Mounted Archers should be scary imo (and catchable by regular cavalry). They are after all not the easiest to acheive / take resources and their damage-output is limited (as is). And there is precedent for why mounted archers are tactically superior in history.


Implementing a split for strategic move / tactical move and attaching a tac-speed penalty of 1 or in extreme 2 for bows (all kinds or all except the high-tech ones maybe) also would be a way to curb this.
(Have to say that implementing additional tactical move-sub-systems like no move when shooting sounds complicated and a possible hamstring from the AI which would at least take extra time / resources from the AI Programmers/Frogboy to teach the AI to understand it. For what gain which couldn't be achieved otherwise?)


I'm not in favor of reducing the overall value of initiative (at least in a major way). Maybe reduce the overall ways to gain it (a little). Being super-fast in Initiative should be a serious predicament for the other side (currently its celerity and tactical superiority per Perks, that should count for something.).
That's a result of the initiative based system and I much like it / how it plays (YMMV of course . Doesn't mean its balanced perfectly yet (nor that it need be in any part of the beta) but at its core it very much feels right compared to EWoM, Mom ect...)
Not in favor of changing to a closed turn-system early in the beta thus abandoning the existing concept (not least because of how mages / casting time works, which I like / offers interesting options to handle counterspell and simmilar stuff). I think the initiative-system at its core (without turn-caps) is something worth exploring / trying to perfect.
Very much in favor of tweaking with the values / options ect. during the beta though (maybe do 100 as the base and tweak the bonuses accordingly. 40 is harder to comprehend. centimal systems work better for me / might be for most players or even AI to understand since it allows seamlessly applying percentage without much thought.). Wasn't aware that the base was 10. That explains why "minor boosts" have such a huge effect!
Archers sound like a reasonable counter for very strong but slow units like ogres or possibly slow infantry. Spices up tactical/offers an interesting layer (as is). And Troll-Warriors are scary when they get a strike in (as is).


If Heroes get to do it: I'm fine with it. Works with magic as well after all (free with enough equip / the right spells), scaling way more powerfully (shards ect.). And thus preventing Kiting would mean neutering magics as well (for heroes). given that melee might be most powerful right now (not least because of overabundance of melee-/armor-oriented equip in the item-drops, cant see bows / magic-gear appears very often even though it was supposed to be with 0.77 according to discussion / possibly changelog) not sure if that is necessary or even desirable.

As is, I feel Archers (both for Heroes and normal units) are considerably underpowered (especially since for heroes magics is a more accessible option without the drawbacks compared to bows, with the only disadvantage of costing mana which is also quite easy to reduce / possible to completely circumvent) for the time they can be gained and need a boost.
It might be worth a look to decrease the Strength-Penalty from 100% to say 50% or 75% if a more gradual test / balance is wanted. Makes sense up to a point too, given that pulling-power plays a role in firing a bow. And I'm not sure I understand the mechanical necessity for a full disconnect to an attribute (could also be related to another attribute like dex instead of course...) from a design / balance perspective either. (not least since it lowers interesting options of customization for what gain?)



Rather teach the AI to handle such stuff (understand the value of initiative, AI-Players/Civs using tactics like this against monster-hordes as well if possible) and being fine with tactical options than neutering them and making the game / tactical shallow.
Diverse tactical can be a boon to the game and things that seem unfair (see "The Art of War" for why "unfair" battles are desirable and something a good general should strive for. Not speaking of great generals here ) maybe a just reward for good investment / clever tactics. Even if they might feel unfair to the AI-Programmer (Also sounds like something the AI should be able to be taught to use against us either. )


And monster-hordes should be fair game for both players and AI-Civs using an appropriate counter.

Player / AI vs. environment shouldn't induce a tactical headace. Imo its fun as is (Of course doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.).

Please don't haphazardly meddle with / kill off fun and working concepts rather concentrate on the broken ones (like tac-speed = strategic move)

@ Sir_Linque: To offer a synopsis (for people not liking to read long posts / deviations from the main topic) of my long post above / explain my suggestion for a fix and in a much less complex way with much less variables to program and teach the AI than what you laid out under "another solution" (simmilar enough to roughly count in there):

Divorce tac-move from strategic move, reduce the tac-move overall and give bows a move-penalty in tactical. (example: Move of regular unit=2, Move of Unit carrying a bow = 1. Move minimum 1 or possibly even 0? Numbers open to tweaking of course.)

Make boosts to tactical move very hard to come by (except maybe for heroes). Without removing easy ways to improve strategic move.

Keep the impact of initiative and not meddle with a possibly working and interesting concept in complicated ways for complexities sake when the root problem lies elswhere. (making kiting still possible but much harder to acheive.)

Imo more practicable than what you suggested and has other benefits as well (adding an additional path for perks ect.).




Limiting ammunition at the current state whould make a weak option (archery) even weaker. So I am against it since I don't see how at net it would improve the game.

Blackmantle, but it doesn't prevent kiting, as you said. I would prefer to prevent it altogether. And if you take away the special bows / abilities I mentioned, my proposed system is pretty simple, too. Actually I'll go ahead and remove them from my post.

While I do think fatigue may be part of the answer ...

I think we should first look at how Initiative is currently handled.

(most units with decently high initiative get 2 turns in a row ... what?)

-> Soldier A moves twice

-> Soldier B moves twice

-> Soldier C moves twice

-> Soldier D moves twice

->Enemy Monster moves

I mean ... shouldn't it be closer to

A moves

B moves

C moves

A moves

B moves

D moves

C moves

Monster moves

D moves

What do u think? (in the current implementation, I just don't see how initiative is being handled)

This just seems to be overly complicating things. The problem is initiative and movement. There is no reason that initiative should allow multiple moves. Initiative should determine order of action for each unit. In the event balancing out the strength of champions is a concern you could use some other function to grant multiple attacks or use some calculation of level & initiative to do so.

Movement needs to be restricted to max of 4. Movement enhancing items should be expensive and difficult to manage,  as weighing down your units should reduce movement. Being able to close or increase distance is a very huge tactical advantage. But most importantly, if the other side has a group of mounted horse archers, and your side has no ranged weapons, spells or mounted units of their own... you SHOULD lose! Make the computer kite like a dick.

That said ranged penalties are certainly welcomed.

This is a rather harsh method I'm suggesting. But in White-Wolfs Vampire: The masqeruade, you could get extra turn actions for your character trough diciplines. What I'm proposing is that initiative only gives extra actions, but no extra moves and actions. The champions could attack two times extra, move two times extra, or move and attack one extra, each. This would make initiative less overpowerd, but will change the system. I'm really wandering if the current system is that bad. Couldn't you just trap the archers after a while by blocking his movement?

But this would be the best, in my opinion. An abillaty that allows a unit to block all movement next to him, in exchange of an atack or other action.

Sorry for the fuzzy post.

I don't like the fatigue idea much but I recognise that something needs to be done to tackle kiting issues and this would help in a long game but most battles are much shorter and it does nothing to deal with the impulsive mega mage that wipes out the enemy army in his first 2 turns. Maybe spells like blizzard, fireball and dirge of ceresa need a charge up time of 2 turns? With regard to fatigue maybe a unit loses 10% of its initiative with each turn it takes, so once the unit has taken 10 actions it's initiative becomes a base of 1 and once every unit has taken 10 turns they are effectively equal? However that approach would be unsatisfactory because it will create anomolies where the faster units fatigue quicker and actually become slower than the 'slow' unit simply because they have taken 10 turns quicker - so maybe the base should be the fastest enemy unit?

This thread seems to be focusing alot on archers - I don't think they are the problem, they are generally quite weak and already get a strength and initiative penalty. To get to horse archers you need to do ALOT of research too - once the AI is programmed to use these correctly then the playing field becomes level. Maybe cap their ammo and leave it at that. TBH I would like to see different types of arrows as researchable techs - magic arrows please

The main issue for me is how champs are able to exploit kiting to level up quickly - far ahead of the rate an empire develops. Once a champ has reached 20+ levels and you have a high mana income plus cloudwalk then you have effectively won the game. The key to reigning in the super champs is to make monster fights more challenging so that champs arent able to solo it so easily - that means giving them additional abilities to combat kiting.

Here are some other things that really benefit from a high initiative approach and may need looking at too:

1) Implusive trait

2) regeneration (very powerful with multiple life shards and multiple turns)

3) battlecry, haste and slow - battlecry can get pretty insane once you have a bunch of life shards

4) stun trait (and other dazing/proning effects)

5) I'll throw in counterattack too as it effectively gives you yet another attack, which can equate to 4 vs the AI's 1

6) anything that boosts movement

I'm not saying that these should be nerfed necessarily, just that I have been able to use all of these very effectively to really exploit initiative.

With the right combination of abilities you can effectively deny a monster any actions whatsoever and just take one turn after another in a 1 vs 1 battle. Yesterday, I played a tactical battle with my high level (30+) General Carrodus vs the big earth elemental Torax - I started by using battlecry and haste to boost my initiative to the point where I had 3 turns to Torax's one and then I kept using stun against him so that he missed his one turn and then i took another 3 and stunned him again etc - perhaps these big boss monsters should be immune to stun?

Please don't call my ideas silly, and I won't call yours silly, agreed?  We're already so far away from anything smacking of a realistic combat simulator here that making comparisons to it is just...well, you know.  What we're discussing is how to balance a combat mechanic in a game so that it's fun, and the dev team can implement it within the calculation set they're currently capable of or can put in within a short amount of time.  My personal feeling is that the AI should kite me all around if he can, that's what I've done to countless games before this one.  If the AI is finally bright enough to do it to me, I need to develop tools to cope with it, or die trying.  What I don't want in a game design is a very complex calculation that changes over time as a fix to a point problem.  I think high initiative is a good thing, and if I've developed a hero that gives high bonuses to my units, and the AI doesn't have a counter, I should be rewarded for that with an easy victory.  The other thing to consider is that most other games we're holding up as a good example (MOM, AOWSM) relies on finite ammo for ranged units.  If you want to make sheildwall give a +20 against ranged attacks, sure.  But DON'T hamstring the initiative system; it's one of the things that make EFE unique.  As seanw says, balancing it against the other combat mechanics (attack, dodge, etc) is a possibility, but the fact remains that kiting developed because it is one of the most effective ways to dish out damage without taking any yourself.  It's in MMOs, RTS, FPS, and TBS games.  Teach the AI to do it, and it just becomes another tactic that can be used and countered.

Ooh now there's a good point. In a given turn, Initiative should determine the turn order, not the amount of moves/turns one gets. That would immedeately solve the  kiting problem, unless its horse archer vs footman ( in which case you deserve to be shot). IF you bring move 7 to a fight and a bow, victory should be won by a Lighting Bolt

I meant no offense. Limited arrows are an idea from old games and I have always found them silly. I didn't consider it anyone's idea. Some ideas are silly though, nothing wrong with being silly. They would have to be some really thick arrows if only six can it in a quiver. Just saying. 

Plus, what the heck am I supposed to do with archers after they run out?