Zodiac Legion: A tactical RPG with kingdom building elements

[Galdred]

You make good points about firearms. One remaining issue is that they also tend to "compete" with magic, sometimes literally, like in Arcanum, or to a lesser extent, Warhammer (Dwarves have firearms and almost no magic, while elves have tons of magic and no firearms. Only the Empire and Skaven have a bit of both, but usually, no enchanted Blunderbuss).
Anyway, that is something I would like to add. It is also one of the few forms of dual wielding I am ok with (that and sword + dagger), but it probably won't happen for the EA launch, because we already have a ton to do until then.
We may have cannons, though, because they came earlier (as in, they became battlefield worthy earlier), and they make fun interactive props (like the catapults of Warbanners).

Regarding random levels, can you mix in a few hand-designed ones too? Sometimes can't beat a really well designed level. Fine to mix in some autogen ones to cut down on labour and give variance, though.

Still would love to see "special moves" grow as they learn more or gain proficiency. Adding more slashes a combo, for example.

As for random levels, they are only partially randomized:
We followed the OG X-COM/XCOM 2 formula of having a fixed "slotted" map with preset areas to place into it:



With the presets being predefined (even though they may contain smaller presets themselves, or props that will depend on the map parameters, like banners, and such):

But what about PoC and ***** representation?

We have a wide selection of gender/color neutral portraits to accomodate this issue.

[Magick]

Sounds great!
And simple firearms just for a ranged option for some would be fine. Magic would be far more spectacular regardless lol. As mentioned I'd love a short "whoosh" animation with them powering up before casting. Really gives the "powerful" feel.

Same with the walking animations, big heavy guys should "tromp" over to where you clicked, and only the lighter ones should skitter. Ofc give a "fast animations" config option for those who want it all to move super quickly.

As to the portraits, great! The skeleton one should cater perfectly for the ******.

[Galdred]

I posted a steam demo update with a tutorial. The mission linking is a bit of a mess now (you only get dead characters out of missions for now!), but I'll work on it as soon as I have finished ironing out the micro issues related to the tutorial.



I also plan to add images as we did for the help text before, because wall of texts may not be the best at introducing game mechanics:

[Magick]

Thankyou! I'll give it a go soon.

[Galdred]

We changed quite a few things in the demo, but it is still a tech demo:
The main change has been rolling randomized levels:
Dev Diary – Level Construction Process

► Show Spoiler

Unfortunately, I didn't have time to add real campaign stuff and UI, so the geoscape phase between missions is quite buggy (you cannot change parties, and the settings and roster menu are bugged).
Some mission maps may also be bugged because some rooms were missing in the random presets.

I'll work on it, and level up UI as soon as I am done with the current round of debugging.

[Vergil]

Glad to see work is still being done on this. I had a good bit of fun when I tried out the previous demo so I'll have to put this one on my list to play soon.

[Magick]

Still wanting to get around to trying this. Been too busy with life stuff atm.
I promise I will though one day! Looks cool.

Please continue, and don't rush any of it!

[Galdred]

Next build should have level 4K scaling (at *2 or *3), and I patched lights back on, after shutting them down for 1 year in emergency before a festival and forgetting about them.

We also added some wildlife in dungeons and outdoors (you need to squint a bit to see it in the top left corner).


Also, executions are coming (because that is the proper way to terminate a knight):

[Finarfin]

@Galdred Any plans on releasing it in different languages? And how text-heavy is the game when it's out? (I'd help out for the german translation if you have need of it)

[Norfleet]

With the presets being predefined (even though they may contain smaller presets themselves, or props that will depend on the map parameters, like banners, and such):

I cannot help but notice how these photos showcase how POORLY hex maps are suited for your game. All those square buildings where you can't walk along a wall or even go through the building without having to awkwardly zig-zag, tripping over the feet of your teammates.

[Galdred]

@Galdred Any plans on releasing it in different languages? And how text-heavy is the game when it's out? (I'd help out for the german translation if you have need of it)

We plan to translate the game to several languages during early access (the list is not definitive yet).

With the presets being predefined (even though they may contain smaller presets themselves, or props that will depend on the map parameters, like banners, and such):

I cannot help but notice how these photos showcase how POORLY hex maps are suited for your game. All those square buildings where you can't walk along a wall or even go through the building without having to awkwardly zig-zag, tripping over the feet of your teammates.

Hex maps are always a poor fit for rectangular constructions (so basically every building), but squares are a poor fit for melee, as diagonals and zone of controls work very poorly together.
Zig zagging is not a huge issue, as movement is done at once (and I patched the walking animations to not show the zigzag).

The main issue is that the walls themselves are a bit arbitrarily shifted, but that was the case in Fallout too.

[Norfleet]

Hex maps are always a poor fit for rectangular constructions (so basically every building), but squares are a poor fit for melee, as diagonals and zone of controls work very poorly together.

Honestly, hexes aren't a good fit for melee, either. The problem with hexes is that you always run into the situation where you can choose to stand side by side in a line, or have the ability to walk forwards, but not both. If you stand in a solid line, you can't move forwards (or face your opponent head on). If you choose to advance and face your opponent head on, it's impossible to form a solid line. These issues aren't as big a problem when you're fighting with ranged attacks and don't need to form solid lines or advance forwards in a straight line, but in melee, it's terribly awkward. And in NO situation can you avoid being flanked even in a head-on encounter. With squares, each man stands in a wall side by side, facing his opponent in front of him. With hexes, you can't advance forwards without awkwardly crab-walking side-to-side (and everyone is always being flanked by at least two guys at once) or making your line all jagged (and one guy is getting ganked by three guys at once).

Hexes are better in games where you have gunfights that occur at range in relatively open or natural environments, because hexes do a better job with radius effects. They're decidedly bad at melee combats in enclosed, man-made spaces, which tend to be square.

[Galdred]

Hex maps are always a poor fit for rectangular constructions (so basically every building), but squares are a poor fit for melee, as diagonals and zone of controls work very poorly together.

Honestly, hexes aren't a good fit for melee, either. The problem with hexes is that you always run into the situation where you can choose to stand side by side in a line, or have the ability to walk forwards, but not both. If you stand in a solid line, you can't move forwards (or face your opponent head on). If you choose to advance and face your opponent head on, it's impossible to form a solid line. These issues aren't as big a problem when you're fighting with ranged attacks and don't need to form solid lines or advance forwards in a straight line, but in melee, it's terribly awkward. And in NO situation can you avoid being flanked even in a head-on encounter. With squares, each man stands in a wall side by side, facing his opponent in front of him. With hexes, you can't advance forwards without awkwardly crab-walking side-to-side (and everyone is always being flanked by at least two guys at once) or making your line all jagged (and one guy is getting ganked by three guys at once).

Hexes are better in games where you have gunfights that occur at range in relatively open or natural environments, because hexes do a better job with radius effects. They're decidedly bad at melee combats in enclosed, man-made spaces, which tend to be square.

Right, but that is one of the reasons we don't have facing, but only flanking (if you have 3 units at 120° or 2 at 180).
Diagonal cost of walk is not a bit issue, but attacking diagonally makes melee, Zoc range and AoE not the same in each direction which was a much worse trade off for me than the awkward staggered lines formations (also, our formations are typically 2-4 guys in front and 2-4 in rear, so it's not a huge issue.

[Norfleet]

Right, but that is one of the reasons we don't have facing, but only flanking (if you have 3 units at 120° or 2 at 180).

I'm talking about flanking even WITHOUT an explicit flanking mechanic. Adding an actual flanking rule on top of that just makes it worse. The problem with flanking is not which direction you're being attacked from. It's that you're being attacked by multiple opponents at once: With squares, if you close ranks and form a line, you're only getting attacked by the guy in front of you. This is, of course, why people do it in real life. With hexes, it's unavoidable that you're getting attacked by two guys at once, or, if you're opting for an orientation that even lets you MOVE FORWARDS, someone's getting ganked by *THREE* guys at once. This has a very drastic change on combat dynamics, since every character is now required to tank 2-3x as much fire as before.

Diagonal cost of walk is not a bit issue, but attacking diagonally makes melee, Zoc range and AoE not the same in each direction which was a much worse trade off for me than the awkward staggered lines formations (also, our formations are typically 2-4 guys in front and 2-4 in rear, so it's not a huge issue.

Obviously, having smaller number of units involved makes the problem less bad, and hexes definitely win out in terms of circular AOEs and other radius effects. Of course, smaller numbers of units also tends to lead to more corridor fights, which, again, brings up the weaknesses of the problem. In your own screenshot, we see it's impossible for a party to advance line-abreast down a corridor, because some parts of the corridor are 2-wide and other parts are randomly 3-wide.

[Stack of Turtles]

This is one of the worst map designs I've ever seen, and it's a shame because the pictures in your first post don't have this issue, instead having a pseudo-isometric design where the walls run down the hex lines. It looks like you switched to this bizarre oblique wall situation when you should be sticking with isometric room design, which would allow the buildings to appear square.

[Galdred]

Right, but that is one of the reasons we don't have facing, but only flanking (if you have 3 units at 120° or 2 at 180).

I'm talking about flanking even WITHOUT an explicit flanking mechanic. Adding an actual flanking rule on top of that just makes it worse. The problem with flanking is not which direction you're being attacked from. It's that you're being attacked by multiple opponents at once: With squares, if you close ranks and form a line, you're only getting attacked by the guy in front of you. This is, of course, why people do it in real life. With hexes, it's unavoidable that you're getting attacked by two guys at once, or, if you're opting for an orientation that even lets you MOVE FORWARDS, someone's getting ganked by *THREE* guys at once. This has a very drastic change on combat dynamics, since every character is now required to tank 2-3x as much fire as before.

The thing is, with diagonal attacks, you get attacked from even more directions. But it is true that you can get targeted more with the hex grid. That said, in the game, it is not a huge issue, because your allies negate enemy zoc, and you have a low chance to beat a better opponent, or a heavily armored one, so you need to remove the support around him first anyway.

Diagonal cost of walk is not a bit issue, but attacking diagonally makes melee, Zoc range and AoE not the same in each direction which was a much worse trade off for me than the awkward staggered lines formations (also, our formations are typically 2-4 guys in front and 2-4 in rear, so it's not a huge issue.

Obviously, having smaller number of units involved makes the problem less bad, and hexes definitely win out in terms of circular AOEs and other radius effects. Of course, smaller numbers of units also tends to lead to more corridor fights, which, again, brings up the weaknesses of the problem. In your own screenshot, we see it's impossible for a party to advance line-abreast down a corridor, because some parts of the corridor are 2-wide and other parts are randomly 3-wide.

No, the corridors have a fixed width of 3 (some tiles are obscured by the wall) as the walls are parallel.

Anyway, there is no great solution. Field of Glory 2 went with a square grid, and your units keep walking to weird places diagonally (ie, chasing an enemy units).
But their solution could work there too:
If I recall, you cannot attack an unit that is already engaged if you have an unengaged unit in contact with you.

[Norfleet]

The thing is, with diagonal attacks, you get attacked from even more directions. But it is true that you can get targeted more with the hex grid.

That assumes diagonal attacks are commonplace, which they probably shouldn't be. Although thta does bring up an interesting oddity I've always noticed, where fighters are almost universally modelled as symmetrically centerlined: A character can attack an arc in front of them (possibly extending to full 360 if the game entirely lacks facing, but we'll ignore that) that is symmetrical on both sides, whereas in reality, it's more likely that for, say, a square grid, a character would threaten the squares starting from in front and going to the right.

That said, in the game, it is not a huge issue, because your allies negate enemy zoc, and you have a low chance to beat a better opponent, or a heavily armored one, so you need to remove the support around him first anyway.

ZOC is mostly an artificiality of turn-based movement, anyway. It's a "solution" that exists to counteract the problem of people being able to just freely teleport across the map on their turn, uninterrupted by any enemies they'd have passed by. It's not the ONLY answer to the problem, though, and introduces its own weird issues, like how some completely insignificant unit can utterly paralyze the advance of another unit that it is incapable of even harming. Interrupts like attacks of opportunity are another valid answer that eliminates the need for ZOC, which avoids this problem: Now it becomes deeply inadvisable to simply advance into what would have previously been considered a ZOC, but if you're really that invulnerable, you can do it anyway.

[Decline]

squares and hexagons are both oldschool and bad.

real players use tiling pentagons!

screw regularity (order), embrace chaos!

[A Chinese opium den]

squares and hexagons are both oldschool and bad.

real players use tiling pentagons!

screw regularity (order), embrace chaos!

This is true power.

[Galdred]

The thing is, with diagonal attacks, you get attacked from even more directions. But it is true that you can get targeted more with the hex grid.

That assumes diagonal attacks are commonplace, which they probably shouldn't be. Although thta does bring up an interesting oddity I've always noticed, where fighters are almost universally modelled as symmetrically centerlined: A character can attack an arc in front of them (possibly extending to full 360 if the game entirely lacks facing, but we'll ignore that) that is symmetrical on both sides, whereas in reality, it's more likely that for, say, a square grid, a character would threaten the squares starting from in front and going to the right.

[/quote]
It really depends on what you intend to represent, though. I engaged in some small scale HEMA skirmishes, and with a reduced number of persons, formations tend to be a lot more flexible than with large groups of hoplites, and you typically lunge before attacking, then go back to the line. With shield and board, you are threathening the right side more than the left, true, but with a two hander, it is more natural to arm to the right and swing to the left than the reverse.

That said, in the game, it is not a huge issue, because your allies negate enemy zoc, and you have a low chance to beat a better opponent, or a heavily armored one, so you need to remove the support around him first anyway.

ZOC is mostly an artificiality of turn-based movement, anyway. It's a "solution" that exists to counteract the problem of people being able to just freely teleport across the map on their turn, uninterrupted by any enemies they'd have passed by. It's not the ONLY answer to the problem, though, and introduces its own weird issues, like how some completely insignificant unit can utterly paralyze the advance of another unit that it is incapable of even harming. Interrupts like attacks of opportunity are another valid answer that eliminates the need for ZOC, which avoids this problem: Now it becomes deeply inadvisable to simply advance into what would have previously been considered a ZOC, but if you're really that invulnerable, you can do it anyway.
[/quote]
But zocs don't only represent being attacked. They can also represent that it is easy for an opponent to deny you a tile near him (by moving there). In Zodiac Legion, we decided to have an engagement check (which is an opposed melee roll). If you fail, you are pinned on your tile with a defense penalty, and if you succeed, you can move where you planned. We also made it a lot easier to move away from the enemy, especially when supported, than to bypass him.

[Tweed]

Is it gud?

[Galdred]

This is one of the worst map designs I've ever seen, and it's a shame because the pictures in your first post don't have this issue, instead having a pseudo-isometric design where the walls run down the hex lines. It looks like you switched to this bizarre oblique wall situation when you should be sticking with isometric room design, which would allow the buildings to appear square.

That's a bit extreme!
The artist went with that because the perspective didn't really work when following the hex lines.
The walls are straight, even though it doesn't appear so on the mapmaking files. The only issue is that they are not in the same place in the hex, but as in Age of Wonders or Fallout, this can be remedied by placing props to fill the space:




Note that Fallout didn't add props for large open space (but much more for confined rooms):



Anyway, I haven't got any tester complain about this, so I think it's not that bad (at least, we have many worse issues to solve atm!), but I'll probably do something else in the future.
Also, we are rolling natural caves to avoid this issue (and our castles will usually be shaped more like star forts than square castles.

The other issue is that, although a rectangular grid is better for architecture by a landslide (except if everyone lives in circular yurt tents in your game), it is much worse for natural terrain features like hills or rivers.

[Norfleet]

Fallout, however, benefits from being a RANGED combat game, that only has one actual unit on your team. Melee is not a majority element of Fallout Combat, and with only a single unit under your control, you're never concerned about trying to form a shieldwall or advance in formation.

[rusty_shackleford]

looks good to me

[J1M]

This is one of the worst map designs I've ever seen, and it's a shame because the pictures in your first post don't have this issue, instead having a pseudo-isometric design where the walls run down the hex lines. It looks like you switched to this bizarre oblique wall situation when you should be sticking with isometric room design, which would allow the buildings to appear square.

That's a bit extreme!
The artist went with that because the perspective didn't really work when following the hex lines.
The walls are straight, even though it doesn't appear so on the mapmaking files. The only issue is that they are not in the same place in the hex, but as in Age of Wonders or Fallout, this can be remedied by placing props to fill the space:




Note that Fallout didn't add props for large open space (but much more for confined rooms):



Anyway, I haven't got any tester complain about this, so I think it's not that bad (at least, we have many worse issues to solve atm!), but I'll probably do something else in the future.
Also, we are rolling natural caves to avoid this issue (and our castles will usually be shaped more like star forts than square castles.

The other issue is that, although a rectangular grid is better for architecture by a landslide (except if everyone lives in circular yurt tents in your game), it is much worse for natural terrain features like hills or rivers.

Roads and rivers are most often straight lines, just like architecture. I'm also not aware of any real military formations that would fit on a hex grid instead of a square one.

That said, many people like hexes and I hope your game does well.

[rusty_shackleford]

The secret to making architecture that matches hexes is to look at the ground irl. You'll see it all the time!
If you offset a square, you get a hex grid:


All the benefits of hexes without having to deal with a six-sided shape.

[Norfleet]

Now try walking forwards while staying in the box. You can't.

[Acrux]

Now try walking forwards while staying in the box. You can't.

Checkmate.



And before you say "that's not forward", let me remind you of a little wisdom from Ender Wiggins: "The enemy's gate is down."

[Norfleet]

That's not forwards. That's forward and RIGHT. When you try doing that alongside a line of bros, the one on the right faceplants into the wall.

[Acrux]

Reread my post, dummy.