Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dorf]

What is the reasoning behind the counter-attack mechanic commonly found in TBS games like Battle for Wesnoth and Age of Wonders?

For completeness: a counter-attack occurs after (but within the same turn)  a unit attacks an enemy unit, when the attacked unit attacks the attacker back!

I'm asking partly because I'm developing a TBS myself, but also to understand WHY others implemented the mechanic. How would the world look like without it?

[miauw62]

This is probably better in Other Games, but it's probably to prevent fast units from kiting slow units (see what players do in roguelikes)

[Luke_Prowler]

It's also to prevent a horde of weaker units being able to overwhelm an enemy without any any consequence of going for horde.

[anzki4]

It's also to prevent a horde of weaker units being able to overwhelm an enemy without any any consequence of going for horde.

But then again in most games I have played theres somekind of limit on how many times unit can counter per turn in order to make relying on single strong unit unviable as well.

[Glowcat]

When I envision Counter-attacks in that method it's more like a minibattle that takes place. Ultimately it would depend on how you want the strategy to play out. You could have all counters, only counters if in range, only melee counters, requires an ability, etc. based on what roles you want certain units to perform and how many layers of strategy you want the players to engage with.

e.g. Automatic counters for all units ensures some element of attrition will likely appear, thus requiring rest/healing to continue a push.

[IronyOwl]

Specifically in the case of Battle for Wesnoth, removing it would make attacking much, much more powerful and safer than it currently is. Currently attacking from a disadvantageous position isn't just low-yield, it can be genuinely harmful. It also gives ranged/melee specialists a fairly universal downside, in that they can be assaulted with relative impunity by anything with the attack mode they (credibly) lack.

It's probably worth noting that with how swingy, lengthy, and brutal Wesnoth combat is, each individual attack indeed appears to be its own mini-battle, rather than a simple application of damage.


Specifically in Age of Wonders, it's probably to make flyers' impunity a lot less absolute, get some of that mini-battle going, and help tie into the Movement Point system. I find it interesting how it lets powerful units get more attacks in on weaker ones than it could otherwise, but that it doesn't last forever and does eat up their available MP for next round, giving them less say in who they get to target with said attacks.


More generally, I think the rationale varies. Probably in some cases its just an immersion/style thing, where it "makes more sense" or "seems cooler" that units will tangle with each other instead of one running up and bopping the other on the head. In a lot of cases it's probably a more mechanical version of that, trying to add some gravity and cost to (some kinds of) attacking. In some cases it might be to punish trying to use a critically wounded/glass cannon to wail on things in safety, while in others it could be to reward using convincing finishing blows to avoid retaliation. In the more specialized cases, it may be a chance to let units specialize offensively in being attacked, or in attempting to discourage aggressors (though I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this example).

[Jelle]

I don't really know those two games but I know what kind of game mechanic you're refering to. Can't talk about those examples specifically but generally what it does is add depht to the game by giving the player the meaningful choice to either have their unit attack or not attack. If there's no counter attack mechanic, attacking is usually better than not attacking, but if there is then it becomes a matter of weighing the pros and the cons, and creating a favorable situation where having your unit trade blows is advantageous. It adds a layer of strategy with a lot of room for interesting counterplay

[Luke_Prowler]

But then again in most games I have played theres somekind of limit on how many times unit can counter per turn in order to make relying on single strong unit unviable as well.

That is true, but not always. In the case of fire emblem, units always counter attack the other if they can regardless of how many times they're attacked, but this is generally made up by the fact that the type of weapon is more important than merely strength/defense stats, so even if an axe fighter can counter against the swordsman, it'll do far less damage because it's on the wrong side of the weapon triangle.

[Leafsnail]

On the most basic level it introduces a new tactical choice: do I shoot at this guy or do I not shoot at him?  Without counterattacks the answer is basically always going to be "yes" if you happen to be in the right place, with counterattacks you have to weigh up the benefits and costs of the battle.

One game where this choice comes up a lot is Advance Wars.  Let's say my opponent has me hugely outgunned in a certain area (eg, megatank vs tank).  I now have a choice between attacking and dealing a little bit of damage (about 10% in my example) to them but sacrificing my unit and letting them advance on me next turn, or just standing in their way to delay them for a turn without dealing any damage.  This choice is often interesting, and changes the dynamic around big units quite dramatically.

[freeformschooler]

It also serves to make cooperation important up to a point. Fire Emblem specifically has no Area of Effect attacks/spells, so to take two enemies out may require six people, but by the time you're done, four of them are wounded, so you need to bring your priest in, and cover the door with your guard, etc etc etc

[dorf]

Are there any such games with AoE attack spells? If so, how is counter-attack handled then?

[IronyOwl]

Are there any such games with AoE attack spells? If so, how is counter-attack handled then?

Most games I can think of with both AoE spells and counterattacks don't do spell/ability/ranged attack countering in the first place, including mundane-looking melee AoE special abilities. Age of Wonders has Cleave, which does not trigger counters, and Spread Attack, which I believe triggers counters only from the target you're directly attacking, for instance.

Final Fantasy Tactics does have some kind of mirror magic retaliation special, though, which I assume triggers on being hit but not directly targeted by spells. So I guess in theory if you hit two separate characters with the same passive, you'd get double counter-magicked.

But yeah, it seems like letting people provoke multiple counterattacks on themselves at once is generally avoided or not likely enough to worry about.

[freeformschooler]

Final Fantasy Tactics is an interesting case as the game starts without any counter mechanic, but damn near every humanoid gets one as you progress through the game, making it a case of mix and match in the same way FE works (attack ranged characters with melee and vica versa to avoid counter-attacks).

[Arx]

I've pretty much exclusively been playing Heroes of Might and Magic V in my spare time recently, where the counterattacks mostly seem to work to make kiting with fast units unbroken unless they have a specific ability. Units only get one counterattack between their turns, agin unless they have an ability, so they can be overwhelmed by hordes.

As far as AoE attacks go, depending on the type of attack there's either no retaliation (spread attacks), retaliation if there was only one target (full circle attacks), or retaliation from the primary target (arc lightning attacks, skewering attacks). No unit has retaliation to spells, and there's only one unit with retaliation to shooting.

[Akura]

Final Fantasy Tactics is an interesting case as the game starts without any counter mechanic, but damn near every humanoid gets one as you progress through the game, making it a case of mix and match in the same way FE works (attack ranged characters with melee and vica versa to avoid counter-attacks).

Actually, in FFT(at least the original), every single monster has Counter. Funnily enough, Counter Tackle is an ability you can probably have right at the start of the game(some of you starters might even have it equipped), and yet almost no human enemy uses it and I prefer it over normal Counter. Counter has the problem with accuracy since it's always an attack on their front, and you can get some insane frontal defence is you use a good shield, cape, and Weapon Guard. Or even more insane, 2-Swords, dual-wielded Defenders(there are two legitimately aquired in the game), Blade Grasp, and a good cape. Counter Tackle negates all that though the damage is low.