Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The difficulty of the game

difficulty combat tactics strategies gameplay

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21
Christliar

Christliar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 153 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

I don't think IE games had horrible combat. And it depends on how removing the pause button would alter gameplay. It's hard to think as fast a 6 trained characters, so I guess that unless you have 6 players, the next best thing is having a pause button so you can think about how to adapt to the battlefield. The thing is, unless you can customise the AI to great depth, you can't possibly chose for example a spell on the menu as fast as your brain know you might need to use this particular spell. 

 

Hack and slash (IMHO) is not only the fact that battles are real time or not. It's the minimalist approach to character developement, npc's interactions and simpllistic (I dare to say repetitive) combat that make a game Hack n Slash. A tactical rpg on the other side is when you have more time to handle the tasks and where the choices you make really impact on how the situation unfold. Of course those are only terms we created to separate one genre from another. The truth is, nothing is exclusively one OR the other, there are many nuances. A Hack and Slash game may have a lot of npc interactions and a deep character developpement, while a tactical rpg might be real time with repetitive battles. 

 

What most important is what we want P:E to be, for me this is what I want :

- A well writen story in a world interesting enough so I want to learn more about it

- Detailed character customisations and classes that feel different from one another

- Good 2d isometric graphics

- A tactical approach to battle that make them challenging and interesting to play

- A rewarding experience to explore and many things to do outside combat

- A game simple to play and hard to master

 

If I get that, I don't care about how they make the menu, or if a pause system is present or not, or even if it feels that much like an IE game. 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with you. Personally, I like the pause system, I was just curious how Micamo thought we'd have a tactical RPG with no pause. I said the IE games have horrible combat, because it's mostly based on luck and I don't like that. If I play my cards right I should be able to be in control of the battlefield without having to worry that my rogue will roll a 1 on his mass stun. I suppose that adds suspense, and we could still have it, but put a stat (for example WoW's hit rating) that will eliminate the chance of that happening if we so desire.

But we've reaaaaally veered off-topic now ;d



#22
J. Trudel

J. Trudel

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer

You don't care about a pause Trudel? It would be downright impossible to control up to 6 characters in real-time all with their own abilities/spells also while concentrating on multiple enemies, without a pause button to issue orders.

 

That's why I think RTWP is a dumb system, it's basically the designers admitting that real-time party combat is too frenetic to be controlled in real-time, so they slap a bandaid on top called the pause button. And what does the system accomplish? Just to make the battles superficially look more "realistic"?

 

I said that I didn't cared about how they want to make the battles menageables for 6 characters. If they can think of a way, thats fine with me ! A good AI that you can customize to your exact needs combined with a quick way to adapt or do special things might do the trick. Of course, nothing beat the pause system for now but I do have an open mind.

 

What I mean, Is that it's not the pause system I want. It's control over the battlefield. If I have that, I don't care about how it's done. 

 

For example : I played DA:O on the hardest difficulty never pausing the entire game (unless I really had to pee), switching characters only to adapt to situations. I agree that this was an easy game, but anyhow. This was menageable enough to control 4 characters with no pause. 


Edited by J. Trudel, 16 August 2013 - 10:37 AM.


#23
jethro

jethro

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 257 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

Y'all are gonna hate me for this -

Naah, we are just relieved you are not in charge of the project ;-)
 

... or fixing the pacing problem with RTwP (Transistor, for example, has a very promising approach).


Why do you think so many of the successful kickstarter games are turn-based or RtwP? You underestimate the dislike many players have for action games.

Transistor is not a good example. It is not party-based. It also is basically a diablo style action game with a turn-based gimmick every now and then. Basically it has twitchy game play and STILL fails your distration-test by stopping the combat at intervals like a pause.

You might like to look at PE for a better example. Isn't there a slow-motion combat mode they want to include?

Edited by jethro, 16 August 2013 - 10:41 AM.

  • Kjaamor likes this

#24
Chrononaut

Chrononaut

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 107 posts

 

You don't care about a pause Trudel? It would be downright impossible to control up to 6 characters in real-time all with their own abilities/spells also while concentrating on multiple enemies, without a pause button to issue orders.

 

That's why I think RTWP is a dumb system, it's basically the designers admitting that real-time party combat is too frenetic to be controlled in real-time, so they slap a bandaid on top called the pause button. And what does the system accomplish? Just to make the battles superficially look more "realistic"?

 

I said that I didn't cared about how they want to make the battles menageables for 6 characters. If they can think of a way, thats fine with me ! A good AI that you can customize to your exact needs combined with a quick way to adapt or do special things might do the trick. Of course, nothing beat the pause system for now but I do have an open mind.

 

What I mean, Is that it's not the pause system I want. It's control over the battlefield. If I have that, I don't care about how it's done. 

 

For example : I played DA:O on the hardest difficulty never pausing the entire game (unless I really had to pee), switching characters only to adapt to situations. I agree that this was an easy game, but anyhow. This was menageable enough to control 4 characters with no pause. 

 

That's cause DAO was a shallow RPG, try and play BG or IWD without pausing and see how you fare



#25
Micamo

Micamo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 312 posts

Wouldn't removing the pause just make the game into a hack n slash in the vein of Diablo and Titan Quest? Just with more than 1 character? You wouldn't be able to control them all so well, unless they were controlled by the AI, but that defeats the purpose of having them besides the banter. Yes, I agree that IE games had horrible combat and I also agree that we shouldn't blindly copy everything from them, but how would you suggest we remove the pause and interface without making it a hack n slash, but worse?


First, I don't think real time should be confused with hack-n-slash. IE combat with the pauses taken out would play like a really clunky and awful version of Diablo, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

Second, I'm not necessarily suggesting we remove pausing: I don't believe it's an unsolvable problem. I don't really know what would be appropriate for the type of game P:E is trying to be, but one place to start looking for ideas might be Transistor, which as I said earlier has a very elegant and promising solution to the problem: It makes the pause interface *part* of the flow of combat and atmosphere rather than an interruption from both.

Edited by Micamo, 16 August 2013 - 11:02 AM.


#26
J.E. Sawyer

J.E. Sawyer

    Project Director

  • Developers+
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Santa Ana, California

You might like to look at PE for a better example. Isn't there a slow-motion combat mode they want to include?

 

We already have the slow combat implemented and it works pretty well.  I'm sure we'll be adjusting it more as we fine-tune combat pacing and pathing, but it's an enjoyable alternative to full speed vs. full stop.


  • Elerond, JFSOCC, Doppelschwert and 2 others like this

#27
J. Trudel

J. Trudel

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer

 

 

You don't care about a pause Trudel? It would be downright impossible to control up to 6 characters in real-time all with their own abilities/spells also while concentrating on multiple enemies, without a pause button to issue orders.

 

That's why I think RTWP is a dumb system, it's basically the designers admitting that real-time party combat is too frenetic to be controlled in real-time, so they slap a bandaid on top called the pause button. And what does the system accomplish? Just to make the battles superficially look more "realistic"?

 

I said that I didn't cared about how they want to make the battles menageables for 6 characters. If they can think of a way, thats fine with me ! A good AI that you can customize to your exact needs combined with a quick way to adapt or do special things might do the trick. Of course, nothing beat the pause system for now but I do have an open mind.

 

What I mean, Is that it's not the pause system I want. It's control over the battlefield. If I have that, I don't care about how it's done. 

 

For example : I played DA:O on the hardest difficulty never pausing the entire game (unless I really had to pee), switching characters only to adapt to situations. I agree that this was an easy game, but anyhow. This was menageable enough to control 4 characters with no pause. 

 

That's cause DAO was a shallow RPG, try and play BG or IWD without pausing and see how you fare

 

 

Played both games, but you have to admit that the NPC AI is almost absent. If you could program your allies to protect one another, to have your cleric cast heal when a character is low on health or buff and debuff when you fight a harder battle or have your mage cast miscast magic or dispel magic on ennemy spellcaster. It may have been possible. 

 

I don't say one or the other system is better, and I don't care as long as I can menage my battles. 



#28
jethro

jethro

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 257 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

If you could program your allies to protect one another, to have your cleric cast heal when a character is low on health or buff and debuff when you fight a harder battle or have your mage cast miscast magic or dispel magic on ennemy spellcaster. It may have been possible. 
 
I don't say one or the other system is better, and I don't care as long as I can menage my battles.


Would you really still feel like you are managing your battles if 5 of the 6 characters were just executing a script (even if you made that script) ? If yes, why not write a script for all 6 characters ?

#29
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Well, the first problem is a pacing issue. Pausing mid-combat is like getting up to go to the bathroom when you're watching a scary movie. When you've come back and sit down, all the tension is completely gone and the movie has to start over from scratch to get you worked up again. If you're repeatedly getting up and down or you have distractions (like the movie's playing in the background while you're fixing dinner and you're only looking at it occasionally) it's impossible for the movie to scare you no matter how skillfully crafted it is.

The fundamental problem with RTwP is that it can't engage you on that sort of visceral level because these constant distractions from the action are baked into the core of the interface. Every time you pause, the excitement dissapates like the air from a popped balloon and the game has to start all over again from scratch to get you engaged again once you unpause. But you're gonna be pausing and unpausing pretty much constantly.


You bring up valid issues with pausing, but I dare say that things would be a bit different if you paused a movie to alter the plan/decisions of the characters frozen upon the screen, so that they reacted to your direct control and adjusted accordingly to produce wildly different outcomes to the scene.

As the slow-mo has been mentioned as being in (and other games are using it), I definitely think that's a very useful tool in mitigating the unavoidable disconnect from flat-out pausing, but, as others have said, allowing the action to simply flow all the way through disconnects you from the aspect of actually controlling the party and its tactics.

#30
Malekith

Malekith

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 865 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

You might like to look at PE for a better example. Isn't there a slow-motion combat mode they want to include?

 

We already have the slow combat implemented and it works pretty well.  I'm sure we'll be adjusting it more as we fine-tune combat pacing and pathing, but it's an enjoyable alternative to full speed vs. full stop.

 

It's slow motion all the time or when i press space instead of pause the game goes to slow motion?



#31
jamoecw

jamoecw

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 224 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

well to answer the original question:

1.  don't have anything that doesn't have a non meta method countering.

2.  have the AI counter in battle

3.  have the faction that the AI belongs to adapt its members bit by bit to be geared against your tactics from the get go.

 

so if you have 6 mages, and each of them just casts death combo spells, the enemies will spread out/break line of sight/etc. and try to live, and those that do will adapt so that you can't do the same thing twice.  after a day in game or so any battle you have with that faction again will from the start of battle be expecting the death combo spells and you won't be nearly as effective with them, and whatever your cleanup method used for now most of the enemy will be prioritized to be countered from the get go in addition to the death combo spells, assuming that they aren't mutually exclusive.  the cycle keeps iterating itself countering the most effective thing you did in the previous day's battles.

 

that way if you do the same thing over and over the game will get harder and harder until you start adapting, also if the ai can't adapt anymore and something is still working then a change needs to be made, either to the mechanics due to there being no counter, or the ai for not being able to execute the counter.

 

in the end that should ensure that there isn't anything that is the one way to beat everything, and that everything is more or less balanced against other methods.  the down side is the need for patches and constant support for at least a few months after the game is done, as well as decent amount of foresight in mechanics and ai programming.


  • Silent Winter likes this

#32
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

In other words, if having that 50-damage sword is always perfectly sufficient in taking things down, then it doesn't really matter how effectively you're applying the attributes of that sword to the challenge at hand. Maybe it has a higher chance of causing bleeding wounds under certain circumstances, and a greater chance of doing significantly less damage in some circumstances, etc. Maybe you can change your attack speed by switching stances, at the cost of something else.


This seems like too much unnecessary micromanagement that would be annoying to deal with, rather than something that adds depth.


I fear my words misled. What I was thinking of, specifically (and maybe should have specified via example?) was simplistic factors like armor/ability type. Sword A could cause a bleeding wound against no/light armor, but not against medium/heavy armor. And perhaps it does 2/3rds damage against heavy armor, or even against certain enemy types. And/or maybe a critical hit, or an active power attack with it causes bleeding. And with the stances thing I was thinking of the Fighter's modal Defender ability: increase your ability to engage targets (3, up from 1) at the cost of offensive capability. Maybe Sword A provides a different effect in Defender mode than Sword B, etc.

I'm not really referring to anything that specifically increase the amount of micromanagement necessary. Simply things that alter your decision-making in whatever amount of micromanagement you choose to do.

Edited by Lephys, 16 August 2013 - 03:35 PM.


#33
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Regarding AI countering, even a bit of randomization in the specific going-into-battle strategy chosen by a select encounter's group of foes) would be good. Not in lieu of actual reactive adaptation or anything. But, I just mean that, every group of goblins shouldn't always attack you in the same way until you force them to adapt to provide variety. So, sometimes "arbitrary" variance in the AI is nice.

Maybe these wolves are really, really hungry, so they just charge straight at you at full-sprint. Most others you've fought haven't done this (they've circled and tested defenses, etc., and even retreated), so you have to adapt to the difference from the get-go.

Edited by Lephys, 16 August 2013 - 03:43 PM.

  • jamoecw likes this

#34
J. Trudel

J. Trudel

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer

 

If you could program your allies to protect one another, to have your cleric cast heal when a character is low on health or buff and debuff when you fight a harder battle or have your mage cast miscast magic or dispel magic on ennemy spellcaster. It may have been possible. 
 
I don't say one or the other system is better, and I don't care as long as I can menage my battles.


Would you really still feel like you are managing your battles if 5 of the 6 characters were just executing a script (even if you made that script) ? If yes, why not write a script for all 6 characters ?

 

 

In fact, I would love that, as long as I keep control just in case something go wrong. I'd feel like a general having well planed his battle. But yes to answer your question I would still feel like managing my party. But that's me, I understand this style of play isn't for everyone. In fact I see it a bit like this. You plan the battles ahead so your soldiers know the baselines of how to react, but then, in the middle of the fight, you shout some orders at your soldiers because well... battles are chaotic and not everything may go as planned. Of course, I prefer still fully playing my main character, a bit like a general who wants to be on the front line. 



#35
Christliar

Christliar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 153 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I like the AI countering idea actually. That would add variety to your tactics and would keep the combat from getting boring, but that should be in addition to difficult encounters by themselves. Adaptive AI that functions instantly and in the moment (like a real person) would be the best. I have no knowledge of AI coding, but I would imagine that would be a nightmare to code, so I suppose it isn't a very realistic expectation.

 

 


I fear my words misled. What I was thinking of, specifically (and maybe should have specified via example?) was simplistic factors like armor/ability type. Sword A could cause a bleeding wound against no/light armor, but not against medium/heavy armor. And perhaps it does 2/3rds damage against heavy armor, or even against certain enemy types. And/or maybe a critical hit, or an active power attack with it causes bleeding. And with the stances thing I was thinking of the Fighter's modal Defender ability: increase your ability to engage targets (3, up from 1) at the cost of offensive capability. Maybe Sword A provides a different effect in Defender mode than Sword B, etc.

I'm not really referring to anything that specifically increase the amount of micromanagement necessary. Simply things that alter your decision-making in whatever amount of micromanagement you choose to do.

 

Ah, now I get it, but I don't think it would work very well and here's why: If P:E has something like weapon focus and weapon specialization like in D&D, that would severely gimp your character who's specialized in longswords with no way out, because the feats you've chosen are too specific. They can get around this by not including any types of specializations, but I think it's more fun to come up with interesting and viable builds for your character rather than having to constantly switch weapons which just adds unnecessary micromanagement and clutters your inventory. It frankly just adds another button for you to press automatically when you see someone resisting your longsword attacks.

The difficulty comes from the AI itself, rather than any superfluous contrivances like "this sword deals this much damage, but oh wait! it's useless against this succubus, better get that spear out!". It just adds more layers of fluff rather than depth. Flexibility of mechanics adds depth that would allow both you and your enemies to adapt better and with more options.



#36
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3021 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
I don't necessarily want the AI to be smart. Rather, I would like it to reflect the tactics the foes I'm battling would actually use. For instance, a group of savages wouldn't be executing complex maneuvers, they would be charging at the party. IMO, having enemy tactics vary by group makeup would be far more interesting than a universally smart AI.

Edited by KaineParker, 16 August 2013 - 04:50 PM.

  • jethro, aluminiumtrioxid, jamoecw and 3 others like this

#37
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Ah, now I get it, but I don't think it would work very well and here's why: If P:E has something like weapon focus and weapon specialization like in D&D, that would severely gimp your character who's specialized in longswords with no way out, because the feats you've chosen are too specific. They can get around this by not including any types of specializations, but I think it's more fun to come up with interesting and viable builds for your character rather than having to constantly switch weapons which just adds unnecessary micromanagement and clutters your inventory. It frankly just adds another button for you to press automatically when you see someone resisting your longsword attacks.


Again, I think you mistook my meaning partially. I wasn't intending overly specific feats and build-related things (although those aren't out of the question, really), but merely physical equipment properties that are circumstantially dynamic. A sword not causing bleeding against a given target hardly makes it useless, or demands that you switch weapons. Not to mention the fact that you'll control more than one character, unless you restrict yourself to a solo playthrough. AND you'll be fighting more than one foe, typically. If your Wizard's spells are suffering in effectiveness against a magically resistant enemy, this doesn't dictate that you MUST pull out a maul and go bash its face in or you lose. You can simply target a different foe, for normal OR even increased effect (weak-to-magic enemy), and have another character who's already not-using magic target that magically resistant foe.

Anywho, I was only making examples to emphasize the importance of dynamic prompting of adaptation on the player's part. The specifics can be changed any way you'd like for all manner of reasons, but if things always work the same way all the time (this attack does more damage, this attack does less, etc.), then combat is hardly taking any advantage of dynamic factors.

It helps when you use factors in pairs. If a specific piece of equipment yields 2 effects rather than just 1, then when 1 effect is nullified, the other remains. Or, if a fireball deals fire damage AND explosive-force damage, then you've got the opportunity for a foe who's resistant to fire but not to force, or vice versa.

Only when you have multiple options to weigh are decisions really substantial. It is like you said. If all but one option is all but ineffective against a certain challenge, then you aren't really left with a choice, now are you...

#38
Silent Winter

Silent Winter

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1594 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Reactive AI would be cool (relative to the enemy's intelligence/training as KaineParker suggested, though even tribesmen wouldn't stand still for a 2nd fireball - they might still know enough to scatter unless their numbers were such that 'overwhelming charge' was their tactic ["Zulus, thousands of them"]).

 

I like to control all 6 party members myself (first thing I do is turn off AI, and not just because it has a reputation for sucking).

RTwP is great for me but I'm curious about the slow-mo idea - how slow? Will it be smooth? Can we even control the speed?

Sometimes I like to take my time over decisions in a big fight, especially if things are going sour for me.  But I do remember one frantic battle in IWD when I thought I had the enemy bottle-necked in a doorway, only for reinforcements to arrive on my flank - had to pull back bit by bit, pelting the oncoming foes with magic while my melee characters retreated to cover the mages who could then fall back to the bridge.  I was able to pause and consider of course but it still felt exciting - might have been even better if it was slow-mo, giving me time to issue commands but not infinite time to consider my actions.

 

Don't want an action game though - still want to be able to have at least a little time to consider and issue commands to my 6 party members.



#39
jamoecw

jamoecw

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 224 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I don't necessarily want the AI to be smart. Rather, I would like it to reflect the tactics the foes I'm battling would actually use. For instance, a group of savages wouldn't be executing complex maneuvers, they would be charging at the party. IMO, having enemy tactics vary by group makeup would be far more interesting than a universally smart AI.

most of the time savages are quite skilled at fighting smart.  sparta was quite refined yet was pretty slow to react to things.  but ya the general idea is that wolves and such shouldn't focus the mages behind the ranks of fighters, they wouldn't do that most likely.



#40
Christliar

Christliar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 153 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

Ah, now I get it, but I don't think it would work very well and here's why: If P:E has something like weapon focus and weapon specialization like in D&D, that would severely gimp your character who's specialized in longswords with no way out, because the feats you've chosen are too specific. They can get around this by not including any types of specializations, but I think it's more fun to come up with interesting and viable builds for your character rather than having to constantly switch weapons which just adds unnecessary micromanagement and clutters your inventory. It frankly just adds another button for you to press automatically when you see someone resisting your longsword attacks.


Again, I think you mistook my meaning partially. I wasn't intending overly specific feats and build-related things (although those aren't out of the question, really), but merely physical equipment properties that are circumstantially dynamic. A sword not causing bleeding against a given target hardly makes it useless, or demands that you switch weapons. Not to mention the fact that you'll control more than one character, unless you restrict yourself to a solo playthrough. AND you'll be fighting more than one foe, typically. If your Wizard's spells are suffering in effectiveness against a magically resistant enemy, this doesn't dictate that you MUST pull out a maul and go bash its face in or you lose. You can simply target a different foe, for normal OR even increased effect (weak-to-magic enemy), and have another character who's already not-using magic target that magically resistant foe.

Anywho, I was only making examples to emphasize the importance of dynamic prompting of adaptation on the player's part. The specifics can be changed any way you'd like for all manner of reasons, but if things always work the same way all the time (this attack does more damage, this attack does less, etc.), then combat is hardly taking any advantage of dynamic factors.

It helps when you use factors in pairs. If a specific piece of equipment yields 2 effects rather than just 1, then when 1 effect is nullified, the other remains. Or, if a fireball deals fire damage AND explosive-force damage, then you've got the opportunity for a foe who's resistant to fire but not to force, or vice versa.

Only when you have multiple options to weigh are decisions really substantial. It is like you said. If all but one option is all but ineffective against a certain challenge, then you aren't really left with a choice, now are you...

 

 I suppose you are right. That does make you think which foe to attack with which character. I like it, it stops you from just controlling all 6 characters at once and overwhelming a single foe with everything you have. I don't think bosses should have those kinds of resistances though (unless they have reinforcements during the fight), it would make sense for them to be more powerful sure, but it simply removes 1 character (or 2 if your rogue is longsword speced) from the battle. Maybe not completely, but at least 1/2 of him/her.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: difficulty, combat, tactics, strategies, gameplay

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users