Tactics Game Online

Grassy Grid Square

With many thanks for several of the Unity 3d features, a grid square has been born.  The mesh for this was going to be created in Blender, and then added into Unity, but the Unity primitive cube gets the job done quite nicely.  You cannot modify the UV mapping of Unity primitives to my knowledge, but having every side look the same should be acceptable for now.  We can always create a better square down the road if necessary.  The goal right now is to get a working version of the game out as quickly as possible for you to play and all of us to enjoy.  I have several great textures that can be used to make different types of squares, like: grass, rock, and path to start off with.

Think of each square type as a different type of terrain that units have to walk on.  Each type has a different movement cost associated with it.  Currently, grass costs 14 points per square to walk on.  Paths cost 12 points.  Rock costs 16 points.

LKT - My previous game project

The battlefield is half the fun in a grid-based tactics game.  It largely impacts strategy, and variety of gameplay.  I am sure you have seen many a maps in your tactics adventures, and so have I.  So what are the factors that must be considered when designing the perfect battlefield for our tactics game?  Well, I am glad you asked!  One obvious one is whether there can be difference in elevation.  Here are some things to consider with elevation changes:

• If elevation is drastic enough, units may not be able to attack each other even if they are in squares that are horizontally next to each other, due to an elevation difference
• An additional character trait, height, must be added to the game
• Another possible character trait, jump, may need to be considered as well
• Rules need to be determined for unit adjacency, unit climb ability, and line-of-sight determination
• Splash area abilities just got a whole lot more complicated

As you can see, elevation adds a lot of complexity to a grid-based game.  So what are the advantages?  Well, the maps get a lot more interesting.  Character units could climb to higher ground, gain offensive and defensive advantages, and limit movement capabilities.  Some nice advantages, but are they worth it? Perhaps there is a compromise that gives us the best of both worlds: have maps have a maximum elevation change of 2 that allows for height advantages without affecting or creating the need for additional rules.  Unit height and climb capability would not be required for such a small elevation change, if units are considered to have a minimum height of 3.  Maps could then have small hills, and water could be a bottom elevation (0) with the rest of the ground being on elevation 1 or 2.  Line-of-sight checks would not be needed, since the units would be higher in height then the most drastic of elevation change of 2.  Plus, obstacles such as building and trees could still be used to break up the battlefield even further, adding more interesting elevation changes while minimizing rule complexity.

The terrain itself can impact strategy as well.  Traveling on a street or pathway can be faster for units than traveling across sand, swamp, and snow.  These factors are easy to incorporate, with each terrain type costing a varied amount of movement points to cross.  Movement points can be derived directly from unit speed.  Climbing up to a higher elevation could also cost additional movement points.