Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Karamel

[Design] Counter scheme

Recommended Posts

According to unit roles (see http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20103) here is how I think which class could counter which other, depending on the situation of course. Note that this takes running and charging in account for a future implementation (and not just damage/range/armor/cost).

It will also vary a bit if some units have different strengths and weaknesses in different civilization, but the general counter should remain the same not to get lost (thus it would be more or less effective).

In short (but with some exception)

ranged > melee infantry

Cavalry > ranged infantry

Range with melee cover > cavalry

Then we have short/medium/long range melee infantry (being individual, small group, pack figthers respectively)

Short/medium/long range infantry (shorter = easier to cover but easily outranged)

Light/heavy cavalry (mobility vs durability)

Spearmen

With medium range, they can fight in two rows, giving them more power when in tight formation.

Generally, strength and durability is given when in formation but decreases their speed (thus more prone to hit'n run), less strength and durability when individual (thus more prone to melee fight)

Counters:

Swordmen when in formation, using outnumbering in fighting

Cavalry but not that much

Countered by:

Swordmen when dispersed (losing their outnumbering effect)

Ranged units by hit'n runnnig

Elephant, just being crushed

Pikemen

With long range, they can fight even more than spearmen when in tight formation. The counter scheme is roughfly the same.

Counters:

Swordmen, spearmen when in formation, using outnumbering in fighting

Cavalry

Countered by:

Swordmen and spearmen when dispersed

Ranged units by hit'n running

Elephant if not being carefull

Swordmen

With short melee range, they are the best individual fighters.

Counters:

Individual melee units

Countered by:

Cavalry

Archers (see archers counter)

Elephant

Javelinists

Short range hit'n run specialist

Counters:

Spear and pikemen, by forcing to disrupt, or even just killing them in place while hit'n running

Javelin cavalry with their speed advantage not being useable (and being less cost/efficient)

Elephant with target spreading

Countered by:

Light and heavy cavalry if uncovered (very short distance to run)

Covered archers and slingers by not getting in range

Archers

Long range troop

Counters:

Disrupted infantry (be it spear and pikes not in tight formation or swordmen not in testudo)

Countered by:

Slingers if massed (outrange)

Cavalry when uncovered (by reducing their range advantage)

Siege, almost ineffective

Slingers

Long anti-mass troop

Counters:

Massed infantry

Better against siege than archers, but not skirmishers (otherwise mini siege > siege)

Early defenses before siege weapons

Countered by:

Cavalry when uncovered

Heavy cavalry

(read spear cav)

Counters:

Everything in one on one (except elephant), not that much for siege

Countered by:

A few pikemen, a bit more spearmen

Javelin cavalry by hit'n running

Elephant

Skirmishers, archers, slingers (in that order) if they are well covered

Light cavalry

(read sword cavalry)

Counters:

Uncovered siege

Ranged units if not well covered

Can't be hit'n run by javelin cavalry

Countered by:

Spearmen, pikemen

Skirmishers, archers, slingers (in that order) if they are well covered, but less than heavy cav

Javelin cavalry

Fast hit'n run troop, close to infantry javelinist except for cavalry.

Counters:

Spear and pikemen, by disrupting them, or even just killing in hit'n run

Elephant with target spreading and hit'n run

Countered by:

Javelinist by being less cost/efficient

Light cavalry if fighting it

Archer cavalry

Long range cavalry

Counters:

Everything that can't get in range (melee infantry, javelinists)

Countered by:

Everything that can get in range (archers, slingers, light cavalry, javelin cavalry)

Almost ineffective against siege

Elephant

That mastodont

Counters:

All melee units (less for pikemen)

Siege

Countered by:

Javelinists, javelin cavalry (good)

Archers, archer cavalry (medium)

Slingers (somehow)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also agree in general, but I in my opinion I would remark:
The spearman durability against ranged, but swordman better dps against infantry.

But regarding slingers I have some doubts. At first, I would say that it's a unit that in the actual roster it's very limited (could change), and in my vision melee should be better than ranged against buildings (otherwise you would encourage ranged fights) and maybe all ranged troops should have the same siege damage. And I don't like at all ranged being strong against siege. Just my personal opinion.

Finally, I thing that maybe you should think about turret feature, regarding cav archers, they also should be a hit'n'run unit, if going historical, but also shock cavalry isn't really accurate (and isn't fun to lost 20 cavs against some archers IMHO)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sword cavalry is range killer. May be the skirmisher can deal with sword cavalry but not with elite sword cavalry.

Sword cavalry can be heavy think in future units like Praetorian cavalry guards, Sassanids Cataphract ( with mace).

Ranged cavalry are light they can't deal with infantry ranged or pikeman, but are heavy infantry killer. Parthian Archer vs Roman legionary as example.( in the future of course)

Slinger are strong if Siege units aren't upgraded, and if they are like more ram o siege tower ( without units inside) but have a little advantage , but their short range can't take a bolt shooter or a ranged siege.

We need separate siege into two/ three types. Melee siege, ranged siege ( onagers, catapults, ballista) and Tanks siege tower and Assyrian ram. But the bonus must work as defenders climbed over a wall segment. Without cover they must be weak and very short range, even in mass, they have low hp. Mostly slingers were shepherds or people from lower class.

We need split lancer to spear lancer are like to pikeman as cavalry(Cataphract using two hands) and spear cavalry, like Roman cavalry.

The Lancer can kill infantry sword and maceman. But have good fight vs spearman, but can't take pikeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if slings would be considered siege worthy, it was a nice counter in AOE to towers but I think that was more borne of necessity for a tower and archer counter. (they werent that great at it either) The only siege slings I've come across are either attached to catapults or later staff-slingers.

I think the only counter-siege would be a variation of siege- like the ballista in Stronghold or the Culverin in AOEIII. Even counter trebuchets in AOE II. the oxybeles, polybolos, and scorpion fit the bill pretty well already.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scheme with melee ranged.

For me slinger can deal as siege vs towers ( good)and defender( low but acceptable)

Javelin can deal with cavalry ranged ( good). And as defender can be ( worst)

Archer can deal with infantry melee ( very good to good) and as defender (good) have best range but can't deal with siege units

* as defender I mean at the top at wall

Slinger are weak against cavalry

Javelin ire are weak against melee infantry

Archer are weak against all cavalry

Between they:

Slinger can defeat archer if is nearly

Javelin can defeat slinger easily

Archer can defeat Javalinier if aren't close

Obviously this are 1vs 1 same condition.

Range:

Slinger very short range

Javeliner short range

Archer long range

This unit are for supported more specialist

Slinger have great synergy supporting the siege units and very high hack attack unit

Javeliner are good supporting Roman infantry or Iberian infantry from ranged cavalry and killing elephant

Archer are great supporting defenses and infantry from other infantry melee

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sling as siege is just not good at all. If you want a unit good vs. towers then make it melee cavaly, because tower have minimum range (melee cavalry approach tower fast so not under fire for long, they get under tower's minimum range and are free to chop it down). later you have tower tech that remove minimum range so now melee cav arent so good vs towers, which okay because now you have siege catapults to take care of them. Tactic progress as match progress.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactic progress as match progress. That's is a good catch. When designing, we have to have in mind what we want to achieve, looking the overall picture.

If we're searching a early defense dealer™, it depens on the gameplay that you want. If slingers can outrange ranged units and even defenses, you encourage ranged battles and trench warfare. If you favor melee (in this example sword cav) then you will have full assaults on enemy bases.
But remember early alphas that sword cavalry was OP, they were freaking fast destroying buildings.

And a little Off-topic about counter-scheme: the remove minimum range tech could be in 2n late phase in the armoury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the extra "wooden tower" thing added to game (last alpha?). Just make Defense Tower weak in Phase 1, like 500 hp (or less!). Make defender have to spend money on upgrade the tower to make them deadlier for defense in later phase II, III (IV in my mod). Melee cav don't need to be so strong to take down a 500hp wooden tower in Phase I or II (un-upgraded). Phase II can have tech upgrade to stone tower, with actor change (as in Delenda Est). Has double health now. Tougher to take down, but now they cost Stone too, so more expensive for the extra toughness. So, use stone for walls, Phase III tech, or stone Defens Towers? Defender must decide. While defender use stone to build tower and walls, attacker is using stone to upgrade to Phase III and get siege to kill defender's walls and tower.

None of this need Slinger to have siege capability (lulz). Make slinger the anti-range ranged unit or just be cheap ranged support for the meat shield (or both), while Javelin Infantry and Archer Infantry are more specialize (Archer and Javelin Infantry seem to be more common to the most civs).

Just some thoughts this lovely morning.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sling as siege is just not good at all. If you want a unit good vs. towers then make it melee cavaly, because tower have minimum range (melee cavalry approach tower fast so not under fire for long, they get under tower's minimum range and are free to chop it down). later you have tower tech that remove minimum range so now melee cav arent so good vs towers, which okay because now you have siege catapults to take care of them. Tactic progress as match progress.

sword cavalry, I'm not sure about spear cavalry, actually the cavalry conquer and capture all in vanilla game.

Melee cavalry are weak vs bolt shooter( scorpions) but slinger too.

Ok we are talk about early middle game, the siege warfare before the siege engines. Remember not all Civs are Romans, Carthaginians or Succesors. Think about little factions.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, talking about slingers, having them do significantly better against buildings seems a bit weird afterall.

I rejoin wowgetoffyourcellphone in having two defenses phases: weak ones which can be dealt with a frontal assault without siege and later strong ones which requires siege. Slingers then are just an other ranged unit and not a special mini-siege as I suggested earlier.

I've also found a flaw with the current counter scheme in early game: the only valid unit is the skirmisher. It counters melee infantry and javelin cav, which are almost all of the available units at start. A pack of spearmen in formation can make some troubles to force skirmishers to retreat but it would be only for short time (unless it could be an outpost with an available tower to capture for example). So I think it can be dealt with multiple manner, including making melee infantry more usefull in early game, maybe with countryside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this scheme...

How would the role of the following units work?

 axeman class. (two handed, ome handed).

Spoiler

Resultado de imagen para karian axemen

Resultado de imagen para axemen persian

Clubman class (same as before)

More similar maceman class.

Spoiler

Resultado de imagen para Sassanid maceman

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2015 at 7:57 PM, av93 said:

melee should be better than ranged against buildings (otherwise you would encourage ranged fights) and maybe all ranged troops should have the same siege damage. And I don't like at all ranged being strong against siege.

Yes, melee troops should be better than ranged against buildings. I believe Alpha 24 is adding a damage wrapper, so perhaps add a damage type siege? Then you make enemy buildings immune to all other damage types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles Martel said:

Yes, melee troops should be better than ranged against buildings. I believe Alpha 24 is adding a damage wrapper, so perhaps add a damage type siege? Then you make enemy buildings immune to all other damage types.

Except defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...