[Community mod] Melee rebalance

[LetswaveaBook]

The conversation is so long with one person repeating the same logic all the time, that I have to admit that I didn't completely read everything, but I will react to some things.

19 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

but that can’t address range units running away faster than melee can chase like you’re describing. Doing dmg/armor feels more complicated and like it’s putting the cart before the horse. 

@chrstgtr Welcome to RTG games! Unless the winning unit is faster, the losing unit can flee. That is not a problem, but a given fact. To chase and kill a fleeing unit, the chasing unit needs to be faster and only one of two units can be faster than the other. One unit being able to escape due to its speed is not a solvable problem, rather it should be considered as a given fact. There can not be a greater delusion than asking for an "issue" to be solved if it is clearly unsolvable by nature.

Furthermore, you forget that a combined arms approach is possible. If the melee units win the battle and the losing javeleers flee, then they might escape. However if the winning player has just 10% cavalry units, then the losing javelineers cant escape the cavalry and if they stay to fight, then the chasing infantry might catch up.

14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I've asked (in many threads, including this one), how increasing melee's dps and decreasing melee's armor changes the meat shield meta (as defined above) instead of just changing how quickly the meat shield dies and no one has ever explained it. 

Okay, I will give an example that differs from what you mentioned. Consider two armies.

Army A (Kushites/mauryas) consists of 20% archers, 40% spearmen, 40% swordsmen. Average DPS: 10.4

Army B (Guals) consists of 50% javelineers and 50% spearmen. Average DPS 10.9

Army A has the unit with most range and has more HP, whereas army B has the fastest unit (javelineers) and a little more DPS. Whereas army B can be agrued not to deviate to much from meatshield meta, army A does. Melee infantry in army A isn't the meatshield, but the core of the army.

This example shows that the proposal is a fundamental change: You no longer need javelineers to have a competitive DPS.

4 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

That is a misconception that melee units need to hit ranged units in order to be effective.

That is very much correct. It needs to be understood that ranged units might run away, but you wont win the game if you run away instead of defending your base. I hope everybody understands that.

Edited March 28, 2023 by LetswaveaBook

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Something else I just came up with: Perhaps we can give a preferred class to healers of "melee" in addition to these other changes. It would make Healers more useful in bolstering the front line and less random. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

31 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Army A (Kushites/mauryas) consists of 20% archers, 40% spearmen, 40% swordsmen. Average DPS: 10.4

in a26 this is 6.5 dps, in melee mod, this is 11.6

31 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Army B (Guals) consists of 50% javelineers and 50% spearmen. Average DPS 10.9

in a26 this is 9.15, in melee mod, its 11.9.

notice they are much more competitive overall, although army A has a lot more armor. Army B wins without a doubt in a26, but army A probably wins in melee mod.

Edited March 28, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone its an interesting idea. Each hitpoint of health healed is more effective on armored units than ranged units. 

Perhaps an alternative would be assigning unique behavior to the "follow" or "guard" unit commands for healers, where they follow a bit closer and maybe still consider other nearby units.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone its an interesting idea. Each hitpoint of health healed is more effective on armored units than ranged units. 

Perhaps an alternative would be assigning unique behavior to the "follow" or "guard" unit commands for healers, where they follow a bit closer and maybe still consider other nearby units.

Speaking of Healer behavior, if they are a part of a combat group and you task that group to attack the enemy, the Healers (since they have no attack [and shouldn't except in rare cases]) walk right up to the target to get slaughtered. Perhaps Healers in this case can hang back a certain number of meters (maybe 80% of healing range) and not walk right up to the enemy to be killed. Would this kind of change be helpful to people? Would make them last longer and, with a "Melee" preferred class for healing targeting, make them more integral to combat.

@Freagarach

Edited March 28, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[LetswaveaBook]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

32 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Army A (Kushites/mauryas) consists of 20% archers, 40% spearmen, 40% swordsmen. Average DPS: 10.4

in a26 this is 6.5 dps, in melee mod, this is 11.6

32 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Army B (Guals) consists of 50% javelineers and 50% spearmen. Average DPS 10.9

in a26 this is 9.15, in melee mod, its 11.9.

I admit. It is a miscalculation, but the conclusion remains the same.

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

notice they are much more competitive overall.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Healer discussion branched here: 

 

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

how does this not make sense?

Because no one is describing how fights actually look different. I get it--the mechanics within a fight will be different because melee will be dealing more dmg. But that doesn't actually change the meta, which is: masses of armies with just enough spammed melee to absorb dmg in the middle. In other words, the fights will still look the same with a steady stream of melee units walking into the middle to die

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

is it not problematic that all melee units do less damage than all ranged units? Is it not problematic that nobody prioritizes melee upgrades? Is it not a problem that melee units never rank up? Is it not problematic that pikemen can get 12 pierce armor and up to 15, while taking 5 attacks or 10 seconds to kill a 25 hp woman?

Generally speaking, I agree these sorts of things are a problem. I am reasonably convinced that melee need a rebalance along the lines that you propose. But I don't see how your proposal actually addresses the meat shield problem. And if the meat shield meta isn't addressed then the units will just need rebalancing again once the meat shield issue is addressed, and each time there is a rebalancing it causes huge problems. In other words, I don't think doing what you propose will fix the big meat shield problem and your idea will need to be re-fixed as soon as the meat shield problem is actually addressed. That is why I say I think you are putting the cart before the horse here.  

[real_tabasco_sauce]

17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

And if the meat shield meta isn't addressed then the units will just need rebalancing again once the meat shield issue is addressed, and each time there is a rebalancing it causes huge problems. In other words, I don't think doing what you propose will fix the big meat shield problem and your idea will need to be re-fixed as soon as the meat shield problem is actually addressed.

It can't be fixed by units stats. It is because of unit AI. You could randomly assign unit stats from 1-10000 for damage and armor and it will always be that melee units will die first.

there is literally no way around it, we can still improve things.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

no one is describing how fights actually look different. I get it--the mechanics within a fight will be different because melee will be dealing more dmg.

as shown in tests, sniping is not as powerful, because the player has to decide what units if any should be focused. Ie it is not always snipe the ranged units to win.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

It’s not a proposal at this stage, it is a working concept. Next steps are to evaluate the results rather than speculate. 

[chrstgtr]

37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It can't be fixed by units stats. It is because of unit AI. You could randomly assign unit stats from 1-10000 for damage and armor and it will always be that melee units will die first.

there is literally no way around it, we can still improve things.

This is a fair reply. My response, though, is that you are still thinking within the current confines which requires lines of units fighting straight up. My whole point is that it doesn't need to be that way. That there can (and should be) other strategic positioning and maneuvering. How you move your units should matter. How you position your units should matter. And we know that those strategic considerations are possible because they regularly happen with cav

I'll be on later to talk live/test if you want. But I think the two paragraphs above finally crystalize what we've been discussing and I imagine we are at an impasse

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

It’s not a proposal at this stage, it is a working concept. Next steps are to evaluate the results rather than speculate. 

I agree with this. This endless fight is just proving it and I'll even upload gameplay if I find playing online with someone (with someone of my level).

 

The ideal would be to just focus on simulating the fighting.Prepared attacks between large armies and different compositions. Without focusing on attacking cities.

[Lion.Kanzen]

When can these changes be tested?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

10 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

When can these changes be tested?

I mean technically whenever you want, since the mod is posted. Ideally, however, they will get plenty of testing in the community mod for a27.

I already did a bunch of tests and concluded that swordcav need -0.5 pierce armor and that champ spearcav need -1 hack armor. Everything else seems pretty well balanced other than those two.

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I mean technically whenever you want, since the mod is posted. Ideally, however, they will get plenty of testing in the community mod for a27.

I already did a bunch of tests and concluded that swordcav need -0.5 pierce armor and that champ spearcav need -1 hack armor. Everything else seems pretty well balanced other than those two.

It's already in the mod. I have SVN a27 and I have A26 on my computer.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@Lion.Kanzen I think he means the official version. This mod he made is based on the community mod, so it could be merged once things are optimized, a27 is released, and people vote for it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@Lion.Kanzen I think he means the official version. This mod he made is based on the community mod, so it could be merged once things are optimized, a27 is released, and people vote for it.

Are some of the changes already in the community mod?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 28/03/2023 at 5:15 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Are some of the changes already in the community mod?

All the changes mentioned here are in the melee mod for a26.

The goal is to play test this on a larger scale in the first community mod release for a27.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

community mod release for a27.

it would be better to call it update instead of release.I would confuse it with the release of A27.

 

For now it is downloading that file. And what version is that file compatible with?

[ChronA]

This mod seems like a good starting point for addressing this longstanding issue, and I hope the community will give it a thorough testing.  Personally (and without having tested it) I think it could probably be weighted even more heavily towards buffing melee, but that's just a baseless gut feeling (which others might call a prejudice). Specifically I think the most historically grounded representation of the melee infantry would be to give them both insanely good armor, and equal or superior DPS, compared to the ranged infantry. Read what's below to see my reasoning.

As to how things ought to look:

1. I agree with @chrstgtr that the time tested solution to this exact problem, used by almost every other RTS on the market, is to always make melee units faster than their counterpart ranged units. It works on a mechanical level in a way nothing else under discussion can so it's an appealing fix. This we must grant as axiomatic.
2. The problem is this conventional solution butts up against the actual historical record just as hard as the current ranged-unit dominated meta. The melee units under discussion represent heavy infantry and the ranged units represent light infantry. Heavy infantry are NEVER going to be faster than light infantry in any pre-industrial context because of simple physics. F=MA, and heavy infantry will always be carrying much more M for roughly the same amount of F generated by their muscles. 
3. My understanding (though perhaps others feel differently) is that the weird way this tended to work out in history was melee and ranged actually had little direct strategic effect on each other most of the time. Ranged (ie light) infantry were agile enough to evade any direct confrontation with heavy infantry that they did not want. Meanwhile heavy infantry armor was so protective that ranged weapons actually inflicted no meaningful casualties to them on the time scale of melee combat. Of course if the heavy infantry stood around getting peppered for hours (like if the ranged units are protected behind fortifications, or were using hit and run tactics on an open field) that is an entirely different matter... and one we can simulate.
4. Thus the role of ranged infantry then was a) to annoy the heavies when they could do so safely b) kill other ranged infantry that cavalry could not safely engage c) zone away enemy cavalry (especially the ranged sort) that might be trying to flank around friendly heavies without joining into melee range.
5. Heavy infantry's role was to be pretty much the only cost effective DPS source against cohesive enemy heavies during pitched battle. They were also unmatched when the enemy could be forced to fight, as if they were protecting a town or some such. A lot of the way light infantry or cavalry actually went about decisively beating a heavy infantry force was about disrupting logistics or morale rather than causing direct casualties. Unfortunately that is hard to simulate.
6. If this interpretation of ancient combined arms were brought to 0AD it would admittedly look really weird. A lot of battles would be just lines of heavy infantry duking it out, this is true. Ranged units would only be used in a few very specific situations: when protected by fortifications, when supporting a melee fight in a very tight choke, or for conducting or countering harassing actions in no-man's land when no enemy cavalry are present.

[Lion.Kanzen]

39 minutes ago, ChronA said:

This mod seems like a good starting point for addressing this longstanding issue, and I hope the community will give it a thorough testing.  Personally (and without having tested it) I think it could probably be weighted even more heavily towards buffing melee, but that's just a baseless gut feeling (which others might call a prejudice). Specifically I think the most historically grounded representation of the melee infantry would be to give them both insanely good armor, and equal or superior DPS, compared to the ranged infantry. Read what's below to see my reasoning.

As to how things ought to look:

1. I agree with @chrstgtr that the time tested solution to this exact problem, used by almost every other RTS on the market, is to always make melee units faster than their counterpart ranged units. It works on a mechanical level in a way nothing else under discussion can so it's an appealing fix. This we must grant as axiomatic.
2. The problem is this conventional solution butts up against the actual historical record just as hard as the current ranged-unit dominated meta. The melee units under discussion represent heavy infantry and the ranged units represent light infantry. Heavy infantry are NEVER going to be faster than light infantry in any pre-industrial context because of simple physics. F=MA, and heavy infantry will always be carrying much more M for roughly the same amount of F generated by their muscles. 
3. My understanding (though perhaps others feel differently) is that the weird way this tended to work out in history was melee and ranged actually had little direct strategic effect on each other most of the time. Ranged (ie light) infantry were agile enough to evade any direct confrontation with heavy infantry that they did not want. Meanwhile heavy infantry armor was so protective that ranged weapons actually inflicted no meaningful casualties to them on the time scale of melee combat. Of course if the heavy infantry stood around getting peppered for hours (like if the ranged units are protected behind fortifications, or were using hit and run tactics on an open field) that is an entirely different matter... and one we can simulate.
4. Thus the role of ranged infantry then was a) to annoy the heavies when they could do so safely b) kill other ranged infantry that cavalry could not safely engage c) zone away enemy cavalry (especially the ranged sort) that might be trying to flank around friendly heavies without joining into melee range.
5. Heavy infantry's role was to be pretty much the only cost effective DPS source against cohesive enemy heavies during pitched battle. They were also unmatched when the enemy could be forced to fight, as if they were protecting a town or some such. A lot of the way light infantry or cavalry actually went about decisively beating a heavy infantry force was about disrupting logistics or morale rather than causing direct casualties. Unfortunately that is hard to simulate.
6. If this interpretation of ancient combined arms were brought to 0AD it would admittedly look really weird. A lot of battles would be just lines of heavy infantry duking it out, this is true. Ranged units would only be used in a few very specific situations: when protected by fortifications, when supporting a melee fight in a very tight choke, or for conducting or countering harassing actions in no-man's land when no enemy cavalry are present.

It definitely feels like a real army.

A spam of 48 hoplites + 12 skirmishers cavalry accompanying the combat, it would be nice to increase the attack of the towers a bit, if I am somewhat satisfied but I did not manage to fight on equal terms, but if it feels better the Buff.

 

In formation they should go slower.

 

With a combination of 8 healers is deadly, I should try with Persian army or Maurya.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Macedonians vs Ptolemies.

 

I don't know if you tweaked the spear cavalry.

I feel good fighting against archers, although it was not a direct combat.

 

The few are fine because they are vulnerable to archers.

The skirmishers feel flimsy, that's okay, I used them in urban combat at my base.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

now ranged infantry suffers from melee cavalry.

you definitely can't leave your army with 2 types of infantry; melee and ranged, with these changes your army needs at least cavalry, missile/cavalry infantry and melee infantry.

 

Now the balance pyramid can be perfectly fulfilled.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

anyone want to set up a couple games on this mod at the moment?