Balance Discussion - Hack and Pierce

[Emacz]

19 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

Wouldn't that simply be a Javelineer?

Also, why should a shortbow deal more damage from a realism perspective?

I think because the bow was smaller, the draw string was tighter so it would create more force but didnt have the distance. I could totally be wrong and am willing to make any changes once I come across new evidence.

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

One thing 0 A.D. lacks is a diversity of archer types.

The issue with building a system revolving on different archer types, is that for balancing, it would be necessary to give it to most civs. No matter what historical justifications one might find.

Personally, I feel like the current system, with archers, slingers, and javelineers, isn't being used to its full potential.

[Thalatta]

2 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

If I have understood that correctly, and to simplify it a bit, in addition to Resistances that reduces the damage by a certain percentage there is also a block / dodge mechanic that completely negates the damage of a melee attack / projectile.

Would certainly give you more options to make one unit type effective against certain other units types. E.g. cavalry has high dodge but low block to make them effective against ranged units but "bad" against melee units.

Well, it's not to completely negate, but acts as a modifier.

Thus, you have values of pierce (p), hack (h), crush (c), block (b), parry (a) and dodge (d), both for attack (A) and defense (D): pA, hA, cA, bA, aA, dA, pD, hD, cD, bD, aD, dD. For example, aA is how hard is to parry its attack, aD is how easily it parries attacks. The better for the unit the bigger the values are.

As a proof of concept, a naive formula for the damage the attacker deals to a defender could be (pA/pD+hA/hD+cA/cD)(bA/bD)(aA/aD)(dA/dD), meaning that all damage, after being divided by each corresponding defender's resistance, is added up, and then multiplied by factors related to the probability (it's NOT directly a probability) of the attack being either blocked, parried or dodged (just adding them up is problematic). Here I'm showing the (rounded) results, with 10 taken as an average value, and other parameters like rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account:

This means that the damage ratio for spearmen:cavalry is 3:1 (as wanted), for cavalry:archers is 6:4 (which makes sense, cavalry would get destroyed by archers if they don't close in, like in Agincourt), and for archers:spearmen is 2:5 (which makes sense, the advantage of archers being not this but keeping their distance). Remember that rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account, which would incline more the scales to what is wanted. Also, archers:archers is 4 times more destructive than cavalry:cavalry, which is twice as destructive as spearmen:spearmen, which makes sense considering how long these kind of engagements last. Would be nice to keep adding units.

[Emacz]

does anyone know how hard it would be to write in something like chance to block and or dodge/avoid?

I think it would be "simple" to add them as a resistance, but then it just means the absorb less dmg, instead of potentially missing the dmg all together.

[Thalatta]

46 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

But probably misunderstood the logic and he was talking about the arrow deal more/less damage depending target distance...

Indeed, I was talking for a given bow. And for example, slings lose less kinetic energy in flight. Same with crossbows, given that darts are heavier. But for short distance and high damage, it's basically javelineers (in all its variants like pilum, etc). And the Kestrophendone if you want to get fancy.
 

46 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

In general, archers feel quite weak in the latest alphas and also lack variety, with the exception of some champion archers.

So I guess my "proposal" would be that A shortbow could have higher dexterity and a faster attack speed (with less damage, based on what I now understand), while a longbow could be slower but have greater range and deal more damage.

I thought people were always complaining that archers were OP. They should be a support unit, melee should reign supreme (at least until gunpowder :P). But I'm all in for variety, and as I mentioned before, giving all those archers the same range doesn't seem the right decision to me (not even counting that things are the other way around). You should have, regarding range, Persian Archers > Cretan Archers > Other Greek Archers. Regarding damage, I've seen discussions if Cretan archers used anti-armor arrow points, but have to look into it again. I do care about history because there's basically one of it, while one could achieve in many ways a balanced gameplay.

Edited 50 minutes ago by Thalatta
I had deleted part of the quote that I also answered

[guerringuerrin]

13 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

I thought people were always complaining that archers were OP.

Nah, they kinda suck atm. Except for some champion ones.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I feel like archers are close to being good. A few minor buffs here and there. We can look at a24 for ways to make them OP again lol.

[Deicide4u]

CS archers are indeed pretty bad. Archer civs are having a really bad time before they get access to better ranged units. Champion archers are good, but expensive.

To use archers effectively, you need to create and maintain distance with the enemy. This can be taxing on APM and ultimately useless, as infantry archers are slow.

Edited 22 minutes ago by Deicide4u

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

You should have, regarding range, Persian Archers > Cretan Archers > Other Greek Archers. 

Where would Kush and Maury fit in this? We have Maury as the fursthest range at moment in CWA

[Perzival12]

8 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

CS archers are indeed pretty bad. Archer civs are having a really bad time before they get access to better ranged units. Champion archers are good, but expensive.

To use archers effectively, you need to create and maintain distance with the enemy. This can be taxing on APM and ultimately useless, as infantry archers are slow.

We need more maps with canyons and choke points, so it’s easier to find places to position archers and rain arrows into the enemy. Also, since archers don’t wear any armor, and are carrying only a bow and quiver, they should maybe move slightly faster than other CS.