Civ balance

[Oimat]

Hi guys,

I'm here today to talk about balancing civilisations. I'll try to avoid the historic debate, because even with history, gameplay still is important, so i won't use history in this discussion (or put romans an overwhelming faction).

So in first place i'll talk about general ideas, and later (tomorrow ? ) enter in more details.

Why balancing civilisations ?

Because some are too powerfull (mauryans, spartans (i'll explain later)) , and others so useless (gauls), and so somes are more used like others.

My idea is that there exists offensive factions, defensive one an polyvalent ones.

According to the wiki and tech gave to the civs, i will classify civ like that :

Agressives ones :

- Britons (no walls, druids enhancing attack)

- Gauls (exact copy of Britons)

- Mauryans (or so i guess, mediocre defense)

- Spartans (have i to explain ? )

Deffensives ones :

- Athenians (walls on neutral territory and good defense it's said)

- Carthaginians (9000 HP walls, towers incorporated to gates)

- Iberians (have i to explain ? )

- Persians (architecture tech and good walls)

Polyvalents ones :

- Macedonians

- Romans (can attack, but aren't so strong)

For the polyvalents one i'm less sure of me. If you think should change some civ from one category to another, it can be debated too.

So, who cares if a civ is defensive or agressive ?

I really want different gameplays and tactics are different from each civ. Some said defensive play can't be done, because agressive ones controls enterily the map so.

For begining, defensive civ should be have great armor and weak attack, and the contrary for offsensive ones. Polyvalents have normal armour and normal attack.

For example Hannibal is the typical example of defensive unit : quantumstate calculated that were needed 28 immortals persians to kill him. Immortals should be more immortals but have less attack... things like that.

Of course, cheaper buildings but less hp for agressive civs, and stronger but more expensive buildings. Perhaps a bit more territory for defensive, like that more place to put towers.

Of course towers have to be more powerful in defense than in agressive civ. Like walls. Like forts. The problem is that even putting more hp and fire range and fire rate on towers and forts, if it's too much expensive they won't be used.

On the contrary, the most agreessive ones (like sparta) shouldn't have forts, but a building like barrack or army camp which provides siege engine.

Agressives have good siege weapons (currently if you agree with my classification, most of the agressive one have siege weapons that sucks so much...) and defensive couter-siege engines (and one siege weapon, don't joke ! ). And because agressive don't have so much walls, towers or forts, no need for powerfull siege engines.

According to this ideas, let's balance civs.

Currently, there are some that are useless, others that are op. Of course, i don't know so well all strategyes, so i can forget something.

OP :

- mauryans with archers (not a surprise) : it's not an ended civ, heroes are cheated (Hannibal ? ) and the only one that has dumpstore elephant. So you can go throught the map with your army and your eleph and gathering from any mine on the map. Furthemore, elephants can't be coutered by women, like normal siege weapons. Should be. Archers has better range than iberians towers or forts or catapults. Not normal.

- spartans : i found 2 days ago a winning strategy in age 1. Do directly 5 spearman and attack with all 9 spearman. In minute 2, the ennemy can't defend himself. I beat quantum like that in 5 minutes with a ratio kill of 10:26. Second thing is 1 promotion per 1 enemy killed. Spartan infantry is very strong, very hard to defeat. I think only need to put another infantry at the begining of the game than the 4 spearmen and it will be ok.

Useless :

- gauls : they are on the average on everything, no good point. http://www.quantumst...oup.php?group=6 with spearmen for example, they have one of the worst ratio. No special structure nor good civ thing. For balance, could be for example slow down decay rate of outposts and allow guarrisoning 5 men inside instead of only 1. Like a mini army camp in neutral territory Their navys are the most powerfull one, but because of pathfinding, this is no use currently. That's a shame

- britons : same deffects than gauls, it's like a copy of it, but added dogs. Powerfull dogs. The only viable strategy too with britons is with dogs. Celts needs and enhancement to deep its gameplay and have more options.

[Oimat]

So now, let's do local balancing, because i already told about global balance. Of course, EVERYTHING is debatable

Athenians :

It's said they have one of the stronger navy but no quinquirem, only triremes. Historicaly it's right. So, just put them a very good tech for armour.

Plus, they have a basic infantry which costs wood and metal, but not food. So it's very hard to train them .Slingers are always a plus.

Their walls on neutral territory is a good idea. But able on age 2, so possibly after the firsts raids against you. And walls should allow you to prevent raids.

In general, i think walls and palissades are too expensive for the surface they can protect on early game. Why not put a cheap wall at the early game (costing rock so no wood) and improving it by tech (and more expensive so) ? Like that, could be also used in early game.

Athenians dispose of good champions, good siege engines, so a good civ. Perhaps do them more defensive ?

Britons :

Hum...

Without dogs, britons would have been nothing in this game. Put them decent infantry or decent cav, as you want.

Their ships, like gauls one, are very powerfull, that's good.

But in late game, when the map is full of forts, their battering rams are useless. Needs 2 minutes with 3 battering rams to destroy a single fort.

In general, battering rams of iberians, gauls, britons, spartans and others are as expensive as roman's or athenian's one, but much more powerless. If you want powerless battering ram, do them cheaper., so quantity will counter quality.

Carthaginian :

WIth romans, i really don't understand carth.

They have mercenarys, lots of good stuff, but no one says they are OP. Why ? I don't even find the reason of that

But so, i think this civ is on of the better balanced civ. Powerfull if you have a ton of metal, but no useless if you lack of it.

Their heros like Hannibal are op too...

In general, no one civ should be dependent on only wood or metal. Somes are too dependant of metal or wood.

Gauls :

Same as britons.

But with less features. They really need improvement to diversify their game. And to make them good strategies. Better units and outposts is a solution. And battering rams...

Currently they have a tech which gives ressources for each building destroyed. Would be better for each unit killed, because destroying buildings it's in very late game, when enemy has forts and you can't do nothing thanks to your very useless battering rams.

Iberians :

The starting walls are a very good thing. But their towers costs 300rock instead of 100wood and 100 rock, and are supposed to be much more powerfull than other ones. But the only thing that changes it's that it takes 200s instead of 120s comparing to normal towers to be built, and have double of hp.

No more powerful arrows or more range... For 300 rock, we should have like a mini fort.

Longer range than mauryans archers x') , 10 guarrison people (instead of 5) and a bit more powerfull arrows.

I think they need too another tech for towers in age 3, something like a fire rain to counter siege engines.

In naval, they sucks a lot. Their flameship can defeat quinquirem without great effort but the only other ship is merchant ship... which can contains only 15 people. To transport people on another island, you need so like 4-5 ships. I think allowing putting 25 pop in a merchant (so no attack no arrows) ship would be better.

With that, iberians, should be good

Macedonians :

I pretty like macedonians thanks to their fast infantry which allows fast raids. They are the only ones with the Heliopolis, a very interesting siege engine indeed. Their tech with 5 random units per baracks should be allowed in age 1. Like that, when you do yours barracks in age 2, you'll have your units.

Because later it's too late, you'll do forts no barracks, so won't be a good investissement . Or allow this tech to give you 5 units from each barrack and each fort built.

I don't have much more ideas of how balancing macedonians. They are a bit weak, but it's ok for a first exam of balancing.

Mauryans :

It's still an alpha civ. Their archers are too much strong. If you give them less hack armour, so swordsmen and cav could easily kill them, i think it will be better.

I like it's elephant storage, it's a good idea. A pitty other civs can't have it. Doing 2 different buildings for champions and elephants it's good too, but elephants should be able to be attacked by women, like siege engine, since they have the same effect.

Should be too put more depth in this civ, because currently the strategy is massed archer + massed elephants.

They still don't have civ bonus or special tech, but do they really need one ?

Persians :

Since the balance of cav, they are more used than before. Cav + archer is a good combo. The problem with cav it's that they are very expensive and get killed very easily, but can raid very easily too.

In general, i think cav should be have more speed. Currently, it exists infantry as fast as cav... and because running isn't implemented yet... a minimal speed of 14 could be good. But because of that less hp and armor or they can't get reached by infantry or something else.

In addition of that, animals are as fast as cav... so when you want to gather food from a camel or an antilope, it's quite impossible. Gaia have to be much more slower than currently.

Their immortals are good, but the special tech +25% of hp but +20% of building time too is not so useless. Personaly, i never use it, only when i'm on danger. Difference have to be more pronounced than 5%. Something like +25%of hp against +10% only of time building.

Or +25% of hp against +10% of ressource costs.

Romans :

As i said before, i don't understand romans. They really have EVERYTHING. Strong infantry, like the better siege engines...

The army camp and the Siege Walls. The only civ that can build on other territory !

Army camp should be nerfed a lot. They are quite cheap now, so why have them as much hp as forts ? Instead of 3000 hp, they should have 2000. Plus, guarissoning 40 people inside is an inside thing.

Even forts can't guarrison so much people x') So guarrison 20 people inside, no more. Or perhaps no more than 15, because you still can train units from army camp inside enemies territory...

Spartans :

To close this very loooong thread, let's talk about spartans.

One of the most powerfull infantry of the game. That's good, because they have the worst things after that. Their civ bonus is very intersting : promotion after only one kill.

The thing is that after that, you can have an invencible army. Can have a very high ratio kill:death. Women costing 60 food instead of 50 but with an ability of attacking is interesting too, and slows the spartan economy.

But as i said, i found some very high imbalance with spartans. Do at moment 0 5 spearmen, and attack the enemy with your 9 spearmen. If it's not a swordsmen civ, and doesn't waits for your rush, you will win in 3 minutes. I don't have any idea on how fix that if it's not by give skirmishers and not spearmen

And after that... i really don't know.

And battering ram, the normal stuff, something to destroy buildings please.

That's the end of the introduction of this topic

Let's debate, and sorry for forcing you reading my 13k characters double post with all my english faults.

Let's debate \o

Edited January 27, 2013 by Oimat

[lilstewie]

Should be too put more depth in this civ, because currently the strategy is massed archer + massed elephants.

Funny how it came out like that, because that's how it was then. Archers soften up the army, elephants rush and break it. XD

Nice thread. With good ideas.

Edited January 27, 2013 by lilstewie

[Lion.Kanzen]

Their immortals are good, but the special tech +25% of hp but +20% of building time too is not so useless. Personaly, i never use it, only when i'm on danger. Difference have to be more pronounced than 5%. Something like +25%of hp against +10% only of time building.

Or +25% of hp against +10% of ressource costs.

i Agree, i never use these guys, are so, visually nice and have nice name. but they can have a Ability to use the Bow, and Train to Faster, and support City Assaults [Tower, Castles, Turrets ], like defensive City, An Example in a very defensive map Neareastern Badlands, its so Hard to Destroy the Mauryans with they, the Siege Weapon[Assyrian] is very Weak. and why we don acces to Other Special Building? that have the indian Elphant , Persian Hoplite Mercenary, and why Cavalry Archer Champion are not in normal maps?

[Sighvatr]

I dont like some of the requested changes. For instance, it makes sense that the roman forts are cheap, because it is a very roman thing to fortify at stops. Not to mention that these forts were created very quickly, and provided an efficient amount of defense.

I say that it is necessary to focus on a factions historical strength and what they lacked, rather than nerf or buff a faction, because it seems too strong or weak compared to other factions. This is what makes the game interesting to play.

[Synecdoche]

I don't see how a basic all-in Spartan rush is so overpowered. Hoplites are good, yeah, but skirmishers still kill them. The only civ that strategy should be extremely effective against is maybe Celts or Persians if they don't make skirmishers. Athens just has better options in age 1, can equal the Hoplite count and stats of Sparta that early with an additional 5 or 6 slingers. If the enemy is under the impression that their spearmen can stand up to Hoplites then yeah, you'll likely win, but you sacrifice a lot of wood to do that rush that's needed for booming. It won't win the game for you nearly every time, especially if someone is watching for it. Sparta has to grow to a Town to counter skirmishers decently with Ekdromoi, and there's nothing stopping your opponent from starting with skirmishers when you start with spearmen.

[Pedro Falcão]

Good thinking, dude, I agree with most of your proposals.

[Mythos_Ruler]

If anything, at this point, I think we should look to buff the underpowered civs rather than nerfing the powerful ones. Just as an overall strategy.

[quantumstate]

I don't see how a basic all-in Spartan rush is so overpowered. Hoplites are good, yeah, but skirmishers still kill them. The only civ that strategy should be extremely effective against is maybe Celts or Persians if they don't make skirmishers. Athens just has better options in age 1, can equal the Hoplite count and stats of Sparta that early with an additional 5 or 6 slingers. If the enemy is under the impression that their spearmen can stand up to Hoplites then yeah, you'll likely win, but you sacrifice a lot of wood to do that rush that's needed for booming. It won't win the game for you nearly every time, especially if someone is watching for it. Sparta has to grow to a Town to counter skirmishers decently with Ekdromoi, and there's nothing stopping your opponent from starting with skirmishers when you start with spearmen.

Have you tested this? The greek spearmen can stand up to a lot of missile fire during which time they can chase your units all over completely disrupting your economy and killing your units.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Spartan hoplites can definitely be nerfed, at least their default stats. We can then let the player improve them through additional hoplite-focused techs. Problem is, no one has time or interest in implementing a comprehensive tech tree. The reason the Spartan hops stats are so buffed is precisely because we don't yet have the techs/tech tree to buff them that way.

[quantumstate]

Yes, I had been thinking that they could be buffed a bit with each phase upgrade, or researchable techs would work as well. Should we start looking for a volunteer to design a tech tree?

[Oimat]

I don't see how a basic all-in Spartan rush is so overpowered. Hoplites are good, yeah, but skirmishers still kill them. The only civ that strategy should be extremely effective against is maybe Celts or Persians if they don't make skirmishers. Athens just has better options in age 1, can equal the Hoplite count and stats of Sparta that early with an additional 5 or 6 slingers. If the enemy is under the impression that their spearmen can stand up to Hoplites then yeah, you'll likely win, but you sacrifice a lot of wood to do that rush that's needed for booming. It won't win the game for you nearly every time, especially if someone is watching for it. Sparta has to grow to a Town to counter skirmishers decently with Ekdromoi, and there's nothing stopping your opponent from starting with skirmishers when you start with spearmen.

The probleme isn't that it works only with spartans or not. The probleme is that, like you said, the strategy works with a lot of civs. It's not normal that could exist a winning strategy on minute 3 of the game without the other could resist if he hasn't the good civ to counter principal ennemie unit.

One idea i came up on IRC was to begin with 8 females instead of 4-4. With new gathering rates, it's still playable, but you can't rush with 9 people in minute 2.

If anything, at this point, I think we should look to buff the underpowered civs rather than nerfing the powerful ones. Just as an overall strategy.

I totaly agree with you. But just eliminate some thing op, like spartan rush (or anyelse civ rush on minute 3 uncounterable) and Hannibal stats.

For you, which are the weakest civ ?

Arf, and other question : what did you think about my proposition of defensive-agreesive civs ? Ones very tough but who hardly kill, the other ones that kill efficiently but very vulnerable too.

Sighvatr : me too for designing tech tree I'll propose something next week perhaps :þ

Edited January 27, 2013 by Oimat

[Sighvatr]

Designing a tech tree sounds like a fun project I would be interested in doing.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Sighvatr

[Lion.Kanzen]

Designing a tech tree sounds like a fun project I would be interested in doing.

me too, but i dont get it, means create each civilization in game tech tree?, or a Main for all Civilizations?, i have good eferencies from classics RTS.

[idanwin]

I think there should be a global tech-tree which is common to all civs, with, of course, variations for each civ. More than in AoE.

In AoE all civs had the same tech tree, but each civ had some techs they could not research.

I think we should have some really civ-specific techs.

[Oimat]

Guys, this topic isn't for tech tree but for global balance between civs

[Mythos_Ruler]

Technology discussion thisaway ---> http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16631

[Oimat]

Ok, now i have little more concret propositions, while you get continuing debate :þ (don't hurry too much, i have difficulty to read so much posts x') ).

So...

1/ slingers has to have "only" 1.5 or 1.25 of bonus instead of x2, because not every civs has them.

2/ Spartans has a infantry unit who has 12 of speed woalking, so more than cav. That's very unpleasant. FUrthemore, they have armors and spears, and are faster than macedonian skirmishers. Their speed should not be more than 10.5

3/ Iberians should have a decent ship for transporting troops.

4/ Roman army camp shouldn't have more than 20 soldiers guarrisoned in.

Other things i don't have ideas

But i really want to have your feedbacks in relation of defensive-agressive civs

Edit : because i forgot 2 things :

5/ for preventing spartan unfair rush, give 6 females and 2 males at the begining for every civs would be enough. Like that, you have 2 guys to prevent from early cav, gathering rates are the same but you can't attack minute 1 with 9 spartant spearmen. And to be fair, for all civ.

6/ For the rushes being harder and more balanced, women should fire some arrows if they are in the cc, and only in the cc.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Oimat

[alpha123]

1/ slingers has to have "only" 1.5 or 1.25 of bonus instead of x2, because not every civs has them.

I'd go with 1.5 or 1.75. Slingers are currently definitely OP, but given the recent cavalry buffs they aren't quite as useful as they used to be. (Cavalry kill slingers like flies.) It will need some testing. I'd be more than happy to make a few changes and test with you Oimat.

2/ Spartans has a infantry unit who has 12 of speed woalking, so more than cav. That's very unpleasant. FUrthemore, they have armors and spears, and are faster than macedonian skirmishers. Their speed should not be more than 10.5

I'm actually okay with that Spartan unit, given that the Spartans have no good ranged units (just a basic skirmisher). This really hurts late game. Perhaps he could use a little nerfing though, or could be debonused and countered by skirmishers or archers (I don't know if this is already the case, if so, it should probably be a little more obvious). I think archers are already 2x vs swordsmen.

Oh, and also the Athenian Marine (champion swordsmen) has the same speed.

3/ Iberians should have a decent ship for transporting troops.

This is true, I was playing my sister once and sank 3 of her merchant ships packed with slingers without even noticing with a single Briton ship.

4/ Roman army camp shouldn't have more than 20 soldiers guarrisoned in.

^ The truth.

But i really want to have your feedbacks in relation of defensive-agressive civs

All civs should be able to be played both defensively and aggressively.

On the subject of a tech tree: I would be happy to research, design, and implement a tech tree. Ideally with your help Oimat, and some of the other good players and devs.

Edited February 6, 2013 by alpha123

[Sighvatr]

Why does the garrison for the Roman Army Camp have to be reduced? I thought Roman Army Camps were built to hold a Roman army? If it is too powerful, then I suggest lowering the hitpoints of the building. Not the amount of troops it holds. That doesn't make sense.

[alpha123]

Why does the garrison for the Roman Army Camp have to be reduced? I thought Roman Army Camps were built to hold a Roman army? If it is too powerful, then I suggest lowering the hitpoints of the building. Not the amount of troops it holds. That doesn't make sense.

I suggest you attempt playing the game against a Roman player with an army camp.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is why the army camp can garrison twice as much as a fortress.

[TheMista]

Balancing requires testing.

[Sighvatr]

Now I find it difficult to support a side. It makes sense that a roman army camp should only support as much as a fortress. But not all fortresses can hold an army?

[Enrique]

Now I find it difficult to support a side. It makes sense that a roman army camp should only support as much as a fortress. But not all fortresses can hold an army?

The answer is to drop realism/historic accuracy to benefit gameplay/fun. As TheMista said, this is achieved by testing.

[Pureon]

The answer is to drop realism/historic accuracy to benefit gameplay/fun. As TheMista said, this is achieved by testing.

This is true.

Aren't there other ways to balance the camp without reducing the garrison count though, such as making it more expensive?