Unit Counters

[Prodigal Son]

Are the unit counter roles desided to work as they are now? Will they go away or change once formations are implemented?

Some of them seem unrealistic like:

-Swords Counter Elephants. Spearmen, especially pikemen should be better than this due to range and swordsmen should be weak or unbonused in this field. A fire arrows tech could also work as an addition to skirmishers (who are already bonused).

-SpearCavalry weak against Archers but SwordCavalry strong against them doesn't make much sense.

There's actually quite a lot more like those, no point going in detail I guess. I know it's hard to transform realistic combat into balanced rock-paper-scissors and it wouldn't be gamebreaking for me even as it is now. I'm just wondering if there's going to be any focus on making it as realistic as possible and how the combat system will finally work in general.

There's interesting article here quite short while informative and a part of it discusses balance and counters (even if it mostly has fantasy/sci-fi examples).

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I am inclined to agree with the above comment. I personally would say that it would be better to have there be less of an emphasis on a counter relationship between units and more of a system which deals with the formation interaction.

[Prodigal Son]

I'm not entirely sure about the formation system and how it will turn out. So far all the best RTS games I've played use single unit combat, with unrealistic but balanced unit counters, kinda like 0 AD is now. It could turn out well though if worked correctly. I think I've seen it suggested before, maybe a Total War like combat system would fit better with formation combat.

Or there's the other way, of soft counters and unit roles instead of fixed hard counters. Warcraft-esque style. The article I've linked above has an interesting part about this.

The most easy solution overall would be just keeping the Age Of Empires style hard counters that are now in the game while trying to make them as realistic as possible without breaking balance.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Are the unit counter roles desided to work as they are now? Will they go away or change once formations are implemented?

Some of them seem unrealistic like:

-Swords Counter Elephants. Spearmen, especially pikemen should be better than this due to range and swordsmen should be weak or unbonused in this field. A fire arrows tech could also work as an addition to skirmishers (who are already bonused).

-SpearCavalry weak against Archers but SwordCavalry strong against them doesn't make much sense.

There's actually quite a lot more like those, no point going in detail I guess. I know it's hard to transform realistic combat into balanced rock-paper-scissors and it wouldn't be gamebreaking for me even as it is now. I'm just wondering if there's going to be any focus on making it as realistic as possible and how the combat system will finally work in general.

There's interesting article here quite short while informative and a part of it discusses balance and counters (even if it mostly has fantasy/sci-fi examples).

I am inclined to agree with the above comment. I personally would say that it would be better to have there be less of an emphasis on a counter relationship between units and more of a system which deals with the formation interaction.

That would be my preference, but we must first get real formations implemented. Though, I don't think counter-bonuses will go away completely, just be less important.

About some of the specific examples brought up by Prod... There have been examples in history of swordsmen being used to hamstring elephants. There have also been examples of archers mowing down cavalry, so we've shown this by giving them a bonus vs. cav spearmen, but still keeping them vulnerable to cav swordsmen--a trade off. Historically archers and cavalry archers were used well against swordsmen (see: Crassus). Archers weren't very effective against heavily armored spearmen though (see: The Greco-Persian Wars). I would agree that we could give more nuance to this instead of blanket bonuses. There is some nuance there already (swordsmen are really only good vs. elephants when paired with ranged support), but perhaps not enough. It'll all get shaken up once we have proper formation support.

[Prodigal Son]

That would be my preference, but we must first get real formations implemented. Though, I don't think counter-bonuses will go away completely, just be less important.

About some of the specific examples brought up by Prod... There have been examples in history of swordsmen being used to hamstring elephants. There have also been examples of archers mowing down cavalry, so we've shown this by giving them a bonus vs. cav spearmen, but still keeping them vulnerable to cav swordsmen--a trade off. Historically archers and cavalry archers were used well against swordsmen (see: Crassus). Archers weren't very effective against heavily armored spearmen though (see: The Greco-Persian Wars). I would agree that we could give more nuance to this instead of blanket bonuses. There is some nuance there already (swordsmen are really only good vs. elephants when paired with ranged support), but perhaps not enough. It'll all get shaken up once we have proper formation support.

I'm not trying to put presure on anything, just suggesting things, knowing there's still much to change.

On your examples, I'm aware of most of them but I believe they are rather speciffic situations instead of combat rules:

- Swordsmen could hamstring elephants with heavy casualties if they were well drilled and brave. Imagine an equally brave and drilled pikewall though. It would butcher the beasts much more easily, if they dared to charge it.

- Archers could kill some cavalry at range and generally get butchered at the first contact. I get what you did there, and as I said it's ok, balance comes first and I'll love the game anyway. Maybe though Spear Cavalry could beat archers as well, as it should be no different than Sword Cavalry in this aspect, and Skirmisher Cavalry get beat by archers instead, representing that it generally didn't charge, so at range archers have the advantage of extra range, stability and a bigger target.

- Archers should be the kinda the same vs swordsmen and spearmen, again I find the examples situational. Sword or spear doesn't change armor/shield, and the change in mobility and melee attack vs a mostly defenseless at close range target should be minor.

[Mega Mania]

It's still at Alpha stage, friend.

[LordGood]

lol until it's fixed, enjoy the fact that siege towers are pretty much unstoppable if they're packed to the brim with pikemen! ahaha

especially with that +3 crush bonus from the fortress, which makes all the sense in the world!

[Mythos_Ruler]

lol until it's fixed, enjoy the fact that siege towers are pretty much unstoppable if they're packed to the brim with pikemen! ahaha

especially with that +3 crush bonus from the fortress, which makes all the sense in the world!

LOL, I didn't realize that tech affected siege towers. I think I will review and redesign the entire Fortress tech tree sometime in the nearish future.