The Combat Dilemma

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

The first relevant battle of the Persian Wars began by the small town of Marathon in which the massive Persian expeditionary force landed on this land to march directly on Athens and raise it to the ground. It was not alone there though, as the plucky strategos Miltiades had deployed a diminutive force of citizen hoplites and Marine shock-troops. At first the sight quite shocked the scouting party, but realizing the fact that they probably were only buying time for more troops to be mustered at Athens proper. The finest archers, following a motley contingent of spearman marched to face them. Understanding what was directly ahead, Miltiades deployed his Marines to set upon them. The fight was intense but one-sided, for the swordsmen, with superior breastplate upgrades, swiftly slaughtered them before meeting an unwelcome shower of missiles from the archers. Although the fire only killed a few, the survivors were effectively dispatched in the successive volleys of missiles. The remaining hoplites marched fearlessly towards the bowmen, but despite having been equipped with good shields, that likewise did little to save them. The victorious army immediately set off for Athens to raise it to the ground. Unfortunately, siege weapons were not about so while the some archers held off the pitifully inferior Athenian cavalry, a new city was founded adjacent to Athens, thereby providing a steady stream of soldiers and a stable base of operations while a fortress was being constructed. While this was transpiring, the Persians had unfortunately lost much of the fleet to a Syracusan one, which desired to stabilize the area to protect its shipping routes. Having little choice, the Persians instead made a 'bridge' across the northern coast of Asia Minor as a relief force with proper siege equipment was transported across. They were met by a resolute force of Spartan Hoplites, Perioikoi, and Skiritae. To the Persian commander's displeasure, he realized that his Roman ally, Varrus, had not sent the legionnaires which had been promised, leading him to frustratingly declare "Varrus, bring me my legion!" All the same the legion did not arrive. The initial waves of troops, even when bolstered by the elite Immortals, were crushed by Leonidas and his men, who were divinely protected, it seems by the gods due to their proximity to a temple. Ultimately though, the arrows killed everyone of them, making it perhaps a bit more preferable to have been sunburnt than to fight in the shade. With the aid of the relief force, the city of Athens fell to the Persian onslaught, and with that, the rest of Hellas quickly fell.

This account, although ahistorical, is basically the way I find the game in its current state. This is traced to the fact that infantry archers are overpowered when matched to the Athenians and Spartans, two infantry based factions with relatively ineffective ways to counter this.

While the most obvious approach would be to deploy cavalry against archers, this is not practical, since cavalry are too expensive to be worth the trouble unless siege are about. While the Athenians could deploy Scythian Archers, these cost metal which is, to my understanding, a resource that is not dependable to rely on in the long term. Even then, that is not a logical strategy for this situation or at least shouldn't be so.

The Spartans have the handicaps of the Athenians, but even more problematic ones. In the case of being attacked by skirmishers, the logical choice is to deploy Skiritae, but despite them being able to annihilate them, archers will literally butcher them. Even with superior infantry, what difference would it make? This makes a Thermopylae situation likewise impractical. Even if formations would balance this, it would be handy to have a balanced combat system outside of it.

To critique it, let's briefly analyze each unit with the units it counters and the units it is countered by.

Swordsman:

Counters spearmen and skirmishers

Is countered by archers and cavalry swordsmen

Although this generally makes sense, it would be nicer if it was more or less unaffected by any unit and has no bonuses. Swordsmen were famed for the flexibility in warfare, and making them more like that would make swordsmen like the role Age of Kings designed them for. Obviously they would still be generally countered by archers and slingers.

Spearman:

Counters cavalry swordsmen and cavalry spearmen

Is countered by swordsmen and skirmishers

While being countered by skirmishers is sensible in the case of heavily armed spearmen, swordsmen should probably only have a marginal advantage to the spearman counterparts.

Skirmisher:

Counters Spearmen, Elephants, and Cavalry Archers

Is countered by Swordsmen and Cavalry Spearmen.

This seems rational enough. Generally though, it would be nice if these units were easy to mass produce but on the flip side would be significantly weaker.

Archer:

Counters Swordsmen on foot and Spear Cavalry

Is countered by Cavalry skirmishers and Cavalry swordsmen

Being infantry killers seems sensible enough, but why there should be any reason for them actually countering Cavalry Spearmen is odd. Generally the cavalry should be able to slaughter them due to superior speed and hit points. Generally it would be preferable to simply have them focus on countering infantry forces over anything else. Currently they also seem overpowered. Increasing the inaccuracy or train time would be very helpful.

Slinger:

Counters nothing

Is countered by nothing

Unless I am not mistaken, it actually has x2 versus infantry. This seriously under powers infantry. It is hard to say what should be done with this unit.

Next, there is cavalry

Cavalry Swordsman:

Counters Foot Archers and Support

Is countered by Spearmen and Cavalry Skirmishers

The soldiers seem pretty well portrayed, but why cavalry skirmishers counter them is beyond my comprehension. Is there any good historical basis for this?

Cavalry Spearman:

Counters Infantry Swordsmen and Foot Skirmishers

Is countered by Archers and Spearmen

While there could be some basis for them countering swordsmen, I am hardly seeing any. Perhaps instead the cavalry spearmen should be used only for shock, as opposed to the swordsman counterparts, which are more or less meant for running down a retreating army or more sustained fights. (If there is any distinguishable difference.)

Cavalry Skirmisher:

Counters Foot Archers and Cavalry Swordsmen

Is countered by Spearmen and Cavalry Archers

Why cavalry swordsmen are beaten by Cavalry Skirmishers is beyond my understanding. Cavalry Skirmishers should be the ideal harassing units if anything else. I would personally make them more anti-ranged myself.

Cavalry Archer:

Counters Cavalry Skirmishers and any other ranged unit

Is countered by Skirmishers and Spearmen

Cavalry archers a bit strange. I would personally only differentiate them from the cavalry skirmisher counterpart by having them be slightly more effective at the expense of having a longer training time and or cost.

Now there are siege weapons.

Onager:

Counters Citizen Soldiers and Defensive Structures

Is countered by Cavalry

I don't really have much any complaint here surprisingly enough.

Ballista:

Counters Cavalry and Infantry

Is countered by Cavalry?

I do not really get this unit. It is supposed to be countered by something, but what? Siege weapons? Cavalry are mainly used for their anti-siege abilities and the ability cancels it out.

Ram:

Counters Buildings

Is countered by Cavalry

No complaint.

In conclusion, I think the primary issues with balance at the moment is that close quarters soldiers do not stand much of a stand against ranged units. Spearmen can be upgraded to be more resistant to that fire, but what use is when it is difficult to catch up anyway? Another problem is that the system is counter intuitive.

In games like Age of Mythology, the system was straight forward like it generally should be. Take the Greeks; the units were designed to follow the over all infantry-beat-cavalry-beat-archers-beat-infantry idea, yet also having ranged units to fight ranged units, cavalry to beat cavalry, and infantry for beating infantry. Even with other civilizations it made a good amount of sense. 0 A.D. instead has endeavored to force realism on the system and thereby has made a convoluted mess on a system which is meant to work better with simplicity than anything else. I apologize for any mistakes I could have made with documenting the unit counters.

[Flavius Aetius]

It would make sense to have some sort of defensive infantry. Automatic fire had been in use for centuries and became what the Romans called "Liquid Fire" or "Greek/Roman Fire."

Sextus Julius Africanus, 3rd Century AD, recording the mixture:

Spontaneous combustion also by the following formula. This is the recipe: Take equal amounts of sulphur, rock salt, ashes, thunder stone, and pyrite, and pound fine in a black mortar, at midday sun. Also in equal amounts of each ingredient, mix together black mulberry sap and Zacynthian asphalt, the latter in liquid form and free flowing, resulting in a product that is sooty coloured. Then add to the asphalt the tiniest amount of quicklime. But because the sun is at its zenith, one must pound it carefully and protect the face, for it will ignite suddenly. When it catches fire, one should seal it in some sort of copper receptacle; in this way you will have it available in a box, without exposing it to the sun. If you should wish to ignite enemy armament, you will smear it on in the evening, either on the armament or some other object, but in secret; when the sun comes us [probably a typo for "comes up"], everything will be burned up.

Units armed with pots of Automatic fire could be used to counter Siege Weapons.

Also, the Onager wasn't around at the time of 0AD Empires Ascendant. It was in use from the 2nd Century AD onwards until the invention of the Mangonel and Trebuchet in the 6th century AD.

Units:

Spearmen should counter Cavalry Lancers. Swordsmen should counter Spearmen. Infantry Skirmishers should counter Swordsmen. Cavalry Skirmishers should counter Infantry Skirmishers. Cavalry Lancers/Swords should counter cavalry skirmishers.

Cavalry archers were anti-everything in the right hands. They could be the same as Cavalry Skirmishers I guess, except in the case of the Scythians probably.

[sanderd17]

It might be nice to say if you're talking about SVN or A15. The stats changed a lot.

[Radagast.]

Spearmen should counter Cavalry Lancers. Swordsmen should counter Spearmen. Infantry Skirmishers should counter Swordsmen. Cavalry Skirmishers should counter Infantry Skirmishers. Cavalry Lancers/Swords should counter cavalry skirmishers.

Cavalry archers were anti-everything in the right hands. They could be the same as Cavalry Skirmishers I guess, except in the case of the Scythians probably.

I would love to try to get to those effects automatically. Currently it's so manually that it's a balance battle you will probably never come back from alive.

If we could get to why which unit was better against another one. Then we could try to model it with armour attack, velocity, stamina & morale.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I am referring to Alpha 15. On the note of skirmishers countering swordsmen, that is problematic. The faster swordsman champions of the Athenians and Spartans were primarily used as countermeasures against skirmishers, so that is a poor choice. On the other hand, swordsmen should not be the primarily meant for countering spearmen. They should be the more versatile infantry when compared to spearmen. The advantages they should have would be made by faster speed and and lower flank penalties. Generally archers and cavalry should be the way to combat them, but giving a bonus would be unnecessary since the advantage of swordsmen should be their flexibility.

[FeXoR]

First of all plz. try to differentiate between historically based and game rule based "X is strong vs. Y".

The game rules should reflect the historical based counters to some extend but the game is to be balanced in the end.

So with no exact simulation in we might have to make some historically not well fitting rules.

The more important thing is (as Thorfinn mentioned if I get him right) that units have to be balanced independently from formations, at least to some extend (and same goes for factions).

So there are already many things to balance (units, formations and civs) and the base - the units - have more then 10 non-linear stacking variables (arguments in the over all strength function) to be considered for balancing:

Live, movement speed, gather capacity, food/wood/metal/stone cost, population cost, attack speed, attack range, piercing/slash/crush damage, damage vs. bonus, piercing/slash/crush armor, units with damage vs. them, possible formations, max. number of units of this type (independent of pop cap like heroes), upgrades supporting this unit type, ... (for sure I miss something).

This is already very, VERY hard to balance (if at all possible).

So adding more things influencing the over all strength of units would very likely reduce the balancing - and so the over all quality - of the final game.

And I didn't even consider formation bonus, stance behavior (and it's gameplay value dependent on the unit type), the micromanagement impact on a unit type nor the civilizations over all balancing (which might in fact be not as bad to balance if - and only if - the units themselves are balanced in the first place as Mythos sais).

So before adding more and more features - that will likely never fuse into a consistent gameplay - plz. consider this.

Edited May 3, 2014 by FeXoR

[agentx]

Great discussion. Bots are listening...

[Mythos_Ruler]

Good discussion. Though, Alpha123 and I are going to do a major rebalance for Alpha 17 (soon after Alpha 16 is released). This rebalance will address many of the concerns raised here and hopefully prepare the units for the inclusion of real formation fighting and things like charging and flanking. The huge emphasis on ranged units will be alleviated and cavalry will be more interesting. Hard counters, like Swordsmen 2x vs. Spearmen and the like will be reduced or eliminated in some cases and we will rely more on mechanics like cost, speed, attack vs. armor, flanking, etc.

[agentx]

humans do not research military micro management, good!

[agentx]

To expand: A bot doesn't have to use a mouse interface to command its forces. Even a perfect balance is topped by dividing an army into groups and moving them only to places where an advantage is expected. A good example is the wonder, it garrisons a lot of units and heals them fast, so it seems a perfect choice to secure a territorial claim. However, during battle humans fail to heal unhealthy units, because the interface is kind of a bottleneck of the command chain. If realism is a target, allowing human players to bring their choice of command chain to the field would probably help a lot.

But, thinking as a bot, I can't complain.

Edited May 4, 2014 by agentx

[FeXoR]

Mythos_Ruler: Sounds good.

If things don't turn out as planned you can still use "damage vs. unit type" bonus (preferably in rare cases IMO).

(In general speed/health/armor/damage per second should do though)

Edited May 4, 2014 by FeXoR

[SDM]

This is a great read! It's good to know that there are lots of thought going into balance.

[hhyloc]

Nice to hear that a big balance overhaul in underway.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Reducing hard counters helps alleviate imbalances like the Roman swordsmen slaughtering Spartan hoplites right at the beginning of the game.

So, here's what we'd do for units.

At the beginning of a match, melee units and then ranged units would all be very similar in function. So, swordsmen and spearmen would be nearly identical in stats, and archers and skirmishers would be nearly identical in stats (the minor differences would be a small difference in range and attack and maybe small differences in cost). And as the game progresses, technology research, formation fighting, and running and charging differentiates the units more and more. So, by the end of the match, for example archers would have much greater range than skirmishers, but skirmishers would have much higher attack. Archers would be used to sit back and snipe at the enemy, but the skirmishers would be much more up close and personal, used to try and devastate the opponent's melee units from the flanks. And by mid-match, hoplite or pikeman-heavy civs will have the phalanx and syntagma formations which will make them behave and function much differently than swordsmen: more prone to flanking damage, but much tougher from the front, with longer melee range, heavier armor, and slower movement. Swordsmen would remain faster and more agile. So, swordsmen could have a higher charge attack and faster speed, while the pikemen/hoplites/spearmen are slower, tougher, and more durable.

Looking at cavalry, cavalry spearmen would be good with charging and trampling attacks, while having lower default attack strength. The reverse would be true with cavalry swordsmen: higher default attack, but lower charge and trample attacks. What makes them different is how the players will use them, rather than using hard counters like 2x vs. swordsmen and 1.5x vs. skirmishers.

Now, I think hard counters can still be useful, but in a much more targeted way. So, maybe spearmen retain an attack bonus vs. all cavalry, but they don't get the full bonus unless the enemy cavalry do something stupid like attacking your phalanx on its front.

[SDM]

I can get behind this.

[Radagast.]

Great post.

while the pikemen/hoplites/spearmen are slower, tougher, and more durable.

We have to think of a formula for how stamina would go into attack and armour values. Probably just make the units attack frequency slower:

attackFrequency = maxAttackFrequency * sqrt(stamina / 100)

[attackFrequency] = 1/s

Example values:

stamina = 100 (fully fresh unit)maxAttackFrequency = 6/min = 6/60 /s = 1/10 /sattackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(100 / 100) /min                = 6 * 1    /min                = 6    /minstamina = 50 (half power)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(50/100) /min                = 6 * 0.71    /min                = 4.26    /minstamina = 10 (nearly dead of exhaustion)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(10/100) /min                = 6 * 0.32    /min                = 1.92    /minstamina = 0 (total exhaustion, falling to ground, no movement possible)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(0/100) /min                = 6 * 0    /min                = 0    /min

[iNcog]

How I got onto this boat so late is beyond me. I discovered the game this morning and just played a single skirmish. I'm already in love. I have to go to class in less than an hour but that doesn't prevent me from signing up to these boards and saying hi.

I've played the game for maybe 13 minutes total so bear with me.

What are the stats for a unit?

HP, attack, attack frequency, stamina, armor/resistance? Anything else?

I'm VERY interested in discussion unit counters (hard counter vs soft counter) and game design in general.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Great post.

We have to think of a formula for how stamina would go into attack and armour values. Probably just make the units attack frequency slower:

attackFrequency = maxAttackFrequency * sqrt(stamina / 100)

[attackFrequency] = 1/s

Example values:

stamina = 100 (fully fresh unit)maxAttackFrequency = 6/min = 6/60 /s = 1/10 /sattackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(100 / 100) /min                = 6 * 1    /min                = 6    /minstamina = 50 (half power)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(50/100) /min                = 6 * 0.71    /min                = 4.26    /minstamina = 10 (nearly dead of exhaustion)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(10/100) /min                = 6 * 0.32    /min                = 1.92    /minstamina = 0 (total exhaustion, falling to ground, no movement possible)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(0/100) /min                = 6 * 0    /min                = 0    /min

If we were to include stamina in such a comprehensive way, then units would need to be cloistered into formations or battalions permanently. Reason being, you would not want to manage stamina over 300-ish entities while also managing everything else in the game. With battalions, you could then only need to manage stamina and other combat mechanics over maybe 20 entities, while also managing everything else going on in the game.

[FeXoR]

If you use squareroot calculation anyway you again could use negative exponential exhaustion (like we already use for armor):

currentAttackSpeed = baseAttackSpeed * 0.99 ^ (100 - actualStamina%)

Meaning (Stamina -> Attack Speed):

100% -> 100%

75% -> 78%

50% -> 61%

25% -> 47%

0% -> 37%

So a fresh unit deals about triple damage compared to a fully exhausted unit (which is OK IMO, otherwise the base could be changed. E.g. for 0.993: 0% Stamina -> 50% Attack Speed).

I don't know how well the engine handles speed modifiers though. It would be for sure easier if just the damage would be scaled (though attack speed would be more realistic)

To improve calculation speed I think 10 "exhaustion grades" with fixed modifiers would do.

Have anyone thought about when and how much stamina is lost dependent on the actions BTW?

(IMO it would be running (linear dropping), special moves like charging (a fixed amount per action, e.g. 30%), regenerating when idle (linear, about 1 min for 100% I guess) and maybe fighting (just negative regenerating would be OK here IMO))

Edited May 15, 2014 by FeXoR

[iNcog]

Reducing hard counters helps alleviate imbalances like the Roman swordsmen slaughtering Spartan hoplites right at the beginning of the game.

So, here's what we'd do for units.

At the beginning of a match, melee units and then ranged units would all be very similar in function. So, swordsmen and spearmen would be nearly identical in stats, and archers and skirmishers would be nearly identical in stats (the minor differences would be a small difference in range and attack and maybe small differences in cost). And as the game progresses, technology research, formation fighting, and running and charging differentiates the units more and more. So, by the end of the match, for example archers would have much greater range than skirmishers, but skirmishers would have much higher attack. Archers would be used to sit back and snipe at the enemy, but the skirmishers would be much more up close and personal, used to try and devastate the opponent's melee units from the flanks. And by mid-match, hoplite or pikeman-heavy civs will have the phalanx and syntagma formations which will make them behave and function much differently than swordsmen: more prone to flanking damage, but much tougher from the front, with longer melee range, heavier armor, and slower movement. Swordsmen would remain faster and more agile. So, swordsmen could have a higher charge attack and faster speed, while the pikemen/hoplites/spearmen are slower, tougher, and more durable.

Looking at cavalry, cavalry spearmen would be good with charging and trampling attacks, while having lower default attack strength. The reverse would be true with cavalry swordsmen: higher default attack, but lower charge and trample attacks. What makes them different is how the players will use them, rather than using hard counters like 2x vs. swordsmen and 1.5x vs. skirmishers.

Now, I think hard counters can still be useful, but in a much more targeted way. So, maybe spearmen retain an attack bonus vs. all cavalry, but they don't get the full bonus unless the enemy cavalry do something stupid like attacking your phalanx on its front.

Speaking from a pure 1v1 multiplayer perspective, I wouldn't be so quick to eliminate hard counters.

Hard counters ensure that every unit has a specific role and so they remain in the loop, so to speak. If you have a game with units full of hard counters, fights between players become a micro-fest where each player is trying their best to position their units correctly. That's how it was done in Aoe3 and the micro was both very fun to execute and fun to watch. If on top of that you add interesting positional constraints, such as spear infantry being forced to face cavalry to counter them, you just add zest to fights generally speaking.

Problem with soft counters is that people will automatically for which unit is really more efficient. e.g. spear cav vs sword cav, if I want to take out a group of ranged infantry (archers or skirmishers), then I'm just going to use whichever one of those two units (spear cav or sword cav) is more efficient generally speaking and not bother making the other one. Soft counters really come down to what units have the better stats imo.

Another example would be skirmishers with high attack/low range vs archers with low attack/long range. If I'm fighting durable melee units the skirmisher with some hit and run will be way better than the archer, to the point where there's no point in me making archers at all.

^Those are the kind of problems a system with soft counters face.

If early game you get roman swordsman beating spartan hoplites and that's a problem, I think a better solution would be to harden the counter system. you have swordsman beating hoplites, OK. So if I'm spartan what I'm going to do is make my hoplites and mix in some of whatever counters swordsman. so my two unit composition would be better overall than your single, big mass of swordsman. This means that early game (all game actually), people will strive to mix their unit compositions and use each unit properly through proper positioning and micro. this is much more fun to play, imo, than just having a big mass of a single unit. units can still have specialized roles if their stats* are different enough, even with hard counters mixed in

*stamina is really interesting to me, how does it work?

Edited May 16, 2014 by iNcog

[Radagast.]

iNcog, nice elaboration, though I think the countering fun remains, no matter if a hard or realistically modelled counter system is used.

Each unit as you said has its advantages and if you manage to get your long-range, low attack archers positioned wisely then the short-range, high attack skirmishes will have no chance. Or if you put them in front of your battalions first for greater impact (attack depending on distance) and then pull them back quick enough, then it's a victory of strategy and it should be the same for any counter system (as no matter how we model it, finally we have unit types which are better against others in both models: hard & realism/soft).

But perhaps I'm missing something.

If we were to include stamina in such a comprehensive way, then units would need to be cloistered into formations or battalions permanently. Reason being, you would not want to manage stamina over 300-ish entities while also managing everything else in the game. With battalions, you could then only need to manage stamina and other combat mechanics over maybe 20 entities, while also managing everything else going on in the game.

True points this could be both

too much data to maintain (and per unit type makes not much sense) and

too much micro (the latter only if we wanted to have an order like 'sleep now' for units to recover instead of FeXoR's steady recovering when idle which looks like the way to go.)

If you use squareroot calculation anyway you again could use negative exponential exhaustion (like we already use for armor):

currentAttackSpeed = baseAttackSpeed * 0.99 ^ (100 - actualStamina%)

Meaning (Stamina -> Attack Speed):

100% -> 100%

75% -> 78%

50% -> 61%

25% -> 47%

0% -> 37%

So a fresh unit deals about triple damage compared to a fully exhausted unit (which is OK IMO, otherwise the base could be changed. E.g. for 0.993: 0% Stamina -> 50% Attack Speed).

We could, I just was not sure if the natural decay wasn't the quicker the less power you've left. I thought at first you could maintain power for a long time, the end then came pretty suddenly. (even to death which is the natural result of complete exhaustion by e.g. not sleeping for a week)

Hence I figured this'd be the function to use for the stamina factor. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%28x%29)

Though yours gave the modifier less impact and perhaps that's desirable? Also I could be wrong in my initial assumption.

I don't know how well the engine handles speed modifiers though. It would be for sure easier if just the damage would be scaled (though attack speed would be more realistic)

To improve calculation speed I think 10 "exhaustion grades" with fixed modifiers would do.

Have anyone thought about when and how much stamina is lost dependent on the actions BTW?

(IMO it would be running (linear dropping), special moves like charging (a fixed amount per action, e.g. 30%), regenerating when idle (linear, about 1 min for 100% I guess) and maybe fighting (just negative regenerating would be OK here IMO))

Interesting, I think that's the way to go. The fixed-amount per action should probably be directly specified as an attack value (e.g. damage enemy + subtract own stamina).

This leads to a problem though as we don't have defensive manoeuvres. i.e. we had to derive a certain amount to subtract depending on if the attack came through or could be blocked.

Ok, we don't have block/defensive manoeuvres anyway, though at least we need to make the maximum stamina value depend on the unit

health and apply the modifier after that, i.e. we needed to recouple it, doubling the effect of health. See these formulas:

%hp_n  * (%stamina-hp-modifier_n+1 * %hp_n) / (100 * 100)  =  %hp_n+1

Or if real speed impact (animation has speed attribute as have attacks which makes it possible):

%movefrequency_n  * (%stamina-hp-modifier_n+1 * %hp_n) / (100 * 100)  =  %attackfrequency_n+1

[iNcog]

Each unit as you said has its advantages and if you manage to get your long-range, low attack archers positioned wisely then the short-range, high attack skirmishes will have no chance. Or if you put them in front of your battalions first for greater impact (attack depending on distance) and then pull them back quick enough, then it's a victory of strategy and it should be the same for any counter system (as no matter how we model it, finally we have unit types which are better against others in both models: hard & realism/soft).

I agree with this. Just thinking about it, if Skirmirshers and Archers had the same role, then you could definitely see both being used. For example, a large group of archers will be able to do massive damage over time on another army. However they're going to need the mobility to be able to use that range as well, to the point where you could see people facing archers being forced into one of two situations:

-going back to their base under the protection of buildings

-using fast cavalry that archers won't be able to hit and run

So it becomes a VERY interesting positional fight. If the archer player remains out of range of the other army and is careful enough with his anti-cav to keep cavalry off the archers, he can retain an advantage and do damage over time. The moment the cavalry breaks the anti-cav lines and gets to the archers, the archer army is forced to fight, which allows the cav-based army to catch up and engage. So the archer army has to be careful to never really be caught out in the open or else they won't be able to disengage due to cav's mobility.

I'm very excited to see what's going on here.

E: Stamina looks very interesting, I can't stop repeating it.

Does Stamina affect Attack speed and movement speed? I'm guessing that defensive stances are less taxing on stamina than aggressive stances?

Edited May 17, 2014 by iNcog