Ranged Cavalry too strong

[Tango_]

3FFA-> if spearmen , as you say, run faster (to be short), then spearmen gonna be OP againt melee cav and against ranged infantry unit

[3FFA]

I mean something where just against calvary units they run faster. Just like how when units see that they are lagging behind an army ahead of them they run to the army at a faster speed than normal.

Spearmen attacking any non-calvary unit: Normal running speed.

Spearmen ordered to attack calvary unit: GODSPEED GOGOGO!

One idea might be to make it so only when within a certain range of the calvary unit will their speed pick up.

Edited June 25, 2014 by 3FFA

[iNcog]

You refer to Star Craft 2 as just 'Star Craft' when in fact Brood War and it's successor are two completely different games with different ever-evolving communities. In Brood War's community the idea of what hard counters should be I feel is more understood and well known. It is about being able to adapt to your opponent's strategy. "Oh they built a good amount of zerglings, let me go make some Vultures". Yet if you leave the Vultures to fend for themselves then they will die. That's why you need micro of your Vultures to hard counter the Zerglings. One decision I find to be very controversial for me personally is the decision to add in an ai that micros your skirmishers for you in battles. Tank goodness I still need to constantly look to see whether that barracks I'm harassing just produced soldiers to attack them or else risk losing a couple guys before I see that my units pretty much ignored this fact.

In fact, Skirm Cav now completely counter Spearmen because of this auto-micro. I spent a game yesterday just watching auto-micro of ~20-50(made more over time) completely destroy army of spearmen after army of spearmen.

The truth is that we just need something like for Spearmen to run-charge at those on horseback to counter them. Otherwise they are just way too slow.

Just my 2 cents.

The same thing could be said with hellions against zerglings, zerglings vs siege tanks / widow mines, banelings vs zerglings or even banelings against marines. Hard counters exist in Starcraft 2 on paper but in reality it comes down to micro.

Skirm cav are a problem at the moment, yes, that's why this thread is getting so much attention.

@Tango, reread my post, you'll see that the changes I'm talking about would push 0 AD away from Aoe3's hard counter system even more, though in all seriousness the counter system in 0 AD is much softer than in Aoe3. When I play 0 AD I just make units and attack with them while constantly making villagers. Aoe3 is a far more subtle game that is based on micro but also using the right strategy in a given match up. Every civ in aoe3 has their own very unique strenghths and weaknesses, playing aoe3 correctly is all about using the right strategy which allows your civ to maximize its potential while hitting the other civ where it's weak. For example, a Russian player massing strelets will lose very hard to a French player who will fast-fortress, see that the Russian player made only Strelki, and responds by making heavy cavalry units. A more intelligent Russian player would get a very strong mass of musketeers and cossacks so as to exploit Russia's strength: very cost-efficient units coupled with a great late-colonial economy.

[Radagast.]

Multipliers would be gone though, except for a few units like spear men, which retain their bonus against cavalry (and rightly so).

I agree that in some exceptions hard counters/multipliers could still be useful for distinguishing damage per opponent. (in this context they'd only be somewhat artificial soft counters distinguished by opponent.)

Though generally it is a bit superfluous, because is a spearman's damage greater against cavalry than against infantry? If so isn't it rather because the horses approach much quicker and a rider has more weak points - in comparison to a heavy infantry unit?

In terms of ranged units we already realised that e.g. accuracy (read: spread which is definable on a per unit base) should depend on speed. Just like charging damage would depend on the current unit speed.

If a horse archers has velocity of 0 (e.g. stands ground), then it would have the infantry archer's spread/accuracy. If moving then the archer would hardly hit targets if the horse's speed is only high enough.

Weak points would be ingenious, though I think Ykkrosh pointed out that units don't have a direction and thus it's quite difficult to determine weak directions, e.g. flanks. Though I'm not sure if the direction couldn't be derived by examining the speed or direction of the attack target as it could be assumed that a unit will turn to face an opponent and thus the direction could be derived from this vector:

direction3DVector = target.position3DVector - source.position3DVector

That hard counters come down to micro isn't generally valid.

If lance cavalry had a big impact on light infantry because of the speed and plenty of weak target points (+ frightening damage), then it'd be also quite important to micro properly, e.g. keep the spearmen at front to counter the approaching lancers.

Later with stamina + charging it'd be even more important as you always have to decide from which distance you should start charging such that stamina not runs out before you can hit the enemy lines.

Perhaps "soft counter" is a misleading term. Realistic results can be achieved via a realistic model. Introducing a hard counter which also had to be balanced on its own makes this balance battle only harder.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Hephaestion

[iNcog]

Hard counters make a game remarkably micro heavy. You literally have to constant re-position units throughout the fight until the fight ends. Unless your opponent is bad that is, in which case he doesn't re-position his units and you don't have to reposition yours either (and you win). The other dumb thing your opponent could do is make a huge mass of a single unit. That doesn't work in a game with hard-counters; you just make the counter unit and win. You can't make 75 strelki (light ranged unit which is anti-infantry) and hope that they'll be able to deal with heavy cav (whose primary role is to take out ranged infantry, villagers and siege). You absolutely need a well-balanced army, that is a composition of several unit types. Hard-counters also imply that units which counter one another counter each other very hard.

Here's something I once wrote to explain how hard-counters in aoe3 worked in the early game, when you could only get out 2 types of units (3 is necessary to truly complete the counter-circle in aoe3):

Anyway, let's examine the three types of units seen in early colonial (early game). These are Ranged Infantry, Heavy Infantry and melee Cav (or RI, HI, Cav for short; also RI counters HI, HI counters Cav and Cav counters RI).

These lead to three different combos which counter each other early game (all tried and tested when I still played the game).

RI/HI counters HI/Cav. This is because with proper micro, the RI/HI player can fire a volley at the HI. As soon as Cav comes to attack the RI, the RI/HI player brings out his own HI to counter the Cav all while making sure his infantry stays away from the enemy HI of the HI/Cav player. After a while, the HI/Cav player will run out of HI because the HI can't match the mobility of the Cav and the Cav can't engage the RI without running into HI of the HI/RI combo.

However, the RI/HI combo is countered by the RI/Cav combo. How you may ask? Basically the RI/HI player doesn't have the mobility to truly engage the RI/Cav player. If he tries to bring his HI forward to engage, they're picked off quickly by the RI of the RI/Cav player. If he tries to fight RI vs RI, the RI/Cav player brings out his Cav to scare away the enemy RI, who are forced to retreat and bring out their HI to defend the RI. This means that either the RI/Cav player will get free volleys on either the enemy RI or the enemy HI. In this case, the RI/HI player will have his all of his HI eventually picked off at range at which point the RI/Cav player can freely engage the remaining RI.

Finally, HI/Cav counters RI/Cav. It's actually quite simple, all the HI/Cav player has to do is engage RI/Cav army directly. This is straightforward a-moving. The RI/Cav player has no real answer to the enemy Cav so in a straight up fight, the HI/Cav combo will win the Cav vs Cav fight. The remaining Cav after that fight will simply engage the RI and win the fight. Nothing more to it.

These situations occur quite early in the game, they're the first fights. The player with the inferior combo simply gives up map control until he can get out his third unit type, or until he ages (basically teching) to get superior Fortress units.

[Stan`]

Hard counters aren't realistic. I mean if you get in a village and people only know how to use big forks, they won't be able to use bows, and therefore will have to beat the enemy with what they have, not what they should, so having no hard counters brings the realistic mess of the battles IMHO.

[Radagast.]

Indeed once we have moved the damage to the weapons instead of per unit type things could really get interesting. No sword available? No prob, just grab that fork and see how far this might help against the enemies rushing your river village.

Or: Lost or broke your sword? No prob, use your fist to try to knock out the enemy in a last-hope for survival action. Or try to disarm your opponent too.

It could be quite fun.

iNcog, I appreciate your detailed info. In general I think hard counters are indeed good for multiplying the countering-effect to make them very extreme. For those it might be too complicated to adjust the soft counters for the same effect, though I think that are edge cases only.

Hard counters are just a simplification. If your model can't handle the realism, then it might be appropriate to approximate it using hard counters. Though for me hard counters are only trouble at this point. Later they might be used for fine-tuning.

Whenever you balance or want to control something, you start out with few parameters and add more and more by time. That's why I first would like to omit hard counters. Though my opinion is just what it is: an opinion.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hephaestion

[iNcog]

Well, 0 AD and Aoe3 are two different games. So I also agree that you could get rid of hard counters in 0 AD. I actually think it would also make the game more interesting, however you would have to balance the attack/dps/HP/armor that units have just right.

In my past few posts what I've been doing is defending the hard counter system generally speaking; I don't think that hard counters should be in 0 AD.

[Stan`]

Well, 0 AD and Aoe3 are two different games. So I also agree that you could get rid of hard counters in 0 AD. I actually think it would also make the game more interesting, however you would have to balance the attack/dps/HP/armor that units have just right.

In my past few posts what I've been doing is defending the hard counter system generally speaking; I don't think that hard counters should be in 0 AD.

Oh I didn't see that. Thanks for clarifying

[Radagast.]

The hard counter system isn't bad, it's the easy way. It's a fix for a balance failure. It's also the quicker solution as you pointed out. It's somewhat a shortcut and overriding the soft counters (so that imbalance there doesn't matter anymore).

We'll see if we have to use that fix at one or the other point. It's quite probable, but I would also like to see how far we can go without needing that fix.

[3FFA]

The hard counter system isn't bad, it's the easy way. It's a fix for a balance failure. It's also the quicker solution as you pointed out. It's somewhat a shortcut and overriding the soft counters (so that imbalance there doesn't matter anymore).

We'll see if we have to use that fix at one or the other point. It's quite probable, but I would also like to see how far we can go without needing that fix.

So generally speaking when balancing what are the alternatives? I want to know since I am striving to become a CompSci major in college and end up programming games for a living.

[Radagast.]

Depends on the model.

In general we try to model the real world history. If we realize we can't get to a realistic result (i.e. a cavalry flanking manoevre et alia) then we decide to go the easy way and simply create a hard counter for cavalry vs. infantry. (this parameter also has to be tuned to make it balanced but it might be easier than tweaking plenty of variables)

We try to tweak plenty of variables (dexterity/stamina, morale, speed, armor stats, attack, strength, attack range, vision, attack frequency, health points, ...) as long as we can still hope to get to a realistic result this way, not needing to introduce hard counters in the model (a shortcut, rigid + but also a complification and a somewhat static + manual solution).

* the last paratheses target the hard counters.

[3FFA]

Okay, by the way I just noticed that there was a stamina bar yesterday lol. What role does Stamina play in 0A.D.?

[sanderd17]

Okay, by the way I just noticed that there was a stamina bar yesterday lol. What role does Stamina play in 0A.D.?

Really? Never saw that, and don't find a recent commit about implementing stamina.

[3FFA]

Really? Never saw that, and don't find a recent commit about implementing stamina.

Yeah, when you select a group of units there is a vertical blue bar next to a green bar, when you hover over them green is HP and blue is Stamina. Stamina never falls below full from what I've seen.

Edited June 27, 2014 by 3FFA

[iNcog]

The hard counter system isn't bad, it's the easy way. It's a fix for a balance failure. It's also the quicker solution as you pointed out. It's somewhat a shortcut and overriding the soft counters (so that imbalance there doesn't matter anymore).

We'll see if we have to use that fix at one or the other point. It's quite probable, but I would also like to see how far we can go without needing that fix.

Not really. Ensembles studios was an excellent gaming studio that were excellent at what they did. That's how they made hard counters work in aoe3. Hard counters is what was attempted in O AD and as you can clearly see it's not working out at all. It's actually pretty difficult to implement properly, you have to make sure that the units synergize well between themselves.

Hard counters isn't just adding multipliers and saying "i'm done LUL". The units have to respond well to each other as well. 0 AD failed at that and alpha123 is taking the game somewhere else as a result of that. I agree with this decision because things as they are right now need change.

Soft counters are easier to get right, just look at starcraft where they invent the weirdest units ever (swarm host?) and get away with it.

Edited June 27, 2014 by iNcog

[Radagast.]

Not really. Ensembles studios was an excellent gaming studio that were excellent at what they did. That's how they made hard counters work in aoe3. Hard counters is what was attempted in O AD and as you can clearly see it's not working out at all. It's actually pretty difficult to implement properly, you have to make sure that the units synergize well between themselves.

That's not hitting the nail. Of course they were excellent. I never doubted that.

I talked about a model in terms of mathematical model. In this context, the hard counters are a fix, and a rigid + manual fix too.

Hard counters isn't just adding multipliers and saying "i'm done LUL". The units have to respond well to each other as well.

What you state is no different from a pure soft counter model. Adding parameters to a model obviously not suddenly means you don't have to "make it respond well to each other". In contrary it's indeed getting more complicated if you still care for the other parameters. If you don't care for them anymore, then the hard counters are a shortcut. My previous post was indeed not clear enough concerning that bit of information.

0 AD failed at that and alpha123 is taking the game somewhere else as a result of that. I agree with this decision because things as they are right now need change.

I also think alpha + scythetwirler's balance branches are a good move in the right direction as seen from the changelog.

Soft counters are easier to get right, just look at starcraft where they invent the weirdest units ever (swarm host?) and get away with it.

Correct, less parameters imply an easier model. Though as stated in my previous post I noted "don't care for the other parameters anymore" or at least take balancing those parameters less serious, which then makes hard counters indeed the easier way. Ensembles studios clearly knew what they were doing.

[hollth]

Other examples include things like armor being stronger in the front of the unit than in the back. This would mean that flanking would become one of the ways to win battles. Formations will also get a bigger role in fights than before. That sort of thing. Multipliers would be gone though, except for a few units like spear men, which retain their bonus against cavalry (and rightly so).

I consider your last paragraph the most interesting. It seems to me that it's not that multipliers are inherently bad, it's more that multipliers and balance in general isn't in the best shape. The way I'm reading it you're saying multipliers should be used far less. That's not to say that every unit should retain a multiplier. I agree with Hephaestion/Radagast that multipliers in this game ought to be used as a balancing mechanism for when other parameters can not be taken into account.

On another note, theres mention of Alpha123 changing design direction. Is there any more information on this so I'm not completely out of context.

Edited July 5, 2014 by hollth

[klod]

AoE2 kinda had a problem similar to this. Paladins were the most powerful unit, and many games would eventually come down to outmassing the opponents paladins with yours. Factions that didn't have paladins were at disadvantage in long games, because there was no hard counter for that unit. So, I believe there should be hard counters, and that the game should be balanced in a way that mixing different types of units makes the most effective army, rather than massing one type.

I'm completly new to this game, but look at the way cavalry archers were balanced in AoE 2: they're not available early, they are expensive and they were slightly slower than melee cavalry, which made kiting harder. When you look realistically, kiting like that was not possible, because turning the horse around, and then making him run again at full speed is not something you can do in a split second. So maybe it's possible to somehow slow down the "turning speed" of the cavalry units

[iNcog]

I consider your last paragraph the most interesting. It seems to me that it's not that multipliers are inherently bad, it's more that multipliers and balance in general isn't in the best shape. The way I'm reading it you're saying multipliers should be used far less. That's not to say that every unit should retain a multiplier. I agree with Hephaestion/Radagast that multipliers in this game ought to be used as a balancing mechanism for when other parameters can not be taken into account.

On another note, theres mention of Alpha123 changing design direction. Is there any more information on this so I'm not completely out of context.

For 0 AD I think that you can make every unit unique and well-rounded without using multipliers, or using it only for things like spear infantry against cavalry. As of right now though, multipliers are indeed somewhat of a mess because the way multipliers work make no sense. I think it's either skirm-cav or archer cav that have a bonus against archers or something. can't remember exactly, but it's one example of multipliers not being used right, in my opinion.

In the "balance branch" thread I made another post where I go more into detail and alpha123's view on how units should interact is also there. check that out ^^

[greenknight32]

When you look realistically, kiting like that was not possible, because turning the horse around, and then making him run again at full speed is not something you can do in a split second. So maybe it's possible to somehow slow down the "turning speed" of the cavalry units

Didn't necessarily have to turn the horse or even stop. Ever hear of the Parthian shot? It's a tactic of a horse archer twisting his body around and shooting back behind him as he gallops away in retreat - or feigned retreat. Requires superb horsemanship.

The Parthians weren't the only ones to use it, but they became famous for it after they defeated a Roman army that way - tricked them into thinking they were fleeing, then surprised them with a rain of arrows.