Jump to content

Alpha 17 Balancing Branch


Recommended Posts

First off, I just have to say that you should pm me on the IRC chat and actually play me on the balance branch. I am not the best player by any means, but I am pretty good. We need high level games to accurately judge the state of this balance branch.

Now to the real issue. I agree somewhat with what Incog said, but if you have played Scythetwirler's balance branch at all then you would know it is MUCH better than A16. A16 requires no skill whatsoever. Some things have to be re-worked, but on the whole it is much better. I do not have time right now to go over every detail, but I will try later.

Just remember, concepts are good, but actually playing the branch is much better. Hit me up on IRC and we can play :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ram attacking infantry, how about we give it a slight damaging aura instead (unlockable tech?), this simulates the soldiers inside the ram retaliate against attackers, also with this aura the ram doesn't have to stop to attack enemy units and can still sort of push forward given enough time. This way we can silmulate the fact that ram can still be blocked by enemy but it can slowly bowl over opposition, but clearing the blocking enemy with your own units will be more effective though.

Rams attacking units is just meant as a placeholder until the pathfinder can be fixed etc.

I think the Mauryan worker elephant can get around the wheelbarrow tech, but the other civs might miss it. Not sure why it was chained to lumber abilities anyway.

Wheelbarrow techs (and subsequent capacity techs) have been revamped and implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a TBI thing. (to be implemented) so it's not about balance (yet)

i was about to write a 2 a4 long rant but i think i'll take a chill pill and put it into a few bullet points.

  • Persians. suck. Having 50% more money than everyone else is useless if you need 75% to beat them! And it's difficult to trade when theres' a stupid 'gentlemans agreement' saying you can't! (or at least, you can't play against 90% of the balance testers. Buttcheeks)
  • Immortals, well.. suck. they're far more expensive than any other faction, and far weaker. (time is a cost! this is key!) Only ONE structure can make them, compared to nearly every other faction being able to restrict them in Barracks + fortresses. which can be up to 50. shouldn’t it be the other way around?! Take away the metal cost or for god sakes make them easier to mass produce! Or make it harder for everyone else!
  • Phalangites need a nerf. eg: 1v1, 10v10 should lose to all infantry, 20v20 they should win. Their strength is the ability to fight several ranks deep, yet they are nearly on par (and better than some, eg, aforemention persians) with normal spear units! They attack too darn fast! 3 ranks of 0.75 a-speed phalangites are unbeatable! make them 1. 5 at least!
  • Persians need an infantryman which does pure hack damage. srsly. they had THE MOST VERSATILE ARMY EVER (excluding maybe arche` seleukia). i seem to remember they had an axeman which was probably their most used inf unit IRL?
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takabara <these guys, but they were primarily skirmish units.
  • they could look like this?

i know it's mostly a rant about PERSIANS SUCK AND PHALANX OP but it's balance, and it's true

i just had a game against .. a macedonian, i had 5-6 times the amount of resources, triple the men, and i was made mincemeat of. makes me very very sad. :/

Edited by auron2401
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to comment on everything touched on here, but let me just say as a general rule of thumb that you should supply evidence for your arguments/statements. It is hard to take you seriously when you (you know who you are) just make statements without anything to back it up. For example, there is a difference between a civ being unbalanced and you getting owned by a better player. You need to explain what happened, what units you were making vs the other player, etc.

To assert claims that something you lost against is overpowered, you must also be able to win against the same opponent using the that strategy/civ. Otherwise, it's just a skill gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally its a good idea to sort out possibly skill gaps by having a few games vs same opponent, both playing the same civ. Only if you are on par with your opponent it makes sense to compare different civs, and maybe this is only true for really good players.

Also I think (maybe pretty wrong) that first a civs units have to be balanced between themselves, and when this is done (for all civs), it makes sense to compare/rebalance different civs.

Edited by zzippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on. I just sent this message to scythe but I think a more public opinion may help flesh it out. :3

I've been thinking. (shocking, I know)

About the champions problem.at the moment, they fill a niche in ones armed forces. you are either spamming them, or you are not. Some civs have better champions, others do not etc.

What can one do to fix this? either turn them into a force to be reckoned with or just easy troops because you have tons of the buildings which train them..?

I think not. I think make them Extremely strong.. but.. Limit them.

I've been thinking on this ever since I heard wratii saying that "immortals are too strong" (hogwash, they have so many weaknesses it's not even funny)

EG: Currently persians suck at EVERYTHING combat related, and their only decent unit cant be trained en-masse. (comparatively speaking, one palace versus 10 fortresses?!) Thereby rendering their only "advantage" pointless.

So why not try putting limits on champion troops? it's not like they were trained so constantly In reality. On the contrary, they were Elite troops with a hard limit as to how many men could be in their unit.

Then we could branch out to balancing troops not on individual strength, but their cost - strength - numbers ratio.

Eg: Persia and sparta would have the most Champions (sparta only because their numbers are already dwindled) Where Rome would have the least.

So as it were', for further example;

Persia 40 Champs

Sparta, 35 champs

Seleucids 30 champs

Ptolmies 30 champs

Macedonians, 30 champs

Mauryans 25 champs

Iberians 25 champs

Britons 20 champs

Gauls 20 champs

Rome, 15 champs

Etc probably.

Where persia and sparta had a famous "elite corps", rome had none. the closest we can have is the hand picked italian extrordinarius and their consular bodyguards, both of which were not actual elite troops, just the best of what they had.

Im not actually sure about the guys in the middle, More research is needed! *puts on reading goggles*


Edited by auron2401
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda hard to balance the game this way. Who would have 30 footmen over 30 elephants? If the design direction goes this way it would be better to relate it with limits per unit type, reflecting historical numbers of units each civ had and the needed balance.

But if the issue is Persians being weak, I'd rather buff them in other ways. They relied mostly on numbers and even immortals weren't that heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the new walkspeed?

I'd like to hear a few thoughts about walkspeed increase, since a few balance branch* testers claimed that it is too fast. In my opinion it should be decreased a little again; generally spoken its a step in the right direction (a16 feels like slowmotion when used to balance branch ;) ) ...

Your opinions?

* note that scythe created a rollback branch which makes a game without oos possible

Edited by zzippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...