Alpha 18 Balancing Branch

[Wijitmaker]

I would like to propose a countering template with three distinct types of relative strength.

1) Attack advantage against unit type (e.g. 1.5x)

2) Attack disadvantage (e.g. 0.5x)

3) Neither at a disadvantage or advantage (1x)

Let, 1), 2) and 3) be represented by:

1) ---------------->

2) ---------------->

3) ---------------->

Here is the blank template:

Capture.PNG

This reminded me a lot about something I posted 10 years ago. I'm not able to make the thread visible for you (it is in some private staff forums), but it might be a fun read for you if a moderator could move the thread.

http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1064

[feneur]

This reminded me a lot about something I posted 10 years ago. I'm not able to make the thread visible for you (it is in some private staff forums), but it might be a fun read for you if a moderator could move the thread.

http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1064

Done

[Karamel]

I've updated my svn working copy (compiled r16311) but it looks like a lot of things goes wrong, like truely overpowered skirmishers and uselees melee units. Do I have to get scythewirler branch or is it merged?

Otherwise about the hard counter, I remember from a previous alpha (15, 16?) that it was so complex that I spent more time reading counter bonuses than playing (and even writing notes and drawing schemes). As I read some posts about it and played alpha 17 I think they are good to be used sparcely, like pikemen against cavalery, siege weapons against building.

I like the way units get their power by combining them, like skirmishers being weak by themselves but providing a lot of support to the melee frontline which cannot engage everyone at once, but be pinned down by cavalery that can run around/through the front line (and everything without much micro). There may be some more tweaks to do to differentiate some units from alpha 17 but I think it is much simpler to learn and less expeditive in battle than before.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I feel Romans wrath with their skirmishers and in easy they defeats Mauryans army when try to rush

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Seeing those old posts reminds me of how much thought and effort has gone into 0 A.D.

[iNcog]

I think that if people want to have a constructive discussion about these things, we must first define the roles of each and every unit. As in, what role do we want the units to have.

Are melee infantry units supposed to backbone of an army, with ranged units getting a support role? Or do we want the ranged units to be the backbone?

Similarly, Cavalry units should act as mobile shock troops, however are they supposed to be too expensive to be used as units by themselves?

Playing on unit cost is something which can be done as well to balance out units, it's important to remember that.

I wouldn't mind going back to units which only cost two resources, by the way.

(edit, why are foot companions so slow in the current build? )

Edited February 11, 2015 by iNcog

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I think that if people want to have a constructive discussion about these things, we must first define the roles of each and every unit. As in, what role do we want the units to have.

Are melee infantry units supposed to backbone of an army, with ranged units getting a support role? Or do we want the ranged units to be the backbone?

Similarly, Cavalry units should act as mobile shock troops, however are they supposed to be too expensive to be used as units by themselves?

Playing on unit cost is something which can be done as well to balance out units, it's important to remember that.

I wouldn't mind going back to units which only cost two resources, by the way.

(edit, why are foot companions so slow in the current build? )

All of this was already thought about and decided, but then it was throw away in last alpha instead of tweaked. Because javalin cavalry were OP 2 alphas ago did not make the whole counter scheme bad. 10 years of thought and energy into this problem was discard because of why? Never answered.

[iNcog]

Well let's be fair, the counter scheme was kind of weird. This simplifies things greatly, it's kind of like a fresh start.

Whether or not it's bad, I don't know. I personally didn't like the old ways of doing things and I'm liking the general direction that sycthe is taking.

I mean, if you could give me reasons why the last unit set made sense, I might be more able to agree with you. ;p

Edited February 11, 2015 by iNcog

[scythetwirler]

All of this was already thought about and decided, but then it was throw away in last alpha instead of tweaked. Because javalin cavalry were OP 2 alphas ago did not make the whole counter scheme bad. 10 years of thought and energy into this problem was discard because of why? Never answered.

The whole system was convoluted and required new players to memorize an extremely complex web. Some of the counters were also puzzling (archers countering cavalry spearmen but getting countered by cavalry swordsmen, skirmishers countering cavalry archers but not cavalry skirmishers, cavalry archers and spearmen countering each other, etc.) Some civilizations simply hard countered other civilizations (e.g. swordsmen countered the majority of the starting greek and gaul roster, archers countering the majority of the starting roman and iberian roster, etc.)

[Karamel]

Is the general unit use/potential for each civilization listed in the design document still up-to-date? http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document

Along with the previous hard-counter web it looks like the things to start from. Maybe I could try to summarize by grouping unit types instead of civs. These are things I like to do (and if I'm doing some testing I should know where the game should go...)

In short term I have to be sure the data I got are the good ones (Hastatus with 4.5dps looks like a joke)

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like how the units elite archer fires quickly than other units. Now battles are more entertainment are long, have enoght time to create strategies and doing decent micro.

For me is basic fun when battles and engagements are long than very speed killing( even if is a counter)

Edited February 11, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[Zezil]

In a way or another , charging should imho be implemented for spear cav, it would follow the spirit of differentiation of units we got for infantry.

Ok, i wrote to expose a doubt i got playing SVN lately: melee infantry doesnt counter ranged infantry, expecially skirmishers ,and i'll explain why.

Rangeds walk faster, they can pretty much act as ranged cav, hit until enemy gets close, run and hit again. Melees cant do much but chase until they die.

Now, the hit and run thing is in the spirit of skirmishers, that's pretty much what they did in battle years and years ago, harassing, make as many injuried as possible and run away( and also support melee infantry). In the game they do this to enemie's death wich kills the gameplay, and is a step back from a17, wich got the melee-rangeds balancing pretty well imo. Only way to kill rangeds is now cavalry or more rangeds.

In a few word, rangeds could rule the batllefield in a18 and we dont want that i think. Melee would only be good to counter cavalry and draw some of enemy'srangeds fire out of your own rangeds. Now , i dont know if this scenario is historically realistic and I dont know if that's something we would like to play, i know we should understand this before alpha18 comes out. So test it and talk about it

An idea to maintain rangeds higer walk speed and make melee kill rangeds in 1:1 battles could be implementing the "chasing woman" animation melee already got when an attacked woman runs away, and also giving rangeds a weak melee attack once they are too close to enemy( the distance i have in mind would be higer then the melee attack range, aproximately 5 meters would be a good least distance to throw a ranged attack). Anyway , if anybody wants im available to test rangeds vs melee battles and show you what i mean and how effective it is.

I must update this! Even tho it's true that an only rangeds army wins against an all melee army, a mixed one can beat an all rangeds one( while retreating from melees, your rangeds will take damage from your opponent ones, so that doesnt work well).So mix your army!

We can sleep easy, thanks scythe

[Lion.Kanzen]

For A19 balancing can be nice working with ships and siege equipment.

[Karamel]

Ok I've read the design documents and the Rock Paper Scissors rules to check if current units are doing their job and how to convert most of the previous hardcounters to softcounters, but softening the counter.

As for the ram issue all crush armor should be reduced for units in order to the slingers to deal more damage to armored units. The ram should then do not much damage (maybe 5 or 10) but get the according bonus against buildings, like x10 to x20.

I studied only basic units and haven't tested yet the new values but it will be my next actions. The goal is not to have a full balance by tweaking values by 1 or 2, but have relative consistency between values and unit "expected" use. And also show what I'm doing for anyone to point me going on a wrong way (and save my time ). Then there is the case of mixing.

So here it is, unit type by unit type with the following format

Unit type (civilizations having them)

Old hardcounter data

Current observations in alpha 18

Short term suggestions: what I should do to match counters and/or rebalance

Melee infantry

Pikemen (Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid) (+ Persian and Maurya in design document)
Slow robust melee cavalery killer, weak cannon fodder
Counter melee cavalery, countered by cavalery spearmen and archers

Pikemen have strong armors but low damage compared to other infantry. They have a bonus against cavalery. The main traits are implemented but their slow speed and same training time and cost than regular infantry makes them underpowered.

Due to their slowness they are soft-countered by ranged units.

Pikemen are the main infantry unit for Macedonian, Ptolemian and Selucid. They are mainly a robust front line to protect support range units from melee attacks, especially melee cavalery but won't give a strong attack force. They do not appear along spearmen and it is a civilization choice between the two.

Design document describe Persian and Maurya shield bearer as pikemen, they are currently spearmen.

Short term suggestion: set the same speed as spearmen (7.5) to make them more efficient at collecting. Their lack of damage already compensates their high armor.

Long term suggestion: maybe their armor could be given by syntagma formation at cost of very slow speed for Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid. Persian and Maurya could cost a bit less and be faster to produce without access to the syntagma bonus.

Spearmen (Athenian, Spartan, Carthage, Britons, Gauls) (+ Persian and Maurya in actual state)
Almost like pikemen.

Spearmen are the main infantry of most civilizations. They are like the reference melee unit, with pikemen being more defensive and swordmen more offensive. They do not appear along pikemen and it is a civilization choice between the two.

Short term suggestion: not much things as pikemen are set up close to spearmen.

Swordsmen (Spartans, Carthaginians, Iberians, Romans, Seleucids, Mauryans)
Counters skirmishers and spearmen
Countered by archers and cavalery spearmen.

Swordmen are the enhanced version of melee units but are less effective when fighting cavalery. They cost more than spearmen but deal more damage and move a bit faster. They were given a drawback being a veteran unit at start reducing the collecting bonus from their speed. These are between citizen soldiers and elite soldiers.

Spearmen and skirmisher hardcounter is stil slightly there by being stronger and faster, but also against all infantry. Could be countered by archers if those are faster than skirmishers (already the case for mounted units). Cavalery spearmen could counter them if they are globally a bit tougher (but also more expensive).

Actual speed is 9.5 which is the same as females

This is the main Iberian and Roman infantry.

Short term suggestion: nothing

Ranged infantry

Skirmishers (all except Ptolemies and Maurya)
Ranged support troop, strong against lightly armored units, counters cav archers and cav skirmishers. Countered by foot archers and swordsmen.

Skirmishers are hit'n run units. They would support melee infantry in troop and harass opponent when independant. They are lightly armored and advance quickly. Doesn't counter archer cavalery for now.

Short term suggestion: nerf damage (set to 12), set speed just a bit faster than regular infantry (set to 9.0). This speed allows swordsmen to catch them on the long run. They could gain something like 2 slash and 3 pierce armor due to their shield, to be more armored than archers for countering and cheaper than cav skirmishers to counter in mass. Archers could hit'n run them (this removes hard counter mounted archers)

Archers (Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Persian, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Maurya)
Counters swordmen and skirmishers, countered by swordsmen and sword cavalery

Archers are like a skirmisher variation, with less speed, more range, less damage but more fire rate. This is globally an alternate ranged unit with more range but less power

Short term suggestion: boost speed to 10.5 to be able to hit any infantry without fireback and counter skirmishers. The lack of armor makes them vulnerable to any mounted attack and would retreat to stay out of range.

Slingers (Gauls, Britons, Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Iberian, Ptolemies)
Effective agains heavily armored units and buildings

Currently an alternate ranged unit with crush damage, making them somewhat good against buildings.

Short term suggestion: reduce pierce damage to 7

Long term suggestion: as heavy armored units are slow and mostly melee, they could be given a slightly good speed (9.0) but short range, with high crush damage (which was generaly low for everyone). Pinned down by skirmishers and archers and swordsmen because of absence of armor (being ranged or fast enough to go close range while they are shooting). Spear cav is countered by cost-efficiency pinning them down.

Cavaleries

Spear cavalery (Carthaginians, Iberians, Macedonians, Persians, Ptolemies, Romans, Seleucids)
Strong against infantry. Counters swordsmen and skirmishers, countered by pikemen, spearmen and archers

Spear cavalery has decent armor and damage. But less than infantry (except HP). It is the fastest cavalery.

Short term suggestion: could have a better armor (at least 5/5) with slightly less speed making them the slowest cavalery (speed set to 16). More than infantry to get in range rather quickly but lesser than other cavalery. The general stats make them a very good but expensive melee unit. Should cost at least 100f and 50w, maybe some metal (25 or 50). Counter by archers is removed, slingers could be more resource efficient to pin them down.

Sword cavalery (Athenians, Britons, Gauls, Carthaginians, Mauryans, Persians)
Quick strike force, counters ranged infantry, countered by spearmen and pikemen

Sword cavarery has rather small damage and armor with rather high cost

Short term suggestion: should have good hack damage (6 at least to be as efficient as infantry) and speed (20) so they could rapidly take down siege weapons and light armored or isolated units but have themselves light armor (2/2), making them not a good choice in open battle versus organized infantry.

Skirmisher cavalery (all except Iberians)
Fairly against every infantry, counters archers

Like infantry skirmisher, does high damage with decent range. But it is the slowest cavalery.

Short term suggestion: good speed to be one of the best hit'n run even if pierce damage make them useless against siege weapons. Reduce damage to 12. Soft counter swordsmen cavalery by being cheaper and running after them (20 speed). Soft counter archers by going quickly in range and having more HP and damage. Set armor to 2/3 for shield.

Archer cavalery (Persians, Ptolemies, Seleucids)
Good against non heavily armored infantry, counters cavalery skirmishers, countered by skirmishers

Like foot archer, has very long range and decent damage, but no armor at all.

Short term suggestion: reduce damage to 7 to match infantry. Set speed to 22 to be the fastest cav and counter cav skirmishers. Add even more spread to reduce effectiveness of hit'n run (2.4). Counter by skirmishers is removed, it is the hardest unit to deal damage to but also doesn't do much damage with fairly high resource cost.

[auron2401]

Problem is, Most of your suggestions is where we had most of our problems last time. Too many overlapping counters. Swordsmen and archers are good example.

The counter circle NEEDS to be a circle, you can't have units countering each other, it just results in broken gameplay, and weird balance issues.

Generally it should be ranged>infantry>Cavalry>ranged

With little variations inbetween.

It won't work, there's too many different civs and differering units for differing civs, so factions with poor spearmen will get rekt by civs with great cavalry, so on so forth. Soft counters is the only way to make so many different factions balanced, hard counters work in games like starcraft (which, don't do it, because there's too many different units to have a great circle of balance)

[HeroesGrave]

I think there should be self-counter units for each class, that are good for massing against their own class, but are somewhat less effective against everything else. There should also be some neutral relationships, where a unit neither counters nor is countered by another unit.

Here's a short draft of a possible set of counters:

Melee Infantry:

• Spearmen are anti-cavalry. Strong attack against cavalry but somewhat weak armour.
• Swordsmen are an infantry self-counter. Medium-powered attack and strong armour for taking out other infantry.

Ranged Infantry:

• Archers are anti-infantry. Good damage for picking off infantry but weak armour that offers little protection when put into a melee battle. Vulnerable against melee cavalry that can close in quickly.
• Skirmishers are a ranged self-counter. Even weaker melee armour than the archer but strong-ish ranged armour, which makes the unit more effective when massed. Should be able to take out an equal group of archers without suffering too much damage. Also has weaker attack so not effective against melee infantry.
• Slingers should be considered as light siege units. They still have the same weaknesses as other ranged infantry, but are slower firing, higher damage, and reasonably effective against buildings in the midgame where proper siege units aren't available. They should be quite inaccurate to make them ineffective against cavalry or small squads of units.

Melee Cavalry:

• Sword Cavalry are anti-ranged. Not quite as strong (armour & attack) as its infantry counterpart. Instead uses its speed to be a counter against infantry archers and skirmishers.
• Spear Cavalry are a cavalry self-counter. Higher damage against cavalry and weaker armour than its infantry counterpart.

Ranged Cavalry are an interesting interruption in an otherwise nice balance cycle.

• Archer Cavalry are a more mobile version of the archer. Slightly less powerful than its infantry version but has increased mobility that allows it to escape melee units.
• Skirmisher Cavalry are a more mobile version of the skirmisher. Slightly less powerful than its infantry version but has increased mobility to escape melee units or chase down cavalry archers.

A few additional notes on some relationships between units.

• Swordsman vs Archer: Swordsmen will destroy archers if they get within melee range, but otherwise will be picked off as any other infantry. Should not counter either way.
• Cavalry Swordsman vs Cavalry Archer: Same as above.
• Cavalry Spearman vs Cavalry Archer: Same as above.
• Cavalry Skirmisher vs Infantry (except skirmishers): Will win purely because the infantry won't be able to get close enough. Should not counter either way.
• Cavalry units should always be beaten by their infantry counterpart, but not by a wide margin. They should be a bit weaker (attack & armour), because they make up for it in mobility.

Edit: Maybe the role of Skimishers and Archers should be switched, and the archer given a range bonus to provide a more sensible and strategic counter.

Edited February 13, 2015 by HeroesGrave

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Problem is, Most of your suggestions is where we had most of our problems last time. Too many overlapping counters. Swordsmen and archers are good example.

The counter circle NEEDS to be a circle, you can't have units countering each other, it just results in broken gameplay, and weird balance issues.

Generally it should be ranged>infantry>Cavalry>ranged

With little variations inbetween.

It won't work, there's too many different civs and differering units for differing civs, so factions with poor spearmen will get rekt by civs with great cavalry, so on so forth. Soft counters is the only way to make so many different factions balanced, hard counters work in games like starcraft (which, don't do it, because there's too many different units to have a great circle of balance)

You are wrong, because 0 A.D. balance was just fine until the skirmishers and Javelin Cavalry became unbalanced. And then the balancer threw out the whole scheme instead of adjusting the stats of those two units. Some will say that the Swordsman was overpower for Romans because they were buuld from Civic Center, but then why did not try just moving it to Barracks and put spearman at Civic Center instead? Some units have good archers? Move them from CC to barracks. In fact, move all soldiers to barracks except spear infantry (so all civs start with the same basic citizen soldier). Not difficult decisions. The overlapping counters scheme that was design by the wfg founders was brilliant design that had vision, something current designer seem to lack. Whwere is the well thought design document for this "balance" branch? What is the design philosophy?

But this whole thread is pointless, because there are balance shattering gameplay feature still not in the game yet. I will go ahead and leave you now to argue over the balance of a 60% completed game.

Edited February 13, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

You are wrong, because 0 A.D. balance was just fine until the skirmishers and Javelin Cavalry became unbalanced. And then the balancer threw out the whole scheme instead of adjusting the stats of those two units. Some will say that the Swordsman was overpower for Romans because they were buuld from Civic Center, but then why did not try just moving it to Barracks and put spearman at Civic Center instead? Some units have good archers? Move them from CC to barracks. In fact, move all soldiers to barracks except spear infantry (so all civs start with the same basic citizen soldier). Not difficult decisions. The overlapping counters scheme that was design by the wfg founders was brilliant design that had vision, something current designer seem to lack. Whwere is the well thought design document for this "balance" branch? What is the design philosophy?

But this whole thread is pointless, because there are balance shattering gameplay feature still not in the game yet. I will go ahead and leave you now to argue over the balance of a 60% completed game.

for CC an explorer and basic spearman , even very basic like club man in AOE , in Aoe 2 a militia , may be a vigiles in roman faction and in other a units with a spear even without a shield.

Very basic weak but useful. This only for CC not included in barrack building. Same for scout if is possible.

[iNcog]

You are wrong, because 0 A.D. balance was just fine until the skirmishers and Javelin Cavalry became unbalanced. And then the balancer threw out the whole scheme instead of adjusting the stats of those two units. Some will say that the Swordsman was overpower for Romans because they were buuld from Civic Center, but then why did not try just moving it to Barracks and put spearman at Civic Center instead? Some units have good archers? Move them from CC to barracks. In fact, move all soldiers to barracks except spear infantry (so all civs start with the same basic citizen soldier). Not difficult decisions. The overlapping counters scheme that was design by the wfg founders was brilliant design that had vision, something current designer seem to lack. Whwere is the well thought design document for this "balance" branch? What is the design philosophy?

But this whole thread is pointless, because there are balance shattering gameplay feature still not in the game yet. I will go ahead and leave you now to argue over the balance of a 60% completed game.

It wasn't that fine, in my opinion the unit set back then didn't make a lot of sense. Honestly all players did back then was just spam a single unit type and a-move with that. Unit interaction was a bit stale. I didn't really see how unit interaction back then was a brilliant design. It was so incredibly counter-intuitive that literally the only counter I remember is Cavalry skirmishers were supposed to be countered by Spear Infantry and Elephants. That made little to no sense and I don't think that a lot of the other counters did either.

Changing the unit set so as to get rid of multipliers is something that's been in the works for a while, I asked about it maybe a year ago. It's not something without reason either. Units are being given actual roles now and the changes that Sycthe is making make sense to me.

[Karamel]

Hello everyone

From my small suggestions to try to make the hardcounter scheme still working with soft counter I changed values for basic units an tried them quickly. It seems to be somewhat decent even if I need a lot more time to test (only 2 game played) and review hero units to have them a bit consistent with the rest.

The paradigms were those two: keep lowered damage to increase battle time (Scythetwirler basic and wide change) and try to match the original design document.

To install my changes unzip the archive in binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ (this one was done on r16325)

Whether or not the soft counter design is better than hard counter one, this is just a quick "fix" suggestion based upon Scythetwirler work for alpha 18 to approach the design document.

kml_a18_templates_r1.zip

[Lion.Kanzen]

I prefer soft counters,moony have sense use cavalry against a Macedonian Pikeman even Cataphracts can be killed by them.

[serveurix]

I've followed the svn commits and I've tried to roughly sum up the balance changes between a17 and a18. Please tell me if I'm wrong or if I missed something important.

A18 balance changes :

Units

- most human units deal more crush damage

- most melee units have a stronger armor and move faster, but their attack has been lowered

- the accuracy of land distant units (human and mechanical) has been reduced a bit, and their shooting rate has been increased

- archers, pedestrian or mounted, have a bigger range, but the damage of all arrows has been reduced

- javalinists, pedestrian or mounted, have a lower range,but their javelins deal more damage

- the minimal range of cavalry javelinists has been removed

- cavalry lancers deal more hack damage

- pikemen attack is slower and weaker, but their defense has been increased

- hard bonuses of pikemen and spearmen have been reactivated and increased : they now have a bonus of x3 against cavalry

- range siege weapons have a better attack, and their shooting range has been reduced

- elephants are stronger against buildings, but more sensitive to arrows

- mercenaries cost more food and less metal

- most of citizen-soldiers need a gigantic amount of experience to level up

- champions are more expensive, stronger and more resistant

- most heroes deal less damage and have a stronger armor

Structures

- seleucid and ptolemaïc colonies now have an attack, a little bit weaker than civ centers'

- palissades can now be built in phase 1

- towers have a bigger range

- most buildings have a better armor

Techs

- "Will to fight" cost has been halved

[niektb]

You forgot the vision range

[serveurix]

 

You forgot the vision range

 

The vision range of all objects (units and structures) has been increased to match the shooting range, is that right ?

[Sighvatr]

Pikemen really suck now. Should increase their movement speed to a realistic one. I really dislike the hard counters. I also miss seeing my units upgrade and the ability to purchase the tech to upgrade my units even more.