[Gameplay] Alpha 18 Balance Feedback

[KingAJ]

All units fully upgraded:

25 Athenian archers + hero that gives 1+ armor vs 15 champ roman swords, 5 bolt shooters, hero sword cav that gives +5 attack.

Athenian archers killed everyone with 12 losses. They killed most of the swords before they even closed in. Then they killed the hero cav, and then they picked off the bolt shooters 1 at a time. That’s like 2500K worth of metal killed while only losing 600 metals worth.

20 Athenian archers vs. 15 consular sword cav.

Athenian archers won with 13 losses. The sword cav cost twice as much though.

One 250 metal bolt shooter dishes out 35 pierce/sec with 100 HP fully upgraded, while 5 Athenian archers of equal cost dish outs 124 pierce per second with 600 HP. Since units have such high crush armor, the 7 crush attack/sec of the bolt shooter seems negligible.

There’s no other units where 250 metal gives you nearly that much firepower. Sparties come close, but they don’t have a 72 meter range.

[KingAJ]

try agaist other archer champions like Mauryans female archers

I've not seen anyone use those in a game yet. The stats look the same though, unless you do the +range, -health upgrade.

For kicks I just did a test battle. All units fully upgraded.

17 champ female archers w/ range upgrade + hero elphant VS. 17 sparties + Leonidas.

When the hoplites attacked the elephant, I lost the elephant and two archers. When the hoplites attacked the archers, I lost 15, and the elephant had about 500 HP left. The archers won everytime though.

The sparites will kill the archers hand to hand in an open field, but that doesnt happen in game. If the archers have just a slight bit of cover or fall back, the sparites are toast. So those archers are going to win like 99% of the time in a real game. I was also able to kill Leonidas with 17 archers before he even reached them to fight, while most of the hoplites died trying to kill the hero elephant. A player who micomanages with those upgraded champ archers is going to win a lot....

Edited April 1, 2015 by KingAJ

[Giotto]

Hero's really should get destroyed by 5 ish troops. They're not uper human, instead should increase moral more etc. Player has to think which battles to engage them in.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Giotto

[auron2401]

well they have tonnes of health so that you can't snipe them. (which i'm fine with)

Which is why I like to play with paladin in wc3.

You can't snipe pally's.

TBH Heroes really don't need a change. they are fine as is, if you're 1v1ing a hero, you're doing it wrong.

Edited April 2, 2015 by auron2401

[KingAJ]

Lol, I forgot about that +25% hoplite health upgrade in my test battles. I repeated the same battles, and the hoplites just won every time with lots of losses.

A few more small things I've noticed:

-A fully garrisoned ship is wayyy more powerful against troops than a fort. I've seen a few people basically use them as shore forts on oasis. If their wood cutters get attacked, they just garrison them on the ship, and blast the bad guys away. If the ship gets sunk, they automatically get dropped off on shore with no damage taken. Its a good tactic, but that ship shouldn’t be more powerful than a stone fort.

-The game seems more stable. I haven’t had one game crash yet.

-Ranged units sometimes run away from their target. It seems to happen when they are in a large formation. The units in the back row run away until they are at max range, and then start firing.

-Rams are weird. I think its great that they are armored against pierce and powerful against buildings, but they are just too darn hard to stop with civs that don’t have cheap hack dealing units like the Macedonians. Would it be possible to implement a dynamic where the ram stops moving or slows to a crawl if it comes under hand to hand attack?

-The defensive pikes have the right idea, but they could use a touch more armor or more attack. I think its cool how they are at their best in tight formations since they have long attack range and can fight three deep. But they lose to almost everything but horses in equal numbers, including citizen spearmen. 10 champion Athenian archers won easily against 25 pikes with only 3 losses.

[auron2401]

So it seems a lot of units need to be nerfed to the ground, then buffed back up incrementally.

Ranged units especially.

Also, you might want to mention the use of micro wherever possible with your # beats # % statements, KingAJ. Especially relating to ranged units vs melee units.

I assume the archers didn't micro at all, considering they actually lost units to pikemens.

I still dislike the way pikes are executed, they need to be brought more in line with other infantry units (but not too much like them)

So.. more speed, less armour, more attack. I like the way they are now.. if the game was a total war title.

It's an real-time-strategos title, not a total war (alike) title. (leave that to the modders. XD)

Edited April 2, 2015 by auron2401

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like how works now, in other titles you spam a bunch of soldiers and you win, and counter was easy and all secret was spamming units with 6 barrack without micro

I think our game can be the hybrid between 2 worlds simulation and RTS , will be very unique and not another clon.

[zzippy]

Lion.Kanzen, just for the record, what is your nick at the lobby?

Edited April 2, 2015 by zzippy

[Lion.Kanzen]

Actually is lion.kanzen but I have long time without play as multiplayer, is very laggy for me

[KingAJ]

Here is what spamming Athenian champ archers will get you. I made around 80 of them, protected by 35 champ hoplites. They killed everything those three sent at me, with almost no losses. Soul sent a full 150+ man army of citizen archers and sword cav against me. The archers killed them all with no losses, while i lost around 35 citizen spears. I think strong champ units are cool, but if they are going to be that powerful, they need to be way more expensive.

Once Soul and yellow left, I attacked green with 80 champ archers and 35 champ spears. I probably killed over 100 troops, including a dozen elephants, and I didn't lose a single man. None of my guys were even down 25% on health. Obviously I still had him outnumbered and should won easily, but he didn't even come close to killing a single one of my champ archers.

[zzippy]

Well, KingAJ, contradiction....

Had a few tests with Infoman: 25 athenian champ archers vs 60 carthagian citizen archers, which reflects their costs. No micro, besides pushing the citizen archers a little to the front (cuz athenians have a little more range). All well balanced ...

[KingAJ]

Well, KingAJ, contradiction....

Had a few tests with Infoman: 25 athenian champ archers vs 60 carthagian citizen archers, which reflects their costs. No micro, besides pushing the citizen archers a little to the front (cuz athenians have a little more range). All well balanced ...

But what If I make 100+ champ archers? They do seem balanced in test battles against units of equal cost, but there's something about the way real game battles shake out that makes them near unbeatable. I think players tend to move their troops in small waves, and those get chewed up by the champ archers.

You would need 2x the number of troops, and you would need them all to engage the champ archers at the same time.

And then you would need to be against an inexperienced player who doesn't foresee his champ archers impending doom and leaves them to die.

And then you would need an open field with no obstacles to break up your larger army.

Any experienced player will retreat until its more of a 1:1 ratio, where the champ archers can massacre the citizen troops. So you need perfect conditions to be able to beat them with units of equal resource cost.

Plus if I knew you had more than 2x the number of soldiers I did, I wouldn't even come out to fight. I would stay turtled up until I built up at least 80 champs.

Scythe said he would nerf archers in general for the next version, so all my posting is just in good fun. Messing around with tactics and strategies is all just part of the fun of the game for me.

[zzippy]

But what If I make 100+ champ archers?

...then your eco will have gone downhill

Sure, there are many aspects for balancing. I was only referring to athenian champ archers; if archers in general are a little op in a18 is a different question.

All I can say, I have not noticed athenian champ archers are op in real games too (vs strong opponents).

[KingAJ]

I was pretty well pinned in my town by a player who was way better than me. I managed to stay alive by being careful, and slowly built up a force of around 60 upgraded champ archers. He kept sending waves of infantry and rams at me, and the archers picked them off while my citizen guys gathered. The archers were able to take cover behind buildings. I couldn't destroy the forts that he ringed by town with, but I manged to sneak my archers past them and killed a few CC's. Those 60 archers formed a pretty tight and maneuverable box, and its tough to bring enough firepower to bear to beat them. One volley would kill 2-4 bad guys, so that's 4-8 kills per second. So a force of 80 is dead within 15 seconds. He got frustrated and quit.

[auron2401]

Archers in general need a pretty serious nerf. They shouldn't be able to hold their own versus melee anything. except maybe pikes. (pikemen don't really have much in the way of a "shield", more of a big round thing strapped to their arm, thus can't protect from arrows)

[KingAJ]

Supposedly the pikes themselves shielded soldiers from missile weapons. In the Philip/Alexander Macedonian formations, the guys in the front rows had large shields and short spears, while the guys in the back rows would carry the long 2 handed pikes with little or no shield. That's the main reason that the formation was vulnerable from behind. In later times, the Romans had success in cutting though the pikes by hacking them like tree branches with their swords, so that's the reason pikemen should be countered by swordsmen in the game. I read that on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.

I think its fun having units with different strengths and weaknesses. A17 was a little too mosh pit like, so I like the direction things are going.

Edited April 3, 2015 by KingAJ

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Do realise that at the front the pikemen held their own very well to any legionnaire. The problem for pikemen was the inflexibility of the formation, which the Romans lacked. As a result, a properly done flanking manoeuvre was a disaster for the pikemen.

[KingAJ]

Back on the subject of a18 feeback...

Stone forts and CC's shouldn't be offensive weapons. Its a common tactic now for people to plop them down right on the border of a town, rather than attack with troops. They cost less stone than 2 catapults.

I know the game is about claiming territory, but its absurd that they are best weapon for attacking towns. I know it was common for invading armies to construct wooden palisades around besieged towns, but stone forts took generations to build.

-Make them well over 1000 stone and wood.

-A limit of 2-3 of each or maybe 5 total between the two. So like you have to decide if you want to make more CC's, or more forts.

-They should take way longer to build. Like 2-3 times as much.

-Allow all civs to construct wooden defensive buildings in neutral territory to help with town attacking. Like wooden towers, palisades, and wooden forts like the roman ones or the outpost.

-Allow all civs to make wooden army camps to claim territory.

-Have a timer that prevents players from instantly rebuilding a CC when its lost, like 60 seconds or so.

They are so cheap, that players just spam them all over the map. I just played a 50 minute game against an experienced player, and it wasn't very fun. He kept making CC's and forts all over the map, and I kept knocking them down. I tear down all his stuff on my left side, and he builds all over my right. I tear down his right side stuff, and he builds again on my left. I attack his main town, and he just lets it burn while he builds another somewhere else. He eventualy lagged out, and I had a 6 K/D ratio against him with about 2/3 of the resources he had. I won every battle and repelled every attack, but he just kept building and building.

I know I could've won by doing the same thing he did by randomly building CC's and forts everywhere, but that's not fun. Chasing small groups of units who are trying to flank you with forts and CC's isn't fun. I've watched a few games between aggressive and experienced players become a complete and random mess of CC's and forts everywhere. The map looks like a modern art painting with all the colors and shapes everywhere, as players try to get CC's in every last nook in the map, rather than just fight and get the game over with.

The game needs focus and a more clear objective. I like the idea of the game revolving around forts and CC's, but the spam needs to be reduced. Killing a fort or a CC should be a big objective and really swing the tide of the game. They should be big, expensive and powerful buildings, not cheap spammable cannon fodder. It should be a real accomplishment to build a CC with a few protecting forts, and losing them should be catastrophic.

Edited April 4, 2015 by KingAJ

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree the wooden tower needs be different from stone tower, and it can be build in neutral territory

[Alekusu]

Hey KingAJ, I didn't play a lot lately but I followed your suggestion with interest and agree with you for the most of it.

As for your last post,

I really agree with the limit of CC and Forts. However in my experience, someone over expanding can be punished if you go fast phase 3.

But I agree on the fact that once both in phase 3, the game is less interested/strategic.

PS: KingAJ I'd like to play against you, contact me in PM to arrange games.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I agree that the CCs and Fortresses should be special, not spammable. More expensive, take longer to build, stronger. Also, defenses should be for defense and units for offense. That not to say that novel stratgies should be impossibru, but as game designer you should /design/ things to be within an overall plan or vision. So coming up with way to force defense towers to be used defensively is perfectly fine and then you can maybe design some edge cases into the game leaving open door for novel, but very risky, usage, but that come later.For now, have an idea of how things should be used and design them to do that thing. Fortress should be the forward base structure. Max 3 or 5. Buildable in neutral territory, cast no territory effect. With minimal number you must place them strategically. Design ways to make walls more useful (and easier to build, not just cheaper and quicker, that's lazy design; unit should automaticaly spread out when section of wall foundations placed, building the towers first, then filling in the wall segments; design a button in wall foundation UI to summon all nearby citiens to build it; give that same button to the Wonder). Make civic center territory radius smaller; give the game some no-man's land again.Implement farmlands and let players build farms and storehouses outside terrirory. Now you have strongly defended cities and weak countryside you must fight over--instead of sprawl like now. Traders must now travel through danger no-man's land between markets defended by cities. Move those mines away from the CC already... this isn't Starcraft.

I agree the wooden tower needs be different from stone tower, and it can be build in neutral territory

Then you have tower spam/push again? Right up against enemy territory? At least with Fortress in neuttral terrotry you can limit them to 3-5 and make them longer to build, so if they are used for push then there is time to spot the foundation. Just idea anyway (see Delenda Est). Instead, wooden defense towers should be Village Phase version of stone tower. Use upgrade and actor swap to make it stone tower (see Delenda Est). This game needs more of that kind thing.

Enjoy the choice.

Edited April 4, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

wowgetoffyourcellphone you are right the mines are too close, in AoK the mines are far away from CC (TC) I'm not sure in AOE 3 or most recently AOEO ( I'm watching the gameplay of this late AOE recently I love how work some things but others I don't like because looks like Blizzard RTS clon )

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

wowgetoffyourcellphone you are right the mines are too close, in AoK the mines are far away from CC (TC) I'm not sure in AOE 3 or most recently AOEO ( I'm watching the gameplay of this late AOE recently I love how work some things but others I don't like because looks like Blizzard RTS clon )

AOEO had a few good ideas like quests (instead of traditional caMPaigns) and persistent home city and customizable tech trees. Failed with: dumb fantasy units, childish art design (artists, very talented; art director, very idiotic), lame "items" like fish-weapons (WTF?! Soliders bashing each other with big fish, dumb dumb dumb), teeny tiny maps, and multiplayer unavailable without buying a "peer-to-peer" pack. Also failed by not pushing the combat forward.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I Love the RPG elements in Campaing and in PVP you can costuming your the troops with items in an inventory.

-They implement tactical technologies , these have the feature to be toggled on and off, but this was a feature from AOE 3, of course they save the best ideas from all universe of AoE to implement in this last game. This wuold be nice have in 0ad

-they implement for the first time in their series toggle between two weapons for a unit: the immortals have melee attack ( spear) and range attack (bow) this will be implement in 0AD.

But AOE try always, after successful of AOK try imitate Warcraft 3 gameplay with AoM they have these opportunity having 4 factions( with titans Xpack) very unique and similar has how work a race in Warcraft, in AoE 3 they continue with this, even implement rounded maps, the creepers( treasure guardians) and mercenaries from neautral buildings. That is not bad

But in AoEO they try to imitate childish cartoony, the same mistake as Empire earth 3 do, totally opposite to Total War art direction.

But if you look well they try their unis work like warcraft and starcraft with the counters and the production of units, if see the videos and the comments players from SC feel as home playing AOEO, the only things they preserve similar is the relationship of defenses.

----------back to the topic------

This some related because the play of alpha 16 and 17 was similar but alpha 18 not, is more like a kind of total war the units are very resistant to die, and I like this feel, in a15 the hard counters were very similar to EE I the counter don't have feel the battle, so this can tend to feel repetitive battles without much micro and tactic only rock, paper and scissors gameplay.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I domn't feel the "tactical" without thing like formations, charging, and all that.