Counters must come back

[Lion.Kanzen]

I don't se the point to don't have can someone explain this at this point? A RTS without natural counter, only pikeman/spearman have 

 

Here is the visual counter of first AoE and works perfectly.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, elexis said:

The problem with slingers was that they nuked buildings really easily. We didn't want people that can throw tiny rocks to destroy fortresses quicker than siege engines. We can't fix that with accuracy, because a CC or fortress has a huge footprint. Slingers vs other units were not intended to be changed much by that commit.

I did see a lot more cavalry rushes in a22, which is a thing I do like. People have complained a lot about turtling and rushes being useless in the past. So take care in case of proposing balancing changes. It'd be great to have a replay that undoubtedly proves skirmisher accuracy to be a bug and not a feature. It ought to be discussed and tested in svn lobby games (admittedly that can be done more easily if people have Phabricator access and in a21 we actually had these balancing testgames based on that with Grugnas, borg- and few willing guests).

Here is the problem.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I'll admit that the current system is a bit messy.  That's to be expected since the larger plans of implementing in depth combat, charging, and other integral parts of the game have not come to fruition.  Strictly speaking, counters do not have be in the game, and even with counter systems, there is not always as fluid and desirable gameplay as we would like.   Also, there are variations between civilisations.  

A hoplite should seem extremely different from Persian Sparabda (forgive me if I misspelled it.)  The former should be slow and heavily armoured, very difficult to kill with ranged weapons or any other weapon from the front and have a long training time to represent the rigorous regimen any soldier needing to take up this position would require.  The latter would be quick to train since they were probably levies and only a disposable meatshield to allow more efficient troops like cavalry to eliminate the enemy.  Thus, it would be easier to look at units individually from one faction to the next and through that figure out how each unit should be used.   

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

-----

Ok this can be work have hoplite and spearman lines separately.

the best we can do is a simply table in excel and start with the current. I saw somthing similar to AoE 2 in their forums.

Same differences between spear and lancer.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[av93]

Well, Aoe I hasn't the best counter system design. The design sheet it's okay if you mean that.

I tried to make a description about units roles, but devs didn't say anything.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ingredients

We need stats:  roles, cost , armor, attack, HP, speed , capture attack/rate... etc And incluiding defensive building in the combo(roster). Towers, fortresses and CC. The navy isn't important right now. I'm sure plenty of features are waiting for starting to work.

Why?

with this we can define things, I'm know you have a template automatic balance. But I'm not totally convinced.

mostly of unit are trash unit ( food and wood) that's means cheaper and late game preciated.

 

can be so nice starting a visual sheet of units as kind of in game encyclopedia.

the pojnt is where start first , template? Parent templates, classes?

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5MMKUIFcmEtNV9NdUxJY1ZieTA/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I'll admit that the current system is a bit messy.  That's to be expected since the larger plans of implementing in depth combat, charging, and other integral parts of the game have not come to fruition.

No offense to any one person, but is there any evidence that the team actually plans on implementing in-depth combat beyond what the game already has? Having a real counter system is basically a proxy for those things you mention.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No offense to any one person, but is there any evidence that the team actually plans on implementing in-depth combat beyond what the game already has? Having a real counter system is basically a proxy for those things you mention.

A secret plan hum...?

-----------

seriously what need to happen to have accurate or logical combat.

spaming rams and skirmishers with some cavalry, the infantry melee lost their meaning.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[av93]

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No offense to any one person, but is there any evidence that the team actually plans on implementing in-depth combat beyond what the game already has? Having a real counter system is basically a proxy for those things you mention.

Charging and formations depend on pathfinding and UnitMotion rewrite, no?

[fatherbushido]

8 hours ago, av93 said:

Charging and formations depend on pathfinding and UnitMotion rewrite, no?

Not so much.

If you really want to play with charge, you can also revert, it was implemented many years ago

[Lion.Kanzen]

Still being a open ticket.

[fatherbushido]

(Those things disappeared with the simulation rewrite.)

[av93]

 

3 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

Not so much.

If you really want to play with charge, you can also revert, it was implemented many years ago

Well, formations don't need the rewrite?
 

So about charging, it's a matter of design consensus, or need of work?

Edited August 6, 2017 by av93

[fatherbushido]

@av93

Matter of consensus, of doing thing in the better way, of choices, of global picture... and also of time and work.

(the unit motion proposal is mainly a nuke of formation )

For example, what do you mean by formation?

[av93]

2 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

For example, what do you mean by formation?

Sorry, you're right. Overall a better pathfinding for formations, but also the battalion system that have been talked. Unit that fight in formations and don't disband, formation and directional bonus (just to add sense to syntagma, phalanx and testudo formations)

[fatherbushido]

(I forget: we have currently some amount of code about formation and it seems a waste if we don't reuse it. So we have to be tricky to complete formations feature with reusing that part of code.)

When talking to pathfinding for formations you point out what is imo the more decisive thing, as what we call formation has different meaning.

One of my favorite design was perhaps the first one nicely summed up by @Wijitmaker

Quote

2 Grouping

Available to all civs – may be used without any Commanders, Heroes, or Standard Bearers.

Grouping is basically the ability to select multiple units and tell them to perform the same function.  You can do this with any type or combination of units in the game.  The method of selecting the units is to use the basic click and drag (forming a bounding box) which would allow you to select more than on unit – forming your group.  You may also double click one type of unit which will select all the units of that type in the screen – forming a group.  You may also use a key (TBD) such as shift or control to add or subtract units from your group.

Now once you have any number of units selected you can ‘memorize’ the selection of those units.  So you could use a key command such as ctrl+1, which would allow you to assign the key ‘1’ to reselect that group of units.  You could do this up to 10 times (0-9). 

In movement the military units will move in these arrangements:

Line: Sets a two rowed line.

Box: This arrangement is similar to the line formation, but it tries to space the units evenly around in a perimeter to protect the weaker/ranged units from attack.  Strongest units go to the corners.

Staggered: This is an arrangement that the units are distanced from themselves to cover more area than a line arrangement would.

If a worker was in the group with the military units, it would operate in an individual manner.  Meaning that it would attack if the group was told to attack, it wouldn’t move in formation with the military units, but trail behind.

3 Formations

A formation, is basically a fancy grouping.  Each formation has special bonuses or penalties.

3.1 Components of a Formation

These are the special units that can be used to make up your formations.  Either a Commander or a Hero is required.  Standard Bearer and Noisemakers are optional.

• Standard Bearer: Raises morale.

• Commander: Used to make formations

• Hero: Same use as the commander. Makes formations and guide troops, but has higher statistics than commander and also provides morale.

• Noisemakers: Special units, used to lower enemy morale.

REMEMBER: SIMPLE “FORMATIONS” OR WHAT WE CALL GROUPS OF LINE STAGGARED AND BOX WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PLAYER, BUT WILL NOT BE BONUSED IN ANY WAY.  SEE ABOVE MORE DETAIL ON GROUPS.

3.2 Making formations 

Any time you ‘group’ a mass of units and a commander or hero is in the group, you will have the option to make the mass of units more than just a group.  You could then select the commander and use the GUI to assign a formation to this group.  From then on, unless disbanded, they would become what we call a formation. 

When in formation and you select the commander in the company all the units ‘under its command’ would act as one unit with lots of firepower and strength!

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like exceptions. Formation is a tactic to avoid a weakness.

same for example range units in to the walls.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[Phalanx]

If we are thinking about @Wijitmaker's plan, then standard bearers could be easy for formations.  Just choose an officer-y looking mesh for each faction, and have it carry the faction's rally  point banner.

-----------------

Personally, I do agree that there needs to be some semblance of balance and counters, but with these formation reliant units like hoplites and pikes, it gets kinda difficult, especially if we are looking at it from solely an AoE standpoint.  Perhaps we should be created a hybrid counter tree between AoE counters, and RTWII counters, so we can take into consideration formations as well.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Phalanx

[Phalanx]

 

I came up with this basic chart as one idea of visualizing the counters/balance.  Units will be given classifications for balancing use, instead of stats.  Now, as @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said earlier:

Quote

A hoplite should seem extremely different from Persian Sparabda

this could be accomplished by adding a hoplite classification (not on graph) or by just adjusting the stats.  A balance tree doesn't have to be a sure thing that guarantees a 100% counter effectiveness, but as a general guideline for counters.  A slinger for instance (random example) may not be as effective against a hoplite than a Sparabara, but the slinger may perform better against the hoplite than any other ranged unit might.  This gives a basic counter idea, but it still leaves room for unique counters and pairing, for instance (random example again) the slinger might be good against a hoplite, but a slinger and a javelinman are REALLY effective.  I cannot state enough that this would be a general, not concrete counter list.

 

The classifications help make a counter tree less messy, and it also would make counters more diverse between factions, especially the "weight" classifications.  Obviously in the real world, one would handle a Thureos spear different than a Celtic spear.  We could portray this difference, by classifying the Thureos spear as "heavy" (or even "medium") and the Celtic spear as "light", so different counters can be used.

[Nescio]

Personally I prefer the AoM counter system; it's effective, easy to understand, and balanced. Default unit types do not do any bonus damage. Basically it's rock-paper-scissors:

• Human soldiers: Archers are effective vs infantry, infantry vs cavalry, cavalry vs archers
• Warships: Arrow ships are effective vs ramming ships, ramming ships vs siege ships, siege ships vs arrow ships

Furthermore, there are some counter-classes which have slightly higher speed, somewhat reduced hit points, and a lower base attack than their ordinary counterparts, but do have a specific damage multiplier against them:

• Counter-archers (e.g. peltast, slinger): bonus damage vs archers
• Counter-infantry (e.g. Egyptian axeman, Greek swordsman): bonus damage vs infantry
• Counter-cavalry (e.g. lancers, camelry): bonus damage vs cavalry

It's beautifully uncomplicated

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, Phalanx said:

Obviously in the real world, one would handle a Thureos spear different than a Celtic spear.  We could portray this difference, by classifying the Thureos spear as "heavy" (or even "medium") and the Celtic spear as "light", so different counters can be used.

A poor example. The thureos is not a spear, it was a large shield introduced into the Greek world by the Celts who migrated east towards Asia (the Galatians); the spears were relatively short (2-3m) and could be used both for stabbing and hurling (as javelins); each warrior probably had two or three spears of similar length but varying thickness, as was usual in many parts of the world at many different times. Anyway, I just wanted to point out there is no fundamental difference in Celtic weapons inside and those outside the Greek world. I do get what you intended to say, but please be more careful with selecting an example next time

[elexis]

 

[Phalanx]

19 hours ago, Nescio said:

A poor example. The thureos is not a spear

I am aware of that fact.  Pardon me, I am used to RTWII terminology, where when one says "Thureos spear"  one means the spearman.  In this case, I am referencing the Seleucid and Ptolemaic spearman who carries a thureos.  The point I was trying to make was, one (in real life) would probably fight a successor spearman different than a celtic spearman.

Example: The Thureos spearman has a little bit of armour, so one would use slings, but the celt has basically no armour, so bows could be very effective.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Phalanx

[Lion.Kanzen]

We need continued building this.