Civ Balancing and Differentiation while paying attention to current Civs playstyle aswell as historical strenghts

[MarcusAureliu#s]

Eae. While the game is more balanced overall in A25 there are still generally strong and rather weak civs. Therefore i started a table to outline possible ways to give more individual character to each civ, which should make some historical sense and also take into account Balance by including targets of relative advantage compared to other civs for each phase.This is a work in progress and could be expanded and discussed, to eventually give an overview and provide a pool of ideas for future developement. I hope you find it somewhat useful and intresting.

Civ Differentiation.ods

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by MarcusAureliu#s

[LetswaveaBook]

@MarcusAureliu#s, could you convert it to PDF? 

 

Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.

[Grapjas]

22 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.

I kind of like the idea. More logical would be to do this for archers i think as they generally came in larger numbers than skirmishers. But gameplay wise i think doing it for skirmishers is better.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Grapjas

[MarcusAureliu#s]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

@MarcusAureliu#s, could you convert it to PDF? 

 

Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.

Unfortunately that messes up the layout, you should be able to open it with Excel/Open Office 

@LetswaveaBook I can upload it as a pic though

Edited January 23, 2022 by MarcusAureliu#s

[MarcusAureliu#s]

37 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

@MarcusAureliu#s, could you convert it to PDF? 

 

Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.

Actually i was thinking here on a more abstract skale, defining  targets for each civ, where they should become strong or weak compared to other civs, more then giving actual exact numbers. Specific values should follow after and will need to be defined in relation to other civs numbers.

 

[LetswaveaBook]

On 23/01/2022 at 10:57 PM, MarcusAureliu#s said:

Actually i was thinking here on a more abstract skale, defining  targets for each civ, where they should become strong or weak compared to other civs

I think that approach is a little to abstract. The methods first requires people to agree on how much bars a faction should get in one area. Once that is settled you need to create bonusses that are according to those bars. And people will disagree on whether a faction has enough bonusses to get as much power as the bars dictate.

[MarcusAureliu#s]

13 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think that approach is a little to abstract. The methods first requires people to agree on how much bars a faction should get in one area. Once that is settled you need to create bonusses that are according to those bars. And people will disagree on whether a faction has enough bonusses to get as much power as the bars dictate.

Yes, there will be discussions for sure. The point is though, that right now there is not even a rough balance inbetween civs.  For example Ptolemies have very good options in all phases, military as well as fast boom and no later eco disadvantages. Can you name a single aspect of the game, where seleucids are superior to ptolemies ? Maximum is heros with different abilities.  Also i have tried to characterize existing civs, so their actual advantages should be improved upon, others should be added, or nerved, so that if you compare two random civs there is at least room for argument which one is better in which situation or phase of a standard game. Paying more attention to the pure existence of relative balancing would improve the game a lot. Like for example the ideas of: Sparta: stronger units, but less pop space, Maury weaker units but more Pop space. Gauls better boom, less siege options. Alll those things will need to be expanded during civ differentiation and more of such differences should be added in order to differentiate. Therefore such graphs can be a guidline, on where these differences could be added, and a reminder to keep paying attention to having significant advantages for each civ in relation to other civs.  I think this is maybe not the AoE 2 approach of having just minor differences, but i think the game will be more fun and versatile

[LetswaveaBook]

@MarcusAureliu#s wanted Rome to have the best militairy. That would fit with this idea

Romans: Can open/close the doors of Janus in the temple. When closed the temple has no additional aura. When opened Infantry trains 20% faster and need -20% experience for promotion but they gather resources 20% slower.

 

On 23/01/2022 at 10:37 PM, Grapjas said:

On 23/01/2022 at 10:16 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.

I kind of like the idea. More logical would be to do this for archers i think as they generally came in larger numbers than skirmishers. But gameplay wise i think doing it for skirmishers is better.

Some searches on the internet seem to confirm that the Achaemenids indeed fielded more archers than skirmishers. However cheaper skirmishers does not mean that a player makes more skirmishers than archers. That decision is entirely to the player and players tend to chose for skirmishers.

 

Maybe I am ruining this tread with concrete suggestions. I think concrete suggestions are needed if you want to pick up some pace.

[MarcusAureliu#s]

Yeah, making concrete suggestions is ofc the next step, this table is just supposed to be a compass to doing exactly that

I would for example suggest that roman units have higher price, but better armour, especially champs. For example roman sword could cost 50food + 50 metal + 10 metal, but have also 10% armour increase. P3 eco techs could also give higher bonus, then for example p3 celt eco tech, who could get higher bonus in p1 eco tech. Just to give suggestion where i wanna go with this eventually

[JamesWright]

I think it would be interesting(even though it's probably not feasible), that since as we know the Roman economy boomed during war time, whereas outside of war time they racked up serious debt problems and slower economy. What if maybe based on soldier count the Roman eco benefits when there are more quantity of soldiers giving certain bonuses when above 60% compared to total population ratio of men to women and remains stable when its under say 60% compared to total population ratio of men to women. Then suffers when the percentage falls below a certain number (say 25%) compared to total population ratio of men to women. With maybe a 5 second reduction on tech research if the bonus is in effect, and maybe a couple seconds off of batch training time.

It also brings up the thought of a timer of last battle or fighting activity that helps that bonus.

As I said this timer idea doesn't seem too feasible in case of multiplayer especially, where unless you suicide a soldier or use rush strategy it doesn't really add to the gameplay, more to depth.

Just a thought towards the differentiation wouldn't mind hearing what y'all think of eco bonuses to Rome and civs in general in "wartime".

Edited January 29, 2022 by JamesWright