[Release] Public Battle Balancing (01/12/16)

[Charerg]

Well, previously you requested some feedback of testing the Olog-Hai as well as super heavy cav. So, I played a few test battles (Gondor vs Mordor):





Basically, I ended up losing both battles (it turns out that Mordor is "the power faction" right now, perhaps to be expected, since the metagame revolves around spamming masses of unarmoured troops, and that's something that Sauron's really good at).

So, a short summary:
- In the first game I tried an elite force, and well, you can see that it was a huge disaster. The Swan Knights failed to make a dent in the hordes of lowly armoured orcs with massive attack stats.
- On the other hand, the Servants of the Eye did pretty well in both battles, despite being against spearmen, so the issue may be that the Mordor infantry are just so much stronger than that of the other factions, rather than the cav being weak.
- The Olog Hai are extremely powerful. In this game, basically nothing could touch them, they simply tore through my lines with ease, routing everything.

- In the second game I played the same map against the same Mordor army, but this time using a more "meta game foce" (the militia/archer spam). As you can see, the battle was much more even (I still lost, but didn't get totally steamrolled like in the previous battle).
- I was able to somewhat better deal with the Olog Hai, focus firing with the Ithilien Rangers using Precision Shot (for +50% dmg, on top of the higher base damage of 5 the archers have) and Barrage. The standard 3 damage troops have a really minuscule chance of harming those brutes, atm probably the only thing that can stop them is focus fire with archers. Even so, it took a long time to kill them and they berserked through my lines doing quite a bit of damage. Not sure if they're OP, but they're definitely far stronger than other elite units like heavy cav. They are probably too cheap though, considering their power.
- The Uruk units are really strong! This probably stems from the fact that they have no armour (which is a huge disadvantage right now), but they are way more effective than any Gondorian infantry (or the Uruk Hai, for that matter). This probably explains why they were able to rip my Swan Knights to pieces very easily.

[Nikoline]

So sad we all think heavier armor units should have higher stats,but history shows the better skills,the better armor it deserves,right？？？！！！

[Charerg]

Edit:
The Stuff in Brackets is outdated and inaccurate information.

[Actually, I made a slight mistake in my previous post. I thought the high base damage of the archers would actually matter against the Olog Hai, but forgot that the damage is modified by armour value (assuming the mechanics work the same as in Warhammer, which is probably the case). So, as the non-ap damage is reduced by the armour value down to a minimum of 1 (read the article I linked for the specifics), and the Olog-Hai have armour value of 26, probably basically everything actually does exactly 1 damage per hit against them. And as the Olog Hai do 10 damage (of which 5 is AP), they do a minimum of 6 damage per hit (meaning that they kill everything in one hit, regardless of armour value).

Btw, this applies to archers too. Since basically all units have a greater than 0 armour value, the archers won't actually 1-hit kill anything. If you want that effect, I think you pretty much have to use a 1 hp-system like DeI or Ancient Empires. Actually, right now I suspect that basically the vast majority of attacks do exactly 1 damage, because they get reduced by the armour value (it's a random roll, basically 50-100% of the armour value is subtracted from the damage). So, if a militiaman with 3 attack attacks someone with 8 armour, the minimum "armour reduction" is 4 (50% of 8), meaning that the damage is always 1 (because the damage can't be reduced to 0). Likewise, if an archer with 5 damage attacks a militiaman with 8 armour, the damage will again be always reduced to 1. So, right now the damage value is probably largely a non-factor for both archers and standard infantry. This also explains why armour values greater than 8 have absolutely no effect on battlefield performance right now (as 8 is already enough to basically reduce all non-ap damage to 1). Basically, the only real advantage an elite unit has right now is increased morale. Otherwise they're inferior in every way to cheaper troops.]

Edit:
Although I think the Charge Bonus actually has an effect on damage, which may explain why my Berserkers were able to rack up the kills in my previous Isengard battle despite being really low in number. Though I'm not sure how much effect the charge bonus actually has.

Edit2;
Apparently the armour formula is slightly more complicated than what I mentioned. Here's the relevant post from the reddit thread I linked :

EDIT2: Thanks to /u/vitruviansquid for bringing armor to my attention. There is a value in the KV tables called armour_roll_lower_cap and it is set as a default to 0.5 You'd assume based on the tooltip that it implies the lowest percentage of max armor that can be rolled but this is not completely true.


When armour_roll_lower_cap is set to 0.99 or 1, a chaos lord with a 400 weapon damage 0 AP weapon hitting an empire general with 100 armor will always do 1-4 damage (where you would expect armor to roll 99-100 and reduce incoming damage by that much with every strike). The exact same thing happens when it is set to 0. Maybe there is an edge case catch there that makes 0 behave the same as 1. TLDR: Don't know what armour_roll_lower_cap does when it's set at extreme values. Have not tested it at 0.75 or 0.25.


At the default of setting of 0.5 and a 100 damage weapon with 0AP hitting 100 armor, the damage does indeed get hit for 1-50. However, there were exactly 2 times where I saw it do 53 and 58 damage which should be impossible as the maximum damage there should've been 50.

However, assuming you haven't modified the relevant value in the kv_ tables, then armour should reduce incoming damage by 50-100% of the total armour value, at least most of the time. Apparently the actual formula is more complicated (and probably only CA knows the exact formula, and they're unlikely to publish it), but I think this is a good enough approximation that it can be used as a basis for balancing.

Edit3:
I'm actually not 100% sure the "minimum damage 1" rule applies to Attila (this may be specific to TWW), at least this post by WalrusJones (the creator of TuskMod) suggests that in Attila the damage can actually be reduced to 0.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Wouldn't these battle results counter that argument that armour has 0 effect?
http://imgur.com/a/zD3MS
The Snaga have 23 Melee Attack, 5 Melee Defence and 3 Armour.
The Uruk-Hai Infantry have 12 Melee Attack, 5 Melee Defence and 10 Armour.

The Uruk-Hai won every battle because despite the Snaga's double melee attack, they had better armour. So surely if armour had no effect they'd have lost every battle?

[Charerg]

Wouldn't these battle results counter that argument that armour has 0 effect?
http://imgur.com/a/zD3MS
The Snaga have 23 Melee Attack, 5 Melee Defence and 3 Armour.
The Uruk-Hai Infantry have 12 Melee Attack, 5 Melee Defence and 10 Armour.

The Uruk-Hai won every battle because despite the Snaga's double melee attack, they had better armour. So surely if armour had no effect they'd have lost every battle?

Yes, it appears the formula works differently in Attila than in Warhammer (or rather, works differently if armour value is greater than incoming damage). Going by Walrus Jones' post, I think this is how the damage can be calculated (see his thread):

Calculating melee damage when you know your opponents armor score.
When soakable damage is higher then enemy armor:
Average damage on hit=AP+(Damage-(Armor/2))

When armor is higher then the amount soakable damage:
Average damage on hit=AP+((Damage/2)(Damage/Armor))
This formula is essentially: *"AP + Average Damage Score multiplied by the probability of the enemies armor not absorbing 100% of your damage."
To get your real average damage for every swing, you will need to know accuracy accuracy as well... But solving it from here is easy.
Average damage per attack=Average damage per hit*Accuracy
Now. Things such as bonus versus, and charge bonus will likely increase both accuracy, and damage per swing, and thus, grossly inflate the average damage output of a unit...

So, in this case I guess the average damage should be as follows:

Snaga damage on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/10 armour)=0.45 dmg per hit
Uruk Hai damage on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/3 armour)=1.5 dmg per hit

So, in short, it does appear that the *other formula* only applies in situation where the amount of soakable (non-ap) damage is greater than the armour value.

Edit:
Comparing the effect of armour values of Gondor Sword Militia and Sword Infantry:

Militia received damage in melee on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/8 armour)= 0.56 dmg per hit
Infantry received damage in melee on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/12 armour)=0.375 dmg per hit

And against archery:

Militia: (5 dmg/2)*(5 dmg/8 armour)=1.56 dmg per hit
Infantry: (5 dmg/2)*(5 dmg/12 armour)=1.04 dmg per hit

I guess the main thing to take home from this is that the "one hit kills" you were aiming for (if I understood you correctly) are not actually happening with the current system. Indeed, it seems that you really need to use a 1 HP system if you wish to include that effect, or just decide to scrap the "1-hit kill concept" if you wish to use a multi-hp system.

Edit2:
Then again, Walrus Jones also states the following in his thread:

Armor
Armor blocks a random value from 0-Armor score in damage, as is evidenced in the functioning of 1HP mods: A 20 damage attack has a 50% of killing a 40 armor unit at 1HP.

However, if you actually calculate the damage in this case using his formula you get this result:

Average dmg=(20 dmg/2)*(20 dmg/40 armour)=5

Which would imply that the attack should do 5 damage on average (in other words, always 1-hit kill a single hp unit). So, perhaps these average damage calculations are not that accurate.

Edit3:
Actually, the formula is accurate, it's just that it doesn't really apply to 1 hp situations. With a 1 HP system, the only relevant calculation is this, as it determines whether all the damage will be absorbed by the armour:

Average damage on hit=AP+((Damage/2)(Damage/Armor)).

So, yeah, the average damage calculations in this post should represent what is actually happening in-game.

[Alkar]

The whole point of 5HP system was so arrows always get kills on each volley, rather than just degrading the units armour.
Also, there is a special ability that allows units to replenish their ammunition when they run out, I think they walk slower whilst doing it and it takes a few minutes. I could give that to units I guess, with harsher restrictions to it.

What do you think of the "Focus Fire" ability missile troops have that allows them to bombard on a specific area?

So with this system there is absolutely no armor at all? I love the idea of ammo replenishment and the "Focus Fire" ability. Let me clarify a few things about the crossbow, longbow, and shortbow, I feel like my previous post could have been confusing.

Longbow:

More expensive units.
More turns to recruit.
Quicker exhaustion firing them.
High armor piercing.
Medium range.
High accuracy at short range.
Medium accuracy at medium range.

Crossbow:

Cheap units.
Few turns to recruit.
Almost no exhaustion firing them.
Extreme range.
High accuracy at short range.
Medium accuracy at medium range.
Low accuracy at long range.

Short bow:

Less expensive than longbow, unless on horseback (lots of training needed).
Fewer turns to recruit than longbow, unless on horseback (lots of training needed).
Less exhaustion than longbow.
Less armor piercing than longbow.
Short range.
High accuracy at short range.



The spread is measured as degrees over distance right? So if the range is 50 meters with 1 degree spread, then the arrow will deviate from its path by 50 degrees? Just what makes sense, I have no idea what it is in-game.

[♔atthias♔]

Yes, it appears the formula works differently in Attila than in Warhammer (or rather, works differently if armour value is greater than incoming damage). Going by Walrus Jones' post, I think this is how the damage can be calculated (see his thread):



So, in this case I guess the average damage should be as follows:

Snaga damage on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/10 armour)=0.45 dmg per hit
Uruk Hai damage on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/3 armour)=1.5 dmg per hit

So, in short, it does appear that the *other formula* only applies in situtation where the amount of soakable (non-ap) damage is greater than the armour value.

Edit:
Comparing the effect of armour values of Gondor Sword Militia and Sword Infantry:

Militia received damage in melee on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/8 armour)= 0.56 dmg per hit
Infantry received damage in melee on average: (3 dmg/2)*(3 dmg/12 armour)=0.375 dmg per hit

And against archery:

Militia: (5 dmg/2)*(5 dmg/8 armour)=1.56 dmg per hit
Infantry: (5 dmg/2)*(5 dmg/12 armour)=1.04 dmg per hit

I guess the main thing to take home from this is that the "one hit kills" you were aiming for (if I understood you correctly) are not actually happening with the current system. Indeed, it seems that you really need to use a 1 HP system if you wish to include that effect, or just decide to scrap the "1-hit kill concept" if you wish to use a multi-hp system.

Edit2:
Then again, Walrus Jones also states the following in his thread:



However, if you actually calculate the damage in this case using his formula you get this result:

Average dmg=(20 dmg/2)*(20 dmg/40 armour)=5

Which would imply that the attack should do 5 damage on average (in other words, always 1-hit kill a single hp unit). So, perhaps these average damage calculations are not that accurate.

Edit3:
Actually, the formula is accurate, it's just that it doesn't really apply to 1 hp situations. With a 1 HP system, the only relevant calculation is this, as it determines whether all the damage will be absorbed by the armour:

Average damage on hit=AP+((Damage/2)(Damage/Armor)).

So, yeah, the average damage calculations in this post should represent what is actually happening in-game.

just a word of warning it is confrimed by CA that the armour fomule has changed for warhammer so dont apply that to ATW
I see that you already found it out but just in case

[Charerg]

just a word of warning it is confrimed by CA that the armour fomule has changed for warhammer so dont apply that to ATW
I see that you already found it out but just in case

Yeah, it might be best to make a few "test units" to make sure that these formulas are actually applicable to Attila. Say, make a few single model units (or as few models as possible) to test out if the 5 dmg/5 hp combo actually results in the "1-hit kill effect". Set the melee defence to 0 and melee attack to something really high, to make sure every blow hits, and then make a few variations with different armour values. Though I guess it may be hard to tell whether the blow does just hp damage or is completely blocked by the armour. Maybe try 50 hp, 50 damage (likewise multiply the armour values).

Or alternatively just keep using the tried and true "trial and error" method, since I guess detailed knowledge of the system is not absolutely necessary to create a working battle balance.

Edit:
I ended up playing a little test battle. Bardings vs Berserkers (the 'zerkers have 5 armour and 5 hp, the Bardings have the usual 5 missile damage):

So, first volley didn't cause any casualties (this would suggest that the 1-hit kills aren't happening):


2nd volley dropped 4 Uruks:


3rd volley dropped 8 Uruks:


4th volley dropped 15 Uruks:


5th volley dropped 17 Uruks:


At this point they made it into melee with the Bardings, but they got their hoary arses kicked anyway (the Berserkers are really weak unless they actually go berserk). The AI also decided to try and disengage at one point, and got a few volleys into the back (for that reason the arrows of the Bardings are further reduced):


I'm not sure if the accuracy of the archers scales with closer range (I would assume so), but at least this test would suggest that the damage does get reduced by the armour to something below 5, and the hp gets gradually whittled down. It's not necessarily a problem unless the team really wants to implement the "1-hit kill concept" (which seems to require the use of a single hit point system), but it's good to be aware off.

[Charerg]

Since that previous post of mine is pretty long already, I'll just make a double-post here, so it's easier for people to keep track of things. So, I played another test battle, this time in order to test the pike units (Vineland Watchmen):



In short, I basically noob boxed. This wouldn't probably have worked so well if Mordor had some Olog Hai and archers, but the pikes did hold really well against the Orc Infantry (those being probably some of the most effective infantry in the game right now). So the pikemen seem to function pretty well.

Interestingly, in this battle the opening volley of the Bardings did actually drop one Orc. Not sure if this means the 5 hp system is actually working as intended (is it possible for a single entity to receive multiple hits from a single volley?). Also, I think the AI (being it's usual genius self) ran the Orcs over some caltrops/sharp rocks they had set up while they were being hit, so this may have had an effect as well.

[Alkar]

Yeah, it might be best to make a few "test units" to make sure that these formulas are actually applicable to Attila. Say, make a few single model units (or as few models as possible) to test out if the 5 dmg/5 hp combo actually results in the "1-hit kill effect". Set the melee defence to 0 and melee attack to something really high, to make sure every blow hits, and then make a few variations with different armour values. Though I guess it may be hard to tell whether the blow does just hp damage or is completely blocked by the armour. Maybe try 50 hp, 50 damage (likewise multiply the armour values).

Or alternatively just keep using the tried and true "trial and error" method, since I guess detailed knowledge of the system is not absolutely necessary to create a working battle balance.

Edit:
I ended up playing a little test battle. Bardings vs Berserkers (the 'zerkers have 5 armour and 5 hp, the Bardings have the usual 5 missile damage):

So, first volley didn't cause any casualties (this would suggest that the 1-hit kills aren't happening):


2nd volley dropped 4 Uruks:


3rd volley dropped 8 Uruks:


4th volley dropped 15 Uruks:


5th volley dropped 17 Uruks:


At this point they made it into melee with the Bardings, but they got their hoary arses kicked anyway (the Berserkers are really weak unless they actually go berserk). The AI also decided to try and disengage at one point, and got a few volleys into the back (for that reason the arrows of the Bardings are further reduced):


I'm not sure if the accuracy of the archers scales with closer range (I would assume so), but at least this test would suggest that the damage does get reduced by the armour to something below 5, and the hp gets gradually whittled down. It's not necessarily a problem unless the team really wants to implement the "1-hit kill concept" (which seems to require the use of a single hit point system), but it's good to be aware off.

If the system wanted insta-kills, why put armor in there at all? That's what I was assuming when I heard one-hit kill. This scenario you described above sounds far more accurate to me, as armor should save units from insta-death.

[MOS-Lukas-Dwarf]

Alkar... longbows should always go farther then crossbows, look at history lol, the problem is crossbows need a very long reload rate, and longbows a faster one, with the archery atleast... short bows need to be the weakest, no idea why you think crossbows would be better, they're the creme of the crop of a medieval armies in our history and lotr, the french fielded hundreds of them to get them ruined by english longbows who outdistanced them...

Anyway...

Also the only crossbow units are isengards, and theyre elite and armoured sooo doesnt really work how you suggested unfortunately, they need to be better than shortbows but not longbows, AP at close range. Possibly longbows also at such close ranges. Agree with the other parts however

I personally think armoured units need a nerf in speed, this would pace down the battles slightly so lightier tier troops can run to position and move faster, while clunking fountain guard should get there slower to compensate for the fact that theyre tough in formation compared to the militia (when theyre buffed)

Anyway theres my 2 cents Caligula, great start on it however!

[Alkar]

Alkar... longbows should always go farther then crossbows, look at history lol, the problem is crossbows need a very long reload rate, and longbows a faster one, with the archery atleast... short bows need to be the weakest, no idea why you think crossbows would be better, they're the creme of the crop of a medieval armies in our history and lotr, the french fielded hundreds of them to get them ruined by english longbows who outdistanced them...

Anyway...

Also the only crossbow units are isengards, and theyre elite and armoured sooo doesnt really work how you suggested unfortunately, they need to be better than shortbows but not longbows, AP at close range. Possibly longbows also at such close ranges. Agree with the other parts however

I personally think armoured units need a nerf in speed, this would pace down the battles slightly so lightier tier troops can run to position and move faster, while clunking fountain guard should get there slower to compensate for the fact that theyre tough in formation compared to the militia (when theyre buffed)

Anyway theres my 2 cents Caligula, great start on it however!

I never said crossbows were better, I just listed relative strengths and weaknesses. The "loser" in the list is apparently the shortbow, though I wouldn't call it that. Just like the crossbow and longbow both have strengths and weaknesses, the shortbow also has strengths. Namely, that they can be easier fired from a horse. Think of the archers of Morthond as they shot at the eyes of the Mumakil with shortbows. Eastern shortbows were also composite, meaning that they gained added power and could better compete with longer bows. About the crossbows, it depends on what period we are talking about. Later-period crossbows definitely out-ranged longbows, and they certainly do today.

[SmithErik]

Hello, how I normally play mods is put all the .pack files into data folder, then double click on mod manager tick the ones i want, and wallah!

However, this time when i double clicked on mod manager it says this.

PLEASE HELP ME SO I CAN HELP YOU!

*I cannot use the steam mod system, how you suggested.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Hello

No idea what you did wrong lols. Try posting it on the PFM forum.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tring-handling or http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...hammer-support

[Don Juan_de_Austria]

I did just one battle Gondor vs Mordor, hadn´t more time yet.

As nearly everyone posted that bows are too strong I gave Mordor only Orc rabble Bowmen and Uruk Archers. I fielded every single unit the Gondor-roster has to offer yet and stood in his range till his ammo went out.

Things I noticed:

- I don´t think that bowmen (at least the Mordor ones) are too strong. Maybe after a real battle I will change this thought but at the moment I hink they are just right. I mean, I stood in their fire range till they had no ammo left, and this was the result:




As you can see the archers didn´t killed too many (his and mine). Don´t get fooled by the archers who have over 20 kills, they all engaged in melee for that score...

- I agree that Fountain Guards need to be buffed. They lost around 10 men due to archer fire but when they were engaged they were decimated down to 22 men! (although they killed a good amount of them) Frontal attack by archers on a pike-wall! (Attila-engine is sh* for pike walls, Rome and Medieval II where much better in that regard) While Guards of the Starcity only went down to 40 men, after smth araound 10 causalities due to archer fire.

- Why does Gondor Archers have a Pikewall formation? Also I only saw the captain of them, the rest of the unit was invisible.
-Anfalas Patrollers have a horse neck on their unitcard, but on battlemap they are footskirmishers. Just a little error of the public Battle-version?

- About UI: I LOVE IT!!! (and ofc the qoutes on the loading screen)

[Charerg]

I did just one battle Gondor vs Mordor, hadn´t more time yet.

As nearly everyone posted that bows are too strong I gave Mordor only Orc rabble Bowmen and Uruk Archers. I fielded every single unit the Gondor-roster has to offer yet and stood in his range till his ammo went out.

Things I noticed:

- I don´t think that bowmen (at least the Mordor ones) are too strong. Maybe after a real battle I will change this thought but at the moment I hink they are just right. I mean, I stood in their fire range till they had no ammo left, and this was the result:

/snip

You may have a point there. When people commented about archers, they were mostly referring to units like Uruk Hai heavy infantry and other high tier troops suffering heavily against masses of cheap low-tier archers. The real issue may be that the armour values were just too low, which (when combined with no missile block) resulted in these units simply not just performing as well as excepted. However, it's still weird that the casualties are that low, I've seen even the weakest archers easily rack up 100+ or even 200+ if they're left undisturbed. Did they shoot at you from max range with all your units deployed in loose formation or something?

Also, note that with the current system, HP damage is probably a factor as well. Even if they don't get many kills, the HP damage the archers cause can be really decisive when it comes to melee (note how earlier my Bardings were able to rout the Berserkers with only minor losses).

[Commissar Caligula_]

- Why does Gondor Archers have a Pikewall formation? Also I only saw the captain of them, the rest of the unit was invisible.
-Anfalas Patrollers have a horse neck on their unitcard, but on battlemap they are footskirmishers. Just a little error of the public Battle-version?

- About UI: I LOVE IT!!! (and ofc the qoutes on the loading screen)

- You know you can take screenshots via F12 (if playing the game via Steam), or just normal Print Screen button? Then upload the image to www.imgur.com, or just direct to these forums.
- Damn I was sure I'd fixed Gondor Archers having pike wall. Also, no idea why they're invisible. Try zooming in, it might just be because they don't have imposter models and are thus invisible when being viewed from a distance.
- Anfalas Patrollers were originally going to be horse skirmishers, but have been changed to just normal foot skirmishers. The unit card hasn't been updated to reflect that yet.
- I'll pass on the praise for the UI.

I feel like a lot of the gameplay is situational. If you're lucky and use units a particular way they can be incredibly effective and appear as OP, whereas other times they just don't really live up to expectations. A few things definitely are broken,

Tomorrow I'll start work on fixing all the issues addressed so far, and get an update out in maybe 16 to 24 hours, depending how I go.

[Don Juan_de_Austria]

At first I stood max range, but after the first two volleys I moved 3/4 range of them. My soldiers where in normal lines, no special formations (pikes where in pikewall but I don´t think this count) on open field, my bows where a little bit in woody terrain.

I will retry the same constelation later and move closer. Maybe the result will change.^^

@ Caligula

I zoomed in to the Archers, there was only the captain. And when cliking the unit a lot of yellow triangles.

[Charerg]

At first I stood max range, but after the first two volleys I moved 3/4 range of them. My soldiers where in normal lines, no special formations (pikes where in pikewall but I don´t think this count) on open field, my bows where a little bit in woody terrain.

I will retry the same constelation later and move closer. Maybe the result will change.^^

Also, looking at the army sizes, I think you play at much smaller unit sizes. So I guess you have like 100 Orcs per unit (or less in the case of archers), rather than the 200 I have. I'm not sure if this effects the performance of the different units, but it definitely partly explains the low kills.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

Posted this TW:ROM alpha testing to TWC Facebook.