Balancing Thread

[Roman_Man#3]

So, with DVK's assistance, I will try and do my best at balancing. So, pretty much, what I'm trying to say is, give me some time to get things worked out in my head, and when someone posts anything about a unit being unbalanced and what not, please, post it in this thread. I will create a thread in the regular forum to get peoples feedback on balancing, but I am sure people will voice their opinions other places, and I really won't be able to find them. I will create a couple more posts for placeholders, and if I don't need them, I will delete them.

[Roman_Man#3]

So, a battle system. I will collect data, and try to get a method of doing this quickly and efficiently, but most of all well.

[Roman_Man#3]

Placeholder

[tone]

Worth while reading this too. I like the sound of what this guy is talking about although we need to apply this sort of thinking not too rigidly. Maybe cut out the 2 hit points idea, but a lot of the rest makes sense.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94769

Anyone able to work on formations? and are you going to work on the other stuff in the EDU like unit sizes, spacing and so on?

[cherryfunk]

I agree with what that guy says in the thread tone posted.

In fact, I think 2 hit points might be a good idea as well. I like the time that it gives you to use real tactics. It's much more realistic. MUCH more realistic.

A quick example from history, Caesar's battle at Munda vs. the son of Pompey.

After an unsuccessful ploy designed to lure the Pompeians down the hill, Caesar ordered a frontal attack (with the watchword "Venus", the goddess reputed to be his ancestor).

The fighting lasted for some time without a clear advantage for either side, causing the generals to leave their commanding positions and join the ranks. As Caesar himself later said he had fought many times for victory, but at Munda he had to fight for his life. Caesar took command of his right wing, where his favorite X Equestris was involved in heavy fighting. With Caesar’s inspiration the tenth legion began to push back Pompeius forces. Cognizant of the danger, Gnaeus Pompeius removed a legion from his own right wing to reinforce the threatened left wing. However, as soon as the Pompeian right wing was thus weakened, Caesar's cavalry launched a decisive attack which turned the course of the battle.

The fight was a direct, heads-on assault, and took a considerable period of time -- hours, possibly. A fast battle-speed in RTW makes it impossible to do such maneuvers as disengage an entire legion from one wing, transfer it to another and re-commit it to battle -- but that's the sort of tactic that was actually used in these large scale battles.

Or another example, Caesar vs. the Nervii at the river Sabis. In this fight, Caesar's left wing legions pushed the Belgae all the way back to their camp, but his right wing became surrounded and was on the verge of succumbing. His left wing legions were turned around, marched back to the battle, and charged into the Nervii rear. Again, the only way to enable such maneuvers is to give the units enough durability to let them hack away toe-to-toe for some time.

[dvk901]

I fail to see how it is 'realistic' to watch a battle where a heavily armored warrior strikes a nearly naked one and it has no effect. Or how it is 'realistic' to observe soldiers fighting and virtually nothing happening for a considerable time because of this '2 hitpoint' thing. I find it the most patently gamey and UN-realistic thing I've ever seen!!

[Lost In Transition]

I fail to see how it is 'realistic' to watch a battle where a heavily armored warrior strikes a nearly naked one and it has no effect. Or how it is 'realistic' to observe soldiers fighting and virtually nothing happening for a considerable time because of this '2 hitpoint' thing. I find it the most patently gamey and UN-realistic thing I've ever seen!!

Several months ago I did a personal mod of RTR's Macedonian faction. In the mod I gave two hit points two my already heavily armored Companion Cavalry and elite armored units (to my credit, I cut the unit numbers down by 25 to 33%). I changed nothing else.

What I discovered was that my cavalry was invincible. The armored units were much tougher, too, althought they lost more men than the cavalry (which was a result of the unit stats).

Another indirect impact on the game is that units with 2 hit points get experience much faster - experience is awarded, I believe, based on the number of men a unit kills and these units killed a lot of men (because they didn't loose men, they had more kill power longer).

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that two hit points should be used very sparingly. Many mods give the Spartans two hit points and, in doing so, they become super-warriors. I agree with DVK - it's better to give an unarmored unit a higher experience or skill setting than to simply give them 2 hit points.

Just my opinion.

[cherryfunk]

I understand your concern dvk, but RTW isn't an arcade game, it's a wargame -- a big, sweeping, strategic, empire-building wargame. Everything in the game is an abstract representation of reality. That single heavily armored warrior on your screen isn't one man; he's representing many heavily armored warriors in the game's 'reality'. I don't see the point in taking the little animations as literal truth, when everything else in the game is an abstract approximation.

I'm not saying using 2 hp is the only, or the best way to do this. But these battles need to take enough time to allow the player to use the real tactics of the period -- otherwise, you're sacrificing the big picture -- tactics, mobility, strategic choices -- for the sake of little arcade battles. You're napalming the forest for the sake of the grass.

[dvk901]

I understand your concern dvk, but RTW isn't an arcade game, it's a wargame -- a big, sweeping, strategic, empire-building wargame. Everything in the game is an abstract representation of reality. That single heavily armored warrior on your screen isn't one man; he's representing many heavily armored warriors in the game's 'reality'. I don't see the point in taking the little animations as literal truth, when everything else in the game is an abstract approximation.

I'm not saying using 2 hp is the only, or the best way to do this. But these battles need to take enough time to allow the player to use the real tactics of the period -- otherwise, you're sacrificing the big picture -- tactics, mobility, strategic choices -- for the sake of little arcade battles. You're napalming the forest for the sake of the grass.

I understand what you're saying completely, but I'm absolutely convinced that we are a long way towards creating battles that are more realistic given the way various nations and warriors fought, based on their strengths and weaknesses. But I have seen the results of the 2 hit point system, and I get nauseated watching how stupid it looks. Sure, it makes battles last longer, but it does so in an unrealistic way.

Oh, and by the way 'Roman'.....this will be a heated subject, so have a thick skin.

[rory o'kane]

i HATE the idea of 2HP. i really do. perhaps it'd be better not to make too many fundamental changes to the game mechanics, but instead it'd be better to focus on getting the mod to a releasable state?

[tone]

I'm not necessarily suggesting a 2 HP system, but it would be worthwhile investigating the whole lethality thing.

[cherryfunk]

i HATE the idea of 2HP. i really do.

I'm still ambivalent about it, but I have been playing some SPQR lately and I have to say the battles are impressive -- your Romans are outnumbered by screaming Gauls/Germans, the battle lines lock, and for some minutes you're almost convinced that they're going to swarm over you and break your line -- then one of their units, taking too much damage, starts to rout, and the panic spreads, and suddenly the whole barbarian line is fleeing in panic. The pacing feels great, and I've had more suspenseful 'how the crap can I win this one?' battles in SPQR than I think any other mod I've played. I'm not saying that 2 HP is the way to achieve this, but it is a very nerve-wracking battle system, and nerve-wracking is good

But I have seen the results of the 2 hit point system, and I get nauseated watching how stupid it looks. Sure, it makes battles last longer, but it does so in an unrealistic way.

Wait, are you suggesting that LT took a lazy shortcut to get his desired effect? If there's another way to do it, maybe by reducing lethality as suggested in the thread tone linked to, or increasing armor across the board, I'm all for it.

But in general, battles should take enough time that units can be moved across the battlefield once the opposing lines have joined, in the type of tactical maneuvers that really did occur historically.

[cherryfunk]

Well, if you give them ALL 2 hit-points, it balances out, which is what LT did with SPQR...

[Lost In Transition]

Well, if you give them ALL 2 hit-points, it balances out, which is what LT did with SPQR...

This may be a stupid question and I apologize if it is:

What is the real benefit of longer battles? I've not played SPQR (primarily because there is a limited number of hours a day that I have to play games), so I can't speak to the issue how that mod plays. Is it just the strategic advantage Cherry mentions? Or is it merely gameplay enjoyment? Also, do units get experience faster if on the battlefield longer (because battles take more time)?

[Edited] Cherry: I do understand you point about needing time to manuever and counterattack. It seems to me that what you're suggesting will make battles last much longer. Is that you forsee?

I may be different from others, but I get about an hour or two a day - at best - to play RS or whatever. In the current version of the mod, a battle (a seige, for example) can take as long as forty-five minutes or an hour. Combine that by three or four stacks and a single turn can take almost two hours. Ergo, there are times when I get through one turn a day. That translates into a lot of time to complete a campaign. Even now, I end up fighting battles on double or triple speed to keep the pace moving along.

If, as Cherry suggests, we reduce unit lethality while increasing durability across the board, then battles will simply take a long time to fight (see e.g. RTR's Macedonian faction fighting Greeks - phalanx to phalanx fights can go on forever). And that's okay, if to take Sparta I only have to fight one stack as opposed to three or four or eight (as I might in RS).

I think at some level the game becomes unplayable by anyone except retired people, unemployed people, or students - anyone who has four or five or more hours a day to whittle away playing a game.

This would be a consideration for me. Maybe not the primary consideration or even a major one, but it would be a consideration that I wouldn't simply dismiss away.

[cherryfunk]

Have you played SPQR, Lost? It's hard to explain, you really have to try it, and see what you think. Battles play out differently, and there's more time to maneuver once the lines have joined. Units take awhile to 'crack'.

[dvk901]

At one point, early on in RS1's history, while I was doing a ton of battle tests, I discovered that the sword hoplites were 'inordinately' powerful, and I couldn't explain it. I played with their stats, I set them up or down, I gave them more or less men, and still...one unit of them could nearly wipe out my whole army and I just could not stop them. That's when I noticed that they had 2 hit points....which I had only previously seen applied to Spartans.

Now here's the point of this.....fighting these units did not in any way represent realism. Would making all MY units the same help this lack of realistic look? I don't see how, since then, ALL of them just would not die.

I guess people play battles differently....I know there are some people who never zoom in on their units and simply fight the 'overall' picture from above. I happen to be one that does both, and in testing...you really HAVE to do both to make sure animations are working right, weapons are correct and used properly, etc......and it's when you move in close and watch the one-on-one stuff that you notice how badly 2 hit points affects the reality of what's going on.

And Cherry...yes, as much respect as I've had for LT, I do think that giving all units 2 hit points is a 'gimmick' to make battles longer. In fact, I lost a lot of 'admiration', shall we say, for his stats when I realized that his Romans were totally stacked and loaded for bear against all the other units in the game. His Hastati are statistically equal to a Greek Royal Pikeman, and virtually the ONLY advantage the Barbs have against the Romans are their numbers.

When I started looking closer at this, I decided this was not only very slanted, but also did nothing statistically to try and represent the strengths and weaknesses of each culture's warriors.

[Roman_Man#3]

Some good points. Cherry had me pretty sold on the 2hp, but in the end, I guess I have to listen to DVK. I could, for the sake of something, just have two different EDUs, one with 1hp and the other with 2.

[cherryfunk]

Well if we can achieve the slower battles without using 2hp, that's fine. Let's see what we can do. If it still feels kinda fast, we can always offer a 2hp version for the 'true' fans of history like myself

[Roman_Man#3]

Well, if the lethality is brought down, then the battles would be slower. But we need to get a time frame I should aim every battle to be. 30-40 minutes?

[Lost In Transition]

Well, if the lethality is brought down, then the battles would be slower.

True, but how is that different from raising the hit points to 2 - other than being capable of a more delicate and therefore a lower adjustment? Raising the hit points to 2 means it takes more time to kill a unit. Lowering the lethality of a weapon means it takes more time to kill a unit. The only difference is that rasing the hit points relates to Unit A's defense and the lowering lethality relates to how long it takes Unit B to kill unit A.

Is there a way to slow battles down with out adjusting kill factors such as these? Can we literally "slow" the unit speed down? Because I to tend to agree with Cherry, but I think the real issue is time and/or distance.

Consider Cherry's original point about the Battle of Sabis as an example:

Roman legions are fighting in two different places. One legion is winning its battle one a hill. The other legion is losing its battle at the bridge.

Now, if we raise the hit points, or simply make an across the board adjustment in how long it takes one unit to kill another, then situation doesn't change because any uniform adjustment will effect both legions. A change in "killability" will only make the battle take longer. In other words, fast or slow, the legion at the bridge won't be reinforced because it will take the same ratio of time for Legion 1 to win its battle. You have to have and adjustment that effects one and not the other.

Other than giving the player more time to think (and isn't that what pause is for), what does this time of change accomplish?

My point is: how do you achieve the Battle of Sabis result by altering unit stats? It seems to me the only way to achieve this effect in the game would be to increase the size of the battle map and/or the number of men and/or armies that can appear on the field. I respectfully suggest, Cherry, that what you're really looking for is distance between units, not an increased or decreased kill factor.

One of the key features of this game, the thing that makes it totaly unique, is the number of armies, stacks, a player has to fight to take a territory. This, in my opinion, is what makes this mod brilliant. This is the only mod I've played where the AI attacked one of my armies - during the AI turn - five or six times. Changing the kill factor to make battles last longer than a half hour (and many of mine already last that long) defeats the purpose of this effect.