Quaillity versus Quantity

[DeliCiousTZM]

Quaillity versus Quantity

Dwarfs/Elfs lorewise alot more scarce then men and orcs. Also stronger then Men and orcs living longer and such and such, But in TATW we get more or less as many dwarfs and elfs as we get any man faction.

Most of us dont mind having less units as long as they make up for it in Quaillity. Some say making smaller groups is the solution make the groups smaller but i kinda like how their setup now with large groups.

Question is smaller squads or units that cost more?

by increasing price we would keep the squads as they are groups on 120-150 soldiers but they now cost more and thus makes them harder to mass. This could affect balance so slight buffs added to Dwarfs and elfs. to even it out and give them more of an Elf/Dwarven feeling to it.

Having smaller Squads thou would mean a decrease in cost so instead of spamming groups of 120-150 soldeirs you would now spam groups of 60-75 units. Which would just get seriously annoying and actually make you feel like more of a masser rather then less.

Editont offer RR/RC as a solution.
Now Pros and cons people.

[Swanny777]

Try RR/RC.

The Sub Mod makes it so that you get a few units of 80-100 guys that can be recruited every 9 turns as the elves and dwarves. It over-compensates, in my opinion, but it does what you are looking for.

[Mune]

Good question, and one that comes up here and there in various threads (at least a dozen times in the RR/RC thread).

My preference would be to find a balance between these two options, which seems to be the route that the developers have taken anyway. For example, an elven squad (single unit of soldiers) is more expensive, smaller, and has better stats than a same-tier unit of orcs.

Of course, as you mention, this could be taken to a further extreme by increasing the elven units cost (particularly upkeep) or reducing the number of men in each unit. Balanced of course by increasing the number of men per unit to some standard (if upkeep was increased) or reducing the cost of each unit to some standard (if the number of men per unit was decreased). There are slight differences between these two options, but really rather minimal if balanced properly. If you'd prefer to have some standard measurement (be it unit cost or unit size) between all the factions, then I can understand having a preference one way or the other, but the end result should be about the same.

I guess it just comes down to this question: Do you want a full stack of elves to be equal in strength and cost to a full stack of orcs (with the orcs having a higher number of men per unit)? Or would you rather that it takes multiple stacks of orcs to take down one full stack of elves (with the elven stack costing as much as the multiple orc stacks)?

As mentioned, I prefer to have a balance between these two options. As in, have a full stack of elves be roughly equal in cost to one and a half stacks of orcs, with both about equal strength to eachother and with twice as many men total in the orc army. Human races would fit roughly halfway between these two examples. These are just rough estimates of course, and depends on the quality (tier) of units in the stack. I'd say that this more or less describes the system already in place, or was at least the intention.

Oh, and feel free to replace the word 'Elves' with 'Dwarves' in my above reasoning, I just didn't want to write 'Elves and Dwarves' every time.

And again, good question, this topic is one which is oft debated, with great gusto in some cases. I haven't seen a thread devoted entirely to this question until now, so it will be interesting to see everyones opinions in one organised place. Maybe make it a poll?

[DeliCiousTZM]

Very intellecual and wise said Mune + rep. And to further describe it for you Elf/Dwarfs Better then their respectivly tier counterparts but with a real juicy cost. Decreasing the units per squad is unecescery when you can juice up the costs. i made some tests on this with DeliCious This is what we did

We took dwarfs we gave all the dwarfs 2 HP we juiced the price up alot. All dwaven units cost over 1k to recruit and over 200 in upkeep. The Iron Guard cost 3500 to recruit and 650 in upkeep but was monsters with 14 attack and over 30 in defence with 2 hp as all other dwarven units now had.

Playing as Rhun the dwarfs came at North Rhun but instead of coming with big armies they now came down with 3-5 squads. Killing theese dwarfs was very fun not as hard as i would have thought seeming as all their units had 2hp.

The Same thing was done for the elfs, again with the same success Limiting how big armies they could field through cost and upkeep and improving them slightly as was done with the dwarfs. What was realy cool thou was that Early,Mid,Late game became very see through A late game unit could typicaly kill 1.5-2 mid game units. and 2-4 Early game units. Then again 4 early game units was cheaper then 1 late as its supposed to be.

[johannlo]

MOnetary like above poster suggests just try RR+RC (I also think its overdone).

Elven light archers now cost 1200. Upkeep for elven cav is 540 and cost is over 3k and no they don't have 2HP lol. And they have a 9 turn recruitment replenishment (which is stupid overkill).

IMHO the 'right' balance would be say using elven light archers as example

vanilla - 600 cost, 3 turn replenish
RR+RC - 1200 cost, 9 turn replenish, boosted stats, smaller unit size
my balance - 800 cost, 4 turn replenish, slightly boosted stats, same unit size

$$$ should be used as balancing factor not bloody 9 turn recruitment limits, its called total war and I want TOTAL WAR

[DeliCiousTZM]

MOnetary like above poster suggests just try RR+RC (I also think its overdone).

Elven light archers now cost 1200. Upkeep for elven cav is 540 and cost is over 3k and no they don't have 2HP lol. And they have a 9 turn recruitment replenishment (which is stupid overkill).

IMHO the 'right' balance would be say using elven light archers as example

vanilla - 600 cost, 3 turn replenish
RR+RC - 1200 cost, 9 turn replenish, boosted stats, smaller unit size
my balance - 800 cost, 4 turn replenish, slightly boosted stats, same unit size

$$$ should be used as balancing factor not bloody 9 turn recruitment limits, its called total war and I want TOTAL WAR

i Already played RR/RC its harder but not better to make units scarce by limiting the numbers you can recruit is nothing but annoying. Limiting the numbers of units you can have by income is much better simplier and more fun. TOTAL WAR you should be able to have units i want big battles i just wanna pay for it

I Dont like RR/RC because of the recruitment caps i didn't approve on it when it came for SS and not now either, Makes it harder yes i agree but it also takes some fun out of it.

ps: i still dnt know what RR/RC is, probably a mod to balance units lore wise, but w/e.

personally, i think that the game in latest patch has achieved a well put balance. elves are not overpowered, but theyre more expensive and less numerous than, say, a gondorian army of similar cost.

though we could also base your logic on the fact of smaller unit groups, but with much more increased skill. ergo, the "basic" elven units would be the equal of a good unit of other factions, but with smaller numbers, while the elite elven units (mithlond mariners, Eldar archers/swordsmen) would retain their number of units, but would be monsters in close combat or archery.

so, as you can see, the best choice is the balance struck by the mod.

you suggest making the squads smaller having a smaller elven group with higher skill but with that in minds you would still have to mass out groups wouldn't you ? if you half the numbers you have recruit double the units When a Snaga comes with 250 and the elfs are a group of 60 + The fact that snagas are cheaper so you get 500 snagas vs 60 elfs ? you have an issue they will get massed to massed.

Dont change the Squad size keep it as it is just juice up the Cost that way we will have less elfs but at least you dont have to mass them.

[eugenioso]

i Already played RR/RC its harder but not better to make units scarce by limiting the numbers you can recruit is nothing but annoying. Limiting the numbers of units you can have by income is much better simplier and more fun. TOTAL WAR you should be able to have units i want big battles i just wanna pay for it

I Dont like RR/RC because of the recruitment caps i didn't approve on it when it came for SS and not now either, Makes it harder yes i agree but it also takes some fun out of it.



you suggest making the squads smaller having a smaller elven group with higher skill but with that in minds you would still have to mass out groups wouldn't you ? if you half the numbers you have recruit double the units When a Snaga comes with 250 and the elfs are a group of 60 + The fact that snagas are cheaper so you get 500 snagas vs 60 elfs ? you have an issue they will get massed to massed.

Dont change the Squad size keep it as it is just juice up the Cost that way we will have less elfs but at least you dont have to mass them.

i didnt say change the squad size! i said that the mod (vanilla latest patch) struck the line on balance

[Mystific]

i Already played RR/RC its harder but not better to make units scarce by limiting the numbers you can recruit is nothing but annoying. Limiting the numbers of units you can have by income is much better simplier and more fun. TOTAL WAR you should be able to have units i want big battles i just wanna pay for it

I Dont like RR/RC because of the recruitment caps i didn't approve on it when it came for SS and not now either, Makes it harder yes i agree but it also takes some fun out of it.

Personally I really like the way RR/RC did it. Lore-wise, it should be harder to recruit elf and dwarf units due to their scarce numbers. Money should not the the controlling factor because the elves and dwarves were NOT lacking in funds (especially the dwarves). It wasn't because they were poor that they couldn't recruit more...they just didn't have large enough populations.

Also, if you make money the controlling factor, that means you have to sacrifice construction projects for troops. That's also unrealistic, since the elves and dwarves had the money/resources to build what they needed. In RR/RC you also don't normally end up with too much spare cash anyway as either the dwarves or high elves. There are enough things to build and they cost enough...plus the troops are expensive.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Personally I really like the way RR/RC did it. Lore-wise, it should be harder to recruit elf and dwarf units due to their scarce numbers. Money should not the the controlling factor because the elves and dwarves were NOT lacking in funds (especially the dwarves). It wasn't because they were poor that they couldn't recruit more...they just didn't have large enough populations.

Also, if you make money the controlling factor, that means you have to sacrifice construction projects for troops. That's also unrealistic, since the elves and dwarves had the money/resources to build what they needed. In RR/RC you also don't normally end up with too much spare cash anyway as either the dwarves or high elves. There are enough things to build and they cost enough...plus the troops are expensive.

in Middle earth money serve more or less no meaning in a game about middle earth it means everything.
If it was to be Lore accurate there wouldn't even be money in any game about Lotr. its just simplier to add money to the mix instead of constructing an whole new socialistic paradise no money system.

you are 100% right on the Lore aspects but you only see the one side. Money is the best controlling factor for more or less any game to know that once you get this sum of money you can get what you always wanted to get. Besides one missconception is that you would be able to spam out units but u cant do that without funds.

P.S What i wrote Does not apply IRL Money is a terrible tool today.

[Lordinquisitor]

in Middle earth money serve more or less no meaning in a game about middle earth it means everything.
If it was to be Lore accurate there wouldn't even be money in any game about Lotr.

Hmm, i don`t know but i`m sure that at least some races had some kind of currency.

[eugenioso]

Quaillity versus Quantity

Dwarfs/Elfs lorewise alot more scarce then men and orcs. Also stronger then Men and orcs living longer and such and such, But in TATW we get more or less as many dwarfs and elfs as we get any man faction.

Most of us dont mind having less units as long as they make up for it in Quaillity. Some say making smaller groups is the solution make the groups smaller but i kinda like how their setup now with large groups.

Question is smaller squads or units that cost more?

by increasing price we would keep the squads as they are groups on 120-150 soldiers but they now cost more and thus makes them harder to mass. This could affect balance so slight buffs added to Dwarfs and elfs. to even it out and give them more of an Elf/Dwarven feeling to it.

Having smaller Squads thou would mean a decrease in cost so instead of spamming groups of 120-150 soldeirs you would now spam groups of 60-75 units. Which would just get seriously annoying and actually make you feel like more of a masser rather then less.

Editont offer RR/RC as a solution.
Now Pros and cons people.

ps: i still dnt know what RR/RC is, probably a mod to balance units lore wise, but w/e.

personally, i think that the game in latest patch has achieved a well put balance. elves are not overpowered, but theyre more expensive and less numerous than, say, a gondorian army of similar cost.

though we could also base your logic on the fact of smaller unit groups, but with much more increased skill. ergo, the "basic" elven units would be the equal of a good unit of other factions, but with smaller numbers, while the elite elven units (mithlond mariners, Eldar archers/swordsmen) would retain their number of units, but would be monsters in close combat or archery.

so, as you can see, the best choice is the balance struck by the mod.

[DeliCiousTZM]

i dont experience any mayor balance issue for TATW that being said thats not what this is about it was about getting closer to making dwarfs and elfs Smaller in numbers and improve overall gameplay. The balance is good i think it gets a bit boring thou Making all units the same is an easy way to balance it sure but it dont flow as well and is not as fun.

[Swanny777]

i dont experience any mayor balance issue for TATW that being said thats not what this is about it was about getting closer to making dwarfs and elfs Smaller in numbers and improve overall gameplay. The balance is good i think it gets a bit boring thou Making all units the same is an easy way to balance it sure but it dont flow as well and is not as fun.

Balancing does not mean making all of the factions exactly the same, it means making it so that it is more lore accurate and everyone has the chance that they deserve depending on what faction they are.

[Mune]

I though this thread was about debating which of the options we would each like best. I didn't know there was already a correct answer being implied.

After rereading the original post I suppose it is attempting to do both.

Hey, I was wondering whether you preferred the color red or the color blue. By the way, the correct answer is blue.

[King Canute]

i think dwarves should cost more
and elves should be less

[Renown]

I have done, and am currently doing major balancing and adjustments to all races... similar to RC/RR but... um, for DAC rather then TATW.. Adding in new factions and a lot more content..

I've limited units not by money but by turns, and sizes. Drastically.

I'm sorry if you don't like waiting to build a unit.. but I do.. i try to make them more lore-accurate.. but also still be fun. (Elves have almost the highest attack, and very high skill defense but with less armor than the dwarves.) Dwarves have 100-80 men per unit. Whereas Lindon/Rivendell elves have 50-75. Woodland Realm/Lothlorien elves have 60-100.. though in the next patch it will be more like Woodland realm has 75-100, with Lothlorien having 60-75.

I've also edited Bree.. Rangers, and a lot of other factors.

This gives the Orc factions overwhelming numbers.. but far weaker (for most, not all) units! It serves for interesting battles when the most you can get out of a stack of Lindon or Rivendell troops is around 1400 or less troops against 3-6k (and thats if its one stack..) ..

Its a very interesting take.. and yes. I've basically removed the need for an economy besides building/bribing people. (economic attachments to factions really messes up AI behaivor sometimes.. and frankly I don't like the economy in the ME scenario).

I've tried to boost Elven starting points so that they are ideally quite strong in the beginning but have such slow ratios that they really get weakened over time (unless they lose very few elves). Dwarves are similar, except not so low build ratios.

It also takes away that annoying lack of heavy/elite units at the beginning.. and slows down empire building/pop growth city expansion... meaning Minas Tirith and Dol Amroth really are two powerful cities and contribute together more than the rest of your kingdom.. so don't lose them.

This all said.. we are still working everything out.. and have major plans for our next beta coming out soon.

I suggest you try it out.

[DeliCiousTZM]

i will. All thou i gotta ask you what am i supposed to do with all the money i got when i cant recruit units? or is money disabled in your beta ?

[Gaias]

Problem being with cost vs quality is the fact you are able to gain lands far greater than lore would dictate. Having the ability of being able to build your best units in all cities also creates balancing problems in the late game. There is also the crazy way auto resolve is determine and size of the army being one of those factors.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Problem being with cost vs quality is the fact you are able to gain lands far greater than lore would dictate. Having the ability of being able to build your best units in all cities also creates balancing problems in the late game. There is also the crazy way auto resolve is determine and size of the army being one of those factors.

The autoresolve problem is defininetly an issue ive seen this happen when you modify price and stats but i always think autoresolve is messed up. Never worked for me.

and you dont have ability to make all the best units everywhere you got culture and settlement barriers for starters and second of when your best units for say dwarfs Iron guard and Dragon slayers Cost 3k and have 650 in upkeep i dont see you massing them out i have tried. They drain your economy bad ass but it work in favor if you defend because of the free upkeep but if you move them out of the castles boy your in trouble.

you say "lore would dictate" but one of the things in creating the game is to make our own lore as we move along. Inspired but not controlled.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Not sure what you mean swanny? could you be more specific ?