unit balance,CA feed back please

Ok, so apparently CA multi guys look at these forums so im going to try out a balance thread again and try and see if we can solve some of the balance issues.Now i know we will be lucky to get another balance patch this late into the games life but god we need one,95% of my opponents play as France or prussia,This is not because of national pride but they are just way over the top.

I think its to late to ask for stat changes but i would think it would be easy enough to change pricing,for starters for all nations but particulary France and Prussia,light inf,guards,lancers and shooter cav need a price boost so if they are spammed it means the player will have a smaller army giving there opponent a advantage to push.At the moment france can have all these things in mass and still have a big army,Prussia can have a giant army full of guards and lancers plus awesome light inf that when stacked are nearly impossible to stop.

I dont think much can be made worse if they did some changes now(just no 90 range light dragoons pls)only better so what do guys want to see changed pricing wise and some feed back about our suggestions from CA would be much appreciated.

i think the problem lies in the mediocrity of other nations when compared Britain Prussia France stand head and shoulders above the other nations.

r.g Austria/Portugal - no guards prone to chain routs especially vs Old Guard

if they had guard infantry i would use them in a heartbeat but they dont so they stay basically as nations i play when bored.

i dont think any paticular nation is OP or any paticular unit is.

britain has great foot infantry

prussia has great lights and average cav (their lancers are the same as spains)

france has the most choice they have below average lights and can either have superior cavalry or superior infantry but never both (If they do have Guard infantry and cav then chances are you outnumber them greatly)

i think CA are just a bunch of money grabbers. they dont give a hoot about us players. they have our money already so why should they care. i for one will be boycotting shogun as it will look pretty but will play like a . just look at ntw and etw to see that i'm right.
if they do read this thread just give us some more variation in units. like the brunswickers, 95th rifles. there are alot of overpowered units in this game but old guard are the worse and by down grading prussia and brits all u will get will be nothing but france vs france battles.
as an english man i have never used france in multiplayer except an initial try them out. besides that i wont use them. i prefer trying to beat there overpowered units but it is getting tedious plus with all the lag, bugs, hacking, cheating, stamina issues in the last patch and general bottom wipes u get in this game hasnt endeared me to want to play it lately as i would describe myself as an addict to ntw.
i feel betrayed by CA as a fan and consumer.

Originally Posted by triphammer

i think CA are just a bunch of money grabbers. they dont give a hoot about us players. they have our money already so why should they care. i for one will be boycotting shogun as it will look pretty but will play like a . just look at ntw and etw to see that i'm right.
if they do read this thread just give us some more variation in units. like the brunswickers, 95th rifles. there are alot of overpowered units in this game but old guard are the worse and by down grading prussia and brits all u will get will be nothing but france vs france battles.
as an english man i have never used france in multiplayer except an initial try them out. besides that i wont use them. i prefer trying to beat there overpowered units but it is getting tedious plus with all the lag, bugs, hacking, cheating, stamina issues in the last patch and general bottom wipes u get in this game hasnt endeared me to want to play it lately as i would describe myself as an addict to ntw.
i feel betrayed by CA as a fan and consumer.

hey mate lets try and keep it civil and constructive plus your a user of the stacked prussian light inf tactic,i would rather go against a couple of old guard than that anyday.

Originally Posted by bushranger

hey mate lets try and keep it civil and constructive plus your a user of the stacked prussian light inf tactic,i would rather go against a couple of old guard than that anyday.

sorry bush mate, i just cant help how i feel about this issue at the mo. every major nation is strong in one department or another. prussia = lights, france = arty, cav, brits = good line, half decent lights.
they were the major powers of this particular part in history but for the sake of game play some variety would be much appreciated.
i will say that i'm sceptical as to when or if anything will further happen with ntw seeing as shogun is only some months from release.
as for the hammer tactic or rifle stack whatever way u want to call it. it is beatable. have done it loads of times.

i think the 1290 price tag on the old guard justify their stats. Light infantry across the board need to have their cost increased.

Originally Posted by DunkFunk

i think the 1290 price tag on the old guard justify their stats. Light infantry across the board need to have their cost increased.

Quoted for truth.

I agree that grassy flats is being dominated by France and Prussia, especially in 1vs1. In team games I face Britain almost as often as the others since flanking with lancers and other good cav is far less likely to happen in 2vs2 or higher.

And in terrain maps with artillery allowed Britain and Russia are as good as Prussia and France in my opinion.
I think a price increase of all light infantry units to around 800g will do the game and balance good.
I'm a big adversary of adding more and more units like CA did in the past with Empire. That only increases the chance of flipping the balance towards a single nation by creating overpowered units. For example if Britain was given any lancer cavalry it would immediately turn them into the superior nation because of their great line and good light infantry.

Another slight irritation of mine is French armies consisting of mostly Swiss and Polish line infantry units. I think these needs to be limited even more than they currently are just for the sake of historical accuracy.

The bottom line is that the game is fairly balanced in my opinion, it could use just a few slight adjustments.
The only single unit I find overpowered right now is France's chasseur a cheval. Just compare their stats and costs to British light dragoon. Either that or the Brits' 'goons are just overpriced.

Dunkfunk if that was the case you would see a much more diverse choice in nations used like in Empire,but its not briton has the disavantage of high unit cost and no lancers they are a little unbalanced against most other nations but no where in the same league as France/Prussia,no guards can be counterd by using a good gen,but still nations need something to use as a advantage over other nations and alot dont have it.Spain sort of does with its cheap inf and so does port with its good line and great but expensive light inf.

i guess whatever cards you are dealt, you must learn to play with them.you might not like your hand, but its all you have, and so you use it well...

that would be more historically accurate i think?but yeah, would add to balance, and introduce some new techniques

Guys don`t waste your time. If you want to change something you have to initialize a major uproar on several important forums + amazon etc. so CA could fear that S2TW wont sell so good. But then again, as experience shows, they will just pop up and make some more promises which they will not deliver. Just check the track record. Money makes the world go round.

No, it will still go in all directions and depending how deep it sunk to the ground. The blast radius over the surface will be reduced accordingly though, since only a portion of its energy in a very narrow a angle will not face "ground resistance" as it propagates towards the surface. That and ofc the deeper it sinks, the more ground mass it will have to "blast away" with its explosive energy. Now these Howitzers shells consisted of hunders of tiny musketballs to shower enemy positions. Upon exploding the shell's energy was divided equally to each musketball. Now many musketballs propably wouldn't have enough energy to "dig out of the ground", given the weight of the mass the ground layers that surround it have.
As for the mid air explosion, mind you that because of gravity all shells are bound to hit the ground and so are a potential threat. In fact the shells that go even higher will gain additional height (meaning more time before they reach the ground), to help them accelerate extra velocity when they hit the ground.

" Shell or grenade.
A shell bursted into tens of splinters
and was dangerous within a radius of 10-30 meters.
Howitzers were usually used for indirect fire with shells (properly called "grenades"). The procedure was slow, for the shell had to be lit while it was in the gun barrel, and misfires were pretty frequent.
The spherical shell came disassembled and was filled with powder and equipped with a fuse for explosion at distances of 600-1200 meters, whose burst was dangerous within a radius of 10-30 meters. According to Prussian officer Sharnhorst, "7pdr shell burst into 24 splinters.""
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm
having established that the shell is like a grenade, it makes sense that the higher up the shell from the ground, the greater its reach.of course, you dont want the shell to explode so high up that the projectiles dont hit your men fast enough (because they have had to travel further, and lost velocity).
you want to maximise horizontal velocity.as physics dictates, when the shell explodes, any given projectile is fired out at a velocity, with vertical and horizontal components.however, the projectiles horizontal component (speed sideways) never changes-the only force acting is gravity, and that is what causes the shell to fall.so we want the shell to explode just above the soldiers' heads, and that will maximise the effectiveness of the shell.
if the shell hits the ground prior to explosion, the projectiles relevant are mostly fired at this sort of angle range: "\/", so about 20deg either side of perpindicular to the ground (roughly).some projectiles hit the ground, but make little difference except so the surrounding few metres.the projectiles at angles "/_" will hit men, but thats why its ineffective here-it causes kills to all the men around, but they act as shields from the projectiles hitting other men.
so in reply to daniu, your absolutely correct that a mid air explosion causes projectiles to be released at all sorts of angles, but at least half of these have the potential to be lethal, if released from the correct height.more material around an explosion only causes resistance to the motion of the projectile, ultimately slowing it down to a harmless velocity.a shell exploding on the ground has most its relevant projectiles going upwards, but the angle means that when the projectile returns to earth, its horizontal velocity component is too small relative to its vertical velocity component, so its like "heavy rain" excuse the pun.though, anyone in the immediate path of the horizontally-released projectiles will die very quickly.

for your last line, the released energy doesnt behave like an electrical current essentially.and again, as physics says, energy is conserved, and the volume is constant, so the energy transferred to each projectile is the same (assuming the mass of each projectile is the same).
the final thing to factor in, which is where daniu may be right, is if it is more likely that the shell explodes at too high a height than at the right sort of range, then it becomes that a shell exploding on the ground is guaranteed to cause a fair few fatalities, certainly far more than a shell exploding too high up. again, if the shell falls in the right range (im guessing 2-7/8 metres up), then it causes the most fatalities.

EDIT:when i say this: "if the shell hits the ground prior to explosion, the projectiles relevant are mostly fired at this sort of angle range: "\/"", then i mean that although the projectiles distribute evenly, the ones that will cause less damage are at this angle, the ones causing no damage are the ones going below the surface, the ones causing most damage are at "/_" kind of angle

I stand corrected, +rep to you two.
Didn't know howy shells were splinter grenades; makes sense that the subprojectiles lose their energy.
Would it be different if it were just an explosive shell? I'm pretty sure to remember that an explosion has more boom with more surrounding material.

i didnt know they worked like grenades either, its deceiving in the game :/
if the shell doesnt use splinters in it, then if the shell explodes mid air most of that chemical energy is transferred to heat, and dissipated that way.the close up effects are pretty horrendous, while a little way away all you feel is a nice warm feeling.
if it explodes at ground level, then again, anyone in the immediate vicinity would be burned alive.but some energy is now transferred to kinetic energy to move the ground, so the resulting subsidence could cause a lot of injury, and also looks more spectacular, because it leaves a mini crater.not sure about the difference in kills though...
EDIT:the shell fragments will still cause significant damage though, because they will probably fragment anyway, and are probably designed to too.and the shockwave (hyper?-pressurised air) will wreak some havoc with your internal organs and give you severe bruises, probably knock you over if you are at a medium distance away

i found this about different types on the 'net:
"Typical: This is the type of explosive they use to bring a building down, it just blows whatever its set upon up, and destroys through the explosive force it creates
Fragmenting: This kills through the casing of the bomb exploding, and throwing fragments everywhere, normaly offensive hand grenades, mortars, and artillery shells, they normaly detonate above ground, and scatter shrapnel in a wide area, and kill primarly thru this means. Though if it goes off right above you, it might kill you through concusion, if the shrapnel doesn't get you that is. Mostly designed to take out personell
Concussive: These are normaly air dropped weapons, like the bombs used in bombers they kill through the force of the explosion, and blow stuff up via the power they unleash, they're pretty much a typical explosive, and are just in thier own class due to size. A 1000 LB bomb can kill everything within 1,000 ft of ground zero under optimal circumstances (clear field with no cover) this damage is mostly from the over pressure they create, than from fragments, though there are still fragments thrown, they're typicaly not built to do damage that way. More designed to kill buildings and vehicles
Thermobarric/ FAE: This is the most powerful, of the non nuclear weapons pound for pound, they're the most explosive, they operate by spreading a explosive mixture thru the air as they fall, and then once the area is saturated with the highly explosive vapor, they ignite. The overpressure they create will litterly rupture the blood vessles in your body, and kill you by basicly squashing you. they also can be used to set off landmines, and clear out bunkers/caves because when they go off, they use so much air, that it will actualy suck the air out of a cave, much the way napalm was used in WWII against the japanese in caves. You get the same effect as cutting the propane line to a stove, letting it fill the whole house for a couple days, and then flip a light switch."

Everything Y@$!N has said is pretty accurate. I've had everything from grenades to artillery rounds land extremely close to me and because the round was either impacted into the ground or was buried, the blast radius was minimized.

It's actually pretty difficult to kill someone with an indirect weapon. Unless you're using strategies that force your opponent into a choke point, or you're firing into an area where the blast can be contained, such as a bunker, building or valley etc., indirect weapons have never really been that effective at killing infantry.

Originally Posted by daniu

I stand corrected, +rep to you two.
Didn't know howy shells were splinter grenades; makes sense that the subprojectiles lose their energy.
Would it be different if it were just an explosive shell? I'm pretty sure to remember that an explosion has more boom with more surrounding material.

Darn right you stand corrected! As for pure explosive shells, without immediately finding a reference, I cannot imagine that they would be very effective in this period (certainly not as powerful as rendered in game). The reason for this belief is that an explosive shell of this period would mere be a 7lb ball of powder (just going by the name 7lb howitzer). While it would obviously still be a dangerous projectile, I believe that it would be more flash than actual bang, sort of like a giant firecracker. Keep in mind that in this period, they do not have effective explosive compounds like TNT and such. Gunpowder does not release very much energy upon combustion when compared to modern explosives and I sincerely doubt 7lb of it would be very lethal (that's why they relied on splinters and shrapnel instead ).

Even with modern artillery shells, however, it is generally not the explosion that causes casualties, it is still fragments that do the most damage. That's why I am perfectly happy to see a howitzer shell explode over my troops, killing 5 or so men, but then I can't help but roll my eyes when one buries itself into the ground and erupts like a volcano, killing 30 men at once.

Originally Posted by Spectre11B

Everything Y@$!N has said is pretty accurate. I've had everything from grenades to artillery rounds land extremely close to me and because the round was either impacted into the ground or was buried, the blast radius was minimized.

It's actually pretty difficult to kill someone with an indirect weapon. Unless you're using strategies that force your opponent into a choke point, or you're firing into an area where the blast can be contained, such as a bunker, building or valley etc., indirect weapons have never really been that effective at killing infantry.

Damn, I'm happy to hear you came through those experiences OK (also glad to have someone with firsthand experience chime in ).

Originally Posted by Keiichi

Darn right you stand corrected!

Yeah yeah, go rub it in

Still, I can make another point for why howitzers aren't overpowered: their kill count.
If you're not facing the campiest of opponents and take your sweet time shelling his forces, a howitzer will end up at around 5th place in the statistics, tops.
OTOH, I commonly have line inf units in the top three... going to call them overpowered too?

BTW, I updated my "On Artillery" post to include a short section on howitzers.

Originally Posted by daniu

OTOH, I commonly have line inf units in the top three... going to call them overpowered too?

Oh come on, don't treat me like I'm dumb, I thought we were pals . Cavalry and infantry always have the highest kill counts because they're right in the thick of it, creating a steady stream of kills. Howitzers have bursts of kills that may not garner them a high overall kill count, but can prove decisive (particularly when you're advancing on a camper, and due to the short range you're suddenly losing a dozen men to every howitzer shell). Kill counts are not a great way of determining a unit's worth; my general almost never gets any kills, so should I discard him from my builds? Conversely, if you want to go by kill counts, compare the kills of a cannon that used round shot an entire match versus a howitzer that used shells; when the results show that the howitzer has double or triple the number of kills, by the "kill count" logic the howitzer should cost twice as much as the cannon.

My beef with howitzers has never been on their "kill power" alone. As I said earlier, I dislike how they are the complete package: able to hide from any direct fire, 360 degree firing arc without any worry of friendly fire, high accuracy, powerful "high explosive" shells, and canister to top it off. Cannon's advantages are: longer range and faster reload (all nullified by hiding behind a ridge and letting your howitzer pound them), slightly cheaper for the 6lber, mobility for horse guns (but one less gun). There's no comparison, howitzers are the most effective artillery on any map but grassy. If they were deficient in just one more area (ie lower accuracy, limited firing arc, decreased blast radius, no canister, or even increased cost etc.), cannon could be a more respectable alternative to howitzers. As it is, it's not.