Campaign balance influencing battle balance

**Shaggy1973** · April 16, 2014, 12:31 PM

Following a lot of discussion about phalanx balance on this sub forum, I booted up a few custom battles and ran some experiments. However, the conclusion I drew had very little to do with why I started experimenting.

The battle balance in custom battle with a bog standard general was... awesome. I have to say I really enjoyed the skirmished I had much more in custom battle.

Now from playing DeI, we all enjoy the added role playing depth the campaign in this mod brings, but at the moment the bonuses with the Army traditions, generals, building upgrades, followers and general's traits, add up to just too much. The results are much faster kill rates, too much morale (units fight to 20-30% strength at times) and some unusual results for missiles and cavalry actions.

Both areas are very important, we don't want to lose depth in campaign for battles, and we don't want battles to be adversely affected by campaign depth... I don't know what the answer is, or even if anyone else agrees with me, but my suggestion is to start to think about reducing the bonuses that are given in the campaign.

Some followers increase morale by figures like 7% or 10%. As balance is all about fine margins in this game, can we consider a revisit in this area? I know Dresden acknowledges that the game is not really balanced for min/maxers, but you don't really have to operate at max, or understand exactly which bonus combination to add, in order to get the battle balance a bit out of whack.

I guess this is the kind of issue that can arise when you spend much of your time modding, and never really taking a campaign into the mid or late section to see how things play out?

I'm going to try and balance it myself by playing with battle balance on a higher difficulty, as the AI is not as good as the player at building experienced armies.

**Soul Firez** · April 16, 2014, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Shaggy1973

Following a lot of discussion about phalanx balance on this sub forum, I booted up a few custom battles and ran some experiments. However, the conclusion I drew had very little to do with why I started experimenting.

The battle balance in custom battle with a bog standard general was... awesome. I have to say I really enjoyed the skirmished I had much more in custom battle.

Now from playing DeI, we all enjoy the added role playing depth the campaign in this mod brings, but at the moment the bonuses with the Army traditions, generals, building upgrades, followers and general's traits, add up to just too much. The results are much faster kill rates, too much morale (units fight to 20-30% strength at times) and some unusual results for missiles and cavalry actions.

Both areas are very important, we don't want to lose depth in campaign for battles, and we don't want battles to be adversely affected by campaign depth... I don't know what the answer is, or even if anyone else agrees with me, but my suggestion is to start to think about reducing the bonuses that are given in the campaign.

Some followers increase morale by figures like 7% or 10%. As balance is all about fine margins in this game, can we consider a revisit in this area? I know Dresden acknowledges that the game is not really balanced for min/maxers, but you don't really have to operate at max, or understand exactly which bonus combination to add, in order to get the battle balance a bit out of whack.

I guess this is the kind of issue that can arise when you spend much of your time modding, and never really taking a campaign into the mid or late section to see how things play out?

I'm going to try and balance it myself by playing with battle balance on a higher difficulty, as the AI is not as good as the player at building experienced armies.

I agree but it will be a fine line to walk finding how much is to much but they do need a nerf( LOL or get AI to try keep its armies alive i believe in miracles ...)

Im no min maxer by any means i usually choose skills on the fly to make my generals different ( with some late game beig the same maxed out burecats as i use them as govenors not really fighting generals. but its not just moral but movement rate i had one general with a trait that added movement ( dropped moral something about whiping people) I had a hero in the army ( wth there nerfs there only good for training men so i use them as such ) and i gave him movement skills ( he ranked to level 10 so i had to spend them somewhere) i had near max army traits which includes movement and i never choose my 1 retinue i let chance do that and this general got a retinue that added 10% movement .

End result was an army that could move from the toe of italy and almost make it to massilia in 1 turn which was well very usefull but perhaps to powerfull in relation to other armies movement..

**alfer0001** · April 17, 2014, 02:02 AM

the thing is all those features - is only your choice. it is hard to not use them, but it makes the game challenging...

**Iltedge** · April 17, 2014, 02:14 AM

I don't really see this as an issue. It makes each army different, and each fight different. Fighting an army with very high moral due to a lvl 10 general, and win it makes for a good achievment.

Having a legion travelling from south Italy to Massilia in 3 months on late campaign is just the perfect show of Roman superior logictic ^^.

But is the AI handling all those traits well, that's an other question.

**adambomb1** · April 17, 2014, 09:24 AM

With the traits I got all kinds of Generals, some for movement, Money, keeping people in line, and influence of course. Anyway I use the best general for the situation I'm encountering.

**rjacko10** · April 17, 2014, 10:13 AM

I don't like all these bonuses giving out everywhere. Each place where there is a bonus diminishes the value of all the bonuses.

If bonuses were rare then we would cherish the few we would have and try to play to it's strengths. However I just get completely overwhelmed with what we have now and so I just ignore them.

And now the OP says battles are more balanced with fewer bonus. This just supports view point even more. Submod anyone?

**Master.Mind** · April 17, 2014, 10:51 AM

I find it rather more problematic that the ai chooses skills and traditions at random. (I confederated with a faction and so I got some really weirdly skilled generals)

**Dresden** · April 17, 2014, 01:04 PM

The tables that determine AI skill choices don't seem to function (so the AI chooses things pretty much at random from what I can tell).

I recently reduced the trade, gravitas and diplomatic bonuses. I will take a look at the other bonuses.

**Veltegez** · June 30, 2014, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dresden

The tables that determine AI skill choices don't seem to function (so the AI chooses things pretty much at random from what I can tell).

Is it possible to make the human generals/spy/dignitaries/heroes to upgrade at same random manner as the AI??? I would love such a change (maybe a separate submod) as it will make the game more fair against the stupid AI.

**Shaggy1973** · April 18, 2014, 01:20 AM

That's fantastic news Dresden!

thank you

**gary** · April 18, 2014, 02:28 AM

Personally i think we need to be careful about adjusting generals bonus otherwise the general becomes a none entity and only necessary for having army? I like the idea that your personal general has risen, like Caesar and (Marshal Ney) to the become charismatic and his troops go that extra mile to him. I think the campaign still needs a lot of looking at not generals, as we see after 20 years most of the campaign map being carved up with big factions far too early, yes i realize this is a because it is to make the AI more aggressive, but still the balance is still way out of sink personally. I have played DEL since it first came out and i have yet to get to Marius reforms... Ill just keep playing.

**Shaggy1973** · April 18, 2014, 04:37 AM

Agreed Gary, the map is carved up much too quickly. I play with Mitch's major factions mod, which affects auto calc. I configured it to affect defensive battles only, and added every nation to the major faction list. This means you still have very aggressive AI, but not too many changes of town ownership. I would also like to explore the possibility of the AI sacking and raising more towns once they do win a siege.

It should be harder for all to take and hold a town. If anything it should be raised/looted a couple of times before you can even think about occupying it.

If anyone remembers Roma mod from Rome 1, that had a great occupation mechanic that took twenty or thirty turns to play out.

In regards to generals, I think a good start with them would be to slow down the rate at which you get followers/levels/traditions, in combination with reductions in bonuses.

In addition, where are the negative traits? All bonuses should have advantages and disadvantages, all the best games have that depth.

**Shaggy1973** · June 30, 2014, 01:26 PM

Hi Dresden/DeI,
I looked through the new version notes and found nothing about some toning down of the bonuses you get for your generals. Have these been reduced/made harder to get?
Downloading changes now

**lollaaja** · June 30, 2014, 03:06 PM

All the bonuses are overblown as I've stated for months now. If the game isn't balanced for minmaxers, then it's balanced for idiots. Good game design seeks balance, not just "whatever." You can make things interesting choices while still keeping them balanced.