Cavalry vs. Sword vs. Halebard test in r3897

[Bo_]

Yes let's continue the other topic here...

I'm sorry if it looked arrogant, I just tried to show that these points are not valid in this case because they don't help in this discussion. You see more people having problems with that change in this state, but still you claim that a fictitious majority would be in favour of these changes? Don't you think we talk to others, too?

I don't claim a majority to be in favour for the changes, I claim enough people to be pro the changes to try to convince the rest of the community. It's true, the change is too big to implent now, we don't have enough time to see if it's realy balanced. But we also don't have enough time to see if it's not balanced. We can't know yet if it is, or if it isn't good, I just don't like the way of some people we don't know yet so it's not good.

That's "right through strength". We play and the winner was right? That still proves nothing. And why does it matter how good I play? I don't want to judge myself, so please ask the people I've played with. And please stop the black-and-white thinking. This change wouldn't make anyone having no chance, you know that perfectly as your next lines prove. It shifts the balance, and I think it shifts it too much so it gets inbalanced.

I don't know who you play with, but why it's important to me? Not that I want to prove to be a better player than you I realy don't care about that, I want you to be more open-minded. I realy can't stand the way you say replays prove nothing, how do you want to be sure of something if you don't practice on it? The reason I know you can't do scouts + xbow as example is because I've tried it, it just doesn't work. Experience is the best mentor, what gives you experience? Replays, playing games. Not mathematics or proving that somebody else is wrong.

Again that black-and-white-thinking where some people should be restricted from voting and others shall be allowed. Why that?

The problem that I see with you is that you are not accessible to my points. You still reject them all and rely on your replays. I even tried to access your arguments and further develop them. But I still want to carry on the discussion, really! Let's continue in the other thread. I have tried to work with your points and find that the balance is good already.

The reason why I did not yet play with you was the first offense from your side. Plus maybe the fact, that I don't have internet access on evening during workdays

I didn't say people should be restricted from voting, I said that everybody should be allowed to debate, that's why this forum is for no? With a debate you can see who uses correct arguments, in a poll people can choose the wrong thing because they have wrong arguments in mind. In this debate I correct you, you correct me. It realy helps me to give a clear idea of the game. This doesn't mean we have to agree with eachother. A poll realy wouldn't help us further out. If I'm not accesible to your points then it's because I compare them to my points, from a neutral view. Believe me I do that. Still I don't feel convinced so I use contra-arguments, wich I think about, I don't pretend them.

I did try to not make any implications, but this is not entirely possible. So I took the chest as a reference because of the simple reason that this resource is the limiting and thus most precious resource in the game.

I don't really like to take the MV because it's calculated in with a different aspect which I will explain soon. There are so many arbitrary numbers in there, for example why a basis of 2 for non-renewable compared to renewable? Why the +1 for a process step? These numbers are optimized for trading, not for an exact analysis of the game.
But we just have to agree on a collective basis, so why not try the MV once? I like your calculations, let's go on with it

Chests are limited yes but honestly, how many games have you played where you were out of gold without trading it? usualy you never get to that point.
The +1 for a process step should be logic, why? You need time to transport and transform the resources. You need space for those buildings and need to feed those workers.
A perfect example for this is Strait of Sharks. A map where you have in your storehouse 9000 corn, 16000 coal, 9000 iron (not even iron ore), 9000 treetrunks and 15000 stone.
So since you claim the +1 to be useless for an accurate value, why can't players have 3000 soldiers after pt? I'll tell you why. The smithy's also need TIME to transform those resources into weapons. You can't ignore that in a value.. Why do you think players are making lances now, instead of axefighters? That 1 extra cost for the shield is realy not the cause, believe me. It's because you need more armories to make those shields, wich requires SPACE and costs for that building, you don't have infinite space. Why do you think it's so hard to have horses? Not necesairly for that 4 corn, but for the very long time it takes for your animal breeder to transform 4 corn into 1 horse.

I see one point in your calculations that I can't accept. And this is the fact, that you take 20MV for an iron military unit. This price clearly was set for trading purpose only. It's way too high because of the simple reason that you cannot trade all your iron resources. In this price, there already is included a share of the smithies, the citizens etc. etc.
So I'd agree with your calculation, but we have to decide whether we completely rely on the trading costs, but then we have to neglect the building costs. Or we have to rely on the building costs.

Let's do the latter. So let's calculate one iron military unit. For that, you need one coal (2MV) and one iron. For the iron, you need one coal (2MV) and one iron ore (2MV). So Iron has 5MV. Thus one military resource has to have 8MV.

The horse will be calculated analogous to the pig, which means 4 processing steps and 4 corn. This means costs of 8MV for the horse, too.

Yes I made a mistake on that, it's 8MV, thanks for correcting.

So let's do your calculation for K1:

1 knight = {1 Recruit (2.5 MV) + 1 sword (8 MV) + 1 shield (8 MV) + 1 iron armor (8 mv) +1 horse (8 MV) }+ [3 blacksmtihs (7.5 MV) + 1 weapon smithy (2 MV for stone + 4 MV for timber) + 2 Armor smithy(12 MV) + 2 iron smelter (5 MV) + 2 Iron smithy ( 12 MV) + 1 farm (6 MV) + 1 farmer (2.5 MV) + 1 stable (6 MV) + 1 animal breeder (2.5 MV) + 2 iron mines (8.66 MV) + 4 coal mines (17.33 MV) + 6 miners (15 MV)]

The costs in {} are the cost for a single soldier. The costs in [] are the costs for the building etc., this costs will be shared by all soldiers if we calculate K=
The number inside [] is 100,5 MV
The number inside {} is 34,5

So K1 = 135

Let's do this for P1:

1 pikemen = {1 Recruit (2.5 MV) + 1 pike (8 MV) + 1 iron armor (8 mv)} + [2 blacksmtihs (5 MV) + 1 weapon smithy (6 MV) + 1 Armor smithy (6 MV) + 2 iron smelter (5 MV) + 2 Iron smithy ( 12 MV) + 2 iron mines (8.66 MV) + 4 coal mines (17.33 MV) + 6 miners (15 MV)]
The number inside [] is 75
The number inside {} is 18,5

So P1 = 93,5

So PK1 = 135 / 93,5 = 1,44
which - solely by chance! - is the exact same number that I get when I take chests as the basis for all cost.

That's logic, it doesn't matter what value you take, the ratio between both will always be the same.
Also I noticed that since 1 chest = 2.5 MV, and the buyfactor is also 2.5, you can check MV by just buying anything at the market with gold chests. But notice then that it may not be 100% accurate, like with stone as example.
I used MV because it's less confusing.

But then, the only thing you're doing rewriting this:

In general for AA this means: (X(Cost per soldier A) + (Cost of the buildings for soldier A))/ (X(Cost per soldier B) + (Cost of the buildings for soldier B))

on a more symbolatic way so you don't need to write it down twice. People have already enough to read. But it's good that we agree on that.

For PK= the costs for houses can be neglected, because the number inside {} is multiplied with infinity. We get then
PK= equals 34,5 / 18,5 = 1,86

Well you only used other values, still I agree 8MV to be better than 5MV, but it's almost the same as mine so it won't change the point.

OK so far. We've already mentioned the bonus speed for cavalry. Let's keep that at the back of our mind.

There are two additional features that have not been approached so far.
1. the overall fire power of units. So far, we mostly concentrated on the counter only, but this is only half of the story in a regular game. Knights don't only attack sword fighters or pikemen (they are to be avoided, obviously), but also other troops. For example scouts, axe fighters, militia, archers or crossbowmen. Or even civilians (and houses).
And for attacking the non-specialized units, you can rely on the attacking power.
The attacking power for a knight is 55
The attacking power for a pikeman is 35
Comparing only these two values we find the ratio of 1.57 (which is close to PK3 btw.)

If you'd want a fair trade, you'd have to normalize the PK= to the firepower, let's call it the normalized firepower nPK. Therefore you'll find nPK= = 1,86 / 1,57 = 1,18

This number is the 'power per cost'. And this means, that a knight is only 18% stronger than a pikeman compared to the cost (in the case of infinite built knights). If you don't build infinite knights, this number is even lower.

This firepower is real. If a knight wants to kill an archer, he has to hit him 3,6 times on average. If a pikemen wants to kill an archer, he has to strike 5,7 times. You find this nPK= in this difference. This value is real, whereas the PK= is only a theoretical construction.

Well I realy like your theory, it sounds good but your forget to mention that pikemen have a big bonus against knights, you know better than me how much exactly.
If you hit an archer from behind you usualy just 1 hit, if it's a knight, lance or pikeman. Also when a knight snipes into a town, isn't that the use of towers? 1 knight needs to kill a lot of civilians before he wins something out of the whole sniping opperation, once it's in a base it easily gets killed. Let me tell you, I love building knights, they control the game because of their speed IF you can use them right and IF you're the only one having knights. If both players have knights, or scouts, your whole sniping operation just won't be possible, hunting range will be way more difficult, don't forget the lances. So yes knights are good, expensive but very hard to control.

2. the likelihood to benefit from lifepoint recovery.
A knight has 4 lifepoints. He can profit from recovery if he lost one already. At this stage, he has 3 lifepoints left.
A lifepoint is recovered each 41 frames iirc. I'm not sure if this value has changed since. And I'm not completely aware of the length of a single attack, iirc it was like 8 frames or so.
This means, if a knight survives 5 attacks (with his 3 lifepoints left), he'll get one lifepoint back.
The knight has an armor value of 3, most of the times he is attacked from the front, thus the multiplier is 1. Let's assume the stronges standard-unit attacking the knight, that's the crossbow with an attack unit of 120 (all other are lower!!). The change that a hit takes away one lifepoint therefore is 120/3 = 40%.
The change that the knight dies is therefore p(live) = (5 over 3) * 0,6^3 * 0,4^2 + (5 over 4) * 0,6^4 * 0,4 + (5 over 5) * 0,4^5 = 68% {die note (5 over 3) is not the fractionbut the binomial coefficient}
So the knight survives the hardest attack with a chance of 68%
If the attacker is weaker, the chance is even higher.

Yes, knights have more change of surviving hard attacks, but is this a way for you to say knights are op?
You can have as many theories as you want, as long as knights are very rare in the game I don't think it makes sence of trying to prove that.
It takes too long for them too build. Also, would you like your slowly trained knight to be killed by just 1 crossbow? That would make no sence.

So what I mean, yes mathematics are great, but you have to stop at some point. This goes too far, because now on every calculation you make you have to add so many other things that it's realy not worth it. In Kam the amount of units is way more important than how strong they are, wich doesn't mean that strentch isn't important. So yes, you corrected my calculations about the costs, and it's interesting to read but it realy won't help you in the game, believe me on that. I would love to discus with you about those maths in Kam, but not if it is as an argument to prove anything, because we can't, not at this point.

So, let's conclude:
The power per cost ratio is 18% more expensive for a knight. But for this 18% you'll get:
- twice the speed, which allows you to run away, flank the enemy troops, be less likely to be hit by arrows
- the likeliness to benefit from lifepoint regeneration is much higher, it never drops below 68%! So the knight can already be seen equivalent to having > 4,68 life points whereas the other iron troops have an equivalent of > 4,34 lifepoints, which is 1,3 life points in difference, not only 1! Of course this depends on the attacking group, but never is less than 1,1 life points. If attacked from the side, the benefit for the knight is even above the 1,3 life points.
-> thus more knights survive a real battle; and as we learnt (ask Lewin) already one troop will make a huge difference because he will start to attack the enemy from the diagonal or even the side, thus benefitting by a factor of 2 up to 5.

Again, you didn't mention the bonus from pikemen against knights. I know it's not realy about a battle for knights vs lances, but the fact that there is a unit that easily takes care of knights makes them a way weaker.

Twice the speed yes, but it's also the more expensive horse. It's like you're ignoring the time it takes to train a horse, to have knights as your main unit you would need 3 stables, 5 farms. And those buildings take a realy huge amount of space. You should also include space in you costs calculations.

The likeliness to benefit for a life regeneration, let's just translate it by a knight will usualy not be taken down when passing by range units. Since it's impossible to spam knights you won't use them in the core battle, and also for the reason that knights or scouts in battle are too easy to catch wtih lances-pikemen.

Then the diagonal attack, well like I've said over a hundred times, you can't spam knights like other units. When having lances, pikemen or even axefighters, you will start enemy from the diagonal side most likely like that then by using knights.

Or summed up:
The real lifepoints for knights is approximately 10% higher than the real lifepoints for the other iron troops, thus reducing the 18% cost overrun to small 8% (rounded). In this calculation, the vulnerability agains pikemen is already included!! And for the 8% you'll get a unit that has double the speed compared to the pikemen and the rest of all troops.
Therefore the knight is already perfectly balanced!

Just for the sake of comparison: if you take the +1lifepoint for the knight and not the pikemen, first of all the power increases (by 25%) and second of all, it even more benefits from lifepoint regeneration, making it almost impossible to get killed by a single attacking unit.
Therefore the power to cost-ratio goes well below 100%, so lp+1 makes the knight the cheaper unit compared to pikemen. Plus it has the increased speed! This means you'll get a benefit for even lower cost - that's far away from being balanced.

All these later conclusions have already been made with infinite troops calculations. If you go to a finite number of troops, the ratios are even worse for pikemen, making them already to a weaker unit than discussed here.

What you realy don't understand is NUMBERS. This theory looks nice but you can't apply it in Kam. The +1 lp to me was more about axes + swordfighters, and for horses too keep it balanced compared to them. Still, what I liked about it, at least it made them in some way useful in core battle. They were good for a little push, but the problem is a fighting knight isn't moving, so no speed bonus. When you use them in the core battle, they're is just no way out, with the +1lp they will deal damage, but not that much since that once enemy lances has arrived, you're knights are taken out easily, no escaping.

The problem is you can't calculate these things, if you could well go on, but you'll see, knights are not that balanced compared to their price. Maybe yes in theory, but it's not the AI who's playing, it's still about human players.

So my last point: If it's balanced like you claim it to be, than why is it just lance + xbow? Think about that.

[Jeronimo]

So my last point: If it's balanced like you claim it to be, than why is just lance + xbow? Think about that.

Ha! The killer question. Maybe Sieg-fried can't answer it, because he doesn't know what happens at a competitive multiplayer match.

When I say "show us" replays, I want concrete proofs from your experiences, not more percentages.
Can you then upload your replays, or testing fields so I can watch and see if you tested well?
Sorry if I sound personal, it wasn't my intention.

Just a funny fact: Today philosopher Socrates visited me, and he offered to interpret your post.
After reading your analysis he said with a wise ancient voice: "He has proved, he has proved nothing".

Harsh words I know, but that's what he said. I'm sorry Sieg, but maybe Socrates is right.

-------------------------------------------------------
What's this Sieg? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=468
Looks that your style of testing stuff is really out of context.

Economy, construction space, production times, peacetime, luck factor in battle...
Where are these in your analysis? Think about it.

[Siegfried]

No, the mathematics is not dispensable, it's how the remake works. Everything inside the game is calculated by these mathematics. The fighting as well as the delivery, the harvesting. Just everything. So you are not allowed to neglect them.

The theory I presented above was the most advanced one we've ever done. It almost covers everything (except that I forgot to mention that the knight already has a 33% advantage in life points).

But I see that you don't want to continue, so I won't either.

So my last point: If it's balanced like you claim it to be, than why is it just lance + xbow? Think about that.

Finally, the key point. It annoys me that you don't see that:
It's not that the lance carriers are too strong (they are not, they are balanced compared to other hand-to-hand fighters!).
It's the crossbowmen that are too strong!

We agreed on the rough estimation that crossbowmen do 2/3 of the total damage in a real battle in a real game. It's very hard to calculate the exact number, but it's a good approach to think that most armies are 50/50 between ground troops and long-range units. And the long-range units do double the damage per attack. So we end up in 67% of all damage done by archers. If you then think that the ground troops die earlier than the long-ranged units, this number rather goes up than down, so maybe the crossbowmen even account for 75% of all damage. We don't know exactly (yet ).

So the situation is the following: the crossbowmen are the deciding factor in the game. They do the damage, not the protecting units.
So the other units are only a protection for the crossbowmen. They are not meant to do the damage, they simply server the purpose of protecting the crossbowmen as long as possible so they can do maximum damage.

And this the crux of the whole thing. The balance between ground troops is of only minor interest because it's dominated by the crossbowmen. So people try to make the cheapest unit that does survive at least some bolts. And that's the lance carrier. The milita has only 1 armor, so it's not usually used, although I've met them already.

And I never said that knights are overpowered. I said they are balanced! They become overpowered if you give them one additional life point.

I see your problem. I know that you want to improve the gameplay. Casually spoken you try to do good for the game. Otherwise I would not bother discussing with you.
But I hope you see my point and understand my approach. I never was satisfied with the current situation, but I know that this origins from the long-range fighters, not from the balance of hand-to-hand fighters.

Try to think away from only the building-maps towars the fighting maps. You see the harmony there. The hand-to-hand fighters are in perfect balance! There is no need to break them. But the long-range fighters are too strong. So I dare to submit my proposal for the third time: make the long-range units weaker! So the hand-to-hand fight becomes more important in the game, just as it was in the original TSK+TPR.

I already made some proposals for that:
- decrease lifepoint regeneration time -> this strengthens all units except long-distance fighters, knights even more than pikemen
- decrease the hit likeliness of bolts; I've seen Lewins other post. Thanks for that, maybe I can work with that
- make it impossible for long-distance fighters to defend themselves

[Siegfried]

What's this Sieg? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=468
Looks that your style of testing stuff is really out of context.

Economy, construction space, production times, peacetime, luck factor in battle...
Where are these in your analysis? Think about it.

This was my first approach in simulating the fighting system. The problem at that times was, that the remake was not out yet. And the original TPR was closed software, so I could not look up all the values that were needed. So finally I gave up on the formation testing.

The values I presented (why is the graph down btw?) were for single fighters only, and they were considerably different from the ones Bo and me calculated in the past few days. But still this simulations provided a good starting point to understand the fighting system. For example they clearly showed that it makes a difference whether you attack or defend first. I showed that a few days ago in another thread. It was quite funny that noone else considered that before so yes, that's another point I noticed and gave me the stimulation to tell you because you didn't seem to be familiar with the last fineness of the fighting system.

[Bence791]

So the hand-to-hand fight becomes more important in the game, just as it was in the original TSK+TPR.

Do you know that ONLY archers were the rulers of TSK/TPR? I guess you haven't played it.. (based on what you say..) They killed everyone... Once I had 200 archers (and nothing else!) in mission 3 of TPR, when the grey enemy had about 800 leather soldiers. Can you guess what happened then? I lost about 20 archers.. and totally smashed them into the ground. And I'm not joking! Compare those archers to the archers in the Remake. 200 bowmen may be fearful, but they aren't unstoppable. Just flank them, and then the battle is over. They lost about 50% of their damage. Yes, believe me. And you still say that let's weaken them, cos they do the 2/3 of the damage, and melee is only to stop reaching them.. So what? Why wouldn't we do what is better? Do maths again, I'm waiting for that. Play TPR. Compare the original bowmen to the "remade" archers. And if you still think that these archers are too imba, then discuss it. Calculate the lost power, and you will be surprised. I promise

[Lewin]

Yeah archers were far far more powerful in original KaM, we made them much worse in the remake.

I do agree with Siegfried that archers are ruling all combat still and melee makes little difference as long as they can protect your archers. Maybe decreasing their accuracy a bit more would be a good idea, but some people already complained about us making archers less accurate...

[The Dark Lord]

Archers are useless compared to crossbowmen. I NEVER make archers while I used to make them in the past. If you have iron at your disposal, it would just be a waste of leather and timber to make archers. I once tried pikemen + archer for a change. I got slaughtered by crossbowmen + lance carrier.

[pawel95]

Archers are useless compared to crossbowmen. I NEVER make archers while I used to make them in the past. If you have iron at your disposal, it would just be a waste of leather and timber to make archers. I once tried pikemen + archer for a change. I got slaughtered by crossbowmen + lance carrier.

Yeah good point, but for my feeling the archer in remake is weaker, than the archer in orignal Kam, isn´t it?

[The Dark Lord]

If you read the post above mine you'll have an answer to your question

[pawel95]

If you read the post above mine you'll have an answer to your question

Yeah, ok

[Bo_]

No, the mathematics is not dispensable, it's how the remake works. Everything inside the game is calculated by these mathematics. The fighting as well as the delivery, the harvesting. Just everything. So you are not allowed to neglect them.

Well if maths did all the work why isn't it balanced yet?
You said I'm black-white thinking, but you trust way too much on math. Even if it's very accurate, imagine it in real life, like you would calculate everything, everyone.
That just doesn't work, you can't do everything with math.

The theory I presented above was the most advanced one we've ever done. It almost covers everything (except that I forgot to mention that the knight already has a 33% advantage in life points).

But I see that you don't want to continue, so I won't either.

I would love to continue but not, as I said before, if it's to prove anything because for me experience, replays and real games stil make more sence than math.

Finally, the key point. It annoys me that you don't see that:
It's not that the lance carriers are too strong (they are not, they are balanced compared to other hand-to-hand fighters!).
It's the crossbowmen that are too strong!

We agreed on the rough estimation that crossbowmen do 2/3 of the total damage in a real battle in a real game. It's very hard to calculate the exact number, but it's a good approach to think that most armies are 50/50 between ground troops and long-range units. And the long-range units do double the damage per attack. So we end up in 67% of all damage done by archers. If you then think that the ground troops die earlier than the long-ranged units, this number rather goes up than down, so maybe the crossbowmen even account for 75% of all damage. We don't know exactly (yet ).

Well you said by yourself that range will always be the key of winning the game. Since you can't have a game without melee, or a game without range (well you could but that's suicide).
But why do you think I liked the patch? In the patch range was still very important, but at least melee dealed damage too.
I know that because I've tested the game. I tried only axefighters + swordfighters. I had about the same amount kills as loses, we had more soldiers but we lost because we were out of xbow. Lances weren't the main unit, but they were there. So another solution would be indeed pierce armor for shields, 1 for wooden, 2 for iron but that would be the same as the +1 lp, you wouldn't be able to use lances in core combat.

About lances.
Imagine a game with 2 players, 1 trains only lances, the other trains only axefighters.
So the player who made lances will hade around 50 lances, the player with axefighters around 30. Who do you think will win? Lances, for sure. So knowing that they have an extra bonus against horses, they are too strong compared to axefighters.

So the situation is the following: the crossbowmen are the deciding factor in the game. They do the damage, not the protecting units.
So the other units are only a protection for the crossbowmen. They are not meant to do the damage, they simply server the purpose of protecting the crossbowmen as long as possible so they can do maximum damage.

And this the crux of the whole thing. The balance between ground troops is of only minor interest because it's dominated by the crossbowmen. So people try to make the cheapest unit that does survive at least some bolts. And that's the lance carrier. The milita has only 1 armor, so it's not usually used, although I've met them already.

Exactly! Militia is too weak against xbow, and so should lances be. It makes no sence that a lance carrier can hold as long as an axefighter, who has an additional shield. So yes, that makes them op. But the sollution isn't making range weaker, maybe xbow a tiny bit but not archers, they're already too weak atm. It's to make axefighters and swordfighters more resistent against range, so it would make no sence to use lances against melee with range.

And I never said that knights are overpowered. I said they are balanced! They become overpowered if you give them one additional life point.

Again: If they're already balanced, why does almost nobody train them?
At least with the patch people made knights, that stil didn't mean that they dealed the heaviest damage.

I see your problem. I know that you want to improve the gameplay. Casually spoken you try to do good for the game. Otherwise I would not bother discussing with you.
But I hope you see my point and understand my approach. I never was satisfied with the current situation, but I know that this origins from the long-range fighters, not from the balance of hand-to-hand fighters.

Of course I want to improve the gameplay, and least I give the impression that I know what I'm talking about.
And yes I understand what you mean, in the end we want the same:
Range being less important against melee. The difference is, I want it by increasing the the ressistance of shielded units against them, with +1 lp or pierce armor,
you by making range weaker.
The point that bothers me and more players, you're ignoring experience, replays, games. 'Because it proves nothing'.
But how can you even say that? A replay is what you get in the end, after doing a change. Let's see it like this, a replay is like a monitor. What you see on the monitor can tell you if it's right or not, in the end it's still about having a nice game? And what is a good game? A replay, not some other calculations. Realy why can't you see that?
If I'm argumenting against you it is because I know what a game is like, and I don't what it to be ruined because of someone's calculations. It's the game that should be good, and not calculations.

Try to think away from only the building-maps towars the fighting maps. You see the harmony there. The hand-to-hand fighters are in perfect balance! There is no need to break them. But the long-range fighters are too strong. So I dare to submit my proposal for the third time: make the long-range units weaker! So the hand-to-hand fight becomes more important in the game, just as it was in the original TSK+TPR.

I don't see what you mean about comparing building - battle.

No in TSK and TPR range was op, but you can't know that with playing singleplayer only. In singleplayer your theory would be great, because there you have infinite building time and building space, and there it's the only place where you will get out of gold chests. The point is that you can't balance a multiplayer game on a singleplayer game.

[quote="siegfried"I already made some proposals for that:
- decrease lifepoint regeneration time -> this strengthens all units except long-distance fighters, knights even more than pikemen
- decrease the hit likeliness of bolts; I've seen Lewins other post. Thanks for that, maybe I can work with that
- make it impossible for long-distance fighters to defend themselves[/quote]

-Decrease lifepoint regeneration time, well why not but would it realy make a difference?
-Deacrease the hit likeliness of bolts, archers are already too weak. Increasing the change of missing will also increase the amount of crossbow. Also it would be very annoying for micro battle, then change would be a way more important factor, I think it shouldn't be. Especialy for battle maps.
- Self deffending: Especialy not. When range is attacked from the back they are already very vulnerable, they get killed with 1 hit, so if you have 6 knights on it..
And if it realy would be impossible you just split up your army and the problem is solved.

[Da Revolution]

By the way you will always keep the discussion whether certain units are used as they should be. People complain about lancers now, because they are meant to counter horses, but are used against other units as well. When you implement the patch you'll see that everyone uses axefighters (no variation again), but aren't axefighters mainly meant to counter lancers (rock, paper and scissor story). People will just use those axefighters against horses as well, even though they don't have the bonus against horses...they last longer, meanwhile your crossbows can easily kill the horses.

You'll always have one unit that will be used way more than other units. Even in situations they aren't meant to be used. Yes something needs to be changed, but the patch in its current state will create a new problem while solving the other problem.

Again: If they're already balanced, why does almost nobody train them?
At least with the patch people made knights, that stil didn't mean that they dealed the heaviest damage.

The patch did NOT increase the amount of knight in my opinion.

[Siegfried]

in the end we want the same

This would be pretty amazing closing words, why not leave it at that? I feel that we have reached both a understanding and a dead end. We can only continue by twisting the other's word.


But I want to give two explanatory notes so my opinion doesn't get twisted by others:

Well if maths did all the work why isn't it balanced yet?

I think: the melee already are among themselves. But long-range are domination.

you're ignoring experience

That's nothing more than an allegation. I'm speaking from my own experience and tried back it up with math. But eventually I come to a different conclusion than you.
And therefore I see speculations whether I was a weak player or I wouldn't have experience? What a bullshit.

Seriously: did you assume that I have no experience because I'm not hawking with that in every single post?

Like you said: we both want the same. I add: but we see different ways to achieve this.

In this spirit: have a nice day.

[Bo_]

Doesn't matter, knights weren't OP in the patch. That's what I meant.
And it shouldn't be the 'rock paper' in the extreme way, that only a lance can kill a scout, or only a scout can kill an axefighter,
and yes I don't think that there is a way to have perfect balance. But in some way it should be possible to have axefighters as main unit, but with lances still being useful.

[EDMatt]

By the way you will always keep the discussion whether certain units are used as they should be. People complain about lancers now, because they are meant to counter horses, but are used against other units as well. When you implement the patch you'll see that everyone uses axefighters (no variation again), but aren't axefighters mainly meant to counter lancers (rock, paper and scissor story). People will just use those axefighters against horses as well, even though they don't have the bonus against horses...they last longer, meanwhile your crossbows can easily kill the horses.

You'll always have one unit that will be used way more than other units. Even in situations they aren't meant to be used. Yes something needs to be changed, but the patch in its current state will create a new problem while solving the other problem.

Again: If they're already balanced, why does almost nobody train them?
At least with the patch people made knights, that stil didn't mean that they dealed the heaviest damage.

The patch did NOT increase the amount of knight in my opinion.

Like Bo said, how can you counter 50 spear with 30 axe fighters?
spear are easier to build and faster too