KaM Remake gameplay balance

[Bo_]

Isn't it unfair to directly compare 10 knights against 10 pikemen? One could argue that in the same amount of time the knight making player would have 10 knights while the pikemen making player would have 10+ pikemen.

It would make more sense to compare 10 knights against something like 12-15 pikemen.

And about the single player, the campaign should simply be entirely rebalanced once proper building and combat AI is in place.

Yes exactly, look:

When I say that lances/pikemen are still way stronger than knights/scouts then I say that because I compare them with the costs. When you look from that point of view it still fits the rock-paper-scissors system. Example: You have only 100 chests to buy weapons, player 1 trains only pikemen. 1 pikeman = 17 gold chests. (1 for recruit + 8 for pike + 8 for iron armor) This gives him 5 lances. Player to buys knights, wich gives him 3 knights. (1 for recruit + 8 for sword + 8 for shield + 8 for iron armor + 5 for horse.) Now face 3 knights vs 5 pikemen, this will give you max 1 loose for the pikemen. What I'm trying to say is you can't compare the power of knights since they're way more expensive. When including price to the calculation, 1 knight = 1,66... pikemen and 1,666... pikeman is stronger than 1 knights. So theoreticly knights are weaker than pikemen. Know that 2 lances can kill 1 knight, while 1 lancecarrier only costs 8 gold chests... But know that in a real game you won't buy your soldiers.

So in a real game 1 lance carrier costs 1 gold chest, 2 corn, 2 timber, and don't forget that it also gives you 1,5 saussige. (1 pig = 4 corn, 1 skin = 2 leather armor, 1 pig = 3 saussiges. So 3/2 = 1,5 saussiges.) And this while 1 knight costs 4 corn, 1 gold chest, 6 coal, 3 iron ore. And, you don't get food, wich means you need more farms...
And 1 pikeman costs 1 gold chest, 6 coal, 3 coal, while you don't spend 4 corn, wich can give you 8 breads or 3 saussiges.

So yes, 1 knight kills 1 lance carrier, and even 1 pikeman. But, in a real game you will not have the same amount of knights as you have pikemen/lance carriers.
If people disagree, I invite them for a 1 vs 1 game where they will only focus on knights while I will only focus on lance fighters and pikemen...
So 16 pikemen vs 10 knights gives you 3 looses for pikemen, and 16 looses for knights. In gold this gives us 51 gold chests vs 300, 6 times more expensive losts for knights than for pikemen. Do 3 knights vs 12 lance carriers, this gives us 2 looses for lance carriers and 3 for knights, wich gives us 16 gold chests vs 90, also 6 times more expensive losts for knights.

=> know that the market values are calculated, so using the market gives exact calculation,
so to compare knights with pikemen, multiplie the amount of knights with 1,765 for an equal amount of pikemen.
(30/17, 30 is the price of 1 knight, 17 of 1 pikeman.)

@Bo: Thanks man for supporting the +1 hp while I was absent... game is military and economics.

You're welcome, I'm for the +1 lp as much as you are.

Also for people who aren't convinced, why don't we just try?
If it appears that knigts really become op and lances worthless, it could always be removed...
It's like jeronimo said, more combo's, more variation in the game, that's what we all want after all no?

[Bo_]

And now.... Jeronimo descends from the skies with a real proof to validate his conclusions:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ceoxfhgg5xdnkdx -> the replay shows most controversial matchups (place it "Saves" singleplayer).

Great replay, so yes, there's a lucky factor but I think you can see clearly that knights aren't stronger than pikemen and lances, or not too strong compared to swordfighters.
I enjoyed watching it!

[Itlerion]

my 2 cents: at first i thought as many that +1 hp would be very powerful, but jeronimo made me watch the replay and together we analyzed the results, and i must say now that i would like to see this change implemented in next release.
i want to try some crazy armies like militia+ archers + scouts+ sword fighters! !

[sado1]

Jero did you consider that when pikemen attack horsemen, the result will be different than when horsemen attack pikemen? (I didn't watch the replay)

[Jeronimo]

Jero did you consider that when pikemen attack horsemen, the result will be different than when horsemen attack pikemen? (I didn't watch the replay)

Yes sado, in the 4 tests I tried there, pikemen always win 11 vs 11 and 13 vs 11 (+2 pikes = -4 loses, together kill faster).
I see now pikemen and lancers as a tactical squad you want to have in case opponent has tactical cavalry squads.
But the battlefield will have core units as militia, axeman, swordman, with archers/xbowmen as support (depending what path you choose for infantry/cavalry/ranged).

Using Axemen to take down Scouts? Looks like people havent played with Scouts yet... They are SuperAxemen.
Lancers still are the ones who best counter cavalry (with less casualties and less resources required).

If you see my replay where Swordmen fought Knights, you will see Knight is victorious by nature, except some bad luck factor.
Same happens with Scouts-Axemen (same level of attack/armor).
That's why still Lancers/Pikemen are reliable... have at least some cavalry prevention squads.
Note that in market: 2 iron bars -> 1 horse. So be careful if someone's strategy is making big cavalry now.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Napoleon said once: "You need to see the big picture to analyze with perspective how game changes"

In my conclusions, this change forces everyone to make variated armies, as those from the Fighting Maps.
Never forget tough, that the best counter to Infantry has always been Ranged... amount of archers/Xbows still determinates who controls the area (used as support, while you put defensive line of infantry).

I doubt the other ideas suggested could be implemented, since games does no distinction between piercing attacks or whatever.
And making Swordmen a WORTHY unit to train now, looks to me as an ancient wish made real.

Big change I know... it costs at first to update to the new rhythm.
But when you learn to dance this music, what can stop you?

[Lewin]

What I think would be nice to see out of a balance change like this is something like Shoulder to Shoulder: A team can choose to specialise on mainly one unit type and then work together to defeat the enemy. This would work best on a map like All for One so you don't need to defend your own village from attacks, there's really only one front line.

IMO the best way to tell whether the shield changes is good or not is to play lots of multiplayer games with it. See what tactics work, see if anything is exploitable.

[Bo_]

I'll post a replay of a game we had today.

[Da Revolution]

In my conclusions, this change forces everyone to make variated armies, as those from the Fighting Maps.

I disagree with this. I just stopped making lancers for example.

Also militia are useless, i made quite a lot scouts and militia just couldn't kill one of those.

The longer this change remains the more axefighters you'll see.

[Bo_]

With this lances are useless as your main unit yes, the same for militia.
But you can still use them to flank horses who fanked your archers for example.
It realy makes more sence that players make axefighter as main untit than lance.

[Lewin]

I'm concerned that lance carriers will become almost useless, and maybe the same for militia. From reading this it looks like a lot of people (maybe even most) are not completely happy with the changes, and Krom and I aren't either. It sounds like it has improved some things, but there could be other problems (e.g. lance carriers becoming useless) and it really needs a lot more testing/thought/discussion. Other approaches should be tested too, like making shields more resistant to arrows and leave melee the same as it is now.

Krom and I talked about it, and decided that the best thing to do is to release the demo without the unit changes, just with the hunger/wine changes that seem to be mostly accepted now. Then in the next release we will address making the axefighter/swordfighter useful again.

It doesn't seem worth delaying this release by weeks/months when there appears to be no "simple" fix for the unit balance. Much more testing would be needed, and we'd also like to make storm attack more useful at the same time. There is almost nothing else holding up this release, it seems to be very stable and nearly ready to go public.

The current plan is to get the translations updated this week (while Lewin has his exam), fix the last few items on the RC todo list (resource sliders unlocked from start, CTRL+B to beacon with chat open, last few maps fixed, etc.), release the 3rd RC in about 1 week, and release the update publicly in about 2 weeks.

Any thoughts on all this?

[Bo_]

Ok then, back to lance + xbow.
It was fun to use axefighters for some games.

[Lewin]

Ok then, back to lance + xbow.
It was fun to use axefighters for some games.

Only temporarily until the release after this one.
I think it's better to do this change properly and with lots of testing than to rush it though and hope for the best.

EDIT: We'd prefer it if you all go back to testing with the old unit.dat file, so we can get other balance tested for this release. Are crossbowmen/bowmen too accurate in the RCs? They were made more accurate to counter balance the new random targeting, but now maybe we'll go back to seeing crossbow spam with a meat shield. We want melee to play an important role in combat too, even if axefighters/swordfighters are mostly useless for now.

[Jeronimo]

@Lewin: I like the new "accurate but spread" arrows attacks. It makes battlefield look more realistic.
For example, now Archers+Pikemen have a decent chance against Xbows+Lances.

Respect the shields... I know from beginning that Krom wasn't convinced respect this.
If you both (Lewin/Krom) watch the replays from the shield tests, you will notice the differences better.

I think that from the 2 options [normal / shields], shields is the one who opens new doors, new possibilities.
With his patch, I have started to explore new combinations... not just "Axemen+Xbows" as some say... there are far more succesful combinations (not tried yet, this patch hasn't been fully explored).

As a suggestion, I think the patch could be implemented now, until a more detailed programing is achieved.
Militias & Lancers are useful in large numbers, while Axemen in average number, because everything fits in the production timing.

[Da Revolution]

Without the patch two units are being ignored (axefighters and swordfighters), but both aren't worthless. With the patch people will just ignore militia, lancers and maybe even pikemen.

Militias & Lancers are useful in large numbers, while Axemen in average number, because everything fits in the production timing.

Both are completely useless with the patch. Scouts for example slaughter militia. Lancers even have a hard time killing scouts.

I am NOT against changing something for units with shields, but I don't like the change in its current state. So it will cost way more time testing different stats for units.

[Jeronimo]

Without the patch two units are being ignored (axefighters and swordfighters), but both aren't worthless. With the patch people will just ignore militia, lancers and maybe even pikemen.

Militias & Lancers are useful in large numbers, while Axemen in average number, because everything fits in the production timing.

Both are completely useless with the patch. Scouts for example slaughter militia. Lancers even have a hard time killing scouts.

I am NOT against changing something for units with shields, but I don't like the change in its current state. So it will cost way more time testing different stats for units.

Without patch are being ignored: axemen, swordmen, scouts (too) -> because many militia slaugthers them.

With patch noone is ignored: tough lancers/militia mass meets the power of professional fighters.
If scouts are doing better vs militia, then welcome... because before game was on non-cavalry mode, as Mulberry complained.

I still don't believe Mulberry is really against the improvements. Many are satisfied, but aren't writing their feedback in the forum so looks like just a few backup the change... While in fact, a few are against.

Again to say, more uploaded replays with the patch... to clear ANY doubts (testing in singleplayer map or multiplayer game).
If you don't agree, then show us how wrong we are (because everyone can talk, but testing is proving).