View Full Version : Balancing Royal Units
Brandy Blue
02-20-2010, 04:04
Balancing royal units in terms of cost, upkeep, recuitability etc. can be a problem. I've been considering the following for some time, but haven't got around to trying it.
1: Reduce upkeep of royal units to a pittance so they don't financially cripple factions like the Danes or Vikings.
2: Make them unrecruitable so their cheap upkeep doesn't make them a ridiculous bargain. I'm actually not sure how to make them unrecuitable, except to give them impossibly difficult requirements to recruit.
3: Possibly give the Vikings Viking Raider Cavalry or Royal Bodyguards for their royal unit when I play them. That way the royal family does not provide me with an uber army and I have to tech up to my huscarls like the Anglo Saxon factions do.
Any thoughts on the best way to deal with royal units?
To make them unrecruitable in the building's required column simply do not place anything there. Raider Cav is an option, the other option would be to chage the Saxon royal units to huscarls (which they would have been anyway).
With the Vikings, I changed their AI behaviour from Barbarian Raider to Desperate Defense. This means they actually settle and do not stagnate like the Danes do on the main campaign. Secondly, I changed all the units so the Vikings actually face some resistance. (See my sig).
On the main campaign, change the Danes to Catholic_Expansive, this gives them a better chance at doing something. (Similarly with the Aragonese).
Recruiting the bodyguard adds unit diversity (and some awesome troops) however they are too easy to recruit, you only need the first royal court don't you...?
Personally I'd just move them to a later place in the building change so there harder to recruit, and to combat lowering the upkeep, you could make them take 10 turns to recruit, or something. :tongue:
Belisario
02-20-2010, 17:08
I agree with Thermal Mercury, bodyguard units need harder requirements to retrain. I would say the same buildings as their knight counterparts. I am not sure about make them a lot of turns to recruit but lowered their upkeep is a good option, especially for factions that don't have a large income.
I agree with Thermal Mercury, bodyguard units need harder requirements to retrain. I would say the same buildings as their knight counterparts. I am not sure about make them a lot of turns to recruit but lowered their upkeep is a good option, especially for factions that don't have a large income.
Giving it some more thought, really long waiting times probably isn't sensible because if AI do recruit them they will be waiting forever. So perhaps not then. :tongue:
Royal BGs are a huge issue - because they are units that the AI (and player) can't reject, they can have a tremendous economic impact by their maintenance costs, especially in the early stages of the game that expansion and cashflow are crucial. They are also very key, because since they are by default very capable, high end (for each era or totally) units they can make a tremendous impact in the early stages that units that can counter them (like reliable spears or heavy infantry) are not recruitable.
Many approaches can be tried in balancing them, for example one can make BGs of very low (or even no!) maintenance cost at all - this means that even Denmark, Aragon and Novgorod can expand in the early stages of the game as they are not drowned by the maintenance costs. However with such an appraoch its good to nerf the BG units statistically (ie close the gap between high and low end units) as otherwise thy can easily dominate the game. Also, this issue should be closely related with how muchother units and buildings cost, how much agr. money there is available etc.
Recruitability of BGs is also key: if they are available as in vanilla, then the player can and will replenish his losses on family member units and so gain an upper hand versus the AI that doesn't do them and frequently gets wiped out since he has no family members left. In addition this would make the player more careful in how and when he deploys his Royal nobility, which sets him in a more equal footing with the AI. So making them non-recruitable is a good option. If one judges that he wants them recruitable, then they are better made relatively easy to reach tech wise, otherwise the player may be the only one that enjoys the advantage of making them as thermal mercury says.
Size of the BG unit affects both strength and maintenance costs in MTW, so its best decided on from the beginning, before one goes on to balance the stats and maint. costs with it. As BB said in another thread a very small BG unit can be shot to pieces in larger unit settings and this is indeed a problem. CA preffrered that option in vanilla and so went for very high stats. Another option would be to make BG units of default size, (as for kataphraktoi boyars and mongol hc) but then one would need to nerf the exquisite stats of the knight units a bit. I think that this option is a good appraoch personally.
:bow:
Belisario
02-21-2010, 18:29
All things considered, I think that your perfect option for BG units would be: low or no maintenance cost, not recruitable, adjust stats (how low?), and default size. Please, correct me.
That's one appraoch i've tried with some success, yes. There are other ways to do it. Ultimately it depends on how one wants battles and battle balance to play out.
:bow:
It is a bodyguard unit, I think reducing the size and upkeep would be adequate, weakening stats would make them feeble.
bondovic
02-22-2010, 13:33
I'm not sure who'm I'm with on this. But I do know what I feel is the best way to solve the long term gameplay issues involved with BGs.
No upkeep is OK. This has too many benefits and too few drawbacks not to be implemented.
Unrecruitable. There are problems abound regarding Katatanks and Boyars. They must be recruitable. The Byz never get economic issues, so we can leave the Katas unchanged in every aspect. Boyars need to have upkeep costs, but significantly lower - 40 horse at 40 or 50. Novs almost always succumb to this pressure otherwise.
No nerfing of stats. The playing field will be level in this regard. There won't be more or less BGs around, just better balanced armies.
Originallyposted by Bondovic
There are problems abound regarding Katatanks and Boyars. They must be recruitable.
I dont think they "must" be. First of all you'd get more than enough of them as royal family members, and second the player has a significant one up being able to retrain family members' units as it means they can be preserved better - and the AI doesnt.
Nerfing of stats works fine when you set BG unit size to default cavalry and scalable, because it balances out the increase in unit strength that comes with increase in numbers. While most HC in MTW is nicely represented, with high charge but a bit feeble in melee, mounted knights are equally able in both; that makes them a one off advantage unit. Muslim BGs are (as a model of stat proportions) more close to what mounted knights should have been.
Thermal: by default Belisario and myself meant, as i understood him, default cavalry size ie normal 40, so its increasing and not reducing size - it was also implicitly meant that the unit would be scalable - that's another significant increase. Leaving your glasses around these days? :)
Belisario
02-22-2010, 18:40
Another option for Katatanks and Boyars would involve a little modding, i.e. duplicate these units to get a BG and a HC versions. Certainly the Muslim BGs approach is worth testing - IIRC it means an attack of 3 and a morale of 6. And yes, by default I meant cavalry size normal 40.
bondovic
02-23-2010, 01:35
Thermal: by default Belisario and myself meant, as i understood him, default cavalry size ie normal 40, so its increasing and not reducing size - it was also implicitly meant that the unit would be scalable - that's another significant increase. Leaving your glasses around these days? :)[/QUOTE]
I dont think they "must" be. First of all you'd get more than enough of them as royal family members, and second the player has a significant one up being able to retrain family members' units as it means they can be preserved better - and the AI doesnt.
Well, there are no "musts" whatsoever if we feel like being nitpicky, right? This "must" relies on the premise of recruitability for the sake of maintained gameplay. You play your game and I'll play mine, I guess, but for tactical reasons I want to keep these units recruitable.
The argument for making them unrecruitable on account of the player getting unfair advantages over the AI doesn't feel relevant - ignore retraining = problem solved. If you can't keep your fingers to yourself on this, I don't know what to tell you.
Nerfing of stats works fine when you set BG unit size to default cavalry and scalable, because it balances out the increase in unit strength that comes with increase in numbers.
Why nerf if you're going to compensate? Missiles? Is that really ever a huge problem for BGs? And the increase in numbers applies to all scalable units, not just bodyguards. I don't understand this argument.
While most HC in MTW is nicely represented, with high charge but a bit feeble in melee, mounted knights are equally able in both; that makes them a one off advantage unit. Muslim BGs are (as a model of stat proportions) more close to what mounted knights should have been.
I don't really care about historical accuracy when it is detrimental to gameplay. The difference between muslim BGs and catholic BGs add color to the game. Perhaps that's not what everyone wants, but for me it's the birth right of every RTS game that they offer different "teams" that are balanced against eachother.
"Keep my fingers to myself?"
Well, it sounds like a typical reaction from people that don't like to play on an equal footing with the AI, and i've seen plenty of such around here and otherplaces; the argument is that its all simply "irrelevant", with no precise explanation why exactly that is so.
To be honest with you i don't mind people that come out and say they just can't live without the diversity and options over the AI, which frankly seems your case. But i do mind those that try to present as "irrelevant" evidence that such a thing does occur and in some cases it can be avoided.
Originally posted by Bondovic
Why nerf if you're going to compensate? Missiles? Is that really ever a huge problem for BGs? And the increase in numbers applies to all scalable units, not just bodyguards. I don't understand this argument.
There are two reasons:
1. Missile use from the player versus the AI, as stated by BB.
The player can and will target the enemy general with his missiles, because he knows that getting him down gives him a tremendous advantage. The AI knows the importance of the general but has no routine to do the same, neither has too effective routines to protect him against.
2. Jediism
The higher the stats and the smaller the size of units, the more likely it is for them to accumulate valor (and so morale) and turn into jedi units. This is all the more so for units that harbor family members that can have already significant valor due to vices and virtues. An extreme case of such a unit is the kensai unit from STW: it was a one man unit that was fighting and defeating 4 other units simultaneously due to how much morale and valor it had accululated (due to how the battle engine upgrades valor and so morale). If that's what you want to play, fine, but know that it doesn't exactly make for good gameplay.
The increase in numbers also applies to all other units, yes. I don't understand the question.
I don't really care about historical accuracy when it is detrimental to gameplay.
Excellent, because i dont either.
The difference between muslim BGs and catholic BGs add color to the game.
Ah, i'm sorry then but i'm afraid that if so you have to rephrase your previous argument:
You wanted to say that, you don't raelly care about gameplay when its detrimental to the game having color.
With this i personally have tremendous problems though, because gameplay raelly does come first for me, and not color. If i wanted color i'd be playing M2TW, which by the way it seems you'd really like - no matter what we do to MTW it'll never have as much color.
BGs that turn into jedis because of their high stats, that have better attack and defence than good heavy infantry, the best charge and armor and quite high speed (and so staminia) altogether, are there precisely for color and not for gameplay.
Perhaps that's not what everyone wants, but for me it's the birth right of every RTS game that they offer different "teams" that are balanced against eachother.
No doubt that each can play the game he loves most. For me that game (as a model of balance) is STW. Try as you might, you'll never really balance rosters that have significantly different units. The best way to achieve, is to make the differences slight.
If you are talking about classc RTSs, then tW battles are not played like that because of morale. Classic RTS games, have an altogether different balance, because they have an altogether different battle model.
If you read my post (that you quoted) you'll see that i talk about muslim BG stats as proportion models and not as absolute values.
:bow:
Thermal: by default Belisario and myself meant, as i understood him, default cavalry size ie normal 40, so its increasing and not reducing size - it was also implicitly meant that the unit would be scalable - that's another significant increase. Leaving your glasses around these days? :)
[/QUOTE]
I was more referring to the idea of reducing the BG size because of how overpowered they are, which sounds like a good idea to me, just not reducing the stats too. I don't see why you would want to increase the bodyguard size. :balloon2:
The idea of making a new version is good too, in that a recruitable and non-recruit version is available, the non-recruitable being slightly better and the BG, as I think someone mentioned earlier.
And, whilst I don't have glasses, I do need them :grin:
Hello,
The best method is to increase the numbers of all bodyguard units to default size and scalable, combined with making them completely untrainable and 0 support costs. This works well and is fairer to AI factions. Increasing their sizes gives them some more protection against concentrated missile fire utilised by human player. The small units of 20 man/horse are hopeless, especially if you play the game on huge units setting - if the faction sends all of their heirs to a battle, human controlled archers/arbalests can destroy that faction in one battle. Tampering with the stats is then the next stage. I would reduce their attack and defence a little, because otherwise they are an easy exploit for the player, but as compromise increase their armor to provide some more missile protection.
Also Byzantine faction would not have used Kataphrakoi extensively during the period (it was the time of the pronoiar), so it fits historically as well (for those that care). Same applies to the Boyars, Sipahi of the Porte and Mongol Heavy Cavalry.
Yohei
Welcome to the org Yohei, enjoy your stay
:bow:
@thermal: it took many decades for me mum to admit the same :)
bondovic
02-24-2010, 02:11
"Keep my fingers to myself?"
Well, it sounds like a typical reaction from people that don't like to play on an equal footing with the AI, and i've seen plenty of such around here and otherplaces; the argument is that its all simply "irrelevant", with no precise explanation why exactly that is so.
To be honest with you i don't mind people that come out and say they just can't live without the diversity and options over the AI, which frankly seems your case. But i do mind those that try to present as "irrelevant" evidence that such a thing does occur and in some cases it can be avoided.
I don't understand why you're being so sensitive about this, but your reply is pure nonsense nevertheless. I gave you a perfectly clear explanation of why that is a non-issue; if you simply apply some discipline and don't retrain your case for retrainability as a player advantage over the AI loses all relevancy. How is this not clear enough for you?
Secondly. To imply that I "seem to be one that wants options over the AI" is tantamount to projection, if I have to guess. Because there is simply nothing in my post that suggests that I am one of these people. What I in fact am, is one that understands that player vs AI leveling hinges on "keeping fingers to yourself" in a lot of cases. This being one of those cases. Trade is another.
There are two reasons:
1. Missile use from the player versus the AI, as stated by BB.
The player can and will target the enemy general with his missiles, because he knows that getting him down gives him a tremendous advantage. The AI knows the importance of the general but has no routine to do the same, neither has too effective routines to protect him against.
2. Jediism
The higher the stats and the smaller the size of units, the more likely it is for them to accumulate valor (and so morale) and turn into jedi units. This is all the more so for units that harbor family members that can have already significant valor due to vices and virtues. An extreme case of such a unit is the kensai unit from STW: it was a one man unit that was fighting and defeating 4 other units simultaneously due to how much morale and valor it had accululated (due to how the battle engine upgrades valor and so morale). If that's what you want to play, fine, but know that it doesn't exactly make for good gameplay.
Fair enough.
Excellent, because i dont either.
Was explaining my position. Still don't understand why you get so incensed.
Ah, i'm sorry then but i'm afraid that if so you have to rephrase your previous argument:
You wanted to say that, you don't raelly care about gameplay when its detrimental to the game having color.
More rudeness! Nice. See above reply. Do you feel that "your" gameplay is the standard to whcich all must adher? I simply stated that I enjoy color. Good job at forcing a conclusion from that.
With this i personally have tremendous problems though, because gameplay raelly does come first for me, and not color. If i wanted color i'd be playing M2TW, which by the way it seems you'd really like - no matter what we do to MTW it'll never have as much color.
This is just silly. I explained a perfectly simple concept - in my world color (to a certain extent) constitutes gameplay. You're stuck in your color vs gameplay dichotomy. Absurd to me, but to each his own, I presume. Just, please, stop trying to suggest what I may or may not like.
BGs that turn into jedis because of their high stats, that have better attack and defence than good heavy infantry, the best charge and armor and quite high speed (and so staminia) altogether, are there precisely for color and not for gameplay.
Fine! And I don't have a problem with you wanting to play a simulation of history. Do it. By all means. Leave me alone.
No doubt that each can play the game he loves most. For me that game (as a model of balance) is STW. Try as you might, you'll never really balance rosters that have significantly different units. The best way to achieve, is to make the differences slight.
If you are talking about classc RTSs, then tW battles are not played like that because of morale. Classic RTS games, have an altogether different balance, because they have an altogether different battle model.[/QUOTE]
In that you gather resources on the battle map? The morale dimension is easily construed as overall unit strength in other RTSs. Other than that the concept of balance still applies.
If you read my post (that you quoted) you'll see that i talk about muslim BG stats as proportion models and not as absolute values.
Why point this out to me? I said I like the differences as they are. So what if that stems from the proportion model or the absolute values?
@thermal: it took many decades for me mum to admit the same :)
Lol, my mum recently got glasses, but wasn't wanting them, I don't see the issue :tongue: I'm only 15 anyway, so I guess its the curse of the computer studying in my case. :rolleyes:
if you simply apply some discipline and don't retrain your case for retrainability as a player advantage over the AI loses all relevancy. How is this not clear enough for you?
Hello,
I believe the thread here is about balancing the bodyguard units? To balance the units, the game must be modded, so "self discipline" does not come into this; this thread is about modding the game in order to better balance these units. Self discipline does not need to apply to exploitation of trade, use of mercenary units or dismounting of cavalry, because the game can be modded to suit these anyway. A game is not really a game unless it has clear rules and lines that cannot be crossed. If it comes down to discipline, basically playing the game badly in order that the AI has a fair chance of winning, then it ceases to be a game.
Yohei
bondovic
02-24-2010, 17:23
Yohei. I chipped in regarding one rather specific point: what one can do to keep royal units from crippling certain AI-factions. My suggestion was to lower or remove upkeep, and that it's fine like that. That does fall under the concept of modding, whether it's ultra-sophisticated or not.
So if you role play, it ceases to be a game? C'mon.
Yohei. I chipped in regarding one rather specific point: what one can do to keep royal units from crippling certain AI-factions. My suggestion was to lower or remove upkeep, and that it's fine like that. That does fall under the concept of modding, whether it's ultra-sophisticated or not.
So if you role play, it ceases to be a game? C'mon.
Hello,
Simply removing upleep, helps powerful AI factions (like the Byzantines) as well as the smaller factions line Denmark. It also helps the player a lot because he has less upkeep to pay for these units. Also removing upkeep means AI keeps training lots and lots of these units and imbalances the campaign.
There is fine line between role playing and playing the game in a forced, unnatural way, because it has ceased to be a challenge.
Best approach really is to make these units default size, 0 upkeep, and untrainable (reducing the stats is also advised but not as important as the other changes). This works very well for both player and AI. Try it.
Yohei
bondovic
02-24-2010, 18:54
Sorry. Yes, you're correct. I proposed 0 upkeep and untrainable. Exception made for Byz who get no changes at all, either to upkeep or trainability. Boyars, I suggested, should be trainable but at half the upkeep cost. The one thing I don't want to do is nerf stats, because it's detrimental to gameplay in my book (in that it takes out color of the game).
But that's exactly why I role play. If you want to describe that as playing unnaturally... sure, why not? :smile:
Originally posted by Bondovic
Leave me alone.
:laugh4:
Originally posted by thermal mercury
I'm only 15 anyway, so I guess its the curse of the computer studying in my case.
Take it easy thermal, there's a whole world outside, much wider and much wiser (in parts) than the org ;)
Take it easy thermal, there's a whole world outside, much wider and much wiser (in parts) than the org ;)
Wiser? pfft, you seen the youth of today? ;]
I'm not completely glued to the computer, but me stupidly starting about 10 things at once means I have to come on a lot anyway. :tongue:
Anyway...yeah, unit...balancing... thingy....Brandy Blue hasn't even commented once after all of the posts we've put up.
Brandy Blue
02-26-2010, 02:24
Anyway...yeah, unit...balancing... thingy....Brandy Blue hasn't even commented once after all of the posts we've put up.
That's because I came seeking wisdom, not to inpart it. I was intending to thank everyone (and I do so now) but wanted to wait a bit first, in case anyone had anything to add.
If any of you want to know, I have switched all bodyguard upkeep to 1. (Paying them zero just feels wrong to me. Not logical, I know.) I also switched the Vikings to desperate defender. That's enough to experiment with for now.
Fair enough, I'm just used to barging in to the conversations on my threads. :bow:
This is kinda off-thread but when I attempted to play Scotland using the XL mod, the fact that the scot King wouldn't stop producing heirs drove me to the brink of bankrupcty. I had about a WHOLE STACK of just royal bodyguards and the upkeep on them was insane. I hate to think how the AI handles that kind of minus on it's income..
This is kinda off-thread but when I attempted to play Scotland using the XL mod, the fact that the scot King wouldn't stop producing heirs drove me to the brink of bankrupcty. I had about a WHOLE STACK of just royal bodyguards and the upkeep on them was insane. I hate to think how the AI handles that kind of minus on it's income..
True. Happens exactly that way in my Norwegian campaign in XL.
Maybe I'm gonna add some more income to Scotland as well as reducing upkeep for BGs.
This is kinda off-thread but when I attempted to play Scotland using the XL mod, the fact that the scot King wouldn't stop producing heirs drove me to the brink of bankrupcty. I had about a WHOLE STACK of just royal bodyguards and the upkeep on them was insane. I hate to think how the AI handles that kind of minus on it's income..
This actually bankrupts the AI. If you run the game in debug mode and switch factions to check treasuries, you will notice that the Danes suffer the most and are in the red after only a few turns - the same happens to the Aragonese as well. This is because of the heirs maturing and the faction controlling only one province.
In fact if you turtle a campaign as the Danes and try to take only the Scandinavian lands at first it is extremely difficult to stay afloat financially. Playing on huge unit size you will probably have to disband many of your own units in order to break even.
Yohei
That might expain why the Aragonese frequently (for me at least) try to invade Spain with what seems like a full stack of nothing else but Royal Bodyguards,trying to reduce the loss on it's income,or isn't the AI capable of that kind of deductive thinking? I just thought it was stupid,since I took the same number of Jinettes and procceded to kill them via mass Javelin fire..
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.