Game Balance Tweaks

[Kraellin]

ok, this has been hashed around quite a bit in many threads, but i thought i'd take a slightly different slant to it here.

we all mostly know that high numbers beat high honor, given the same amount of koku to work with. what i'd like to see, especially with the new tweaks the expack will bring, is that this becomes more balanced...numbers vs honor.

now i'm at best only an average player. i'm certainly not a dominant player so some of this is simply my own lack of ability on the field, but it is a truism that numbers beat honor, mostly due to the flanking abilities of higher numbers. what i'd like to see is that this isnt quite so much the case and that higher honor could once in a while beat higher numbers and not just in lower koku games.

i hate quoting history as i usually get it wrong, but i do know that smaller armies did occaisionally beat larger armies and not just from having a tactical advantage such as high ground or protected terrain or weather and so on. they did it from skill, dedication, morale, loyalty, righteousness and honor. and perhaps even other reasons, but they did do it.

currently, skill is tied with in with honor and i think that's a mistake. having a higher honor is no guarantee that you can swing a sword any better. morale is also tied in with honor and whereas those are more closely related, i think that's also a mistake, but i can live with that one.

but there is an X factor, with some units or whole armies, that just flat out makes them better fighing units and it's not just skill or tactics or geographic advantages. you can call it honor or having a clear and just cause to fight for, or better morale, or whatever you like, but it exists to lesser or greater amounts in various fighting units.

i was a bit disappointed when i first started playing online because of the lack of this balance in the game. high numbers always beat high honor. i think it's the hero factor, the underdog factor, the beating the odds quality that i'm missing and wanting in this game. there is just something special about the 100 going up against the 1000 and not only making a good show of things, but in actually winning the battle that you just dont find in this game. and that's what i'd like to see more of here.

K.

[Maltz]

please ignore this one.

[This message has been edited by Maltz (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Maltz]

(I don't know why my reply didn't show up - just trying it again.)

I totally agree with Kraellin that high honor/quality should have a larger advantage, but this should be true only under one condition - that the high-number side is not "entirely" prepared for the battle. In terms of STW, there is a big morale penalty in these situations to those who were not prepared.

I guess in current STW battles both sides were already prepared for the battle - so out-numbering almost guarantee a victory. One men only has 2 hands, while 3 men has 6. There are exceptions -- in short, if the high number army does not have a larger "contact surface".

For example, yesterday I played an expert 120 unit campaign, and I got a R4 general with 307 men in Tamba. Oda got more than 800 men to attack, and I tried to defend bcz it says it is a "highland" province.

The AI, largerly archers, was smart enough to go around the mountains so they did not really suffer a lot of height disadvatanges. Yet they came in thin-line layers, stretched out and only had 3 units at front. So my online 4 units were just enough to handle + flank the enemy's front. The enemy poured arrow on me, but I was still able to rout their front before my men depleted. The enemy ended up in a rout cascade finally, both of us lost half of the men. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Kraellin]

maltz,

there is sometimes a lag in the posting of the message.\

and as far as numbers vs honor, i was really speaking more towards the multiplayer games rather than the single, though it would also apply to single player.

K.

[Khan7]

The fact that numbers beat honor is a very important game-balancing feature and also quite realistic. It has to be generally more efficient to spend your money on more troops rather than higher quality troops, it's realistic and the game would be a joke if it were any other way. Plus, you are missing the fact that there really is more of a balance there than you evidently see, because there are situations, like in low to medium koku battles where you are better off going for better troop types and not just filling with 16 shitty units.

But if upping the honor were more efficient than buying more, then that would mean that the guy who spends all of his 6000 koku on an honor 9 WM would whup up on an army 14-16 times his size. It also works realistically, just think about it-- as you get higher and higher levels of a skill, it gets harder and harder to get better. It is relatively easy to train troops to a workable level of proficiency, but getting elites is difficult, not only because of the exponentially more training required, but because it takes a special breed of man.

And as for honor not correlating to skill, you're getting hung up on semantics. Honor = skill in this game, i.e. it is the game variable which accounts for such factors. If the game designers had wanted to call it something like "combat proficiency quotient", it would still do the same thing. They called it honor because that term is catchy and seems to fit this particular situtation.

So I hope that all clears a few things up.

------------------
Khan7

[Maltz]

Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:


... i was really speaking more towards the multiplayer games rather than the single, though it would also apply to single player.

K.[/QUOTE]

Yes I can fully understand this, yet I guess the general principle is pretty much the same. The quality beats quantity only if they are truly better after all the factors multiplied.

For example, we give each soldier a power of 1, and with each honor increase it becomes 1.2 (H1), 1.4 (H2). So basically 2 H0 soldiers (Power = 2) are better than one H4 (Power = 1.8). However, when one H0 soldier was unprepared for the battle (i.e. they stay at the back, thus not really helping the fight), then they are not counted. The front line of the quantity army might just be as wide as the quality army - then of course the quality army prevail. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Shuko]

Kraellin

After noting the other replies I would say that remixing the units like you suggested is impossible. High honour troop units would have better training, better leaders and perhaps better weapons and armour. Thus to me it seems that honour and skill must be linked, you agree that honour and morale are linked.

If you study the Unit Values and Koku / Unit Honour Table you can see a number of problems eg. low morale value of naginatas. As the honour level rises the Attack, Defense and Morale values increase proportionately to the koku spent eg. a level four naginata has 2 Morale points while a level two has no Morale points.

Don't know how to solve your issue, could only adjust the purchase price of some units and adjust the Unit Honour Table. A high honour samurai will swing his katana for longer than a low honour one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif, law of probability says he will collect more heads.

[Kraellin]

shuko,

under the current system it may well be impossible. however, i believe it could be tweaked such that at a 5000 koku game, honor and numbers more or less played equal importance. currently, you always take 16 units in a 5k game. i'd like to be able to take 12 or 14 with higher honor and still have a shot at beating the opponent with 16. as it is, this is near impossible given generals of near ability.

also, if the stats were separated out for morale, honor, skill, and the new one, discipline as well as weapon and armor upgrades, i think it would be more feasible. you could tweak an army to your liking and still have a shot at taking fewer men with higher honor. i wouldnt want to overbalance it towards honor or any other one stat, but it would be nice to have a more or less equal shot. frankly, i like smaller armies with more skill and higher morale and i know there are instances of this type of army winning historically. there is almost another stat you could add as well and that is the sort of 'gung-ho' stat, though i can see this being more or less a part of honor or morale.

this would also somewhat simulate 'hand picking your army' as opposed to buying in bulk ;)

K.

[Ryuzoji Shingen]

Honor vs number???
Put it this way
You have one man gettin' whaled on by two... chances are who's gonna win?????

------------------
For the Samurai to Learn
There is only one thing
One last thing-
To face death unflinchingly

Tsukahara Bokuden

[Shuko]

K

A completely seperate thought came to me when thinking about this issue for online play. Why not have a player "weighted" as a general via his/her honour level and have the maps weighted per defence values. An example is a 120h player attacks a 140h player defending a hilly area. The weighting of the 20h difference and the added defence bonus of that map is sort of deducted from the defender (in this case); thus the weaker attacker get x koku and y koku added to his base of 5,000 koku. He may end up having say 5,850 koku to spend against the 5,000 koku for the stronger defender.

On top of this you could have the ability to buy honour troops (with increased attack,defensive and morale as is currently the case) and buy upgrades of weapons, armour and discipline. Then in online games the number of flags per unit no longer tells you all as is the current situation.

My preference is for 5,000 k armies, your skill wins the game in most situations rather than attrition.


Kahn 7

The very high cost of having level 7, 8 or 9 honour troops reflects the extra effort to get them to that level. I agree that honour = skill.

[Puzz3D]

Everyone posting a response here sees the problem. That is: buying honor points is proportional to the current koku value of the unit instead of being a fixed cost/point. In addition, the basic cost of each unit is not related properly to the unit's effectiveness (ie: attack + defense). Monks are too effective for their cost, etc. Honor linearly affects the attack/defend values, and the cost of honor should be constant to keep the balance. Tying in morale with honor just complicates the whole issue, but basically buying honor points is not good if it drops you below the 16 unit max. Also, there seem to be a significant morale hit if you are greatly outnumbered.

I think cavalry would gain the effectiveness it should have if the basic unit costs were rebalanced to be proportional to attack/defend effectiveness. Then the cav's speed would be a free bonus. Ranged units need their cost determined with their ranged attack taken into consideration.

I find it curious that H2 is the default honor level for unit purchase and not H0. I'd like to see this unit cost part of the game re-evaluated by CA/DT.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[Koga No Goshi]

Change an army's overall effectiveness taking the player's honor level into account?

I'm sorry, but noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

That will make every possible dirty trick to win comp games and raise honor level the rule, not the exception.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

Why did you bring 16 Female Ashigaru? Keep clicking weather, they're only strong one week a month.

[Khan7]

Cavalry is more expensive BECAUSE it's faster, and it's worth the cost, too (unless you're playing a low-koku battle). And having a linear scale for the increase in cost based on honor would be disaster, it would throw the game balance to the moon. Having everything exact and proportional in the way you are talking about would make the game bland and historically farcical. I'm sorry, not everything in any walk of life is perfect and proportional, and certainly not in STW, otherwise YA would be the best units in the game.

People probably have a point about WM, but I personally consider all other complaints about proportional unit cost to be ludicrous.

------------------
Khan7

[shingenmitch2]

Krae --

I usually agree with ur arguement for options, but this is one tweak I disagree about. Numbers should almost always be superior to skill level (other things being equal)

By this I mean 2 YS should almost always beat 1YS for the same cost. Men in war are rarely trained to a level of skill that makes them 3 times better than the next guy (the statistical number is usually no more than 1.5 --see Col. Dupuy's #'s statistics and war)

HOWEVER, how the troops are equipped and employed (ie. led and used) can make them 10-100 times more effective than the enemy's soldier. In STW terms, a better equipped unit (or match-up) is like the difference between a NoDachi and YS. One troop destroys the other because of weapon matchup/superiority.

Better tactical employment is the difference between a general who sends all his troops in a headlong straight charge, and a general who maneuvers and flanks.

Tactical skill (troop use) and weapon superiority account for MOST victories of small troops over overwhelming odds in history. Training/experience also plays a part in equation--usually allowing for better tactical employment.

If you look at historical battles between troops equally well-led and equipped, then the side with the numbers (most troops) almost always wins.


---------------

Yuuki-- my guess about the default being H2 is because of the morale. H0 troops are usually too unstable to have a "decent" melee battle. I believe the designers felt that H2 troops have enough morale and stability to give a good "baseline" battle.

[shingenmitch2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shingenmitch2:
[B]Krae --

I usually agree with ur arguement for options, but this is one tweak I disagree about. Numbers should almost always be superior to skill level (other things being equal)

By this I mean 2 YS should almost always beat 1YS for the same cost. Men in war are rarely trained to a level of skill that makes them 3 times better than the next guy (the statistical number is usually no more than 1.5 --see Col. Dupuy's #'s statistics and war)

HOWEVER, how the troops are equipped and employed (ie. led and used) can make them 10-100 times more effective than the enemy's soldier. In STW terms, a better equipped unit (or match-up) is like the difference between a NoDachi and YS. One troop destroys the other because of weapon matchup/superiority.

Better tactical employment is the difference between a general who sends all his troops in a headlong straight charge, and a general who maneuvers and flanks.

Tactical skill (troop use) and weapon superiority account for MOST victories of small troops over overwhelming odds in history. Training/experience also plays a part in equation--usually allowing for better tactical employment.

If you look at historical battles between troops equally well-led (generalship) and equipped, then the side with the numbers (most troops) almost always wins. Training might tip the balance--but usually not to the extent of beating a 3 on 1.

-------------
As for feeling like u have to fill all ur slots in 5,000 koku battle -- u don't have to and can win. Cliff does it regularly to up honor a few of his guys to a significant bonus and will run his army at 14-15 as opposed to the full 16. In lower koku battles I will sacrifice a some numbers for honored units, but it's a delicate balance. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


---------------

Yuuki-- my guess about the default being H2 is because of the morale. H0 troops are usually too unstable to have a "decent" melee battle. I believe the designers felt that H2 troops have enough morale and stability to give a good "baseline" battle.

[Shuko]

Quote Originally posted by Koga No Goshi:
Change an army's overall effectiveness taking the player's honor level into account?

I'm sorry, but noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

That will make every possible dirty trick to win comp games and raise honor level the rule, not the exception.

[/QUOTE]


Well lead army units and armies usually win, the captain or colonel or general is critical. Why should playing online be any different ? We are not the same, do not usually pick identical armies and employ different tactics.

It all comes down to how much refinement can be done on the existing game "rules of resolving battles and unit pros and cons". How complicated do we want to make online play? They could certainly adjust some of the honour and purchase prices of units.

Who will decide and will any of our collective suggestions be accepted into the next patch ?

[Kraellin]

hehe...stirred up a hornet's nest, did i?

with the new tweaks we are getting in the expack, i still maintain that it shld be possible for a smaller army to beat a larger....at times. i'm not talking about swinging it over to where this is the norm. i'm talking about just bringing the two closer together a bit, especially in light of armor and weapons upgrades. if you also added in separate tweaking options for skill, rather than putting this as a subset of honor, then it shld be possible to, given the same koku on each side, tweak a superior fighting force that could beat a superior fighting number.

shingen, you mention that history says smaller numbers mostly only win when they have techno superiority, well, that's being added into our options with the expack, so there ya go :)

i am NOT suggesting that one h9 monk unit or even an h9 kensai is going to clean the field or 'normal' troops. i wouldnt want that either. but, i would like it that if by careful selection and options tweaks you would have a better chance than currently exists of fielding 14 units and having a shot at beating 16. and again, i'm talking about 2 opposing generals with similar abilities in handling their armies and utilizing tactics. it would add more spice to the game, more options.

but, you all may be correct, because there are other factors taken into account in this game with morale. flanking, numbers, surrounding, etc, that arent unit tweaking type things but are on-the-field type parameters, so it might indeed not work even with the options i'm talking about...but, i do maintain that it's still a good idea ;)

and shuko, i like that idea. good one :) it would prolly take about a year of beta testing to get it close to right though and even then folks would crab about it ;)

and i'm also a bit surprised by the historians here. i thought you'd come to my rescue and be citing chapter and verse of all the battles that have been won by smaller numbers. guess this is my come-uppance for all the slights i've done ya in the past ;)

K.

[Puzz3D]

I think I see what Khan7 is saying. If the cost of raising honor was constant, then the trend would be to buy fewer units, and have less to manage. A small rushing force could well rout enough weaker units of a larger enemy force to cause a general rout before the small force could be effectively flanked. Also, the high cost of raising honor on monks and heavy cav keeps them from becoming unbeatable super units. At least the way it is now, everyone is fielding 16 units in a 5000 koku battle which is a balance in itself, and it's quite a challenge to manage that many units.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[Maltz]

Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:

there is just something special about the 100 going up against the 1000 and not only making a good show of things, but in actually winning the battle that you just dont find in this game. and that's what i'd like to see more of here.

[/QUOTE]

I mentioned the "contact surface" thing... if we go check history for those odd victories, we can find that in almost all of the ocassions, the smaller army only made contact with PART of the larger army. The regional defeat then caused a cascade of panic, and routing, etc.

Just in STW MP, everybody likes the fine-weather-plain-terrain a little too much. If it is a heavy foggy day, or a narrow passage, it is highly possible to charge the enemy from one end only. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

I don't think it is really the matter of "weapon" "honor".. etc. It won't make such a large difference of 1 men vs. 10 men in real life. I rather say collective morale of more of a issue here. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[MagyarKhans Cham]

if used by generals who know what they are doning... quantity over quality in this game

[Koga No Goshi]

Kraellin,

I do see what you're saying, and as one of the pseudo-historians, I like the idea of a quality but smaller army winning over a larger. But to be honest, that can already happen in the game, and I've done it several times. There have been times I've had armies of 12 units made up of H2 or 3 Yari Sam, No Dachi, etc., and saw the enemy had 14-16 where the extra was made up of ashigaru or he had cav archers and yari cav and, knowing the koku limit, knew they must be H0. And I won.

I guess I don't like the idea of a built-in parameter that would allow, in some situations, two players of equal ability to fight with a huge numerical disparity and the smaller guy to win. Again, assuming the players are around equal in ability.
If the guy with numerical superiority does NOT have equal or greater ability, then in the game the way it is he should lose anyway.


------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Insolent Horses!!!!"

[Shuko]

Koga

one more thing ok.

I think my idea would help fix the HONOUR listing of online players. All those who have become strong ie. over 130, by playing newbies or by selecting certain maps (and defending a hill etc) will suddendly find they have a koku disadvantage in many of their comp games.

Their problem is they do NOT have this high skill level and will rapidly fall down the honour ladder if they continue to play comp.
Am I correct on this or will they find ways to cheat the system eg. dropping players from their game ?

If a player doesn't play x comp games in 3 months then deduct 10 honour points from their total, they do this type of thing with chess ratings.

[Kraellin]

shuko,

sounds like a handicapping system. i like it, but as always, i would add it in as a third option, friendly, comp, and handicapped. feeling bored cause yer always winning? play a handicapped game.

K.

[Khan7]

The problem with handicaps is that it really doesn't take all that much to tip the balance in this game, and there are alot of players who are relatively close in skill level. Give me a 25% koku advantage on some superpower like Magyar and I'll kick his ass. There would no longer be much of an incentive to raise your honor.

I think that dishonorable cunts should be dealt with, but certainly not in this way.

[Shuko]

Khan7

think about it some more, I believe it would reduce the Honour problem http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[MagyarKhans Cham]

gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop

::JUST TAKING NOTICE OF THIS THREAD::

gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop
gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop gallop

[Shuko]

the poor bastard is Araldited to the saddle http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif