View Full Version : 100 units maybe problems
I was just thinking that in STW all the probs with the balancing of units.
e.g YA h9 w3 a3 too strong and cheap
Surely 100 units cant be balanced?Im sure and have a bad feeling that the online gaming, u gunna see the same old 8 units used in most battle?
Or am i missing something here http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif
I really hope it works out in MTW or we all know it will die a slow death as MI has;which indeed will be very sad http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Shed some light on this matter as not many things have been said about the forthcomin units?
------------------
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/markuk/t.gif/Fast.gif
Grey Wolves
FastCub
Fast, your point is beyond good - I bet this will be the most heated discussion when MTW is out and MP becomes populated...
In STW/MI we have just over 20 units and balancing took weeks and today units are still not totally, totally balanced. Because it is impossible.
In MTW we will have over 100 units, with different factions having different units, and if proper balancing ain't done we wouldnt have diversity of battles at all - just like noone plays Mongol games (very few)
Tera.
------------------
Proud member of Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka).
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif
Visit my resource site here! (http://terazawa.totalwar.org/)
We really need this game(MTW)to work.
If not the ORG and other sites will slowly die down and become dead http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Which would be a shame after all effort and friends that have been made here and online.
Let us all prey its gunna work out.Hope they pullin there finger out on this one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/markuk/t.gif/Fast.gif
Grey Wolves
FastCub
AMPmortog
03-26-2002, 16:16
it may be very hard to balance 100 units but it can be done or very close...
YA may be very tough once buffed up but they do have 1 very bad weakness...*low moral* shock troops like monks and nd can take them out you just need to flank or get them down low in number atleast half the unit and target them with guns if possible.they just need to work on the cost of upgrading mostly.almost all the units in mi arent balanced right in the cost of koku they either cost to much or to little.weapons and armor should cost about the same for all units or very close...not the cheaper the unit the cheaper the weapon and armor upgrades.
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
03-26-2002, 19:03
Is it not possible in MI to adapt the game so that in MP you can choose from all the possible units of that time period.
IE - Mongol Era - for your army you could have a mix of Korean/Mongol units with Japanese units.
Would make the MP a lot more interesting don't you think?
(I know this is a bit out of the conversation but it is reference to Tera's point)
------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
http://www.gifs.net/animate/aniyin.gif
[This message has been edited by Toda Nebuchadnezzar (edited 03-26-2002).]
GAH! 12 factions each with 8.3 units makes 100 total units! GAH!
So, count on each faction having around 8 to 10 units only. The grand total will be in the 100 unit neighborhood.
Thats my take, anyways...
100 units cannot be and need not be balanced (i.e. on a one vs. one basis).
1) for the given money there always will be a best "shocktroop", best "anti-cavalry" unit, best ranged unit, etc. Given the fact that these roles are fixed (at least given the medieval technology) there always will be a fixed number of "best" units. i.e. in this sense there is no room for 100 units or more.
2) the basic unit roles should be balanced. i.e. anti-cav units should be good against cavalry, shocktroops should be good against anti-cav units, etc.
3) It follows from the first point (and contrary to Toda san) that it won't be a good idea to mix the units of different nations. This would result a kind of "super army" in which only the best unit types would be present. i.e. decrease of diversity.
4) It follows from the third point that the different ARMIES should be balanced. The mongols are avoided exactly because the mongols are superior to the japanese in every respect (yes, even the infantry is better)! That is, an army with good cavalry should have a realy (!) poor infantry, an army with good ranged units should have a poor cavalry, etc. i.e. there should be trade-offs between chosing different ARMY types. Currently, there is no trade-off, the mongols are better.
[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 03-26-2002).]
I pretty much agree with Cheetah. Once again though, the campaign and the online game are different. Online it's the COSTS which must be balanced with units somehow because artificially fair fights are what people want for their tactical exercises and competitions.
In a campaign game seeking a tactical fair fight is nonsense. You try to get the largest possible advantage before a battle. Game balance is a matter of each faction having a reasonable chance to prevail and there are ways this could be arranged while preserving historical army types and capabilities unequal though they may be (and rightfully so). This balance among factions is paramount in a campaign and can be achieved with strategic differences that never effect the online world.
It's a tough job either way.
Why dont they tell us about some of the units now?
True, Cheetah... mostly. Korean Spearmen are HORRIBLE! They are worse than ASHIGARU! They suck royally!
Other than that, the Mongols are stronger overall... albeit a lot more expensive too.
Konnichiwa,
Mongol infantry stronger? Erm.
I agree with Cheetah san: goal should be balance armies not units. Thus a army consisting of one unittype will not be able to beat a heterogenous army. A unit can have very strong properties, it must also have very weak ones.
To achieve that, a more varied upgradesystem is required. In other words: a given unit has a role and that role must be persevered. The YA in STW is a perfect example of a unit that doesn't maintain its role. A H2 is a cavkiller, a H8W2A2 is an allround killer.
STW has a very nice Rock Paper Scissor system (point 2 mentioned by Cheetah san), the simplified catch all upgrade system swamps this.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
I agree with Vanya that there probably won't be 100 units that are "really" different. Units in different factions could have duplicate stats with different graphics. They'll still be called different units. Think like a game marketer.
I certainly hope the upgrade system for online play is redone using the suggestions that people have presented in the forum. The present system is so far off that people are taking honor 0 ranged units and honor 8 YA. I agree with TosaInu that the upgrades should primarily affect a unit's special abilities so that the rock, paper, scissors is enhanced as you upgrade, and not subverted as happens in the present system. Throw in some playtesting by experienced players like AMP and others and the cost of the upgrades can be balanced. A cost balanced upgrade system can be designed, and, if it's not going to be, then I honestly feel that no upgrade system would be preferable.
We know that the online costs can be changed without affecting the single player game in any way. So, there would be some adjustment to the online game possible after lots of player feedback without any effect on the single player game. However, a good basic upgrade system has to be in place.
MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takitama ~~~
I just heard this over the wire! MTW will have 101 units! The 101st unit will be: Mexican Flame-throwers! They will be a Spanish unit.
These fierce fighters go into battle with nothing but the beans and curd in the bellies and a match in their hands. Typically their order of battle is to camp "upwind" of the enemy position.
I trust I need not elaborate further... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Gregoshi
03-28-2002, 00:20
The Mexican Flame-thrower is one unit you wouldn't want to attack from behind...
It would be dangerous for them to be in close formation for several reasons. And they couldn't hide in the trees either - the noise would give them away.
------------------
Gregoshi
A Member of Clan Doragon
Not to mention that in a forest, they could start a forest fire and in so doing roast themselves!
Truly sanda-boma-esque!
The more units, the more complications. I got a sinking feeling ......
------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif
Well, it would seem that since you're going to have a lot of overlap between similar units of different factions, it wouldn't be all that bad as you guys are making out..
Matt
Erado San
04-05-2002, 13:47
I think you're right about that, Khan. You can expect every faction to have a core of similar units. Every army will have their stock units, like basic infantry, cavalry and perhaps artillery. While per faction there might be slight differences in these units, they will be more or less similar.
I do expect every faction to have their own unique elite units. These will then play a major factor in making armies balanced against another.
I disagree with the opinion above that we need balanced armies and not balanced units. We need both. If we have balanced armies, but not balanced units, we will again be faced with the situation online that there are a few units that are unbeatable. In STW and MI/WE we have seen the Monks, Musks and Yari Ashigari that can play a dominant role on the battlefield. Was that fun?
Quote Originally posted by Erado San:
...In STW and MI/WE we have seen the Monks, Musks and Yari Ashigari that can play a dominant role on the battlefield. Was that fun?[/QUOTE]
Only if you 'win'... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
I need someone to define "balance" for me. Is it getting the online costs right to ensure equitable chess-like fairness or is it fiddling with historic unit attributes in order to make the strong weaker and the weak stronger? I have major problems with the latter.
Take English longbowmen. They are very powerful. There was no antidote. To approach them was to suffer mightily. There were never many of them but they were hell to deal with when present. I would not like to see some special anti-archery unit introduced with bogus missle protection in order to balance the game somehow when such a unit type did not exist. Some units were flat out superior in many respects.
For some rocks there was no paper.
Erado San
04-05-2002, 22:48
The English Longbowmen were devestating. But they were rare. So in the game they should be rare too. That can be achieved by limiting the number that can be available at any time, or by raising their price to reflect their combat value and rarity. Or a combination of a number of factors that will make them beatable by good tactics. Good ranged units combined with fast cavalry would be an option, to which of course there are counter tactics etc etc.
I don't believe in creating an anti-unit either. There was none, so there shouldn't be one. I guess to fight them you would have to expect severe losses and come up with some good tactics.
Balance means to make sure that we won't find ourselves in a situation where you go online in MTW and find all creeps playing with 8 of them buggers, and the only way not to get slaughtered is to bring 8 yourself.
MagyarKhans Cham
04-05-2002, 22:55
the best way to reflect rarity is just allowing 1 unit per army, or 1 unit per 2 regular militia or whatever. so make it dependent on another unit.
so in the MI game it could be 1 mongol hcav for every 3 mlcav
Sir Kuma of The Org
04-05-2002, 23:57
Quote Originally posted by MagyarKhans Cham:
the best way to reflect rarity is just allowing 1 unit per army, or 1 unit per 2 regular militia or whatever. so make it dependent on another unit.
so in the MI game it could be 1 mongol hcav for every 3 mlcav[/QUOTE]
Yep i'm for that make the historically uber units like english longbowman, rare. Put a limit on how many of these units you can have active.
In SP there is surely a tech-tree dependancy too for the longbows. But in MP... what is to prevent the English from taking 16 of them and putting them into wedgies?!?
And, in MP only ONE player can be English -- I am guessing -- so... if the HOST takes the English, will nobody join? Even if he is defending iron bored? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif Or will it be like MI where ALL players can take Mongols and have it so all players can take English in MTW MP? If so, WTF?!? I mean, you'd always face 4v4s amongst all-English armies on iron bored! GAH!
GNISH!
I don't think we will have the English Problem, it should be very easy to out-position them and destroy them with field artillery and half-decent tactics (as the French did towards the end of the 100 years war)
Weapons and armies are generally complete battle winners if they posess two or three seperate factors, firstly, the actual power of the weapon relative to the oppositions alternitave, and secondly, awareness of the weapons tactical capibilities and limitations, and lastly, an under-estimation of its abilities or over-statement of of their own ability to face it on the part of the enemy. This completely dis-regards the moral factors which are so Important for the successful prosecution of military endeavours.
In MTW, enemies of English armies will know damn well that attacking head-on will only bring destruction and that going toe-to-toe with longbows will mean decimation, so alternitave methods will have to be attempted, light cavalry will be important, as will cannons...I am confident there will be ways.
Well, from historical examples that I have seen, basically, there were several ways to deal with those Welsh and later English longbowmen.
(1) Suck it up and take it like a man.
(2) Sneak off in the night.
(3) Catch them on a bad day.
Also note that despite what you've heard about the amazing penetration capabilities of the Longbow, it is my understanding at least that they were only a SEVERE danger to unarmored or poorly armored troops, i.e. shields and armor were a somewhat effective way of protecting yourself.
And as I've understood it the really big advantage of these troops was that they had them at all. Archers were generally hard to come by, so when you conquer Wales or order nationwide archery training and suddenly have a reliable supply, that alone puts you at a great advantage. As I understand it it was the relatively massive numbers as much as the other factors that made British archers so feared.
And, perhaps more back on topic-- you're all missing one other good possibility, which is simply making the units themselves smaller.
Matt
------------------
!KABOOM! -- The Thunderbomber Creed
[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 04-06-2002).]
I see only one way of creating rarity without fidgeting with the stats of the units and its in the cost of the unit. If those english bowmen or French crusader are THAT powerful, put a price on their head. If they're at, say 700 koku, and I'm producing 1500/year, I'll think twice about buying two of them and not building any structure on my lands.
Also, suppose the basic french infantry and german infantry stats are the same EXCEPT the german's attack value is 1 more (on a scale of 1 to ten). That's 10% more, so the cost of german infantry versus french's will be 10% more. Voilà, both units are balanced... Field 10 of those, I'll field 11 of mine.
------------------
"Je vous repondrai par la bouche de mes canons"
-Frontenac
(I will answer you with the blast of my canons)
-Trad. libre
Erado San
04-06-2002, 17:38
Take it from me... that is not the way balancing works at all. It sounds like it makes sense, but it's a damn lot harder than that. We spent six weeks on patch 1.02 for MI/WE and still couldn't get it right really.
just start playing with stats like that and you quickly find out that it just doesn't work, it is almost an art form to get well-balanced stats and it is all but impossible to do first time...in a game like STW there are too many factors for anyone but a mathematical genuis to say he can prove these units are balanced because
x=y+v/u(ev+fr)
or some equally devilish calculation...you have got to work on it from much more of an artistic view-point, keep mathematical balance in mind but treat it as a holy grail...
MagyarKhans Cham
04-08-2002, 07:34
there is always a difference between being theoretically right, common sense and the feeling of gameplay.
Oh man, we can have a Ph.D programme just for studying all these stuff!
Maybe there is something like Ph.D in Strategic Gaming Balancing (SGB) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
------------------
Erado San
04-08-2002, 18:21
Pretty accurate, Cham. You might say you could start out by making something theoretically correct, then apply a healthy dose of Commoon Sense and try how the gameplay feels.
Hirosito
04-09-2002, 01:12
i think basically GRIM is right in what he says. every west and northern european power will basically have the same , say infantry unit but one's will have a shield the other larger swords or better armour which obviously effects the stats.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Whitey,
I can assure you that balancing a game like this is a completley logical process, and, the more you understand how the numbers affect unit performance, the quicker you can arrive at the solution. How do you think the v1.02 rebalance got done in 6 weeks? If only a trial and error approach had been used, we'd still be working on it. It was really reverse engineering, but no one calculated anything with equations because we didn't know the equations. We did enough 1 on 1 unit testing to develop a good feeling for what changing a number by a certain amount would do.
When all the one-on-one unit testing was done, it was amazing how well the v1.02 played compared to v1.0. However, there was not enough time left to fine tune it which requires a lot of battle testing. The quantitative testing I did showed that the v1.02 muskets were more powerful than the v1.0 muskets, but it was a few battle tests that seemed to indicate the muskets were ok. But now, 4 months later, they are not ok. The numbers haven't changed. Try playing the v1.02 with no muskets and no YA. The ironing board map actually becomes interesting to play on.
There are 3 difficulties to be overcome in battle testing. First, the opponents have to be close to the same level of skill. Second, there is a high statistical uncertainty in any one-on-one unit matchup, and that can lead to an incorrect conclusion unless you fight many battles. Third, you have to use the units properly to bring out their full potential.
To my mind each unit type has to have a different unit that beats it. If a certain unit has no counter unit, then it wins unless it's so expensive that you cannot afford to buy many of them. You can see that problem with the muskets in WE/MI. This is where I think history and the type of online gameplay we have must diverge to have a game where all units types are useful, but no one unit dominates.
MizuYuuki~~~
Another possible view, Puzz, which can be taken directly from reality and history, is that different units should have different attributes and purposes. For instance, historically spears "dominated", but there was of course a great necessity for various types of auxiliaries to cover their many weaknesses. I personally don't think that you can go wrong in game balancing if you are TRULY trying to follow history, which means taking the engine you are working with into account to get the best representation of all aspects.
Matt
[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 04-08-2002).]
I am not opposed to 1v1 unit testing, I do it myself - all I am saying, is that you cannot vreate the answer to the balance question through mathematics...it just doesn't work.
You are a far more advanced worker of stats than me, or for that matter, almost anyone here, so I won't go head-to-head on that - you know best - but you can't say that a certain amount of art doesn't come into creating stats...
------------------
"Situation excellente. J'attaque!"
Papewaio
04-09-2002, 14:52
For MP, for variety while not stopping people doing things. It would be interesting to see if making each identical unit after the 3rd cost an extra amount... say 20% more for the 4th unit
40% more for the 5th unit
or
5% more for all 4 identical units
10% more for all 5 identical units
15% more for all 6 identical units etc
This way it would cause a decrease on returns for people going all out one way while not denying them that option.
As for variety in the M:TW game I would like to see variety in speed of movement of troops. I liked seeing lightly armoured troops zip around the heavier ones. Also I would like to see the turning speed of troops effected by the terrain they are in... no speedy turns for pikemen in heavy forest.... no light footed spins for heavy armoured and shielded troops slogging up steep slopes.
------------------
Victory First, Battle Last
the best solution would be.....
NO UPGRADES!!!
u can just higher the honour of units...
this would reflect the real units....
cheap farmers would be cheap farmers....maybe with higher honour but not super farmers...
for the patch we will need it would be the best and easyest way if there werent any upgrades...
maybe we allow just a honoursprat of 1 or 2 honourpoints....so if u buy h8 units the lowest honourunits has to be h6....
this would give us a good chance to balance the game with this many units...
and yes, there will be units wich are same just look different but this wil lreduce it maybe of 70 units, thats still hardcore to fix it...
if we have to balance the upgrades too i dont see a good chance to balance this...
koc
Erado San
04-09-2002, 19:52
And all we have said so far is known to CA as well, no doubt.
I may be wrong here. Lord help me I hope I am not.
The way the stats were organised in STW and MI/WE is the only way we know. Working on the 1.02 patch we have learned that it is hard to make them balanced. We thought 1.02 was a big improvement, it actually was a big improvement, and still everybody who has worked on it will agree that it still is not 100 % right.
I can only assume that CA have come up with some different choices for balancing the units. If the MTW units follow the same mechanics, mathematics and stats system as used before I think balancing them will be nearly impossible. I also hope they have chosen a better system for honour, weapon and armour upgrades. The one we have now is too simple and allows for the creation of superunits too cheaply.
BSM_Skkzarg
04-09-2002, 20:11
Well - as for unit balancing, take a look at Total Annihilation. Each side had specially built units that excelled at certain tasks, but were vulnerable in other settings. While the game only had 2 "sides", its number of unit types was about 50 per team. Granted, some units were "duplicated" by the other side with different graphics and only minor changes, while others quite different. (Compare the Arm and Core stealth fighters - Arm was slightly more manueverable, but the Core one was cheaper. Or the fast and deadly Arm Fido vs the slow but heavily armed and armored Core Can.) A game can easily be "balanced" with large number of units, provided there are tradeoffs. Longbows are great, but how will they do when flank charged by light cav? Flanking means your light cav won't get shot to bits. When a mounted crusader charges into gunfire - or woods, he will pay a price. Each unit will surely have such "weaknesses", as well as strengths. Proper usage will be key.
Just my 2 Koku.
Q!
------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"
Yep, there should be trade-offs. Between unit types within an army, and between armies as well.
So, for example if the french and english have the same units except the english longbowmen, then there is no trade-off, everyone will play the english.
The problem with the super-ashi, with the musk, and with the mongols is the same. There are no trade-offs chosing any of these compared to their alternatives.
So, the super-ashi should be costlier than a comparable monk, the musk should be costlier than a SA, and the mongols should be either even more costlier than they are, or their infantry should be really crap.
Quote I personally don't think that you can go wrong in game balancing if you are TRULY trying to follow history[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more, Khan, at least as regards historic combat simulation. The irony is that at the close of the Sengoku period teppo and yari ashigaru DID dominate the battlefield. However, it seems that that fact yields a game style many here in the dojo don’t want to play because too many have learned the lesson. History lessons are not what most online players are looking for.
Quote To my mind each unit type has to have a different unit that beats it. If a certain unit has no counter unit, then it wins unless it's so expensive that you cannot afford to buy many of them. You can see that problem with the muskets in WE/MI. This is where I think history and the type of online gameplay we have must diverge to have a game where all units types are useful, but no one unit dominates. [/QUOTE]
What Puzz has said reflects the dichotomy between online competition and historic war gaming (on or offline). The former is much “gamier” than the latter. One’s preference is a matter of philosophy. Do we want history to masquerade as a game (my preference) or a game to masquerade as history (most dojo online competitors). The tactical battle game guys see balance as critical and will sacrifice historical accuracy to achieve it because equal usefulness among all units would be inherently inaccurate. War gamers want truth (in so far is it is discernable) regardless of equity. The rock, paper, scissors paradigm is perfect for tactical balance but grossly oversimplifies historic unit capacities. Some units types (or weapons systems if you will) were in fact dominating. That such domination can be mitigated in a campaign setting is obviously no balm for online play. Cost can be the answer. Is cost separation not enough? If not, then a desire for ahistoric army composition is also involved if every unit must be equally useful. So there lies the rub and I find myself understanding Puzz3D’s assessment even if I disagree with the results such a separation of history and unit equity would produce. Divergence is necessary if all units are to be equally useful online. My worry is that this is unlikely to happen and that the constant requests for balance could make a farce of historic army composition.
Konnichiwa,
'The irony is that at the close of the Sengoku period teppo and yari ashigaru DID dominate the battlefield.'
That was not because those ashigaru were H8W3A3, but simply because 50,000 ashis were fielded against 2,000 samurai.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Another approach to online battle balance would be to have preconfigured armies. The units could be more historically accurate to the degree that the parameter system allows. You would choose one army from a list of predesigned armies, and you would not be able to alter the units or at the most have very limited options for customization available. Some army types would work better against other army types something like play calling in football where certain called offensives work well against certain called defenses.
Of course, someone has to design the armies so that you're not facing certain defeat. That right there is anti-historical. In many cases, historically, one side did face certain defeat, but it wouldn't make for a fun game.
This need of balancing individual units to a precise degree in STW/WE/MI is due to the ability to purchase anything you want in whatever quantity you want. It's an very flexible system. It's like a construction set in a way, and it's fun to pick armies. However, with such freedom comes a need to purchase within some set of rules designed to give balance because the units are not balanced to the degree necessary, and that balance changes with the way the upgrade system works.
MagyarKhans Cham
04-10-2002, 00:15
in the end the best testing is done after the game is released and wait 2-3 weeks to see what is the dominating force online and how far it spoils the gameplay (like we had with the ashis 6 months ago).
So the best solution after testing is, releasing it and the developers should not be afraid of bringing 2-3 patches later as well.
Makes sense to me Magyar. Why don't they do this? If they don't, we will have 100 units and only a handful will actually get used in online games.
Hirosito
04-10-2002, 01:46
it will be hard if not impossible to avoid this except through price restrictions or disallowing the mixture of nations in your armies. the latter obviously being the easiest way.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Nelson-- no, NO! Absolutely not! There need be no sacrifices of fun in the pursuit of TRUE historicality! Fun is sacrificed when one aspect of history is over-amplified at the sacrifice of other aspects of history. An absence of fun is in itself a neglect of history-- REAL WAR IS NOT BORING.
Historicality gets a bad rap because many of the people who try to go with it, as I said, get hung up on one or two aspects and are unable to see the whole picture, cannot concieve of the painting as a whole, and that their tools are limited.
With the situations being simulated here-- Sengoku Jidai and the High Middle Ages, there is inherent balance in the reality of it all. So why go all over creation trying to come up with other paradigms for balance based on concepts that people pull from other situations, or even out of their own heads?? History provides a real and true blueprint.
And if in the supposed pursuit of similarity to history you sacrifice fun, then, as I said, you're missing the point-- cuz war, minus pain and loss, = fun.
But I don't see why everyone is so eager to marginalize or dispose of this incredible guide that history-based games have-- that is, history.
------------------
For example-- yes, people will say "how can we base it on history? history was lots of ashis and that's poo." Well, frankly that is quite a shallow assessment. History may not fit some teeni-bopper's idea of a cool and multi-colered fun-fest, but it provides battles with much more depth, texture and drama than is currently possible.
All that the current arrangement of unit balances with Shogun does is have elite auxiliaries masquerade as your bread-and-butter units. What could possibly be so boring about Yari troops being the cheap, numerous, sturdy center of the army, but have a need for your elite auxiliaries to act independently, conduct flank and rear-guard actions, and provide the critical blow at the right moment in the battle? I am left with no more words to say on this.. for gosh sakes.
Anyway, I know that lots of people have thought about all this and lots of people have plenty of great ideas, I just think the rhetorical point needs to be established-- history is NOT the enemy of fun.
Matt
------------------
!KABOOM! -- The Thunderbomber Creed
[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 04-09-2002).]
Khan7,
We are not the ones who made the online game so you can buy any amount of any unit. That's the problem. What would chess be like if you could take any 16 pieces that you want. You would have 15 queens and one king, and white would always win. The pieces in chess are not balanced, but each player starts with the same units with a line of low value pawns blocking the offensive action of the more powerful pieces which provides a defensive aspect to the game. That's one way to achieve balance.
Yamaga made a more historically accurate game for STW with lots of yari ashiguru required, and limits on elite units and honor and expensive guns. I thought is was great, but it didn't catch on.
MizuYuuki ~~~
BAH! Fine, you win. As long as I am restricted to generalizations, I can go no further with this one. And going into what exactly *I*'ve been trying to do about all this is really outside the scope of this thread. So I'll save it.
Cheers,
Matt
------------------
!KABOOM! -- The Thunderbomber Creed
I hold these truths to be self evident:
Realistic, historic style orders of battle and rational, historic combat tactics are NOT boring.
History trumps fiction every time.
Accuracy and fun are NOT mutually exclusive. Accuracy and fun relate directly.
If I inadvertently conveyed any opinions contrary to the above then I was remiss in my presentation. I am a card carrying accurite. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
The issue is still philosophic, Khan old bean. It is a Tale of Two Games. You and I want a genuine war game. A tool to explore What Might Have Been based on What We Know. We'll take any units types that existed, warts and all, regardless of effectiveness. In a campaign setting balance can be achieved in several ways that are unavailable in the online arena. i.e. In a campaign units can be powerful AND rare if they take long time to train. English longbowmen taking 8 turns or more would be rare at any price. Whereas feudal levies might be raised quickly. The problem is how to represent this situation online where people can buy whatever they like WITHOUT misrepresenting unit capacities.
The balance issue IS troublesome online if costs are not correctly related to value. I think what concerns people is the likelyhood that CA will never arrive at proper costs for so many units. Unit quality can relate to cost and training time in solo play but so far cost is all we have online. Some sort of template that would prohibit certain unit combinations might work but even then WHO would invent the right one? Better men than me.
BTW, Sir Kuma, TosaInu needs his reg date pushed back. We were playing his demo mods before the game came out! He's been around for years like just Kurando and Erado San. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Geh.. but you see, Nelson, I have some information that the rest of you don't. *I* know just how good my modified Stats are starting to look..
Anyway, cheers, I'm done here!
Matt
------------------
!KABOOM! -- The Thunderbomber Creed
Whitey,
The h2h units can be fairly well balanced with calculations, and then fine tuned with some 1v1 testing because fighting is a simple process in the game. However, the ranged weapons cannot be done that way because you have range, accuracy, power, reload, ammo and projectile ballistics all working together to determine overall effectiveness which is a much more complex process. That's why it's much harder to balance the ranged weapons, and why they aren't balanced very well in v1.02.
Khan7,
I really don't understand what CA/DT was thinking when they designed the online game. I don't have any problem with historical accuracy, but you have to use some mechanism to balance the online game. It's not fun to play an unbalanced tactical game no matter how historically accurate it is. Skill in using the various units is supposed to determine the winner, and not what units you happen to take. I don't buy the argument that, if it's historically accurate, it's going to be fun. This game is a very good tactical game, and a highly simplified version of reality.
Erado San
04-11-2002, 13:26
I think CA only made one big mistake in the battle system, which had the major drawbacks online.
While in the single player campaign the upgrades and honour make sense, as they are all the result of your advancement through extra buildings or the increasing power of experienced units and Taisho, online the upgrades and honour are a major pest because they can simply be bought and abused. Frankly, I think the 1.02 stats are excellent, but only suffer from the fact that you can take a Yari and pump them up to Conan level to easily.
Granted, the musketeers may still be too powerful, although I personally don't agree. I may not have been online much. I have been a couple of times over the past few months. And yes, I faced the well known 'challenge' we see way too often. And still, I beat those musk heavy armies without too much problems. But, some minor tweaking to take the bite out of them kust a little more could help, although everybody that worked on the 1.02 would probably agree that some better mechanics are needed.
there will always be a "best unit" or "best units" u never ever can balance it this way that this dont can happen... BUT
its important that there are always conterunits and that u dont see superunits...
i personal think that with patch 1,02 and this superashis the units still are beatable
its just a dilemma with this spears, normaly
the cav´s are the counterunits of this h2h-schockunits, but badly vs the spears the chargebonus dont count, and ofcourse http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif spears eat horses, so the conterunit for spears are the monk...
but like tosa (cant remember well) mentioned, a h5 sam cost 545 and a h2 monk 550, i didnt tested yet, but i bet the spear win this battle, maybe not with kills but the monk will rout sooner´...
same like h7 spear vs h6 nd...
1 big mistake/prob is that a honourupgrade adds +1 att and +1 def, thats the real prob... if it would work like the F1 key shows it would solve many probs...
after 2 or 3 honourupgrades with this spears, they are an otehr unit, not just a spearunit wich eat horses, and for this they was made...
implent a system, wich dont allow the player to have a sprat with more than 2 honourpoints, this would solve the prob...
koc
------------------
Grey Wolves (http://www.totalwar.club.tip.nl/)
Erado,
I think the muskets are about 25% more effective than they should be, and I would say that our process in the v1.02 beta wasn't likely to produce better accuracy than that for any of the ranged units. Now that's not a huge error. However, when you can load up on a unit that is 25% stronger than it should be, you can see where that is leading. The WM in STW is out of balance by less than 25%, and that was a big headache in that game.
MizuYuuki ~~~
Kocmoc,
The H5 YS at 549 koku has 5/7 (melee/defense) and morale = 12. The H2 WM at 550 koku has 7/4 and morale = 12. The YS is 20% better than the WM in combat power. The YS has it's 4/4 bonus against cavalry and better armor. The YS is slower than the WM which is the only disadvantage that I can see. You never need the WM, and we haven't considered the weapon and armor upgrade which will boost the YS way over the WM in effective combat power per koku. There is no way to fix this problem by changing the parameters in troopstat.txt.
MizuYuuki ~~~
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 04-12-2002).]
Papewaio
04-12-2002, 17:50
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Kocmoc,
The H5 YS at 545 koku has 5/7 (melee/defense) and morale = 12. The H2 WM at 550 koku has 7/4 and morale = 12. The YS is 20% better than the WM in combat power. The YS has it's 4/4 bonus against cavalry and better armor. The YS is slower than the WM which is the only disadvantage that I can see. You never need the WM, and we haven't considered the weapon and armor upgrade which will boost the YS way over the WM in effective combat power per koku. There is no way to fix this problem by changing the parameters in troopstat.txt.
MizuYuuki ~~~ [/QUOTE]
Its really only a problem in MP of course. But to add some 'realism'. If a ashi did that well on a battlefield that they where honour 8 they in all likely hood now be an honoured samurai.
I think it would be fair to put the max 'base' honour of ashi at 3 as beyond that it is samurai territory (as 4 honour in SP is the trigger point for a sensai swordsman event). Add in the max bonus for a general and the cap for Ashi should be 6 honour (5 for musket as you can only start at +1 not +2 like YA in SP).
Also to differentiate between samurai and ashi. Only the samurai should have access to the lvl 3 armour and weapon upgrades.
To differentiate between YS and Monks... hmm, not too sure on that one. Too bad, maybe. As it stands it would mean that the average monk is of a higher standard then the average samurai. But a highly trained cadre of YS are the ultimate force on the battlefield... which seems okay with me. However what can then counter them? Maybe Nag infantry? Or it becomes a case of using not just paper, sissor, rock but a two unit combination to take out the YS like Nag infantry holding the YS in place while SA shower them with gifts http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.
------------------
Victory First, Battle Last
Sir Kuma of The Org
04-12-2002, 19:17
implent a system, wich dont allow the player to have a sprat with more than 2 honourpoints, this would solve the prob...-Kocmoc
____________________________________________
I fully agree.
Ashigaru did in fact become samurai at the close of the Sengoku Jidai. I'm not suggesting that H8 ashigaru make total sense in the game. I'm merely stating that they were recognized as fine soldiers worthy of higher status.
Well, no matter how M:TW is good - it will need patching. And if they continue to follow the philosophy of "we only release patches when God comes down and beats us up" it won't be much better than STW in terms of balancing, especially with 100+ units.
Brr. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif
Tera
------------------
Proud member of Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka).
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif
It's the same old sayin.We all learn by our mistakes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gifwell most do http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Hirosito
04-13-2002, 05:08
let's hope so fast
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Papewaio
04-13-2002, 06:16
Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
Ashigaru did in fact become samurai at the close of the Sengoku Jidai. I'm not suggesting that H8 ashigaru make total sense in the game. I'm merely stating that they were recognized as fine soldiers worthy of higher status. [/QUOTE]
And the original samurai came from local lords militia composed of... you guessed it peasants. Same in a lot of societies the warrior elite of one generation became the nobles for the next.
------------------
Victory First, Battle Last
I wonder whether the different factions will have the same core units and some special ones, or each faction will have it's own army (like japanese army vs mongol army).
In the former case balancing indeed have to be done on a unit type vs unit type basis which seems to be quite a mamoth task, whereas in the later case balancing can be made on an army type vs army type basis, which seems to be more feasible.
From statemens I've seen it seems to be the former with each faction having a few special units unique to them. From my experience, balancing the Mongols vs Japanese is more difficult than balancing the Sengoku game where all factions have the same units. I believe the total unit count is now down to 60, and all those units will be available in online play.
Hirosito
05-28-2002, 21:38
and luckely these special units will only be available in specified provinces.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Any release dates yet?
I want to get a feel for these units?
Surely they can give us a little demo now!Too get us more hungry for MTW http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gifPlzs give us a little demo.
Wavesword
06-10-2002, 23:19
Even if it's just two knights jousting, rinse and repeat.
Hirosito
06-11-2002, 00:29
lol you could have races.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
A late note on english/welsh longbows. They tended to outnumber their own men at arms
2-1 and rained iron tipped death on all enemies.
but if there are that many included it will make the english an uber nation like in real life at those times this would be realistic but not much fun.
P.S. the longbows were often mounted so they could get around behind the enemy in skirmishes, will this be included?
------------------
"A warriors death in battle should be bloody"
Hirosito
06-12-2002, 01:13
we had a long post about dismounted knights a while back the tactical possibilities look god but we were pretty sure it wouldn't get in the game.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.