Game Balance, or the lack there of.

[NihilisticCow]

That factions physically have units in their roster that enable them to compete effectively online doesn't mean they're any weaker or stronger in SP. The strength of factions for SP is much more determined by their starting positions and economic issues. It doesn't matter if a faction has powerful units if they're not able to afford to maintain them or tech to them. This is kinda where I see the single player balance and challenge.

People seem to be missing the point though, for MP differences between factions are good, otherwise why bother having them, but factions still need to be able to be competitive and to have more than one option so as to not be predictable. This has nothing to do with starting areas, surrounded by enemies with a poor economy.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i think every faction needs a different roster. even if you just edit names/stats a little, it goes a long way. i'd rather have Russian Cossack Line Infantry -with boosted accuracy, attack, and hiding skills and lowered reloading and defense skills- than run-of-the-mill russian line infantry with roughly the same stats as just about every other euro line infantry.

every country needs different units, stats, and appearances. no one faction controlled the whole of any continent during the 18th century; the balance is already there. all we need to do is copy the 18th century units and stats, and we have an already balanced game!

[Sheogorath]

Napoleonic Total War certainly wasn't balanced, but it sure was fun. I recall that the British, Russians and Prussians had a major advantage, and the French...well...The French were quite nasty, although they nerfed them a little in later versions.

The point, though, is that every faction was different. Most Russian infantry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn, but if you put them in melee they could outfight anybody. The British were deadly accurate, but their line infantry cost 100 points more than anybody elses. And so on.

You had to figure out a different way to play as each faction, because NONE of them were identical. If you tried to play a French army with Prussian forces, you'd get your butt kicked, because Prussian cavalry wasn't so hot next to the shiny French Horse Grenadiers. You would CERTAINLY lose if you tried a conventional, stand-up fight against an equivalent force as Spain, but I do enjoy telling people about the time I routed two armies with a single force of Spaniards though sheer, ballsy, cleverness. And grapeshot.

Anyway, not all factions should be equal. This is true. Some factions should be better than others at some things.

Rock, Paper, Scissors is the ultimate in strategy-game stupidity and should die a horrible, horrible, death.

Light infantry and grenadiers should also come in units equivalent in size to standard line. That annoyed me right from the start.

Get to work, CA!

Oh, wait, I'm not a screaming MP fanboy who's only other strategy game experience was Starcraft. Curses.

[Prussian to the Iron]

^exactly. GB should be able to easily beat most others in stand-up line battles, whereas they would get their asses kicked in hand-to-hand. of course, Prussia would be nearly invincible with their infantry, but cavalry would be lower-than average and arty would be average.

everyone see how this works? no? i'll list it:

key: Amazing, great, average, below average, crappy

Ottomans=amazing arty and cav, crappy inf., average light inf.
Russia=great cav, average arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
GB=great inf., crappy cav, great arty, crappy light inf.
Prussia=amazing inf., crappy cav, average arty, great light inf.
Austria= great cav, average arty, average inf., great light inf.
Poland= amazing cav, below average inf., great arty, average light inf.
U.P.= great inf., below average cav, amazing arty, great light inf.
Sweden= amazing inf., below average arty, average cav, great light inf.
Marathas= amazing cav, great arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
France= great cav, average inf., great arty, crappy light inf.
Spain= great cav, below average inf., average arty, great light inf.
U.S.A.= average cav, average inf., great arty, amazing light inf.


anyone contest this chart?

[A Very Super Market]

Most of them sound abitrary. What's wrong with Prussian cavalry? Why would Britain be bad at hand-to-hand, seeing how they developed the bayonet drill in the first place? There should be no balance, just realism.

[Husar]

That they invented it doesn't mean they mastered it.

I'm also on the realism > balance side and as has been said, MP can be balanced by adjusting the prices, prices in MP and SP wouldn't have to be the same anyway, but for stats that would be nice to avoid too much confusion.

Let's say Poland has worse but way cheaper units than the UK in MP, that means they can get a full stack and up the experience of their units while the british would have a hard time deciding whether they take this hugely expensive elite infantry that can take on 3 polish infantry units at once or whether they'd rather take two artillery pieces etc. etc.
That way MP could turn out very interesting, yet SPers would get the realism they want, I hope.

[Sheogorath]

^exactly. GB should be able to easily beat most others in stand-up line battles, whereas they would get their asses kicked in hand-to-hand. of course, Prussia would be nearly invincible with their infantry, but cavalry would be lower-than average and arty would be average.

everyone see how this works? no? i'll list it:

key: Amazing, great, average, below average, crappy

Ottomans=amazing arty and cav, crappy inf., average light inf.
Russia=great cav, average arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
GB=great inf., crappy cav, great arty, crappy light inf.
Prussia=amazing inf., crappy cav, average arty, great light inf.
Austria= great cav, average arty, average inf., great light inf.
Poland= amazing cav, below average inf., great arty, average light inf.
U.P.= great inf., below average cav, amazing arty, great light inf.
Sweden= amazing inf., below average arty, average cav, great light inf.
Marathas= amazing cav, great arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
France= great cav, average inf., great arty, crappy light inf.
Spain= great cav, below average inf., average arty, great light inf.
U.S.A.= average cav, average inf., great arty, amazing light inf.


anyone contest this chart?

I think you'd need to be more detailed. Sweden's standard line infantry, for instance, were basically disciplined militia. They had quite good guards, but their strength lay more in leadership. Russia's line infantry were feared across Europe, not for their amazing musketry, but for their stubbornness. Properly equipped, Russians were considered, even by Napoleon, to be the 'ideal' infantry, simply because they obeyed orders and didn't think for themselves (the problem was, of course, that most Russian officers followed the same trend :P)

Most of them sound abitrary. What's wrong with Prussian cavalry? Why would Britain be bad at hand-to-hand, seeing how they developed the bayonet drill in the first place? There should be no balance, just realism.

Prussian cavalry where fine in NTW2, just not as good as French cavalry. The French were, as I recall, mostly 'above average' with the best elite units available in the game.
The British weren't BAD at melee, but the Russians were the masters of it.

[AggonyDuck]

^exactly. GB should be able to easily beat most others in stand-up line battles, whereas they would get their asses kicked in hand-to-hand. of course, Prussia would be nearly invincible with their infantry, but cavalry would be lower-than average and arty would be average.

Prussian cavalry was among the best in terms of battlefield achievements during the 18th century and does in no way warrant a 'crappy' tag. The prime example would be the Battle of Rossbach.

As to historical realism, I'd like to point out that the TW games have never really been about recreating history and more about creating new histories. For a mod like NTW where the time scope is much smaller, I can understand having unit stats accurately based on historical performance, but for a game that takes place during a century it makes very little sense. Firstly we need to recognise the fact that the quality of units does not stay constant. An excellent example of this is the Prussian army that was propably the best in Europe during the mid 18th century, but by the end of the same century the Prussian army was outdated and in dire need of a reform. Perhaps if a certain quality stayed constant throughout the era, I would think about adjusting the unit to live up to those qualities. In terms of SP campaigns, I don't believe that just because for example Russian line was poorly trained historically, that it should be heavily reflected in their unit stats, especially if my Russians happened to be prosperous and well educated and could actually afford better training. After all we are very much dealing with alternative history and not recreations.

As it is I believe CA has done a good job with balancing the units and still providing stat variation, although that said, I can not understand why Sweden of all factions have oversized cavalry units?

[Prussian to the Iron]

Prussian cavalry was among the best in terms of battlefield achievements during the 18th century and does in no way warrant a 'crappy' tag. The prime example would be the Battle of Rossbach.

really? i just figured prussian cavalry weren't that great.

of course, there needs to be some balance, just not so much that every faction is basically a clone of eachother.

other than prussian cavalry and brit melee, does anyone have any qualms about my list?


i think we can all agree that we want more historically accurate unit stats; i don't want to be able to go head-to-head using poland against france in a line inf. battle and have a chance of winning! if i use a certain faction, i want to be forced to adapt to its specific limitations and advantages.

poland and russia should be mostly about cavalry, and it should be made that way. i know that there has to obviously be at least several types of inf. for them still, but why not change stats? if i bring a russian line inf. unit versus a british line inf. unit, i should lose unless going into a melee. by a significant amount-not just by a couple men.

if anyone is interested in seeing some examples of varied units (not stats, but great units nonetheless) check out the AUM-Additional Units Mod- on TWC. its great

i believe that if we dropped and raised certain factions' stats for certain units by 8-25 points in the gun department, and 2-6 in the melee department, we can have a more realistic and dificult game.

as i said before; 18th century balance is already there; we just need to implement it.

i may or may not try this out on my AUM mod. i'm not sure exactly where the original units data is, so ill hae to do it tomorrow.

wish me luck!

[Durallan]

Prussian cavalry was among the best in terms of battlefield achievements during the 18th century and does in no way warrant a 'crappy' tag. The prime example would be the Battle of Rossbach.

As to historical realism, I'd like to point out that the TW games have never really been about recreating history and more about creating new histories. For a mod like NTW where the time scope is much smaller, I can understand having unit stats accurately based on historical performance, but for a game that takes place during a century it makes very little sense. Firstly we need to recognise the fact that the quality of units does not stay constant. An excellent example of this is the Prussian army that was propably the best in Europe during the mid 18th century, but by the end of the same century the Prussian army was outdated and in dire need of a reform. Perhaps if a certain quality stayed constant throughout the era, I would think about adjusting the unit to live up to those qualities. In terms of SP campaigns, I don't believe that just because for example Russian line was poorly trained historically, that it should be heavily reflected in their unit stats, especially if my Russians happened to be prosperous and well educated and could actually afford better training. After all we are very much dealing with alternative history and not recreations.

As it is I believe CA has done a good job with balancing the units and still providing stat variation, although that said, I can not understand why Sweden of all factions have oversized cavalry units?

I completely Agree. Actually instead of total realism, which can be left for mods, you can have some sort of modifier that bases your armies professionalism on how much you spend on your army compared to home projects, there is a way to choose how much you spend on research military and social production in a little strategy game called galactic civilizations 2. now while ETW is quite different you could use some sort of calculation to decide how professional your army was compared to others, like britain would have to concentrate on its navy as well as its army and thus maybe not have quite as high as a country like prussia who has no navy to begin with. And then this can all change during the game as you change your countries army navy make up or whatever. You could give the armies a slight bonus or penalty depending on what your doing, like if you want to spend alot of money on research one turn you get a small bonus to research and a small penalty to army upkeep or costs and vice versa, the idea would be to give each country bonuses and disadvantages to battles, that way a tiny provice's one army guarding it's city would be a force to be reckoned with and the larger nations would have to invest a little more, it would reduce a world war where every nation is at war possibly, anyway just a good idea I think.