Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: Unit Balancing!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Unit Balancing!

    I don't know what is behind some of the changes but so far we have had several units rendered useless by this crap. And yes I mean crap.

    Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

    The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation. Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.

    Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

    I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.

    From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.

    Most of the things done in the name of balance need undoing! It is stilting the tactics and making it into I don’t know what...

    The general statement that it is done for game play is bogus. The game played well other than for bugs when it started and now it is just turning to crap.

    How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

    If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  2. #2
    The Dam Dog Senior Member Sheogorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,330

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!
    Second.

    If my use of internet lingo can be pardoned, let the tourneyfags have their own units. If the spastic Super Smash Brothers/Starcraft crowd wants rock-paper-scissors super-rushing-explosion-tactic games, let them have it. Just roll back the single player units stats to what they used to be.
    Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

  3. #3
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    this is why i love mods
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  4. #4
    The Dam Dog Senior Member Sheogorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,330

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    this is why i love mods
    The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.
    Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

  5. #5
    Relentless Bughunter Senior Member FactionHeir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    8,115

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheogorath View Post
    The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.
    What he said. Its a shame the modders don't release individual components of changes but just bundle it all in big package and that's it.
    I'm guilty of it too, but at least with M2TW you can take a single file and use it, so its not as bad as ETW.
    Want gunpowder, mongols, and timurids to appear when YOU do?
    Playing on a different timescale and never get to see the new world or just wanting to change your timescale?
    Click here to read the solution
    Annoyed at laggy battles? Check this thread out for your performance needs
    Got low fps during siege battles in particular? This tutorial is for you
    Want to play M2TW as a Vanilla experience minus many annoying bugs? Get VanillaMod Visit the forum Readme
    Need improved and faster 2H animations? Download this! (included in VanillaMod 0.93)

  6. #6
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheogorath View Post
    The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.
    true, but i use a bunch of mini mods, like reskin packs, blood mods, and a few other misc mods. most often, the "big mods" can be found broken up, if you look hard enough.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  7. #7
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    I pretty much agree, they want to rebalance ships so some of them actually get some use they supposedly never got, yet make mortars completely useless.

    I'm really looking forward to hour-long battles chasing that AI brigg around with my big ships after it somehow sank my last frigate.

    The new effective range of howitzers is also just a hundred meters or so, any further is max range and any closer is below min range.

    Having different sets of stats for MP and SP really wouldn't hurt, and fixing the unit stats on the campaign map unit cards wouldn't hurt either, why is it so hard to show the actual stats there?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

    ...

    How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!
    I am with you on preferring realism to artificial balancing, but am sceptical about mortars. Indirect fire is surely of its nature less accurate than direct fire? Even in World War 2, mortars were something you fired in the direction of the enemy and hoped you got lucky. Frankly, I suspect mortars in the ETW period were siege weapons only and don't belong in the field battles the game simulates. Hitting a big stationary fort is one thing, deploying them quickly to hit troops on the move quite another. The MP houserule "no mortars" may be good for gameplay AND realism.

  9. #9
    A Livonian Rebel Member Slaists's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,828

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    I don't know what is behind some of the changes but so far we have had several units rendered useless by this crap. And yes I mean crap.

    Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

    The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation. Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.

    Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

    I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.

    From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.

    Most of the things done in the name of balance need undoing! It is stilting the tactics and making it into I don’t know what...

    The general statement that it is done for game play is bogus. The game played well other than for bugs when it started and now it is just turning to crap.

    How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

    If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!
    Mortars: as stated above, I believe, they were meant to be siege weapons for most part. However, another fact is worth mentioning: the 'accuracy' (damage versus troops) of indirect weapons improves drastically at larger unit sizes. Which I find historically accurate too. If you have a field swarming with troops (on ultra sized setting), that mortar will hit someone almost with certainty. Maybe not the guy (or spot) you were aiming for, but surely someone standing next to the original target. On the other hand, you have to be quite lucky for it to hit anything on small unit sizes.

    Bottom line: the smaller the unit size, the less efficient indirect guns become in the game.
    That's not new to TW games either. Even in RTW, missile (archer) lethality went through the roof on huge unit settings whereas it was quite weak for small units.

    That having been said, I still find mortars and howizters useful for 'directing' the AI troops towards your straight guns in the middle. 2-4 howitzers behind your lines, can easily 'squash' AI's flanks (by creating 'no-pass' killing fields), making them bunch up in the middle (where your straight guns can rake up killing scores).

    As for the naval changes: sigh... I wished they fixed two things only:

    1. Ships SHOULD NOT be able to sail against the wind. But that 'thing' they're stubbornly leaving in the game for the sake of 'playability' and speed of battle resolution.
    2. Ships shouldn't be able to turn as fast as they can in the game. I've seen it suggested in some naval topic posts that one should always make sure to "swing the ship to the other side" so both sides have a go at the enemy (single target). One can do it in the battle, but that's nonsense in real life tactics terms.
    Last edited by Slaists; 07-15-2009 at 20:07.

  10. #10
    Member Member Zenicetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    On a ship, in a storm
    Posts
    906

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Slaists View Post
    As for the naval changes: sigh... I wished they fixed two things only:

    1. Ships SHOULD NOT be able to sail against the wind. But that 'thing' they're stubbornly leaving in the game for the sake of 'playability' and speed of battle resolution.
    2. Ships shouldn't be able to turn as fast as they can in the game. I've seen it suggested in some naval topic posts that one should always make sure to "swing the ship to the other side" so both sides have a go at the enemy (single target). One can do it in the battle, but that's nonsense in real life tactics terms.
    The second problem is a consequence of the first one. If they had modeled sailing more accurately, then ships would turn fairly quickly with the wind astern, and much more slowly when moving the bow across the direction of the wind. A ship with major battle damage to the sails wouldn't be able to get up enough headway to turn across the wind at all, but could still turn with wind astern. The "weather gage" advantage of starting upwind from the enemy would then be tactically meaningful, as it was historically. You wouldn't be able to do these silly turning-in-place tricks to maximize broadsides.

    There's another, deeper structural problem that hasn't been mentioned much (I don't think). It's the way the naval battles start out just like the land battles, with the player fleet and enemy fleet heading directly towards each other from opposites sides of the battle space.

    In a real sailing environment that would seldom happen. The fleets would be sailing for wind advantage on similar or adjacent tacks (square riggers especially). With the current design, there isn't an opportunity for a traditional "grand battle" to develop with parallel lines pounding away at each other for extended periods, or taking opportunities to break up the battle line (i.e. Trafalgar). The way the battles start out with fleets approaching head-on, is more like the way a fighter plane dogfight develops. It's an initial head-on pass, then maneuver for position, devolving into a chaotic furball.

    I don't know how the modders can fix that one, since it looks like a hard-coded aspect of the game design. In a better (IMO) design, there would be sighting of the enemy fleet at longer range, and you'd have time to draw your ships up in whatever formation you wanted, relative to the wind direction, and you'd have some idea of what the enemy fleet could or couldn't do, again relative to the wind direction. It would probably require a larger area for the battles, for one thing. The current design is either a direct copy from the land battles, or just aimed at getting the action started and over with as quickly as possible, so the "action gamers" won't get bored.
    Feaw is a weapon.... wise genewuhs use weuuhw! -- Jebe the Tyrant

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!
    I hope you are aware of the fact that your are making up a strawman here. Please check the MP forums (here and elsewhere) and show me the threads in which people requested Jack to rebalance either steamships or the naval game in general. I help you out, you will find none. Yes, mortar rebalancing were requested but mortars were way too accurate before the patch.

    I just do not see:
    1, Why do you want to create friction where there were none (i.e. setting up SP players vs MP)
    2, Why do you think that your point of view is the most important out of all existing point of views.
    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  12. #12
    Member Member Luddite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Surely it is not a case of SP vs MP. But if changes are implemented more for MP balance it is legimate for those of us who are primarily SP players to express concern as these fundamentally change the campaign experience.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Luddite View Post
    Surely it is not a case of SP vs MP. But if changes are implemented more for MP balance it is legimate for those of us who are primarily SP players to express concern as these fundamentally change the campaign experience.
    It is legitimate to voice your concerns about unit balance but it is not legitimate, not well grounded and not helpful at all to blame it on the MP players.

    The fact is that MP players asked for separate SP vs MP stats long time ago (during MTW2 or perhaps during RTW), even wrote petitions to CA (signed by hundreds of people) but no one listened to them.
    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  14. #14
    Future USMC Cobra Pilot Member Prussian to the Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Out too long in the midnight sea. Oh what's becoming of me?
    Posts
    3,404

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    i find it funny that mr. Lusted didnt care to respond to:

    Developers seem to have some kind of balance fetish. It is the bane of games today, the cry goes out on forums that faction X has an unfair advantage and developers rush to nerf it and surprise now faction Y is the next whipping boy.

    It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

    As gamers we want variety, but that is always going to create imbalance and no matter how much developers try and prevent it, any beneficial adavantage given to even the smallest numerical change will be magnified in play. It is a holy grail quest to go for both, either clone armies and balance, or variety and imbalance... given the choice I vote imbalance every time.
    Add me on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001603097354
    I am an Unstoppable Force, an Immovable Object

  15. #15

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Developers seem to have some kind of balance fetish. It is the bane of games today, the cry goes out on forums that faction X has an unfair advantage and developers rush to nerf it and surprise now faction Y is the next whipping boy.

    It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

    As gamers we want variety, but that is always going to create imbalance and no matter how much developers try and prevent it, any beneficial adavantage given to even the smallest numerical change will be magnified in play. It is a holy grail quest to go for both, either clone armies and balance, or variety and imbalance... given the choice I vote imbalance every time.
    Well I believe you can have varied factions with strength and weaknesses and still have a well balanced game. Many of balance changes made so far have been because units haven't been balanced as well as they could have been.
    Unit Design Lead

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Prussian Iron View Post
    i find it funny that mr. Lusted didnt care to respond to:
    I will help out Mr.Lusted here, hope he does not mind it.

    It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.
    The fact is that it is not unrealistic. Equality is not the same as featurless maps and clone factions. You can have both a good RPS system and faction variety (not to mention map diversity). RPS requires a basic relationship betwen unit types. Factions still can have variety the point is that weakness in certain unit types should be balanced out by strenght in other types. In other words, you can push factions towards certain roles in the RPS system. The only thing you have to be careful about is that there should be no faction which is strong in all (or in almost all) departments.

    edit: Mr.Lusted was faster! ;~p
    Last edited by Cheetah; 07-15-2009 at 21:51.
    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  17. #17

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.
    Mortar accuracy was dropped because they were far too accurate before, though they will be receiving a slight boost to their accuracy in 1.4 as the previous changes went a bit too far.

    The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation.
    They've always had carronades, and they have carronades in order to give them a lot of firepower.

    Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.
    Quite a few units have had their stats changed, any in particular you are referring to? And the Grenzers thing is something that could perhaps be looked at.

    Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

    I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.
    No gun has realistic range, damage is being changed for all naval gun types as part of the rebalancing, smaller guns are getting less damage bigger guns are getting more damage.

    From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.
    SOL have a range of 400 compared to 500 for frigates and sloops/brigs. The low accuracy of SOL only hampers them against small targets as other SOL are such big targets it is pretty much impossible not to hit within a certain range.

    And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.

    How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!
    Mortars have a very long range, if their accuracy had not been lowered they would just have continued to dominate in normal land battles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    The new effective range of howitzers is also just a hundred meters or so, any further is max range and any closer is below min range.
    The min range for howitzers is being lowered by 100 for 1.4, so their overall effective range will increase.

    Having different sets of stats for MP and SP really wouldn't hurt
    Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.
    Unit Design Lead

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.

  18. #18
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Lusted View Post
    And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.
    Brigs and sloops were never used in major fleet battles, why are you trying to make that the case in ETW? Those ships were pretty much only used as privateers, coastal raiders, and general merchant interception. They weren't even good enough for scouting missions, frigates were used for those purposes. Anything under 40 guns wasn't used in fleet battles. You are screwing up what was the strongest area of the game to give "more of a role" to units that never had that role in the first place. if you really want to make brigs and sloops important, do something to make them better against trade fleets, since that was pretty much their only purpose.

    [edit]An example of this would be to allow fleets controlled only of Brigs and Sloops to attack other fleets without causing a declaration of war. This would mimic their role as privateers and encourage their use against poorly guarded trade spots or wandering, weak fleets that would be naturally vulnerable to privateering.
    Last edited by TinCow; 07-15-2009 at 22:04.


  19. #19
    The Dam Dog Senior Member Sheogorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,330

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    Brigs and sloops were never used in major fleet battles, why are you trying to make that the case in ETW? Those ships were pretty much only used as privateers, coastal raiders, and general merchant interception. They weren't even good enough for scouting missions, frigates were used for those purposes. Anything under 40 guns wasn't used in fleet battles. You are screwing up what was the strongest area of the game to give "more of a role" to units that never had that role in the first place. if you really want to make brigs and sloops important, do something to make them better against trade fleets, since that was pretty much their only purpose.

    [edit]An example of this would be to allow fleets controlled only of Brigs and Sloops to attack other fleets without causing a declaration of war. This would mimic their role as privateers and encourage their use against poorly guarded trade spots or wandering, weak fleets that would be naturally vulnerable to privateering.

    I was under the impression that fourth-rate frigates DID sometimes take part in line battles.


    That is a good suggestion, though about the trade fleets.
    Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

  20. #20
    Slixpoitation Member A Very Super Market's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada, North America, Terra, Sol, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Universe
    Posts
    3,700

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Fifth-rates already have 47 guns....
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WELCOME TO AVSM
    Cool store, bro! I want some ham.
    No ham, pepsi.
    They make deli slices of frozen pepsi now? Awesome!
    You also need to purchase a small freezer for storage of your pepsi.
    It runs on batteries. You'll need a few.
    Uhh, I guess I won't have pepsi then. Do you have change for a twenty?
    You can sift through the penny jar
    ALL WILL BE CONTINUED

    - Proud Horseman of the Presence

  21. #21
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheogorath View Post
    I was under the impression that fourth-rate frigates DID sometimes take part in line battles.


    That is a good suggestion, though about the trade fleets.
    Frigates did not usually stand in the line of battle, but they did so often enough to warrant their inclusion there in the game. I'm not talking about frigates though, I'm talking about Sloops and Brigs. Those ships NEVER stood in the line of battle.


  22. #22
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Lusted View Post
    Mortar accuracy was dropped because they were far too accurate before, though they will be receiving a slight boost to their accuracy in 1.4 as the previous changes went a bit too far.
    [...]
    The min range for howitzers is being lowered by 100 for 1.4, so their overall effective range will increase.
    Sounds good to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Lusted View Post
    And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.
    Well, it's nice that you tried that but now that you know that pretty much noone at least on this forum and the way i understand others, noone on other forums, agrees with it, you can drop it, save yourselves the hassle and make us all happy as well.
    Perhaps a few of the balancing guys would like to "balance" the campaign AI/diplomacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Lusted View Post
    Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.
    Well, most people don't want any real balance in SP it seems so there wouldn't be all that much of a need to test it thoroughly, it's mostly fine as it is anyway, make a poll about the minor requests players have and do whatever the poll result is, you will make the majority happy and save yourselves a lot of work.
    You can then spend all your time balancing out the MP part if you wish, just an idea but since MPers seem to want almost the same as SPers it might not be that big of an issue anyway.
    Last edited by Husar; 07-15-2009 at 23:49.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  23. #23

    Default Re: Unit Balancing!

    Good idea about the Sloops and Brigs btw...hope Jack read that.

    Not that it will change anything.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO