A simple way how to balance unit in multiplayer...

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

We know all, that the developers have not the time to test and work out perfect stats for a perfect online game. We should not moan about it, this is the reality we have to live with.

But wouldn´t it be an easy solution for online games if:

The developers rise the price of a unit if you buy the same unittype again like we have this system in MTW but only as from the 4th unit:

E.g.

The basic cost of the first let´s say "Hoplite unit" is 100 %
The basic cost of the second "Hoplite unit" is 120 %
The basic cost of the third "Hoplite unit" is 141 %
The basic cost of the fourth "Hoplite unit" is 169 %

etc etc.

With this system devlopers would not have that hard work to wourk out perfect unit stats. It would be ok, if the stats are "almost balanced". The system of rising costs would do the rest a self regulating balancing system.

This would be a great step to mixed army setups. It would avoid a micro management of unit stats for the developers.

Then the developers would have more time to work on few main issues when tuning stats like better archery, especially cav archery, higher morale, less fatigue etc. pp.

[Stormer]

hmm i think i prefer the buy 4units then the other one costs more like atm.

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

But with this system you would buy strong units again 3 or 4 times, since they would be still worth their money. You take average units only 2 or 3 times and weak units only if there are no other possibilites.

[Knight_Yellow]

but the single player campaign would be unbalanced if u did that.

it couldnt add to the cost of training hoplites who r too good cos the devs never balanced them.

[Skomatth]

Easiest way to balance units for multiplay:

no cost at all. all units work properly without any upgrades

Simply pick 16 units with some kind of max rule built in. this would make rushing too easy tho, ther'd need to be some kind of obligatory archer rule.

Another way: no upgrades but still florins ala CBR's MPWARS.

[baz]

well i see what you are saying gaz, and it is an idea that could well bring an amount of balance .. but it would make it a bit complicated to work out, the armies would still not be that varied though imo

i think the way it needs to be done is with the cost being directly proportional to the units stats, then added bonuses to bring in the rock scissors stone elements .. if this rule was followed as strictly as possible it would give a balance that is lacking at present

[CBR]

Make at least unitcosts for MP seperate from SP. Just so any needed changes in cost would not effect SP. Right now the developers have to consider both before they can make changes. SP is very different as you have limit of max men in an army and upkeep costs to consider too.

But Im much more in favor of a completly seperate unit/missile stats. Base stats on the SP stats from the start... but its a lot easier to change stats for MP if you need to change them. Its just a matter of being more flexible.

MTW is a lot more balanced if all units have same valor..several of the balance problems is the damn upgrades..when you have units at valor 0 and others at 4 then balance is in trouble. IN STW it was a max of 9 valor upgrades for a unit IIRC in MTW its 4..reduce it to 2 maybe even 1.

Of course people complain about the morale and that is primary reason we play with so many florins so we can buy morale. In SP we have generals and/or buildings that increase the base morale of units..in MP we dont have that. Having the seperate stats means MP can get a morale increase without hurting SP balance.

Balance can really only be done at a certain amount of florins. Decide on a specific amount and see to it that morale is what people like. Then a lot of problems have been solved. You try a custom battle at 5k and see what you can buy. Suddenly the 4 unit max thing is not really needed..and I must admit Im getting tired of always seeing units come in groups of 4 anyway.

If florins are correct you dont see 6 lancers anyway but you might see 6 units of spearmen and no one would complain about that would they?

CBR

[baz]

then perhaps from looking at this thread what the developers should do primarily is to make SP stat different from MP stats and to include built way to easily swap stats built into the game .. these 2 improvements would be easy to implement and would be a compromise considering the lack of patches this game poroduces ..

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

Yeah, independet stats for MP and SP, that would be a great step.

[Shahed]

I have not been following development very closely. I do remember though that initail reports suggested a revamped battle engine.

Has anyone mentioned that the RTW game engine will work with stats like MTW does ?

[CBR]

The combat engine should be different or at least with more features like special abilities for units.

Would take more time to balance, so I hope they do use more time than with MTW..I still remember cav in 1.0 heh

CBR

[baz]

well i think i read somewhere that R:tw will have a brand new game engine where as mtw was pretty much a mod of the stw engine .. lets just hope they dont get too adventurous

[baz]

from .com front page ..

Quote[/b] ]A completely new Total WarTM engine uses innovative technology and groundbreaking design to bring the world of ancient Rome to life to deliver the biggest and most cinematic battles ever seen in a videogame. So the battles in Rome: Total War maintain the epic-scale that fans of Total WarTM are used to - but now use high detailed 3D polygonal troops and allows huge cities to be displayed on the battlefields. The result is truly spectacular.

Edit:LINK

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

but it seems the "new game engine" just refers to the grafik and sound technology, not to how units perform in combat......

[CBR]

Yes lots of nice graphics...coolness factor very high. All we know is the special abilities as already see with the spartan unit.

CBR

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hi Gazoz,

I'm not sure... It would avoid some unit abuse, but would create some faction unbalance...

I mean, with 2 units max rule for example, some factions with little unit redundancy, like Russia, ends up with a distinc disadvantage, whereas, if you like cath heavy cav, you may have may times the same one with a different name enabling you to bypass the 2 max rule.

Louis,

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

yep true

[rory_20_uk]

I understand why you think that this would be a good idea, but it would also force some rather odd forces onto the battlefield, as with the rising cost it would be prudent to use all the units that do nearly the same thing, rather than pay the extra money for the same unit again.
As in MP, you can have units from any faction, the armies might be rather ecclectic to say the least
I would have thought that as long as the developers listened to feedback at sites such as this, any glaring errors could be fixed in a patch; lesser errors might take longer to weed out, but if they were annoying enough people, they would be found in the end.

[Hakonarson]

A better way to restrict units might be to have army lists like they do for historical gaming.

So you have to base your forces on a historical prototype, and there's a list that restricts your choice - normally including a minimum number of "base" units too.

For example a French list from Agincourt period might be requierd to include 3 units of Chivalric Knights and 2 of peasants as it's minimum. It might then also have available more knights and peasants as well as archers, crossbowmen and spearmen, but it wouldn't have Hobilars, mounted crossbowmen, longbowmen, Arbalests, etc.

Of course it would take a huge effort to create such lists and then you'd have to programme the selection criteria into the system somehow too, but the prototypes exist for figure gaming already.