My EDU balancing system

[HalfThere]

Your system is interesting, and certainly more scientific than mine (which is basically think up values as I edit the EDU, then balance in-game through trial/error). However, it's not really going to be very useful to anyone else. After all, we each have our own vision of gameplay and it's not entirely likely that it will overlap with yours enough to go through the trouble of using your system.

Still, if it works for you more power to you.

[professorspatula]

I use similar system myself for determining stats, though simplified: armour is counted as 1 overall element for example, though it still affects attack and defence values, and fatigue and heat is less of a consideration. Equipment is a big factor in determining skills, although I consider the training and professionalism of the unit to be the main factor. I've used several systems to work out stats, and my current one's main purpose is to level the playing field so that the difference between levy and elite isn't the huge gap it is currently. I also re-enforced the Scissor/Paper/Stones element of the original TW games, making spearmen more defensive and stronger against cavalry, but easily defeated by swordsmen, whilst cavalry destroy the sword infantry etc.

I wonder if like me, you end up re-adjusting the stat system often and never quite satisfied? I'm on my 8th version and only just reaching the point where I think it is fine tuned enough to offer a really good balanced game.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Some interesting work there fallen851, especially the fatigue system. With regards to this, how frequently do you use the 'hardy' and 'very_hardy' stamina attributes to counterbalance a unit's fatigue levels? Tbh, I've not examined unit fatigue under the microscope, but have attempted a similar 'level' approach as yourself, with each progressive level meaning a general increase in unit ability, and therefore costing more to recruit and upkeep per turn.

With each level comes a collective morale stat, similar to that of other cultures so as to balance the gameplay and not skew the results of a battle in a particular direction. Although sometimes it does depend considerably on the type of battlefield a unit is fighting upon, EG heavily armoured units slugging it out in the simmering heats of the desert, hence the stat_heat attribute.

A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away ), DARTH VADER revealed that the stat_heat attribute was bugged in his opinion. Not sure if he reversed the signs in front of the values or increased / decreased them accordingly. Think this post was located at .COM forums, and knowing their habits, this post will now be long gone (deleted in other words). I haven't looked at the stat_heat attribute and examined how it works, but it would be good to know whether DARTH or CA are the most accurate

[fallen851]

I wonder if like me, you end up re-adjusting the stat system often and never quite satisfied?

Well I just adjusted the system in terms of morale, charge bonus, and lethality (edited above) and I'm really pretty happy how its plays out in the game.

If you guys have any negative feedback about why my system sucks, please feel free to criticize... The system itself is rather arbitrary. Maybe I should ask this, is there any values you would change if this were your system?

[Monkwarrior]

I've just began to apply this system and (as you can imagine) more questions come to me:

- The attack value for archers seems to be rather low. As the bow value is only 2, and the archers are not highly skilled units (I put level 4 for low archers, and 6-7 for high ones), the values are in the range of 6-9 (counting no fatigue penalty). Do you consider to distinguish between short range bows and long range bows?

- Have you any method to calculate the unit cost?

More questions in the near future.

[Watchman]

One thing that always kind of bugged me already with the vanilla EDU is the oddly low lethality values given to things like falxes and big two-handed axes. I simply find it very difficult to comprehend how such large, very powerful weapons that (at least in the case of big axes) pulverize shields with one hit and all but cleave even armoured men in half with just one blow could be in game terms considered less "lethal" than, say, short swords...

Not that the non-phalanx spears' low lethality rate made much sense either. By what I know of it the human physique doesn't much differentiate between deep stabs from swords and spears (or arrows, javelins...), it goes out of order quite equally from both (and rather easier than from slashes too). Organ failure and system shock aren't terribly interested in the exact weapon that inflicted the wound, what matters to them is that assorted important squishy bits just got inappropriately perforated.

Just a bit of a peeve of mine. I don't know what (if any) the game-mechanical justifications are, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

[fallen851]

I've just began to apply this system and (as you can imagine) more questions come to me:

I actually didn't expect anyone to start using it so soon. The reason archer attack was so low was because thats the way it is in EB, I updated the above states/equations to what I'm using at the moment, for 1.5, and by using this system and setting base archers at level 2, and ones like Chosen at level 4, with Forester and Cretan being level 5 and the best. This high attack nearly annihilates the archer bug. I also set archer/slinger units to 25 man size (I play on large so it come outs to 50 men) and reduce ammo to 10-18 depending on if it is a base archer or an elite archer. Archers become quite effective, but not overly effective, and quite worthless in melee too. Furthermore, most barbarian units are set at 50 man size.

I spent the day doing some significant tests which I'm going to post soon, and despite what others have said, it does look like my system makes sense.

I don't really have any method to calculate cost yet.