Not Enough Great Generals on Marathon?

[Watiggi]

This is one more instance of about a dozen or so times playing Warlords saying to myself, "great game... but did anyone actually playtest this thing?"

Hehe, it would be funny if the majority of the play testers were builders who never really play a game long war campaign

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Actually a 50% odds of winning will get the attacker 4 xp and the defender 2 xp. That is the base.

I do agree with this though, they really well and truely screwed it up. As I said earlier, I think it should be scaled (if it even needs to be) more on map size that speed. It ultimately is about how much xp you can accumulate, NOT how fast it can be accumulated. The normal GP system is based on the idea that you can increase the rate of GPP accumulation with extra cities, Wonders and specialists. With Great Generals, this cannot be done. They certainly didn't give it much thought. The GG system uses the same scaling as GG but there is no way to realistically increase the xp growth rate. War is conducted linearly. What they are suggesting is warring from an ever increasing number of fronts at once in order to increase the amount of xp gained per turn so as to keep up with the scale. That isn't right. I think it should be along the lines of (regardless of speed): 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, etc, at least... The Great General threshold rise is FAR too steep for a good war game - even on Normal speed - and it also kills the effectiveness of the Imperialistic trait. My idea of Imperialistic is that it should allow the leader to generate GG's consistantly over a long period of time. It doesn't. 100% emergence actually means about 30% more GG's and that's all. Imperialistic should also (I think) give -25 XP cost for GG instead of the current bonus so that it allows for a longer period of Great General generation. Right now, they are out of reach after about 5 GG's (on normal speed - I would hate to think of what it would be like on Marathon).

Your dead right on the 4xp off 2 xp def at 50/50 odds (just did more wb tests which I'll explain in a sec, and ran 30 50/50 combats and won 6!, so thats why I never attack at 50% odds, and yes I know 30 combats isn't a large enough sample to mean anything at all, just that could easily happen in a real game)...

Anyways I know now very approximately how the GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE works, but heaven help me if I've tried to find the actual equation and can't.

Its set at 50 default, which gives the familiar incremental scale of 30 xp, then 60 xp, then 90 xp at normal speed.

I explained above about changing the GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD , i.e its default 30 which means 90 xp for 1st general etc at marathon, and how to just set that no to (grt gen occurance on marathon /3)..

e.g. set it to 20 for 60xp for 1st grt general, 15 for 1st grt gen at 45xp, and set it to 10 so that it equals the same as normal speed, 30 xp for 1st grt gen

Ok especially for Watiggi, if you want each and every general appearing at the same increments, e.g. every 45xp then set GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE to MINUS 50

At its default value of 50, the base needed for the 1st gen is added to itself with each subsequent general created, and that's the xp you need. e.g. at base 30xp, you get the scale 30,60,90,120

Setting GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE to MINUS 50 with the same base of 30xp, gives you a value of 30,30,30,30

Setting GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE to ZERO, with a 45 xp base, gave me a scale 45,66,90,111 (and I'm far too tired to work out the exact formula from these results) but you can see that a grt_gen_inc of 50 gives 100%, -50 gives 0%, and 0 gives approx 50%.

So if you want the 30,35,40 etc scale you suggested, then for marathon set
GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD to 10 and try setting GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE to around (minus)45.

Right enough of that, but if anyone can find the exact equation I'd be grateful, but its WAY past bedtime and I'll call that a day...


Edit:- Final point, remember changing any of these values will result in exactly the same grt general appearance for the AI as it will you so be warned if you're near a Monty or Shaka

 

[CarpeDiem]

im a n00b and i dont understand any of this but i want my game right

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Here's an alternate thought...

What would the ramifications be of allowing Barbarian xp to add to Great General generation? How would one do this? I would imagine that even the standard 90 xp generation wouldn't be as much of an issue especially since I regularly play Terra maps with Raging Barbs.

Thoughts?

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Here's an alternate thought...

What would the ramifications be of allowing Barbarian xp to add to Great General generation? How would one do this? I would imagine that even the standard 90 xp generation wouldn't be as much of an issue especially since I regularly play Terra maps with Raging Barbs.

Thoughts?

Hmm, not sure how this would be in practice, probably too much of an advantage to player, who with intelligent human play could almost always guarantee a grt gen just from barbs on huge maps, by recycling troops until they all get 10 xp...the AI wouldn't do this.

And I did consider something like this, but can't see any .xml files that relate to it, it must be elsewhere in the code......

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Well I've found that changing GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD to 15, and GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE to 0 (zero), which gives the grt general xp needed series of 45,66,90,111 seem to be the best balance for an interesting game on huge maps / marathon.

Its still almost imposible to get an early grt gen pre 0AD, but an extensive early war will get you close, current game I've completely destroyed the Persians (with the help of Genghis), and then taken most of Mali (with the help of Louis), this has given me one grt gen, with another only 5xp away, but that would need a 3rd war...

Anyways just wondered if anyone had found the equation which uses GREAT_GENERALS_THRESHOLD_INCREASE , because I've amost given up looking.....

 

[Watiggi]

I ain't looking myself as I'm working on something else. Thanks for the information though. It is just a pity that the fans have to make these corrections... I really find it strange that these values and the effect they have is the effect Firaxis was after.

 

[Andraeianus I]

I ain't looking myself as I'm working on something else. Thanks for the information though. It is just a pity that the fans have to make these corrections...

I have played a marathon game myself (standard map size) and although I played a builder's game mainly I had 2 major wars (=2 civilizations). This gave me 2 great generals and a third one I got by discovering Fascism first. To me one or two great generals are ok for an entire game.

Don't forget on a Marathon game there is more time for war and more time to gather experience points! So it seems to me there is nothing that needs to be corrected. It is correct that the speed of great generals generated is linked to the speed of other great persons generated: game speed that is.

 

[Panda]

I have played a marathon game myself (standard map size) and although I played a builder's game mainly I had 2 major wars (=2 civilizations). This gave me 2 great generals and a third one I got by discovering Fascism first. To me one or two great generals are ok for an entire game.

That's exactly what I had on my last game [standard size / marathon] as well. Still, considering the warlord unit is the one of two major additions in the expansion, one would like to see more of them.

Anyone willing to bet that in the next expansion there'll be a national wonder that increases the rate you spawn warlords.

 

[Randolph]

I tend to agree with the “there shouldn’t be any increase based on game speed” camp. Yes, this will mean that there will be slightly more GGs on slower speeds (b/c unit prices are cheaper compared to buildings), but it will maintain the unit/GG ratio. Having a few more GGs will further improve the intricate warfare on the slower speeds that makes them so fun. If there is any increase it ought to be +10-15% on epic and +20-30% on marathon.

I’m confident that Fraxis will address this issue, if this is the biggest flaw in game balance upon release, then they did a very good job.

 

[kcbrett5]

I wouldn't change it at all. IF you want more great generals then play as an imperialistic civ. I played on Marathon with Rome, I had 8 prats attack 8 horse archers and I got a GG. I actually thought it came pretty quickly. And then that unit is awesome. Give it all the xp, and it either wins or withdraws every time.

If I had a whole army of these I'd be invincible. Plus, there is a lot more battles on marathon. You build more troops with slavery rushing, I upgrade more troops because of the cost to build new ones.

 

[Sobsob]

I just won a marathon game by domnation had only 1 GG it was only noble difficulty so I could get the feel of the exp.Got to be said either Warlords has made it easier or im hell of alot better player than the last time I played on noble.

 

[naterator]

I had 8 prats attack 8 horse archers and I got a GG.

i'm sorry, i just don't believe this. not unless you've fought 50-75 battles before. 8 vs 8 can't give 90 xp.

 

[Jaybe]

i'm sorry, i just don't believe this. not unless you've fought 50-75 battles before. 8 vs 8 can't give 90 xp.

While he obviously had more than 8 combats, it doesn't have to be 50+.

90 GGp for imperialistic = 45 XP. An attack with as high as 90%+ can now give 4 XP.

Prats vs. horse archers are only around 60-75% depending on promotions, so maybe it WAS just 8 attacks.

 

[kcbrett5]

While he obviously had more than 8 combats, it doesn't have to be 50+.

90 GGp for imperialistic = 45 XP. An attack with as high as 90%+ can now give 4 XP.
Prats vs. horse archers are only around 60-75% depending on promotions, so maybe it WAS just 8 attacks.

It could have been 10 i suppose but not more than that. The odds in each case were ~68% and I only lost one of them (got pretty lucky). Like I said, I was playing imperialistic so they come quicker than 90xp .

 

[naterator]

While he obviously had more than 8 combats, it doesn't have to be 50+.

90 GGp for imperialistic = 45 XP. An attack with as high as 90%+ can now give 4 XP.

Prats vs. horse archers are only around 60-75% depending on promotions, so maybe it WAS just 8 attacks.

if he's had previous combat, he should phrase his post differently then, because it's very relevant information.
also, i don't believe that you're getting 4 xp for a 90% attack, unless there's some other conditions you're not telling us.
unpromoted praetorian vs horse archer = 78.1% = 3xp, at least in my ingame tests. 3xp * 8units = 24xp

edit - was checking the WB when the last post was posted. 68% * 10, i'll be right back.
ok, 68.5% for unpromoted praetorian vs. combat II horse archer = 68.5% = 3 xp also. you sure you weren't imperialistic with the great wall fighting inside your culture? because those are 2 huge things when it comes to GG generation. if i'm mostly getting 1-2xp for battling archers in cities and fighting an offensive war, it'll take 45+ battles.

 

[kcbrett5]

if he's had previous combat, he should phrase his post differently then, because it's very relevant information.
also, i don't believe that you're getting 4 xp for a 90% attack, unless there's some other conditions you're not telling us.
unpromoted praetorian vs horse archer = 78.1% = 3xp, at least in my ingame tests. 3xp * 8units = 24xp

edit - was checking the WB when the last post was posted. 68% * 10, i'll be right back.
ok, 68.5% for unpromoted praetorian vs. combat II horse archer = 68.5% = 3 xp also. you sure you weren't imperialistic with the great wall fighting inside your culture? because those are 2 huge things when it comes to GG generation. if i'm mostly getting 1-2xp for battling archers in cities and fighting an offensive war, it'll take 45+ battles.

I already told you twice that I was imperialistic and yes the battle was inside my borders but no I did not have the great wall (neither built it nor conquered it). Maybe I got the numbers wrong and it was more than 10. The point is, it is a heck of alot less than the 50 battles that you and others are claiming. I was defending for the very first time.

 

[naterator]

i know you were imperialistic, i was wondering if you were combining it with the great wall, which is comparable to lumping the parthenon on philosophical. i think you've got your numbers wrong, and since you don't have the right numbers handy, just a feeling that you got alot of generals, i'm not going to argue it anymore.
my gripe is this:
other great people are tripled, as they should be, because buildings take 3 times as long, and there are 3 times the turns. units take twice the time, instead of 3, allowing you to produce 33% more units than you could produce on normal, how does this equal 300% more xp?

the only game i've played in warlords was with julius, and i got 3 generals by combat and one for discovering fascism first. my praetorians took 2 civs and i won a domination victory, so it's not like i wasn't warmongering. so even if you can take measures to speed up that first one, the curve is just too sharp on marathon.

 

[Jaybe]

naterator, I retract the "4 XP for a 90% attack" statement. I was sure it had happened with some melee units (might have been a praetorian or maceman), but with gunpowder units it's back to the usual XP gains.

I wonder if UUs get more XP now.
I'll have to check next game, in another 2-4 weeks.

 

[Thalatta]

From what I can tell, you can get more XP even on high percentage combat if your unit survives at really low XP. So, if one unit comes out at full health, it may just get 1 XP and the other comes out at 10%, it could get 4 or even more (I'm not quite sure).

As for Great General emergence, I'm not yet sure what I think. I only managed 2 in a normal speed 1500AD domination game, but I was both at 70-something XP out of 90 and was 2 turns from Facism. Too many might be overpowered, yet Philosophical leaders can get incredible numbers of great people and, quite frankly, Great Generals are no better than any of them such that they should emerge in a far lower quantity. I think my personal call would be that a sequence along the lines of 30-45-60-etc. for normal speed. I think 30 is a good amount to start with as having one too soon would be too strong. However, an increase of 15 seems like a much better scale, especially since they are supposed to be a major feature of the game. For other speeds, I'd think -6 each on quick, +6 on epic and +12 on marathon would probably be a fair balance, with the same +50% of the first general for increases.