Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Maybe an "Aggressive" trait that is +x Eva when attacking. Storm tropers, and later Panzergrenadiers and maybe Green Berets will get this trait.
Pre-CNES: Flowers on the Working Title
- Thread starter Crezth
- Start date
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I couldn't agree more.
I'm not sure I agree, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Taking away their AP may necessitate a boost elsewhere, but it's a fair point that their AP may give them too much utility. I'll look into it more (and rocket soldiers are still a thing, so maintaining the system that Daft constructed may be a wise approach).
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Addendum: "Better than the infantry overall" was actually disregarding cost-effeciency. I'm sorry if I phrased it wrongly. Basically:
The infantry unit is weaker than the stormtrooper unit.
The infantry unit is cheaper than the stormtrooper unit.
Therefore, there should be a cost-effective balance. Is there? Probably yes.
The stormtrooper should be the bad investment on defense and the good investment on offense. I'm not sure it's like that right now because the stormtrooper gains points over the infantry in most aspects, even becoming more specialized while maintaining base strength.
The infantry unit is weaker than the stormtrooper unit.
The infantry unit is cheaper than the stormtrooper unit.
Therefore, there should be a cost-effective balance. Is there? Probably yes.
The stormtrooper should be the bad investment on defense and the good investment on offense. I'm not sure it's like that right now because the stormtrooper gains points over the infantry in most aspects, even becoming more specialized while maintaining base strength.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
@ Lord Joakim; Strength is only for attacking. Defense is only for defending. Crezth didn't go about renaming Strength as Attack yet. The Storm Trooper is as effective as the infantry in the defense, and triple the effectiveness on the attack, not counting increased EVA or AP abilities.
IIRC that is how CivIII has their combat power based while CIV just had the strength with modifiers.
As for the Storm Trooper's AP, I think that represents the more aggresive style of the Storm Trooper and their greater assess to squad level Flame Throwers, Mortars, Grenades, and their tendency to run around the tank, open the hatch, and jump right in, shot guns spraying.
IIRC that is how CivIII has their combat power based while CIV just had the strength with modifiers.
As for the Storm Trooper's AP, I think that represents the more aggresive style of the Storm Trooper and their greater assess to squad level Flame Throwers, Mortars, Grenades, and their tendency to run around the tank, open the hatch, and jump right in, shot guns spraying.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Also keep in mind that if you're defending, you're obviously going to purchase 9 infantry for the same cost as 3 stormtroopers, giving infantry triple the cost-effectiveness of the stormtrooper on defense.
Stormtroopers definitely don't need to be nerfed further, keeping in mind that you can purchase 3 infantry for the same cost. I want Crezth to run the numbers on massed infantry assaults vs. 1/3 the Stormtroopers and see which one comes out better.
Stormtroopers definitely don't need to be nerfed further, keeping in mind that you can purchase 3 infantry for the same cost. I want Crezth to run the numbers on massed infantry assaults vs. 1/3 the Stormtroopers and see which one comes out better.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I tend to disagree. If you take more away from the stormtrooper it'll just be more cost-effective to buy tons of infantry.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Registering interest/subscription post.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
So I did a lot today in terms of adding to the program (I think we can safely say we're in v0.3 of the alpha), specifically in terms of adding a "biased attacker" subroutine and tweaking some of the balance after running extensive tests. Other stuff too. Keep reading.
This paragraph is about the code. That was my topic sentence, this is my segue. In an attempt to imitate Daft'sinvisible hand in choosing targets every time a unit shot at another unit, I assigned priority matrices to every unit type. Basically, they roll a 1d100 for every single unit type, ignoring unit types that aren't in the defending army, and then apply a modifier between 0.1 and 2.0 to each of the rolled values. Whichever unit gets the highest modified roll is the unit that is selected to target. This allows for certain unit types to have biases when selecting the unit they want to be shooting at - so militia don't try to take down landships and helicopters don't waste their time shooting heavy bombers. Oh, there were two new unit types in that last sentence! Cool. Anyway, this also lets me make certain units "harder" to target than other units. Most air units fall under this category when it comes to units with no AA, but almost all units have a 0.5 modifier when it comes to targeting artillery-type units. This is to ensure artillery units can survive longer into the battle, given their zero evasion and the general nature of indirect-fire artillery on the battlefield.
This paragraph is about balance. I had the opportunity to run a lot of simulations today, like over a hundred, so I made some changes based off of my impressions there. So it turns out $1 infantry are overpowered. Like, insanely overpowered. They just zerg-rush everything. So they're $2 again. And stormtroopers sucked, so I gave them a 20% chance to resist damage when they get hit. And they still sucked, so I upped it to 30%. And they were will sort of cost-ineffective compared to armored cars, which were amazing. Light tanks and landships weren't performing to-cost against infantry masses, so I nerfed AP a bit. Full changelog below, but that's the scoop.
Oh yeah. Here are the 9 new units:
I haven't had the opportunity to aggressively try to balance these new units, but here are their preliminary stats and, of course, unit cards. Keep in mind some will require certain techs to unlock. Anyway, I've still got a few more units that I'm considering adding, in some capacity or another, but we're up to 19 now which is moreorless enough to *start* the NES with, so we're in a good place numbers-wise. This isn't even counting the naval units that still have yet to be fully incorporated and balanced.
However, the biased attacker algorithm has done a lot in ensuring that future balance endeavors will not be a complete waste of time, and getting it done is like knocking down the dam of future progress. The next thing I want to focus on is the bonuses algorithm (in case, for whatever reason, your infantry have +1 attack) and making double attacks actually "work" rather than just a sort of in-theory thing. In time.
So, thoughts on the new units and balance changes?
This paragraph is about the code. That was my topic sentence, this is my segue. In an attempt to imitate Daft's
This paragraph is about balance. I had the opportunity to run a lot of simulations today, like over a hundred, so I made some changes based off of my impressions there. So it turns out $1 infantry are overpowered. Like, insanely overpowered. They just zerg-rush everything. So they're $2 again. And stormtroopers sucked, so I gave them a 20% chance to resist damage when they get hit. And they still sucked, so I upped it to 30%. And they were will sort of cost-ineffective compared to armored cars, which were amazing. Light tanks and landships weren't performing to-cost against infantry masses, so I nerfed AP a bit. Full changelog below, but that's the scoop.
Spoiler revised units :
Spoiler changelog :
Oh yeah. Here are the 9 new units:
Spoiler new units :
I haven't had the opportunity to aggressively try to balance these new units, but here are their preliminary stats and, of course, unit cards. Keep in mind some will require certain techs to unlock. Anyway, I've still got a few more units that I'm considering adding, in some capacity or another, but we're up to 19 now which is moreorless enough to *start* the NES with, so we're in a good place numbers-wise. This isn't even counting the naval units that still have yet to be fully incorporated and balanced.
However, the biased attacker algorithm has done a lot in ensuring that future balance endeavors will not be a complete waste of time, and getting it done is like knocking down the dam of future progress. The next thing I want to focus on is the bonuses algorithm (in case, for whatever reason, your infantry have +1 attack) and making double attacks actually "work" rather than just a sort of in-theory thing. In time.
So, thoughts on the new units and balance changes?
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Suggestions:
1) Make mobile AA better at killing planes. Nerf the ulterior functions slightly but give it the 1 AP that Anti-Air has.
2) I can understand one strength for fighters and the like, but bombers need atk/def. At least pre-modern times, it's much easier to use a bomber to attack the enemy than to blunt an offensive.
3) Heavy Bomber should have slightly better AA maybe.
4) Slightly concerned on Light Tanks vs. Landships. Light Tanks have more AP than Landships why exactly? Please test 7 Light Tanks and 5 Landships vs. enemies to see which one performs better against infantry masses and mixed units.
5) I think that expensive units should be slightly more cost-effective than cheap units to reward saving up for the big units. If they're exactly as cost effective there's no reason not to buy the cheaper unit when you can.
1) Make mobile AA better at killing planes. Nerf the ulterior functions slightly but give it the 1 AP that Anti-Air has.
2) I can understand one strength for fighters and the like, but bombers need atk/def. At least pre-modern times, it's much easier to use a bomber to attack the enemy than to blunt an offensive.
3) Heavy Bomber should have slightly better AA maybe.
4) Slightly concerned on Light Tanks vs. Landships. Light Tanks have more AP than Landships why exactly? Please test 7 Light Tanks and 5 Landships vs. enemies to see which one performs better against infantry masses and mixed units.
5) I think that expensive units should be slightly more cost-effective than cheap units to reward saving up for the big units. If they're exactly as cost effective there's no reason not to buy the cheaper unit when you can.
Third Map Preview- I've run another 2 detail passes over the western continent, and 1 detail pass over the other two. The western continent is now one pass away from completion, the other two continents are two passes away from completion. I intend to add more islands, both large coastal ones (Newfoundlands, Tierra del Fuegos, Japans, Great Britains, etc.) and mid-oceanic ones (Hawaiis, Polynesias, etc). Also to come are rivers, mountains, climates and borders.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
@Thlayli: Good suggestions! I'll review them one-by-one.
1. I like this idea because specializing the AA is something that probably does need to happen, especially since air superiority is so expensive to obtain. I have already devised some alternate possible mechanisms that could divert anti-infantry functions to other units, so the Mobile AA's extra power against soft targets is not needed.
2. Fair enough, I admit it would give Jets and Fighters more utility for general air-to-ground warfare. A -Str penalty for defending should suffice.
3. Maybe, that's not really its purpose though.
4. I'll do some research into trade-off studies on these two units.
5. An interesting piece of design philosophy that I will take care to note. I admit I have been overly concerned with making infantry comparable to similar costs of bigger units, for starters, but the point definitely makes sense when comparing Heavy Tanks and Medium Tanks (say). I am considering adding multiple anti-infantry measures to add nuance to dealing with hordes (necessary since some might ask if one Heavy Bomber is really worth twelve Infantry, for example).
@Iggy: Beautiful! If I might ask, how are you planning to divide the map into provinces? I may have told you this already, but the map should be blown up quite a bit at the end of the process, to provide real estate for all the visual indicators that will need to be on the map.
1. I like this idea because specializing the AA is something that probably does need to happen, especially since air superiority is so expensive to obtain. I have already devised some alternate possible mechanisms that could divert anti-infantry functions to other units, so the Mobile AA's extra power against soft targets is not needed.
2. Fair enough, I admit it would give Jets and Fighters more utility for general air-to-ground warfare. A -Str penalty for defending should suffice.
3. Maybe, that's not really its purpose though.
4. I'll do some research into trade-off studies on these two units.
5. An interesting piece of design philosophy that I will take care to note. I admit I have been overly concerned with making infantry comparable to similar costs of bigger units, for starters, but the point definitely makes sense when comparing Heavy Tanks and Medium Tanks (say). I am considering adding multiple anti-infantry measures to add nuance to dealing with hordes (necessary since some might ask if one Heavy Bomber is really worth twelve Infantry, for example).
@Iggy: Beautiful! If I might ask, how are you planning to divide the map into provinces? I may have told you this already, but the map should be blown up quite a bit at the end of the process, to provide real estate for all the visual indicators that will need to be on the map.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Maybe a machine-gun/defensive unit that can attack 2-infantry-type units on the defense?
If you change AP (Armor Piercing) to AT (Anti-Tank), you can reserve AP for Anti-Personel bonuses to attack/defense.
Will Militia/Infantry/Stormtroopers eventually get upgraded? Some Ideas (Note, I do not expect all to be implemented; cherry picking might be good or even each nation picks 1 new infantry
) Many of these can also be implemented just by + (pick trait) every tech level for all/some infantry types..
40's upgrades: Guerilla, Assault Trooper (SS, ect), Marine (+Amphibious?), Panzergrenadier (Works better with APC), Paratrooper (works better with parachuting)
60's upgrades: Commando, Air Cavalry (works better with helicopters)
80's upgrades: Mechanized (works better with IFV)
00's upgrades:
If you change AP (Armor Piercing) to AT (Anti-Tank), you can reserve AP for Anti-Personel bonuses to attack/defense.
Will Militia/Infantry/Stormtroopers eventually get upgraded? Some Ideas (Note, I do not expect all to be implemented; cherry picking might be good or even each nation picks 1 new infantry
) Many of these can also be implemented just by + (pick trait) every tech level for all/some infantry types..40's upgrades: Guerilla, Assault Trooper (SS, ect), Marine (+Amphibious?), Panzergrenadier (Works better with APC), Paratrooper (works better with parachuting)
60's upgrades: Commando, Air Cavalry (works better with helicopters)
80's upgrades: Mechanized (works better with IFV)
00's upgrades:
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
00s upgrades: Drone.
2050s upgrade: Giant Death Robot.
2050s upgrade: Giant Death Robot.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
@Thlayli: OK, so after a few trade-off studies with the first seven units, and my findings are: landships and armored cars are exceptional at shattering infantry-based defenses; stormtroopers and light tanks are OK at fighting infantry-based defenses; stormtroopers are good against light tanks and OK against armored cars; light tanks are great against armored cars and good against landships. Artillery are good defensive units, but perform better when there are infantry between them and the enemy.
Now, I've decided that the armor-piercing nerf, while it does make landships and the like technically cost-effective versus infantry, the very fact that infantry spam remains viable means that something must be done. A horde of infantry can only be killed so quickly, and an infantry-artillery wall can be very difficult to break. A team of landships can only kill so many infantry, so an effective way of killing more than one is required. For this reason, I've added two new special anti-infantry units, and I've given artillery, bombers, rockets, heavy bombers, and the new flamethrower unit a "splash damage" that scales with attack power. The way I've designed it, the only units that are effectively vulnerable to splash damage are those with no armor.
I'm convinced this is a good system, and I'm happy with flamethrowers. I made a few more tweaks and I'll examine all this in greater detail later tonight. I also really want to push a tech tree out sooner rather than later so that we have a proper context for understanding how all these units will be interacting. As it stands, though, I feel that the first 7 units are excellently balanced, and building a good force for attack or defense demands a lot of nuance - if you mass infantry or artillery, you will get punished by someone who makes stormtroopers and landships/armored cars.
Now, I've decided that the armor-piercing nerf, while it does make landships and the like technically cost-effective versus infantry, the very fact that infantry spam remains viable means that something must be done. A horde of infantry can only be killed so quickly, and an infantry-artillery wall can be very difficult to break. A team of landships can only kill so many infantry, so an effective way of killing more than one is required. For this reason, I've added two new special anti-infantry units, and I've given artillery, bombers, rockets, heavy bombers, and the new flamethrower unit a "splash damage" that scales with attack power. The way I've designed it, the only units that are effectively vulnerable to splash damage are those with no armor.
I'm convinced this is a good system, and I'm happy with flamethrowers. I made a few more tweaks and I'll examine all this in greater detail later tonight. I also really want to push a tech tree out sooner rather than later so that we have a proper context for understanding how all these units will be interacting. As it stands, though, I feel that the first 7 units are excellently balanced, and building a good force for attack or defense demands a lot of nuance - if you mass infantry or artillery, you will get punished by someone who makes stormtroopers and landships/armored cars.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Great. 
ChiefDesigner
Sunset Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 761
Have you considered letting infantry spam remain viable until the mid-game, where splash damage is a thing that is unlocked with techs?
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
@CD: Yes, actually. Most of the units with splash damage that can bring that damage to bear against infantry masses in a meaningful way don't become unlocked until the '30s or '40s period.
Circuit
Writing Letters
It might also be interesting for nations to have unique abilities that will impact their tactics. So a Stalinist Russia-esque nation might find infantry hordes as their best strategy, whereas others may prefer armor-heavy or air-heavy. This may be more economic abilities (such as buy four get the fifth free), not always combat mechanics.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
