As I joined this beta-project only a couple of week ago, I am not sure if this has already been discussed. Anyway, as the search function is not really helpfull I will open a new discussion.
As we approach a final implementation of the game the difficulty of balancing heroes magic and meleewise becomes obvious to me. Lets first consider the power of armies during the game:
At the start of the game a typical unit has 3 attack, 0 defense, 5 healthpoints and 1-2 attacks per turn.In the midgame you are confronted with parties of lightly armord swordsmen: 4*18 attack = 72, 4*8 defense = 32, 4*6 healthpoints = 24 and 1-2 attacks per turn.In the late game the armies consist typically of squads of armoured elite riders with medical paks: 10*30 attack = 300, 10*16 defense = 160 and 10*20 healthpoints = 200, and 2-3 attacks
Therefore the Power rating of an unit grows from the early game to late game by a factor of 100 to 1000.
To make champions and the souvereign actually balanced throughout the course of a game the power rating has to grow in a similar way. This is quite problematic! While champions gain some additional power by improving their equippment (neglecting casters for the moment), we still can not offset the fact, that the size of a unit grows by a factor of 20 from early to late game (and that units effectively level - by simply building more experienced troop - which offsets some of the leveling effects of champions. Annotation: in this regard i do not understand why regular troops do not level, and why we can not combine individual units to a party if we have the tech).
At the moment a Champion/Souvereign unit is balanced powerwise in the range of a party of units. The automatically results is that Souvereigns feel absolutely overpowered in the early game (when confronted with individual soldiers). This furthermore leads to the fact, that early game units are not very usefull, because a souvereign (if he acts first) can simply walk into a city and destroy all defending units. However when the same Souvereign is confronted by an Squad of units his preferred option is to run, and the player/AI has to be super carefull whith its heroes later on.
I want at this point take a look back at the system employed by master of magic concerning regular troops and heroes. There combat of a troop vs a hero worked like this:
E.g. The troop hat 4 attack per person, 4 defense per person and 2 hitpoints per person, while fielding 6 persons
The hero might have had 12 Attack, 12 Defense and 12 HP. So All its values were dramatically higher that that of an individuall troop (note this is not achievable in Elemental at the moment), but if the troops were added up, the troop would have double the defense and offense.
Now attack worked like this: The hero attacked and did an average of 4 damage [remember in MoM each attack and defense symbol hat a 30% chanceto inflict or avoind one damage, when neglecting hit (heroes typically hat 60%+ chance to inflict damage, through)] of these 4 damage the fists man in the unit can avoid 1 damage with his 4 defense and gets hit for 3 Damage, which kills him. The remaining 1 Point of damage is absorbed by the defense of the second unit. On the attack back, the army (which now has only 5 men) will do an combined damage of 5*4*0.3 which is 6. The heroes defense of 12 can cancel about 4 and he gets about 2 damage. Thus both have lost the same amount of health, while the values of the hero seem to be much less impressive. So this is based on the fact that in MoM each unit has to defend individually against attacks, giving single units with high defense an additional advantage.
If you additioally remember the leveling system you will note that a hero, from leveling alone typically doubled his attack, defense and hitpoints, while also at least doubling his chance to hit. To gain an similar strong increase in hero capabilities (by leveling) a Elemental-hero needs about to be level 25 or above. The power of regular troops, in contrast, did not increase that much because higher level units usually comprised even fewer soldiers that the 8 of the initial spearmen.
Suggestions for Elemental
To offest the problems discussed above several approaches could be taken:
- The single units of the early game could be replaced by groups or even squads, and the power level of souvereings increased accordingly. This would offset one of the facts that make units late game so powerfull. compared to champions.
- The increase of power obtained while leveling could be enhanced dramatically. The souvereign could, for instance, automatically gain more HitPoints per level. I would propose to set the champion hitpoints to (Level+2)*Constitution/2 (For a 10 Constitution hero 15 hitpoints to start, 60 hitpoints at level 10). This will also help souvereigns against magic, which should in endgame also do about several times the damage it does early on, to be actually usefull against squads. [Due to tactical speed it in fact does several times the damage form early on, but the additional mana cost is by far to high].
- Furthermore, combined units in Elemental should also defend inidvidually, so that onlay the defense of one soldier is used to counter an attack. The balance could further be changed in favour of champions, if units consisting of several soldiers attack individuallay. This means, that each attack of the squad has to defeat the champions defense individually. I am not sure if that is how Elemental handles combat, but the numbers shown in the interface indicate that the values for groups of soldiers are simply added up (if this is not the case then the inferface should be changed in some way to represent this).
using a multiplicative approach would go a very very long way. 6 attacks of 4 attack (each mitigated by armor) is much much better than a 24 attack only mitigated once. Armor would become far more useful, espiecially for a Champion or Soverign. "Armor stacking" your Champion or Sovereign could be a viable late-game build (eg, 10-20 defense to counter mobs of armies with 8 attack or whatever. Sure, you'll suffer a few glancing blows but you shouldn't take much damage overall)
I'm glad we all more or less agree on this....lets hope it gets noticed.....
Strongly agree with this. And, if the unit has lost half its health, it should only get 3 attacks of 4, because half the guys are incapacitated (though they eventually go back to normal as the unit gets healed).
Now, obviously this would require some rebalancing, but I think it would be a better foundation to balance on than the current system.
Don't agree with this at all. We want epic summoned creatures or heavily developed champions to be killing machines. Would be incredibly frustrating if it takes them 10 attacks to go through even a defenseless unit.
Oh, personally I think that if a unit of 6 loses 10 HP (and each have 10 HP) then the unit permanently loses 1 member.
Although, with this system it "should" be theoretically possible to "clump" smaller units together as long as the total soldier count is less-than or equal to your largest possible unit. (if max logistics, then 22 soldiers in one unit)
That would be 22 separate attacks, and (assuming 10 HP each) one would permanently die each time the unit suffers a total of 10 damage.
Probably only identical (or similar) templates should be allowed to "clump together" into a single unit.
Permanently? Nah. That makes the benefits of parties/squads too low. We want incentives to build together, and for you to have to build full size squads, rather than building the smaller ones and then merging them together.
I think that not losing members permanently would be much easier. If nothing else, the Name of the unit is currently Party of Knights, Squad of Knights etc.
Permanently as in you can merge new soldier-citizens into the ranks (with mergable units ...)
If a single soldier loses all 10 HP, he dies permanently ... why shouldn't a company (10 soldiers) that loses 10 HP turn into a group of 9 soldiers?
I mean, you "could" try to justify that the damage was spread out amongst the unit ... but at the extreme end, if the company of soldiers has 1 HP left, then really it should be decimated ... reduced to only a single soldier.
Because it will be a micromanagement mess. constantly having to train new individual soldiers, march them out to the front lines, merge them with units.
Lots of hassle for no obvious design gain. Not fun.
If you want a "realism" argument (which you shouldn't; we should be concerned about gameplay here), then the soldier isn't actually "killed", he's just "incapacitated". And then recovers as the unit regains health.
Not that Civ is the end-all and be-all of TBS games, but I think I read that in Civ5 cities will have the inherent ability to defend themselves according to their size and the technology available to the defending player? They can be defended further of course with actual armies.
They can't really be defended with armies in Civ5. Civ is moving to a 1 unit per tile system, and a hex map. You can have at most one unit garissoning a city, while it can be attacked from 6 surrounding tiles, and bombarded from beyond that. So yes, most of the city value will come from the cities themselves (including defensive buildings like castles and walls), including multi-tile bombardment capability, not from garrisoned mobile units.
I don' t think that's the way we want to go for Elemental, but I do think that having some kind of basic city defense that doesn't rely on armies.
If nothing else, it should be hard to take out an opposing capital with a rush in the early game. Civ accomplishes this with the archer unit - early cheap unit with city defense bonuses.
How about "militia" as an early accessible cheap equipment, which gives an attack, defense and health bonus when the unit is stationed in a city? Or a Militia city building that provides say one basic infantry unit per city level, that can't be moved out of the city?
City conquest should be hard - with an only slightly superior force you should just pillage the countryside, rather than assaulting a well-defended fortress.
The 20 turn construction time for even the most basic defensive structure is entirely unreasonable.
I agree with Scooter onthe micromanagment issue of wounded squads, not fun to have to keep ferrying reinforcements around. It also may be harder to program.
A compromise can be found in how units heal. I don't know how they currrently handle this but I think squads should only heal if in your factions territory or through magic. Heros, magical summoned creatures, should be able to heal anywhere.
Yea, I didn't precisely mean the city square itself could be defended by stacking units onto it like in previous Civ games - just that by having armies in the vicinity and having them engage enemies in the field nearby cities you are providing more protection to those cities.
I did NOT know cities in CivV were getting multi-tile ranged bombardment, etc? I just figured cities would just sort of counter-attack automatically when attacked, but not be able to actively engage nearby hostiles?
You're able to garrison multiple units into a city in Civ V, which is a good way to use old-tech units that you don't want to upgrade
Cities themselves WILL have a natural defense bonus, regardless of garrison (though it'll be useless end-game) and then it will have a defense modifier that controls just how effective the garrison is. At least, that's how I interpret the stuff I've read on it.
Source? None of the actual developer comments have indicated that you'll be able to garrison multiple units.
The only things that even sounded vaguely like this were from poorly translated previews from European magazine writers who didn't have great English.
And nothing has said that city self-defense will be useless end-game; the city's combat strength will depend on structures, and so as you build more advanced structures its combat stats will improve.
But yes, with the appropriate buildings at least Civ5 cities will be able to bombard.
Cities in Civ5 it seems will be more powerful than 1-2 units, so you'll need multiple units (siege units will be particularly useful) in order to take on a decent sized city, even without an enemy army. But a decent sized army will be able to do it without much trouble if the city is unsupported.
I don't think we want cities to be very powerful alone in Elemental, but it would be great if they had enough to be able to fight off a very weak assault on their own (rather than getting insta-razed), and if there were some cheap early game things that could help defending armies from fighting off a rush.
It should not take a massive defender investment in order for an army defending a city to be better than an army defending in the field.
* * *
One possible way to accomplish this: armies defending a city get to act first, unlike armies defending in the field.
I'm not going to dig through old developer Q&A agreements to "prove" myself right to someone else on the internet over something I read awhile ago. Sorry. This is not wikipedia.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The game isn't even released yet. However, I did read a forum discussion that came up with that exact strategy (garrisoning old units to defend your cities). Take it at that.
I just found some material that talks about how city defense is supposedly handled in CivV:
"Cities have a combat strength and can defend attacks on their own. A unit can also be garrisoned inside to increase that strength. A city may have both a unit garrisoned and another unit occupying the city tile."
Source:
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_cities.html
(Note: this site is just a sincere fan of the game trying to provide information to the best of his ability according to what he has seen from beta access and various other unofficial sources, so I am not claiming it is necessarily 100% accurate, but there is some very intersting information there if you are interested in that game.)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account