On ranged and armored units - OUTDATED

[Alexander82]

While speaking with Daniel about range 2 melee units i had some tought regarding the balance in this game between ranged and melee units.

At the moment ranged units are basically your best choice unless you are dealing with heavily P. Armored units, while they are almost useless against those kind of units unless heavily upgraded or thanks to special status ailmets like poison and burning.

I'm really trying my best to balance units but the best things we are coming up with are counter units made with the specific purpose of killing some kind of costly units or special skills and such.

I think that most of the problems comes from the fact that this game is born mostly as a rekin of AoS.

In AoS there aren't problems like balance issues since there aren't races and every player can basically build everything (provided he has the gems to buy the upgrades).

I remember many games won by players that spammed units with the best stat/cost ratio without a sweat. Many times the winned just flooded the map with and endless amount of crossbowmen.

What I think by looking at the game is that the approach it has with ranged mechanics is deeply wrong.

You have basically no limit in ranged attacks and if your unit range is long enough it can basically teleport an arrow against its enemy in any conditions. Moreover in AoF range are bigger, damages are higher and armors need to become higher too.

That bring basically 2 effects:

1) a group of ranged units can basically remain untouched against a melee heavy units if armor can't reduce damage received to 1 or 2 making those ranged units useless.

2) No unit can really approach a group of ranged units since they can basically outrange and outmove it most of the time.

Both results aren't the best since when to use a unit should mostly be situational.

A player shouldn't destroy buildings with arrow shot across mountains and walls and at the same time should protect its beloved archers against a meatwall of infantry units.

Also there is no point in building walls and such since they are basically a physical obstacle that becomes a handicap if you can't pass through them to engage a ranged enemy.
Things like walls and mountains should stop the line of attack of every unit, especially if we favor small maps (an upgraded archer in the center of a 20x20 map can basically hit every tile).

Other than that it comes a second problem: movement

In most of strategy games ranged units stop their movement when they shoot. The reason is for both realism and balance. If i can move by 3 tiles and attack and you move by 3 and need to be in melee to attack me you will basically never reach me. Also hitting a target in ranged while moving is not easy to do and ranged units never fail to hit in this game unless for specific cases (units with imprecise shot and targets with dodge ranged) so it is basically very far from reality. So basically a ranged unit shouldn't be able to both move and attack, or at least melee units (or simply every unit in game) should have the chance to spend his action to move a second time, simulating running/charging.

I'd also like to know how other player feels about that.

I understand that is not much fun needing to shot 50 arrows to a unit to kill it as it is not nice to have every costly unit die before even attacking by a group of 2 turns units so I think that some arrangements like the double movement instead of an action and a more realistic line of attack might jut avoid returning to the old problem this game had.

[LordOfAles]

I agree that archers should not do both shooting and moving, but double movement for melee unit which didnt attack would be just too much, so i suggest not double movement but +1 extra movement if not already attacked.
I agree that you shouldnt be supposed to destroy a whole building with a bunch of archers(factory buildings are always the victims), so i suggest raising BUILDING p. Armor to some ridicolous amount, like 50

Im supporting alex in this

[Alexander82]

I agree that archers should not do both shooting and moving, but double movement for melee unit which didnt attack would be just too much, so i suggest not double movement but +1 extra movement if not already attacked.

The idea is one or the other (Move OR shot or move and shot but 2 movement if you don't act). The +1 movement if you don't act is exploitable since you can always act later

[LordOfAles]

Oh, then i probably didnt undestand very well

Yes good idea

[Constantin]

I do not think that the all ranged units should ONLY shoot or ONLY moved. For example, horse archers or horsetype archers(dryad, centaur) can attack on the move, but their accuracy must decrease, because they do not aim the shot.

[Sunrise Samurai]

1. LOA hit the target when he said that factories are too vulnerable. We've mention giving high p. armor to all buildings, and I still think it is necessary.

2. Let's not go with double speed on everything. I'd say move or attack for all ranged units sounds fine. Also, don't change shooting over obstacles. That would make even less sense in many cases.

[LordOfAles]

1. LOA hit the target when he said that factories are too vulnerable. We've mention giving high p. armor to all buildings, and I still think it is necessary.

Agreed

[Alexander82]

I do not think that the all ranged units should ONLY shoot or ONLY moved. For example, horse archers or horsetype archers(dryad, centaur) can attack on the move, but their accuracy must decrease, because they do not aim the shot.

Yes but generally horse archers used short bows and had a much smaller range and lesser precision
Also if you shot before moving you can avoid having the precision penalty

[Sunrise Samurai]

That's the problem. You can shoot first to avoid accuracy penalty. Maybe some archers can move a lesser distance and still shoot?

[Alexander82]

1. LOA hit the target when he said that factories are too vulnerable. We've mention giving high p. armor to all buildings, and I still think it is necessary.

2. Let's not go with double speed on everything. I'd say move or attack for all ranged units sounds fine. Also, don't change shooting over obstacles. That would make even less sense in many cases.

1) agreed

2) I would go for double speed only because that would allow for bigger maps since moving would be faster. About the obstacles when that would make less sense? I think that without some tactical protection it would be impossible to protect from arrows if we raise the damage.

[Alexander82]

That's the problem. You can shoot first to avoid accuracy penalty. Maybe some archers can move a lesser distance and still shoot?

That would require a heavy engine modification as far as I know (something like an Action point logic)

[Sunrise Samurai]

I was thinking a "maximum movement with attack" option, to disable attack if the unit moves beyond that number, and limit movement to that number if the unit attacks first.

Shooting over some obstacles is reasonable. For example, a tree can be shot over, even if it blocks movement. I doubt were raising ranged damage much higher.

Movement isn't much of an issue on big maps as far as I've seen. Besides, it would make small maps cramped indeed. Melee cavalry would have the ability to cross the whole map in a turn.

[Alexander82]

I was thinking a "maximum movement with attack" option, to disable attack if the unit moves beyond that number, and limit movement to that number if the unit attacks first.

It wouldn't be easy tough since all units have a different speed value

Shooting over some obstacles is reasonable. For example, a tree can be shot over, even if it blocks movement. I doubt were raising ranged damage much higher.

Yeah, I tought only of walls and mountains. Anyway the stats increase should be tested. For example an archer and a swordsman on maximum archer range and without obstacles should be made in the way that 1 vs 1 the swordsman can reach the archer to attack it.

Movement isn't much of an issue on big maps as far as I've seen. Besides, it would make small maps cramped indeed. Melee cavalry would have the ability to cross the whole map in a turn.

It is true for cavalry but we might leave the charge mechanic for foot melee units only (maybe useable once in 2 rounds) since cavalry are already good in handling ranged thanks to their superior movement.

[Sunrise Samurai]

My proposal, no engine adjustments necessary.

1. Double the hp, mend bonus, and build bonus of all buildings. Make sure they all have at least 5 p. armor. This means buildings actually require seige or melee to kill, not archer swarms.

2. Reduce the speed of all archers by 2. This will be corrected in 3.

3. Give all infantry an ability to increase their speed by 1 for one turn. Cavalry, archers, and elf infantry have the same ability, but gives +2 speed instead, correcting the speed we removed​ from archers at the cost of an action. Cooldown 1, to prevent double attack units from spamming it.

[LordOfAles]

My proposal, no engine adjustments necessary.

1. Double the hp, mend bonus, and build bonus of all buildings. Make sure they all have at least 5 p. armor. This means buildings actually require seige or melee to kill, not archer swarms.

Why mend bonus? If buildings get that buff, plus workers constantly repairing them, and you dont have siege machines(undeads...) would be pretty problematic, with many of your forces depleted before archers kill the workers, also i recommend at least 7 p. Armor for all factories

[Sunrise Samurai]

Mend/build bonus increases to maintain the same percentage of healing and build speed. I don't want a situation where it's faster to delete and rebuild than to heal, and I don't want to double the build time with the hp increase

[LordOfAles]

Hmm...i dont know what, but something stinks here

[Alexander82]

Mend/build bonus increases to maintain the same percentage of healing and build speed. I don't want a situation where it's faster to delete and rebuild than to heal, and I don't want to double the build time with the hp increase

I've already told that to Daniel. I think for most of the building should already be the same value

[Sunrise Samurai]

Alright. What do you think of parts 2 and 3?

[Alexander82]

My proposal, no engine adjustments necessary.
1. Double the hp, mend bonus, and build bonus of all buildings. Make sure they all have at least 5 p. armor. This means buildings actually require seige or melee to kill, not archer swarms.

Increasing HP will make them harder for melee units too but we might always adjust bonuses

2. Reduce the speed of all archers by 2. This will be corrected in 3.

3. Give all infantry an ability to increase their speed by 1 for one turn. Cavalry, archers, and elf infantry have the same ability, but gives +2 speed instead, correcting the speed we removed​ from archers at the cost of an action. Cooldown 1, to prevent double attack units from spamming it.

I don't agree with that.
It is better a plain move or act for a simple reason

Currently non elven archers have a movement of 3 while elven archers move by 4. This way elven archers would move by 2 if they attack or 4 if they don't while all other archers would move by if they act and by 2 if they don't

Also i don't think elven melee unit should have additional movement when charging dor 2 reasons: a heavy unit in charge uses all its mass and that would go in favor of the heavyer one unlike the lighter, and moreover other races rely more on melee units so they would need more a faster melee line to reach long ranged archers.

In the end a act or move for archers is still the best way to keep some balance in mobility (when a unit moves it moves as intended) and this will also remove the need for movement bonus for chargers (in the futur nothing prevent from creating a tech that has such an effect tough).

[Sunrise Samurai]

Alright, so just archers. Maybe have the same mechanic. Remove their speed (to 0) and give all archers an ability to get the speed they would originally have. That gives your "move or attack" function.

[LordOfAles]

In my opinion implementing all this movement stuff would remove the game's best side: simplicity

[Menselot]

Warhammer tabletop 8th edition have some nice rules about archers and sight...

a) If you could implement a feuture like sight just by adding units buildings and terrain at teams based by their size (small - medium - big - gigantic) ...
Example : 1)small units have reduced change of hitting an enemy of small size behind a unit of medium size
2) small unit can not see the other small unit that hides behind a big unit terrain or buildig (bows may have a range that may shoot above certain hights in certain distances[bows are ineffective close to units])..

b)Also we can add that if a unit moves its shooting range is reduced or it have a deduced change of hitting its target .if a ranged unit moves by a lot of his movement it can not shout (we may mark their movement just to show how far those units can go without loosing their ranged attacks).


Something more: Ranged attacks have reduced damage and penatration against buildings !!

( we have to take in consideration how all this will work i just said some ideas ).

[Alexander82]

Warhammer tabletop 8th edition have some nice rules about archers and sight...

a) If you could implement a feuture like sight just by adding units buildings and terrain at teams based by their size (small - medium - big - gigantic) ...
Example : 1)small units have reduced change of hitting an enemy of small size behind a unit of medium size
2) small unit can not see the other small unit that hides behind a big unit terrain or buildig (bows may have a range that may shoot above certain hights in certain distances[bows are ineffective close to units])..

b)Also we can add that if a unit moves its shooting range is reduced or it have a deduced change of hitting its target .if a ranged unit moves by a lot of his movement it can not shout (we may mark their movement just to show how far those units can go without loosing their ranged attacks).


Something more: Ranged attacks have reduced damage and penatration against buildings !!

( we have to take in consideration how all this will work i just said some ideas ).

I tought something like the more units/buildings/obstacles between you and the target the higher the miss chance but putting also size in would be too complicated at the moment.

about the range reduction for movement is not possible since you can shoot at full range and move later

[Sunrise Samurai]

In my opinion implementing all this movement stuff would remove the game's best side: simplicity

I do agree. I'm trying to support Alexander in keeping balance between ranged and melee units, but it seems this might not be the way to do it.

Right now, we seem to be managing balance relatively well without changing mechanics. Why don't we start by making buildings much tougher, especially against ranged attacks. Then we can come back to this when we see what happens. I bet infantry become far more useful, just because they are the best option against buildings, and will probably receive higher bonuses​ to help them do so.

[Alexander82]

Yeah, maybe we might keep the current balance with ranged dealing a very low damage to armored units and with counter units against stronger one.

[makazuwr32]

Outdated.