Balancing for Beta 2

[piranha]

We have been talking about balancing. Many of you who are plying are posting suggestions so I thought we could open a thread for it. I will post what our current "beta 2 setup" looks like and motivations for it.

All of the cheapest units will become more expensive because its more or less free right now to upgrade every city to defence level 2 (getting 3 productions in the city).

Income from cities is slightly lowered compared to beta 1.
No upkeep changes planed at the moment.

Bat - > move 26, cost 50g (move 28, 30g)
Scout -> cost 100g (20g) - Being able to move at cost 2 in all terrains is very good
Light Infantry -> 100g (50g)
Orc -> 150g, +2 or +3 swamp (70g, +2 open)
Heavy Inf -> 200g (300g) Is only half as fast as light cav and still cost the same
Light Cav -> No change
Archer -> +2 forest, 375g (+1 forest, 400g) No one ever buy archers at their current price / quality
Wolf -> 2 turns (1 turn)
Giant -> 600g (800g) They are slower and less powerful than heavy cav, why cost more..
Heavy Cav -> 750g (600g) Very good unit with its +2 open.
Minotaur -> No change
Pegasi -> 3 turns, 1050g (2 turns, 1000g) still well worth the investment with its +1 and flying
Catapult -> 900g (1000g)
Spider-> No change
Griffon -> 3 turns (2 turns)
Elephant -> str 6 (str 8)
Unicorn -> negative stack -1 (neg stack -2)

Unicorn is lowered to -1 because when heroes, items, allies,blessing and unit leveling are introduced in the game the -2 ability becomes too powerful. The negative stack becomes much better than the +stack ability.

Some allied units will also change before they are introduced. Archon and Devil will get their strength lowered a they are incredible hard to deal with when used right.

We are also going to change start units. There will be 2 groups, high level or low level and the game will randomly select a group that all players get their start units from.

Low group: Heavy cav, Minotaur, Giant, Catapult, Spider.
Hi Group: Unicorn, Elephant, Pegasi, Griffon.

[Itangast]

Generally well balanced.

Its hard to pick one unit as being far better than the rest.

Few things:
No incentive to buy/build a minotaur compared to spider. Same Turns/STR/Move but Spider has +2 City vs +1.
Perhaps add 3 movement points to minotaurs... 15 Move and +1 city is quite desirable.

Perhaps add +1 open (battle) to Unicorns to make them worth the extra turn compared to elephants.
Unicorn 4 Turns/8 STR/16 Move/ -1 stack vs Elephants 3 Turns/6 STR/16 Move/ -1 stack

The catapults look a bit too good atm. 3 turns/4 STR/ 16 Move and potentially -2 stack vs towns should perhaps be toned down. Either 3 STR OR 14 Move.

Very little incentive to buy/build a wolf compared to giant. Giant has 1 more STR, 4 more moves than wolf and only cost 100 gold more. I know the hill bonuses are slghtly better for wolves, but still not desirable.
Perhaps add "move bonus" for hills and woods to wolves to make up for it.

[KGB]

Here's my take:

1) I agree 100% with the idea of increasing the costs of the cheap units so that players aren't always buying 3 production in order to get +2 city defense. You could take this further so that it required 4 units to get +2 defense. I would not consider that unreasonable.

2) I agree with the poster above who recommended that catapults be reduced to 14 moves. Maybe even 12 moves given that negating city walls is such a huge thing. Especially since it's going to be harder now to get +2 city defense. I'd also lower the cost of the catapult to 800.

3) Flying units. Back in Warlords I, flying units paid 2 MP on all terrain including roads/water. I'd recommend going back to this model. There is no logical reason that flying units would get any benefit from a road. You don't see birds migrating along highways, they just fly in a straight line. Right now flying units are still too good because on the beta map for example is EASILY possible to move from mountain range to mountain range (or hop from land to water to land) without ever being able to be attacked by any land based units. So if you aren't lucky enough to get cities with flying units you are screwed.

4) Movement. Overall I think movement is too high in Warlords 2. What tended to happen from Warlords I to Warlords 2 is that more roads were added and all units increased their movement. The net effect of this was that city combat became more common and combat outside cities became rarer. That made city bonus's much superior to other kinds of terrain bonus's. Now I don't want to go back to Warlords 1 because that was too slow. But if the overall unit speeds were reduced (to say 8-10 moves for heavy infantry/siege types, 12-14 for light infantry/spider types, 16-18 for large creatures like Minotaurs/Giants/Unicorns/Wolfriders/Elephants and 20-24 for Heavy/Light Cavalry and 18-22 for Fliers then the terrain features on the map come into play more and there will be more combat outside cities since stacks won't be able to move from city to city each turn.

5) I agree with the above poster about Minotaurs. In the original Warlords 2 (not deluxe) they cost 800 and moved 16 while spiders cost 1000 and moved 12. That would be better trade off between them.

6) Negative stack bonus. How powerful this is depends on the order that you calculate things. For example, take a 2 strength Orc in the open (+2 open bonus). If you apply the +2 open bonus first then subtract the -2 stack bonus it's a 2 strength Orc. If you subtract the -2 stack then add the +2 terrain modifier it's a 3 strength Orc because you can't get less than 1 strength. I *assume* you do all stack related bonus first then do the terrain bonus's second.

7) Elephant/Unicorn. Again in the original Warlords 2, an Elephant was 4 turns, 8 strength with -1 stack bonus while a Unicorn was an 8 strength +1 stack bonus (same bonus as a Pegasi) and moved 18. Both units cost the same because one basically canceled the other. If you want to leave the Unicorn with the -1 stack bonus then why not change the Elephant to a 3 turn 7 strength unit that gives +2 bonus to the stack in the open (where the elephant can trample).

8) Griffon. In addition to taking 3 turns I think it would be much better to lower the city bonus to +1 and leave everything else the same especially given the huge movement plus the ability to get blessed. Even at +1 it's still a 7 strength unit on offense and at least an 8 or 9 on defense depending on the city walls. Then lower the cost to 1200 gold (if it's not 1200 already).

9) Archers. An archery bonus in the woods only makes sense if they are Elven archers (which they were in Warlords 2). No one is ever going to buy them regardless of what woods bonus you give them unless there is a LOT of woods on the map AND they get a woods movement bonus.

The reality is that no matter what you do, unless you dramatically rearrange all the bonus's and powers in the game most of the units aren't going to be very useful. That's because there just isn't enough unique powers in Warlords 2. For example it would be WAY cooler to break siege from a complete negate of city walls (as it is now) to a negate of 1 or 2 from the city defense. Then you could have 2 siege units, one that negates 1 defense (Giants hurling boulders) and another that negates 2 (Catapults) defense. Once you get Fog-of-War implemented you'll at least have viewing ranges but you could also have a scout power that lets you see inside enemy stacks/cities so that you can view an entire stack composition. That could go on the scout unit for example. In Warlords 3, to counter the huge advantage fliers get, archery units get +3 combat vs fliers. If you added that kind of skill then the archers would have a reason to get built because of the +3 combat vs fliers (so their strength can change up/down mid battle depending on the unit faced). But again, all of this isn't traditional Warlords 2 and would require an option menu.

KGB

[Max Warlorder]

If you want, I could give you my excel sheets that make automatic graphs based on the unit sets. The graphs are automatic, but unfortunately, you have to enter the data in yourself, and it may not be worth your time. I used it to further analyze my unit set when people were really debating the set's balance.

This will go in the wish list, but since we mentioned city defense:
I think the city defense system of Warlords 2 is flawed in general. Why would unit production mean more defense? I think they should be separate. In Warlords 1, I remember you could build up your city defenses over and over again, but I was never sure if it really added up...if only. City defense should be upgradeable, but the next levels should cost exponentially more $.

Opinions on KGB's take:
1)Agree
2)I'll always agree on movement reduction. I think it makes things much more strategic because you have to plan more turns and are more vulnerable (far away) when outside cities. My unit set has very drastic move reduction, and the map feels so much bigger, in a very good way.
3)Flyers should always have less move than land, unless they have huge handicaps to compensate.
9)Archers - I had a hard time balancing archers, also. What I did was make them higher move but only strong while in cities or against cities. They had very low strength while travelling fast and were a hybrid between city raiders and defenders. I believe KGB adressed disagreements about this on the other forums (in the topic about my map).

[steff]

I don't think you should change so much. For the next beta I think you should update the cost for the units instead to reflect their true value.

Regarding the movement for fliers that is definetly a good change.

[Itangast]

Flying units. Back in Warlords I, flying units paid 2 MP on all terrain including roads/water.

This is a good change.

City defence:
I also think that the City defense should not be effected by the amount of production... Its much better for balancing purposes if these two were kept apart. It will easier to make adjustments to "city building" without effecting the army balance (and Vice versa).

Even with the increase of cost suggested - 100 gp (Scout) + 50 gp (Bat) = 150 gp does sound a bit cheap for 2 STR city.

Increasing the requirement for 2 STR City to 4 production units would increase the fee to 250 gold, its not ideal as you will not be able to buy new units in the future (due to the 4 unit cap per city).

I would suggest these as starting figures: 1 STR cost: 100 // 2 STR cost: 250
- Also introducing "chance to reduce city defense" when fighting a city. This would mean that you may actually siege a city and work down its defences... (would also serve as a potential voluntary gold sink, which is good)

[SnotlinG]

Thanks for all feedback so far

The change of separating city defence from number of units the city is producing we had planned for the future, but after the feedback here we will see if we can push it in to the next beta phase.
Same thing for the catapult unit giving -2 and another unit giving -1 to city defence... We are thinking about adding a battering ram as this unit...

Keep the balancing suggestions coming!

[KGB]

I also agree that city defense should not be tied to the unit production. Max Warlorder mentioned Warlords 1 allowed separate upgrades (yes, those did work but on a graduating scale so that L1-3=0 bonus, L4-6=+1, L7-8=+2 and L9=+3 just like Hero strength. Capitols started at L7 other cities at other numbers. Each time a city was captured the level went down 1 as Itangast suggested). So does Warlords III and IV allow separate upgrades and allow the city defense to be weakened each time the city is captured (not attacked).

Since it's a lot of work to add new menus for the next patch I figured it's probably far simpler to go with 4 units production = +2 defense. That also makes it easier for returning Warlords 2 players to understand.

Even with the increase of cost suggested - 100 gp (Scout) + 50 gp (Bat) = 150 gp does sound a bit cheap for 2 STR city.

Increasing the requirement for 2 STR City to 4 production units would increase the fee to 250 gold, its not ideal as you will not be able to buy new units in the future (due to the 4 unit cap per city).

I would suggest these as starting figures: 1 STR cost: 100 // 2 STR cost: 250
- Also introducing "chance to reduce city defense" when fighting a city. This would mean that you may actually siege a city and work down its defences... (would also serve as a potential voluntary gold sink, which is good)

Wait, you first argue that 250 gold is too costly for adding 3 units to get L2 defense. Then you argue that using a separate upgrade method for city defense that 250 gold for L2 defense is OK. It's one and the same thing cost wise (250 gold). So which is it, 250 gold is too much or just right?

We are thinking about adding a battering ram as this unit...

Are you sure you want to start introducing units that were never in the original game? There are still several Warlords 2 units you haven't put in yet. Given you are having trouble finding a balance+use for the existing units it might make sense to give one of them the -1 city bonus. Doesn't have to be the Giant hurling boulders (tho it seems like a nice trade off, a 2 turn, 18 move giant for 800 giving -1 city vs 4 turn, 14 move catapult for 800 giving -2 city), it could be another unit like Dwarf Sappers (2 turns, 3 strength, 14 moves, -1 city for 400).

One last thing: Max Warlorder reminded me in his scenario map that there is a 'hidden' fortify bonus available in Warlords 2. This is the same bonus a stack gets when it 'defends' in the open. This is assignable to a unit in the editor and Max Warlorder used it in his scenario. This is a separate bonus entirely so it's cumulative with a stack bonus (ie a hero with +5 stack bonus and a unit with fortify get +6). This bonus could be given to a unit (again straying from pure Warlords 2 but at least giving another unit a unique skill.

KGB

[Itangast]

Wait, you first argue that 250 gold is too costly for adding 3 units to get L2 defense. Then you argue that using a separate upgrade method for city defense that 250 gold for L2 defense is OK. It's one and the same thing cost wise (250 gold). So which is it, 250 gold is too much or just right?

Read my post again... I never said 250 gp was too costly, I said if a +2 STR city would require 4 production units it would minimum cost 250 gp and its not ideal cose it will prevent new from buying new production units. Nothing about 250 being too much.

Anyways, what ever the prices may be they will most certainly not be correct in the first place and would require further tweaking. 100 gp / 250 gp was just suggested as starting figures.

[Max Warlorder]

but after the feedback here we will see if we can push it in to the next beta phase.

Please prioritize core game stuff like heroes and ruins if possible! I think we're all just too excited here, so we're doing a lot of wishing aloud. The only problem I'm worried you guys might run into later on is having to do a lot of reconstruction to the game when you decide to change it in a way that can't be added on neatly.