Ideas for units

[KGB]

If you can effectively counter two of your opponents key units with one of yours you get a major advantage. So for example if I have a RD and medusa in my stack and you have a devil and pegasus you get 5 moral and 2 fear vs. my 2 moral - a plus five bonus with an equally expensive pair. If we both have our top hero here ir will be a huge blow to the loser.

I have *long* lobbied to have how Negate is deployed be changed. So that it comes last after the other bonus's are totaled up instead of first. Thus in the battle you described the Medusa/Pegasi would cancel each other (+5 Morale -5 Fear) and the Devil would Negate the RD Morale making this an equal battle. And indeed it *should* be an equal battle because the quality of units involved (RD/Medusa vs Pegasi/Devil) is equal.

I am hoping Piranha implements this change in 0.9 because right now Negate is too overpowering in top level hero battles where the presence of one unit is a worse imbalance than an Assassin with 100% group ambush.

KGB

P.S. As far as themes go, DLR changed the Archon to provide Morale, the Dragon to provide Fear and there was no Devil (just different Dragons and multiple Demons providing counter bonus's).

That said if you want to look at things in a thematic point of view you can consider the Archon as the instrument of your god and the enemy of your opponents god. In which case it would make sense that the Archon would cancel enemy hero powers by preventing that hero from getting support from his god. In the same vein, a Pegasi might be considered a tremendous Morale boost for a good race like Elves but Orcs would view such a creature with Fear and would instead be more comfortable with a Medusa who might provide a morale boost for Orcs. It's all a matter of perspective.

[LPhillips]

right now Negate is too overpowering in top level hero battles where the presence of one unit is a worse imbalance than an Assassin with 100% group ambush.

This is ridiculous. Exaggerations like this get us nowhere. Even a unit with the ability to Negate 30 fear, morale, leadership and chaos together would not validate this statement. Devil can tip the balance when properly employed, but it is not and never has been an absolute, guaranteed victory with low unit cost to the victor.

Yes, negate is powerful. Smursh, I fail to see any point to what you've said. Did you read my post at all? The scenario you gave is the only one I listed in which Devil's negate is more powerful than an 8 fear unit, and it's the least common. So, almost all of the time, 8 fear is more valuable than 8 negate. Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough the first time, but it should be very clear now. The point is that a land unit with 8 fear would quite literally be the most powerful unit in the game. The Devil was the easiest comparison, but Red Dragon works just as well.

Also, KGB: with the ability to stack heroes, units, and their abilities as they are in Warbarons, the dual negate of Archon and Devil has become an integral part of the game. Up to (negate number) can be removed from each bonus, but no more. The alternatives to this system leave you with either no method for countering stacked heroes/units, or an overpowered higher base negate number, or an undesirably complicated system such as requiring multiple units with stacking negate.

[KGB]

This is ridiculous. Exaggerations like this get us nowhere. Even a unit with the ability to Negate 30 fear, morale, leadership and chaos together would not validate this statement. Devil can tip the balance when properly employed, but it is not and never has been an absolute, guaranteed victory with low unit cost to the victor.

Stack 1: 6 Demons, 1 Medusa, 1 RD (nothing blessed)
Stack 2: 5 Demons, 1 Medusa, 1 Devil, 1 RD (nothing blessed)

Stack 1 fights at 50's for Demons, 20 for Medusa and 35 for RD (-5 bonus)
Stack 2 fights at 65 for Demons, 35 for Medusa, 45 for Devil and 50 for RD (+10 bonus)

Stack 2 wins 93% of the time losing either 1 or 2 units. It's a complete absolute slaughter between 2 otherwise equal stacks in terms of units, production etc thanks to the overpowering effect of the Devils Negate creating a +15 bonus imbalance. This is a worse beat down than a 100% group ambush hero + 7 crows against 6 Demons, 1 Medusa, 1 RD.

On the other hand if the Negate is applied after the RD/Medusa's values are calculated and applied then the difference in bonus is only +5 and the battle works out to only 63% chance for stack 2 to win which seems a lot more in line with how such a battle should go given the units involved and about the equivalent of what happens with the group ambush cap being lowered to 70.

Also, KGB: with the ability to stack heroes, units, and their abilities as they are in Warbarons, the dual negate of Archon and Devil has become an integral part of the game. Up to (negate number) can be removed from each bonus, but no more. The alternatives to this system leave you with either no method for countering stacked heroes/units, or an overpowered higher base negate number, or an undesirably complicated system such as requiring multiple units with stacking negate.

Although I detest the Negate power (DLR didn't require it for game balancing) I understand what it's used for. I just think it should be applied in a different order in the bonus calculations so that it comes last and negates only what is left after Morale/Fear and Leadership/Chaos cancel each other out.

KGB

[LPhillips]

KGB, your point is taken about DLR, but Warbarons' combat system is not very comparable at this point.

The stacks you described required high investment to produce, and also require high investment to maintain. Loss replacement is a huge factor in games where such units see the front lines. So, a 100% ambush stack, requiring none of the expensive units listed, is not comparable on any level.

But let's move on past one bad analogy. No one doubts the power of Devils and Archons, but now consider the game without the dual negate in the realm of Archons. Devils' dual negate is overpowering because the bonuses are so limited (+12, -5 or -8 on water). But do we need the Archon's dual negate to make fighting stacked heroes feasible? The only other reasonable proposition is to have separate units for countering Chaos and Leadership.

It's food for thought. Also, a dual negate Devil leaves the floor open for powerful units like an 8 fear walker. We need a reasonable proposition for replacing the utility of the Devil and Archon before insisting on a nerf. You know I've taken the same side you are in previous discussions, but right now experience tells me that we'd lose more than we gain without a reasonable alternative.

The only major bonus I see to the proposed change as applied to Archon is that Ambush would no longer be the highly dominant hero ability in mid-late game. There's a lot going for the change/nerf, but there needs to be a reasonable prospect of countering bonus units and heroes to replace this one.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

You are right that DLR and Warbarons combat is getting further apart all the time. I only referenced it to remind everyone that Negate isn't always necessary in a well designed combat system. It's not only DLR that doesn't have a Negate power but most other similar fantasy war games don't have it in their combat system either. In Warlords IV Negate proved to be incredibly hard to balance and I ended up reducing its effectiveness many times to get it to a reasonable state and even then many players wanted it reduced further in it's effectiveness.

Back to the Devil for a moment. I'm perfectly fine with the Devil changing to the 10 Negate unit you proposed instead of the 8 Negate/2 Fear it is now. I also have no problem with it Negating both Fear and Morale. It's power just needs to change to come after the Morale/Fear bonus's are applied to both stacks so that it doesn't end up being the overwhelming unit in any fight. It's meant to be a counter to Super Stacks but ultimately what it does is create Super Stacks because once a Devil appears all enemy bonus's are toast and even average players know to pair it with a Dragon or a Pegasi/Medusa so that stack becomes the very thing it's meant to prevent: A super stack. If it's power comes after as I suggest then it retains the ability to stop super stacks without creating any new ones.
Eg.
1) Devil+Fodder vs Dragon+Medusa+Fodder. Devil negates Dragon/Medusa so no bonus to either side. No change to how it works now.
2) Devil+Dragon+Medusa+Fodder vs Dragon+Medusa+Fodder. Bonus for each stack is 10 morale - 5 fear = +5 morale. Devil then cancels 5 morale to enemy stack so side with Devil fights as +5. This is a change from the current +15 the Devil would fight under now.
3) Devil+Dragon+Fodder vs Dragon+Fodder. Devil cancels Dragon Morale and Devil stack fights at +10 morale from it's own Dragon. No change to how it works now.
4) Devil+Dragon+Fodder vs Medusa+Fodder. Devil stack bonus is 10 morale - 5 fear = +5 morale. Nothing for the Devil to Negate. This is a change from the current +10 the Devil would fight under now.

On to the Archons. I see them working the same way as the Devils Negate does. The Leadership/Chaos gets resolved first then any Archon Negate is applied as appropriate. This prevent the silly scenario we have now where a L1 Hero with an Archon ends up beating a high level hero who get's no bonus due to the Archon (Eg L1 DK + Grand Archon is better than a L9 Paladin with Leadership +16 due to his -3 Chaos bonus). If that change is applied then I think the Archons can remain as they are now, negating both Leadership and Chaos.

KGB

[LPhillips]

That actually makes good sense. I'm opposed to Devil negating 8 out of 15 in a similar way that it negates 8 of each now, but not opposed to applying it to the cumulative difference in stack bonuses. Not sure why I became so absent-minded as to forget the details of your proposal (which I backed months ago), but it still makes plenty of sense in 0.81 now that it's clarified.

We're left then with the positive outcome that ordinary bonuses are a viable option on a wealthy map in mid-late game battles. No more dominance of Ambush/Banding against all comers. I'm sorry for being both forgetful and stubborn.

Also, I must withdraw my point regarding high-level bonus units. The proper employment of counteractive bonuses with the ability to negate the cumulative difference is an acceptable method of balancing battles. The availability of bonuses might need to change to accommodate the change to negate power, however. The vast majority of bonus users walk, so there's not much fear of a 10-value Devil becoming obsolete at this point. As for hero bonuses, I'd be back to suggesting that we allow the purchase of hero experience up to one level per turn. There absolutely must be a feasible way to counter heroes with high levels and/or items.

As previously discussed (by hatch?) how would it be determined which bonus the negate is applied to first?

LP

[KGB]

LPhillips,

I thought you might have forgotten that discussion which is why I showed the examples again to clarify what I intended.

Hero Bonuses: I am not a fan of allowing purchasing hero XP. It makes rich maps like Battlefield unplayable because players will be purchasing XP for heroes on every turn until a L1 hero becomes a L10 hero 10 turns later without ever fighting a battle. Three things would really help with what you want:

1) A new Ruin Reward of hero skill/ability points. Say 10 pts for a L1 ruin, 15 for a L2 ruin + 1 personal point and 25 for a L3 ruin + 2 personal points. This will help increase hero skills/abilities. This is one reason I pushed hard for ruins regenerating over time so heroes can continually get XP from searching them.
2) Quests. This would be a much better way to generate more XP than simply allowing buying it. A quest system is really needed to help heroes that arrive in mid/late game get enough XP to be viable because we all know a L1 hero in mid/late game has no real value in combat due to how many powerful units / heroes are already in play. Having a quest system like DLR had where you can get easy quests to travel between your own cities for XP would allow new heroes to gradually accumulate enough XP to be viable. Note: Trigger rewards should be expanded to include hero skills/ability points.
3) Merchants. This would be like DLR where a merchant could randomly appear (or maybe better is by a hero visiting any temple brings up a Merchant menu) to sell an item. Each turn 1 item would be for sale at a premium cost. This of course requires more items in the game than we currently have since they'd sell out fast on rich maps. But it provides a way for players to acquire items not already in play (ruins/other heroes).


Negate: If the Negate is going to change from absolute (ie an Archon with 6 Negate can Negate 6 Leadership AND 6 Chaos) to total (ie an Archon with 6 Negate can Negate a total of of 6 Leadership/Chaos) then I'd suggest starting with the negative bonus first then the positive second. But do we really need this change if Negate simply comes after the other bonus's are calculated and applied?

KGB

[LPhillips]

LPhillips,
Negate: If the Negate is going to change from absolute (ie an Archon with 6 Negate can Negate 6 Leadership AND 10 Chaos) to total (ie an Archon with 6 Negate can Negate a total of of 6 Leadership/Chaos) then I'd suggest starting with the negative bonus first then the positive second. But do we really need this change if Negate simply comes after the other bonus's are calculated and applied?

KGB

First, there seems to be a typo in your archon example numbers.

As for the change, it seems like examining practical examples will be more useful than theory.

1) Let's say you have a Red Dragon and Medusa vs. a Medusa and Devil.
The second set of support units counters 5 of the dragon, leaving a +5 bonus to the first stack and a -5 bonus to the second stack. With dual negate, no bonuses are applied whatsoever. With 8 max, 2 bonus is still available to the first stack. Of course, I'd favor a 10-negate devil anyway, but in this hypothetical situation the current difference in cost is justified.
2) Medusa and RD against Yeti and Devil. The devil still cancels all bonuses with dual negate. Without it, the first stack has 4 bonus (+4 morale with fear countered first).
3) Medusa and RD vs. RD and Devil. No difference either way.
4) Medusa and Elephant(Open) vs. Medusa and Devil. The Devil cancels all bonuses with dual negate; without it the first stack still applies 4 bonus.

Hero battles will look quite similar. The trouble is of course that heroes must be leveled, and you can't materialize a leveled hero for any amount of money or strategy in mid-late game. I'm still in favor of 1/1 gold/xp purchase, considering the required 4500-8500 cash to make a decent hero. I don't see how the numbers match this statement:

It makes rich maps like Battlefield unplayable because players will be purchasing XP for heroes on every turn until a L1 hero becomes a L10 hero 10 turns later without ever fighting a battle.

Meanwhile, the enemy has purchased 13500 gold of unit production and hero offers. The numbers don't support the claim above. It's highly uneconomical to purchase hero levels and there's a tremendous opportunity cost. And as we both know, the game is all about cash flow and production (money and supply, much like a real war). As long as there is a limit to prevent anyone from infusing a hero with several levels in one turn, I don't see any potential problems with this system.

So in the end I have two conclusions: We get better and more interesting value for our units if the dual negate is removed when cumulative bonus application is implemented, and purchasing hero xp is the easiest solution to implement and balance. Of course, it's also the least interesting. But you could wrap it all up in some sort of "training" mechanic if you want. I'm against a training temple/building, as the whole point is to get a hero to the battle where he's needed with a little muscle, so forcing him to travel to a specific map location and spend time there would render xp purchase tactically useless.

The idea of cumulative bonus application opens the floor to discussion about stacking bonuses from various units, but that's a can of worms for a post-change discussion (if there is a change).
LP

[KGB]

LPhillips,

I fixed the typo. Or at least I fixed one obvious typo

Negate: The examples were perfect. Now I understand what you mean. For simplicity I'd suggest pulling 1 from each bonus alternating between negative first then positive second. So in example 1 where there is 5 Morale and 5 Fear to Negate it should negate 4 of each leaving 1 Morale and 1 Fear. In example 2 where there is 8 Morale and 5 Fear to Negate it should negate 4 of each leaving 3 Morale and 1 Fear.

Hero Levels: You didn't mention costs. But even at 1 gold per XP there will be the huge factor of just needing say 100 XP to reach the next level and spending 100 gold to reach it. When those are key levels like L3 for a Pally/DK/Valkrie that 100 gold is going to look real cheap as players will spend it just before they attack. Unless of course you are going to force a full expenditure of gold regardless of XP needed to the next level (ie 2000 gold to reach L3 even if you are at 2999 XP and only need 1 XP). I would definitely favor spending the full gold amount regardless of XP needed to prevent the abuse I just mentioned.

There is of course 1 other option you didn't put forward. This is one that Warlords IV used. That was that new heroes can arrive at levels other than L1. The level was based on game turn so that at turns 1-5 it would be a L1 hero, at T6-10 a L1-2 hero, T10-20 a L1-3 hero, T21+ a L1-4 hero. The cost of the heroes can rise as their levels rise so a L2 hero can cost +300 gold, a L3 hero +600 gold, a L4 hero +1200 gold. Players then pick how much to spend depending on the level of hero they want.

KGB

[smursh]

KGB,

I think being able to purchase higher level heros later in the game would be a good option. As it stands in longer games there is usually no real value in buying a new hero due to the likely high cost/low relative value unless you are adding some badly needed allies.

As for the ongoing discussion about how valuable negate bonus and negate hero units are consider this. L. Phillips was right when he said that 8 fear is better most of the time vs. an 8 negate bonus. That is the trade off(same with the archons). If you just look at a single battle it can be shown to be overwhelming but consider this situation:

Me and my opponents each has three 8 unit stacks in the area composed primarily of strength 25 units. I have 1 stack including a pal.(+10 lead), a RD, and a Medusa. My opponent has 1 stack with a pal(+10 lead), devil, and archon.

My opponent gains the advantage only if our hero stacks clash first. If instead we each fight first the other stacks he loses more units. I end up with a stronger stack despite the bonuses just by virtue of having more units left. In fact I can kill his force with my two non hero stacks launching consecutive attacks. My force will slaughter his non-hero stacks. So it comes down to gamesmanship and who manuvers best. This is how the archons and devils are balanced against other heroes and moral/fear units.