Opponent's Gold

[Pillager]

The jump from 1 turn to 2 turn units should be by far the biggest power jump in the game.

A player can produce two 1 tuners for every 2 turn unit...so twice as many units.
A player can produce one and a half 2 turn units for every 3 turn unit....this is only half of the previous production time difference. Therefore, the power gap between 2 and 3 turn units should be half as significant as the gap between 1 and 2 turn units.

This is not currently the case at all. I would say that the current power gap between 2 and 3 turn units is (on average) greater than the gap between 1 and 2 turners...so the math says that two turners are not worth it.

I agree that the battering ram is pretty useful...but 850 gold is too expensive. These days, I only build them if I find them.

[LPhillips]

Pillager, what you're missing in your calculations is the 8-unit maximum allowed in a stack, and the relative effectiveness of strength increases in dice rolls. I think it is not very well balanced yet, but a unit that is 50% stronger is often twice as useful.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

The problem with capping the number of hero offers a player can accept is that sometimes you'll be in a long game and legitimately need heroes due to actual battle losses. If a hard cap is in place then at some point you can run out of new heroes and be stuck. Not to mention you'd have to post the number of hero offers remaining on the hero screen so players would know they only have X number left. I suspect that wouldn't be popular.

I'm not sure there is a perfect solution for this issue. Tip it too far in one direction and you get endless hero offers like we have in Beta3. Tip it in the other direction and you don't get enough heroes/allies or its too luck dependent like it was in Beta2.

Right now the formula for a hero gradually decreases the number of offers based on how many heroes you have. As I wrote above, you can game that system by disbanding/suiciding heroes at around 4 or 5 total to get lots of offers and allies for a reasonable cost. But I think with some tweaking that formula would be better. First, the formula should be set so that the optimum number of heroes is around 5 with players paying more and more outrageous amounts of gold beyond 5. In the 'Hero Offer Percentage' thread I proposed a formula for allowing players to rapidly acquire 1-5 heroes after which you'll need a *lot* of gold to increase to 6+ heroes.

Now to stop playing gaming the system at 4-5 heroes, I'd suggest that once you *accept* an offer that you can't get another offer for X number of turns where X = number of heroes you currently have. So if you have 1 hero, you can't get another hero offer for 1 turn. If you have 4 heroes, you can't get another hero offer for 4 turns. This way you can decline an offer over and over and wait looking for specific allies but once you do accept a hero there is a cool down period before another hero can arrive regardless of your gold. So buying that 5th hero and 2 Devils for 1900 means it's 5 turns till you see another hero offer. That should push players towards buying production.

KGB

[Pillager]

LPhillips,

The 8 unit maximum doesn't mean you only need 8 units to play the game. I find having more units quite helpful actually.

The two turn units need to be more than twice as useful as the one turners. Not do you produce half as many, but the initial production cost is higher too. You will also produce a one turn unit a full turn before a 2 turn unit would be built, a few turns later you will have built three 1 turn units instead of only one 2 turner.

As far as hero capping goes...

What about a base cap of 3 hero offers (fame), +1 for every 10 turns? With a flat chance to get a hero (if you have enough gold) as long as you have 1+ fame. Players could still wait for a hero with strong allies..but that would be the only way to manipulate the system.

[KGB]

Pillager,

The power of a unit is more than just it's strength number. It's also the movement of the unit. For example even though Dwarves are 1 turn, 4 strength units I'd much rather have 2 turn Giants because of their movement. It's impossible to lead an assault with Dwarves because they are so slow that the enemy has filled his city with defenders by the time they get anywhere.

As a rough order of unit power I multiply strength X movement to get

Dwarf/Pikemen: 4x8=32
Hv Inf = 3x12=36
Lt Calv = 2x20=40
Elf = 2x15=30
Lt Inf = 2x14=28
Spider = 12x5=60
Giant = 5x17=85
Hv Calv = 5x18=90

That seems about right to me. I consider Hv Inf better than Dwarves or Pikemen because I can do more with them on offense. Lt Calv are even better because of their movement allowing them to raid enemies, stop stacks before they reach my cities, get blessed etc.

Obviously situational bonus's factor in situations (terrain, whether you are defending or attacking) but overall this rule of thumb serves well to give a rough idea of one unit vs another.

And what I see is that the 2 turn units are indeed slightly more than 2x as good as the 1 turn units. Maybe not in straight up combat, but in overall usefulness it's not even close. 1 turn units (other than Lt Calv, bats) are basically fit for nothing but guard duty/cannon fodder charges at close range enemies.

The other thing to remember when judging unit power is that strength isn't linear. In other words 2x as much strength isn't 2x as good, it's more like 3-4x as powerful depending on the strengths. For example a 2 vs 1 strength seems to be 2x as good. So you'd expect to win 66% of the time. In reality you win 76% of the time so you are 3x as good as a unit with half your strength. Now compare a 8 vs 4 strength. The 8 strength unit wins 81% of the time so you are now 4x as good as a unit with half your strength.

So believe it or not, a 5 (Giant) v 3 (Hv Infantry) wins 72% of the time which is greater than a 2-1 advantage. A 5 v 4 is 60% or slightly less than 2-1 advantage.

This is why a Pegasi/Siege/Medusa unit in a stack or an extra level of city walls etc makes SUCH a huge difference in battle.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

From looking at your numbers, it is quite obvious to me that your 'movement x strength' system is quite flawed. Pikemen and Dwarves are less valuable than heavy inf? And light cavalry are the kings of the 1 turn units? I don't think so, not in beta 3, not at all.

When discussing giants vs Heavy inf, we need to consider that there is likely to be twice as many heavy inf...and that buying Heavy infantry production costs a third of the giant's cost.

Does the giant actually have a 72% chance of killing the heavy inf, or is this a 72% chance of wounding the heavy inf? What are the chances that a giant will kill a heavy inf without taking a wound? What are the giant's chances of killing two heavy inf? The thing about more units is that they have more wounds, and therefore more chances to get a lucky break.

Then we need to look at the giant vs the pikeman...a unit that takes half the time to build and is actually stronger than the giant in the most common terrain. Sure pikey is slow, but that's what they invented boats for....which have a max strength of 4! Sucks to be a giant at sea.

[KGB]

Pillager,

Pikemen and Dwarves are less valuable than heavy inf?

To me they are. I'd much rather have Hv Infantry than Pike/Dwarves. The 1 strength difference is more than offset by the +4 movement. You can reach targets faster and expand faster with Hv Infanty such that on a medium size map or larger within 4-5 turns Hv Infantry has an extra 16-20 movement and potentially conquered several more cities. Then factor in that 12 moves = siege+medusa movement rate so grouping them together makes sense.

It's also because I'm always on the attack. Maybe if I was defending I'd feel different

And light cavalry are the kings of the 1 turn units? I don't think so, not in beta 3, not at all.

Again, to me they are. Because mine are always on offense, never on defense. With 20 moves I can go bless to 3 strength and come back before Dwarves/Pikes even get close to my cities. They still make great raider units in Beta3 thanks to the amount of bless sites on maps and their extended viewing range. You'd be surprised how often I conquer a city making Dwarfs/Pike and Lt Calv and never make Pike/Dwarf units there.

As always, specific maps make specific units more/less valuable. So clearly on a hills dominated map it's absurd to suggest Hv Infantry/Lt Cavalry are better than Dwarves. Just as if you are filling cities for defense purposes it's better to have Pike/Dwarves but if you plan to attack, those 2 units are completely hopelessly slow as the defender has loads of time to intercept them or fortify his city defense.

Anyway my numbers show there is really only minor differences between Lt Calv-Hv Infantry-Pike/Dwarf as 32-40 is a spread of 20%, not 100%.

Does the giant actually have a 72% chance of killing the heavy inf, or is this a 72% chance of wounding the heavy inf? What are the chances that a giant will kill a heavy inf without taking a wound? What are the giant's chances of killing two heavy inf? The thing about more units is that they have more wounds, and therefore more chances to get a lucky break.

72% chance to kill. 43% chance to kill 2. So even making them 2x as fast in pure combat they are only slightly better than a Giant. Then factor in the movement difference (17-12) and I call it even.

Then we need to look at the giant vs the pikeman...a unit that takes half the time to build and is actually stronger than the giant in the most common terrain. Sure pikey is slow, but that's what they invented boats for....which have a max strength of 4! Sucks to be a giant at sea.

Against Pike/Dwarf the Giant is 60% to kill 1, 29% to kill 2. Compensated with the fact you move more than 2x as far per turn. Basically you'll *NEVER* find Pike/Dwarves in my hero stacks (excepting on defense) but you are likely to find Giants or Hv Cavalry etc.

Boat movement strength isn't even a factor. That falls under specific circumstances like getting a terrain bonus.

My point is 2 turn units are no where near as bad as you make them out to be. If anything the problem is 1 turn units, not 2 turn units. Your suggestion of dropping the terrain bonus on Dwarf/Pike to +1 makes a lot of sense to addressing that.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

I'm far from a defensive player..but there is more than one way to attack. Slow rolling waves of pikemen and dwarves can be a very effective, and I attack with them all the time. Not too many opponents are thrilled about intercepting an 8 stack of pikemen marching steadily through the open.

I think that boats do matter. Water is another (very common) terrain that favors 1 turn units by reducing the strength of 2 turners. It also negates the 2 turn units' speed advantages.

43% chance to kill two heavy inf isn't good enough. And considering that open is a more likely battleground than hills, and that the giant is weakened in water... the giant appears to be worse than I had realized:(

[KGB]

Pillager,

Remember in Beta4 there will be ships that allow more than 4 strength. So the boat argument isn't very important at all. Also don't discount the fact that 2 turn units are much more likely to get +1 strength from blessing thanks to their superior movement rate.

To me the fact we disagree about which 1 turn units are the best/most useful tells me that the 1 turn units are balanced relative to other 1 turn units because it allows for different playing styles (my slash/speed vs your brute force).

The question comes back again to the 2 turn units. I don't think they are as vastly underpowered as you believe. I certainly don't buy lots of them but then I don't buy lots of 3,4, or 5 turn units either. The game as it is in Beta3 revolves around 1 turn Hv Infantry (or Pikemen/Dwarfs if that's your preference) and buying endless heroes with good allies.

Those are the 2 problems that have to be fixed, not the 2 turn units because there is almost nothing you can do for them other than make minor cost adjustments. If you want fewer 1 turn units, make them some combination of weaker/more expensive/higher upkeep. For example you could start by stripping all the stack terrain move bonus's off the 1 turn units besides the scout. So a Dwarf still gets his 1 move in hills but doesn't give that to any other unit. Same with Elves in forest, Orcs in swamp etc. Put the stack move bonus's on the 2+ turn units (Giants, Wolfriders, Scorpions, Unicorns, Yeti etc ). Gives a legit reason to have those units unless you really want to slog along at slow speeds.

KGB

[LPhillips]

KGB,

I like your suggestion for the hero acquirement. It sounds like a very balanced solution, addressing both ally abuse and hero overpopulation. You generally can't afford to get by with less than 3+ heroes, which makes ally abuse very impractical with a 3+ turn waiting period. And you won't see heroes flooding the map if it takes a minimum of 15 turns to get 5 heroes. It doesn't require an adjustment of any of the features in the current system, just the addition of one restriction.

I believe it was stated that in Beta4 some units will grant their movement bonus to others, while some will not.


Pillager,

You're being pretty hard-headed about the units
As KGB explained, the change in strength affects outcome more than simply the ratio of the units' strength, because of the dice rolls. He explained it clearly where I just stated the generality. You also have to look at both mobility (which is hugely important, as KGB stated) and the limit of 8 per stack, like I said. The ability to cram more power into a stack easily offsets the difference in wounds/health of mass units. All the heavy infantry in the world won't help you when you need 7 to roll with your Hero on a tough target. 5 Minotaurs can accomplish what 10 or even 20 Heavy *Infantry never could.

*Edit, now it makes sense without the goof.