Sea, Islands and Continents Balance

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Balance Suggestions Sea, Islands and Continents Balance

Tagged: , ,

This topic contains 208 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by  Hatmage 6 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 29 posts - 181 through 209 (of 209 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #222560

    Hatmage
    Member

    I believe ExNihil’s argument is that any battle winnable with just the ships is even more winnable if both the ships and the escorted units fight, and that therefore, idf you’ve paid for both the ships and the escorted units you’ll often be better off having both fight than having your embarkees hide in the hold, though if that is the case it’s not very clearly communicated.

    It could still offer an interesting tradeoff between combat power and fleet mobility, and has the advantage of making a lot of in-universe sense, but having to buy both ships and land troops preserves the economic disadvantage of non-nnautical classes.

    That’s part of why I’d sooner see embarked units, particularly embarked melee units, suffer less (though arguably embarked shooters are fine, and too good versus embarked non-shooters). Adding reinforced to both embarked units and boats would help a bit, but supports aren’t hampered by reinforced. Giving embarked unit’s back their unretaliated ram attack would also make sense, though it would be quite situational.

    The best option might be to try to find something thematically appropriate for each class that pulls its’ weight in early sea battles. Once Ironclads and flying troops are available the problem is somewhat alleviated, so lower tier sea options for the less nautically gifted classes could help a lot, which was the gameplay reasoning behind my suggestions that berserkers get mariner and dreadnoughts get cheaper harbours and boats.

    #222565

    NINJEW
    Member

    i don’t think the “embarked units appear when transporting vessel dies” is terribly unbalanced. if the point is that you’d be better off just using the embarked units to fight, well, that’s the risk of stuffing them into transports for mobility gain. doesn’t sound totally awful or anything.

    i don’t think it’d be a very effective solution, since you still have to invest in both boats and an army and have both in the same place to take advantage of the like, +2 hex movement gain, while classes/races with access to amphibious units can still just dance around on and off land to avoid opponents with far less investment, but i don’t think it’d hurt matters. in the midgame someone who’s invested in boats would have a greater ease of responding to amphibious harassment, which is one of the main concerns, but i don’t think it’d really do enough to alleviate the power imbalance, especially because it still requires a far greater investment (you need both boats and land forces, while AD only has to invest in hunters to do both)

    adding reinforced on boats would fix literally nothing. it wouldn’t create any new problems, so whatever, but it really isn’t a solution to any problem that exists (boats already far, far outgun amphibious units, it’s not fighting power that creates the imbalance. boats are straight up OP in tactical, if anything). also if you want a “lesser reinforced” that’s literally what projectile resistance is.

    #222566

    NINJEW
    Member

    like let’s just get one thing clear about galleons for a second: they’re cannons that are also very tanky (to both physical and elemental damage) that also come with a no-cooldown blunderbluss-on-steroids attack, in addition to having 36 mp. they cost 120 gold, which is like an expensive t2 unit. it’s not power or cost effectiveness that is holding boats back.

    #222567

    Lykus
    Member

    like let’s just get one thing clear about galleons for a second: they’re cannons that are also very tanky (to both physical and elemental damage) that also come with a no-cooldown blunderbluss-on-steroids attack, in addition to having 36 mp. they cost 120 gold, which is like an expensive t2 unit. it’s not power or cost effectiveness that is holding boats back.

    But then you could just increase movement costs for swimmer/floater/flyer (not to extremes but slightly), give tham a slight debuff (maybe they suffer more ranged damage due to no cover or defense mali as proposed) and they (flyer/floaters) could not regen health over water. Also think ships should get reinforced due to logic reasons.

    Maybe implementing all three would be too much. But this would enable ships to catch them more often and kill them. Also it would prevent the creeping of AD/Sorc.

    By the way I really like BBB suggestion with the two types of water. That would be the best in my eyes, but also require the most work.

    #222587

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    If you make embarked units better you could just give them swim.

    The units are walkers, and embarked means, they are on a transport. Swimming, on the other hand means, you are in the water; difficult to fight against ships in that position. The transport thing is simply a solution to the fact that a walking, non-shooting unit on a slow Transport does nothing against fast swimmers or warships or monsters – period. It must get into melee, which it can’t, because it’s too slow. Also, those transports should be rather flimsy, and when THEY sink, the units die.

    With the current system, what my suggestion would basically do is, give you a chance to put the most vulnerable units like Cavs in better transports and let the ship fight for them. You could also let them embark and escort by ships, but they would be slower and more vulnerable (they could be specifically targeted). Advanced Seafaring might get you Fast Embark for Galleons as well.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Alternatively you can also change a couple of rules:

    If you think about Naval stuff (in reality), then the main issue is getting land troops safely where they can fight. Which is the problem in the game as well. If you embark, you make yourself vulnerable – which is as it should be.

    The way I see this, flyers and floaters are less of a problem, because they have to melee fight you (except for Dragon Breath, but that’s not a Class thing), and melee means, you get to them as well. a squadron of Grimbeaks can harrass you, but whether land or sea, they die just the same. The problem aren’t embarked shooters either, because they can hold their own just as on land.

    The problem aren’t swimmers in general either. A Polar Bear swims just fine, but it’s still an animal, that can be befriended or simply killed, while sea monsters habe special abilities making them dangerous, which is a wished-for effect.

    The only problem I see are FAST RANGED SWIMMERS.

    Or better: the fact that a ranged swimmer can use the ranged ability swimming. That’s just not good. It makes them the equivalent of a fast patrol boat.

    So what you might change are a few combat rules for naval battles.

    1) Swimmers must fight in melee, if they want to fight. Or their ranged damage is halved. Or they have only 1 shot. Or, maybe best:

    Swimmers in water need 2 action points for a shot. Which means they are either fast or get a shot off. Interestingly enough, this would make an Orc Hunter pretty darn frigging good in Water – albeit still slow.

    2) All movement based combat abilities for walkers are disabled (Charge, Devastating Charge, most important: PHASE (it would involve phasing the transport as well), Pounce, Shadowstep, and so on and so forth).

    I’m also not sure whether a combat malus for Embarked would be necessary under the circumstances. Logic says, embarked units are on flimsy transports; if they melee fight, there is not much difference to regular fights except for the stuff mentioned under 2: a Cavalry can’t charge, for example.
    If you are shot at, the unit will take damage and the transport will take damage as well, the latter will take less from physical and more from Fire, but basically nothing from spirit and shock and something from Blight (this is the way I see it, mind you – in my world wood is shock proof, but blight vulnerable because it can rot), so I would be inclined to give every embarked unit +40 Fire Weakness, and every fire attack an Immolation chance, but a + 20 in Spirit and Blight (that’s the way the game works) and something like +1 Defense (they have cover against arrows which don’t hurt the boat much). Yes, embarked units are prone to fall victim to Fire: a Fireball will be pretty darn deadly on them.

    You can also balance things for Floaters and Flyers. If you REALLY think about it, Flyers would tend to swoop down – no reason to change anything. But Floaters skim above the waves (and may be slowed because of that) – but on water there is no cover whatsoever. So a floater is a pretty darn clear target for a shooter, which means, they are easier to hit: they may lose 1 Defense against ranged physical attacks.

    All in all I see enough ways to rebalance embarked combat.

    #222588

    Ericridge
    Member

    Another thing about galleons, is they’re just like cannons on land. 🙂 And so technically all classes have access to cannon for water. XD

    #222607

    NINJEW
    Member

    hunters are the biggest, most notable problem, but sorc with its floaters and rogues (human rogues in particular) are also an issue. “fast ranged swimmers” aren’t the only problem, because hunters aren’t the only problem. they’re just the best illustration and biggest example of the problem.

    the problem is certain units, which strategies already center around on land maps, become disproportionately more powerful with the addition of more water, and allow the player to sidestep having to invest in things like boats to effectively wage war, while all other players must make that additional investment.

    #222612

    Ericridge
    Member

    hunters are the biggest, most notable problem, but sorc with its floaters and rogues (human rogues in particular) are also an issue. “fast ranged swimmers” aren’t the only problem, because hunters aren’t the only problem. they’re just the best illustration and biggest example of the problem.

    the problem is certain units, which strategies already center around on land maps, become disproportionately more powerful with the addition of more water, and allow the player to sidestep having to invest in things like boats to effectively wage war, while all other players must make that additional investment.

    Take six hunters and have them fight six frigates and tell me how well that turns out for you.

    #222617

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    hunters are the biggest, most notable problem, but sorc with its floaters and rogues (human rogues in particular) are also an issue. “fast ranged swimmers” aren’t the only problem, because hunters aren’t the only problem. they’re just the best illustration and biggest example of the problem.

    the problem is certain units, which strategies already center around on land maps, become disproportionately more powerful with the addition of more water, and allow the player to sidestep having to invest in things like boats to effectively wage war, while all other players must make that additional investment.

    Actually, no. That’s the wrong analysis. There is STRATEGICAL movement on one hand. Here it’s more or less embarking (as a mans to ferry units over water) vs. swimmers and floaters. Embarking is slower, but I don’t think that in itself is the main problem. There are always faster units for something and slower.
    Then there is tactical movement and combat (battlefield). And again embarked units are worse off., because Swimmers and Floaters have no disadvanage.

    In combination this means, they who embark are not only slowed, but also handicapped in battle, and THAT in turn means you need to build ships in support of your embarked units.

    If you read my post not half, but fully, then you will have noted that all this was addressed. If you take all the changes (in combination with at least part of the already suggested movement changes), the result will be that EVERYONE is slowed down, and EVERYONE suffers in combat – and that the special water forces like ships and sea monsters will massively change things for those who build them.

    #222620

    ExNihil
    Member

    This ”solution” doesn’t technically work with the stacking and combat system, period. You either have to exceed the unit maximum in combat, or have a situation in which instead if fighting a stack of ships you are fighting a stack of ships and afterwards a stack of embarked, spawning from the destroyed ships. Aside from being already hugely IMBA within the present system, how does it work in 4/3 battles? There noway in which this is either fair, fun, balanced or good mechanic -wise. The alternative is a situation in which instead of losing a stack of ships, you lost both a stack of ships and the units they were carrying. This would also be horrible balance-wise.

    Now, I’ll write this again: the problem is not Ships! Its the multiple advantages of flyers /floaters /swimmers respective of barked units, which cause a major imba between classes and races. Combat with ships is not a problem but the fact is that using amongst as an answer can only very limitedly affect this imba, because it is not merely a ”counter” issue. If you guys don’t understand why, and some of you don’t,read this thread from the beginning. All of these solutions you have been discussing have no real impact on the actual IMBA and will only make things worse.

    #222626

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    How can you discuss something with people who don’t read posts?
    You can’t.

    #222628

    ExNihil
    Member

    Read @madmac, you can’t overhaul the system from scratch, rebalance needs to happen within existing mechanics, you disregard these and then fail to rechonize this when pointed out. You continue to obsess about the matchup of hunters and ships, which from the start was never an issue, and fail to grasp the IMBA between classes and races as it actually manifests in game. I read your posts, but it is a waste of energy because you are not actually trying to understand the problem, instead you are squaring the circle, which is a futile exercise. One last time: the issue is not ships, or even combat par se, but a cluster of factors. The MP changes proposed by BBB can’t work without IMvA the present game dratmtically. And the changes you propose to ships can’t work in the existing combat / stacking / AHR system. So these are no solutions.

    #222629

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    As I said, you don’t read posts, so don’t bother.

    #222630

    Ericridge
    Member

    Another possible solution to flyer/floater problem could be..

    Flyer/floater units only can fly over coastal waters and cannot go into deep blue waters. For it is the domain of ships and to reflect how huge the ocean can be.

    One more possible solution..

    Increase the size of maps so that flyers/floaters cannot travel from huge land masses like from a continent to another continent in a single turn but they can reach from island to island probably cuz of a island chain linking them together with coastal waters.

    #222638

    ExNihil
    Member

    Of course, losing a transporting warship would cost the transported unit as well …

    Swallow Whole This mechanic makes a unit (on the battlefield) disappear – but if you kill the Glutton it comes back. Basically, Warships would work like Gluttons both on the strategic and on the tactical map.

    Then of course it’s no nerf at all, on the contrary, cause the transport ability makes the transported unit not count against the stacking limit.

    If it was implemented in the present system it would be a huge nerf, simply because you will now need to build a ship, use it as transport and then, when fighting, you will have only a single unit rather than 2 – embarked + boat, instead having a boat. This is a huge nerf to embarked units, and it will make the current IMBA into a total disaster.

    Yes, the solution is for embarked units to somehow magically spawn as separate units in combat, but that is impossible with the current stacking system – what do you do when you got 3 stacks of transports + ships and are attacked by 4 stacks? Suddenly you need to have 6 stacks on the battlefield fighting 4 stacks? or what? It simply doesn’t work.

    This ”solution” doesn’t technically work with the stacking and combat system, period. You either have to exceed the unit maximum in combat, or have a situation in which instead if fighting a stack of ships you are fighting a stack of ships and afterwards a stack of embarked, spawning from the destroyed ships. Aside from being already hugely IMBA within the present system, how does it work in 4/3 battles? There noway in which this is either fair, fun, balanced or good mechanic -wise. The alternative is a situation in which instead of losing a stack of ships, you lost both a stack of ships and the units they were carrying. This would also be horrible balance-wise.

    What did I miss here? The “Solution” you propose is that you use ships as transports. The transported units don’t manifest in combat at all, thus you are fighting ships alone, at least at first. If your opponent kills the transporting ships, he either now killed these ships + the transported units, which will be a horrible nerf – you gain 3 to 6 MP and in effect have a chance to lose 200% the number of units, which is the mother of all nerf IMO, or alternatively you are introducing the Glutton mechanic, so now the destroyed ships spawn the units they are carrying. So what does this latter option mean? It means that a player can in effect double his potential number of units vis-a-vis anything that is not other ships, including sea-creatures for that matter, and thus bypass the stacking restriction. Player x has 3 stacks of ships carrying 3 stacks of t3 units within them, player y is attacking with a powerful army composed of summons, krakens and ships without trasported units, totaling 3 stacks. Yet player y has actually no chance at all in this battle, because he is in effect fighting SIX total stacks, not simultaneously but consequetively. This breaks the current system, can’t you understand how and why? So what other solution is there? For the embarked units to magically spawn in battle alongside the ships on different units, yet this is impossible with the present AHR/Stacking system, and that is a game-mechanic fact.

    Reinforced fits ships, so no problem there, but it also solves nothing at the moment – it simply buffs ships vs. ranged attacks, which wasn’t much of a problem to begin with.

    Changing the MP costs of Flyers/Floaters is non-viable for two reasons, as I already wrote four times: 1. It is conceptualy unsound and most players will not buy this, and 2. It will destablize the current game balance quite dramatically, thus solving one issue by creating a bigger one.

    If Swimming is split into two different labels, Water-Walking and Swimming, the former for Hunters, White Witches and the like, and the second for sea-creatures, aquatics (snakes and such) and Ships, there is no problem in balancing AD with a reduced MP cost, which is something I originally proposed in this thread myself. There is no problem in my view in adding a few MP to ships, and to Embarked, which is something I also proposed, in fact starting at page 1 of this thread, in which you were still denying there was an issue to begin with. But flyers/floaters cannot be treated this way without destablizing the existing system, Lost Souls / Wraith roaming, Class balance, scouting, and so forth.

    The issue is the combination of lack of mobility and creeping restriction for embarked units, and the way to go is either to create restrictions for other labels – for example my proposal of making flying/floating non-regen above water with a defensive malus, and a defensive malus + lower MP for water-walking units, combined with some decrease in the malus of embarked units and perhaps a small buff to ships as well. Or, to dramatically decrease the embarked penalty and upgrade the speed of embarked units, to the point these become advantageous with advanced sea travel in terms of mobility, and functioning in terms of creeping, while buffing ships quite dramatically to the point these offer clear strategic superiority. The first solution is simpler, more subtle in effect and retain much of the existing Embarked mechanics. It is therefore superior IMO, but OFC the latter is also possible.

    What have I missed here?

    #222641

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    My last posts. The one with the

    —————————————————————————-

    #222650

    @ Ex, I’m confused why you think changing movement costs is conceptually unsound, when this is exactly what has been done with embarked…

    I also fail to see how it so drastically unbalances the game.

    If, as you claim, the principle issue is that Fliers move so quickly over water and rivers (and therefore require a disproportionate response to counter, I.e. expensive ish – infrastructure plus units- ships and having to try and catch them with a tool that works in one tile type only against an all terrain enemy)

    and if therefore Fliers require a nerf (as you have proposed) then surely slower flier movement allows ships to more easily catch them, thus removing or mitigating the advantages of fliers OVER water.

    It’s also easier to understand because it’s just another terrain type.

    Mountains cost more, forests, barrens, snow….now seas.

    I am not talking about in combat as I think ships and sea creature are pretty good in combat already, so IMHO the problem is strategic.

    #222653

    @ JJ if transport mechanics were to come back IMHO the need to be a replacement for embark from anywhere mechanics, basically the old system, which was ditched because of AI issues.

    #222659

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    No – why is everyone get this totally wrong? It wasn’t meant as a “transport mechanic”. When I made that suggestion, the idea was to get the stuff safely out of the way that can’t do much in naval combat and is also slow on water, increasing the utility of Warships. You know, ranged units can keep its own fine, but certain melees are really hampered. An attacker can retreat, and if you escort such an embarked convoy with a couple of Warships, you are still attackable by light raiders who can kill a couple of easy victims and then retreat.

    Since I’m bother by naval combat since release, I’ve been thinking a bit about naval combat and posted a couple of possible tweaks in order to get naval combat in line (movement change suggestions are one thing). In summary:

    1) Swimmers need 2 action points for 1 shot;

    2) All movement based combat abilities for embarked walkers are disabled (Charge, Devastating Charge, most important: PHASE (it would involve phasing the transport as well), Pounce, Shadowstep, and so on;

    3) The “Embarked” ability is changed to:
    a) 40% Fire Weakness plus every Fire attack has Immolation chance;
    b) 20% spirit Resistance;
    c) 20% Blight Resistance; (I would have liked 40% Shock resistance and 20% blight vulnerability, but the game isn’t working that way)
    d) +1 Defense against ranged physical attacks

    4) Floaters get -1 Defense against ranged Physical attacks (because they have no cover and are a clear target over water).

    5) Warships gain Structural Integrity which gives +2 Defense against Ranged Physical attacks.

    I should maybe add that resistancies are a mixed calculation and the aim is to make everyone able to struggle along, not having many options to hurt the other side – except when someone starts with dedicated naval weapons liek Warships and Krakens who could come over embarked and swimming stuff like a fox into a henhouse.

    #222672

    Not sure I get the swimmer obsession…

    @ JJ, what you proposed sounded very like transport mechanics.

    So, what you’re proposing is to make ships better in battle?

    My impression is that ships are fine in water fights. The problem is Fliers and floaters and swimmers can just hop into and out of water.

    I’m proposing to make ships better strategically, by reducing others’ modes of movement.

    #222681

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I propose to make ships better in battle by making the rest so equally bad in naval combat that ships really count.

    #222682

    ExNihil
    Member

    @ Ex, I’m confused why you think changing movement costs is conceptually unsound, when this is exactly what has been done with embarked…

    I also fail to see how it so drastically unbalances the game.

    If, as you claim, the principle issue is that Fliers move so quickly over water and rivers (and therefore require a disproportionate response to counter, I.e. expensive ish – infrastructure plus units- ships and having to try and catch them with a tool that works in one tile type only against an all terrain enemy)

    and if therefore Fliers require a nerf (as you have proposed) then surely slower flier movement allows ships to more easily catch them, thus removing or mitigating the advantages of fliers OVER water.

    It’s also easier to understand because it’s just another terrain type.

    Mountains cost more, forests, barrens, snow….now seas.

    I am not talking about in combat as I think ships and sea creature are pretty good in combat already, so IMHO the problem is strategic.

    Fair question.

    In my opinion what you are proposing seems like the most straight forward and simple solution, but it actually creates a major problem on another layer of the game balance, and probably has some cascading effects that need to be considered.

    Your analysis is correct, the kind of changes you are proposing will in effect solve the IMBA between Flyers/Floats/Swimmers and Embarked units, and will increase the utility and strategic significance of warships. To this extant it is a sensible and straightforward balance, BUT there are two immediate problems that arise, the first conceptual, and the second game-mechanic.

    The conceptual problem is simple to solve in a discussion thread, but will be very difficult to sell to most players. I myself and not much for immersion, I am much more into the strategic game element than the fantastic one, and I can easily get behind any kind of change even if it makes little sense. But I am not the average player and I know that, and to tell people that their flying units are slower above water, or that their semi-corporeal lost souls have an issue with waves, or that their node serpent which is a pseduo-water elemental is slower than ships, will be a very hard sell that I doubt the devs will be willing to make. Furthermore, the devs have intentionally and specifically made floating units actually fastest above water, over land they have 4MP per hex, over water 3MP, and their resoning I’d guess is that there are less obstecales there and clear manuevrability, and also that it will balance things by making these units faster above water.

    This gets us to the game-mechanic part. There are scouting units in the game, both t1 units, which every class has, and then 2nd and even 3rd tier scouting units that some classes get. Nerfing the travel speed of floating/flying/swimming units will affect the base game speed of roaming units like lost souls, and it will make the roaming of wraiths+ships stacks more problematic. It will also affect the balance of scouts – if flyers are faster than floaters and swimmers are slower, this will hurt all classes that don’t use flyers for scouting, including WL and esp. AD. If flyers are also nerfed this will hurt AD even more but also Sorcerer – these have a high degree of summoning Gryphons, and for Sorcerer also Wyverns, whose primary function and ability is scouting.

    Now, aside from making these units much worse, and OFC nerfing Sorcerer and AD quite dramtically in terms of their performance in these maps, it will also destabilize Theo, Rogue and Necromancer, who all have a reliance on flying/floating units above the t1 bracket – Theo will be much pressed with exalted, and will be dramatically less capable of harrassing his opponents (recall the discussion of DN in this regard for example), and the Shrine of Smiting will become really slow. Necro will have a problem with Banshees and the Dread Reaper, and Rogue will have a problem with both Succubi and Shadow Stalkers (of both variants), which will seriously hurt its performance in Island maps – perhaps worse then any other class.

    I hope you see my point – currently the MP costs of Flyers and Floaters (as well as Swimmers but to a much less severe extant IMO) are fine-tuned to the larger game balance, as well as affect maps that are not Islands or some Continent settings, but which include a large amount of water nonetheless. Fiddling with these amounts without performing a series of adjustments in other places, which in turn might affect other elements and so forth, will be very bad, and doing all of these adjustments becomes a rather big issue, or even overhaul. I’m not saying its impossible, but it seems to me to be highly unlikely, and thus this doesn’t seem to me to be a solution. I think that what @madmac wrote is correct – the present system should be tweaked but not overhauled, because that is unlikely.

    I myself think that adding negatives to flyers/floaters will be good enough – not quite a complete balanced solution, but a better balance nonetheless. I would prefer seeing Swimming itself split into two different tags, and than some adjustments could be made to the “Water-Walking” units – and here I defintely see a degree of MP slowing, but not for all units. For example I think Snakes and Pinguins should be swimming, whereby Monster Hunters and Hunters should be Water-Walking. This will be a small nerf to some classes, but these classes can take this nerf IMO quite well, so that will be good.

    Now, I do think that something else could be done – to a degree, but this becomes a complicated change. I would like to see a special label created, perhaps Scout, or Avantguard, or something like this – you are good with names, so maybe you’ll have a proposal. Basically it will give a unit a special upgrade that affects certain terrain type situations – for example, a unit with Flying and Scout (or whatever) will travel at 5MP from which -2MP will be subtracted through the scout label, and the same goes for water-walking units on water, and perhaps affecting other elements, like mountains – allowing only this specific unit type to move faster above terrain type X, which will really allow for some fine-tuning of unit roles while changing the movement label base speeds themselves. This might work with what you are proposing, but this will still open a complicated series of adjustments.

    #222728

    This gets us to the game-mechanic part. There are scouting units in the game, both t1 units, which every class has, and then 2nd and even 3rd tier scouting units that some classes get. Nerfing the travel speed of floating/flying/swimming units will affect the base game speed of roaming units like lost souls, and it will make the roaming of wraiths+ships stacks more problematic.

    ONLY over open water. Open water doesn’t come into play very much on continents and land maps.

    It will only be noticed in islands, where there is more water.

    Now, aside from making these units much worse, and OFC nerfing Sorcerer and AD quite dramtically in terms of their performance in these maps, it will also destabilize Theo, Rogue and Necromancer, who all have a reliance on flying/floating units above the t1 bracket

    Again, only over open water. AND, these classes can still build ships just like everyone else. So they will still have an advantage, just that the relative advantage, over open water (i.e. islands with lots of water) is reduced.

    And didn’t you say the issue was that Sorcerors and Druids could boom very effectively on these maps? Now by making the sea a barrier to all, Sorcerors and druids still have an advantage over Dreads for example, because everyone can get ships, but they are still more amphibous and mobile, just that when they get into open water they move slower.

    #222729

    and “conceptually” – this is not an issue at all imho.

    Open water/deep seas etc.

    Units already get an embarked penalty to represent the difficulties of travel over water, and we have units with the terror from the deep tag which indicates deep water…

    #222743

    @ Ex, I think that you think the pendelum would swing too far the other way.

    Is that correct?

    #222746

    ExNihil
    Member

    and “conceptually” – this is not an issue at all imho.

    Open water/deep seas etc.

    Units already get an embarked penalty to represent the difficulties of travel over water, and we have units with the terror from the deep tag which indicates deep water…

    Well, no point to argue about this making sense conceptually or not, to it doesn’t to you it does, the devs will make their decision based on what they think is conceptually sound or their player base will like.

    As for deep/shallow waters, this is a differentiation that doesn’t exist in the game in terms of game-mechanics. If it is introduced it will require an overhaul of the entire sea-mechanics as they are now, but the kind of changes you are calling for necessitate this overhaul to be made in any case and for this differentiation to occur.

    Furthermore, a differentiation between deep/shallow waters will nonetheless destabilize the existing balance and require adjustments to work. If deep waters are not prevalent it will have no impact and thus the current IMBA will remain, the cascading IMBAs I mentioned before will occur and will require a series of readjustments.

    I think this differentiation in the present system is impossible, and I don’t think such an overhaul will occur. OFC that is no reason not to theorize, but I prefer thinking of solutions that have some probability of being included.

    And didn’t you say the issue was that Sorcerors and Druids could boom very effectively on these maps? Now by making the sea a barrier to all, Sorcerors and druids still have an advantage over Dreads for example, because everyone can get ships, but they are still more amphibous and mobile, just that when they get into open water they move slower.

    I used Sorcerer and AD to illustrate this, and they indeed offer the biggest IMBA in these map types, but the advantage of floating/flying/swimming units is not restrcited to these classes, although these classes offer by far the strongest IMBA. Be that as it may, the kind of changes you propose will cascade and affect the overall class balance, and not positively for the classes I enumerated.

    As I already wrote previously a few times, I am against any attempt to nerf Sorcerer and AD in this fashion, except by tweaking water-walking units, because that will have bad repercussions for balance. If the solution to AD/Sorcerer being IMBA is to IMBA them in the opposite direction nothing is achieved, so instead of having these classes being OP on Island maps, you will have them UP. How is that a good thing? To a large extant these classes need their unique advantages, summoning is advantageous but also highly restricted, and in many game-types it becomes much weaker than unit production in late-game. Thus the present IMBA arises from the way the devs decided to balance AD and Sorcerer using the present mechanics, which arise IMO from correct reasoning but while having a somewhat broken embark system. The problem specifically with these classes is that they have no restrictions at all, whereby embarked units have a great many restrictions applied to them. BUT there is a very wide range between no restrictions and many restrictions, and I think we ought to look for a middle point.

    You are already aware of the changes I proposed, I believe these are pretty much in this middle point range. The movement mechanics are almost completely untouched, while the ability to creep, sustain and battle are modified for flying/floating units over water by using already existing game elements. This doesn’t require the introduction of a new content into the game, such as differentiation between different water types, and the maximum it might require is the splitting of the swimming label into two different labels, which is easy to implement and will have an easily definable impact on overall game-balance that will not cascade in this fashion.

    Now, I am not saying the solution package I proposed is the only one possible, OFC there are other options and we can discuss these if you like. For instance, I think there is some merit to JJ’s proposal to decrease the MP cost of embarking and disembarking, and I can easily see this implemented in the solution I proposed as well as in a great many others. I would also like ships to be tweaked and buffed, alongside embarked units.

    Here is a proposal:

    Flying/Floating: Units travel at 3MP above water but cannot regenerate unless they end their turn above a land tile (also applies to lava). In addition they suffer a defense malus, either directly to the defense modified or both to defense and resistance. I’d say -1 def, -1 resistance, no-regen. This will effectively limit the ability of flying/floating units to creep seas and limit their strategic combat abilities by making land a crucial element in their regen.

    Swimming will be split into two labels with Swimming itself retained for sea-creatures, amphibious creatures (snakes, pinguins etc.) and boats, and Water-Walking given to units that, well, walk on water – such as Hero units, Hunters, Monster Hunters, White Witches and so forth. Swimming will cost 3MP above water and will not include any malus in terms of regen, except for boats which have the Boat label that include non-regen, and for which a seperate solution is necessary and we have discussed many options here. Water-Walking units will travel at a cost of 4MP or 3MP, would be able to regen, but suffer a bigger defensive malus.

    Boat units will receive either inherent regen, a t1 repair boat unit and/or any other option that will allow them to have sustain working when away from a harbour, which in turn should repair ships even when a Master’s Guild is not constructed in the city.

    This is the extent of this proposal. Other elements that could be included:

    I would like to see the base MP of embarked units increased to 27 and 33 respectively – historically sea travel was faster than land travel, including rivers, you know this since you are English were so many cannals have been built for trade. This will include the increase of Frigate and Galleon as well, to make them faster. I don’t oppose the inclusion of reinforced on boats, but that is the maximum that can be done without increasing their base price.

    I would like to see a reduced MP embark/disembark included.

    City upgrades that will give units produced in the city fast embark or mariner would be good, either avatar or through city spells in water/air/explorer/creation specs.

    Spells that boost sea travel would be good, using the casting mechanics of Death March but without a malus but with a 50% MP increase for example, or using Mark of the Heretic mechanics for debuffs. The specifics are not important, but there are many possibilites here.

    MCU upgrades from common sea structures could boost Boat units as well as units produced in the city to have Water-Walking, for example, or other abilities that make them better in water.

    This, by and by, could be used as a basis for making your sea-creatures walk on land. This is really off topic, but I think I recall seeing once a Kraken floating on land with the AD ultimate, or perhaps I read it somewhere in the forum. I dunno if it’s possible at all, but this would be nice regarding the siren stuff that was discussed before.

    #222747

    ExNihil
    Member

    @ Ex, I think that you think the pendelum would swing too far the other way.

    Is that correct?

    Yes! Sorry, I didn’t read this until I finished writing that long post there, which I was writing on and off for four hours (between stuff).

    #222767

    No worries, once I get responding to one thing it happens to me too sometimes.

    #222787

    Hatmage
    Member

    Regarding the supposed lack of conceptual justification for slower floating movement at sea, “where there are fewer obstacles” – obstacles are also called landmarks. They make navigation easier, and thus make travel faster, or at least less prone to going off course.

    Regarding the effect of a slowdown to floating units on scouting – rogues and theocrats are supposed to have superior scouts. Rogues use them to enchant and snipe cities, theocrats have them because they’re built around a strong early game.

Viewing 29 posts - 181 through 209 (of 209 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.