Skip to Content
 

When micro managment of an army makes it undefeatable

25 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Math that some RTS designers use

Every RTS game. But also in my Wargames. When a situation is created with the map and unit designs.
There are units that are practically immortal.

The units that I am talking about are those that have a higher movement speed and a longer weapon range than anything else in that game.

So far, these got countered by even faster units....or units with an even longer weapon range.

But this doesn't take away that the practically immortal units are defeated swiftly. Or at least fast enough in order to have the "so called more tactical" player to have the proper edge.

There is this natural RPS effect that is still too strong.
And it means that a base is defeated slower than that the practically immortal units can be stopped.
In retro-spec. The practically immortal units can defeat a base as well without being stopped in time by a natural counter.

***

I have been looking at RTS games for this. And figured, that every RTS designer simply made a natural RPS counter.
Like that one unit that can catch up.
Or that other unit that has a weapon range to bow down to.

Is it possible to make the shadow rules such?
That these practically immortal units are costly enough that certain strategies are rendered too slow?

***

I attempted something in the past.
Where attack range and movement speed had influence on the weight of their counter aspect.
But while this works for 1D games. I had these pea shooters being waaay to expensive. Imagine an infinite attack range with 0 damage.

Attack range, while having influence on the body by being out of range... Well, the extra weight should not be attacked to the body.
And the same 1D game didn't show mercy if I only had movement speed of influence on the weapon weight. A missed opportunity back then.

A year or 2 ago, I managed to figure out that attack range is a square root 2 more in value than movement speed. But I never had the 2 combined.

And there is this, faster tanks can squish faster aspect.

So, eventually it hit me (yesterday)

Movement speed MUST have influence on the weapon.
After all, if you move into range, the movement adds to the range. Now the yes/no aspect comes in.
Can there be counter fire? So the weight of movement is 50% on the weapon weight..... is my first approach.

So, my prototype game. And any other wargame that I have designed in the past. Can benefit from this new balancing aspect.

There is one game where the player combines the body with the weapon. The weapon can have an extra cost per movement attached. So, I got this covered.

***

I wonder.

Should I have the movement speed being a cumulative or linear weight to the weapon weight?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Formula's

Hey.... stop doing that. Stop saying that players don't know what they have to do. I never said they have to calculate anything. HEY!!! stop it!!!

You know what, never mind then...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The numbers that have been tested

Before I continue
My goal is to make certain designs way more expensive. Yet keeping an overal balance.
I don't mind having units on the board that are practically immortal. But I DO MIND that these untis can do their job without the player being punished for it.
So my main goal is, making them more expensive in such a way, that they cannot do their job properly anymore. So the players need to choose a cheaper version that isn't that extreme anymore.

I am hoping to do this through increasing the weight of the movement speed.
I will test it on both weapon and body. And I compare these at the hand of extreme designs. The rest will be a tldr post with the results.

blablabla wrote:
I leave in the results here. Don't want to copy them into my folders. At least I can read back my train of thought this way

But long story short; I should be able to maintain an overall natural RPS balance while the weight factors are changed.

Old proto-type value's:
Cost 100 (50+50), basic fodder, also known as the default.
Movement speed 2
Attack range 2
Used for being a fodder.

Cost 200 (150+50), super fast fodder
Movement speed 12
Attack range 2
Used for hit and run on bases.

Cost 200 (50+150), extreme long range weapon
Movement speed 2
Attack range 10 (older versions had 12)
Used for weakening the enemy on a distance.

Cost 300 (150+150), the practically immortal unit
Movement speed 12
Attack range 10 (older versions had 12)

While this version is 3 times as expensive. There are cheaper versions. Yet this version too is still fast enough in doing its job, without being punished for it. Why?
Because the 2 natural counters are 2 times as expensive as the default unit.
Thus the practically immortal unit is only 150% the costs of the natural counters.

Where movement speed increases the weapon value's:
50+50 = 100 --> 50+62.5 = 112.5 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 150+125 = 275 (244 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 50+162.5 = 212.5 (189 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 150+225 = 375 (333 ^)

In a sense, the practical immortal unit had a simpler time escaping the support units. Or even avoiding them or catching them offguard. So it makes sense that these are cheaper than the super fast units.
I think I balanced the RPS mechanic here.
The practical immortal unit is only 136% than a super fast one. But compared to the support unit, the factor is 176%.
The extra costs compared to the fodder unit isn't that much higher, from 300 to 333%.

Movement speed being cumulative instead of linear
I thought about having the speed even being a cumulative effect instead of linear. Thus 2 is valued as 3, 3 is valued as 6 etc. But then the costs would get:

50+50 = 100 --> 50+68.75 = 118.75 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 150+537.5 = 687.5 (579 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 50+168.75 = 218.75 (184 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 150+637.5 = 787.5 (663 ^)

Ok, the super fast unit just got killed off this way... The weapon damage is still the same as the other 3 categories. But with this increase in costs, the super fast unit has the same faith as the practical immortal unit.
Then again, a cumulative effect is an exponential growth. And the most optimal movement speed to counter an attack range is when it is the square root of that attack range. Instead of 12, it should be 3 to 4, when comparing to that attack range of 10. The weight would then be 6 to 10. And this 10 sounds very similar to 10.

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight itself:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+50 = 110 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+50 = 860 (782 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+150 = 210 (191 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+150 = 960 (873 ^)

What the deuce...?
Clearly, I need to make a new table with proper movement speeds... Let's test the rest out, first.

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight itself with a linear effect on attack range:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+62.5 = 122.5 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+125 = 935 (763 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+162.5 = 222.5 (182 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+225 = 1035 (845 ^)

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight AND the weapon weight:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+68.75 = 128.75 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+537.5 = 1347.5 (1047 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+168.75 = 228.75 (178 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+637.5 = 1447.5 (1124 ^)

IT all doesn't work well.
I need to isolate the movement speed from the attack range for the super fast units.

Having movement speed being a factor within the weapon range validation (all the above where additions):

50+50 = 100 --> 50+50 = 100
150+50 = 200 --> 150+150 = 300
50+150 = 200 --> 50+150 = 200
150+150 = 300 --> 150+450 = 600

In other words, units with a long weapon range, can't really be much faster now. Can they?
I don't know why.... but the numbers kinda speak to me now.

***

Fun facts with the last test!!
- Any defence is allowed to deal 67% more damage now. Including mines.

- Default movement speed of 2 will keep the damage at default, many designs stay the same.

- The factors work!! The practical immortal unit can't finish its job in time anymore.

- Getting back to the default prize for the super fast unit costs of 200. Movement speed has to be reduced from 12 to 7. Where the super fast unit is a 100+100 = 200 and the parralel practical immortal unit is a 100+300 = 400

- In order to get the practical immortal unit back to the costs of 300. While movement is reduced from 12 to 7, the attack range is reduced from 10 to 5. Which actually results in 100+210=310, not 300. If I do a range of 4. We get 100+180=280. O well, at least these are round numbers.

***

Last notes
I have a lot of testing to do, still.
But I am satisfied with the new balances.
This will influence all my games in a positive way.
Although, some games use so low numbers, that it might have trouble fitting in.

Maybe I tweak the factor for movement speed. Right now I am using a 100% for the default movement. Which means 60% for 0 movement and 200% for 7 movement.
It is only 2/3th that of the attack range itself. Perhaps, I should use halve of this in a final test.
Thus 80% for 0 movement and 10% for every movement.
This way, faster units do have a body costing more than the weapon.

50+50 = 100 --> 50+50 = 100
150+50 = 200 --> 150+100 = 250
50+150 = 200 --> 50+150 = 200
150+150 = 300 --> 150+300 = 450

- Defences have +25% damage instead of +67%. That is ok.

- Default price for the super fast unit needs a movement of roughly 9. 120+85=205
- If kept equal to the support attack range of 10. 130+90=220

- Default price for the practical immortal unit, also needs a weapon range reduction to 5. 120+178.5=298.5
- If movement kept equal to the support attack range of 10. The range is only 4. 130+162=292

Conclusion
I have to put the movement speed as a factor on top of the weapon weight.
Not sure yet if I keep the default factor that I use for the body as well. Or that the weapon weight receives only half the effect.

The very last calculation showed me something interesting.
The factor of the movement speed was exactly the same as the weapon range. Both 1.8 according to that calculation. Which is proof for me, that I am in the right direction.
Still, having 10% instead of 20%. Makes the calculations more precise. And thus my design options is less for my proto-type.

Either way, I have come from a long way. The practical immortal unit is now impractical against a mortal unit.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The only worry now

I explained the above topic to my cousin.

"I linked the movement speed to the weapon weight. But did not linke the attack range to the body weight. It looks like the hit'n'run units are now more balanced."

That is all I have to say to him. And he immediately understood.

"I don't know yet if I have the factor being implemented 100% or 50%."

And he too thinks, I need to do some more testing.

***

Of course, the detailed calculation will demand a reconsideration in the other games as well. My proto-type has only benefitted from this. And I don't know yet how much damage it will bring to single digit numbers.

And that is my only worry. That the calculation creates to much detailed balance now.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
So...what do you guys think?

I could ask several questions... but those are math related.

So let me ask you guys this:
Do you think that I should change some value's in the balance?

Thus making the units that move faster. Only more expensive if they have a weapon to use?

And if so.... how would this extra value compare to the original value? "Add" the effect? Or "multiply" it?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Natural RPS vs. Stats

I think your problem is that you are focusing TOO MUCH on "Natural RPS" versus actual "Game-Decided" Rules.

How can I illustrate this??? Very SIMPLE:

Quote:
If you ever played Starcraft 1, the original game without ANY patches, you'll of course know how the Zergling Rush from the Zerg Faction was a VERY, VERY effective way to defeat one of several opponents in a multi-player LAN game.

However the game's Designers felt that the RUSH was TOO POWERFUL and decided to make some corrections such as SLOWING the efficiency of Zerglings (one or two ways: either make them longer to produce or slow their overall movement or making each Zergling Attack Weaker or making the Zerglings more succeptible to Protoss or Human units).

So when you INSTALLED the PATCH ... All of the stats for the Zerglings were "re-calibrated" to SLOW and make the Zergling Rush less effective!

***

Now this is different from all the MATH you have been doing in THINKING that all things naturally work out with MATH (Natural RPS as you call it). But it is my personal experience that MOST Game Designers need STATS which they can work with to INDIVIDUALY CUSTOMIZE and TWEAK, so that the game experience feels MORE BALANCED.

So NATURAL MATH may be a good BASIS... But it is NOT the way to go when designing a REAL GAME. For REAL GAMES, the Designers need to FIX the STATS such that there is a REAL RPS rules... Ones that affect the efficiency of some units versus others. Things like increasing the SPEED to construct a Human Bunker... versus Zergling Rush ... Is an example of a form of BALANCE early on in the game.

Now to be CLEAR, I am NOT saying the Blizzard changed the SPEED of Bunker production to offset the Zergling Rush ... I'm just STATING that this is ONE of MANY SOLUTIONS that can be applied to BALANCE the game further.

***

So my point is the MATH is a good "starting point". But it's NOT the ONLY aspect of the design... You actually need to PLAYTEST and TRY different combinations and solve the STATS such that the game exhibits a REAL RPS and that each unit has a weakness and a strength.

And this EXACTLY what Blizzard did with it's FIRST (1st) PATCH released for Starcraft 1. They made tweaks and re-balanced some units such that the game was a bit more FAIR and harder for something like a Zergling Rush to occur against more than ONE (1) Player in a Multiplayer game...

This is my conclusion:

questccg wrote:
If you want the game to be playable, there need to NO "immortal units", each one needs to have some kind of STRENGTH and WEAKNESS which is the BASIS for a REAL RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissors).

Otherwise if you do NOT have this, you'll always worry that some ASPECT of the game is forever BROKEN. It seems like you are stuck on a "Game Design" issue. You need to address the corrections MANUALLY to make the game BALANCED and PLAYABLE. And this means somehow you need to do one of the following:

1. Either you make a "Immortal unit" have some kind of weakness against an opposing unit or ability.

2. Or you modify the stats of an "Immortal unit" to make it LESS EFFECTIVE in combat AT-LARGE.

What I mean by "AT-LARGE", I mean in all aspects of the game. Maybe it's very SLOW to move, meaning all units that are fast have an advantage and have the power to retreat and re-assemble. This is ONE ACTUAL METHOD to handicap a unit and you may need to do this for one (1) or several units depending on how they naturally evolve into "Immortal units"...

The point is that YOU MUST MAKE the corrections MANUALLY. The MATH is never going to magically work itself out. And yeah, some solution are going to be "DIRTY" or "UGLY" but in the end the game will be more BALANCED.

And this is due to the two (2) things that you can do. But REMEMBER:

Quote:
You need to do them MANUALLY first if you expect the design to work!

Cheers @X3M...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'll give another example...

Human Tanks when in Siege Mode have LONGER REACH for their attacks... So generally speaking the Tanks were very effective against the Zerg Faction. But the Protoss Templar had an Ability called "Psionic Storm" which had a even LONGER REACH that the Siege Tanks which meant that with a spell or two, the Protoss could decimate an entire army of Siege Tanks in a couple of attacks.

The weakness of the Siege Tanks is that they CANNOT MOVE. The other weakness is that it takes TIME to go from Siege Mode (Stationary with longer reach) to a regular Tank... Making the Psionic Storm an effective way to wipe out the Tanks.

Also ALL AIR-TO-GROUND units are effective against the Siege Tanks too...

Here is a QUOTE from the Starcraft WIKI:

Quote:
...Carriers in numbers can raze entire armies and bases if the enemy is unprepared. The carrier is slightly less durable than the battlecruiser overall, but is much faster... Two battlecruisers with Yamato Gun can destroy a carrier.

So here is a BALANCING effect. Yamato Gun can do significant damage to a Carrier... Here's an example of a BALANCING ATTACK that allows the Carrier (a weaker unit) to be faster than the Human battlecruiser. But that the battlecruiser can destroy the Carrier with only 2 shots!

Stuff like this can become "UGLY" in a game... This works against that, but only that, etc. I'm guessing that making a game is hard and then FIXING all the UN-BALANCING of the default MATH is probably a "dirty" experience for most things.

If you expect your design to work with some kind of MIRACLE MATH FORMULA... It probably never will... TBH.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
IMHO ... this is a personal opinion...

Games that are RTS like Starcraft 1, only have a HAND-FULL of units. Not like 100 or 50 or 20... Maybe like 10 or so each Faction... Why? Because you need to BALANCE all that SH!T together and it's HARD!!! So that's why there are a limited amount of units for each game. Sure patches make a difference as more players TEST the STATs out to see if everything works.

But that's the difference between Video Games and TableTop Games: in a Video Game you can release a Patch to fix balancing issues. With a TableTop Game, you must figure out the best balance and hope that for the most part the game have been sufficiently playtested such that the game is as BALANCED as it can get...

So there's a bit of difference and much HARDER to get it RIGHT the first time with a TableTop Game. This is not meant to discourage you, I'm just saying be prepared to simply TEST the combat mechanic ALONE. Forget about the building and such... Just TEST different ARMY types versus their RPS strong and RPS weak opposition and make sure it all work TOGETHER.

It's a LOT of work. Why do you think it took like years to make Starcraft??? Sure a lot of coding, but again a lot of TESTING of matchups and seeing if the various UNITS were balanced and such...

Anyhow ... I guess if you have "Immortal units" (which I think NO RTS has) ... It's a combination of relying too much of MATH (and natural RPS as you call it) and not enough MANUAL TWEAKING of STATS to sometimes FORCE a REAL RPS...

At least that's what I understood from RTS games in general.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well

Let me explain (in words, not math) how I reached this new chapter in game balance. And let me say that the nerved zerglings are a very good example in this.

We often played the game, the proto-type game.
The proto-type game always shows where -> I <- went wrong with the other games. But especially in the math section. Let's say, it helps me see the hidden math of a game as well. After all, the proto-type version is the...ahem...slowest version of any wargame.

I shortly worked on the "public" version as some of you might have noticed. And it would just happen that one of my buddies managed to find a new error.

What he did was having a design that was one of these hit'n'run (HnR) units. But he asked us to not make a "natural" counter. Because he felt he was on to something.

A natural counter would be a movement speed that is faster than the HnR. These are relatively very effective, since they can take cover in the proto-type. And in the public version, simply suddenly stand at your doorstep.
Or
The counter would be an attack range much further than the HnR. These too are effective. But to a lesser extend. Since the weight of a ranged attack is different than the weight of something that moves a lot.

What happened was that his HnR units could easily dodge anything else. And we thought, that is ok. Since his HnR units cost roughly only twice as much. So, ok, we went on a march to his base. And without much effort, he met us close to our own base. He made short work of our units. And kept his. He got more, he started a snowball.
Eventually, he was simply harassing our base. And while we build an army to stop him. He easily managed to destroy our base.

So... I made a conclusion out of this. A natural counter had to be designed in order to stop such a HnR faction...

***

Or... my conviction that a game like mine can be balanced by applying the proper balancing formula would help.

***

I looked at:
Wacraft 2
Starcraft (your example)
C&C td
Red Alert (why this one failed)
Dune 2
KKnD
And Warzone 2100

I saw similarities. But also 1 important difference.
(Please note, I look at dps AND damage/cooldown)

Warcraft 2:
Slower units deal much more damage. But it is also the slower and weaker units that have a greater range. This game hardly had any fixes to the balance. It...worked out somehow. Ignore bloodlust and other magic.

Starcraft:
Zerglings move very fast, but hardly do damage.
Siege tanks can't move, but do the most damage (dps wise).
And other units.
We all know that Starcraft has been balanced with patches after a lot of play testing. There is no formula present. But the changes almost always refer to movement speed, health, or damage. Attack range was left untouched.... let that sink in.

C&C td:
The fast units are really effective.... almost feels like there is a mistake here. Trust me, in multiplayer, the NOD buggy and the Recon Bike are the 2 most powerfull units when used as HnR units.
And my proto-type showed the same effect... let's keep that in mind shall we?

Red Alert:
Squishing is overpowered here. For the same reason as the td variant. It looks like that the movement speed is 100% of influence here on the damage caused by squishing. Making all tanks that can squish; OP.

Dune 2:
A very well balanced game, if you ask me.
Of course the infantry are bad later on. And this is where you also can see that movement speed has a great influence on game balance. However, range will be the biggest factor here. Only because there are no fast units with a lot of range. The movement speed gets slower while range increases. That would be all.
No.... that would not be all. I often use trikes or quads in order to deal with rocket turrets. Something other players didn't even realized. But a couple of quads can easily kill a rocket tower.

KKnD:
This game, the designers. They too where on to something. I got another fix from their game. But that fix is only used if I ever get to design a RTS game. Still. I noticed how some fast units that can deal a lot of damage. Are actually short ranged. There are no fast units with a long range here either. Just like Dune2. Somehow they too felt that these HnR designs would imbalance a game. In other words, the designs had natural counters for certain.

Warzone 2100:
I don't know what the original desingers did. But from them I learned. A big weapon will slow down a tank. Perhaps having a higher movement speed truly makes a tank more expensive.
And so far, I have not seen a tank in this game that can be fast and deal sufficient damage IN TIME. Thus this really had me thinking about the rest.

Tiberian Sun:
A big NO!!

Red Alert 2:
A big NONO!!!
We got the Prism Tank here. And it simply shows speed and attack range. Nothing could stop it. Except if you already had an equal sized army that was a counter by mechanical balance. Meaning a mechanical RPS effect. An anti-light weapon hardly damaged heavy equipment.
Of course... this was a way for the designers to balance the Prism Tank, by making the fire power very weak. Still, it managed to deal with anything, when snowballing.

***

If I keep my original design patern.
I need to make natural counters.

If I change this and make HnR units more expensive.
And fast units will get slightly more expensive too.
I can copy most games by natural means.
But also make the snowball happen, much harder.
And perhaps shift the threshold of a base destruction to a "default" designed army instead. Where HnR units are only used in order to reduce enemy forces. Not finish them off.
And where HnR units can no longer harass a base unless that is their function (thus less effect on units on top of dealing less damage).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Human Tanks

questccg wrote:
Human Tanks when in Siege Mode have LONGER REACH for their attacks... So generally speaking the Tanks were very effective against the Zerg Faction. But the Protoss Templar had an Ability called "Psionic Storm" which had a even LONGER REACH that the Siege Tanks which meant that with a spell or two, the Protoss could decimate an entire army of Siege Tanks in a couple of attacks.
Yeah, it is very important to know that you mean to storm moving tanks. Not the once in siege mode.

Either way. It is indeed true that tanks could not move in siege mode. But there where honestly no units in starcraft that where fast and had a long range attack....O wait, marines. well...weren't they overpowered? Their weakness was still their attack range, compared to some other units.

Well, they had medium movement speed and medium attack range. The Hydralisk and Dragoons as well. Thus not moving, super long ranged attackes where a good counter.

(Also, know that the 70 damage for the siege mode has been reduced to 50 in Starcraft 2.)

Quote:

The weakness of the Siege Tanks is that they CANNOT MOVE. The other weakness is that it takes TIME to go from Siege Mode (Stationary with longer reach) to a regular Tank... Making the Psionic Storm an effective way to wipe out the Tanks.
I got this too!! The ability to change temporary or permanently :)
But that is not what I am looking for.

Quote:
Also ALL AIR-TO-GROUND units are effective against the Siege Tanks too...
mechanical RPS... It is a solution! And air to ground is often a 100% to 0% factor. But then in combination with a natural counter like equal or more speed in order to chase away. Or an equal or longer attack range.

Quote:

Here is a QUOTE from the Starcraft WIKI:

...Carriers in numbers can raze entire armies and bases if the enemy is unprepared. The carrier is slightly less durable than the battlecruiser overall, but is much faster... Two battlecruisers with Yamato Gun can destroy a carrier.

Carriers could easily deal with battlecruisers indeed. Here the movement speed was a bit more. And the attack range.... And that is one of the problems in my games too. The yamato gun is a solution. But then you could easily say, that I need a slower unit with more attack range. And this dodges the challenge to be honest. The question here should be, is the carrier expensive enough to have that encounter with the battlecruisers being a "immortal" vs "mortal" fight?

Quote:
So here is a BALANCING effect. Yamato Gun can do significant damage to a Carrier... Here's an example of a BALANCING ATTACK that allows the Carrier (a weaker unit) to be faster than the Human battlecruiser. But that the battlecruiser can destroy the Carrier with only 2 shots!
This is a prime example of having a natural counter. More range. The yamato gun has an abnormal attack range. I once tested this out, and it is more than 16 if the carriers still move. Siege moded tanks only have 12 attack range.

Quote:

Stuff like this can become "UGLY" in a game... This works against that, but only that, etc. I'm guessing that making a game is hard and then FIXING all the UN-BALANCING of the default MATH is probably a "dirty" experience for most things.

If you expect your design to work with some kind of MIRACLE MATH FORMULA... It probably never will... TBH.


Well, I am not going to say I want that miracle math formula (but I actually do). But I was simply asking what you guys think would be best.

And so far, I sense that you suggest me to make natural counters.
Thus more movement speed OR a higher attack range than the fast movement speed AND high attack range.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Remember my 2nd Example too!

The Protoss High Templar can use the "Psionic storm" ability to deal 112 of Damage but only against UNITS not Building or Bunkers (with units inside)...

So that's another BALANCING ability to offset the effectiveness of Siege Tanks.

I've never played Starcraft 3... So I don't know really anything about it!

About HnR ... There was a STUPID way of playing in Starcraft: you could use one Marine to attack a Zergling and encourage all the OTHER Zerglings to move forwards, sometimes falling into RANGE of an ARMY of Marine who just blast away and decimate the opponent's army.

This cannot happen in TableTop or Wargames ... Since there is no physical way of "enticing" units to move from formation.

This kind of HnR is very effective in Video Games but not so much in TableTop or Wargames.

Even with a HnR tactic ... There needs to be some kind of BALANCING act. Like for example: "Mustard Gas".

How does this work... You can be as FAST as you LIKE, if the opponent uses Mustard Gas and you have no protection against Chemical Weapons ... You HnR army can be defeated by such an opponent.

Actually Chemical Weapons are a good way to counter Troops, Trikes, Bikes and Jeeps. Maybe NOT Tanks... But you get the idea. Maybe even Tanks because they need to let air into the Tank to BREATH... But if you are breathing Chemical Fumes... Good luck to that army.

Another way to break the efficiency of HnR units is that they are WEAK to for example a Guard Tower. So generally speaking the HnR units are WEAK against buildings. Having a bunch of towers with longer RANGE but that ARE IMMOBILE can make them effective at offsetting the balance of HnR and bases.

Simply put, the HnR might be good against units but be weak against structures.

Which means that maybe you can do a lot of unit damage, when you reach the opponent your HnR units are at a loss to things like a tower.

The TOWER is NOT an "Immortal Unit" because it cannot MOVE. It may have longer range ... But it can't be moved. So this is the weakness of the tower.

This is yet another example illustrating HOW to BALANCE HnR out.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Games that are

questccg wrote:
Games that are RTS like Starcraft 1, only have a HAND-FULL of units. Not like 100 or 50 or 20... Maybe like 10 or so each Faction... Why? Because you need to BALANCE all that SH!T together and it's HARD!!! So that's why there are a limited amount of units for each game. Sure patches make a difference as more players TEST the STATs out to see if everything works.

But that's the difference between Video Games and TableTop Games: in a Video Game you can release a Patch to fix balancing issues. With a TableTop Game, you must figure out the best balance and hope that for the most part the game have been sufficiently playtested such that the game is as BALANCED as it can get...

So there's a bit of difference and much HARDER to get it RIGHT the first time with a TableTop Game. This is not meant to discourage you, I'm just saying be prepared to simply TEST the combat mechanic ALONE. Forget about the building and such... Just TEST different ARMY types versus their RPS strong and RPS weak opposition and make sure it all work TOGETHER.

It's a LOT of work. Why do you think it took like years to make Starcraft??? Sure a lot of coding, but again a lot of TESTING of matchups and seeing if the various UNITS were balanced and such...

Anyhow ... I guess if you have "Immortal units" (which I think NO RTS has) ... It's a combination of relying too much of MATH (and natural RPS as you call it) and not enough MANUAL TWEAKING of STATS to sometimes FORCE a REAL RPS...

At least that's what I understood from RTS games in general.

This imbalance is a class of units.

Let's say, the marine, hydralisk and dragoon cover the same class.

All 3 can attack from a distance, are relative fast and can attack air units. So, the problem in a certain class of units....
Oh wait, I actually one time had writted about unit classes and their function. While maintaining 100% freedom.
Ok, the problem is that if the classes of long ranged units don't exist. And the classes of super fast units don't exist.
The class of HnR units is more or less immortal.

There are plenty of "immortal" units in RTS games.
They are either long ranged or a combination of speed and attack range.

Dune 2:
Sonic Tanks when amass.

Red Alert 2:
Prism Tanks when amass (but they can move fast too) In fact, these are one of the best examples of HnR units.

Warcraft 2:
Death Knight with death coil or the Mage with Polymorph. While slower than some other units. Their range and damage makes up for it. They can outrun or run into the minimum range of a catapult/balista.

Emperor Battle for Dune:
Ordos Laser Tank. It moves so fast, and has such range that... only certain longer ranged homing missiles will work. And a big middle finger to air....they outrun air units in that game and kill the base.
The Ordos APC is an upgraded version of this, faster, more attack range. However, needs to be trained after production. Then, only 3 of these can destroy EVERYTHING!!! on the map. Trust me on that one.

KKnD:
Sniper... only attack range and damage is key here. You can almost not counter them with fast units at all in a late game.
Only with other long ranged units is it possible to counter.

***

Warzone 2100 hinted me about having heavier weapons, slowing down a tank... It is a game with more than 3000 different units. And it is still very balanced.

In regards to your oppinion. Every RTS game has the classes needed to counter the HnR class.
There are several options:
- Faster class, you hunt down the HnR class.
- Longer attack range, you simply keep the HnR class at bay.
- Mechanical RPS, where the HnR class does less damage to such an extend. That it would be unwise to build a snowball out of them. However, the mechanical RPS works best with the first 2 classes.
- Traps, yeah, why didn't anyone think of these. Traps like mines would work well on HnR classes. But also on their primairy counter, the Faster class.

So, if that is your advice, I will make note of it.
Have a natural counter ready

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... A thought...

What if you have FORTIFIED UNITS versus REGULAR UNITS. The FORTIFIED UNITS get a BONUS DEFENSE making them HARDER to KILL. This means that while ATTACKING is good ... Fortified units are more CAPABLE of "defending" their territory or position in the game.

And this could be like to FORTIFY a unit, you TAP IT (put it on it's side).

But these units cannot MOVE until back to REGULAR and to do that you need one (1) TURN to UN-TAP IT (place it normally).

This could be a way to COUNTER HnR tactics in that it is harder to INFLICT damage to units who are positioned on the DEFENSIVE!

I'm just going with what I know and have seen. I haven't played ALL those RTS games that you've listed but I have played some: C&C, Red Alert 1, Dune 1, Starcraft 1 and 2.

So I am very familiar with the RTS genre even if I don't know all the MATH.

Maybe FORTIFICATION may be the de-facto standard CAPABILITY that offsets the efficiency of HnR attacks!

There's something for you to think about! Best.

Note #1: An example would be a Rifleman. As a REGULAR soldier he is pretty inefficient against a lot of other units. But IF he FORTIFIES himself by digging a TRENCH... He is suddenly MUCH HARDER to attack and by extension harder to be "killed".

Maybe all you need is an ICON on the card. If the ICON is present, that unit can FORTIFY (defensive bonus).

I think it's cool ... Something to think about some more. It's actually a pretty HARD concept to implement, lots of variations and how to figure out WHAT the DEFENSIVE BONUS really IS???!!!

Note #2: If you planned to TAP as a way to EXHAUST a unit, you can change this by placing a "Wink" (Bingo Chip) on cards that are EXHAUSTED (meaning that if a Wink exists that unit has performed an attack). Relatively inexpensive and you can color-match with the player: Red vs. Blue (for example).

At the start of a TURN, you REMOVE ALL "Winks" ... And if a UNIT needs to wait 2 Turns before being able to attack (or use in some fashion), you will have 2 Winks instead of only 1.

I'm sure you get the idea. This is MUCH better than TAPPING a card.

Just another idea for you to consider and see what you can come up with!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Lot to cover here. hahahah, have to read it too

questccg wrote:
The Protoss High Templar can use the "Psionic storm" ability to deal 112 of Damage but only against UNITS not Building or Bunkers (with units inside)...

So that's another BALANCING ability to offset the effectiveness of Siege Tanks.

I've never played Starcraft 3... So I don't know really anything about it!


Yeah, there was this hard mechanical RPS on the storm. Speaking of which, the best players could dodge a storm. This means, that if it was a board game. All players could always dodge a storm. We just went from analog to digital playstyle here. I think, I should mention that as well. Board games are kinda a digital playstyle. While RTS are more of an analog play style.
Digital means you can perfom a move perfectly.

Quote:
About HnR ... There was a STUPID way of playing in Starcraft: you could use one Marine to attack a Zergling and encourage all the OTHER Zerglings to move forwards, sometimes falling into RANGE of an ARMY of Marine who just blast away and decimate the opponent's army.

This cannot happen in TableTop or Wargames ... Since there is no physical way of "enticing" units to move from formation.


Hold position.... but yeah, in tabletop gaming it is always by order of the player. Unless the game mechanics force the armies to move that way.

Quote:
Even with a HnR tactic ... There needs to be some kind of BALANCING act. Like for example: "Mustard Gas".

How does this work... You can be as FAST as you LIKE, if the opponent uses Mustard Gas and you have no protection against Chemical Weapons ... You HnR army can be defeated by such an opponent.

Sounds like a trap! But yeah, these kind of things are an option as well.
But there are 2 differences between RTS and tabletop.
In RTS, you have this fog of war. Even if something is hidden in the ground or can be set off like a trap.
In Tabletop, you know your opponent has a wall of mines. The only solution is to time the crossing or simply find another way in.

Quote:

Actually Chemical Weapons are a good way to counter Troops, Trikes, Bikes and Jeeps. Maybe NOT Tanks... But you get the idea. Maybe even Tanks because they need to let air into the Tank to BREATH... But if you are breathing Chemical Fumes... Good luck to that army.
EMP, anti tank mines, etc.

Quote:

Another way to break the efficiency of HnR units is that they are WEAK to for example a Guard Tower. So generally speaking the HnR units are WEAK against buildings. Having a bunch of towers with longer RANGE but that ARE IMMOBILE can make them effective at offsetting the balance of HnR and bases.
This is a natural counter.

Quote:

Simply put, the HnR might be good against units but be weak against structures.
With some whipcream on top. But I like that you are thinking this way. This has been the train of thought by 99% of us... I think, that making the class of longer attack range, cheaper. Is a good solution.
Right now, body costs are often 60% that of default movement speed.
And the attack range would be 140% in order to counter this.

Quote:

Which means that maybe you can do a lot of unit damage, when you reach the opponent your HnR units are at a loss to things like a tower.
You are thinking like one of our main players here.

Quote:

The TOWER is NOT an "Immortal Unit" because it cannot MOVE. It may have longer range ... But it can't be moved. So this is the weakness of the tower.
Ok, which sounds all waaaay to familiar to most of us.

Quote:

This is yet another example illustrating HOW to BALANCE HnR out.

Yes, natural counters.

Now, here is the thing. The goal of my buddy was that we could not make the natural counters.
And that the HnR unit is then overpowered in a sense. No unit could stop it. No base defence could stop it. And the other players where not able to destroy the HnR users base in time compared to the HnR user destroying their base.

It was his way of saying, this class of units needs a natural counter.
Or else it is immortal.

I think, and I have to ask him, that he considers HnR units to be a type of support units.
Which you cannot win the war with. But also can't win the war without them.

The Valkery and Corsair are such units, although, they are HnR in terms of mechanical RPS. They are flying and can kill only flying units.
Another example would be the Wolf Rider from Warcraft 3. They have a "siege" attack. And are best used on bases without base defences. While avoiding the enemy army. There is only 1 mission where they are good for one of the enemy bases. That is it!!
In my game, they are used much more. But are...melee.

The HnR units are doing this from a distance. Can't be trapped either. Unless you got the natural counter classes. And I should design the game in such a way. That if natural coutner classes aren't present. The HnR units still need backup from other, more durable units with more damage. Well, gona sleep on it.

Thank you for your oppinion.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:What if you

questccg wrote:
What if you have FORTIFIED UNITS versus REGULAR UNITS. The FORTIFIED UNITS get a BONUS DEFENSE making them HARDER to KILL. This means that while ATTACKING is good ... Fortified units are more CAPABLE of "defending" their territory or position in the game.

And this could be like to FORTIFY a unit, you TAP IT (put it on it's side).

But these units cannot MOVE until back to REGULAR and to do that you need one (1) TURN to UN-TAP IT (place it normally).

This could be a way to COUNTER HnR tactics in that it is harder to INFLICT damage to units who are positioned on the DEFENSIVE!

I'm just going with what I know and have seen. I haven't played ALL those RTS games that you've listed but I have played some: C&C, Red Alert 1, Dune 1, Starcraft 1 and 2.

So I am very familiar with the RTS genre even if I don't know all the MATH.

Maybe FORTIFICATION may be the de-facto standard CAPABILITY that offsets the efficiency of HnR attacks!

There's something for you to think about! Best.

Note #1: An example would be a Rifleman. As a REGULAR soldier he is pretty inefficient against a lot of other units. But IF he FORTIFIES himself by digging a TRENCH... He is suddenly MUCH HARDER to attack and by extension harder to be "killed".

Maybe all you need is an ICON on the card. If the ICON is present, that unit can FORTIFY (defensive bonus).

I think it's cool ... Something to think about some more. It's actually a pretty HARD concept to implement, lots of variations and how to figure out WHAT the DEFENSIVE BONUS really IS???!!!


Oh, we got these units. They can turn into defence towers in the middle of the map. It takes a turn indeed. An action. But then you got yourself defence towers anywhere you like.

The downside to them is often that they cannot move. So long ranged units will counter them. And HnR units fall in this catergory.

But... the HnR units already do less damage. And thus, if the defence has more attack range. There is this natural counter.

Fortification can happen in 2 ways:
Less movement speed results in more health or more armor.
Less movement speed results in more attack range.

The latter is used most often because of the....math.
But the first one can be done as well. However, it is almost always a combination of equal health AND less armor with a slight weapon adjustment.

Example 1:
80 health with tier 4 armor. Becomes 80 health with tier 2 armor.
5 times 16 becomes 20 times 4. Here higher caliber weapons will do less damage on the fortification. The H*A value doubles, but the health remains the same.
Example 2:
If the health does change. The damage is divided by the current armor value and then rounded upwards. Then is multiplied by the new armor value. And subtracted again. This often happens when we simply go from tier 2 armor with 20 health go to tier 5 armor with 125 health and vice versa. If the damage was 10 on that 20 health. This is divided by 4. And rounded upwards to a 3. Then multiplied by 25, thus 75 is subtracted from that new body.
Let's say, if less health is remaining than the current armor value. The unit will die by transformation.

Important to know, the attack range increases a lot of times.
We also got units that go from fast moving to slower moving.
Which is rare in other games, also in RTS games... In Starcraft 2, the Helion can have this kind of change.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I have not read any of the

I have not read any of the thread, but the title sparked me an idea.

What if there were different elements to consider in the management of your army. Equipment, Terrain, Formation, weather, etc.

And if you did micro manage all those elements and if you had the optimal battle conditions, you would be undefeatable.

But, players are likely to make mistakes and the battlefield conditions could be the only semi-random element of the game that makes sure that the player never have 100% of the time the best conditions.

Such game would probably be a deterministic game in order to maximise the strategy on the micro management.

Not sure if it could help.

It could probably be more a puzzle game than a game. Making it possible for solitaire play.

I was thinking of having a game where you have an ennemy configuration of forces and you must find a way to break and destroy that ennemy.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Puzzle: yes

larienna wrote:
I have not read any of the thread, but the title sparked me an idea.

What if there were different elements to consider in the management of your army. Equipment, Terrain, Formation, weather, etc.

And if you did micro manage all those elements and if you had the optimal battle conditions, you would be undefeatable.

But, players are likely to make mistakes and the battlefield conditions could be the only semi-random element of the game that makes sure that the player never have 100% of the time the best conditions.

Such game would probably be a deterministic game in order to maximise the strategy on the micro management.

Not sure if it could help.

It could probably be more a puzzle game than a game. Making it possible for solitaire play.

I was thinking of having a game where you have an ennemy configuration of forces and you must find a way to break and destroy that ennemy.


In a way, the player indeed solves a puzzle.

There are some missions in my book where the players have to solve a puzzle.

Lot's of defence towers.
The player simply has to outrange them.

Lot's of long ranged units.
The player simply has to outrange them. Or be very fast by making use of the terrain for cover.

Lot's of super strong units.
The player can make a good mix of fodder and as support, units that have the most optimal weapons.

***

In all examples. The HnR units where victorious when crossing a certain threshold.

Considering ALL the rules of the game(s) (certain circumstances give a bonus weapon range of +1). The threshold seems to be that the attack range is the enemies attack range + the enemies movement speed + 2. And the movement speed is the enemies movement speed + 1. This way, the HnR unit always stays at a safe distance.

A defence with 0 weapon range, can be countered by a HnR unit that has 2 weapon range and 1 movement speed.
An unit with 2 weapon range and 1 movement speed, can be countered by a HnR unit that has 5 weapon range and 2 movement speed.
The next step would be a weapon range of 9 and movement of 3.

It is a weapons race. Luckily 1 of the game boards is limited by terrain and size. But if I scrap the terrain effects. Only size will spell an end. And any natural counter will be needed instead.
But as QuestCCG has said. We should stick by designing the natural counters anyway.

Still, I think that a HnR design needs an extra penalty.
Because the factor between a default class and the long ranged class is often 2.
The faster class can use some extra costs as well. So I think I am on track either way.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Excel sheet

I do this for myself...

I have written an excel sheet. Where I can toggle very easily between the formula's.

This way I can make a list of designs. And then do a playtest to see if the game remains fun or not.
I can also test if the numbers can remain round or not. After all, 3 works so much better than 2.68854. Stuff like that :)
Then again, I can round the numbers. And see the differences anyway.

I need a plan for the playtesting.

Classes:
The sitting duck defence
Default range defence
Long range defence
Default design
Long range
Fast speed
Fast speed without attack range
HnR

8 classes, that will have different stats depending on the weight formula.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I do this for myself...

X3M wrote:

Classes:
Default design
The sitting duck defence
Default range defence
Long range defence
Long range
Fast speed
Fast speed with default range
Fast speed without attack range
HnR

9 classes, that will have different stats depending on the weight formula.

I have created one big formula. Would love to explain it to you guys. But I just know, that NO ONE would even benefit from knowing what I did. So let's forget it.

The formula is like my old weight calculation. But has 2 parts extra. One part adds movement speed to the weapon weight. The other part multiplies movement speed to the weapon weight.
I could even use both for the fun of it.

First I need a good grasp on my current situation...
But I need some ground rules...

I want the HnR to have an equal value in attack range and movement speed. It should be perfect to outmanouver the default.
Thus at least +3 to both value's.
The natural counters will have the same value's, while the other value is default.
If rounding takes place, I will test several designs with small differences.
The design also should have a weight distributed almost equally between the total body and total weapon weight.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Small update

I noticed how calculating 1 value was troublesome. While trying to maintain a healthy good ratio between the body and weapon weight.

So, I adjusted my sheet a bit. And I also have an easier time calculating the health and damage factor, by only changing the movement speed and attack range. This was my goal all along. However, somehow I missed it previously.

Either way. I am stuck with weird value's for the health and damage factor.
I made an expensive infantry unit to begin with. And explored the default settings of the formula and some of the intended visual settings.

It seems that with the rifleman being 6 times as expensive, still leaves fractions. A health of 11.25 isn't really an option. However, I can still calculate how many shots other units need. Or how many rounds to be precisely. Also, can they win? Still, it would be better for me to get round numbers in this. But I keep that for another time. Perhaps make a table of the classes? And each combination calculates the effectivness of the winning side?

Some are a given, like outranging defences is always 100% effective. Still, I want to know how many shots they need...
So yeah, an extra table for me would do it. And then it is a simple matter of changing the system value's. :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That very little picture in the first post of this topic

Right. So I attached a little formula here. But I never explained how it works. As per QuestCCG request...I will explain it now. Actually, it is more of a story than anything else.
So, if you are not interested, skip this tldr post.

***

It is the main formula that is used by some of my friends atm.
D&D included, but how??? Idk that one.
Obviously, it could be of help for RTS designers as well.
But I made it, so I should explain.

To set 1 thing straight. I am not expecting help of any kind in regards of this formula.

***

This formula is a cumulation of several ways of how RTS games can balance their units. The original and the experimental value's are included. There is one thing missing (KKnD balancing), and one thing is not entirely correct (modifications). But that is of no concern ;)
One more note: This formula is being used at the moment by me for concerning a change to my own balancing formula.

Let's begin with the basics. This formula only looks at the 4 stats of any RTS unit. And not every variable will be used. Some are simply scrapped for the game you are testing. And others are always there. It is even possible to use this formula for "chess pieces".

The 4 stats are like always:
- Health
- Damage
- movement Speed
- attack Range

But the weight can be applied differently depending on the game mechanics.

The formula originally has 2 parts.
Body and Weapon. But both are combined here. You can tell which is which by looking at the health factor, or Hf. And the damage factor, or Df.
These factors are simply indicators on how heavy a part should weight. And the difference is simply the ratio inverted. Health/Damage inverted is Damage/Health.

Meaning, that if you want 3 health per damage on average. You have 1/3th for Hf and 1 for Df. Or 1 for Hf and 3 for Df.
And if you have a game without movement speed and attack range, your new formula is done :)

***

Years of testing has shown that attack range has no influence on the health of an unit. Sure, keeping distance is key to survival. But even without a weapon, this can be done. So that part is entirely scrapped here. There is only 1 forgotten game out there where attack range has influence on the health.
So, what remains is the influence of how fast an unit or structure can move.
Testing showed that the ratio is a main factor in this.
So we got some new variables:
- S for movement Speed
- Smod1 for the health/damage ratio
- Sdef1 for what you consider to be the normal movement speed

If I want a ratio of 3 and a default of 2. I get:
(S + 3) / 5
As an extra factor for Hf.

A structure will cost only 60% compared to the default units in this regard.

***

The weapon part...
Now things get complicated. But let's begin with naming all the "basic" variables:
- R for attack Range
- Rf for the map factor influence
- Rmod for the health/damage ratio
- Rdef for what you consider to be the normal attack range

You might have noticed, this is almost the same as the body. And it works the same as well.

But there is one factor included, Rf.
It turns out that open maps for weapons, yet closed maps for movement (ridges, ramps, chokepoints) have more benefit from ranged weaponry than closed games. It is roughly the square root of 2 in that regard. I use 1.5 for Rf.
There are games out there that even have to use 2.
What this means? The weight of attack range is simply heavier than movement speed.

***

Now for the "extra" variables:
- Sf1 and Sf2 are weight factors for the movement speed and their part in the formula. We need more testing in order to know if they can be used or not.
- S is simply the movement speed
- Sdef2 and Sdef3 are again the default movement speeds
- Smod2 and Smod3 are again the modifications by the health damage ratio

The reason why there is a 2 and 3 variant is due to if they take part of the formula or not. In fact, if Sdef2 is used, it doesn't mean Smod2 is used as well.
Either way, the weight of movement speed can either be added or used as a multiplier for the attack Range.
I am currently in the testing phase of this.

While confusing, Sf1 is used for the Sdef2 and Smod2. While Sf2 is used for the Sdef3 and Smod3.

That concludes the explanation. And I think it is too much for you guys to take in. Hence I never shared.

***

The balance it brings is only detailed. In a sense, my game is 90% practical balanced.
Except for the HnR units. They will remain untouchable. But when being put in danger or being countered by their natural counters, they can still manage to reach their goal in time.

By seeing how much the movement speed is of influence on the weapon part, I can modify my own formula. And the whole game will be balanced a bit better.

Still I need to see if the effect has to be an addition or a multiplication. I hope it is an addition, because this will lead to a simpler way of designing.

Originally, when stripping down to only the movement speed. The costs are calculated like this:
C = S + D*R
When modifying to additon:
C = S + D*(R+S)
When modifying to multiplicating:
C = S + D*R*S

At first glance, adding more S simply means a lineair growth.
But if R is a high value, there is a big difference in the last 2 stripped formula's.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Soon

Soon I will have all 5 different playtests done.
With 9 classes of units.
But the players instinct or guts is also important.

I don't know if I should make a new topic about that one...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think I am done with the playtests already

I made some decisions too:

My boardgames have natural counters. Thus the new balance is only really useful for RTS games. But if I where ever to design a true RTS game, I would simply round the numbers and use the most fair calculation.

For a board game. The calculation should yield round numbers.
Thus:
1. The new balance will not be applied to other wargames that I designed.
2. The new balance will only be used on "Assault" units.

With the second decision. I need to use a formula that will not make "sitting ducks" or other slow units, imbalanced.
This means that the movement speed should only be applied when the unit can truly move. AND has the assault.

In regards to balance. I need to make sure there is a clear different to the Action Assault and the Assault unit.
The Assault unit can always use this action.

Assault wrote:
Action=Assault:
This action allows units to move AND attack. The AP cost is 3.

Unit=Assault:
This unit is allowed to move AND attack. The AP cost is that of an attack or move, thus only 1. If this unit uses an action that uses a move, 1 AP is deducted. If this unit uses an action that uses an attack, 1 AP is deducted. It is possible that an action will cost 0 AP, in that case 1 AP is deducted from the players resources anyway since the player in turn is forced to pay 1 AP. "See it as a payment, then get a refund after."

The assault units surely have to be more costly.
In regards to how other balances work. I have no other option than to calculate the new balance as ADDITION. But this time, it will be ON TOP of the normal calculation. And thus, a slow moving unit with assault will still be more expensive.

Logical speaking, the assault move is adding the movement speed to the range. The weapon range keeps an unit at a safe distance. There are possible factors for the movement speed. But they are not a multiplication on top. Only addition.

And then there is the penalty on weaponry.
There are weapons that do not receive this penalty despite using the assault move. Others do receive more penalty. This factor is also applied to the weapon range.

- 0.00 Minimum factor... wel duh, this is for the normal units.
- 0.50 Assuming that the units are brought in a lot more danger.
- 0.75 As a middleground.
- 1.00 As if it was the old calculation, kinda as if the units are brought in more danger, compared to the maximum factor.
- 1.25 Yet another middleground.
- 1.50 Is the maximum factor. Here the movement speed is completely regarded as extra weapon range.

I need to do testing on these factors. But that would be about it.
I have at least pinpointed if it is addition or multiplying.

***

Should I test with a mix as well? I wonder how to deal with this.
I need a new plan.
On a side note. Faster units without the Assault, will simply move into range. Then the HnR unit will move further away again. I calculated all that without considering the fact that the Action Assault should always be used for such RTS situations.
That is a huge mistake.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The new plan

Not sure yet about the action point costs.
But if an assault unit does an action. I guess either movement or an attack is missing. Now, in regards to the rules. Maybe it is better to say. If a part of the action is already in use, 1 AP is removed from the costs. If the missing part is not used, it is simply added, including the cost of 1 AP.

- Move, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Plus 1 AP for the missing attack
New costs is 1 AP.

- Attack, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
Plus 1 AP for the missing move
New costs is 1 AP.

- Assault, 3 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
New costs is 1 AP.

Other actions have weirder mechanics.

- Split up, X AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing moves
Plus 1 AP for the missing attacks
New costs is X AP.

- Haste, 3 AP:
Minus 2 AP for the existing moves
Plus 1 AP for the missing attack
New costs is 2 AP.

- Drive-by shooting, 4 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
New costs is 2 AP.

- Rush, 7 AP:
Minus 3 AP for the existing moves
Plus 1 AP for the missing attack
New costs is 5 AP.

- Intercept, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
Plus 1 AP for the missing move
New costs is 1 AP.

- Dodge, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Plus 1 AP for the missing attack
New costs is 1 AP.

- Return Fire, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
Plus 1 AP for the missing move
New costs is 1 AP.

- Lure, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
Plus 1 AP for the missing move
New costs is 1 AP.

- Run, 2 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Plus 1 AP for the missing attack
New costs is 2 AP.

- Retreat, 3 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing move
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
New costs is 1 AP.

- Distract, 1 AP:
Minus 1 AP for the existing attack
Plus 1 AP for the missing move
New costs is 1 AP.

In a sense, a lot of actions suddenly become very similar.
Except for some details.
But at least I prevented 0 AP costs with this logic.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I only added this to the action manual

Quote:
Units with the Assault attribute are able to add an extra move or attack to the action if it is missing.
The extra AP costs is increased by 1 per added action.
If a move or attack already is part of the action: The AP costs is reduced by 1 per existing action.

Most actions cost the same or less in AP. There are only 5 actions that change in AP costs:
- Assault, 3 AP: New costs is 1 AP.
- Haste, 3 AP: New costs is 2 AP.
- Drive-by shooting, 4 AP: New costs is 2 AP.
- Rush, 7 AP: New costs is 5 AP.
- Retreat, 3 AP: New costs is 1 AP.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It shows promises

With a default penalty of 2.
The Assault weight formula shows promise of easy calculations.

Where the default has an accuracy of 5 and costs 50.

Assault:
Accuracy 6, Penalty 2 gives 70
Accuracy 6, Penalty 0 gives 75

That was the addition...

Now for when I use the multiplier calculation.

Where the default has an accuracy of 5 and costs 50

Assault:
Accuracy 6, Penalty 2 gives 100
Accuracy 6, Penalty 0 gives 137.5

Not there yet... But at least the penalty effect is bigger now.

My time is up for now...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut