William Blake
11-10-2004, 10:41
Hey!
About group balance, I’d like to submit my current views, if I may. I’ll be short as possible. And I still haven’t got the game, it still sails somewhere, over a week now, so its based on pure numbers and their analysis.
Anyway:
1) Byzantine group:
Very nice group, probably one of the best. Only suggestion to remove archers. The group has both archers and heavy archers. They are very close in stats and price. There is no need to leave 2 such close options, heavy archers alone will be enough. And the group strength is in the heavy infantry and cavalry, not ranged units. Archers should go.
2) British:
Group is obviously all about longbows, a bit of decent cavalry, no argument there. But look at shock infantry. Men at arms and highlanders are way too close in stats, I would suggest to increase speed for highlanders, now the both cost the same 300 and men and practically the same at the field. The choice should be more obvious. And the speed is a very nice stat because it has to be used right, so it does not give an auto advantage. Make highlanders speedy, really speedy. Also, drop the swordsmen from the group. Men at arms and highlanders are way better and price is 200 vs 300. Swordsmen is a useless unit here.
3) French:
Well here its kinda wrong. Whats so special about French? Templars and Normans right? But Normans are worse then men at arms and still cost more. There is no way you will buy Normans instead of men at arms. I really think they are very weak, they should be more in line with roman infantry. Maybe you should increase Norman defense to 10 or 15. Then you make Normans a decent unit and you drop men at arms from the group, because it’s again abundant option. If Norman is a decent infantry, men at arms are too close to them to use them.
But you need to add either heavy crossbows or halberds to the group. Otherwise it’s has nothing but templars. Which are good, but teutons are better, so if I need a heavy infantry setup, I’ll go with german group, French needs another good option to make the group worth it.
4) German:
Well, it’s all about teutons. They should be very good, so if I want a steel infantry punch I’ll go with germans, but I think allowing crossbows with teuton can possibly produce very strong army. Maybe you should change the crossbows to heavy crossbows, then due to limited gold player will have to choose between best shock infantry and best ranged infantry. Now I’m afraid that teutons army can build up with “cheap” crossbows too fast on a tower map. And initial gold will allow to have a lot of shock infantry power and good armored ranged power at the same time. Maybe you should break it a bit and introduce the real choice between amazing infantry power and amazing ranged punch.5) Italian:
Very nice group. Clear halberds + heavy crossbows. I would only suggest to remove feudal knights. These guys just don’t go with the style and way too abundant unit in like half of other groups. By choosing Italian you can get best possible anti-cavalry infantry setup, so why don’t you sacrifice heavy cavalry? If you play Italians it’s not about cavalry anyway.
6) Spanish:
On the other hand Spanish has no decent infantry whatsoever, so it should be about cavalry. You should definitely add feudal knights here, then Spanish will be cavalry group. Now they are pretty useless, think about it: horse archers are nothing near steppe cavalry, Jinettes are nothing special and that’s it – nothing, all other units are basic and present in other groups, so there is no point in using Spanish right now.
But if you add feudal knights it will be European cavalry group, special.
7) Central European:
This group has NOTHING. I can’t possibly explain why you make it on the first place. Think for yourself – what unit make special or useful? It has no style, no strategy, just very basic units together.
I think you should drop it altogether. There is no point in keeping or enforcing it.
8 ) Balkan:
Well, Balkan has Steppe and Pronoias, both are very nice, but not unique. The group infantry is amazingly weak and ranged is also nothing special. I think you should enforce the group with roman infantry, that will give it a chance to be solid all around group. They don’t have heavy cavalry, don’t have heavy ranged, don’t have any decent shock infantry, I think roman infantry should fill the void. The roman infantry is both very good medium infantry and historically acceptable for the group.
Since you hopefully drop the Central European, this enforcement will make Balkans good choice with special style.
9) Russians:
Boyars and steppe - should be good, but not as good as feudal knights and crossbows, right? Now other major groups have halberds, teutons, templars, longbows and such. But Russians have not.
Technically, they won’t manage like that. They need some infantry to help them. But I clearly see your intention to make them light and cheap group. Add Vikings here. Vikings are cheap, light by stats but with morale bonus they should blend right in. Well, actually highlanders with high speed would be very nice here, but we can’t spit on history accuracy that much. So no highlanders, but as far as I know Vikings were extensively used by russians as a mercenaries.
Since the group is very close to Balkans it also will make a perfect balance – Balkans will have a bit heavier infantry with roman infantry, but Russians will have a bit better cavalry with Boyars. But both rely on masses of “slavonic specials”.
10) Norse:
Norse, well, again like with Central European – totally useless group. I understand that you wanted to keep Vikings, but lets face it – Norse has nothing worth or special. Moreover they wont manage against ANY other group. I say you should drop them – since you again hopefully move Vikings to Russian group they will be in a game, varangians are clearly Byzantine unit, everything else is a basic units abundant in everywhere.
For now it wil be all, I don’t want to touch Arabic/Islamic groups for now, but I think you should drop some groups there too. Now why I argue for dropping and enforcing some groups – you don’t really need 50 groups. But you need really useful ones, what’s the point in central European group if no one will ever use it, or norse on that matter. But by my logic you can make groups to be a style thing there the player can follow some style and get some advantages and disadvantages or have solid but not perfect group like Balkans.
Also I think that you wont be able to make every group balanced against all others, but you can really move their balance apart so group choice will lead to specific style which can both have very weak or very strong opponents.
Well, I hope it helps. Thanks for reading.
Please leave any comments you have about groups and unit balance for multiplayer, player feedback is a huge help for devs.
About group balance, I’d like to submit my current views, if I may. I’ll be short as possible. And I still haven’t got the game, it still sails somewhere, over a week now, so its based on pure numbers and their analysis.
Anyway:
1) Byzantine group:
Very nice group, probably one of the best. Only suggestion to remove archers. The group has both archers and heavy archers. They are very close in stats and price. There is no need to leave 2 such close options, heavy archers alone will be enough. And the group strength is in the heavy infantry and cavalry, not ranged units. Archers should go.
2) British:
Group is obviously all about longbows, a bit of decent cavalry, no argument there. But look at shock infantry. Men at arms and highlanders are way too close in stats, I would suggest to increase speed for highlanders, now the both cost the same 300 and men and practically the same at the field. The choice should be more obvious. And the speed is a very nice stat because it has to be used right, so it does not give an auto advantage. Make highlanders speedy, really speedy. Also, drop the swordsmen from the group. Men at arms and highlanders are way better and price is 200 vs 300. Swordsmen is a useless unit here.
3) French:
Well here its kinda wrong. Whats so special about French? Templars and Normans right? But Normans are worse then men at arms and still cost more. There is no way you will buy Normans instead of men at arms. I really think they are very weak, they should be more in line with roman infantry. Maybe you should increase Norman defense to 10 or 15. Then you make Normans a decent unit and you drop men at arms from the group, because it’s again abundant option. If Norman is a decent infantry, men at arms are too close to them to use them.
But you need to add either heavy crossbows or halberds to the group. Otherwise it’s has nothing but templars. Which are good, but teutons are better, so if I need a heavy infantry setup, I’ll go with german group, French needs another good option to make the group worth it.
4) German:
Well, it’s all about teutons. They should be very good, so if I want a steel infantry punch I’ll go with germans, but I think allowing crossbows with teuton can possibly produce very strong army. Maybe you should change the crossbows to heavy crossbows, then due to limited gold player will have to choose between best shock infantry and best ranged infantry. Now I’m afraid that teutons army can build up with “cheap” crossbows too fast on a tower map. And initial gold will allow to have a lot of shock infantry power and good armored ranged power at the same time. Maybe you should break it a bit and introduce the real choice between amazing infantry power and amazing ranged punch.5) Italian:
Very nice group. Clear halberds + heavy crossbows. I would only suggest to remove feudal knights. These guys just don’t go with the style and way too abundant unit in like half of other groups. By choosing Italian you can get best possible anti-cavalry infantry setup, so why don’t you sacrifice heavy cavalry? If you play Italians it’s not about cavalry anyway.
6) Spanish:
On the other hand Spanish has no decent infantry whatsoever, so it should be about cavalry. You should definitely add feudal knights here, then Spanish will be cavalry group. Now they are pretty useless, think about it: horse archers are nothing near steppe cavalry, Jinettes are nothing special and that’s it – nothing, all other units are basic and present in other groups, so there is no point in using Spanish right now.
But if you add feudal knights it will be European cavalry group, special.
7) Central European:
This group has NOTHING. I can’t possibly explain why you make it on the first place. Think for yourself – what unit make special or useful? It has no style, no strategy, just very basic units together.
I think you should drop it altogether. There is no point in keeping or enforcing it.
8 ) Balkan:
Well, Balkan has Steppe and Pronoias, both are very nice, but not unique. The group infantry is amazingly weak and ranged is also nothing special. I think you should enforce the group with roman infantry, that will give it a chance to be solid all around group. They don’t have heavy cavalry, don’t have heavy ranged, don’t have any decent shock infantry, I think roman infantry should fill the void. The roman infantry is both very good medium infantry and historically acceptable for the group.
Since you hopefully drop the Central European, this enforcement will make Balkans good choice with special style.
9) Russians:
Boyars and steppe - should be good, but not as good as feudal knights and crossbows, right? Now other major groups have halberds, teutons, templars, longbows and such. But Russians have not.
Technically, they won’t manage like that. They need some infantry to help them. But I clearly see your intention to make them light and cheap group. Add Vikings here. Vikings are cheap, light by stats but with morale bonus they should blend right in. Well, actually highlanders with high speed would be very nice here, but we can’t spit on history accuracy that much. So no highlanders, but as far as I know Vikings were extensively used by russians as a mercenaries.
Since the group is very close to Balkans it also will make a perfect balance – Balkans will have a bit heavier infantry with roman infantry, but Russians will have a bit better cavalry with Boyars. But both rely on masses of “slavonic specials”.
10) Norse:
Norse, well, again like with Central European – totally useless group. I understand that you wanted to keep Vikings, but lets face it – Norse has nothing worth or special. Moreover they wont manage against ANY other group. I say you should drop them – since you again hopefully move Vikings to Russian group they will be in a game, varangians are clearly Byzantine unit, everything else is a basic units abundant in everywhere.
For now it wil be all, I don’t want to touch Arabic/Islamic groups for now, but I think you should drop some groups there too. Now why I argue for dropping and enforcing some groups – you don’t really need 50 groups. But you need really useful ones, what’s the point in central European group if no one will ever use it, or norse on that matter. But by my logic you can make groups to be a style thing there the player can follow some style and get some advantages and disadvantages or have solid but not perfect group like Balkans.
Also I think that you wont be able to make every group balanced against all others, but you can really move their balance apart so group choice will lead to specific style which can both have very weak or very strong opponents.
Well, I hope it helps. Thanks for reading.
Please leave any comments you have about groups and unit balance for multiplayer, player feedback is a huge help for devs.