• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

[0.16] Balancing Changes in Damage Calculation

Occlo

Guest
Let's hope this adds some sort of strategy instead of just the slug fest that current battles are.
 

Fleur

Guest
I'm hoping this will reduce the losses of my frontline troops (currently sword dancers). Usually I've been losing a lot of them just because my archers can't take out all of the opposing shooters or casters in the first round. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 

DeletedUser18

Guest
Keep in mind, these will affect your units in the same way as it will affect your enemies. This just means that the number of remaining troops is responsible for 90% of your total damage, as opposed to 50% as it was before.

So a full stack of 100 archers (example) will do about 10x the damage of a stack of 100 archers damaged down to 1 unit with the new system. With the old system, it meant that 100 archers would have done 2x the damage of a stack of 100 archers damaged down to 1 unit. The rebalancing will change alot of strategies to be sure, I am interested in the possibilities where we go from here.
 

Fleur

Guest
My general strategy is to use overwhelming force. (It's not much of a strategy, but it's what I do.) Therefore any reductions on the other side in the first round are much larger than the ones on my side. Under current conditions, the much-reduced force on the other side still deals at least half the damage even if I've taken out 90% of it. Usually I have more than 50% left after the first round and the other side has less than 50%. Seems like this could only benefit me.
 

DeletedUser64

Guest
i noticed before that low amount of troops do high damage, more than the should be, so finishing off was much better than damaging more
usually its a damage output which you can use to kill or damage units, for example 7 treants do like 800 dmg, or 4 do 400 dmg, you can calculate that you could kill the remaining 40 orks or rather kill the 60, it seems logical for most players to let alive the 40 and kill more from other troop
usually it was better to go for sure and kill the ones already damaged, have more troops, more action points, than do max damage and receive one more round, hope this fix it
this will be better for elves, as they got more hp, less dmg, so bit longer fights, also this improves the tactic of killing ranged units and let melee hit you, basically tanking opponents over
ai dont really focuses on hitting the backline, maybe just the wardogs, staying out of range benefits the players, its more realistic this way
gives bonus for landing first hits and peeling, and punishes less for missing last hits
there are some countering phases when you can let 5-10 soldiers alive, focus others, receive damage and let them die from the counterattack
 

Avon of Barksdale

Guest
I definitely like this change. It feels like I'm able to win battles now with far fewer losses.
 

DeletedUser64

Guest
treants are bad vs ranged, sword dancers are not so fast as cerberii, tested once vs golems, kinda works but still losing much more than treants before
if the size increases the knights range, it should be increased for treants too, the only unit now which cant attack back archers which is a serious balance problem
 

Avon of Barksdale

Guest
Treants aren't supposed to be good against archers. They have really high health and hp, far higher than that of a paladin.
 

DeletedUser64

Guest
not so far based on weight and based on all elves got more hp than humans
 

Phoequndt

Guest
This mechanic seems to keep new players scratching their heads. A single crossbowman (surviving from a stack of 200) should intuitively do 0.5%, not 10%, of the original stack damage. The "last man standing" effect just seems unrealistic.
 

DeletedUser18

Guest
In battles, I prefer to think of them as "hit points" not actual units. So it's a weakened stack with originally 200 health that is not shooting as effectively. At least that's the way I've rationalized it, the developers and other players may beg to differ.
 

DeletedUser749

Guest
Actual Comment:
I agree wholeheartedly with Phoequndt!
The change is an improvement to the old system which I thankfully never got to experience. It sounds absolutely mindboggling that losing 99% of a stack only takes 50% of it's damage output. So in that respect it is a good change, but the whole system should just be removed.
There is little logic in 1 man out of a hundred suddenly having the strength of 10.9
You say you rationalise it as hitpoints instead of units. Picture this: A knight has lost 99% of all his health. Can he still hold and fire a bow? Swing a sword? how useful is he in combat if I chop off his arms (i.e. not dead, just very high loss of "health")? If anything, regarding it as hitpoints should have a unit stack rendered even less powerful the more it loses. Maybe even with a threshold beneath which it does 0 dmg.

More whining:
Lets have a quick look at the current battle scene. A small combat field where most units can attack in the first turn. All your units have their turn before the units of the enemy, but you do not decide the order. Your units are fixed in starting-place in the middle of the battlefield with no alternatives to starting positions. All of these things drastically hinders any shred of "strategy" in this game. Combined with this obscure mechanic for damage it matters relatively little what you do on the battlefield.
Players get the turn first so you will be able to make more or less sure to get the first big barrage (good terrain - charge/bad terrain - wait a turn). I would think this mechanic of last man standing is there to ensure that the players will lose a chunk of troops. However I think it's not necessary with an extra mechanic for that, given these:
* Enemies can have stacks up to 5 times the size of players (from what little I've seen so far).
* Enemies can have at least 2 more stacks than the player on the field.
* 6 out of 9 provinces have ranged units in their lineups. No amount of archers I bring can take out everything in turn 1.
 

DeletedUser9551

Guest
In battle that i have seen, the enemy can have up to 8 units, that s 3 units stacks more than a player. The enemy can have up to 4-5 times or more your troops squads, (so much for squad upgrades!) the enemy seem to deal much more damage than the player s squad (so much for troop upgrades!)

All in all, the battle system is made so you can only win battle if you, not the enemy is overpowered and outnumbering your enemy, if the battle is balance or shift toward your opposition, you will lose quite a bit of troops, even if you use the best mix of troops or the best unit (assuming a fight vs 2 weak squad vs your best squad ex: archer/swordmen vs treant/golem)...
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
All in all, the battle system is made so you can only win battle if you, not the enemy is overpowered and outnumbering your enemy
Yep, that's how fights work (in real life too) Tactics help, but often you need either better troops, or more of them to win. Preferably both.
The enemy does have the ability to field 8 stacks against your 5, but the balance here is that you get to choose what to bring, they don't.

BTW +2 Necromancer points for finding a 2.5 year old thread to raise from the dead.:)
 

DeletedUser9601

Guest
Yep, that's how fights work (in real life too) Tactics help, but often you need either better troops, or more of them to win. Preferably both.
The enemy does have the ability to field 8 stacks against your 5, but the balance here is that you get to choose what to bring, they don't.

BTW +2 Necromancer points for finding a 2.5 year old thread to raise from the dead.:)
To piggyback on this, the battles are intended to have some attrition. If you could win every fight without losses, then 2 changes need to be made.
1. Troops and troop buildings need to become a heckuva lot more expensive, and
2. The value of winning fights needs to go way down.
The provinces are intended to serve as a gating mechanism, not only for expansions, but for KP and relics as well. Part of that mechanism is that you're going to lose some fights, and even when you win, you're going to have to spend time and resources rebuilding your troops.
 

DeletedUser9551

Guest
For me, it's less time and resources to replace troops than it is to replace the goods required to cater. I figure I have to spend something to clear a province; it costs me less to fight (and lose some troops) than catering.

I agree, when possible, fight, but truth is, those fight are so one sided for the enemy, even in tournament, that at some point you got no choice but to cater.. which in my case is simpler because of my good production and trade.
 
Top