Lets look at the Archer, Cavalry and Pikemen.
Although these actually form an SPR relationship that is not what is of interest. What we need to look at here is how they are used.
Archers are good at skirmishing. This means that they are not good at holding land. For them to be able to defeat pikemen, they would need to retreat (skirmish).
Pikemen are good at holding land as they are a defensive unit. To get the best out of them you have to let the enemy come to you. This makes them excellent for holding ground, but are not good at attacking (especially if the enemy has archers as they can retreat and you will take lots of damage).
Cavalry are great at taking ground as they are fast and can defeat archers. This enables them to out manoeuvre the slower pikemen and ride down the archers.
What this means is that all unit types are necessary. If the enemy just uses Pikemen, then you can either employ archers to turn them into pin cushions, or if the terrain favours it (open spaces) then you can use your cavalry to just go around them.
If you know that the enemy is going to use archers, then you can have a few cavalry units in reserve to go out and wipe them out. If they are using cavalry, then you need to look to the environment (choke points) to make the most use of your units.
So, even though the units have a hard SPR relationship, there exist tactics and strategies that go beyond this, just because we implemented the system through how the units beat the opponents, rather than just giving them a modifier to their attack power.
This forces the player to use all unit types so as to give them more flexibility in how they approach the problems.
This solves your second problem, but what about the first?
Actually the first is the most trivial. If the players ahve a limited amount of resources (say leaders to lead your troops, or gold to pay for them), then you have a natural limit that is imposed on the size of the army. The only difficulty is making this limit plausible (but there are many ways you can do this).
Unit limit (4 of each unit max for example ) a must for customizable armies?
Re: Edtharan
Your description is missing some parts because if pikemen suck at chasing archers, what is it that allows the pikemen to hold ground against archers (the pikemen obviously need to chase them, in order to kill them, and by doing so they are leaving the ground they are holding)? You said cavalry is good at taking ground because they can beat archers and pikemen, but you previously assumed that pikemen are good for holding ground.
The point about tactics is to allow archers to beat cavalry. The description could be that archers would beat cavalry if there is a wall and the archers can shoot from the wall. So when there is a wall/cliff/river/mud, archers would be the best unit to hold ground (until the wall is breached).
Another way to describe the interaction is:
o pikemen are good when they can fight without moving a lot
o archers are good when they can fight and the enemy can't fight back
o cavalry is good when the enemy is scattered across an area or in a sparse formation.
In this description, I don't need to say what unit beats what. It is up to the player to recognize the situations. For example, a group that is moving away from you is also a group that doesn't fight back. You shoot them regardless of their composition.
Your description is missing some parts because if pikemen suck at chasing archers, what is it that allows the pikemen to hold ground against archers (the pikemen obviously need to chase them, in order to kill them, and by doing so they are leaving the ground they are holding)? You said cavalry is good at taking ground because they can beat archers and pikemen, but you previously assumed that pikemen are good for holding ground.
The point about tactics is to allow archers to beat cavalry. The description could be that archers would beat cavalry if there is a wall and the archers can shoot from the wall. So when there is a wall/cliff/river/mud, archers would be the best unit to hold ground (until the wall is breached).
Another way to describe the interaction is:
o pikemen are good when they can fight without moving a lot
o archers are good when they can fight and the enemy can't fight back
o cavalry is good when the enemy is scattered across an area or in a sparse formation.
In this description, I don't need to say what unit beats what. It is up to the player to recognize the situations. For example, a group that is moving away from you is also a group that doesn't fight back. You shoot them regardless of their composition.
Quote:Original post by Wai
Re: Edtharan
Your description is missing some parts because if pikemen suck at chasing archers, what is it that allows the pikemen to hold ground against archers (the pikemen obviously need to chase them, in order to kill them, and by doing so they are leaving the ground they are holding)? You said cavalry is good at taking ground because they can beat archers and pikemen, but you previously assumed that pikemen are good for holding ground.
To take ground, archers have to displace the pikemen, which they can't do unless they get in range of the pikes :) Killing the other unit is not the only measure of success.
Re:
But the archers did displace the pikemen. They are dead and they decompose into the ground. (!!)
My point was that pikemen could not hold ground. Not that archers could hold ground instead. The assumption was that pikemen could hold ground, but according to the description, they couldn't if they are fighting against archers because they would have to leave the ground to attack them, or they would just get killed. So that contradicts with the assumption that pikemen could hold ground. I was just suggesting that the wording could be changed to that pikemen are good at fighting enemies that come to them on their own.
But the archers did displace the pikemen. They are dead and they decompose into the ground. (!!)
My point was that pikemen could not hold ground. Not that archers could hold ground instead. The assumption was that pikemen could hold ground, but according to the description, they couldn't if they are fighting against archers because they would have to leave the ground to attack them, or they would just get killed. So that contradicts with the assumption that pikemen could hold ground. I was just suggesting that the wording could be changed to that pikemen are good at fighting enemies that come to them on their own.
Massing a single type of unit should be a valid strategy in your game that sometimes works. If a player wants to do it, he should be able to.
However, if your massed units are a win EVERY time or a win MOST of the time, then you've got a problem. You need to put some kind of restriction on the unit itself, or make the other units in the game more appealing.
The only way to do this is through extensive playtesting.
For instance, in TA:Spring, an early strategy was the "brawler rush" in which the player would amass vast numbers of air units that were never intended to be in swarms. When the devs wanted to "nerf" the brawlers by making them prohibitively expensive, the players of this game complained, as it had become an integral part of the strategy of the game. So instead, they simply created a cheap and effective weapon that was great against swarmed air units, and average against lone air units (ie, it had a lot of splash damage). This made swarming brawlers less appealing, as it could easily be countered. So instead players started supporting their brawler swarms with bombers to take out the ground-based anti-air, or would sweep in with a fast ground attack before sending the brawlers in. Often, players would try a brawler rush with the belief that the other player wasn't building anti-air. If the other player did forsee the rush, and built the anti-air, the brawler-rush would be completely demolished, and the player making the rush will have wasted almost all his resources. Occasionally, a brawler rush would succeed, yet knowing he could have easily countered it, the other player is not left with a feeling that he was cheated. With a bit of tweaking, this made a brawler rush a "gamble" for the player making it, rather than a "sure win."
In any case, the moral of the story is that you should balance by playtesting. Creating artificial limits in code may stifle innovation on the part of the players. You shouldn't simply close off a strategy unless it obviously breaks gameplay. The only way to figure out if it breaks gameplay is to test your game.
However, if your massed units are a win EVERY time or a win MOST of the time, then you've got a problem. You need to put some kind of restriction on the unit itself, or make the other units in the game more appealing.
The only way to do this is through extensive playtesting.
For instance, in TA:Spring, an early strategy was the "brawler rush" in which the player would amass vast numbers of air units that were never intended to be in swarms. When the devs wanted to "nerf" the brawlers by making them prohibitively expensive, the players of this game complained, as it had become an integral part of the strategy of the game. So instead, they simply created a cheap and effective weapon that was great against swarmed air units, and average against lone air units (ie, it had a lot of splash damage). This made swarming brawlers less appealing, as it could easily be countered. So instead players started supporting their brawler swarms with bombers to take out the ground-based anti-air, or would sweep in with a fast ground attack before sending the brawlers in. Often, players would try a brawler rush with the belief that the other player wasn't building anti-air. If the other player did forsee the rush, and built the anti-air, the brawler-rush would be completely demolished, and the player making the rush will have wasted almost all his resources. Occasionally, a brawler rush would succeed, yet knowing he could have easily countered it, the other player is not left with a feeling that he was cheated. With a bit of tweaking, this made a brawler rush a "gamble" for the player making it, rather than a "sure win."
In any case, the moral of the story is that you should balance by playtesting. Creating artificial limits in code may stifle innovation on the part of the players. You shouldn't simply close off a strategy unless it obviously breaks gameplay. The only way to figure out if it breaks gameplay is to test your game.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
