quote:Original post by Zileas
Regarding versatility and balance math:
1) Versatality is more of a qualitative thing. It doesnt work well in math. You just have to think hard about it You can break it down to math in terms of effectiveness in probable situations related to having the unit in the first place, but its really ugly.
Well you arent far wrong there. My way of looking at it would be in terms of performance in a given terrain, since the terrain should be one of the most important factors in any RTS. So an infantry unit might have a effectiveness of 5 compared to a tanks 10, but it is effective in all types of terrain (say you have 10 fairly distinct terrain types) whereas the tank is only at 100% effectiveness on a couple of terrain types, whereas others it is hindered or completely denied access. So, while your infantry unit has an overall value of 5x10 = 50, your tank only operates at full effectiveness on open terrain (plains, grassland, hills), half effectiveness on difficult terrain (cleared woodland, rocky ground, dense city regions, marshes) and completely denied access to the rest of the terrain types (steep cliffs, woodland etc) so its value is 10x3 + 5x5 + 2x0 = 50. So your tank and infantry unit is, in theory, balanced. Of course, the actual value of the unit depends on the map and how you use the unit - this is where the players choices make a difference. In a perfectly balanced game that doesnt take this into account, it makes no difference at all whether I build tanks or infantry - they are both perfectly balanced. In a game that does take this into account, the value of the unit varies according to how it is used, where it is on the map, and what terrain types there are on the map. Play then becomes more about using the terrain to your advantage than about massing huge numbers of the biggest most powerful unit you can lay your grubby mitts on.
Edited by - Sandman on November 12, 2001 7:51:44 AM