sinusgamma

Join Date 08/2010

[suggestion] army size

I think the four army quantity is against the balance of the game. I think it a goog idea, but I feel it unbalanced at its present state.

See my problem: When you are going trough the techtree, you are receiving better equipment, larger army size (from 4 to 9), and larger army quantity (3/5/7/9).

These changes would make a difference alone, but together they boost too fast the player's advantage. I dont think the AI to be able to exploit this opportunities properly or immediatelly. So I can have a super army which can devastate the AI's smaller and less equipped armies.

For example when you train a group(5) instead of a party(3) you double the size of your units in an army. For example when you reach logistic you can have an army with 5 slots. The prior army (with 1 hero and 4 party) consist of 13 units. The army with logistic can consist of 21 units (1 hero, 4 groups), but after +1 army size 26. And I didn't mention the difference in quality.

So the first army has 0 percent chance to make a scrape on the new. (Ok, its hero can.)

I think the quantities could help a bit to avoid the sudden maxarmypower-jumps.

Presently we have: party(3), group(5), squad(7), company(9)

But what if:

5/7/9 - the problem with this could be the necessity of the full early game rebalance because of the larger army size

4/6/8 - better than above

4/5/6/8 - I think this the best (not large jumps, but its worth to develop, depending on playstyle you can skip 5 or 6)

3/4/6/8 - similar to the recent setout

4/5/7/9 - if we want 9

So these are my ideas . . . opinion???

(and excuse me for my bad english)

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Problem with this is that, all it does is delay the stack of doom effect, not prevent it.

my idea if you are interested in looking @:

A combination of Reinforcement system[Mount and Blade] and Group size Penalty system[Larger the group, lower the initiative, movement, etc] would be the best in my opinion.

Not only would this resolve the stack of dooms[as numerous weaker armies actually have a chance against a single stronger army], but also actually give the player viability to choose to train smaller stacks of unitsover larger ones.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't get why this isn't on the list of choices:

6, 7, 8, 9... start with 6 guys, with 9 guys maxed. That way, the beginning troops and militias has a better chance against higher end troops. Research adds some power, but not insane unbalancing amounts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the devs should test it.

To Replicators: Your idea can be good, but I think it needs a lot of change in the game mechanic and the AI would be very bad at handling the reinforce part. I tryed to think in the actual mechanism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting sinusgamma,

reply 3

There are a lot of variations which could be good. My problem with 6/7/8/9 is that it would need the total rebalance of the early game because of the doubled size of the parties (3 -> 6). But with proper balance it could work.

I think the devs should test it.

To Replicators: Your idea can be good, but I think it needs a lot of change in the game mechanic and the AI would be very bad at handling the reinforce part. I tryed to think in the actual mechanism.

It is a lot of work, but it solves so many issues.

Anyways, the 6/7/8/9 system would balance the group size issue by making the improvement similar in capability/cost to other researches, like armor, etc. I wanted to make the group sizes to have more of a meaning than that.

With this system however, I hope Stardock allows for the ability to upgrade group sizes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How about putting the troop size upgrades in the Civ tech tree. That could make for more interesting choices. Do you quantity (Civ) or quality (Warfare/Magic)?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Trojasmic,

reply 5

How about putting the troop size upgrades in the Civ tech tree. That could make for more interesting choices. Do you quantity (Civ) or quality (Warfare/Magic)?

I like the idea, but it isn't a solution, only a tangent. (You can have it with whatever solution)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the only way to really balance it is to change how overpower is given to units.

If it was possible to kill a Forest Drake with a small elite team of soldiers with special traits for that task, then I think there would be an interesting choice to make. You can make a large team of 5 or 7 figure squads and hope that your armor and weapons are good enough, but its pretty risky.

I think having to choose between monster slaying and human slaying is an interesting choice to make. Choosing between a small team of elites and a larger group of less powerful soldiers is also an interesting choice.

Maybe if XP was split per figure amongst normal units, then it would balance out somewhat?I haven't played the game so maybe you guys have better ideas. I don't think simply changing the numbers will help that much, you have to make a trade off when having larger groups or else its a "yes, if i can afford it" option.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the easiest balancing thing you can do for group size is to increase the cost & time to produce it. Right now, it's not that hard to make high end groups of 9 in 4-5 turns in specialized cities, so if you compare that to a group of 3 in 3 turns, it's a no brainer. But what if a group of 9 takes 15 turns, while a group of 3 only takes 5 even in your best cities. Suddenly you might consider making smaller groups just to be able to use them at all.

Of course doing that has it's own pitfalls, and I'm sure there will be plenty of people screaming about how long it takes to train units. Compared with the mess that balancing it creates... the current system doesn't seem so bad.

Successfully updated karma reason!