Unit Customization, Logistics and Combat?

yeah...  we are all awaiting those answers.   I'm sure we are going to have as noob safe as it can be for unit customization.   I hope that there is a system or formula that helps hold balance within the units.   Things like having a stat to cost conversion rate is how it should happen.   Possibly having time based on what is required in a tech tree to have it.   I'm generally really existed to hear.   Frogboy's been giving us bits and pieces here of late, its only been high-concept work, but its better than nothing.

For example, your #3 has been answered here today already.   If something gives the 'feeling of unfairness' then it is our job in the beta stages to try to direct in a more heart warming direction.

Yeah, you're right that they'll probably fix the "WHAT THE $&#*!" moments in the beta, landisaurus. But in retrospect, I should have been more specific on the "feeling of unfairness". In Civilizations series, for example, you might have a unit of riflemen attacking a unit of Longbowmen. Now logic would dictate that the Riflemen would hose the bowmen, but for some perverse reason the archers win! Or worse, you send a tank to crush crossbowmen and the tank is scrap. This sort of thing has happen to me before in Civ 3 and 4, and caused a lot of WTF moments. In both Rome: Total War and Medieval 2: Total War I had a fairly good idea as to what went wrong. But in Civ 3 and 4, all i could do is send a massive wave, one unit at a time, to capture a city and expect to lose half of my men even when i had the dramatically superior forces and technology.

I too hope that there will be a balancer system for unit customization. Naturally, if you create a super heavy infantry model equipped with the best and most armor, a tower shield, a sword and bow it would, and should, come with a hefty price tag and take several turns to fully train where as a simple model of spearmen given rudementary armor and maybe a small shield would be pretty cheap and take very little time to recruit. But in the end, that super heavy infantry would be worth the time and gold to make them.

Well, some of that is that the bowmen have setup defences and stuff.  Really rifles arn't that much better than bows if the archers can find a way to bring the riflemen within kill distance.

Yeah, that is pretty stupid.  I can't defend this one.   I didn't think that is true, unless the tank is already damaged.  Tanks (at least in civ 4, I skipped civ 3) are like power 20 or 30 where crossbowmen are like power 8, so unless the crossbowmen have like +60% defence bonus from garrison I'm not sure that happens.   The strength differece is not as crazy as it is for ships (frigate = power like 8, ironclad = power 14, destroyer = power 20, battleship power 30.   Destroyers will eat anything below it other than maybe a ironclad that is crazy lucky or comes with 3 friends that attacked 1st)

In terms of conversion rate, I can image that if something adds +2 armor, it would cost the same as anything else that adds + 2 armor.  I don't care if its +2 armor from barding, a shield, or because it has a touch backside.  If it has 2 over base armor, then it costs the same to make that jump.   So lets say giving a man a horse adds +2 armor (higher ground, so harder to hurt in combat), +2 damage (charging), and +4 speed.  It would be the same as a regular man on foot that has an extra shield (+2 armor), a bigger sword (+2 damage), and ... uh... steroids? (1st thing to come to mind able to give +4 speed to infantry)     Obviously that would be a lot harder to get the guy on drugs since you'd have to get extra metal for the shield and sword, and find a way to make steroids for the extra speed, but in general it would still be fair.    I imagine we can create a 'fair' way to balance cost per unit vs. cost per research.  That way it would be simple and fair no matter what customer created for their custom units, it would be mostly balanced

Stimpacks anyone?

The conversion rate seems like a very good, and simple, idea. it does put everything in perspective. A basic stat configuration to help give a comparison would go far, if not a long way, in helping us see what we're getting ourselves into. Both a Heavy Infantry and a Cavalry models, if i'm reading you right, might have the same attack and defence stats but without those horses the cavalry unit would be comparibly weaker and be just as slow as the Heavy Infantry unit. Thus making the only difference between the two units is that the Cavalry unit is much faster and more manueverable. Of course, depending on the quality of the horses or whether there is an option for factions, previous or player created, to have specific animal husbandry bonus(es), like boosted attack, defence, speed or price reduction, a cavalry unit may be more cost (both gold and training time (turns)) effective than said infantrymen.

Another aspect to take into consideration is weapons. Lets look at the variables between a spear, an axe and a broadsword and ignore the other weapon varients (like halberds, pikes, bows, two-hander weapons and pitchforks) for the time being.

Cost and Quantity of Materials Needed: the amount of metal required to make one basic broadsword would be the equivalent, oh lets just say, 5 basic spearheads and axes would fall somewhere in the middle. From this alone, spearmen would naturally be cheaper to produce and maintain than swordsmen.

Training: Spears, being straight forward, don't require much training in their use; remember stick'em with the pointy end. Axemen on other hand need more training time so they don't accidently turn themselves into eunichs. And swordsmen, well, require even more extensive training because of the weapon's versatility.

Attack and Defense: I consider spears to be more of a defensive weapon (in that they keep an enemy at a distance but limit attack options as they are best used as thrusting weapons). So as a balancing factor we could make spears have a weaker attack but an okay defensive ratio. Axes are all about aggression and hitting the enemy hard but give little in the way of defense. And swords being naturally more versatile would have a more balanced ratio.

Or put in numerical terms of AP (Attack Points) DP (Defense Points) TN (Turns Needed) UM (Units of said Metal) and $ (cost) to train a single Spearman, Axeman and Swordsman. (Just the requirements for the weapons alone)

Spearman: 1AP 3DP 3TN 1UM 5$ Axeman: 3AP 1DP 5TN 2.5UM 7$ Swordsman: 3AP 3DP 7TN 5UM 10$

Of course, this is just a rough sketch that could help make players decide on how they want their armies configured just from weapon selections alone. And you probably noticed, I didn't add weapon characteristics on purpose like Spears bonus against Cavalry (which I consider just a tactical advantage not a Scissor's beat Paper absolute, cause under the right circumstances a force of cavalry could wipe out a force of spearmen).

Oh and I did checkout Frogboy's latest info tease...after you mentioned it.   I guess it would have been funnier if i had posted this a day prior. but at least he answered two of this post's questions.

I wonder, how complicated the tactical combat is going to be handeled. It would have important consequences for customization of equipment.

Let's say I want to create a pike for my anti knight infantry. They need pikes to unhorse the knights. How shall a situation like this be resembled? I guess, there would be basically two ways:

1: during the pike creation you add points. A basic spear has an attack value of 1. The new pike has a +1 value (makes 2 ). The weapon would have in all cases the same value, no matter what its opponent. It would be simple, noob proof and it would work for the overall game. However, it would not reflect the unhorsing ability (In my oppinion, this would be way too simple and not too much fun...).

2: during the pike creation you add abilities: the pike has an attack value of 1 like the basic spear. However, against a horse rider it gets a 1+ bonus. Then perhaps, this weapon would be not very effective in close quarters: -1 for hand to hand combat... This would really lead to the feeling of having created sth different, then just a better spear like in example #1. But it also complicates the system. And it might not prevent the creation of überweapons (the heavenly meteor throwing, bear cavalery creating, mega super swiss army pike. Can also be used for gardening and buttering a bread...). Then on the other hand: if a player wants to create such a content, why not? We don't have to download it and implement it in our game, right?

One could also set a point limit for the equipment. Just for the sake of argument: let's take a limit of 10. The spear had 1 point, the unhorsing ability has another point. There is the negative point for the close quarter combat. Perhaps another negative point for combat in forests... Then we have an overall of "0". This would still give you the possibility to create better weapons for another 10 points  A bronze reinforcement raises the attack value by 1+, a parade bar raises the defense by 1+. Now we are at 2.

This should also be reflected in the production of the weapon: Each point given would automatically add to the production: 1 day to create this long spear, another day for adding the hook on top for the unhorsing abbility, etc... But negative points do not add to the production (It IS just a better spear after all..).

Hope this makes any sense. Well, I guess we need more information on the game itself to really talk about it...

Hm... If I think about it, it would be a good idea to have basic categories for creating equipment/units.

During weapon creation, you have to choose the type of weapon you want to build (longe range: bow, close quarter: sword, extended reach:pike, siege: catapult) . The categories themself already come with a predefined set of values/ abilities:

long range has an attack value of 1. It's special ability is that it can attack everything within 5 tiles of the archer during the combat. It comes with a defence of 0 and has a -2 attack value in the forest or during rain (if weather effects will be included).

Based on this category, one can start to build better equippment: from leather reinforcment (allows for higher tension of the bow and thus longer reach (+1 on reach: the archer can attack everything within 6 tiles now)) up to the iron reinforced semi automatic loading crossbow... You get the idea.

I have no clue how the final system is going to work. But I would love if one could somehow merge units to form a new one: There is the archer and just in front of him a swordsman with a huge shield protecting both of them from long range weapons. If there is a close quarter combat, the swordsman automatically defends the archer, thus both function as a single unit. This would basically result in an archer with high defence capabilities. However, it needs two men, and the proper equipment, making it a very expensive unit.

Man, the possibilities!

Yeah, just wait for my bear cavalery with their swiss army pike of doom... Eating a lot of buttered bread and having a fable for gardening...

Or just place those shield toting swordsmen a notch infront of the archers.

Don't get me wrong. Your idea has merit, GHenrikG, and would create an extra layer of tactical options; like say said archers and said footmen both have lost a lot of men and merging them together would bolster their numbers as one unit but completely changes their military makeup. This would also create some pretty funky balance issues and might be inpractical and unnecessary.

But if you want to make armored archers with acces to a melee weapon then go ahead and make'em, I know I would.  

What would be nice if Stardock, in all of their wisdom, allowed us to make units with a Primary Weapons Setup (PWS), a Secondary Weapons Setup (if balance issues allow a Secondary Weapon Setup to work) or (SWS) and a Ranged Weapon Setup (RWS).

Example: Say you want to make a hybrid unit of armored swordsmen and archers. You just place desired type of armor in the specified slots (Head, Shoulders, Arms, Hands, Torso (maybe an undershirt equivalent armor also), Beltline, Legs and Feet, Oh, and don't forget the cape, the big poofy cape). Then place a sword and shield in the PWS slots, and add a bow and a quiver full of arrows in the RWS slots.

Of course, the balance issues can b resolved by the fact you need to first research the needed equipment and have access to the right materials and then take into consideration the time and gold needed to produce them and finally the gold required to maintain said unit. In Layman's terms, you may not be able to field a large number of said troops and may be outnumbered in serveral skirmishes and pitched battles but your men will still do a lot of damage.

Look at the Roman Legionares as a historical example. They would throw their javelins or pila (plural for pilum) at the enemy and then engage them with their massive shields and gladius'. The Persian Immortals (which were apparently hybrids between archers and spearmen, huh, during the era of the battle of thermopoly) are another case in point.

@ Fenhiro:

Yeah, you might be right, it might complicate things a bit.

However, there have been other historical examples in which there actually have been teams of archers and shieldmen. Just googled it and found this:

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/articles/defensive_archery.html

Of course, a secondary type of weapon/defense system would be a good thing. I personally would love to additionally combine things, too (just like in the archer/swordmen example. The basic costs would be the same for the combination of those units compared to the single units. By combining, however, the archers would get the swordman's shield defence, too, thus having a higher survivability than the single archer unit. This would come at a cost though as the swordman can no longer move around freely.)

My fear is the following: we end up with sth similair like the spore generator: purely asthetics. Thus we need complexity for the generator. I hope we don't just get a sword +1, teched up to +2 and then to +3. I would like to be able to decide if the unit uses a longsword and a shield or a twohanded weapon which does not allow to have a shield. i would also like to define some abilites for the equipment. like a pike having a bonus against riders and things like that.

Well, it might be indeed too complicated...

I am very much in favor of this. I don't think it would be unbalanced - for all the reasons you already gave. It would also require more time to train the units, because they'd have to learn both of them. But yeah, I think it would definitely add a lot to combat. It would be crazy fun to watch my Bear Cavalry fire off a few volleys towards the enemy while charging before switching over to their spears or swords for impact and close-combat.

Yeah I forgot about the practicality of archers being behind large pavise shields and mantlets, of course, if my memory serves me right these kind of defenses were used primarily in siege battles (to protect your archers from the besieged enemies own archers).

On a historical level, it wasn't uncommon for small groups of archers to integrate with more melee oriented infantrymen and cavalry, especially in skirmishes. But for pitched battles, segregating troop types was more practical. And from what frogboy  said about the general idea of battles, early game battles will be minor skirmishes with only a handful of troops (so having a good mix of troop types is only sound) at your command where each unit is an individual rather than a representive of a unit and thus more precious, in a sense. Then as the game progresses the individual units become larger in number until we get Lord of The Rings battle for Minas Tirith preportions.

Another unit customization item, that i personally think would be sweet, which allows us pick special abilities buttons that are either gear oriented or not.

      Examples: Say you give a unit a massive shield you could give your unit the option to form up into a testudo or a shied wall formations or give them a technique like shield bash. Or if they have spear like weapons you could select the abilities to form up into either a phalanxe or a hedgehog formation. Other, non-gear oriented, abilities could include: Stealth (ideal for ambushes and concealing troop strength), a CHARGE! attack ability that boosts speed and attack (good for infantry, even better for cavalry), but gives a negative side affect like weaker defense, if balancing is needed or the ability to setup boobytraps like sharpen stakes (a bonus defensive against enemy troops, most likely cavalry)

Now how can these be balanced? 1.) research the needed Techs. 2.) require specific facilities like a ninja school or thieves guild to train specifieds units in stealth. 3.) make progressive upgrades from relatively weak to increasinly better versions. 4.) require a certain amount of money and time needed to produce units with said abilities (but not maintain; you don't need gold to maintain a skill or ability). 5.) limit the number of abilities a unit can have (soldiers would get very few but heroes would have more cause they're, well, heroes). 6.) a cooldown period might work depending on the ability. 7) have a natural counter like say an enemy troop form up into a phalanxe and you have catapults (which would do more damage to said troops for they're more compact).   and 8.) negative side effects like said previously for CHARGE!.

But the beauty is that these are just plain, unmagicked, abilities and would not deprive your Channeller of precious mana.

I for one would love to build a nice force of battlefield assassins to harrass, ambush and confound my opponents.

If you guys like in depth threads about warfare mechanics... and I'm sensing that you do.. then you'll love: http://forums.el3ementalgame.com/32960

How did that 3 get in there?  

Ha ha ha.. 3 is the magic number!

I've been wandering where that thread was... been trying to find it for days.

If you don't already do it, I highly recommend adding site:forums.elementalgame.com to your search terms at your favorite engine. That thread is the first hit for "weapon mechanics site:forums.elementalgame.com" at Gurgle.

 Actually part of the problem was I forgot what the thread was called, so it was partially my fault.