What is overpowered?

I suggest a change of title, this has the chance of being genuinely helpful to the devs but a lot of people will skip it just because of its title, assuming its just some silly pun they are not in the mood for.

Not exactly on-topic, but did you notice that MP files and SP files have their own folder structure in the game directory?  I'm hoping this means that SP won't get shafted with all the changes needed to make MP "balanced".

So what's overpowered?  For me, as a single-player only player, anything a human can easily exploit that the AI doesn't use at all.  Good example:  Organized trait.  I can run all over the map with my sovereign-stack-of-doom taking cities and popping goody huts while the AI leaders sit next to their cities or wander aimlessly with a couple units.  If the AI can't use a feature, either 1) teach it how or 2) take it out.

I think the issue is less about what's overpower so much as "when" it is overpowered. The strength of different strategies scale at drastically different rates. Every aspect of the game is overpowered or underpowered at some point.

The one exception to this is teleport, which makes the only viable war-strategy at any point in the game to create a stack of doom of your choice (early game heroes, mid game summons/archers, late game troops, etc) and just bounce it around to wherever you need to go. And buff up essense and imbue everything to make more teleporting possible because every other stat in the game is strategically retarded.

In my opinion something is overpowered if it has no viable counter. I really think this is why the devs have to have an over arching plan for game balance thats takes into account all of the mechanics of the game. Game balanceing should be build into the design process from the start and not an after thought. Stardock don't want to end up like blizzard always reacting to changes they have made. Be proactive

I was thinking the same thing...if there is no counter it is overpowered. Ironically the example above is kindof gray.  The only counter is to do the same type of summoning, but that is a decission that must be made before the game starts. Once in the game, you see this hell hound rush coming, there is no way to counter it if you didn't select the right spell books.

I think saying doing balance in the design is a lot easier said than done. It only takes one person to find out a good strategy, which spreads to everyone and suddenly this one issue is overpowered (say one hero with three spy/vigalent minions).

Well, for me overpowered means that it something extremly powerful can only be achieve by someone and not all the player. For example: if only I can build a super strong army of 500 mans with magical item/armor/sword and nobody can: it's overpowered. BUT, if everybody as a similar option, it's not overpowered. It all boil down on how you play your game. Like xStarfirex said: if it has no viable counter it's overpowered. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have some kind of advantage if you choose to follow the magic way insteed of warfare or everybody should play the same way because it's the only viable counter, but I see a systeme more like rock, paper, scissor, serpent, Mr.Spock (dont know for sure if it's serpent or not but refer to a t-shirt from think geek, correct me if I'm wrong) so if you use warfare for victory, it should be useful to defeat X but weak against Y.

edit: It's lizard, not serpent .

Honestly, I can't imagine this game in multiplayer...  probably won't play it.  Maybe if tactical combat changes dramatically I might change my mind.

yo mamas breath is overpowered!

sorry.  couldnt help myself.

I would call that maybe not "overpowered" but there should be more counters for that unit/strategy available at that point of the game. The combination itself probably is not overpowered, there just aren't enough other viable choices to use/counter that combo/strategy. For example, if there was a trainable unit that could counter hell-hounds, then perhaps the player could tech to it. Or if there was a spell that could be researched, but is in the "basic" spell book that did extra damage to summons, that would be a counter.

I think that's what's happening a lot in the game right now. The units in and off themselves aren't overpowered, there's just too many obvious choices/obvious differences in quality to where there's a lack of viable variety in certain stages of the game.

It's basically game theory's dominant strategy. There are a few different factors into whether something is a DS.

The DS must always be the best choice either by maximizing benefit or minimizing harm. The DS must always be the best choice regardless of the choice the opponent makes - that is, no matter what choice the opponent makes, the DS is in a better position.

Basically, the DS eliminates choice. You're always better off using the DS and the opponent can, at best, only limit how far behind they are while never being able to catch up.

This makes it a two part problem. If the counter to DS is too rare, too limited, too costly, in some fashion, that's bad. For instance, if I have to tech up a very specific tree to defeat something, that's a poor counter (more so if that path doesn't really help me much). However, if the DS is the best choice because the other options hurt me more or help me less, that's bad too. 

In context, you can't only look at what they're doing. You have to look at what the other players are doing and what options are available for both players. What are the costs to making the choices. If I did something different, how does that comparatively harm and hurt me. Is it possible that another choice may not give me something as good but also doesn't hurt as much.

So in the end... a strategy can be powerful, even be a massive advantage. However it must come with enough opportunity costs as well as enough alternative options that it is not the -only- possible and advantageous option. If making a melee Sovereign allows me to crush early opposition but a  magical Sov can match me and also both of us lose out on something the other has and we have weaknesses that can be utilized readily - and we're also still evenly matched against all the other types of Sovs, then it doesn't matter how powerful the choice is because there are always better (and different) choices in some situations. 

In addition, one also must be wary of mixing up the wants of different types of players (something game theory does not cover). For some players, games are puzzles. They figure out systems and see what solves the puzzle (what wins). These types of players are less likely to see something as overpowered compared to other types of players who may approach the game as a competition, who may approach the game as fantasy (fun doing something out of the ordinary), or who may want or have other desires from their game.  For instance, a player who likes competition may prefer a little unpredictability and human randomness; they want that sense of jockeying back and forth. However, for the player who sees the game as a puzzle this is -bad-. To them, this would be like the puzzle changing rules and pieces on them. This is mostly a matter of player appeal though, but it is important to understand as different types of players will see things in different fashions. This does not make them -wrong-, however.

"Overpowered" is really a question of context more than anything else.

Let's take a look at two of the common recipients of this moniker; Ranged Tactical Combat and 1.08 Magic.

For the Ranged Tactical Combat you have a few things to consider. First and foremost is the Archer's ability to strike a melee unit without fear of counter attack. While in terms of how the AI responds to ranged attacks makes this *seem* overpowered, it really isn't its just a matter of tactical choices. Their actual effectiveness in terms of striking, however, could easily be considered overpowered. Coupled with the capacity to shoot arrows ad-nauseum in every combat, they should perhaps be looked at.

Bows are an early-mid game weapon which *should* perform well against lightly armored and/or densely packed units. The more solid armor a unit wears, particularly active defenses such as shields, should dramatically reduce the effectiveness. At present this is not the case.

In terms of Magic (1.08); I really feel that it is largely working as intended. You start the game with exactly one valuable unit who is capable of even using magic, and it requires the expenditure of a capped-collection slow-regenerating resource. While this isn't exactly the system I would choose to use (and is apparently being changed for 1.1), it is an acceptable trade-off for the raw power of magic. Again, you could definitely make the argument that the AI doesn't really understand what "best use" of most of these spells are, as I've seen it ignore good area effect opportunities as well as targets like my archers in exchange for shooting fire at a fire giant. Similarly, the AI doesn't seem to understand that bunching together makes them particularly good targets. I am, however, unsure of what all can be done to correct that within the confines of the AI code.

Ultimately, I feel that magic is appropriately powered, as "overpowered" suggests that it should be LESS powerful than what it is. However, it most certainly is under-utilized by the computer which gives flesh-n-blood players a very clear and distinct advantage in terms of actual in-game usefulness.

In conclusion, I know the combat system is getting dialed in as we speak, and will probably wind up either pretty spot on overall, or within reach of the mod community to create some pleasing variations which make the players happy. At present, I'm still not entirely convinced that anything is "overpowered" in game, just that our opponents aren't really all that good at using the tools we have to the same effect.

"The order of tactical battles"

e.g.: my sovereign is the first (casts 2 spells), my wife the second (casts two spells), then the stone giang, the fire elemental . . .

and when all my units moved comes the enemy . . . ups . . . where is the enemy

the enemy army can have any number of chanellers, they have no chance if i have some spellcaster unit

without initiative it isn't a real tactical battle, its a slaughter