Discussion [0.16] Balancing Changes in Damage Calculation

[DeletedUser629]

Aye thats true, but cerberus is the unit I hate because it is anti-archer but sucks against anything else

My cerberus II does not only kill archers/bandits in one bite, they also kill mortars in one bite, and they deal massive damage on steilings and golems with their 40% attack bonus on heavy ranged. Because they also have a 40% defense against them, they don't take alot of damage from them either.

 

[DeletedUser338]

Yea, their damage isn't that bad. Sure, it's not as great as Axe Barbarians, but they're just as strong as archers.
They're also very useful if there are certain troops you have to take out fast (like mortars, who will otherwise destroy everything). Personally, I also use them against necromancers, because they're often paired with archers. It's a quick way to get rid of their debuff.

 

[DeletedUser]

??!! i still have no Clue

 

[DeletedUser]

??!! i still have no Clue

For a person without a clue you have developed your city pretty nicely ... Infact you are way ahead of me on the ranking too ....Cant imagine where you would be if u had the even slightest clue of what we all are talking ...

 

[DeletedUser]

@Goryn:
I don't understand, whether you wanted to say, that damage calculation doesn't work the way I assumed? If so, could you please explain, how the damage is calculated instead?

 

[DeletedUser651]

Help me understand this. I can see how this will make fighting more realistic as units with small number of troops will commit less damage. What I don't get is how this will make fighting easier. It will make it harder for us if we only have a few troops in each unit left, right? Overall, it seems like a zero sum gain on ease of battles, but the fighting will be more realistic. Is that right? I am very confused.

A lot of battles I enter, the enemy has more units than I do. I take in 5 units and they sometimes have 8. So, if the strength of the unit has to do with the percentage of fighters each unit has left, won't the bad guys do even better now because they have more units and thus can spread damage whereas our fewer units take the brunt of each battle?

Help! I am hopelessly lost.

 

[DeletedUser629]

Currently those 8 squads will deal at least 50% damage, even when there's only 1 left, forcing players to also focus on that 1 enemy when it's their turn because it can still deal alot of damage. In the new situation a player can focus on a bigger enemy squad, because that single enemy will no longer be able to deal massive damage, which is only normal. Alot of players complained about the fact their squads were killed by very small enemy squads. Fighting won't become much easier in some cases, but it will become more realistic, and probably more tactical. When will it become easier? When the enemy has only 2/3 squads, but those 3 squads are huge. A squad of 500 enemies will still do 60% damage when brought back to 100. 50% base damage plus 10% for the remaining 100. In the new situation it will be 10% base damage plus 18% for the remaining 100, makes 28%. This is a huge difference and will hopefully make players win more battles.

Current: 500 thieves. 50% base damage 50% rest damage. Damage output per thief 6-8, makes a total of 3000-4000. 1500-2000 base damage, 1500-2000 rest damage. You kill 400 of them, leaving 1500-2000 base damage plus 300-400 rest damage, so those 100 thieves will still hit for a massive 1800-2400 damage.

New: 500 thieves. 10% base damage 90% rest damage. 300-400 base damage 2700-3600 rest damage. You kill 400, leaving 300-400 base damage plus 540-720 rest damage. 100 thieves will hit for a total of 840-1120, which is alot less than 1800-2400. The chances of your squads being 1 shot by 100 thieves is alot lower than it is now.

 

[DeletedUser481]

My cerberus II does not only kill archers/bandits in one bite, they also kill mortars in one bite, and they deal massive damage on steilings and golems with their 40% attack bonus on heavy ranged. Because they also have a 40% defense against them, they don't take alot of damage from them either.

Cerberuses has a problem with a necromamancers ... and the second .... very quickly died when they are other units like missile. Its not a problem in battle, it is problem in training.... so we can easilly fight in battle but after 4 - 5 batts we must wait one day ... 'cause we havent ... aaah .... simply we havent.... cerberuses.

Everybody who has a problem with fight here or not knows fightin or hasnt so large army as has rescue provincies.

 

[DeletedUser118]

I guess this way its even more important to be the first to make damage on enemy units cuz as soon as they hit you first your counter attack will mean less damage on them. That might be more realistic, but if it really lets you win more battles we shall see.

Also in my opinion this might solve at least one problem in fights but of course not all. The problem with the way too huge enemy armies compared to your own still stays. That still needs to be fixed. To me its just no fun to fight armies several times larger than mine.

 

[DeletedUser867]

To me its just no fun to fight armies several times larger than mine

I think maybe it's supposed to be that way. Dangerous too.

 

[DeletedUser]

It cannot be realistic when we have to fight more than double our squad size army ....I mean how do we fight a squad of 500 against our puny 192 .... Even if we try to attack them first the battle map most of the time is set in such way that maximum only one unit of ours can reach them and how much can a 192 squad army damage 500 squad army?? even if we are able damage them 50% makes it only to 250 which I dont think is ever the case and then what about the other enemy units which we are not able to even touch but who can easily attack that one unit which went ahead to make the damage ... Well thats the highest limit we can get our squads but again what about the players who haven't yet reached that maximum ?? I myself have reached only 120 at the moment and I am already having to face enemies with 300 - 400+ squads ... Now how is this change going to be of help to me / players like me I seriously wouldn't know ....All in all the more we think about it this change actually doesn't seem to work for the better for us ... Anyways we need to wait for it to be implemented to know the exact result ... I am reserving my comment about this change till its implemented and tried ....At the moment trying to gain as many provinces as possible before this Tuesday

 

[DeletedUser1095]

When the enemy has only 2/3 squads, but those 3 squads are huge.

To make things easier to follow: Goryn, when you write "2/3 squads" do you mean "two thirds" or "two or three"?

To me, 2/3 is a fraction - two thirds - and it is really hard to understand what you mean by "two-thirds of a squad or squads". So I'm hoping you mean "two or three squads". Either way it would be a lot clearer if you wrote it out in words. Please and thank you.

 

[DeletedUser205]

IMHO it would be much more effective for urgently needed modifications in battles, if the devs would create that modifications by own experience in battles as we found them and not via calculation like @Goryn showed (I know, that Goryn is no dev, it is only an example for what I mean).

@ddevil pointed out some challenges we find in real battles - and I wonder, if really for every battle is a sort of solution found by devs (or whomever).
Would be great to know that (not the solution, but that there is one).
Till today I doubt, that the battles are really tested by the devs.

 

[DeletedUser]

One solution I can think from top of my head will be if this change can be applied only for the enemy units while the player units still maintain the older method of inflicting damage ... the reason being the enemy units already have an unfair advantage of very high squad size and using upto 8 units per battle while we have the disadvantage of only 192 units maximum and a maximum of only 5 units per battle ... I feel that would be a much more of a fair fight as that would somehow equalize the battles not making either side having unfair advantage .... this is just a suggestion which I just thought about it when @sorella was asking to think about a better solution and might not be the only solution or even the correct solution ... Just giving it a try from my side as a player who loves fighting on the map battles

 

[DeletedUser1095]

One solution I can think from top of my head will be if this change can be applied only for the enemy units while the player units still maintain the older method of inflicting damage ... the reason being the enemy units already have an unfair advantage of very high squad size and using up to 8 squads per battle while we have the disadvantage of only 192 units maximum and a maximum of only 5 squads per battle ...

That sounds right if the game is supposed to be fun and not just frustrating.
An in-depth tactics tutorial/training arena to learn good approaches to various specific terrains and enemy-unit combinations would be very helpful too.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with Goryn, that this would make fights a bit easier with 2 or 3 enemy squads. But same way one should say, with 7 or 8 squads things could get a bit more difficult. The natural way should be to do some rebalancing, there is kind of compensation for the 2-3 and 7-8 squads cases at the moment through slightly lower squad sizes for 2-3 and slightly higher squad sizes for 7-8.

But Goryn, why do you ignore my point with base damage and my question about the damage principle?

 

[DeletedUser629]

To make things easier to follow: Goryn, when you write "2/3 squads" do you mean "two thirds" or "two or three"?

To me, 2/3 is a fraction - two thirds - and it is really hard to understand what you mean by "two-thirds of a squad or squads". So I'm hoping you mean "two or three squads". Either way it would be a lot clearer if you wrote it out in words. Please and thank you.

I meant 2 or 3 squads

 

[DeletedUser1095]

I meant 2 or 3 squads

Thanks for clarifying. Maybe you'd consider phrasing it that way in your posts, because (at least in English, which seems to be the official language of the forum) "2/3" really does mean a fraction, not "2 or 3". Thanks for thinking about it.

 

[DeletedUser629]

As far as I observed damage calculation so far, most likely a damage within the damage range of a unit is randomly created, multiplied by actual squad size and the resulting damage is subtracted from accumulated hitpoints of the attacked squad (ignoring base damage here for simplification). If so, your argument wouldn't count.

Without base damage, a squad that has only 2 or 3 units left won't do alot of damage. 3 sword dancer II will do a max of 27-33 damage, when the enemy has one final squad of 5 thieves left with 19 hitpoints each, you won't be able to kill more than 1. The thieves themselves hit for 6-8, so those 4 remaining ones can hit for 24-32. Sword dancer II has 31 hitpoints, so the thieves can only kill 1 as well. Now you have 2 sword dancers left with a total damage of 18-22, they kill another thief, leaving 3. 3 thieves hit for 18-24, so they can't even kill 1 sword dancer anymore. In the next turn you kill another thief, and in the next turn another one, and in the final turn you win. Battles will take a very long time this way. If both squads started with 120 units, the base damage will make sure that either you, or the thieves win in 1 turn depending on who gets to hit first, because 120 sword dancer II will have a base damage of 108-132 plus the damage of the remaing 3, makes a total of 135-165, and 120 thieves will have a base damage of 72-96 plus the damage of the remaining 5, makes a total of 102-136.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't get why people can't get this simple information. How hard is it?
You take 9 out of ten out of a squad of 500 and it will still kill you in the current combat system. The immersive combat system should ensure that doesn't happen.