+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Morality Unit Balancing

  1. #1
    Sergeant
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneKing Arthur IIMagickaMajesty 2Europa Universalis: Rome
    Semper FiSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IIRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: Warband
    Warlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    98

    Morality Unit Balancing

    Has anyone else noticed that the unit stats of morality units are quiet underwhelming when compared to the standard troops you can buy.

    For example i am playing a righteous christian campaign and at tier 3

    Holy warriors have
    300 damage, 1000 hps, 20 defense and only 60 men

    Heartwood veterans have
    200 damage, 910 hps, 5 defense and 120 men.

    So that is 15 defense and 100 extra damage on each unit vs 57,000 extra health.

    Tbh why would you bother building holy warriors when you can buy heavy infantry with 80 in number that will be alot more effective?

    Another one is Guardians vs Seraphs

    Guardians at tier 4 have
    11,250 hps, 5k damage, 20 defense and are 6 in number

    Seraphs at tier 4 have
    12,200 hps, 2.5k damage, 50 defense and are 3 in number.

    So effectively the guardians have 30k more hps, 22.5k damage more damage at the loss of only 30 armour.

    Then go compare the seraph with other units like the dark angel and well it just makes no sense.

    Kate or anyone at neocore can you explain how this balancing works? and also whether or not you are going to work on this in one of the patches?

  2. #2
    Well if I understood the system correctly (I can't check beacause of my steam key issues ), defense was a % reduction to damage taken, so the loss of 30 armor is actually very significant : each individual seraph has almost double the durability of guardians (24k vs 14k "effective" hp). But that doesn't invalidate your point

  3. #3
    Sergeant
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneKing Arthur IIMagickaMajesty 2Europa Universalis: Rome
    Semper FiSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IIRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: Warband
    Warlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    98
    Even if that is true and it is percentage based defense, the guardian still does more damage and has more numbers then the seraphs.

    Maybe damage could have something to do with attack animations/speed? Guess we need a developer to give us the answers.

  4. #4
    What about special until abilities? I don't have my game up at the moment, but if morality chart-based units include special abilities that are more attractive than their counterparts, that could be the draw.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by beachedwalrus View Post
    Even if that is true and it is percentage based defense, the guardian still does more damage and has more numbers then the seraphs.
    More damage comes with having more numbers no? Each seraph is individually stronger then a guardian and far tougher to kill.

    Whilst I do believe that seraphs could do with a buff of some sort to further differentiate them from guardians rather then it being a choice of 3 elites or a squad that collectively does more damage then the 3, I don't agree with your reasoning otherwise in that if you send your guardians/seraphs to go raid the enemy archers or duel enemy fliers, you'll find the guardians will get taken down far quicker then seraphs due to lower defence and their dps will quickly fall too.

    By comparison seraphs are more sturdy and though proportionally losing 1 seraph would mean more then losing 1 guardian, it's far easier to keep the seraphs going, especially with ressurection (which you should have being a rightful christian).

    One thing ka2 does right imo is that its rarely a case of unit A>unit B for units of the same type (remember how in ka1 the best cavalry was the christian cavalry and gryphon warriors/lionheart warriors made your basic troops obsolete if you could afford them? I'm genuinely glad to be using more diverse armies in ka2) and this is a trend that should be encouraged. As it stands seraphs really could do with a defensive ability to further reinforce their more durable nature whereas guardians can keep the higher dps and be a more offensive choice so you don't just replace guardians with seraphs once you have them.
    Last edited by frenchfrank; 10-02-2012 at 18:33.

  6. #6
    Also do not forget the effects of training/command circle and level ups on defence. The higher defence already is the more the units benefit from this.

  7. #7
    As it stands Guardians of the same level will easily defeat Seraphs of equal level. Big problem as Seraphs are a higher level unit and should be greatly superior to guardians. This goes for Dark angels and Arch Guardians as well. These two unit types should in no way be equal because they do not cost the same and are not introduced into the game at the same time, one is mid game whereas the other is late game.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Stone View Post
    As it stands Guardians of the same level will easily defeat Seraphs of equal level. Big problem as Seraphs are a higher level unit and should be greatly superior to guardians. This goes for Dark angels and Arch Guardians as well. These two unit types should in no way be equal because they do not cost the same and are not introduced into the game at the same time, one is mid game whereas the other is late game.
    Guardians of the same level will easily defeat seraphs of the same level? Have you run tests with different level up configurations to try that?
    Im sceptical one unit will always beat another regardless of levelups (ive assumed up to now guardians benefit best from offensive levelups and magical weapons at lvl5 whereas seraphs benefit most from hp upgrades and getting heal at lvl5 for starters) Feel free to prove me wrong but would be gutted if 1 unit was always the best in any circumstance, means it's not so much a choice between 2 different units as having a placeholder unit until you get the one you actually want.

    At least in ka1 there was a reason unit a>unit b due to upkeep, unit a would be much more expensive and fielding an army of them would require a robust economy.
    In ka2 there is no upkeep so would be no drawback to just picking "the best" unit each time.

    I don't agree with seraphs automatically should be a much greater unit then guardians, but maybe thats just me. And in that case all end game morality units would need boosts cos as it stands, I didnt feel christian cavalry made all my other cavalry units obsolete.

  9. #9
    I will not try to prove that guardians out class Seraphs because anyone who can compare their stats and has used both in game will know that guardians are superior. I do not believe lower tier morality units should be place holders but the games design seemingly intends them to be so. Look at it this way Dragons are expensive and late game and are very powerful. Seraphs are analogous to Dragons in that their cost and late game arrival force them to be more then equal to other units. Do you honestly think Seelie council Guards are intended to be as strong as Seelie warriors? They have the same unit size yet their respective costs and arrival in game are different. In this Seelie match up of mine Council guards are stronger bar none vs Seelie warriors, this is not a mistake but is intended and should be carried over to seraphs and guardians.

    Guardians with magical attack will decimate Seraph of equal level btw as it negates seraph defense advantage. Another balance issue I found regarding seraph is that it is weaker then gargoyles by a a great degree.
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...201202061.png/
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...201202061.png/

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Stone View Post
    I will not try to prove that guardians out class Seraphs because anyone who can compare their stats and has used both in game will know that guardians are superior.
    That I am disagreeing with you and said my above statements kinda proves the contrary. Stats and numbers are a funny thing in that it's easy to take them out of context and skewer their interpretation to suit your views, nothing beats actual experimentation and testing.
    But not being bothered to go for so much hassle is an adequate excuse, I certainly wouldn't in your place tbh xD Allright, I'll roll with your views (im only 50-60% sure of my own views anyways).

    Although about guardians with magical attack neglecting seraphs defence... Thats EXACTLY what I mean when I say numbers don't tell the full story. Now imagine we try the reverse scenario where seraphs get magical weapons and guardians get heal. I'd imagine that to be a closer fight.

    I have always gone christian thus far (see no reason to ally myself with the sidhe this time around) so can't comment on the council guard, though in this case it seems very much a case of unit a>unit b i'll give you that, which means seelie warriors are a placeholder unit....Can you at least change them into council guards later on? Otherwise its a shame as personally I'd see really no reason to use them and that would be another argument in my favor that units need to differentiated rather then replaced by better ones when they are unlocked.

    Disagree with you on the "since council guards are better then seelie warriors, this should apply to all other units" reasoning out of principle though. I'd hate for christian cavalry to suddenly obsolete the 3 other types of cavalry (they already kinda obsolete camelot knights due to filling the same role as them, at least the other 2 have perks that make them genuinely different).
    Why it "should" be carried over to the other types of units is baffling to me. This is not a change that will benefit the game or make it better imo, if it's true for a few units for whatever reason, cool and there might even be a good thematic reason for it, but to apply it to every unit all out of a desire for uniformity? Nay.

    In a similar vein, your "late game unit should be better then mid game unit which should beat early game unit" reasoning also puzzles me. Ironguard aren't invalidated by oathbreakers and knight errants nor should they be. Wasteland champions are late game units but they certainly don't invalidate the companions or the camelot knights and so forth.

    As for gargoyles, aye seeing those stats they are insane. But thats less to do with the seraphs and more the gargoyles themseves being too good atm. On a related note why would anyone get a white dragon instead of a black one (if I recall black and red ones had the best stats)? I admit some of the stats sometimes make little sense to me and the dragons are the most clear example of it. Though minding what I said earlier, there could be more then just the stats at work, for all I know the types of dragons get different abilities but this isn't something I checked.

  11. #11
    The reason I showed you the gargoyles is because I have a guardian unit that is superior to them. So if you think the gargoyles stats are insane the same goes for guardians. What you constantly fail to realize though is that the seraph is more expensive in terms of recruit cost and leadership. So here you are spending 20 turns waiting to get a seraph only to find out they suck... anti climatic much? Look at it in terms of game mythology as well, guardians are not real angels where as seraphs are high ranking angels... do you really expect them to be on the same level?

  12. #12
    You have a guardian unit with 70 defence? Well color me impressed.
    What, you said superior right? I'm only taking you at your word here rather then trying to trick you in order to force some obtuse reasoning upon you.

    All I can conclude from the pics you showed me is that gargoyles are a superior unit to seraphs from what I can see, being individually tougher to kill even with a lower hp for an individual member. Unless there is some mathematical reasoning where once gargoyles lose a certain amount of their number then seraphs prevail or that different levelup and ability combinations changes the results, then it really does look like gargoyles are too good of a unit in comparison to seraphims, outshining them in one area they might have an edge over guardians: survivability. And then having better offence to boot.

    I don't believe I've talked about leadership and recruit costs at all yet, so don't see how it is something I have not realized before.

    For late game units not spectacularly outperforming earlier obtained units, I already pronounced myself on that. Again, I'd rather see different units serving different roles or having something that makes them unique rather then it being unit a<unit b. This is a direction I'd prefer to see game balance go when possible. Now if neocore decides this was all a big mistake and buff massively late game units to the point of making previously obtained ones obsolete as in ka1, fair enough, I'll just have to deal with it.

    Mythology wise I agree. Which is why guardians are in 6s and seraphs are in 3s. Seraphims are individually stronger, perhaps they do need something extra (I have never said otherwise), but it seems to me that 1 vanilla seraphim vs 1 vanilla guardian will result in the seraphim winning correct? Though different level ups and abiliies might change that match and you can legitimately argue that the differences between the 2 should be greater.
    Last edited by frenchfrank; 12-02-2012 at 04:33.

  13. #13
    I think the Seraph damage was set incorrectly to 2.5k.

  14. #14
    More damage comes with having more numbers no? Each seraph is individually stronger then a guardian and far tougher to kill.
    No


    Guardians are individually stronger than Seraphs. And yes, there is something really wrong in balance.


    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...of-suggestions

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=frenchfrank;13418402]You have a guardian unit with 70 defence? Well color me impressed.
    What, you said superior right? I'm only taking you at your word here rather then trying to trick you in order to force some obtuse reasoning upon you.
    I don't believe I've talked about leadership and recruit costs at all yet, so don't see how it is something I have not realized before.


    You did not talk about leadership and recruit costs... I did you just did not pick up on it. When ever I was talking about them being late game units I was implying that they cost more. You really did not think they were cheaper did you? By stronger I mean of course that in a one on one fight the guardians will defeat the gargoyles.

    To the heart of the matter, I said I had a guardian unit that was stronger right? Did you think I was lying? This is sort of tedious, having to post pics for you to see the light: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...120210202.png/

    The only reason the gargoyle is even in the same league as the guardian is because I took over the whole map and all the Golem lairs and the 10% bonuses that go along with said lairs.
    Last edited by Son of Stone; 12-02-2012 at 14:50.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Stone View Post
    You did not talk about leadership and recruit costs... I did you just did not pick up on it..
    My blocs of text are already massively long enough as it is and you do not respond to all my points either.

    But there is truth in what you say though. You did bring this up multiple times and I didn't respond to it so will now:

    On this topic I'm actually unsure.... Let's take dragons, they are initially expensive but since there is only 1 of them, you won't ever have to recruit more members for them which makes them (and other single units like colussus) more economically viable then they appear.
    I'm willing to bet your ironguard will cost you more over the course of a campaign. By the same train of thought, I had assumed seraphs would be less expensive after an initial investment due to higher toughness and being easier to keep alive, but didn't have the data one way or another.
    Of course, the whole seraph being tougher is now disproven so that blows it out of the water.

    So yeh basically the reason I havent' touched it was mainly due to lack of data and research into comparative costs and how expensive units are to replace after the initial cost.


    [QUOTE=Son of Stone;13419793]
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchfrank View Post
    When ever I was talking about them being late game units I was implying that they cost more. You really did not think they were cheaper did you? By stronger I mean of course that in a one on one fight the guardians will defeat the gargoyles.

    To the heart of the matter, I said I had a guardian unit that was stronger right? Did you think I was lying? This is sort of tedious, having to post pics for you to see the light: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...120210202.png/
    1) You were implying costs here? The crux of your argument has always seemed to me "late game units should be better because you get them later".

    2)You were lying or at the very least expressed yourself poorly.I can only read what I see. You said superior which I interpreted as to "simply better". Since I was still under the assumption seraphs are tougher and more survivable then guardians, showing me gargoyles didn't disprove that at all to me but rather indicated gargoyles were the toughest ones actually.

    3) If you think having to post pictures to back your points is tedious, put yourself in my place as I have to back my own points with words and try to articulate them as clearly as possible to someone who doesn't seem interested in responding to them in an actual logical manner but instead using rhetorics that has more place in politics then it does here.

    4)Im not trying to deceive you or belittle you. In regards to seraphs vs guardians, I've only ever just stated my belief that seraphs were a tougher and more survivable unit. You never tried to disprove this directly even once and had Sloul not arrived I'd still not be any closer to being convinced.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sloul View Post
    No

    Guardians are individually stronger than Seraphs. And yes, there is something really wrong in balance.

    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...of-suggestions
    I'm liking this guy's style more and I regret that I didn't stumble on his thread first.
    Not only is the arguments in his OP presented in a manner that doesn't leave out information, but he presents it in a manner that is both logical and concise to the reader and backs it up with experimental data.

    Let's give a big thanks to Sloul for ending this little debate rather swiftly xD So yeh Seraphs<Guardians. As for how to change this, well I already pronounced myself: give seraphs a buff to make them different but avoid unit A<unit B when possible. I've prattled on that for quite a bit now so agree/disagree at your leisure.
    Last edited by frenchfrank; 12-02-2012 at 17:28.

  17. #17
    So... let me get this straight, sloul posts exactly what beached walrus started the thread with and it is a revelation? You have comprehension problems buddy.

    1) You were implying costs here? The crux of your argument has always seemed to me "late game units should be better because you get them later".
    How many games have you played? Does an Ulralisk cost as much as a zergling? An Archdemon as much as an imp? A Dragon as much as a lizard?

    2)You were lying or at the very least expressed yourself poorly.I can only read what I see. You said superior which I interpreted as to "simply better". Since I was still under the assumption seraphs are tougher and more survivable then guardians, showing me gargoyles didn't disprove that at all to me but rather indicated gargoyles were the toughest ones actually.
    Stats and numbers are a funny thing in that it's easy to take them out of context and skewer their interpretation to suit your views
    You have a guardian unit with 70 defence? Well color me impressed.
    What, you said superior right? I'm only taking you at your word here rather then trying to trick you in order to force some obtuse reasoning upon you.
    I told you straight up that I had a guardian unit that was more powerful and you replied with mocking banter. If gargoyle is 2x seraph and guardian is superior to gargoyle how is it that I expressed myself poorly? I gave you facts and you are the one that did not see the light, not to mention the OP gave you the stats... nobody is arguing the cold hard logic of math except you.

    3) If you think having to post pictures to back your points is tedious, put yourself in my place as I have to back my own points with words and try to articulate them as clearly as possible to someone who doesn't seem interested in responding to them in an actual logical manner but instead using rhetorics that has more place in politics then it does here.
    I posted pictures so that you could draw your own conclusions... you did just the wrong ones. Pictures are wonderful they show fact, with out the need of pointless blabber, then I get you accusing me of incompetence in regards to explaining myself whereas it was your inability to understand. In addition to that you accuse me of dancing around the subject with rhetoric... Pictures buddy I need not say more. You were the one drawing conclusions with no basis or proof whereas I backed up everything I claimed with hard evidence which btw was tedious because I believe most people would not argue the point when confronted with stats via OP.
    Last edited by Son of Stone; 13-02-2012 at 02:51.

  18. #18
    Sergeant
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneKing Arthur IIMagickaMajesty 2Europa Universalis: Rome
    Semper FiSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IIRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: Warband
    Warlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchfrank View Post
    I'm liking this guy's style more and I regret that I didn't stumble on his thread first.
    Not only is the arguments in his OP presented in a manner that doesn't leave out information, but he presents it in a manner that is both logical and concise to the reader and backs it up with experimental data.
    Whilst i agree he has put the information in a more logical and concise manner, i don't think it takes more then a basic knowledge of maths to work out there is something wrong with the balancing. There are way to many inconsistencies across the board when it comes to morality units. Whether that being arch angels vs seraphs or even guardians vs seraphs it just feels wrong. I just hope Neocore read the other thread as it has many other good ideas and fixes for the game. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...of-suggestions

  19. #19
    I'm only finishing up chapter 2 now but so far I've discovered an effective use for every unit I've used. While I can't say anything about Seraphs or guardians, I can make an example of the wolfbreed.

    Was stoked when I got my first morality troops, and picked the wolfbreed. My first battle they got owned. Second battle as well. I stepped back and took a look at what the wolfbreed could do and noticed a couple things. 1 they were fast. 2 they ran only in horde. 3 I noticed they could run away from a battle pretty quickly.

    So what I do now is use them as harassment troops and they work very well. I hide them in the woods if I can and send my heavy hitters towards the enemy main force. Once they get close I send the wolfbreed out to attack the archers. As the enemy sends out his melee units to engage I pull the wolfbreed back and attack with my main melee units, allowing my cavalry to sweep in from the side and take out the archers who no longer have as much protection, then I send the wolfbreed back into the archers to finish up after the tramplings.

    My point is that at first even if you can't see the advantages of some units, I've still found that properly assessing their strengths and weaknesses can allow for some really interesting tactics in battle.

    Simply stating that Unit A has more hp, damage, and soldiers than Unit B is not enough to compare two units, in my limited experience with KAII. In the above example my wolfbreed get owned one on one against enemy heavy infantry, but properly used in a battle they still allow me to win battles with less unit loss than previously, so overall I consider them balanced and a worthy addition to the team.

    I can't wait to get to higher tiers and later game units to see what I can do with what becomes available.

    Also, let us not forget the roleplaying element. I personally don't believe that an RPG should solely be about min/maxing.

    -H4P

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Stone View Post
    snip
    Believe what you want but:
    A) You argued poorly, VERY poorly. Consider that you were right and I was wrong yet you consistenly failed to find actual good arguments (and its not like I wasn't able to change my tune when actual good evidence was presented as opposed to w/e it was you were doing most of the time), instead making strenous connections (and not even denying my own connections which proved to be faulty).
    B) You really did express yourself in a convulted manner that danced around rather then directly answered and got angry when asked to back anything up. And no, in a debate getting ragey and personal because the other doesn't believe you isn't a good way to argue.
    C)My mocking banter (and it wasn't even mocking so much as taking you at your word to save myself a few dozen lines of text) happened once, you were laying it thick from the start and still are. And you're still lying/expressing yourself poorly since 1 example amongst others I can pick from your latest reply, Sloul's OP has much more detail and has experimental data. It is not the "same" information at all :P It's as if you're reading a scientific report with only the abstract. Choose your words better.
    D)Though happening to be right on this one, your reasoning a lot of the time (merely looking at stats and ignoring context or comparing 2 units to judge a 3rd) is faulty and can easily lead to erroneus conclusions and you missing out on subtleties that might or might not be there.
    E)If the maths were that obvious, beyond feeling merely "wrong", you could have easily explained that in a few lines. You never did.

    I might have comprehension skills but you are a poor debater "buddy" ^^ I'd probably be able to argue the earth is flat against ya.


    Quote Originally Posted by hades4president View Post
    snipp
    This guy gets it, that numbers+context=truth. We also share the same philosophy in regard to discovering strengths and weakness of a unit that might be overlooked.
    Last edited by frenchfrank; 13-02-2012 at 14:57.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts