Balancing: Strength based units

[Doidel]

Dear game designers

This topic's about balancing strength based units in a max.6 vs max.6 fighting system (Introduction below). The excel file with the balances can be found here.
What I want to know from you is wether my balancing makes sense or if there are unlogical things or stuff I missed

Introduction

Max. 6 units on one side fight against the other side. The initiative defines in which order the units strike (the unit with the highest strikes first). There are three basic unit types:
- Melee (can only fight adjacent enemies)
- Ranged (can attack any target on the field)
- Mages (Attack all the enemies at once)

The first two unit types shall be based on the balancing like in the excel file.
Screenshot of how this looks can be found here.


I know the balancing's complicated and I wouldn't be surprised if noone took the trouble. All the more I'd appreciate it even more if someone helped me out

Please do not hesitate to ask questions or ask for further explanations.

Thanks in advance for your help
Yours
Doidel

[Chris]

Note: I haven't read the excel file

Is there are reason for a player to have less than 6 units? This is the crucial question since it determines the usefulness of area damagers (mages). From the quick look there are trivial decisions to the player. Fighters are allaround best damage dealers and tankers, mages are best per action damage dealers but only in case of 5-6 enemies, archers are snipers to take down mages. So, the biggest question is how many units enemy will have. The optimal solution is 3 fighters + 3 archers/mages (unless you can put superheroes (1 but strong), then the hero should be powerful fighter since it will make enemy mages useless and you will win easily).

I think you should remove area damagers, these are too trivial to optimize (especially if you will make most players have exactly 6 units).
Go for scissors, rock, paper, this should be more exciting than FF type of battle.

Definitely check High Descent, you will find some nice related tricks there.

[Doidel]

Hello Chris

Thanks for the feedback.
The unit types was truely a hard decision to make. I chose these three classes according to the sample of Disciples 2, where enemy troops have 1 to 6 units while e.g. some units cannot be hurt by melee attacks, others not by mages, and so forth.
Indeed the mage gets somehow useless if one fights against a superstrong one man enemy, but I see no way to change this fact.

The latter game style is (imho) difficult to compare with High Descent. An automatic script wether you won or lost, printing some action phrases showing why you did so. Somehow odd, it's not quite what I would want to implement...

Well, the FF type of battle will definitely remain. However, I'm not sure about the mage types. If I'd remove them there would only be the ranged and the melee unit types which probably will make the fight quite boring.. Yet if I kept them and would add healers and spellcasters (e.g. able to cast *DoubleDamage* on a friendly unit) this game system would probably turn out to be more spicy than the one of High Descent (again, in my opinion).

However, suggestions are very welcome

Have a nice day
Doidel

[Chris]

I find the system from High Descent far superior to FF style. But tastes might differ

Make the mage area attack "row" or "column" instead of "all".
DoubleDamage spell is absolutely too powerful (even if it lasts only 1 turn)
Mages could provide protection to all friendly units against certain magic domain (auto, no action needed, but one mage can provide only one protection no matter the level), it would create a nice attack/counterattack mages metagame.

[Doidel]

Hi Chris

I do not like your first idea. Again - a matter of taste ^^ I'd rather prefer the mages to attack all of them and in turn make the attack adequately weak.
1.5 times damage?
I like the protection idea. But imagine PVP where a player with fire mages fights against a troop with a fire protection for the entire group. The attacker wouldn't stand a chance... However let's say an ice mage would have an immunity against ice attacks. Would that be a possibility? Simply that certain units have a certain immunity...
And, finally, is the system more exciting now?
What I don't like about scissors, rock, paper is that there's so much luck in it. I'd like the fights to be more strategical. With 6 units, all having different abilites, immunitites and/or specialities, I guess is a good basis...

Best
Doidel

[Chris]

What I don't like about scissors, rock, paper is that there's so much luck in it. I'd like the fights to be more strategical.

You mean tactical? Scissors/rock/paper system results in strategical level choices (what kind or army composition you build), and operational level choices (whom to attack to have a decent chance to encounter someone with a weakness) while it makes tactical level choices (what your forces do during combat) of low importance.

Many people make an assumption "tactical = decisions" while it is perfectly possible to make decision intense game without even minimal tactical features.
Personally, I do not feel it being worthy of me to lead anything lower than front/army level, but I can easily imagine that most players with lower megalomania would love to order mere battalions on battlefield

[Doidel]

Hmm maybe I got the scissors/rock/paper wrong. Making choices like the latter sounds good, however what I wanted to state in my last post was that the fight itself will probably become boring.
To sum it up: The most interesting fighting system would be one where stretegical, operational and then during the fight tactical choices would have to be made..?
Hard to imagine oO
Maybe an ability can be added to each of the players: Block. They block the next attack but in turn they can't attack. (Is a little bit "tactical", isn't it?)
Still, I'm confused now. I'll go have a beer...

[dsheroh]

Maybe an ability can be added to each of the players: Block. They block the next attack but in turn they can't attack. (Is a little bit "tactical", isn't it?)

Yes, "block" would be tactical.

To expand a little more on what Chris said:

• Strategic:  Decisions regarding your overall approach to the game.  What resources you develop and how you spend them, including such things as the types of troops you purchase, what training you give them, and how much to spend on technology vs. troops vs. resource gathering.
  
  
• Operational:  Decisions about your short-term goals in the game and how to attain them using the resources provided by your strategic decisions.  Who/where/when to attack and how to deploy your forces for defense.
  
  
• Tactical:  Decisions on the battlefield.  Which targets to prioritize, where to position individual units, and when to block or use special attacks.
  
  

A strict rock/paper/scissors game puts emphasis on the strategic ("How many rocks do I build?") and operational ("Bob's army is mostly paper, so I should hit him with scissors and leave my rocks at home.") levels, but can almost completely remove the tactical level ("Great.  He saw my scissors coming and intercepted with a rock army.  I'm screwed no matter what I do.").  Weak rps can overcome that, by turning the rps factor into a significant advantage (to preserve the strategic/operational elements that rps promotes), but not making it completely insurmountable (so that a strong player's scissors army still has a chance to defeat a weaker player's rock army, even if it will be difficult).

[Doidel]

got that, thanks for the explanation

[Nox]

Okey, I favor the DII style as well, I just like it... and I don't know precisely about your game design, but

Block
I would implement only in a limited way at most, in this system I think it's unnecessarily prolonging the fight, might make boring if one (let alone both) sides use this heavily.

More choices
In this system, when travelling with a certain party, I think it's a bad choice to use rock/scissors/paper style since it would make you auto-lose some fights and auto-win some fights...of course you can make it kinda universal but the issue would partially remain and it's still uncontrollable element, this one not that funny imho.
I'd rather focus more on the actual fight.
Abilities and various action is surely a way (abilities are fun), I wouldn't focus on defensive, rather support/offensive ones
Or enhance the system somehow....
Or if you inspire yourself by DII further heroes' items can change the fight (I always get the 'banner bearer' )

[Doidel]

Hey Nox

Probably letting the "block" ability only block 80% of incoming damage would be a to prevent abusage.

That's the final decision I would have made The hero indeed can carry items, however none is affecting the entire group.
Disciples has double damage, right? 
I'll sure have some further thoughts about it, but implementing immunities, specialities and abilities sounds very good.

Best to you all
Doidel

[Chris]

To sum it up: The most interesting fighting system would be one where stretegical, operational and then during the fight tactical choices would have to be made..?

Strategic scale and tactic scale do not match too well. Imagine Civilization where you would order each subunit during combat. It would be a nightmare. You can mix them to some degree (exspecially operational level is easy to mix since it is in the middle) but ultimatelly you will need to make a choice if you make a strategic or tactical game.