Malsqueek Malsqueek

[0.915] Argument for Scaling Experience by Trained Unit Size

▼

[0.915] Argument for Scaling Experience by Trained Unit Size

or, "Why Bigger is always Better, and why it shouldn't be"

from Elemental Forums

Inspired by discussion in Gfirefly's thread: https://forums.elementalgame.com/426436

 

During my recent game I started noticing that unit size seems to matter a whole hell of a lot more than unit experience. The discussion above made me curious enough to see exactly how the relationship works out between them all.

 

Methodology:

All units have 4 Hit Points per model and increase at a rate of 4 hps per model per level.

Accuracy starts at 60 and increases at a rate of 2 per level

Attack is equal to wielded weapon's attack times number of men in the unit

Probable Damage is a contrived number assuming perfect probability of hits occurring on units with no armor.

 

Trained Unit Levelling Diagrams

3 person unit up to level 20

 

  Health Attack Accuracy Prob. Dmg.
1 12 24 0.6 14.4
2 24 24 0.62 14.88
3 36 24 0.64 15.36
4 48 24 0.66 15.84
5 60 24 0.68 16.32
6 72 24 0.7 16.8
7 84 24 0.72 17.28
8 96 24 0.74 17.76
9 108 24 0.76 18.24
10 120 24 0.78 18.72
11 132 24 0.8 19.2
12 144 24 0.82 19.68
13 156 24 0.84 20.16
14 168 24 0.86 20.64
15 180 24 0.88 21.12
16 192 24 0.9 21.6
17 204 24 0.92 22.08
18 216 24 0.94 22.56
19 228 24 0.96 23.04
20 240 24 0.98 23.52

 

5 person unit up to level 20

 

  Group (5 Man)
  Health Attack Accuracy Prob. Dmg.
1 20 40 0.6 24
2 40 40 0.62 24.8
3 60 40 0.64 25.6
4 80 40 0.66 26.4
5 100 40 0.68 27.2
6 120 40 0.7 28
7 140 40 0.72 28.8
8 160 40 0.74 29.6
9 180 40 0.76 30.4
10 200 40 0.78 31.2
11 220 40 0.8 32
12 240 40 0.82 32.8
13 260 40 0.84 33.6
14 280 40 0.86 34.4
15 300 40 0.88 35.2
16 320 40 0.9 36
17 340 40 0.92 36.8
18 360 40 0.94 37.6
19 380 40 0.96 38.4
20 400 40 0.98 39.2

 

7 person unit up to level 20.

 

  Health Attack Accuracy Prob. Dmg.
1 28 56 0.6 33.6
2 56 56 0.62 34.72
3 84 56 0.64 35.84
4 112 56 0.66 36.96
5 140 56 0.68 38.08
6 168 56 0.7 39.2
7 196 56 0.72 40.32
8 224 56 0.74 41.44
9 252 56 0.76 42.56
10 280 56 0.78 43.68
11 308 56 0.8 44.8
12 336 56 0.82 45.92
13 364 56 0.84 47.04
14 392 56 0.86 48.16
15 420 56 0.88 49.28
16 448 56 0.9 50.4
17 476 56 0.92 51.52
18 504 56 0.94 52.64
19 532 56 0.96 53.76
20 560 56 0.98 54.88

 

9 person unit up to level 20

 

  Health Attack Accuracy Prob. Dmg.
1 36 72 0.6 43.2
2 72 72 0.62 44.64
3 108 72 0.64 46.08
4 144 72 0.66 47.52
5 180 72 0.68 48.96
6 216 72 0.7 50.4
7 252 72 0.72 51.84
8 288 72 0.74 53.28
9 324 72 0.76 54.72
10 360 72 0.78 56.16
11 396 72 0.8 57.6
12 432 72 0.82 59.04
13 468 72 0.84 60.48
14 504 72 0.86 61.92
15 540 72 0.88 63.36
16 576 72 0.9 64.8
17 612 72 0.92 66.24
18 648 72 0.94 67.68
19 684 72 0.96 69.12
20 720 72 0.98 70.56

 

Results:

As you can see, a third level unit of 3 is exactly the same as a 1st level unit of 9, except the unit of 9 has three times the damage output potential. In many ways, this is both sensible and fine. However, when you look at this from an opportunity standpoint. Getting into combat with smaller units EVER is a bad choice, because it takes the same amount of experience to level a unit of 3 as it does a unit of 9, with the added costs of losing units easier and more protracted combats due to significantly lessened damage outputs.

Even groups of 5 quickly outclass their one step lower counterparts, and given how high up the research tree the other two techs are, that sort of makes the 5 man groupings the optimal size of build. 3 man units are swiftly outclassed by even 5 man units (assuming a relatively average damage output, it takes a 3 man unit identically equipped until level 4 before they can reliably take on a unit just two larger because of return damage.

Because of this, even in the face of increasing upkeep, because of constantly topped out growth in cities, and especially because of only marginally larger build times, it is always always the best policy to create the largest group you can possibly field. The new size techs are not unlocking new "options" they are unlocking the new only choice.

 

Assessment:

It is my opinion, that because of the dramatic rate at which smaller units, identically equipped, get outclassed by the next larger size of unit, that there needs to be some benefit at all of creating smaller units later in the game, or we may as well not have them at all from the get go.

  1. First off, smaller teams will be able to learn from their experiences more quickly, and provide "real-world" combat training to each and every member faster than larger units. Because of this, larger units should gain experience at a marginally slower rate than smaller units.
  2. One of the key concepts in the original vision of this game was that it would be a viable strategy to field "small but elite forces as well as large armies of trash". In many ways, that is not currently represented by the gameplay, and having larger units level slower than smaller ones would encourage a wider variety of unit builds as tactically viable.
  3. Because there are a couple ways to improve the rate at which your armies level, having larger, more valuable units levelling slower on their own values up not only all the abilities which give 10-15-25% exp bonus to stacked units, but dramatically improves the appearance of any and all buildings which improve a unit's level.

 

Recommendation:

I would like to see Units of 3 levelling at the rate they currently do, with units of 5 levelling at 85%, units of 7 at 70%, and units of 9 at 55% to keep the relative hit points by experience somewhat in line with one another while still allowing the player to benefit from the significant increases in damage output afforded by the larger units. Between that and the smaller units having more "Actions" as a collective, I think would wind up pretty well balanced over the long term.

 

In many ways I think there is an argument for capping units at level 10 to allow for champions to seem more important, but that is a totally different argument.

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
68,488 views 34 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top


Kalin, that is a wonderful summary. Thank you very much. If no one likes the idea as put forward by Kalin, can you please put forward another idea. Let the ideas be like flies, be fruitfull and multiply. Seriously, i can think of so many ways to improve faction differentiation based on the idea of small groups for more traits combined with bigger groups leading to slower xp. It really seems a win win.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

Making smaller unit sizes have some advantages over larger ones essentially breaks the basic incentive of a 4x game.

You point out that the current mechanics favors larger units over smaller ones, making larger units always more desirable. I would argue that it would be a step away from the current design to allow a starting ability be on equal ground with a later technology. The current pattern of strategies says that early abilities and techs are weaker and cheaper. A party costs much less to train and maintain. That is in itself a significant advantage. The point of being able to upgrade a unit is to carry their experience on to the next tier of technology available. The same is true of weapons and armor, which are enabled with upgrading. These are simply tools of war. A spear is better than a pike. So too is a group better than a party. And yet, no one is arguing for the spear to gain advantages over the pike. These are things that should be following military realities as much as possible. Not to the letter, but within reason. A group of the same type and experience would have the advantage over a party. I do not see any logic to suggest otherwise.

I have explained why I feel the design is more logical as is. Now I would try to explain how this system is good for gameplay. I find some of the most interesting choices are choices of quality. Yes, it is a no-brainer that groups are more desirable than squads. The complication, however, is where technology meets economy and experience. That is the core of any strategy game. I should always strive for larger, better equipped units, with lots of experience. That should be a given in this game. My ability to achieve that goal requires hundreds of interesting choices, from unit design to economic management.

A smaller unit plays a role in the upgraded system. Your highest level units will be your early game units. The player must constantly be striving to provide his most veteran units with the best possible advantages. Allowing one strategy to involve keeping these units as parties or even training new parties over squads negates the incentive to research higher level technology. A player should not be able to outclass another faction with older technology. The only fair system rewards the larger faction for playing the game better. They have the best technology, the best equipment, and the most experience. They should win, unless you have significantly higher numbers or are playing a hero strategy. Even heroes need to rely on this basic system or all balance to the game is lost. Great balance is when the advantage of more experience, unit size, and gear are well scaled. That portion of the game needs some balance, but not a total change.

I don't see how one can argue that unit size is where the game should penalize a large empire for doing well and using that wealth to win the game. City improvements, sure. Unrest penalties, you bet. Unit size, why? Even if there was some trait advantage for parties, the larger faction has access to those. They will surely use whatever unit size is the most effective. So, if parties are given a trait bonus, and are cheaper to produce, and cost less to maintain, why would we use anything else? This is basic economic theory.

These arguments are less logical, but I will briefly address them. Bypassing the resource system will surely be patched. Not a consideration to me. The upgrade cost being too high would be a balance issue that would also be balanced and patched. If not, we can balance it in the XML ourselves. I do care for my units, but that is not why I want to upgrade them. Not a consideration at all. 

 

Some good ideas here, but I think a short test of the ideas here would lead us all to the same conclusion. The Warfare Tree is sparse and expensive. The problems we have with units could all be solved there. Early game units are too high of level and stomp new recruits? Add more +1 level buildings to Warfare Tree. Upgrade costs too high to be feasible? Reduce costs in Warfare Tree. Parties are too weak and need more trait slots to compete with groups from the Civics Tree? Add +Trait Slots to Warfare Tree. Basically the Warfare Tree gives us weapons and armor that are almost as good as what we get from the Magic Tree. This tree should be all about making each unit kick ass regardless of unit size and it should get all the better from a balanced focus on the other trees as well. It currently is in the best position to solve many of the game's current balance issues because it is so weak right now. It would be bad design to simply make smaller units equal or near equal to larger units. That goes against the larger design of this game and many of its 4x predecessors. 

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

I don't see anywhere where I mentioned you should be able to make old units better than new ones, in fact, that's one of the reason I don't like group size upgrades. It makes old units way better because you can upgrade them and keep their experience. I can't speak for everyone else, but every time I bring up a suggestion about adding abilities, I'm pretty sure I've specifically linked it to the group size techs. As in, once you research those techs, you gain some advantage for your smaller units as well as being able to build bigger ones. So AT THAT POINT, you would be able to build either better smaller units, or bigger units, it's a choice that you then have. This has absolutely nothing to do with old techs being able to beat out new tech because you still need the same techs, and everything to do with can you still make use of smaller units when larger ones becomes available.

Put it another way, you make the case that pikes are always better than spears, and should always be used, and if that's how you want to see groups, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I would like to see a situation more similar to how you have to choose between lightning pikes and pikes, where you have to weight costs and use, so while lightning pikes will still be better most of the time, in certain situations, it might be more desirable to use ordinary pikes.

As for your argument against my point that unit upgrades helps large empires... large empires can already build large units if they want (and buy it outright with their money if they can afford it), no one is saying anything about that, nor is this some crazy conspiracy to punish them. But adding things that is obviously advantageous only to them, and thus increasing the steam roller effect even more, is a bad idea, IMO. They don't need any more help, they are already in a good position to win, so why add more things that would only help them out? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Well said seanw.

Allowing us to upgrade for a price (metal, crystal and gold based on what the unit cost to produce) and a loss of experience, is clean and simple. Why make it more complex?

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Seanw and Kalin both make good points but I think they are two sides of the same coin.

It is all about balance in the end.  That said, I tend to agree with Seanw at this stage in the development.  

The truth is that at the moment the opportunity cost of going for larger army sizes, especially above armies of 5 is astronomical.  On that basis, you need a situation where these larger groups are immediately competitive out the door, otherwise those smaller armies accompanied by civilizations with greater civ/magic tech are going to overrun you (and that is assuming equal tech points, except in reality you will have less than the guy who went up the civ tech tree)

If you want to put Groups and Companies in tech columns 3 and 4, then Kalin's point has more weight--but that simply is not how the game is designed at the moment.  They are so high up the tech tree that I do not even think they are worth researching the way they are (let alone nerfing, which is fundamentally what Kalin is suggesting)--not until stupidly late game.

We also definitely need more techs in the warfare tree as seanw has already suggested.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Heh, Kalin, when I first read your post it sounded like, "I want to choose inferior units and still win the game," which I knew couldn't be what you're saying, so in tilting my head a certain way and thinking about it, I might be getting it.  Let me know if this is on track.

Tailoring units is the mentality behind the game's unit traits, right (like strength and underdog and finesse)?  It's a really fantastic aspect of FE, and perhaps it's all we need to accomplish what you are saying (correct me if I'm still not getting it, Kalin).  I think we could have many more traits to choose from (2 or 3 times as much, with many of them being for special circumstances), and then at the same time you research a larger group size, it also unlocks extra traits for the smaller units.  So for example, you could have a 5-unit group with 3 traits, and a 3-unit group with 5 traits (and all kinds of tailoring is possible with that!).

Some choices for good synergy with smaller units: a defensive bonus against large critters (who usually have overpower), extra evasiveness (dodge boost while defending), ambush (like a surprise attack that would be limited to 3-unit groups), extra moves and resists, and so on.  Being able to choose more of these traits might make 3-unit groups still viable without nerfing group size upgrades (which I agree with MiamiBigAl is hard-earned for 7/9-unit armies, though the gap from 7 to 9 is far smaller than from 5 to 7, and that bears strong consideration/rebalancing).  So with the right traits, a 7-unit group might be like a big hammer, while a 3-unit group (which can have 7 traits at that point) can be like a razor (think surgical strikes).  Because of the extra trait costs, those 3-unit groups would cost more than their earlier counterparts, though still not as expensive as the larger groups.

As icing on the cake, these extra traits would make tactical combat even more so.  Thoughts?

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Gorde, I really like your suggestion a lot! It rewards the achievement of researching the higher-level tech while maintaining the viability of 3-unit armies.  Unlockable late-game traits would definitely be able to be balanced, and also provide for much deeper strategy.

In effect, you are creating new units without creating new models.  That is the genius of the FE trait system.  You can create such a variety of tactics without creating new models.  This is probably the key to enhancing the strategic experience.

Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Glowing_Ember, reply 15

By all means i would like to see some traits only available to small units sizes, and some traits available only to large unit sizes, as well as faction only traits. In addition to this, it would be neat if smaller unit sizes got xp faster than large unit sizes. I think with some rules like this you could make some really unique things in this game happen.

 

No XP should not be faster for any unit no matter the size. It makes no sense.  Now smaller units should have a movement and inititive boost being that they are a smaller group which would be more logical. And the bigger group would of coarse do more damage and have more HP based on the size and compareative level. 

Now it makes sense that a high level small unit could beat a lower level Large group which would simulate better trained small task forces in the real world going against a larger yet unexperienced force.

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top


I am only thinking of balancing the bigger damage and hit point potential of a larger unit versus the bonus a smaller unit get for leveling, which is only accuracy and hit points, mayby some spell resistance for equivalently equipped troops.