Yeah, I agree with all of this. Also some of my issues are relism-related. For example, you would think that infantry should the mainstain of your forces and that, in battle, infantry should be taken as casualty before cannons. Also, I think that it is hardly realistic, for any land units, having more attack than defence (I hated the Classic armor, with more attack then defence); but this is a very personal preference (a lot of people are cool with attack unbalanced land units).
Beside, having a lot more attack than defence is not a recipe for faster gaming. If you have much more attack then defence the only effect will be to substitute the stalemate based on stacks touching each other with the stalemate based on stacks 1 territory away, both deathzoneing the territory in between (which is even more stalemating).
Also consider that maps like NWO have gone through many many cycles of rebalancing, with playtesting from the best v2 players in the world, and what you are aiming at is a set likely harder to balance properly than the NWO one.
Again, good luck!
(I higly advice not starting a new map till you have reasonably fine tuned this)
EDIT: If I must say the main one on the things I would change, it is to get rid of the unit's discount for players, giving all players the same frontier, with the same costs.
The cost baseline that i use and then modify as needed per situation:
ATT + DEF + MOVE +BONUS +1 = REAL UNIT VALUE
For air units, Move = range divided by two
BONUS VALUES: artillery = ¼ per unit/point of support
supported = ¼ (½ if condition is common)
blitz = ½
2-hit non-repairing = 2
2 hit repairing = 5
can bomb = 1
can transport = 1
can carry air = 1
per conditional bonus = ½
offshore support = ½ amount of
air/land transportable = ½
special abilities = ½
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
That’s a lot of good ideas and considerations. As I see, this is some of the rules that should be followed when I try to build a value calculating system: (This of course this aimes for “true value” and not the rounded up/down PU cost)
• The value of an added att/def power should scale up as att/def piles up. (Example: 1=1 / 2=2.25 / 3=3.75)
• Specialized or focused configuration like 3/1 is a tiny bit more valuable than balanced 2/2.
• Two 1/1 units + one 2/2 unit … are a tiny-tiny bit better than … one 1/1 + one 1/2 + one 2/1.
• The value of an extra move (like 2 moves) is a bit more valuable than a standard +1 att or +1 def.
• ”increase the base value or decrease the cost of upgrades if you want the fodder being relatively less cost efficient” So I can experiment with having a “base value” (0.25 <-> 2?). I will probably experiment a bit with this.
• IMHO I think 'giving a +1 support bonus' or 'artillerySuportable+isArtillery' or 'isMarine' should be valued a bit lower than a normal att/deff strength, or at least only as valuable as the first att/def strength, like in a 1/1 unit.
It would in my opinion be optimum if the build percentage would be something like the following. I hope I can make a unit value system that the AI agrees with and would also build accordingly:
Infantry (20% This is “redcoat” quality infantry – not Russian cannon-fodder )
Cannon / Mortar (25%)
Horse Artillery (10%)
Indian scout (10%)
”Have you considered the side effect of increasing unit costs and territory production to be double what most maps are?” I realize this little flaw in my Caribbean map. This map has a lot of water and some nations only have very few land territories to where all the PU income must come from. I vision my next map () having a lot more territories and a lot less 12 or 20 PU income territories. The high unit price is an “experiment” from my side to have unit PU cost actually reflecting the “true value” and not a rounded up or down cost.
“get rid of the unit's discount for players” I thought about it, but I also like the idea of having national specialties. I think I will remove the special prices while testing and balancing unit cost … look at AI build ratios … after that maybe special national prizes get thrown in Again.
Zim Xero, I will take your system in mind when making my own. I can see that you have suggestions regarding ships and flying units (planes ... and maybe dragons? ). I have not even tried to make a ship value system yet, so thanks for the input.
Anyway, I am on Christmas holiday now . I am not even at home. I am in Malaga, Spain. So I will take a week off from TripleA. But I will resume work around New Year. Have a great Christmas or whatever you all are doing atm.
I think the Beta is soon over.
After a lot of experimentation with different values, I think I have found what I see as a value system that is acceptable. It is a mixture of my logic, battle calculator cost/effect results and what fits the hard AI’s shopping preferences.
I had to make the Infantry a 3a/3d unit to complete my system. When it was 3a/2d the AI didn’t want to buy them, only Militia. But a 3/3 Infantry is also ok. They are “redcoat”-class infantry, and as I wrote earlier, the best soldiers of their time. This is how my value system is now and this is probably the system I will base my next map on:
AI shopping: (15-20 rounds Hard AI vs Hard AI (with / without national discount prices))