One of the biggest issues is that armour give flat bonuses to health, defence etc, and not percentages, so Archers can almost take as much damage as a t2 unit like the Titan can later game (it gets worse and worse the more advanced armour gets). This is why I voted alternative 2.



And then we have the Wild Walkers of course, and their crazy archers, OP in every way (+ super production, no need for researching other troops, its their starting unit and best unit in the game etc etc etc) . Their Archer needs to be balanced with very fragile hit points and less damage. It should be the easiest unit in the game to kill (by far), if it shall keep its initiative and range bonuses. As the Wild Walkers you should be forced to get some strong units to protect those archers, or be severly punished.

I like MetroRanger's general ideas about infantry zone of control, and cavalry flanking. Not sure about some of the proposed implementations though. Last Stand could simply apply to units within the normal battlefield. If all of your units within the normal battlefield die, or if there are none of your units left within the normal battlefield, those cavalry units outside the normal battlefield retreat, and you lose the battle.



As far as raw number balancing goes: Archers need a very reduced attack and/or damage when at point blank, and reduced life generally. Infantry should also have higher life and higher defense generally.



But ultimately I think that initiative is the biggest factor at play here, because a high-initiative archer basically destroys everything. My proposal is that different roles should have different basic initiatives applied to them, with no, or very small, modification by items and hero skills. Generally, the move order should be something like, Support > Flying > Cavalry > Archer > Infantry. For example, if Support units had 500 initiative, Flying 400, Cavalry 300, Archers 200, Infantry 100, and items/levels/heroes/etc. can only modify those basic values by up to +-50 (e.g. Archers 150~250, Cavalry 250~350). This would allow, for example, archer units on one side to move before archer units on the other side, but it would not allow archer units on one side to move before cavalry units on the other side.

@MetroRanger



Interesting post and good observations regarding roles of troops. Agree that Infantry needs to be better at the role of tying up opposing units.



For cavalry though, I think the light cavalry "harassing" role you define is something that happens on the world map and not necessarily on the battle map during large battles. High mobility cavalry can be used to divide large armies, pick off single units, raid an Empire's backfield cities and generally be annoying. The key is separating them into their own stacks, having vision to go after opportunity targets and running away from superior forces.



I actually did this last night in a multiplayer game (as Roving Clans). I had a large, superior Broken Lords army coming after me and I used a handful of base equipment Kassai to pin down my opponents stacks outside of my cities. I was producing them faster than he could kill them. He also had to decide whether or not to commit reinforcements to fighting these stacks as I had a few stronger stacks I could have committed as reinforcements. It was chaotic and messed him enough for me to boost my score.



Also note that players need to do a better job of picking the appropriate ground for their army composition. If you want to do flanking maneuvers, you need to pick battlefields that are open. That's actually an issue with Ranged units. One would assume that battlefields with lots of cover would be the perfect place to go after an all-archer army. Unfortunately, due to the lack of LOS mechanics, it's actually the best place for ranged units as the terrain just slows down the melee units.

MetroRanger wrote:
I'm going to write a little bit of an essay here...

...

Ranged units are currently so powerful because neither cavalry nor infantry fulfil their battlefield roles, and remedying this would better balance the forces (some minor nerf/buffing would still probably be in order), encourage the use of combined arms, and greatly increase the tactical depth of the game.

+1

Great reading and ideas!

I voted "Do something else" since I think the balance is very fragile and ZoC should be in place before balancing ranged as of now they are often reached in 1 turn and win due to other factors.

I would like to add 2 item traits, one for spears or 2h axes that nullafies the first ranged shot during one round. the second being a shield that halfs the damage for an unit behind the one with the shield. Would like to see the other units buffed instead of a ranged nerf. More decisions to make add things to do in certain situation. the combat should be fast but should give room for alot of customization and more then one counter strategy.



I really like the idea with the shield, maybe making ranged units attacking only on tiles that are directly connected to a line. You could balance the whole combat just with tweaking the items. And i think its a good idea to make archers stronger at early game to give them an additional purpose for playing defensive. But they shouldnt scale as high then other units. At late, both being viable choices (despite the counter things in mind)

I voted 2 - 6. IMO these should also be applied to ranged support units. Additionally, Arden Mages AOE support unit should hit friendlies to make positioning more important.



Ranged should have lower base initiative and defense, and gain less attack from ranged weapons. (2)

Ranged attacks should be more vulnerable than normal to adverse terrain (higher ground and woods), and should possibly have penalties for shooting through units / mountains (4, possibly 3)

Ranged units should gain a moderate debuff (-25% attack and damage or so) when directly engaged by a melee / cavalry / flyer unit. (5)

Morale should be unique to melee units (6). Cavalry and flyers could get their own unique mechanics (better charge, push back, etc). Archers already have their increased range as a special feature.

I'm going to write a little bit of an essay here...



I have a very strong 'mechanics view' of how games should work, and I come from a certain 'philosophical' position that all military games - regardless of their level of abstraction - can learn from and model the real behaviour and tactics of what they are imitating. Let me elaborate on that here. We have three basic classes of unit - Ranged, Infantry, and Cavalry. Each has a specific purpose on the battlefield. Now, Ranged units achieve their purpose fairly easily, because all they need for that is the ability to attack distal enemies.



Cavalry and Infantry are not so easy. My thesis is that the problem isn't that ranged units are overpowered (I think they should more or less remain as they are), but that the simplicity of the battle mechanics prevents infantry and cavalry from achieving their military roles.



Lets take a look at infantry first. The role of infantry units in medieval warfare was to hold and break lines, but there is currently no way to hold a line with infantry because there is no kind of zone of control. If infantry units were given some kind of zone of control, they would effectively be able to lock down a line and hold it, protecting the ranged units behind them. This could be used defensively, where a line stands ground and lets the ranged units behind pepper the enemy, or offensively where a line attempts to push an opposing line into disarray. Introducing zone of control abilities might not make infantry any more resistant to ranged units, but it would reinstate their purpose in an army. That, I believe, is the solution to the problem and I believe passive buffs and most of the stuff in the poll will lead to a weaker tactical experience. For flavour, flying units should be able to ignore zone of control, which would provide an interesting level to them, and make them a priority target for archers.



it might also be a good idea to give ranged units a secondary attack used for Melee, that is much weaker. We already have the longbow/crossbow distinction but we could elaborate on this. Have it so longbows have significantly greater range (as is now, crossbows range reduced), but crossbows can be used in melee (Nothing like a disciplined Vaulter Marine volley at point blank.) Longbow-armed ranged troops could have a secondary attack (based on their weapon so we don';t have to introduce new items) for melee. Combined with the zone of control, this would mean people would be incitivised either to use infantry to defend the archers (as an archer caught in zone of control is basically ♥♥♥♥ed), or use crossbowmen as a sort of intermediate (with short range, 2-3 spaces). In either case, ranged units can provide firing support over a line of battle.



On to Cavalry - What is the role of cavalry in a battle? Historically, there have been two major classes of cavalry. Light cavalry has been used for scouting and harrying routing enemy units to prevent them from reforming, and Heavy Cavalry is to make a decisive charge and threaten flanks. A important note is heavy cavs are meant to brake an enemy regiment in the initial charge, and if the regiment stands, the cavalry is ♥♥♥♥ed. For Endless Legend, I think it is fine to collapse heavy and light cavalry into one class. The Scouting is obviously at the strategic level, so I won't discuss that. Furthermore, the game does not model broken morale and routing like a real army, which is fine, and means I don't need to discuss it. That leaves a decisive charge and threatening flanks. Cavalry achieve the charge nicely already - the charge bonus is an excellent mechanic and it encourages charge-and-retreat tactics, just like most real cavalry operates. With the zone of control, a cavalry troop would need to break the enemy or be caught in a melee, which should be bad for them.



However, cavalry do poorly at threatening the flanks. I would suggest allowing cavalry to move off the normal battlefield map - this would allow cavalry complete freedom to circle an enemy and threaten the flanks and rear, which would strengthen their role. Cavalries could then have a secondary skirmish outside the borders of the normal battle, which often happened historically. Again, the idea is to look at what the 'point' of cavalry is in a real battle, and attempt to recreate it within the mechanics. To many games just shove a man on a horse and call it cavalry, or shove a sword in a man's hand and call him infantry. In my opinion, it is not the weapons or the look or the title that make the unit, but the function of battle. The importance of cavalry is to threaten the flanks and rear to force the enemy to remove troops from the front to guard against them, and to deal a decisive charge at opportunistic moments.



The cavalry idea does have one major problem which I'd like to address quickly - that of the unkillable cavalry. Say we were fighting, and I had some cavalry off map. All my units were dead, except the cavalry, who was staying out of range. Furthermore, you have no cavalry. Come the end of the battle, I would get my hero back. One way to overcome this would be to ensure the 'last stand' trait of heroes does not apply to cavalry. So say I have an army with a hero, two ranged units, three infantry units, and one cavalry unit. If my cavalry is out all alone, and everyone else is dead, come the end of the battle my cavalry would be all that is left (the hero would be disabled.) This would encourage the use of combined arms (as opposed to Genghis Khan hordes), but it would also have the other effect of dropping the priority of attacking cavalry. This would also mean an all-cavalry army is not viable - which may be something we wish to avoid, or maybe something we wish to encourage. But, what would happen to my cavalry unit? Would it be allowed to continue in the next turn, and potentially siege a city and stay out of combat indeterminately by being outside the normal sphere of battle? One way to avoid this would be to have defeated armies with cavalry sent back to the owners nearest city. So, upon the defeat of my army, my cavalry retreats towards my closest city, but this would discourage the use of cavalry-only scouting parties as they would return home after every battle. Another way would be to limit how far cavalry can go 'outside' of the battle, based on combined arms. If I have an army of only cavalry (including or excluding a hero), the game categorises it as a 'skirmish force' and it can't go out of the normal combat area. But, with combined arms the cavalry can be extended. This would mean in a large-scale combined arms battle, cavalry can fulfil their flanking and threatening function, but if the army id destroyed and only cavalry is left, they would either have to fight on skirmish terms or run.



One might worry this makes cavalry too powerful. If you have infantry holding a line against other infantry, and archers/support behind the line, how do you protect your flanks and rear from the cavalry? This is an intriguing puzzle that has been put to many commanders since ancient warfare. There are a few methods, and in my opinion at least the mechanic would not make cavalry OP because of them. A tactical battle is a puzzle, and it comes down to force composition, prior preperation & planning, geography, and skill in battle.

1- geography; defending your rear/flanks with mountains, rivers, ect, where possible. Endless legend has great geography, and I love that it comes dynamically into battle. Lets try use it a little more.

2- Counter-cavalry. Cavalry units should be able to equip Lances, and be able to skirmish it out outside of the infantry battles.

2 - More infantry. Infantry units should get pikes that deal more damage to cavalry, and commanders worried about cavalry should ensure they have one or two anti-cavalry units. They may have to move units from the frontline, but this is how it should be. interestingly, infantry have the advantage here. Imagine for example a circle, in the middle is a support unit, the 'target' at r=.2 is an infantry unit, and at r=1 is a cavalry unit. For any given angle of attack the cavalry unit chooses, the infantry unit has less to move to cover that angle than the cavalry must move to attack it. This is an axiomatic truth that comes from the geometry of the circle, and means the infantry actually as an advantage here. Even more so, given the relatively closed space of an endless legend battle (This is less so, say, in a total-war style battle.)



So, to finish up, I think the best way to Endless Legend (or any other game) to have good combat mechanics is to imitate the function of the unit at the level of abstraction of the game. Ranged units are the easiest to do because all you need to give them is ranged attacks. You woudn't have ranged units that can't make use of range (I'm looking at you, Battle for Wesnoth!), so why would you have infantry that can't hold a line or cavalry that can't threaten the rear and flanks? Ranged units are currently so powerful because neither cavalry nor infantry fulfil their battlefield roles, and remedying this would better balance the forces (some minor nerf/buffing would still probably be in order), encourage the use of combined arms, and greatly increase the tactical depth of the game.

Effectiveness once the gap is closed should be reduced, you can't fire a bow when you are engaged in close combat. Crossbows should counter this weakness but have reduced range (-1) and stats compared to a longbow.



Terrain should play a larger factor on positioning of ranged units and also the terrain their targets are in. Perhaps give ranged units higher benefits for being on high ground but give larger penalties for firing into cover (forests) or targets at higher elevation.



There needs to be more benefits for using a mixed army of different classes, (i.e. Cavalry, Ranged, Melee) than just using a boring stack of doom composed of one unit.

Ranged units should not be allowed to move and attack, period. And there effectiveness in melee should be penalized severly. This would encourage you to have a front line of infantry protecting them from cavalry who once they close would otherwise cut them down.

I choose number 5 and would add to it that ranged units should not be able to make a counter attack but continue to loose their action if they are attacked by a melee unit.



I also like the ideal of "Introduce a mechanic to reduce effectiveness (Damage) when a Ranged unit moves and attacks in the same round"