AgentTBC wrote:
I don't see how you balance things so long as units which get attacked lose their counterattack. It means that any melee unit with low initiative is rendered basically useless since they never get to actually attack.

Well, perhaps a "guard" command, wherein the unit forfeits its turn, but gets first attack against any enemy unit entering its ZoC, regardless of initiative? That would be useful for infantry used as "linebackers," but if an enemy predicts you're doing it, he can just hold off his melee units and pelt your "linebackers" with ranged attacks, and perhaps flying units could ignore guarding units and attack like normal, giving them a niche.

Why? Because initiative is the most important stat. If you attack first, you basically negate any enemy special attacks(chain lightning, beam, circular attack, etc.) and have a chance to kill weakened enemies(with ranged attacks) before they have a chance to do any damage for that round. A melee attack doesn't just negate their attack, it also prevents them from moving.



And there's no real cost to using Glassteel, it's competitive in damage, in defense, in attack, in all the other stats. It really needs to come with some sort of health or defense penalty, to represent armor amount sacrificed or some such. Or perhaps a damage penalty. Either that or the other resources need a buff in response, perhaps some buffs to give stronger counter-attacks, have there be an accessory that grants X(where X is tier) free counters like Jotus units have, or something of the sort. Otherwise there's no real reason to use anything else, as far as I can tell. Attacking first matters so much, and there's no penalty for it.



Glassteel is also why wandering enemies are irrelevant at the end of the first Age of research, because by then all your units should be decked out in murderous piles of Glassteel and beat most hostiles(and all minor faction hostiles) at initiative. It would help if minor-faction units at least defaulted to wearing iron armor, but the lack of that already makes them weak. Alternately, why not have them wear equipment of the resources available in their area? If their region has glassteel, give them a random piece(perhaps one per resource) of glassteel gear, same for titanium, and mithrite, palladian, etc. when the appropriate eras are reached.



It would do a lot towards maintaining them as any sort of credible threat and bribery/parlay to anything you want to bother with after the earliest game.

The thing about tying an archer's effectiveness to level is that you don't have to train them and keep them alive, you can just wait and they'll automatically be trained at higher levels as you progress through the eras.

I don't see how you balance things so long as units which get attacked lose their counterattack. It means that any melee unit with low initiative is rendered basically useless since they never get to actually attack.

PurpleXVI wrote:
...there's really rarely any point to using infantry over ranged. The few units there would be a point to using, because they have Circular or Beam attacks, there's no point to using because their incredibly trash initiative means they'll always be fielding a counterattack from another melee unit and hence don't get to use their special attack.

Yes, but in order to prevent these units with special attacks from using their abilities you have to field some non-ranged units as well.

PurpleXVI wrote:
Glassteel bow archers trash EVERYTHING.

I'll still stick with Titanium against the AI and would split my forces 50/50 fast vs strong against a player fielding ranged in only Glassteel. That way my fast trade shots with your fast, but then get left in range of my heavy hitters before the round ends.

PurpleXVI wrote:
But it could be solved with one thing, as mentioned: Zone of control and weaker archers. Suddenly you need your infantry to act as linebackers to prevent your archers getting stomped, archers become more of a support unit, infantry are tanks, cavalry are for stomping enemy archers and supports, flying is more fragile cavalry that can ignore terrain. Bam, THEN you have your rock/paper/scissors. Currently there's nothing like it.

I'm kind of ambivalent about the Zone of Control idea. Actually, that's not quite right. I don't think adding it would detract from other aspects of combat, but I don't think it would add all that much either. So I guess my vote would be, for the developers to go ahead and implement it (since quite a few of the most active people here seem to want it). I personally don't see it as a high priority though. As for weaker archers, yeah- I have to admit it. Once you have the +1 range and tier 2 weapons they do kind of own. My suggestions would be:

1- starting ranged units off with lower attack and damage, but increasing it faster than other units as they level

2- reduce range on crossbows by 1, introduce light armor for units using two-handed bows (half the cost and half the effectiveness)

both suggestions are aimed at making high level archers relatively strong units, but also making it more difficult to keep them alive long enough to reach that potential.

PurpleXVI wrote:
I could not care less about what I "should" expect in a game. A game's primary purpose is not to be realistic, it's to be fun and balanced.

+1

Ironshield wrote:
The way I see it the game is set up more or less on a rock/paper/scissors model. Ranged beats Infantry, Infantry beats Cavalry, Cavalry beats Ranged, add some Flyers for fun.

Not quite. Ranged still pretty much beats everything, with flyers a close second, infantry kind of muddling around useless and cavalry occasionally handy. Ranged has no weakness in melee, it's generally not even that weak at offense, it has great range, same movement as infantry... there's really rarely any point to using infantry over ranged. The few units there would be a point to using, because they have Circular or Beam attacks, there's no point to using because their incredibly trash initiative means they'll always be fielding a counterattack from another melee unit and hence don't get to use their special attack.



Glassteel bow archers trash EVERYTHING.



But it could be solved with one thing, as mentioned: Zone of control and weaker archers. Suddenly you need your infantry to act as linebackers to prevent your archers getting stomped, archers become more of a support unit, infantry are tanks, cavalry are for stomping enemy archers and supports, flying is more fragile cavalry that can ignore terrain. Bam, THEN you have your rock/paper/scissors. Currently there's nothing like it.



I could not care less about what I "should" expect in a game. A game's primary purpose is not to be realistic, it's to be fun and balanced.



Archers rarely have notably poor attack, that's the flaw of the unfortunate support units, so I rarely find them needing a serious attack boost to get in their hits.

The way I see it the game is set up more or less on a rock/paper/scissors model. Ranged beats Infantry, Infantry beats Cavalry, Cavalry beats Ranged, add some Flyers for fun. I'm okay with that. If the game didn't have ranged units, I'd agree that Glassteel is over-powered compared to Titanium. Same goes for if ranged units had less range (which would essentially make them useless). If you march a line of infantry at a line of archers, you should expect to take some losses (just ask the French about Agincourt). Likewise, once infantry or cavalry closes with ranged units, they can expect to be in a world of hurt.



Archers are the Windwalker faction's main advantage in the game, and when I play them I deck them out in mostly Titanium. In fact everything except the helm (Glassteel- which gives a health boost, not initiative) and an iron necklace for extra movement. Base stats at tier2 are 114 life/ 87 attack/ 43 initiative/ 10 speed/ 48 defense/ 72 damage. If I traded all the Titanium for Glassteel I'd lose 23 attack and 22 damage and gain 52 initiative and 7 defense. Yes, the weapon's raw damage is better with Glassteel, but you have to factor in the attack difference too. A 1/3 drop in attack means I'm going to on average have 1/3 more misses and half damage hits and 1/3 fewer crits. So, my actual damage with Titanium is going to be more like 96 versus 50 with Glassteel.



The other factor, for me, is that initiative doesn't give incremental advantages. It's all or none. Either you go first or you don't. So, having 157 higher initiative than an enemy unit is no better than having 1. Having 157 higher damage, however, is most definitely better than having 1. In short, I don't think Glassteel is overpowered versus Titanium. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, let's set up a one on one game. I'm home alone this weekend, so can play any hours that are convenient- I don't do timers though. I play strategy games to exercise my brain, not to get an adrenalin rush.

Eji1700 wrote:
Absolute control over everything isn't very realistic, but is sadly the industry standard

No it isn't.

Eji1700 wrote:
If they add zoc, change the range values/rules, and make glasssteel give something else you could actually see mixed armies. Right now i see no reason to not run either glasssteel cav or glasssteel archers though.

If they wanted to balance it against Titanium, the first thing they'd need to do is remove the initiative modifier from Glassteel completely. Replace it with something else, maybe defense (keeping the theme of an agile and graceful weapon?) to make up for the missing stat points. Giving it defense would also give it a nice niche to live in, defensive units could use it while offensive units would use Titanium.



Now, this doesn't address the larger issue of "Initiative is OP". It would, however, address the main topic of this thread (Glassteel is OP) quite well.