Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore

Create an account  

 
Encourage garrisons

So, as we concluded changing the AI or their advantages isn't going to be the correct solution for the "all offense not using garrisons" early game problem, we should discuss the actions to take here.

I believe we specifically need to address this problem for the early game - in the late game, either Plane Shift and the massive hordes of units works well enough at forcing the player to defend cities, or the player is fighting against an enemy where defending is not viable anyway (Chaos).
So I would draw the line between the uncommon and rare phases, around 1412. After that the AI definitely has enough stacks that undefended cities are no longer viable, or if the human has beaten the Arcanus opponent already, then it becomes a tower blocking/plane shift issue which I believe we discussed enough and are happy with the current solution. The only "loophole" I see is the AI not researching Plane Shift in reaction to breaching towers early, so tower blocking is still doable, for a limited amount of time, rewarding those who clear out Arcanus very quickly (and likely have enough economy to crush the Myrran wizard regardless).

So we need to discuss the following features :

1. Guardian
I think this is working as intended - it requires garrisons to be effective and is a fairly powerful effect, while the AI will pick it more often on Lunatic difficulty. Unfortunately at a 2 pick cost it is still a marginal influence as we can't afford forcing it on the AI for lower difficulties where they don't have extra picks.

2. Wall of Fire
This acts as a very powerful deterring factor against offensive play, while also requiring units to be effective as a defensive measure...in theory.
In practice, it's way too easy to get around it.
Ranged attacks are obvious, but ranged units are generally not that great to use for offense, so that's acceptable - ranged attackers only work if the defenders are not ranged.
Flying also works, but flying is a higher tier, so getting it will usually mean a significant delay. The only early unit that is a decent flying melee creature is Gargoyles, and I don't think we need to worry about that conquering the entire world on Lunatic. They are good, but not that good.
Where I do see problems is, two common spells, Bless and Resist Elements both add enough defense to counter wall of fire - almost entirely on higher defense melee units, and somewhat on lower defense ones. I'm not sure what can be done about that, unless we rebrand the spell to not do Chaos damage, even then Resist Elements will apply to it. The other options are raising the attack strength which might be excessive (I'm already burning away entire stacks of AI creatures with it easily) or making it armor piercing (bad for flavor, Lighting attacks should have that trait, not fire). So I don't know what to do for this but it seems a problem.
Finally, Fire Immunity, is generally not available in the early game, and the units that do have it are not powerful enough to be a game balance threat, and aren't even melee in most cases.

Oh, and Noncoroporeal doesn't protect from this spell, so that's already covered.

3. Heavenly Light
I think this already offers a fairly good boost, especially now that it applies to ranged. One interesting way to improve it that becomes obsolete later is adding "and they gain magical weapons" to the effect, which makes garrisons with normal weapons effective, saving the price of an Alchemist Guild and putting a gap in resource cost between the same unit used for defense vs offense. Unfortunately, most offense strategies pick Alchemy and don't care.

4. City Walls
This unfortunately won't be helpful, even if buffed. Extra armor won't help defending ranged units, while melee units are vulnerable to ranged and need to go outside to fight. So the wall is not particularly relevant for both of those cases - it only matters if both the attacker and the defender (at least in the gate) uses melee units. Unfortunate, as encouraging using the slow, but reasonably cheap to build and powerful Catapults would be nice, although the most offense oriented races can't even build any. Odd, as this makes it a purely defensive unit while in most games it tends to be one for siege.

5. Wall of Shadows
A highly situational spell, that is absolutely devastating if the attacker uses ranged units. Unfortunately countered by the also uncommon True Sight and illusion immunity in general (Shadow Demons), but as those are fairly expensive, I feel it's not an issue. If ranged units are involved, this will do the job of slowing the attacker down.

6. Rampaging monsters and Raiders

Spawning more of these, earlier, and as stronger stacks, can and should help forcing the player on defense. We probably also need to make sure they avoid spawning on AI continents or at least do so much less frequently.

Altering the odds of the monsters razing the city vs only damaging it is another thing we should consider.

Currently, for Lunatic difficulty :

-Rampaging Monsters spawn every 4-20 turns (overall, not per plane), Can't spawn before turn 40, and have a 3-5x multiplier around the base amount, which is the turn count. Strength is halved if the location is on the AI's fortress continent, with no player fortress and Monsters Gone Wild is off. There is a 2/3 chance the spawn happens on the human player's starting plane, 1/3 on the other one.

-Raiders spawn once every 5-30 turns, have a 4x quantity multiplier, and the quantity scales up based on turns. Units generated don't have a budget, only a quantity from 1 to 9, and are of whichever unit is in the garrison of the neutral city, so it might as well be pretty powerful units. I believe we made sure neutrals at least don't start with armorer's guild tier units, but units like priests, halberdiers, or equivalent  can be expected. Quantity is decreased by 1/3 if an AI fortress is present on the continent.

-At movement, both of them prioritize the closest city, with the fewest defending units, with a small bias towards the human player starting at Advanced, and increasing once at Master difficulty. The bias of +7 on Lunatic is equivalent to a distance difference of 7 tiles, or unit count of 3.5 units. Basically they pick the target where (2*unit count+distance) is lowest, and subtract 7 for the human.


The frequency of both of these definitely needs to be massively increased, and should be made more consistent (4-7 turns is ok, 4-20 isn't!).
The budget on monsters starts horribly low - On turn 40 we get a budget of 120-200 for Lunatic which buys...3 to 5 hell hounds, or a single uncommon creature.
Turn 40 itself is probably too late - 25 or 30 might be more reasonable.
We probably shouldn't mess with the quantity of raiders in a stack due to them being potentially higher tier units. We probably want to alter the rule about the AI fortresses to make them spawn less frequently there, if and only if a human fortress isn't present.

I'm not sure this will be a truly effective method (it's still luck based extra stack of nagas wiping you early), but another thing: may as well be 4/5 on the human home plane (each wizard has equal chances).

Ok, so my next thought on this is: what does guardian, city walls, wall of fire, wall of darkness and heavenly light have to do with the human buildings garrisons?

If I'm not going to build garrisons, none of those things are relevant. (Which I happen to think is true, and why I think guardian is so bad.)

For the AI, all of those things are relevant, and (presumably), well balanced.


Look at the thought process:
Human plays a bunch. Human learns that the AI builds more units than the human can possibly keep up with, given equal resources. Human wants to win. That means dealing with those numerically superior troops.

Now, not only that, but the AI is GOOD at casting combat spells. The AI on the other hand is not as good at overland spells. So, the more combats that happen, the more effective the AI becomes. Therefore, reduce number of combats; and when combat does happen, reduce the importance of that combat.

The first tactic is done by fortress strikes. Take out the enemy fortress as the opening move of the war, and the AI will have less ability to do anything overland (which directly leads to less combats), and casting spell in combat will cost more, preventing the AI from doing it as much.

So, how do we fortress strike?
We build a doomstack, as fast as possible (preferably before the AI is prepared to declare war!) that can defeat the AI fortress.

First AI, common units. What is the most powerful (but likely) fortress we'll meet? 8 ghouls + beastmaster. So we need a single doomstack capable of defeating 8 ghouls + beastmaster + fortress lightning + going first because they are on defense.

So we come up with some type of wizard build that can defeat that, and be created, in less than the time it takes for the AI to be allowed to declare war (in original MoM this might mean 11 book gambits and summoning a single rare, but whatever the equivalent is, works.)

Then, whatever resources we have left over, we can dedicate to other things like garrisons, or economy, or more doomstacks.

But we want to win the game, not just defeat the first AI.

So our plan needs to then account for the second AI, and the third AI, and the fourth AI.

The two main approaches to this are:
Kill the first AI SO FAST that you can use the same doomstack to kill the second AI.
Expand your resources SO FAST that you can get a second doomstack that's relatively as strong against the second AI, as the first doomstack was against the first AI.

(Repeat this, with the same two approaches for AI 3 and 4.)

Now, if you take the first approach, then you've moved incredibly fast (see things like draconian archers). That means that the AI doesn't have any relevant troops, so you don't need garrisons. It also means you had to pour 100% of your resources into going that fast, so you can't build garrisons even if you want to.

However, if you take the second approach, then you've moved fast (see things like my bezerkers), but it also means the first doomstack is obsolete. But.. the AI offensive units (particularly non doomstacks, but even doomstacks) are always magnitudes weaker than their fortress. So although your first doomstack is obsolete for taking out the next AI fortress, its still going to crush anything the AI does have. And it was a doomstack capable of fortress striking, so it moves FAST. So now it is stronger than any offensive units the next AI has. It also means you had to pour 100% of your resources into not only getting the first doomstack, but also the second doomstack (or third or fourth depending on the AI you're attacking). So you can't build garrisons even if you want to.


Neither of these approaches permit the build up of garrisons. Both already provide security so that you don't NEED garrisons.


Now recall we also wanted to reduce the importance of combats that we're forced into. This actually means, take away the AI advantage of combat casting. This means, make it so that whatever the AI attacks that you can't control, doesn't allow the AI to use its superior (compared to overland, not compared to the human) combat casting. This means, don't let it attack anything that cost anything to produce, unless you need that thing for fortress striking. So, don't build garrisons. Thus, not only do neither of the above need garrisons, but, in turn, garrisons actually play INTO the AI strength. They literally strengthen the AI. So building them is actually bad for you anyway.




So now lets look at the school of thought where garrisons might occur.

Human plays a bunch. Human learns that the AI builds more units than the human can possibly keep up with, given equal resources. Human wants to win. That means dealing with those numerically superior troops.

Now, not only that, but the AI is GOOD at casting combat spells. The AI on the other hand is not as good at overland spells. So, the more combats that happen, the more effective the AI becomes. Therefore, reduce number of combats; and when combat does happen, reduce the importance of that combat.

Here is where the garrison school of thought diverges. The garrison school of thought looks at the enemy fortress and says 'whatever I can build now, CANNOT DEFEAT THE ENEMY FORTRESS'. Therefore, I need to build up to the point where I can beat the fortress, and I need to survive long enough to do so. (This is where garrisons might appeal, but read on.)

Effectively, in order to build a common tier fortress, you must have uncommon (non rush so giant spiders/gargoyles/werewolves can't work) tier magic. In order to beat uncommon, you need rare. In order to beat rare, you need very rare. In order to beat very rare, you need overwhelming numerical superiority (against an AI DESIGNED TO HAVE NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY).

This means you cannot stop the AI from using overland spells; and you cannot make combat spells cost excessively high amounts by banishing the AI. That means you MUST be able to endure the large number of numerical units that the AI has.

BUT YOU MUST ALSO RESEARCH FASTER than the AI. So it becomes a war of attrition. You need to reduce their resources, while not spending too much of your own (so that you can not only beat this AI, but be at parity with the next AI.)

But recall the AI offensive units are magnitudes worse than the AI - that means a human doomstack can still defeat all offensive AI stacks much as my obsolete doomstack in my second example above. So you build a doomstack, and use it to defend, and take away cities and nodes slowly like an onion, so that eventually your research must get ahead of the AI.

But doing this means you have to dedicate 100% of your resources to the second doomstack (its just that the second doomstack is required to take on the first AI, instead of taking out the second AI). So you still can't build garrisons.


I don't see any school of thought that actually leads to building garrisons.

This actually leads to a suggestion that could lead to garrisons:

Note this decision point here:

Nelphine Wrote:Now, not only that, but the AI is GOOD at casting combat spells. The AI on the other hand is not as good at overland spells. So, the more combats that happen, the more effective the AI becomes. Therefore, reduce number of combats; and when combat does happen, reduce the importance of that combat.

If this was reversed (the AI was good at overland, but poor at combat - or more accurately, if the AI was worse at combat than overland), then the human would want to maximize number of combats.

This would lead to building garrisons.

Basically, if the AI would waste units in attacks that didn't work, and by doing so, spend enough mana to allow a fortress strike, THEN garrisons would become important, by actually weakening the AI fortress.

So if you want garrisons to occur, then make the AI attack with things that will NOT win. Then, increase the defensive power of the fortress by a ridiculous margin (make it gain attack and defense based on how much mana it has). Then make that defensive power only lost when the AI attacks (when DEFENDING, all combat spells cost 1/10 the normal amount of mana). Then make sure that abuse doesn't happen (the AI has some doomstacks that will still attack with the current rules, the AI won't attack things that are 'too weak' and if it is forced to then teach the AI not to waste mana on those combats).

I don't particularly think that's actually feasible, but, hey, its the thought process. I also think it's unintuitive, because the AI should recognize the same thing, and both sides should just stalemate out as neither will attack the other (and therefore, garrisons aren't important anyway.)

Worse raiders will make the player build even less settlers than before - cities are harder to defend and to do so you would need more, better troops than previously. And with said better troops you could go dungeon crawling or killing the first AI player.

Building settlers after you have the quality troops is simply too slow to be valid. The AIs will have planted cities everywhere possible by then, which you can take with the troops left over after killing the first one...

Quote:Basically, if the AI would waste units in attacks that didn't work, and by doing so, spend enough mana to allow a fortress strike, THEN garrisons would become important, by actually weakening the AI fortress.

Guardian actually does that. The AI doesn't recognize the bonus and attack with "too weak" stacks most of the time.

I still don't understand how "the" doomstack which based on your description is only one stack, can possibly cover the entire map with their presence. It just isn't moving that fast.

This is my thought process :

Fortresses are already really hard - 2 out of 3 I don't attack them and conquer everything else instead. I don't think we have a problem with that. But non-fortresses are easy to conquer,  for the human, who can use doomstacks successfully for this while the AI can't. (the AI's doomstack gets killed by the human doomstack or torn apart by combat spells either while attacking cities or when fighting stacks that intercept it)

However the AI has numerical superiority. One doomstack can potentially conquer all the AI's cities, but can't possibly kill all the units. It just simply can't work, there are more stacks than turns you can take with your doomstack. However if you don't kill them, they eventually reach your cities (the ones you conquered immediately, your homelands later) and you would lose them, so you need garrisons. Having "garrisons" that move around killing stuff ofc works, but they are ultimately still garrison tier units, not doomstacks, and once there is no enemy left in the area, they move back into cities. (or hit any nearby lairs you haven't had a chance to do earlier)

So where our thought process is different is, I assume, based on actual experience, that my doomstack won't be able to intercept all enemies, so I need more troops to do so. And I better keep them in the cities, for unrest reduction and city walls if I do build them - outside they do almost nothing useful, unless an AI stack I can't beat inside the city is coming.
You assume your doomstack can kill every enemy unit. I'm 100% sure that's because your doomstack isn't only one (you keep mentioning X stacks of buffed berserkers) but in reality multiples, plus they can split up to kill enemies. We've been trying to make this splitting up less effective - and done so for werewolves, those ships, and horsebowmen. Which units are there left where splitting up still works too effectively? If we deal with those, we fix this divergence in our thought process.
But unfortunately I don't think this is about units. This is about Healing and Dispel Magic. With those you can split up stacks as much as you want - you still aren't losing units. We've fixed Dispel Magic for the next version by doubling dispel resistance, so the last problem is the combination where a good, possibly buffed unit, plus healing, can function in smaller stacks without losses. However we updated range modifiers - while this still works, it should now be prohibitively expensive - you're paying 45 mana crystals every time you cast Healing and you should be needing it 2-3 times each time you crush a "stack" of 2 enemy swordsmen. So I still don't know why it works.

By the way, I realized we have one more way to encourage garrisons :

7. Garrisons reducing unrest
If unrest reduction was actually proportional to the strength (more realistically, production cost) of the unit, using no garrisons would be an economic disaster - you have to keep tax rates low, or end up having a lot of rebels everywhere. This would be especially true if unrest was higher - note the mod reduced unrest rates for each tax tier, and the reduction was the greatest on low tax tiers. In the original game, you couldn't get away with no garrisons even at low tax rates.

(December 22nd, 2018, 04:38)Juffos Wrote: Worse raiders will make the player build even less settlers than before - cities are harder to defend and to do so you would need more, better troops than previously. And with said better troops you could go dungeon crawling or killing the first AI player.

Building settlers after you have the quality troops is simply too slow to be valid. The AIs will have planted cities everywhere possible by then, which you can take with the troops left over after killing the first one...

Conquering cities from the AI is always better than building them yourself, unless the AI has a race you don't want or there is no AI on your continent at all. Settlers are mostly for those two cases.
However even if you conquer from the AI you still need the same garrisons to defend them as what you need in your own settled cities.

Dungeon crawling ofc works but it's not a problem we need to solve, the problem is the player killing AI players and holding all the conquered cities, without needing to have a garrison in them.

I think the very first thing to do is, make sure the problem exists.
I'd like to play some test games, on Lunatic. Please recommend strategies with detailed information (picks, what to build, etc) that works for this "no garrison" tactic. If we find a wide array of such strategies then the problem is real. If it's only one-two specific units/spells/whatever, then the problem doesn't exist and nerfing those is a better solution, like we have been doing so far.

Regardless we should think about raiders and unrest anyway, I feel those are currently not ideal to achieve their intended role.

(December 22nd, 2018, 07:10)Seravy Wrote: I think the very first thing to do is, make sure the problem exists.
I'd like to play some test games, on Lunatic. Please recommend strategies with detailed information (picks, what to build, etc) that works for this "no garrison" tactic. If we find a wide array of such strategies then the problem is real. If it's only one-two specific units/spells/whatever, then the problem doesn't exist and nerfing those is a better solution, like we have been doing so far.

Regardless we should think about raiders and unrest anyway, I feel those are currently not ideal to achieve their intended role.

Nomad horses/lizard ships with alchemy,tactitian, achmage, astrologer. 3life(heal, holy weapon),2chaos(flame blade),2nature(web) last pick into whatever.
Draconian bowmen into war trolls with hero support. myrran,alchemy,warlord-tactitian,whatever, 2life(heal),2chaos(flame blade), the rest into whatever(probably better more life and chaos for better chances of chaos channels and holy armour, but other picks are ok)

Nomads and lizard ships are being nerfed so I hope those won't work anymore.
I'll try draconian bowmen first then, as those weren't and likely won't be nerfed.



Forum Jump: