A simpler and easier way to work out some balances for combat games

For those that use armor as a subtraction. And have used the above method for calculating weights. Might have discovered that the system shows illogical behavior towards the lightest and heaviest armor types.

Systems with only positive outputs and no minimum damages, will almost always result in having the lightest damage doing no damage against the heaviest armor. This is natural. But the RPS is shifted towards the heaviest damage being the middle man. This means, no one is going to use light weapons. And light armor is only going to be used as fodder, not as meat.

So the RPS is almost always broken. Even after trying to adjust your damages and armors.

IMHO subtracting armor is a No Go.

Use percentages or multiplications on damages instead. With this I mean, that you do away with armor being a subtraction. But you get armor and damage types as an attribute.

We aren’t there yet. You can fill in the table and see that you can still apply differences to the weapons and armor types.

With this, you can easily get light armor to be cheaper. But light weapons to be cheaper as well.

Examples, only on request.

Well. I am starting to go pretty deep here. But it is all research in general. I have no other goal in mind.

I initially wanted to share some newfound knowledge. But I am also open to discussion.

I am curious about all the mechanics that people have come up with. Some are basic. Others are genious.

But have each of them considered a chance that there might be no rps at all in the system that they thought of.
That is what I learned with calculating the armor from damage subtraction mechanic.

Warcraft 2 is brilliant. It works the same way as simply subtracting armor from damage. And so does starcraft.

The difference is that warcraft 2 has also implemented a piercing damage. This is different per unit. And means that high armor can't defend against it. 6 basic minus 4 armor is 2 basic. 6 piercing is 6 piercing, period. That is a factor of 3 difference. In the 'target is armored' league.

Starcraft. As sad as it may sound. Relies on a damage table instead. Having the remaining damage being multiplied by a factor. 1 or 0.5 or 0.25 etc. This factor is a syntetic rps. Not a natural one.

Subtracting armor from damage is a natural one. That is why it interests me so much.

My "Projectile" has to begin with: A natural rps that is ridiculous strong already. And as most might recall. I added a syntetic one by simply telling players to add more damage when dealing with a certain type.

The natural rps was strong enough to create a factor of 6 slow down when the weapon or armor was a factor of 6 away in tiers. In other words. A factor of 6 against the armor league.

The armor subtraction has given me only a 50 percent slowdown. A mere factor of 1.5.
Which is only in the best of chosen situation.

This 1.5 works great in rts games with a lot of units. The survivor has like 1/3th of its army left. Especially with extra damage against certain targets. Hence was starcraft 2 born. But this is a combination between a weak natural rps and a strong syntetic one.

Overall. I am going to recheck several other games. Most are a combination of subtracting and a syntetic factor. But also the so called piercing damage. Whether by a simple number, a number different per unit or an overall percentage.
I am very interested to see AoE(2).

Just to see if it is natural or syntet8c.

Still want to use armor as a subtraction?
Yet want a proper RPS?
That is possible.

Instead of calculating how much each armor is going to weight.
Simply tell the system how much each armor is weighting. As if the armor are types or attributes.
Eg. Light armor is 1, medium armor is 3 and heavy armor is 6.
Yet the subtraction might be 0, 6 and 12.

Now you make that same table of damage versus armor.
You calculate all the results or damage – armor.
But this time, you will multiply the results for the remaining damage times the armor weights.

What you get is a table that will show you how much weight each weapon will get.

With only 2 armor types. You could spot ratio's between the damage done to one or another. If you spot the same ratio's inverted, you got yourself a twin of damage. eg. 1:3 and 3:1. These twins when both used are perfectly balanced.

Examples only on request.

When you have a different amount of armor attributes than weapon attributes. The balance weight factors that you can get are correct. Even if the table suggest a "are you sure?".

You could put the new numbers in the same mill over and over again. But it will yield the same differences in weight factors for the weapons and armor. Almost always, weird numbers.

Once this looping reaches an equilibrium, you can compare the armor and damage weights to each other. And you can discover a difference between the 2 sets. If it isn't 1, the speed is different than what you would expect. And this number has something to do with the health/damage ratio.

It is a conjecture to get to this number.
And the usefulness of the number isn't that much.
I don't recommend this for board games. The results are way to low to have any meaning. But if any one out there makes RTS games on the scale of at least Total Annihilation, then it might prove a little push in the right direction.

Let's start with the most common one.

Not many know that speed and distance is a complex subject when it comes to balancing.
It could also be read as Speed and Range. Or using range and distance together as well.

When using these value's in card games. Well, card games are often 1 dimensional. Some are 2d since you could move sideways etc.

Let's talk about the 1 dimensional version first. Because I have seen this struggle. And it is good to know how complicated it is.

Card games that use speed and range. They expect players to calculate the number of shots before the little skirmish ends. eg. A range of 8 is used and a speed of 2 is seen. That means 8/2=4 shots, right? Let's not forget the range of the target. If it has 4. You get 8-4=4 then 4/2=2. So, 2 shots in advance for one of the 2 cards.

[I removed the discussion of balancing that. And will jump to conclusions right away in this edit.]

Everyone can see that players will not be doing the above. And only recently, I can see that most designers don't do this either. And for good reasons.

One. The balancing is too difficult for 99,9%. Even I have yet to find an answer here.

Two. Instead of numbers, you can work with attributes. That saves us 99,9% of the trouble.

Use attributes. eg.
Speed: none/slow/medium/fast
Range: melee/short/medium/long
And you get your RPS simply written out like described in previous posts.

eg. Long range does 100% against speed none, 75% against slow, 50% against medium and 25% against fast.
For the other 3 range attributes, you do the same thing. As long as the total percentage per speed and per range reaches a well known total percentage. And the factoring creates nice round numbers. You are good to go.

***

What would work better with speed and range as numbers?
Simply assuming that cards don't do their death march towards each other.

Enter the realm of 2D

Now, card games that follow a grid. And board games that have a grid. These games benefit from range and speed effects in a different way. The game is forced to use these numbers now as physical properties. And skips the whole calculating part. Since players will be playing step by step now.

Attributes for speed and range are not needed, but could be added.

A death march, is only a tactical option now.
Pieces can move towards the enemy, away from it, and sideways.
Pieces also can shoot in any direction or any target to be precise.

And this proves that speed and range are truly 2D factors, not 1D.

The math is completely different too, for balancing that is. And it depends on other game mechanics as well.
Will there be an open field only?
Or will there be obstruction in movement and sight. Now having a weight factor to speed and range will depend on that. But also vice versa.
If you design the game with the factor being based on a 50/50 open/closed map. A more open map in vision will be beneficial to long ranged weapons. A more closed map in vision will be beneficial to fast moving pieces. If a lot of vision and movement is removed, you get a game where these slow moving melee units will be the best in the game.

eg.
A group of swordsmen could beat a MRLS in the canyons. But that same MRLS on a mountain could beat a dozen of groups of swordsmen.

tbh, you can't balance this with only looking at speed and range. But you can get close and start using designing rules for the game. More of this later.

I edited #12. But I feel that it might still be to much for some. Especially the math.

I removed most examples. And I removed ALL reasons on how I got to the formula's.

If anyone gets stuck on a specific part, pm me about it.

***

I can be short on terrain.
No formula's. Just a little talk on how I view terrain.

Terrain is the hardest thing to balance! Since terrain is very variable. You can never get a good balance if you have several different maps for the game.
There is always an unit design that will reign supreme on certain maps.
The same can be said if a race follows a certain main stream in unit design.

Instead of having a talk about strategies influenced by terrain. I rather talk about direct individual events that is influenced by terrain.

Terrain that block projectiles.
They can be moved around.

Terrain that block movement.
They can be shot over.

Terrain that blocks movement and projectiles. Here special designs come in like for example an artillery unit that still can shoot over or a hoover that can move over water.

The trick here is to either choose your factors or calculate the balance of your map.
Since we don't know how much different terrain you might use, it is easier to go for the factors instead. (I spend several month's to get my factors by watching my terrain and it is still weak to changes)

Movement

Let's consider each terrain type to have a grid square/hexagon.

Ok, in short: choose the factor for when an unit can move over water as well.
If movement is a factor of 1. Water might be 1,5.
The formula that I use to calculate weight, I use this factor of 1,5 on both 0 speed as any speed. Why? Units might stand still over water as well.

If you have units that jump over water and can stand only on ground. You get 2 new things to consider.
The minimum movement should be 2. Your starting point is ground. Your movement is through air. And your end point is ground again.
Start and end point have a factor of 1. Yet the 1,5 factor is used for the air.
I will let to your imagination how that works in formula form, but if interested, I will share.

If you have water like a river between two grid fields. The only thing that changes is the minimum movement. To reach the end point over that river, you still need that 1,5 for one movement.

***

I treat weapon projectile path's the same way as movement for units. So, you could apply the same theory. But the balance might be different, since weapons can shoot over more terrain types than units can move over.

An example, a tank can shoot over water. But not move over it.
A boat can shoot over land. But not move over it.

I understand the issue.

I talked from a digital perspective. But some here are analog oriented.
Grid is digital.
My unit sizes are also digital. I didn't adress the analog yet. I only adressed the terrain vision to terrain vision too. I didn't talk about size of units yet.
The warhammer terrain and unit sizes are analog. Then you get those discussions by "that guy". I understand the pain.

It is also true that the scale is for more then just one unit in my example. I didn't thought of analog games that others play where one unit each is considered.

Might I suggest to either put a number on the size of objects or give them attributes like small, medium and large.

That way, size and vision is digital again. Digital is mathematical assured.

***

As said before. It is hard to balance. Even these days, I have doubts about my own systems if I make a change or not. I mean. A boat has only 25 percent in weight compared to land vehicles ( no weapons added yet). This means that a boat can have 4 times more armor or health. Imagine now that one tank is stuck on an island. Yeah I certainly need to think that one over. The map rule of having 4 times more land that water excludes sea matches a lot. Which is a shame. I only have one 20 hex sea map at this moment. Maps with rivers have on average 5 hex water.

Airweapons have 160 percent compared to normal weapons in my game. For that number I divided 100 percent by the average vision for ground units.

Yes, the rules that I set up determine the looks of the planets that I play on.

For now, this will be the last post in this topic. Math is my forte, and I use it to balance games. To distribute this knowledge to others, I can mostly only explain in abstract or too simple words. It doesn't always get the point across. If I try it in math, it is crystal clear to me, but not for others.

I had something planned regarding design classes. But not as in a class. But more of the unit/structure classes that any RTS or war game could posses. Given that the designer in question would design according to a set of balancing math rules.

Instead of explaining or such. I will for now, only give a list of classifications that I came across.

Meat
Support
Backbone
Fodder
Steamroller
The Slow Knife
Hit-n-Run
Hit-n-Run on Base only
Warp Speed
Minimum Range
Extreme Range
Walls
Defences
Defences that only function as Support
Offensive Defences
Transformers
A whole set of Harvesting methods (I posted (8?) methods once on the forum, but I have learned about more versions following the other classifications)

Most of them are already well known by any one. But if you are questioning one of them, let me know.

Glad you asked.

Meat vs Fodder
They both serve the same purpose of absorbing a great deal of damage. Before any other takes a hit.

The difference is that meat will live to tell the tale. While fodder often bites the dust in the process.

In RPS terms, low damage at a high firing rate wont do much against meat. And high damage at a low firing rate wont do much against fodder.

The term cannon fodder is used a lot. In those games, infantry take heavy cannon fire, so that any vehicle or tank can get out unharmed. The infantry often dies in the process.

Steamroller vs. Slow Knife
This one is tricky to explain.
A steam roller is a well balanced unit that is slow but certain to do damage. This is all thanks to their massive durability. These units still have some range to counter enemy range. They are relatively very effective against structures, since structures can't run away.

The same goes for the Slow Knife. A slow knife penetrates the shield. They function exactly the same as Steam Rollers, but have 2 advantages over one disadvantage.
Their disadvantage:
They lack range and are often more or less melee units.
Their advantages:
Since they lack range, they can either be cheaper, thus pumping resources into a stronger body. Then they can be the "meat" in the steam roller army.
Or they put the money into more fire power. Meaning that they can do massive damage to any structure that stands in their way.

I have often seen in games that the slow knife needs only a couple more seconds to move closer to a structure. But then safes time by destroying it at least twice as fast.

If you know that you have a slow knife, you might add some extra adjustments to it so it is extra effective with its weapon against targets it can catch. The Flame Tank of C&C3 is a prime example in this.

***

I forgot to add one classification. The Steamroller support. Can't edit the previous post. But I bet most people confuse support and steamroller support.

The steamroller support often can do a slow walk into the enemy base for a while as well. Then simply hit a target that is all the way in the back from a distance. These units almost never survive their trip. But at least they can get a job done.

The Juggernaught isn't simply a steam roller support. If used properly, it falls under the steamroller with extreme range. Just combining 2 extremes is what makes designing units fun.
Of course, they have extreme weaknesses as well if the game is properly designed.