When micro managment of an army makes it undefeatable

Before I continue
My goal is to make certain designs way more expensive. Yet keeping an overal balance.
I don't mind having units on the board that are practically immortal. But I DO MIND that these untis can do their job without the player being punished for it.
So my main goal is, making them more expensive in such a way, that they cannot do their job properly anymore. So the players need to choose a cheaper version that isn't that extreme anymore.

I am hoping to do this through increasing the weight of the movement speed.
I will test it on both weapon and body. And I compare these at the hand of extreme designs. The rest will be a tldr post with the results.

Old proto-type value's:
Cost 100 (50+50), basic fodder, also known as the default.
Movement speed 2
Attack range 2
Used for being a fodder.

Cost 200 (150+50), super fast fodder
Movement speed 12
Attack range 2
Used for hit and run on bases.

Cost 200 (50+150), extreme long range weapon
Movement speed 2
Attack range 10 (older versions had 12)
Used for weakening the enemy on a distance.

Cost 300 (150+150), the practically immortal unit
Movement speed 12
Attack range 10 (older versions had 12)

While this version is 3 times as expensive. There are cheaper versions. Yet this version too is still fast enough in doing its job, without being punished for it. Why?
Because the 2 natural counters are 2 times as expensive as the default unit.
Thus the practically immortal unit is only 150% the costs of the natural counters.

Where movement speed increases the weapon value's:
50+50 = 100 --> 50+62.5 = 112.5 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 150+125 = 275 (244 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 50+162.5 = 212.5 (189 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 150+225 = 375 (333 ^)

In a sense, the practical immortal unit had a simpler time escaping the support units. Or even avoiding them or catching them offguard. So it makes sense that these are cheaper than the super fast units.
I think I balanced the RPS mechanic here.
The practical immortal unit is only 136% than a super fast one. But compared to the support unit, the factor is 176%.
The extra costs compared to the fodder unit isn't that much higher, from 300 to 333%.

Movement speed being cumulative instead of linear
I thought about having the speed even being a cumulative effect instead of linear. Thus 2 is valued as 3, 3 is valued as 6 etc. But then the costs would get:

50+50 = 100 --> 50+68.75 = 118.75 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 150+537.5 = 687.5 (579 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 50+168.75 = 218.75 (184 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 150+637.5 = 787.5 (663 ^)

Ok, the super fast unit just got killed off this way... The weapon damage is still the same as the other 3 categories. But with this increase in costs, the super fast unit has the same faith as the practical immortal unit.
Then again, a cumulative effect is an exponential growth. And the most optimal movement speed to counter an attack range is when it is the square root of that attack range. Instead of 12, it should be 3 to 4, when comparing to that attack range of 10. The weight would then be 6 to 10. And this 10 sounds very similar to 10.

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight itself:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+50 = 110 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+50 = 860 (782 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+150 = 210 (191 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+150 = 960 (873 ^)

What the deuce...?
Clearly, I need to make a new table with proper movement speeds... Let's test the rest out, first.

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight itself with a linear effect on attack range:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+62.5 = 122.5 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+125 = 935 (763 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+162.5 = 222.5 (182 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+225 = 1035 (845 ^)

Having movement speed being a cumulative effect on the body weight AND the weapon weight:
50+50 = 100 --> 60+68.75 = 128.75 (100 =)
150+50 = 200 --> 810+537.5 = 1347.5 (1047 ^)
50+150 = 200 --> 60+168.75 = 228.75 (178 v)
150+150 = 300 --> 810+637.5 = 1447.5 (1124 ^)

IT all doesn't work well.
I need to isolate the movement speed from the attack range for the super fast units.

Having movement speed being a factor within the weapon range validation (all the above where additions):

50+50 = 100 --> 50+50 = 100
150+50 = 200 --> 150+150 = 300
50+150 = 200 --> 50+150 = 200
150+150 = 300 --> 150+450 = 600

In other words, units with a long weapon range, can't really be much faster now. Can they?
I don't know why.... but the numbers kinda speak to me now.

***

Fun facts with the last test!!
- Any defence is allowed to deal 67% more damage now. Including mines.

- Default movement speed of 2 will keep the damage at default, many designs stay the same.

- The factors work!! The practical immortal unit can't finish its job in time anymore.

- Getting back to the default prize for the super fast unit costs of 200. Movement speed has to be reduced from 12 to 7. Where the super fast unit is a 100+100 = 200 and the parralel practical immortal unit is a 100+300 = 400

- In order to get the practical immortal unit back to the costs of 300. While movement is reduced from 12 to 7, the attack range is reduced from 10 to 5. Which actually results in 100+210=310, not 300. If I do a range of 4. We get 100+180=280. O well, at least these are round numbers.

***

Last notes
I have a lot of testing to do, still.
But I am satisfied with the new balances.
This will influence all my games in a positive way.
Although, some games use so low numbers, that it might have trouble fitting in.

Maybe I tweak the factor for movement speed. Right now I am using a 100% for the default movement. Which means 60% for 0 movement and 200% for 7 movement.
It is only 2/3th that of the attack range itself. Perhaps, I should use halve of this in a final test.
Thus 80% for 0 movement and 10% for every movement.
This way, faster units do have a body costing more than the weapon.

50+50 = 100 --> 50+50 = 100
150+50 = 200 --> 150+100 = 250
50+150 = 200 --> 50+150 = 200
150+150 = 300 --> 150+300 = 450

- Defences have +25% damage instead of +67%. That is ok.

- Default price for the super fast unit needs a movement of roughly 9. 120+85=205
- If kept equal to the support attack range of 10. 130+90=220

- Default price for the practical immortal unit, also needs a weapon range reduction to 5. 120+178.5=298.5
- If movement kept equal to the support attack range of 10. The range is only 4. 130+162=292

Conclusion
I have to put the movement speed as a factor on top of the weapon weight.
Not sure yet if I keep the default factor that I use for the body as well. Or that the weapon weight receives only half the effect.

The very last calculation showed me something interesting.
The factor of the movement speed was exactly the same as the weapon range. Both 1.8 according to that calculation. Which is proof for me, that I am in the right direction.
Still, having 10% instead of 20%. Makes the calculations more precise. And thus my design options is less for my proto-type.

Either way, I have come from a long way. The practical immortal unit is now impractical against a mortal unit.

I could ask several questions... but those are math related.

So let me ask you guys this:
Do you think that I should change some value's in the balance?

Thus making the units that move faster. Only more expensive if they have a weapon to use?

And if so.... how would this extra value compare to the original value? "Add" the effect? Or "multiply" it?

Let me explain (in words, not math) how I reached this new chapter in game balance. And let me say that the nerved zerglings are a very good example in this.

We often played the game, the proto-type game.
The proto-type game always shows where -> I <- went wrong with the other games. But especially in the math section. Let's say, it helps me see the hidden math of a game as well. After all, the proto-type version is the...ahem...slowest version of any wargame.

I shortly worked on the "public" version as some of you might have noticed. And it would just happen that one of my buddies managed to find a new error.

What he did was having a design that was one of these hit'n'run (HnR) units. But he asked us to not make a "natural" counter. Because he felt he was on to something.

A natural counter would be a movement speed that is faster than the HnR. These are relatively very effective, since they can take cover in the proto-type. And in the public version, simply suddenly stand at your doorstep.
Or
The counter would be an attack range much further than the HnR. These too are effective. But to a lesser extend. Since the weight of a ranged attack is different than the weight of something that moves a lot.

What happened was that his HnR units could easily dodge anything else. And we thought, that is ok. Since his HnR units cost roughly only twice as much. So, ok, we went on a march to his base. And without much effort, he met us close to our own base. He made short work of our units. And kept his. He got more, he started a snowball.
Eventually, he was simply harassing our base. And while we build an army to stop him. He easily managed to destroy our base.

So... I made a conclusion out of this. A natural counter had to be designed in order to stop such a HnR faction...

***

Or... my conviction that a game like mine can be balanced by applying the proper balancing formula would help.

***

I looked at:
Wacraft 2
Starcraft (your example)
C&C td
Red Alert (why this one failed)
Dune 2
KKnD
And Warzone 2100

I saw similarities. But also 1 important difference.
(Please note, I look at dps AND damage/cooldown)

Warcraft 2:
Slower units deal much more damage. But it is also the slower and weaker units that have a greater range. This game hardly had any fixes to the balance. It...worked out somehow. Ignore bloodlust and other magic.

Starcraft:
Zerglings move very fast, but hardly do damage.
Siege tanks can't move, but do the most damage (dps wise).
And other units.
We all know that Starcraft has been balanced with patches after a lot of play testing. There is no formula present. But the changes almost always refer to movement speed, health, or damage. Attack range was left untouched.... let that sink in.

C&C td:
The fast units are really effective.... almost feels like there is a mistake here. Trust me, in multiplayer, the NOD buggy and the Recon Bike are the 2 most powerfull units when used as HnR units.
And my proto-type showed the same effect... let's keep that in mind shall we?

Red Alert:
Squishing is overpowered here. For the same reason as the td variant. It looks like that the movement speed is 100% of influence here on the damage caused by squishing. Making all tanks that can squish; OP.

Dune 2:
A very well balanced game, if you ask me.
Of course the infantry are bad later on. And this is where you also can see that movement speed has a great influence on game balance. However, range will be the biggest factor here. Only because there are no fast units with a lot of range. The movement speed gets slower while range increases. That would be all.
No.... that would not be all. I often use trikes or quads in order to deal with rocket turrets. Something other players didn't even realized. But a couple of quads can easily kill a rocket tower.

KKnD:
This game, the designers. They too where on to something. I got another fix from their game. But that fix is only used if I ever get to design a RTS game. Still. I noticed how some fast units that can deal a lot of damage. Are actually short ranged. There are no fast units with a long range here either. Just like Dune2. Somehow they too felt that these HnR designs would imbalance a game. In other words, the designs had natural counters for certain.

Warzone 2100:
I don't know what the original desingers did. But from them I learned. A big weapon will slow down a tank. Perhaps having a higher movement speed truly makes a tank more expensive.
And so far, I have not seen a tank in this game that can be fast and deal sufficient damage IN TIME. Thus this really had me thinking about the rest.

Tiberian Sun:
A big NO!!

Red Alert 2:
A big NONO!!!
We got the Prism Tank here. And it simply shows speed and attack range. Nothing could stop it. Except if you already had an equal sized army that was a counter by mechanical balance. Meaning a mechanical RPS effect. An anti-light weapon hardly damaged heavy equipment.
Of course... this was a way for the designers to balance the Prism Tank, by making the fire power very weak. Still, it managed to deal with anything, when snowballing.

***

If I keep my original design patern.
I need to make natural counters.

If I change this and make HnR units more expensive.
And fast units will get slightly more expensive too.
I can copy most games by natural means.
But also make the snowball happen, much harder.
And perhaps shift the threshold of a base destruction to a "default" designed army instead. Where HnR units are only used in order to reduce enemy forces. Not finish them off.
And where HnR units can no longer harass a base unless that is their function (thus less effect on units on top of dealing less damage).

The downside to them is often that they cannot move. So long ranged units will counter them. And HnR units fall in this catergory.

But... the HnR units already do less damage. And thus, if the defence has more attack range. There is this natural counter.

Fortification can happen in 2 ways:
Less movement speed results in more health or more armor.
Less movement speed results in more attack range.

The latter is used most often because of the....math.
But the first one can be done as well. However, it is almost always a combination of equal health AND less armor with a slight weapon adjustment.

Example 1:
80 health with tier 4 armor. Becomes 80 health with tier 2 armor.
5 times 16 becomes 20 times 4. Here higher caliber weapons will do less damage on the fortification. The H*A value doubles, but the health remains the same.
Example 2:
If the health does change. The damage is divided by the current armor value and then rounded upwards. Then is multiplied by the new armor value. And subtracted again. This often happens when we simply go from tier 2 armor with 20 health go to tier 5 armor with 125 health and vice versa. If the damage was 10 on that 20 health. This is divided by 4. And rounded upwards to a 3. Then multiplied by 25, thus 75 is subtracted from that new body.
Let's say, if less health is remaining than the current armor value. The unit will die by transformation.

Important to know, the attack range increases a lot of times.
We also got units that go from fast moving to slower moving.
Which is rare in other games, also in RTS games... In Starcraft 2, the Helion can have this kind of change.

There are some missions in my book where the players have to solve a puzzle.

Lot's of defence towers.
The player simply has to outrange them.

Lot's of long ranged units.
The player simply has to outrange them. Or be very fast by making use of the terrain for cover.

Lot's of super strong units.
The player can make a good mix of fodder and as support, units that have the most optimal weapons.

***

In all examples. The HnR units where victorious when crossing a certain threshold.

Considering ALL the rules of the game(s) (certain circumstances give a bonus weapon range of +1). The threshold seems to be that the attack range is the enemies attack range + the enemies movement speed + 2. And the movement speed is the enemies movement speed + 1. This way, the HnR unit always stays at a safe distance.

A defence with 0 weapon range, can be countered by a HnR unit that has 2 weapon range and 1 movement speed.
An unit with 2 weapon range and 1 movement speed, can be countered by a HnR unit that has 5 weapon range and 2 movement speed.
The next step would be a weapon range of 9 and movement of 3.

It is a weapons race. Luckily 1 of the game boards is limited by terrain and size. But if I scrap the terrain effects. Only size will spell an end. And any natural counter will be needed instead.
But as QuestCCG has said. We should stick by designing the natural counters anyway.

Still, I think that a HnR design needs an extra penalty.
Because the factor between a default class and the long ranged class is often 2.
The faster class can use some extra costs as well. So I think I am on track either way.

I have created one big formula. Would love to explain it to you guys. But I just know, that NO ONE would even benefit from knowing what I did. So let's forget it.

The formula is like my old weight calculation. But has 2 parts extra. One part adds movement speed to the weapon weight. The other part multiplies movement speed to the weapon weight.
I could even use both for the fun of it.

First I need a good grasp on my current situation...
But I need some ground rules...

I want the HnR to have an equal value in attack range and movement speed. It should be perfect to outmanouver the default.
Thus at least +3 to both value's.
The natural counters will have the same value's, while the other value is default.
If rounding takes place, I will test several designs with small differences.
The design also should have a weight distributed almost equally between the total body and total weapon weight.

Right. So I attached a little formula here. But I never explained how it works. As per QuestCCG request...I will explain it now. Actually, it is more of a story than anything else.
So, if you are not interested, skip this tldr post.

***

It is the main formula that is used by some of my friends atm.
D&D included, but how??? Idk that one.
Obviously, it could be of help for RTS designers as well.
But I made it, so I should explain.

To set 1 thing straight. I am not expecting help of any kind in regards of this formula.

***

This formula is a cumulation of several ways of how RTS games can balance their units. The original and the experimental value's are included. There is one thing missing (KKnD balancing), and one thing is not entirely correct (modifications). But that is of no concern ;)
One more note: This formula is being used at the moment by me for concerning a change to my own balancing formula.

Let's begin with the basics. This formula only looks at the 4 stats of any RTS unit. And not every variable will be used. Some are simply scrapped for the game you are testing. And others are always there. It is even possible to use this formula for "chess pieces".

The 4 stats are like always:
- Health
- Damage
- movement Speed
- attack Range

But the weight can be applied differently depending on the game mechanics.

The formula originally has 2 parts.
Body and Weapon. But both are combined here. You can tell which is which by looking at the health factor, or Hf. And the damage factor, or Df.
These factors are simply indicators on how heavy a part should weight. And the difference is simply the ratio inverted. Health/Damage inverted is Damage/Health.

Meaning, that if you want 3 health per damage on average. You have 1/3th for Hf and 1 for Df. Or 1 for Hf and 3 for Df.
And if you have a game without movement speed and attack range, your new formula is done :)

***

Years of testing has shown that attack range has no influence on the health of an unit. Sure, keeping distance is key to survival. But even without a weapon, this can be done. So that part is entirely scrapped here. There is only 1 forgotten game out there where attack range has influence on the health.
So, what remains is the influence of how fast an unit or structure can move.
Testing showed that the ratio is a main factor in this.
So we got some new variables:
- S for movement Speed
- Smod1 for the health/damage ratio
- Sdef1 for what you consider to be the normal movement speed

If I want a ratio of 3 and a default of 2. I get:
(S + 3) / 5
As an extra factor for Hf.

A structure will cost only 60% compared to the default units in this regard.

***

The weapon part...
Now things get complicated. But let's begin with naming all the "basic" variables:
- R for attack Range
- Rf for the map factor influence
- Rmod for the health/damage ratio
- Rdef for what you consider to be the normal attack range

You might have noticed, this is almost the same as the body. And it works the same as well.

But there is one factor included, Rf.
It turns out that open maps for weapons, yet closed maps for movement (ridges, ramps, chokepoints) have more benefit from ranged weaponry than closed games. It is roughly the square root of 2 in that regard. I use 1.5 for Rf.
There are games out there that even have to use 2.
What this means? The weight of attack range is simply heavier than movement speed.

***

Now for the "extra" variables:
- Sf1 and Sf2 are weight factors for the movement speed and their part in the formula. We need more testing in order to know if they can be used or not.
- S is simply the movement speed
- Sdef2 and Sdef3 are again the default movement speeds
- Smod2 and Smod3 are again the modifications by the health damage ratio

The reason why there is a 2 and 3 variant is due to if they take part of the formula or not. In fact, if Sdef2 is used, it doesn't mean Smod2 is used as well.
Either way, the weight of movement speed can either be added or used as a multiplier for the attack Range.
I am currently in the testing phase of this.

While confusing, Sf1 is used for the Sdef2 and Smod2. While Sf2 is used for the Sdef3 and Smod3.

That concludes the explanation. And I think it is too much for you guys to take in. Hence I never shared.

***

The balance it brings is only detailed. In a sense, my game is 90% practical balanced.
Except for the HnR units. They will remain untouchable. But when being put in danger or being countered by their natural counters, they can still manage to reach their goal in time.

By seeing how much the movement speed is of influence on the weapon part, I can modify my own formula. And the whole game will be balanced a bit better.

Still I need to see if the effect has to be an addition or a multiplication. I hope it is an addition, because this will lead to a simpler way of designing.

Originally, when stripping down to only the movement speed. The costs are calculated like this:
C = S + D*R
When modifying to additon:
C = S + D*(R+S)
When modifying to multiplicating:
C = S + D*R*S

At first glance, adding more S simply means a lineair growth.
But if R is a high value, there is a big difference in the last 2 stripped formula's.

I made some decisions too:

My boardgames have natural counters. Thus the new balance is only really useful for RTS games. But if I where ever to design a true RTS game, I would simply round the numbers and use the most fair calculation.

For a board game. The calculation should yield round numbers.
Thus:
1. The new balance will not be applied to other wargames that I designed.
2. The new balance will only be used on "Assault" units.

With the second decision. I need to use a formula that will not make "sitting ducks" or other slow units, imbalanced.
This means that the movement speed should only be applied when the unit can truly move. AND has the assault.

In regards to balance. I need to make sure there is a clear different to the Action Assault and the Assault unit.
The Assault unit can always use this action.

The assault units surely have to be more costly.
In regards to how other balances work. I have no other option than to calculate the new balance as ADDITION. But this time, it will be ON TOP of the normal calculation. And thus, a slow moving unit with assault will still be more expensive.

Logical speaking, the assault move is adding the movement speed to the range. The weapon range keeps an unit at a safe distance. There are possible factors for the movement speed. But they are not a multiplication on top. Only addition.

And then there is the penalty on weaponry.
There are weapons that do not receive this penalty despite using the assault move. Others do receive more penalty. This factor is also applied to the weapon range.

- 0.00 Minimum factor... wel duh, this is for the normal units.
- 0.50 Assuming that the units are brought in a lot more danger.
- 0.75 As a middleground.
- 1.00 As if it was the old calculation, kinda as if the units are brought in more danger, compared to the maximum factor.
- 1.25 Yet another middleground.
- 1.50 Is the maximum factor. Here the movement speed is completely regarded as extra weapon range.

I need to do testing on these factors. But that would be about it.
I have at least pinpointed if it is addition or multiplying.

***

Should I test with a mix as well? I wonder how to deal with this.
I need a new plan.
On a side note. Faster units without the Assault, will simply move into range. Then the HnR unit will move further away again. I calculated all that without considering the fact that the Action Assault should always be used for such RTS situations.
That is a huge mistake.