Unit Balancing

Warhammer Open Beta

Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators, WH40K Armageddon moderators

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:47 pm

thepuffin wrote: Your example is wrong, btw, the Gretchin are basically immune to the grav weapon while if the Gretchin can put out enough shots, the Centurions will fall to weight of shot as there is so few Centurions.

Incidentally, this is why I asked the devs whether weapons had split profiles because there is such a clear divide on the tabletop between weapons that are good against armour, heavy infantry and light infantry. Let's not even talk about Sternguard or other models with the Poisoned (2+) rule ;-)
I was talking about their effect in this game, not the TT. Here, the Gravcannon centurions will just murder the gretchins and any other assaulting infantry unit. Their range of 2 is a Concern, but they remain miles ahead any assault unit for dealing huge damage at short range.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:29 am

I played with modded war hounds and Reavers (war hound : 2 plasma blast guns, 5 move, 4 spotting 100 defence, Reaver : 3 laser blasters).
The war hound is an ok spotter, very resistant, but with pretty low damage output. It was outperformed by Land raider squadron or Shadowswords with lots of laser upgrade. The reaver was very resilient, but did little damage, until it got shot one shot by a stompa.
I was pretty underwhelmed... I think both could use higher base accuracy, and lower range accuracy fallof on their weapons. I think the plasma blast gun could go back to range 4. It is unimpressive, and if the volcano has a much lower accuracy drop from range and base range 5. It remains a good option, especially since laser Shadowswords are much better than the other super heavies thanks to their secondary weapons.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5560
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:48 pm

vadersson wrote:Ok, more data mining

Rate of Fire Analysis
63 of 112 weapons match the 40K stated ROF. 99 of 112 match with a deviation of 1 shot. The other 13 will be my focus here.

Punisher Gatling Cannon only 6 shots in game, but 20 in 40K. This is off the most. With it only being attack strength 40 (S4 AP-) it seems like it needs more shots.
GigaShoota only has 10 shots, where in 40K it is 6D6 shots for a range of 6 to 36 shots per turn. Of course I believe it can Jam in 40K and be rendered useless.
Skorchas - These are template weapons in 40K, and get 1 shot. Here they get 10 shots. That may be to cover the template nature of the weapon, but the other template weapons generally only get 3 or 5 shots. (Actually it is 2 Skorchas that get 10 shots while the regular Skorcha only gets 1. However all other 2x weapons in the template category do NOT get double shots. Might need to check that...)
Rattler Cannon - 15 shots vs 2D6 shots in 40K. Seems a bit much especially compared to the GigaShoota.
Vulcan Mega-Bolter - 10 shots vs 15 in 40K.
Base Heavy Bolter and Big Shootas - Both are 7 shots, but only ROF 3 in 40K. Might make them a little less OP.
Whirlwind (4 shots vs 1 shot 40K)
5 Big Shoots (6 shots but should have 15 per 40K unless twin-linked)
6 Heavy Bolters - 6 shots vs 18 40K
12 Hurricane pattern Bolters - This one is tricky. Each full Hurricane bolter is really 3 twin-linked bolters with rate of fire of 1 or 2 each. So an actual hurricane bolter has a RoF of 3-6. So is this 12 Hurricane arrays or just 2 Hurricane bolters which would be 6 Twin-linked botlers?

I need to revise my algorithm to cover the multiple weapon cases. I will fix that and update my analysis later.

Thanks,
Duncan
Eh, those kinds of Rate of Fire numbers are absolutely withering. They didn't even work that high when infantry cover was 75% in good terrain, no way they can be functional after the terrain reduction change. As a rule, units really should not be destroying each other in a single engagement. Massive RoF easily makes this happen and is far too dangerous.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5560
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:03 pm

Phew you guys really had quite a bit to say on these issues! That's some quality feedback. :D It's really helpful, and very much appreciated!

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:10 am

Devastator centurions with gravcannon are on par with cyclone terminators after number is down to 6, slightly more durable, abut terminator are a bit more versatile against units in cover when assaulting).
I buffed Assault terminators and assault centurions melee weapons to 4 shots, but even then, it does not make up for their squishiness IMO (they are not really spot hat squishy, but cyclone terminators and gravcannon centurions almost never get fired at, for fear of retaliation, while every ork does target the poor assault squads.
But heh, they are still much better than any Space Marine in tactical armor (even devastators drop like flies), so I guess buffing their shot to 4 is good enough.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by vadersson » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:13 am

Kerensky wrote: Eh, those kinds of Rate of Fire numbers are absolutely withering. They didn't even work that high when infantry cover was 75% in good terrain, no way they can be functional after the terrain reduction change. As a rule, units really should not be destroying each other in a single engagement. Massive RoF easily makes this happen and is far too dangerous.
Well withering fire is what the Guard is all about. ;) Not all of my comments were about guns needing more shots. :)

I do think that some of these could easily be increased. Just decrease the accuracy of the base unit. That should balance it out while still being more accurate to 40K. And frankly some things (Like the Punisher Gatling Cannon) should be able to wipe out infantry pretty well. That is what it is for. A super heavy vehicle with it is a pretty big investment. Same thing for most of the high rate of fire weapons. Weaker but more shots. That will make them better against infantry and worst against armor. More distinction in the units then.

Another note is that I did not investigate which weapons are Twin-linked. They would have half the shots I recommend but higher accuracy.

Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:25 am

I think the main reason why infantry causes so much problem is the low health used to represent them. Infantry units should be as big as orks (ie 50 for everyone). And then, their weapons should be revised acordingly so that they do not all carry a heavy weapon (see my infantry issue thread for a long description of what I think is the main issue with infantry).

Concerning other topics, all units with added weapons should be more expensive than they are. The Shadowsword with 4 lasCannons is really a good deal, considering how it overshadows all other anti tank units (I wish other Superheavies also came with a 4 lasCannon/8 HB variant). It is certainly miles ahead the Shadowsword with Targeter upgrade( I ended up making the volcano = -5% Acc/hex, and the targeter Shadowsword 130 base accuracy, so that it makes a real difference at range 5, but the extra lasers and HB still come in handy more often).
I think superheavies are too cheap compared to regular tanks now (and Space Marine tanks might be more cost effective than Steel Legion ones, but it is hard to tell with the difference in number/unit).

Wc_Eend
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:53 pm

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Wc_Eend » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:43 am

Galdred wrote: Concerning other topics, all units with added weapons should be more expensive than they are.
Nail on the head!
Making these units more expensive should bring a lot more balance to the campaign game.

On a side note, I hope the full release has more info on all the hidden stats of the weapons (RoF - traits - effective against - etc...)

zakblood
Most Active User 2017
Most Active User 2017
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by zakblood » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:28 pm

unit balance is really good in act 2 anyway, and now thinking about it more also act 1... and now again in act 3...

reasons i have come to from the above answer,


Orcs are dumb...

map designer is useless

coder who wrote scripts for AI needs sacking,

day 1 thoughts above, same thoughts in head after day 2 after playing act 2 and 3, same thought again after replaying act 1, all on quick play....


today, with plenty of sleep, more tea, more biscuits, more tea, more biscuits and my dinner inside me, i have come to realize i was wrong in my thoughts altogether...


again reasons for above answer, and it's a good one, so no debate thank you....


Orc's aren't dumb we all are, and i say this as, put yourself in their shoes, the see a massive force armed in front of them, and a house or objective that only the infantry can fit in or take, who you going to shoot first? a tank? a plane? your mum for letting you have so much coke you have bubbles coming out your ears?

yes the infantry unit, take them out first and they loose, you may be all dead, but that doesn't matter as there are 1000 of you as you all bread like rabbits, just larger ones...

-----------------------------

now on to the map designer is useless statement, well if this is so, why are you funnelled in most maps to a certain point? design or random chance?

yes it's by design, and a good one at that, so he's not as daft as you think he is, i am, but that's going off topic and also not a point to debate :shock:

-------------------------------

now on to the last one, coder who wrote scripts for AI needs sacking, well this also is a false statement and only should happen if his plan doesn't work, but also it can be proven that it does work, he on purpose has made scripts and coded the game to make some move easy, while others are harder....

give examples below....


orc on victory point doesn't leave it, smart or just plain stupid? well that all depends on what he is doing there, is he holding it, or holding up you from taking it? one is a design choice, the other is a time issue...

orc takes fire but as he can't see you, doesn't return fire or move? smart again or just plain dumb, well this is also a mute point as again if i throw rocks your way and you have no idea where i am, how can you first throw them back, and if you meant to be guarding something, you don't wander off do you, well not if your leader is twice you size and ate you mate for tea last night.....

so ends another day testing, more comments to add later, take a chill pill everyone, games working fine if you stand back and look at bigger picture...

titans are same size as human, because no body has a 500ft high lcd screen so something had to give...

same answer for size of Orc's in height and amount, the amount of Or'cs in one group maybe needs upgrading for a little tweak maybe, but also it's not bad as it is now also, it depends on x = y with A over t (the maths is, if you a good player you win, not so good it's 50/50. if you are my standard and need to cheat a lot, you win also a lot, but only when you cheat, with out it, we both suck :shock:

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by fsx » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:47 pm

bane wulf & Hellhound vs Devil Dog: Spotting 1 vs. 4
Why such a difference?

same base vehicle
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bane_Wolf
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Devil_Dog

zakblood
Most Active User 2017
Most Active User 2017
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by zakblood » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:11 pm

ah i see

war hammer has it's own wiki :lol:


but to be truthful so does most porn sites, :roll: (not that i would know any :oops: )


and i know who has the biggest Hits :shock:


yes i said it, and no mention of the letter T anywhere :roll: :wink:

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:03 pm

An easy way to make lower tier units more worthwhile would be to increase the number of slots without increasing the req. then maybe people would play something else than annihilators or land raiders, lazero-Shadowswords and centurions(death strikes are ok too, as are Basilisks).

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5560
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:30 pm

Yup, aggressive price balancing has been mentioned. Definitely something we are exploring. The way weapons work though, infantry cannot exist in formation size of 50 or higher. We tried it many times over the months, but it simply doesn't work without shattering their accuracy rating to the 5% range.

As number of shots increased, accuracy of shots is forced to decrease or unit offensive capabilities are outrageous. Otherwise units easily throwing more than 100 attack dice in a single engagement. In fact we not only reduced the size of infantry units, we also took away some of their non primary weapons as well before we entered BETA testing.

It's the same reason Super Heavy units with tiny unit count were forced to gain inflated base accuracy ratings in the 80% and 90% range. Having a super expensive Baneblade with its very low rate of fire on a very low count unit having a coin flip chance to hit under optimal firing conditions (open terrain, no LOS issues, no cover, close range, no morale penalties, equal experience) was equally unplayable.

produit
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:15 pm

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by produit » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:32 pm

A small question, why have Blood Angels an bigger (80%) accuracy both in melee and in range combat than other space marines (60%) ?
Moreover, now, all space marines have the same value, but the value should be increased for veteran units and terminators (elite troops).

Post Reply

Return to “Warhammer Open Beta”