Topic: Snobbish innkepers ;-)
Astuur
Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08
Posts: 733  One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany |
Posted at: 2009-04-09, 21:37
Well, well :) For me Beer and Strongbeer seemed (actually still does) comparable to the Ration, Snack, Meal issue - and so I thought that this altogether might give a little too much advantage. But I can live with it either way. @Nasenbaer: That's most interesting! So you are indeed already balancing things. I have been thinking in that direction in the past few days - and I was wondering if I should make a sort of synoptical table for the tribes advantages and disadvantages. Maybe then you already have such a comparison? From my guts (meaning I can't prove the impression) Atlanteans > Barbarian > Imperials would be the priviledge order. (that includes Soldiers, but I could not yet see your latest adjustment to that in action) -- I'm stopping here.. that is definetely good for another thread of its own. Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. 
Top
Quote
|
Nasenbaer
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 826 One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2009-04-10, 11:10
To Balancing the tribes: Actually it is not that easy to say one tribe is better than the other. Basically (and this seems to be approved by nearly hundred multiplayer test games) the tribes are already balanced. Of course there still might be some slight advantages or disadvantages in the whole, but that's hard to compare and is not that obvious... Just to explain why this is so difficult:
-> Soldiers balancing was tested a lot in a special "direct fight map" and the start values seem to be very balanced.
That's just the view at the whole but similiar comparison can be made in micromanagement - for example two barbarian lumberjacks harvest as much trunks as three woodcutters of the other tribes - and wood is the most important ressource for the barbarians... Just to obviate the most heared argument "atlantean soldiers are stronger than barbarian ones":
That's basically right - they are slightly better and if a barbarian soldiers fights against a atlantean soldier the atlantean one has a bit better chance to win. But as I already stated above: the atlantean soldiers are much more expensive so take longer to be produced and last but not least are meant to be stronger as they are a high cultural tribe and the last argument against your order atlanteans > barbarians: The last multiplayer game I played barbarians against a atlantean player it was hard, but I finally won and that although we found a bug at atlantean soldiers production (the didn't use iron and so were very quick trained) My conclussion: there still might be some very smaller disadvantages or advantages in whole comparison of the tribes, but it would be very hard to find them, as the biggest point of the strongness of a tribe is the strategy the human player uses. I hope that cleared things up a bit Cheers Peter
Top
Quote
|
|
Astuur
Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08
Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany |
Posted at: 2009-04-10, 19:48
Thanks Peter for that long posting. I have already found out myself that the tribes's advantages and disadvantages are extremely hard to compare against each other. That's why I said its a gut feeling - no more. Most of the facts you mention I had discovered, but I too find it very hard to compare the many differences that are spread in different fields. I had tried to group those things into categories like Food production Soldiers' training Mines sustainment etc... but it remains hard to compare all the same. One thing you haven't mentioned explicitedly, is that it also depends on the map you are playing. Ever since the autogrowing trees came the Barbarians with their effective woodcutters have gained some momentum. Most Greenland plaines will be wood when you arrive there. That of course gets increasingly more important the larger the map is - or the more land you have to conquer in order to have a chance to win. So - that example alone shows that it is probably not possible to say: This tribe is better off than the other. It depends on too many factors. I fully agree that the skills of the player are a lot more important than the tribe you are playing.
And that skill comes from knowledge and experience. So --- small wonder you're hard to beat, huh ? You know Peter, I think that sort of consideration about pros and cons of the tribes should finally find its way into a sort of Widelands "Strategy and Tactics guide" that could accompany a manual some day. Until now, there are probably very few that could give an overview like you just did. Even less that could outline the details. Maybe a table alone is not really that helpful. There is more to explain than a table can. But we should collect these clues somewhere, dont you think? But I am still not sure in what form this is done best. Finally - I admit I am not (yet) fully understanding the concept of the Atlantean culture. I will have to read the background more thoroughly and see if I can find some more. In my mind I often put them near the Elves (Tolkien's Elves), but - although they are meant to be a magical tribe, they lack all hints to magic in the gameplay - except, maybe the gems' use. Also, I'm not sure how to define a "high culture". Certainly not by technical progress in the case of Atlanteans. Let them use their gems to create lenses and smelt with sunlight instead of primitev coal! Oops -- more balancing issues Well - it gets off topic a bit. Again more stuff to discuss elsewhere Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
Top
Quote
|
