Regarding the cost of advanced units

[RaustBD]

So yeah, I was reading ESR's campaign-writing guide, and the part about all units being costed equal to their combat worth, and then something occurred to me: not all level 2s and 3s are of equal gold worth. A Master At Arms, a level 3 unit, costs only 4 gold more than a knight, a level 2 unit.

But is that really the right way to go? The only ones the gold cost of level 2 and 3 units matter to are the computer-controlled enemies in campaigns, everyone else will almost never pay that cost. For the most part the only way the player will get level 2s and 3s is if they recruit them, level them up, and recall them, so does it really make sense to have level 2 and 3 units that differ in gold value at all? If you get what you "Pay" for, that means that a fencer has to earn triple the experience a horseman does in order to be on the same level of usefulness.

Bottom line: applying the ECEP rule to units above level 1 results in leveling up cheap units being an astronomical waste of time. I have to wonder what the point is in balancing advanced-level units based on a foundational balancing stat that will never actually be applied.

In my experience, leveling up a unit triggers a fundamental change in how you use that unit. You'll be much more reluctant to put them in situations where they're likely to be killed, and so the advanced stages of dirt-cheap self-destruction-prone units should not still be prone to self-destruction, because they're no longer dirt-cheap.

Frankly, I feel it would have made much more sense to apply the ECEP rule only to level 1 units, making more expensive units level the fastest and the cheapest units level the slowest, and then have all higher level units have the same cost, XP to advance, and "power" as all other units of the same level. Obviously it's far too late to do a massive overhaul of the entire level 2+ unit system based on this system, but I honestly feel this would have been the better way to go.

[iceiceice]

RaustBD:

ECEP is not just about balance, it is also a way to help the AI. The gold value of a unit is one of the main ways an AI judges which units to target. If I understand correctly it also uses the gold value of a level 2 when deciding how important it is to attack a level 1 unit that is soon to advance. So changing / improving these costs actually could make an impact on quality of the AI's play in any game.

[RaustBD]

RaustBD:

ECEP is not just about balance, it is also a way to help the AI. The gold value of a unit is one of the main ways an AI judges which units to target. If I understand correctly it also uses the gold value of a level 2 when deciding how important it is to attack a level 1 unit that is soon to advance. So changing / improving these costs actually could make an impact on quality of the AI's play in any game.

Oh I'm not saying that the cost should be ignored, I'm saying it shouldn't be different between level 2+ units. I'm saying that I personally would have buffed/nerfed all level 2+ units and then had them be the same cost as other units of that level.

[iceiceice]

Oh I see.

Maybe there is someway you can modify the recall costs of different kind of units, perhaps using a formula which takes into account their gold value? This way you can slightly buff Master At Arms for campaign purposes without making Knights over powered etc.

[RaustBD]

Oh I see.

Maybe there is someway you can modify the recall costs of different kind of units, perhaps using a formula which takes into account their gold value? This way you can slightly buff Master At Arms for campaign purposes without making Knights over powered etc.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. I get the idea, but I don't see how it connects to the last sentence...

[iceiceice]

Bottom line: applying the ECEP rule to units above level 1 results in leveling up cheap units being an astronomical waste of time. I have to wonder what the point is in balancing advanced-level units based on a foundational balancing stat that will never actually be applied.

Just trying to think of a way that you can encourage players to level up fencers in a campaign as opposed to say Knights, by making them slightly cheaper to recall later, to compensate for the issue you raise.

[RaustBD]

Bottom line: applying the ECEP rule to units above level 1 results in leveling up cheap units being an astronomical waste of time. I have to wonder what the point is in balancing advanced-level units based on a foundational balancing stat that will never actually be applied.

Just trying to think of a way that you can encourage players to level up fencers in a campaign as opposed to say Knights, by making them slightly cheaper to recall later, to compensate for the issue you raise.

Well yeah that makes sense, but I'm thinking for the purposes of my campaign I'd combine that with the cost equalization and subsequent buffing/nerfing, because once you level a unit up to level 2, if it was a fragile-but-cheap unit it needs a significant upgrade to justify the experience spent. So that recall system you suggested combined with this would definitely result in more balanced units for campaigns.

[taptap]

The AI recruits L2 and L3 units to make balancing possible equal cost equal power should guide the prices of the advanced units. I find them somewhat overpriced as of now, but the principle is required to even try balance an AI that can recruit advanced units. And as the price is only relevant for AI recruitment this should be the only consideration. If you avoid Master of Arms in the rare campaigns that features them, because you feel they are underpowered (due to their lower price), then you are simply wrong and need advice on good play not a rebalancing of the Master of Arms.

Having variance in "intelligence" (experience requirements) is part of the fun in playing certain units, e.g. poachers, and level up isn't a rare event that can be disregarded for balance of the L1 (the level up potential is part of the power of the L1), just because you fancy all L2 should have equal power because they have equal recall costs. And imagine how bland your units would inevitably be when you try to rigidly equalize the power level of all advanced units.

[RaustBD]

Bland? How would it be bland? The units in wesnoth are all highly varied, superiority is not variety.

And no, I'm not wrong about the master at arms being underpowered. If the master at arms ISN'T underpowered under the current system, the designers of the game aren't doing their jobs. The current system demands that certain units are objectively inferior to other units that require the same amount of effort to create.

It works excellently for multiplayer, but for campaigns it's horribly broken.

[Turuk]

It works excellently for multiplayer, but for campaigns it's horribly broken.

If the determining factor in a scenario being balanced is the recruit cost of the level 2/level 3 units for the AI (or rarely, for the player), then there are far greater balance issues in that scenario.

[RaustBD]

It works excellently for multiplayer, but for campaigns it's horribly broken.

If the determining factor in a scenario being balanced is the recruit cost of the level 2/level 3 units for the AI (or rarely, for the player), then there are far greater balance issues in that scenario.

No, you don't understand, I'm saying that the recruitment cost is utterly meaningless in the long run for any unit you're going to keep around, meaning that making certain advanced units weaker and cheaper than others is pointless and only serves to make them objectively inferior investments of your XP. I'm saying it would make for more interesting armies if the advanced forms of the weaker units were buffed up and appropriately increased in cost.

[Turuk]

meaning that making certain advanced units weaker and cheaper than others is pointless and only serves to make them objectively inferior investments of your XP.

This is a fairly sweeping generalization as you don't usually have access to a full recruit list in a campaign, and based on the scenario in question and what you face, you might need those "inferior" investments. Can you give an example of where you see this happening?

[RaustBD]

meaning that making certain advanced units weaker and cheaper than others is pointless and only serves to make them objectively inferior investments of your XP.

This is a fairly sweeping generalization as you don't usually have access to a full recruit list in a campaign, and based on the scenario in question and what you face, you might need those "inferior" investments. Can you give an example of where you see this happening?

Well first off, before I go much further with this, I just want to make sure I have this right, that the cost of a unit, as per the ECEP rule, is an accurate measure of its effectiveness and general power, and that this remains true at all levels of units. Is that correct?

[iceiceice]

I'm saying that the recruitment cost is utterly meaningless in the long run for any unit you're going to keep around, meaning that making certain advanced units weaker and cheaper than others is pointless and only serves to make them objectively inferior investments of your XP.

Most campaigns are like this on most difficulty levels, but if there is a truly difficult level at some early point where you just don't have enough gold, then clearly the recruitment cost matters. If you want it to matter you can make it so. You can create a lot of interesting strategy around balancing short term vs. long term tradeoffs.

There's any number of ways that you the campaign designer can create a challenge, but I would suggest that its better to avoid messing with the stats of mainline units if you can help it, because you will confuse your players and make the campaign tedious to play, since they will have to keep looking up the new stats.

[RaustBD]

Most campaigns are like this on most difficulty levels, but if there is a truly difficult level at some early point where you just don't have enough gold, then clearly the recruitment cost matters.

But you only ever pay the recruitment cost once in the entire campaign for a unit, and from then on it's a flat 20 to bring them back no matter what level they are. That's what I'm saying, yes, recruitment cost absolutely matters for level 1s, but beyond that it's meaningless and cost/worth should not vary between units of the same advanced level. It's no longer units you buy, it's units you train, and there's little merit in making some units objectively worse XP investments.