Balance changes for 1.18

[Elvish_Hunter]

As a SP-only player, this is the main change that doesn't convince me that much:

Horseman - cost changed from 23 to 24, xp changed from 44 to 54.

Now, one more or one less gold probably won't alter campaigns that much, however the harsh XP increase will: basically, a Horseman will have to kill one more unit and survive two more attacks to level up (assuming that they're other L1 units), which can be very hard to do when coupled with the charge attack.

[name]

The danger is that L2 and L3 mages are quite powerful when used properly in SP. More or less, once you get them and your set of tanky fighter units, the campaign is pretty straightforward to smash from there.

This may not be an issue then, thanks to the raised experience costs on the Royal Guard (and Pikeman somewhat). That should neutralize the lowered experience costs on the basic mages. Since you generally benefit from having more fighters than mages.

The only exceptions are the top tier Mage of Light and the (level 4) Great Mage, as they receive big experience cost reductions. But the Great Mage is such a worse option than the Silver Mage branch that there should be no problem. And the Mage of Light, while a decent improvement on the White Mage, is kind of a waste of upkeep and experience at such a high experience cost as it is now.

For campaigns like HttT or TRoW, however, the large amount of exp and long length means that a capable player can cap their army around S4-5 if they're really fast, or maybe S8 if we're talking about a medium level player. Once you get your L3s, you're not likely to lose them in these campaigns, so that leaves 2/3s of the campaign with not much progression which I don't think is a good thing (see Dalas's comment as well).

We really need to start introducing variable recall costs. Most of this stems from the fact players can pull in L2/L3/L4 units at the same 20 gold flat rate.

In an ideal world we can spend the time to design campaigns really well so that even your veterans get threatened, L3s are sometimes or often lost, we add exp dumps in (limited) AMLAs, etc. but what I'm mainly concerned about is we don't have that time or budget for so much redesigning so I don't want to mess up all of the longer mainline campaigns even more (at this point in time) if it's possible to avoid it.

That is true, though we are still far out from 1.18, so we have some time to work out any imbalances that may result from this.

But then why does the horseman have more HP

They both had the same HP until the last big balance patch (before this one). The HP were reduced purely for balance reasons. The problem with the direction of the changes to this one unit is they make it less of what it was designed to be - heavy cavalry. It is becoming an odd, somewhat feeble mounted unit with strange strengths and weaknesses (less HP but strong against cold and impact for some reason). A cost increase would be more in line with what it is supposed to be.

[Jarom]

I find those proposed cost changes pretty interesting, especially L2 undead costs, so I implemented them for myself as a preview in form of a modification. Due to limitations of [modify_unit_type] not all changes were implemented, and I was too lazy to implement exp changes as well, at least for now.
I published this as an add-on with Hejnewar's permission, under name "Hejnewar's AoH Cost Balancer".
If someone wants to implement exp changes as well, I made relevant github repo public.

[nemaara]

We really need to start introducing variable recall costs. Most of this stems from the fact players can pull in L2/L3/L4 units at the same 20 gold flat rate.

I agree but also the army "level 3 cap" is still relevant because unless we give AMLAs (which are their own can of worms and I want to avoid that as much as possible on non-hero units) the player doesn't get more army progression. We really just need to design campaigns better like I said so we hit the cap later, have a lot of threats to lose lvl 2s or 3s, or gain different units throughout the campaign to keep progression going.

In an ideal world we can spend the time to design campaigns really well so that even your veterans get threatened, L3s are sometimes or often lost, we add exp dumps in (limited) AMLAs, etc. but what I'm mainly concerned about is we don't have that time or budget for so much redesigning so I don't want to mess up all of the longer mainline campaigns even more (at this point in time) if it's possible to avoid it.

That is true, though we are still far out from 1.18, so we have some time to work out any imbalances that may result from this.

I might be a bit crazy but the set of balance changes for 1.16 I did was literally me playing through every campaign multiple times to get the values right. I can't really sink that time in to do it again for these changes since I think there are bigger fish to fry (that I'm also motivated to start tackling). That's why I bring this up because while I'm not afraid of the direct impact of these on e.g. Liberty or DiD, they will have a probably not insignificant effect on things like the 20+ scenario campaigns of HttT, TRoW, SotA, etc. that I really can't afford to playtest to rebalance again.

Any help on rebalancing those would be appreciated from anyone reading this btw!!

[Hejnewar]

As per Yumi request (Yumi request some changes I did the other changes to accommodate them) I changed some units form Loyalists and Rebels:
Loyalists now:

Spoiler:

Level 1:
HI - left in the void.
Cavalryman - blade resistance changed from 30% to 20%, xp changed from 40 to 44.
Bowman - xp changed from 39 to 32.
Fencer - xp changed from 42 to 38.
Horseman - cost changed from 23 to 24, xp changed from 44 to 54.
Merman - xp changed from 36 to 34.
Mage - xp changed from 54 to 48.
Sergeant - xp changed form 32 to 42.

Level 2:
Javelineer - ranged damage increased from 11 to 13, cost changed from 25 to 24.
Pikeman - cost changed from 25 to 24, xp changed from 65 to 69.
Swordsman - xp changed from 60 to 80.
Knight - cost changed from 38 to 56, but I'm inclined to leave it at 50 to the fun of AoH WC players lol, xp changed from 120 to 100.
Lancer - cost changed from 44 to 53.
Shock Trooper - cost changed from 35 to 28, xp changed from 110 to 65.
Red mage - cost changed from 38 to 35, xp changed from 100 to 83.
White mage - cost changed from 38 to 31, xp changed from 136 to 75.
Dragoon - cost changed from 28 to 29, xp changed from 95 to 80.
Longbowman - cost changed from 26 to 23, xp changed from 68 to 65.
Duelist - xp changed from 90 to 80.
Merman Warrior - cost changed from 26 to 24, xp changed from 80 to 60.
Lieutenant - cost changed from 34 to 31, xp changed from 81 to 85.

Level 3:
Halberdier - cost changed from 44 to 52.
Royal Guard - cost changed from 44 to 52
GK - hp changed from 78 to 84, lance damage changed from 17 to 19, cost changed from 58 to 86.
Paladin - hp changed from 65 to 77, lance damage changed from 15 to 16, melee damage changed from 8 to 9, cost changed from 58 to 82.
Iron Mauler cost changed from 50 to 49.
Archmage - cost changed from 59 to 63 xp changed from 220 to 150.
Mage of Light - cost changed from 60 to 59.
Cavalier - cost changed from 52 to 62.
Master Bowman - cost changed from 46 to 50.
Master at Arms - melee damage increased from 7 to 8, cost changed from 44 to 61.
Hoplite - cost changed from 43 to 45.
Triton - cost changed from 43 to 46.
General - hp changed from 50 to 55, cost changed from 54 to 66, xp changed from 180 to 120.

Level 4:
Great Mage - ranged damage changed from 16 to 17, cost changed from 72 to 110.
Grand Marshal- hp changed from 60 to 68, cost changed from 66 to 101.

Rebels now:

Spoiler:

Level 1:
Fighter - xp cost changed from 40 to 36.
Merman Hunter - xp changed from 35 to 33.
Scout - xp changed from 32 to 42.

Level 2:
Hero - xp changed from 90 to 80.
Captain - xp changed from 90 to 85.
Marksman - cost changed from 31 to 34, xp changed from 80 to 80.
Ranger - xp changed from 90 to 85.
Rider - ranged damage changed from 9 to 11, hp changed form 46 to 49, cost changed from 28 to 35, xp changed from 75 to 53.
Druid - cost changed from 27 to 25, xp changed from 80 to 85.
Sorceress - cost changed from 32 to 34, xp changed from 100 to 90.
Elder Wose - cost changed from 27 to 28, xp changed from 100 to 80.
Merman Netcaster - cost changed from 27 to 26, xp changed from 80 to 54.
Merman Spearman - cost changed from 27 to 22, xp changed from 80 to 54.

Level 3:
Champion - melee damage changed from 9 to 10 hp changed from 70 to 72, cost changed from 48 to 61.
Marshal - hp changed from 62 to 68, cost changed from 54 to 67.
Sharpshooter - ranged damage changed from 10 to 12. cost changed from 51 to 62.
Avenger - melee damage changed from 8 to 9, ranged damage changed from 10 to 11, hp changed from 55 to 57, cost changed from 53 to 66.
Outrider - ranged damage changed from 8 to 11, melee damage changed from 7 to 8, hp changed form 57 to 60, mp from 10 to 11, cost changed from 43 to 58.
Shyde - hp changed from 46 to 51, melee damage changed from 6 to 7, ranged slow (entangle) changed from 6 to 8, ranged magical (thorns) changed from 8 to 14, cost changed from 52 to 69.
Enchantress - cost changed from 55 to 70, ranged slow damage changed from 5 to 7, ranged magiical damage changed from 9 to 13, xp changed from 180 to 180.
Ancient Wose - cost changed from 48 to 50.
Entangler - cost changed from 46 to 42.
Javelineer - cost changed from 48 to 55.

Level 4:
Shyde - hp changed from 60 to 67, ranged slow damage changed from 6 to 7, ranged magical damage changed from 10 to 15, cost changed from 67 to 148.

There are still some minor (or major) changes to be done for Df probably as well as I wanted to make at least one post about still remaining problems that I see but cant do much about but Im really starved for time so that will have to wait.

[IPS]

Well some few things to mention about the changes.

Lv4 sylph being massive 16-5 is really an overkill to anything else for just 180 XP, while it looks nearly the double of Archmage to promote to Grand Mage still Sylph has a lot of other features than just "magic arcane damage" on ranged, first the unit flies which appart of giving her 50% flat defense and better defensive properties in many low defense places (and much greater mobility in rought terrains), second is that she has magic on melee which is a powerful bonus to consider and third she's not completely useless againist 50% arcane ressistant units at having impact slows in ranged. Features lots of more other uses and is not countered by just being massively ressistant to her main attack. I would personally propose 12-5 or 13-5 as the unit already got a lots of buffs even in HP.

Second point I have to mention, loy royal guards compared to champioms with buff are a joke basically, while requiring nearly the same XP from lv2 to lv3 the outcome is not as good as of champions, 10-5 melee & 9-3 on ranged is massively strong in offensive, loy guardsman only features 11-4 melee and 20% blade/impact res and just one more movement. My complaint in here is that both units with all suggested changes requires nearly the same XP from lv1 to lv3 to be obtained, if your intention is making champions way rarer but better than royal guards then I think you might reconsider decreasing the XP nerfs on loy swordsmen to lv3 because they by comparation look quite underpowered. Also other option would be increasing their HP even more, but having 6 moement that could be potentially too strong ... so few XP reductions for swordsman and few higher HP for royal guardsman could be okay.

Halberd is on same topic, but he requires slightly less XP than both mentioned units, but I still think that still needs a review because elvish champion buffs are massive, Even Orcish Warlord has to be considered as well because is the other lv3 melee fighter that usually rivals lv3 champion.

And well... undead will become unplayable in certain momments of the game as skeletons have massive 50% arcane weakness and lots of arcane units got buffed lol (paladin, shyde, white mage XP...) I always considered personally that skeletons would be a much more balanced unit if they just had 40% or even 30% arcane ressistance, because they now suffer from tons of overkill because of arcane (yup, it makes sense and it looks real, but balance... sometimes is more important aspect).

Also been wondering that if you consider decreasing skeletons arcane weakness that could allow DA arcane attack be increased to 8-2 to not have a loss on damage againist skeletons and would also give to undead a real chance to deal with woses as they actually suffer a lot from even few woses as they cannot counter them without taking significant risks. Well this is just my opinion, but still letting it know it here.

[Hejnewar]

Remaining problems:
Drakes:
Issues of this faction originate in the design of it and not in the power of units, because of that they will have problems with any faction that can muster up any kind of solid offensive power early on (f.e. UD, Northerners, (Random) Loyalists).

With that in mind we can split their units into three groups:

Expensive - Fighter, Clasher, Burner (units pay for being expensive)
Fast - Fighter, Augur, Skirmisher, Glider
With Specials - Augur, Skirmisher

So yeah, each and every single one of their units is actually paying for something other than raw stats / useful specials that would let you hold early on / during prolonged aggression. On the other hand we have the least offensive faction in the game, Rebels, who not only already don’t have stelar offensive options but at the same time both of their offensive units heavly restricted in power working really only on ⅓ of the drake rooster. The most non intrusive way to fix this is an introduction of a new unit.

Still it cant be just any unit, in the spirit of drakes it it should belong to one of the categories, just not (very) Fast and not Expensive.

Dunefolk:
The issue with dunefolk is the lack of magic and fantasy within a faction in a magic fantasy game. Well they still have one more unit slot…

Dwarf:
Problem with dwarf units is that they are not really fun to play against so the most healthy place for them is actually being underpowered in order to not make the games less fun. WIth xp changes to these units Im hoping to make them more viable but still not spammable in the long run.

Loyalists:
Loyalists have one big problem, it is called Heavy Infantry, its theoretical job is to help in the mirror matchup (loy doesnt need help imo in any other matchup lol), but it fails at this horribly and at everything else as well. If it is just buffed then it dominates some matchups but is still bad in others. In short there is no hope for this unit in its current form. It needs a rework. But there is one more problem, I straight up dont think that they need it.

No matchup is actually becoming more interesting if HI is good:
Drakes - no major impact
Dwarf - heavier focus on impact damage and generally strategy more like vs ud.
Rebels - no major impact
Orcs - having to include trolls is not very fun
Ud - just one more thing to worry about, it would force them to buy more adepts and would you look at all the horses.

I have few rework ideas but none solve these problem and I dont know if there are any that would.

Rebels:
Well the dependency on loyalist unit is pretty bad. That doesnt allow to balance them completely independently. To replace it, the most popular idea seems to be an arcane mage. IMO it is a good idea, it allows to better balance elves vs drakes which is their worst matchup as well as elves vs ud, while also keeping other matchups relatively unchanged. But to do that a lot of work would need to be put into reworking arcane resistances of pretty much everything that has them. Still I think it would be worth it (and it would be good for other arcane damage units).

Undead:
I still think that UD are facing the problem of lack of choice with only 5 lvl 1 units just having something more would be nice for them.

[Yomar]

For what it worths, I agree with the points made by Elvish_Hunter and IPS.

Like the impact on SP of changing the Horseman in that way.

And the Swordsman, Royal Guard, Elvish Champion, Sylph points.

I feel these changes will bring various balancing issues.

[Hejnewar]

For what it worths, I agree with the points made by Elvish_Hunter and IPS.

Like the impact on SP of changing the Horseman in that way.

And the Swordsman, Royal Guard, Elvish Champion, Sylph points.

I feel these changes will bring various balancing issues.

These were consulted with SP lead (Yumi) and it was okay, so I guess I will leave it up to her.

Also I slightly nefred sylph because I forgot melee magical on her lol.

[egallager]

For what it worths, I agree with the points made by Elvish_Hunter and IPS.

Like the impact on SP of changing the Horseman in that way.

And the Swordsman, Royal Guard, Elvish Champion, Sylph points.

I feel these changes will bring various balancing issues.

These were consulted with SP lead (Yumi) and it was okay, so I guess I will leave it up to her.

What does it mean for UMC authors who might have to rebalance our own campaigns, though?

[Hejnewar]

What does it mean for UMC authors who might have to rebalance our own campaigns, though?

Mainline is not excluded form that so I guess we should stop doing balance changes huh?

[nemaara]

For SP I am willing to approve these changes as is. Generally speaking I still think Rebel and Loy campaigns will get easier (but not by an enormous margin) but I want to see the unit diversity come in from the Loy patch especially. Horseman isn't a big issue because as a faction we finally will probably get to see more use of archer in SP which was kind of underpowered before. Also mage got buffed so it's good to have a nerf somewhere else to prevent a steamroll from happening too easily. Point is that sure single units get buffed or nerfed but the faction as a whole isn't trashed or buffed to oblivion. Rebels L3 buff is big, but I think that's acceptable because their units weren't that good outside of forests before (at least in SP) so that can be solved by forcing players to fight in less favorable terrain in SP. They're still not that hard to kill on flat ground.

Unfortunately there's no way to make balance changes without impacting campaigns but I think it's a necessary sacrifice. Thinking about all the work in UMC that needs to be done for simple behind the scenes bugfixes from version to version (that often aren't even player visible!!), there's not a good reason to deny balance changes on those ground so long as they aren't super extreme.

[MechMK1]

You simply underestimate how much exp in a normal campaign Archmage gets as an unit that can kill a lot of L2/L3s in one attack. In Httt and old THoT they sometimes got AMLA as Grand Mages without even trying, because they killed enemies without any help too often. But other than reverting Mage/Elvish Sorceress lines exp back to previous values (or only slightly lower), the rest doesn't matter for campaign balance, because those small changes mostly cancel each other out. Gold carryover generally makes it pretty hard to estimate player power, and with longer campaigns your units would soon be mostly max lvl. If anything, those changes make World Conquest easier, which is a welcome change, because it's currently too hard in multiplayer even on easiest difficulties.

This is a highly welcome change. In fact, I would even welcome more drastic changes in the positive effects players get on the easier difficulties. I believe that the game should be balanced around Medium difficulty. "Beginner" difficulty should give a great amount of aid to the player, where any even moderately competent players would have a hard time losing. For now, it's more akin to Beginner being somewhat playable without save-scumming and the rest just being nigh-impossible.

[gnombat]

You simply underestimate how much exp in a normal campaign Archmage gets as an unit that can kill a lot of L2/L3s in one attack. In Httt and old THoT they sometimes got AMLA as Grand Mages without even trying, because they killed enemies without any help too often. But other than reverting Mage/Elvish Sorceress lines exp back to previous values (or only slightly lower), the rest doesn't matter for campaign balance, because those small changes mostly cancel each other out. Gold carryover generally makes it pretty hard to estimate player power, and with longer campaigns your units would soon be mostly max lvl. If anything, those changes make World Conquest easier, which is a welcome change, because it's currently too hard in multiplayer even on easiest difficulties.

This is a highly welcome change. In fact, I would even welcome more drastic changes in the positive effects players get on the easier difficulties. I believe that the game should be balanced around Medium difficulty. "Beginner" difficulty should give a great amount of aid to the player, where any even moderately competent players would have a hard time losing. For now, it's more akin to Beginner being somewhat playable without save-scumming and the rest just being nigh-impossible.

Just to clarify here - are you talking about World Conquest specifically or are you talking about the entire game in general (all mainline single-player and cooperative multiplayer campaigns)? Or something else...?

[Lord-Knightmare]

General - hp changed from 50 to 55, cost changed from 54 to 66, xp changed from 180 to 105.

I like seeing this squishy unit get some attention finally. Will the level 4 (Grand Marshal) be buffed as well? Seems weird the level 6 will get only +5 HP +1 damage to each now.

Enchantress - cost changed from 55 to 70, ranged slow damage changed from 5 to 7, ranged magiical damage changed from 9 to 13, xp changed from 180 to 180.

A bit confused with the "180 to 180" part.