You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.92 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » murms vs ulfs
Bottom
Topic Subject:murms vs ulfs
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 18 April 2004 02:16 PM EDT (US)         
Played around a little in the editor to see if atl really are as OP as some ppl would say.. This is just a little test but still.

I simply pitted norse and atlantean mainline inf vs each other, to see if they were somewhat equal, and hereīs the results..

I only tested unupgraded, classical inf. Murms cost 5 res more, so I put 16 murms vs 17 ulfs - equal resource wise (murms are smaller pop wise)

On average, 9 murms survived, with 60-70% hp left.

OUCH

Fer christ sakes, I really do hate to bitch, but wtf is this? Maybe ulfs can get more upgrades, but seriously? They are the exact same unit - mainline inf good vs cav, and move at roughly the same speed - and over half of the murmillos survive!??! I donīt know if this reflects the crappiness of norse units or the strenghth of atlantean ones, but it hurts me as a Norse player at heart to see this, it just reinforces my experience from in-game - when playing norse, donīt attack any military units unless you really, really have to - cheiro/turma will hold up damn well to pure rc, and it gets more annoying with every norse nerf.. Might add some tests to this thread later, want to know what others think about this first though..

AuthorReplies:
Etendorf
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 11:02 PM EDT (US)     61 / 92       
Ah, yes. Norse don't have problem with massed archers, not with the Huskarl. They really lose to massed counter-infantry. Massed axman, massed hypapists, chiero's, other norse TA. The nerfing of TA because of TA wars between norse, it's because all norse units are so vulnarable to massed hack damage units(most notably the anti-inf), with only the Ballista/Jarl meatshield an exeption. Why TA were so strong to begin with

Atties, pah, Destroyers need to be massed, and are effective massed,. I have had much success as Gaia with arci-destroyer combo. Especially against Eggy. Persuade them to delay any strait FH with turma raiding, then use your better eco to pump yourself into heroic, in which you will spam arci and destroyer, which eggy simple cannot counter with rax. They need their precious migdol, but they shall not have it.

Norse have no such combo with rams. Take destroyers of Rams. Norse siege lies in their myth units, the battle boar, the walking woods, the mountain giant, used to be, the fire giant, the einherjar. Not rams, rams are rather crappy before the upgrades, especially the myth ones.

Again, I as all norse units do hack damage, in joint attacks versus calvary, which are usually fewer in number do to pop and cost and train time, will fall. The only exeption is the another one of eggy OPerness, the elephant. Norse do not have standard units with there stats. They have many combined combo's that really break the rules on what they are supposed to do. Plus, as norse, you should use lot's of myth unit's, because of the way of favor gathering, and the power and effectivness of a norse myth unit, they make up for many of the lackings that norse have in mil combat. Use well combined armies that beat what ever your opponet is massing of one type or one type plus a little of this and myth units and you will come out ahead. Especially if you micro through the battle with flanking manuvers. But, as many norse funky unit combos use the TA, a nerf to the TA causes a lot of damage to norse. Also, as TA are the only unit that is designed to beat infantry cost effectivly besides the mythic ballista, not having them the best infantry counter makes norse really weak versus infantry.

To keep it simple, think of it this way. All Norse human units do hack damage. All archers, calvary, and siege are weakest versus hack. Only Infantry are not. So the only infantry counter must be a good one. The nerf made it not so. Fix TA, and you fix norse. If you don't want this, and you want Ulfsarks as your backbone, don't make them so darn weak in hitpoints. In fact, you could boost both, as norse aren't really showing signs of anything close to ownage, besides on loki strat, and ocasionally the thor rag+flaming weapons, because the build times of RC and TA are so high, that ulfs would be friendlier to use in the expac.

Don't play norse like Greek, eggy, or attie, and play them like they are supposed to be played, they only fall short in balance to massed inf. So, logically boost TA.

(at this point of repeating myself, anyone who beleived TA are not in need of a boost, should be agreeing with me)

oh, and nerf eggies.


Nick: Eten.
Gods: All of them!
Vanilla.
NIB
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 07:14 AM EDT (US)     62 / 92       

Quote:

NIB, I donīt know if you donīt speak english past a 3rd grade level or are just plain retarded

Lets see how good you can speak greek and then judge me about my english.

Quote:

First: Poseidonīs hippis are better than rc. End of story. Scream all you want, but hipp/tox beats pure rc. It does in the editor, in single player, and in multiplayer. Rcs have somewhat higher hack armor and take less pop, but they will still lose. I know, since I have beaten norse rc spammers like this by the dozen, and I have been beaten when going all rc vs hip/tox.

Lol.

Quote:

Second: I never ever said greek should have -1 damage on all their units. I said that if all greek units made 1 damage/second, theyīd still have a roughly 50% winning percent . This is because worthless as theyīd be, theyīd eventually end up playing only each other, and then theyīd get 50% wins.

I might be stupid, i might not know very good english but i still dont understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that greeks are so overpowered that even if they are totally nerfed, every1 would still use them?

Quote:

Third: If thrax made 8 dmg/sec and kept their multipliers, theyīd still cause less damage to infantry than axemen or hypaspists, but theyīd be ranged, making them stronger - they way it was intended to be from the beginning. Youīd still be able to slaughter a rc/ta combo with prodromos and toxotes, but Norse would get a little better in classical. Like I said before (and try to read it this time), Throwing axemen throw AXES. Axes cause more bleeding than arrows - just chop yourself in the leg with one, youīll see what I mean. But they are also heavier. That is why the throwing axeman has shorter range, and that is why he should cause more damage than a tox. Only he doesnīt.

Hilarious. Plz post this here. I beg you. Oh and write about the hoplite 3 pop too and why ES made hoplites even stronger by reducing their pop to 2. In the end dont forget to note how op greeks.

Quote:

Yup, when your arguments run out, you start flaming

When some1 tells me that 1+1 = -+54t6y7784vfb*%# then yes i stop using valid arguements and start flaming him simply because he doesnt know basic mathematics and tries to create a theory about advanced mathematics.

Quote:

I just started the thread to post how murms are more cost-effective than ulfs

They are meant to be better than ulfsarks. Just like hoplites are meant to be better than spearmen.

Quote:

You talk about game balancing like youīre a designer at ES

Maybe cause i have been into game balancing, couple alphas/many betas of different games and cause i have read a couple books/sites about game designing more than you.

Quote:

like how a unitīs base cost isnīt supposed to reflect its stats and worth

Can you define cost? Cost is? Resources as an absolute number? 100 gold "costs" the same for egyptians as it "costs" for norse? There are things like economy efficiency and relative cost on rts. Economy efficiency isnt the same on all civs. Thats why there is a relative cost. Thats why i say its impossible to do dedicated 1vs1 comparisons.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

[This message has been edited by NIB (edited 04-20-2004 @ 07:20 AM).]

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 07:56 AM EDT (US)     63 / 92       
Meh.. Iīm creepy.. ah well.. yea some of the at.-norse comparisons were off, I was tired.. however, not as many as you put it.. Norse docks and barracks cost more than greeks, but I put atty.. sorry. But atty gps are better - their archaic ones are great, chaos may suck but noone takes hyperion, and 3x traitor are much better than you think - e.g you kill 3 mus and get 3 ones for free. And I never said atty get decent ranged siege, just that Norse donīt. As for cav, attyīs has only one use - 20 contari with lances of stone - but that is awesome. You can kill unguarded tcs before he even has time to react. Jarls are ok, but every civ other than Norse has a super-cav counter. And once ppl learn to use destroyers, youīll know their power.

To the person who thought this thread was fun, and someone who said close it or whatever.. Yea itīs great fun to post a thread on this forum and immediately getting flamed by people who missed your point.

And I made the 17vs16 test 10 times. Positioning of units may account for the discrepancy, but if fewer murms survive, they would be high on HP. Did you check the HP left?

And NIB, sweet, sweet NIB - your comparison of my greek to your english shows why we have different opinions on what things to compare. Iīm swedish, so comparing my greek to your swedish would be the appropriate thing. And now that you yourself say that you donīt understand english well enough to get what Iīm writing, would you stop responding to the points you donīt understand?

And possy hipp/tox do beat rc, I just tested it. You just need to micro. Pure hipp, however, would be better. This was without any of the minor god techs.

The game designing remark wasnīt meant at you, but (clearly) at Kumar. See now why I need to dbl post?

I said that the cost of a unit should reflect its worth. That has nothing to do with relative econ efficiency. And, like I said, atl econ isnīt worse than Norse, and I compared murm and ulf.

And I was wrong about hoplite pop. Iīm not ashamed to admit that. Can you do the same now?


Btw- hops arenīt meant to be "better" than spears. They have higher stats for the same pop, but also cost more, making the hops good late-game and spears useful early on.

And axes/arrows. I do think itīs odd that an axe is less damaging than an arrow. They could raise the base damage of the TA and lower the multiplier. Now the way it is now, is for gameplay balancing purposes, and I just disagree with those. And btw, the design of a game isnīt where the balancing tuning should be done, you balance it based on the experience of the players who have played hundreds of games and know the game better than even the creators. And I am one of those players.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-20-2004 @ 07:59 AM).]

Teddy_Horse
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 09:16 AM EDT (US)     64 / 92       
I cannot beleive this thread!
Comparing Ulfs to Mirms... this is plain stupid. First of all Mirms are mythical units while Ulfs are archaic.
Then again: comparing 12 huskies against 18 mirms. WTF???? Why do not you go and compare 12 hoplites against 18 eggy pikeman?
Also Mirm is a SPECIAL unit of Zeus.

Also what kind of stupid comparision between RC and Hipps? Of course Hipps kill RC. But they are slower and cost more takes more time to train. Try again your 18 RC against 12 Hipps (popwise even!). U'll see RCs winning.

Cannot beleive people cries about greeks being overpowered. Since the last two years I have not seen a single greek in the top 20 (still not) and they call them OP. LOL!

Just drop in enough MUs and you'll see how they those "op" mirms die.

Quantity > quality. Dont you know that? That is the key for eggies for ie. You just outpop your opponent.
Same with Mirms: you outpop the opponent. All you need RC and TAs and as I told MUs. Those mirms will die.


My computer beats me in chess. But I am much better in kick-box...
GREEN CERTIFICATE: this message contains recycling electrons
NIB
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 09:28 AM EDT (US)     65 / 92       

Quote:

And btw, the design of a game isnīt where the balancing tuning should be done, you balance it based on the experience of the players who have played hundreds of games and know the game better than even the creators. And I am one of those players.

Both wrong and right at the same time. On game designing you decide the ratio that you want to have for example about how easy a counter unit should be able to counter the unit that it is supposed to counter. I think ES started this by saying something like 7 counter units can beat 10 countered units. Then you beta test and see if there is something that you didnt see. For example i do remember early hippikon rushes. Thats cause hippikon had low training time, was cheap(poseidon's) and came from cheap stables(poseidon's).

Then ES nerfed hippikon's training time in classical so that they would balance the game.

Quote:

And possy hipp/tox do beat rc, I just tested it. You just need to micro. Pure hipp, however, would be better.

Lol again. Test it again.

Quote:

And axes/arrows. I do think itīs odd that an axe is less damaging than an arrow

Yes i find it hard that female villagers become ulfsarks as well as how is it possible that colossus get inside transport boats.

Quote:

3x traitor are much better than you think - e.g you kill 3 mus and get 3 ones for free

I take flaming weapons, frost or walking trees over traitor any day. Again this is something of a critical point hit. Traitor might be stronger than walking woods over a large period of time, but this gp doesnt help you hit a critical mass of efficiency like walking woods in order to overcome an equal enemy.

@Teddy_Horse
We are talking about murmillos and not myrmidons.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

[This message has been edited by NIB (edited 04-20-2004 @ 09:31 AM).]

curufir
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 10:17 AM EDT (US)     66 / 92       
I mean Johnny isn't fit in stats, especially in pop cost. But I must say that people who play norse and they see relationships like ulfs<->murms,cheiros<->husks,rc<->katas,ta<->infantry it's very hard to stay cool and don't become crazy about it. The cost-relationship between murms and ulfs is realy a bit strange (imo murms has to cost 55f and 35g and atties could be lucky with it further on).
Teddy_Horse
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 02:40 PM EDT (US)     67 / 92       

Quote:

We are talking about murmillos and not myrmidons


Holy $hit. Right man. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
It is an Attie unit, right? Nerf then...

My computer beats me in chess. But I am much better in kick-box...
GREEN CERTIFICATE: this message contains recycling electrons
NIB
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 03:04 PM EDT (US)     68 / 92       
Oh and i just want to add that hippikon cost 3 pop while rcs cost 2 pop. This might be the cause that you think that hippikon is so good or that hippikon+tox owns pure rcs. Hippikon lose to rcs cost and pop effectively(especially pop effectively). And rcs are faster too.

Also we all know that murmillos are better than ulfsarks on classical at least. Like hypaspists are better than axemen. But ulfsarks get really good techs and if you go bragi, they get a multiplier against cavalry. I dont know about you, but i'd rather have bragi ulfsarks over murmillos any day.

And in the end, you cant do 1vs1 comparisons not even mixed comparisons. The only safe conclusions that can be drawn, is through in game experience. And in order to remove personal biased from the in game experience, we use documanted statistics that ESO has to see which gods win against which, at what ratings, what minor gods are chosen over what, etc.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 05:21 PM EDT (US)     69 / 92       
I never said hipp in general. I said possy hipp. And test pure rc vs pure hipp with equal pop EDIT:sorry, meant cost - hipps win.

And I know stats very well. I did ONE f-ing mistake, not even wholly pertinent to this thread. Thatīs less than most ppl whoīve come here to flame me have done, saying that murms cost 90 res etc.. Donīt insult ppl by saying theīre not "fit" in stats, after they made one error.

Lastly, Iīll just say why I donīt think that which god wins vs which and at what rating is necessarily a very good way to draw conclusions:

If a god is worse, ppl who play him will end up on a SLIGHTLY lower rating than they would with a better god. But once at that rating, theyīd win half their games, be able to beat all gods, etc. Also, some gods have a larger noob following (eg Kronos), making him worse in statistics. I used to pick Skadi as Thor, because I liked her personality, not cause I thought she was great. In statistics, this would show up as "expert or almost expert Thor player, picking Skadi", boosting Thor and Skadi as gods. Not necessarily right - Thor is great, but Skadi is surely not.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-20-2004 @ 05:38 PM).]

Vassilis
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 05:28 PM EDT (US)     70 / 92       
hipps die horribly to rc at equal pop. Try with 15 rc vs 10 hipp (30 pop) The higher the pop the easier it is for rc to win.
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 05:37 PM EDT (US)     71 / 92       
Oops meant cost, not pop, sorry *tired*

Anyway, in order to beat rc with a hipp/tox combo you will have to micro perfectly.. so it might not happen that way in game. But costwise the greek will win, rcs are just very pop effective.

NIB, I did get pure hipps to beat rcs in the editor, though that might be because I used very large numbers, could have messed with the rcs pathing.. 3 rc vs 2 hipp, the rcs win, one remaining with 30-40 hp left. Still thatīs pretty tight.

Quote:

I take flaming weapons, frost or walking trees over traitor any day. Again this is something of a critical point hit. Traitor might be stronger than walking woods over a large period of time, but this gp doesnt help you hit a critical mass of efficiency like walking woods in order to overcome an equal enemy.

If traitor is stronger than WW in the long run and WW is better short-term, wouldnīt that make the GPs equal?. Also, would you take spy over deconstruct, great hunt over shockwave, and Nidhogg over Implode??


And I think that in order to make a Colossus fit inside a transport graphics-wise - theyīd have to make the transport 20x as large. Thatīs not very viable design-wise. Making a 4 kg metal object hurt more than a 0.2 kg metal object is very viable design-wise - raise base damage and lower multiplier if necessary.

Again, you have to stop putting words in my mouth and exaggerating what I say. I never said hipp/tox "owns" pure rc. I said they won. But I did test in large numbers and microed, I know that in smaller numbers rc win. But they do NOT win cost-wise, just test 13 rc vs 10 hipp (not quite same cost, but only 30/1200 diff). And possy hipps, which were the ones I talked about, are cheaper.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-20-2004 @ 06:21 PM).]

SeaBass
Mortal
posted 20 April 2004 07:34 PM EDT (US)     72 / 92       

Quote:

and 3x traitor are much better than you think - e.g you kill 3 mus and get 3 ones for free

You're right, 3 casts of Traitor is very strong.

That's why you only get 2! =P

Bragi ulfs are the best cav counter in the game, at least as far as infanty that counter cavalry. Thor and Loki both have access to all the Ulfsark minor god techs, I see no problem here. Odin can counter cav with Jarls or his own RC, whatever it's a specific civ characteristic.

Now, if Murmillo's had all the techs available to them that Ulfsarks do, you'd have easily the best unit in the game. =P

tGo_elfjorc
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 00:16 AM EDT (US)     73 / 92       

Quote:

Throwing axemen throw AXES. Axes cause more bleeding than arrows - just chop yourself in the leg with one, youīll see what I mean. But they are also heavier. That is why the throwing axeman has shorter range, and that is why he should cause more damage than a tox.

If we followed real life, TA would have 4-6 range to Tox's 16 ...

Also, axes might be heavier, but they're harder to hit with

And lastly gameplay > realism when it comes to balance issues


Is there anything in the world better than Matt Damon in the riddle scene in Ocean's Twelve?
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 02:06 AM EDT (US)     74 / 92       

Quote:

That's why you only get 2! =

Yea, but Iīve heard it will be 3 in the next patch.. not entirely sure though.

And Bragi ulfs are great cav counters, surely best inf, but so are prodromos and camelry, which donīt require a particular minor God.. Odinīs Jarl canīt counter elephants, let alone Thothīs.

And gameplay>realism. I agree. But TAs shouldnīt have cost, HP and armor close to that of a toxote, and then have much less range AND damage. Even with its multiplier vs inf the damage isnīt more than what it receives itself, if you include armor. It needs a little boost.

biggestbal
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 02:57 AM EDT (US)     75 / 92       
Johnny i agree for what u said and i have the same feeling with how bad norse is now.

yea some people r correct,ulf in late ages is very powerful units because they got many upgrade,they even can kill massed archers. but we have to choose just 1 god path to do this,forseti>bragi>tyr(maybe incorrect spell).that means we have to choose this gods every time in the game while others can choose every god they have??? that means ulfs have to rely on special myth upgrade that cost more to beat others with less upgrades.

i just wanna ulfs or ta be boost a bit in the next patch. in the last one,ES boost ulf but nerf TA and RC, i really don't know how that 5% pierce armour help so much to ulf to make them nerf RC and TA

[This message has been edited by biggestbal (edited 04-21-2004 @ 03:00 AM).]

curufir
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 02:58 AM EDT (US)     76 / 92       
LOL
G3_
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 09:21 AM EDT (US)     77 / 92       
With +20HP to the ulf, +1hack attack to the TA, +20%PA +10LOS to the caladria and 5crush attack to the automaton everyone would be happy?
curufir
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 09:27 AM EDT (US)     78 / 92       
No
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 10:24 AM EDT (US)     79 / 92       
You can never please everyone.. but that would please me, which is what matters.
Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 11:54 AM EDT (US)     80 / 92       

Quote:

With +20HP to the ulf, +1hack attack to the TA, +20%PA +10LOS to the caladria and 5crush attack to the automaton everyone would be happy?

Everybody except Norse would be prolly be not happy. You realise the consequences of +20 hp Ulfies in archaic you immediately get a good attack in classical?


Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 01:16 PM EDT (US)     81 / 92       
20 hp extra to ulfs I doubt would make them too good (in classical).. pierce armor is still crap, so moving them near tcs would be a bad idea.. and rcs would be better.. but wou would be able to create them faster, which might give Norse a bigger impact in early classical.. donīt see why that would be so bad, Itīd be nice to see anything other than rc, ulfs are almost never made in numbers early on now.. Its not like some extra HP would make them uber in class., or make you want to replace rc with them.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-21-2004 @ 01:17 PM).]

Quircus
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 01:20 PM EDT (US)     82 / 92       
lol. +20 HP to Ulfs?!

So they would have 100 HP. Almost as much as Murmillo/Hoplite (the "Heavy Mainline Infantry" Units), when it's meant to be a cheap Cavalry Coutner?! Hmmm....that makes sense doesn't it!

Psycho_Mani4c
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 01:34 PM EDT (US)     83 / 92       
a cheap cavalry counter that loses to cavalry and has no bonus vs. it at all, get raped by archers and counter infantry and even to his counterparts like the murmillo and hoplite, while it costs just as much etc...

AOE3 @ SM4RTASS

Dominating with: The French
HC: Le Moule
Explorer: Ze Chauvenist

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 03:22 PM EDT (US)     84 / 92       
If, I say IF, ulfs would get 100 HP, theyīd still lose pop/cost eff to murms. And if paying 5 more food makes my unit pretty much as fast, but gives it much more HP and more armor, please can I have it? You can debate whether Norse need a better starting ulf, but you canīt deny that itīs out-of-the-box stats are weak.

If the murmillo is a heavy mainline infantry unit, someone needs to tell them that, since they run like they were late to a date or something.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-21-2004 @ 03:25 PM).]

PaleHorse
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 06:07 PM EDT (US)     85 / 92       
Clearly Murmillos are stronger than Ulfsarks, but those Norse vills and dwarfs can resupply so much more quickly that the Atlantean citizens that Norse wins hands down in a sustained pure battle between murms and ulfs.

I looked at the relative vill-seconds, or now that we have Atlantean, popslot-seconds. Here is an example in Classical with no techs researched.

A citizen occupies 3 pop slots and hunts at 1.77/sec or .59/sec/slot.
A Norse vill occupies 1 pop slot and hunts at .85/sec/slot.
So, on a pop slot basis, the citizen operates at about 69% of the vill.

A citizen occupies 3 pop slots and collects gold at 2.13/sec or .71/sec/slot.
A Norse dwarf occupies 1 pop slot and collects gold at 1.09/sec/slot.
So, on a pop slot basis, the goldie citizen operates at about 65% of the dwarf.

These have a significant effect on the relative values of the murm vs the ulf.

What this means is that the Norse player can produce 15.7 ulfs for the same popslot-second cost as the Atl player can produce 10 murms.

On an equal popslot-sec replacement cost, all the Norse player needs to hold off 10 murms is 8.3 ulfs. His 15.7 Ulfs will wipe out the Atl player in no time.

So even with sustained equal population armies, the Ulfs are best, but only as long as they remain faithful to their Norse heritage.

Hope I got it right. I checked the math twice.


The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions. John Ruskin
Etendorf
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 06:24 PM EDT (US)     86 / 92       
OOh, that was very good math. Great way to look at it. So if this works for ulf vs murm, what if you would look at it with TA versus all murm, and what not.

I would do it myself, but I don't exactly understand how you reached your conclusion.


Nick: Eten.
Gods: All of them!
Vanilla.
PaleHorse
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 07:44 PM EDT (US)     87 / 92       
It would be hard to put the math into a post so I will wait to see if there's a lot of interest in that.

I just realized I didn't account for carts. Assuming 1 cart for each 10 vills/dwarves, gives a slot count of 1.1 per vill. In that case:
-equal cost armies are 10 murms vs 14.3 ulfs.
-equal cost replacements are 10 murms vs 9.08 ulfs, still a Norse advantage.

In the ultimate battle, FU farmers and caravans would produce for FU infantry. I have no clue about those numbers, except to say that the battle between even 2 units in different civs is not simple.

The balance between 2 whole civs is very subjective and probably best refined by players' impressions, not all that scientific I guess. I would even bet if the best players decided to favour Gaia, we would all come to believe she was the strongest, certainly a hot titan anyhow.

Wanderlust
Mortal
posted 21 April 2004 07:56 PM EDT (US)     88 / 92       
Atl villies get the advantage of mobility and the lack of travel time.

They also don't have to lose TC time to ox carts.


But your point is very valid, and these two compensate for the fact that your math showed an advantage to the Norse.


|WND|Wanderlust
PROUD MEMBER OF THE WANDERERS CLAN
http://www.wanderersclan.com
FOR WOLFENSTEIN: ENEMY TERRITORY, BATTLEFIELD 2, and HALO PC
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 22 April 2004 08:03 AM EDT (US)     89 / 92       
I was very suspicious before the Xpack came out, when I heard that atty vills cost 3x normal vills, and operate as 2.5, roughly.. I didnīt think that a player with good micro would lose that much to walking, so atl. would be weaker.. also since they create so slow youīd get a staircase effect.. but citizens are created FASTER (than 3 vills), and itīs just my in-game experience that Norse econ isnīt better.. certainly not by much at least.

And if you want to do math.. youīd have to account for much more.. like dwarves costing 70 res to create, and create slower than vills. Also of course travel time, and the fact that villies hoard the res before they drop them off, while atl get res right away, which can sometimes be very handy when mere seconds mean win or loss. And oxcarts take up TC time, often cause bumping before vills are settled in at a site etc...

I play Loki, and on a walking-hunting map like savannah or tundra, my econ outclasses the atties. But not on the likes of Oasis or medi.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-22-2004 @ 08:06 AM).]

PaleHorse
Mortal
posted 22 April 2004 04:26 PM EDT (US)     90 / 92       
Johnny_Deppig, its just a way of looking at things. Better than a previous old method I recall seeing long ago, of ranking a unit by looking at some kind of ratio of damage attack to damage defense for that unit without regard to any other unit or the economic cost of replacement.

Granted it takes a snapshot of the "man-hours" of economic cost to each side of 1 second of time and does not account for how the civ got into that state in the first place. Still, I wouldn't abandon it for the math being not good enough.

Fights to the death without replacement on the other hand are much different and very unrealistic. A player tries to retreat if he even suspects his force may be inferior. Your equal cost armies of 16 vs 17 based on resource cost and mine of 10 vs 14.3 based on man-hours is also worth some thought.

Now if you could figure out how to set up and test a constant equal vill population on each side supplying the production of only 1 type of unit, and see how a battle with replacement went, that would be interesting. Other than setting up multiplayer between 2 human players.

Etendorf, the point of massed TA's against murmillos is that they get off all their shots and the infantry don't, relatively speaking. So you'd have to incorporate a murm attack of maybe half or something, due to blocking and range. Probably no need to measure a sure thing anyhow.


The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions. John Ruskin
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 22 April 2004 04:43 PM EDT (US)     91 / 92       
Yes, most math formulas for unit worth etc were horrible, and yours is good. But it would be easier still to simply run the atl. econ and the norse econ and see how they are doing resource-wise.. taking everything into account would make for a tremendously cumbersome formula to figure out..
biggestbal
Mortal
posted 23 April 2004 03:35 AM EDT (US)     92 / 92       
i just want to say atl vills get resources too fast.........
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames