Need Help Explaining Game Balance Logic to People

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Alright, I play a mod for Civ4 called Fall From Heaven: Fall From Heaven Link

People there have this idea that if Humans have access to all units in the game, and have unique units and worldspells and Orcs have some unique units and worldspells and mechanics. But, if Orcs get a unit that's slightly more powerful comparitively and if they get a building that doubles their amount of units built.

How can I explain to these people that those 2 examples are not balanced. Saying that Orcs can't build Musketmen makes no more sense than saying humans can build Musketmen. Orcs not being able to build Horsemen does not make Orcs balanced with their other abilities. And the fact that you've never seen any balance issues in your game means absolutely jack.

His post is thus:

That's a rather sweeping statement.

There are quite a lot of civs which have no gunpowder units. The primary thing they have in common is a relatively tribal, more free, or less civilised society. Doviello, hippus, chislev, elves, calabim etc.

The Khazad are also missing marksmen and Archmages. And horse archers. and rangers. And yet they're widely considered one of the most powerful and flavourful civs in the game. They have Dwarven druids, myconids, and hornguard, focusing more power where they have it to make up for where they don't.

And then there's the sheiam, who are missing an entire melee line.

One of the core precepts of the game is that not everyone has the same tools to work with. Many civs are deliberately restricted in some areas, and more powerful in others.

I understand that most of you don't play this game, and if necessary I'll elaborate on any of the points above and on the context thereof.

Any help is appreciated,
Bill

[RandomCasualty2]

People there have this idea that if Humans have access to all units in the game, and have unique units and worldspells and Orcs have some unique units and worldspells and mechanics.

That right there makes absolutely no sense. If humans can access all units, then there can't actually be any unique units.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Alright I'll elaborate, there are several unit types in the game

Warriors
Rangers
Horsemen
Adepts
Mages
Beastmasters
Etc.

There are unique Units that only certain civilizations have. Orcs have Ogres. Elohim have monks. Calabim have Moroi and Vampires, etc.

There are also Hero units unique to each Civ. Clan of Embers has Rantine. Bannor has Donal Lugh. Etc.

I'm simply trying to state that every civilization has unique units and a hero to that civilization. The fact that a civilization has unique units is not a precedent to deny it the other units in the game (beastmasters, musketmen, cannons, etc.)

Does that make sense?

[Parthenon]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying. You repeatedly talk about "if"s but have no "thens". I can only guess that you meant to have a "then the races are balanced." at the end of the second paragraph.

I really aren't sure what your point is, or even which are the 2 examples you are talking about. Saying that humans can make Musketmen makes a huge amount of sense, and just as much sense as Orcs can't build Musketmen. (assuming that those statements are accurate)

[shau]

But, if Orcs get a unit that's slightly more powerful comparitively and if they get a building that doubles their amount of units built.

I don't think this is a sentence. Shouldn't there be a then to go with your if?

I'd love to help you out, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like you arguing that humans are good at everything, but orcs are only good at some things, and the orcs' advantages are being used to argue that they can't have nice things. Or something like that. Please try to write more clearly.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Hmm. Let me put it another way.

These people have no idea what game balance is. They think that somehow denying one civilization a unit type is ok. I'm trying to say that doing this action in no way makes the game more balanced.

I have a secondary argument related to flavor. That is: Every human civilization can build every unit and the nonhuman civs can't build certain units. Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, are denied certain units. I'm saying this is no more logical than the opposite. If you can't imagine Orcs as a Technically advanced Civilization, then why are they allowed to be a technically advanced Civilization.

[RandomCasualty2]

These people have no idea what game balance is. They think that somehow denying one civilization a unit type is ok. I'm trying to say that doing this action in no way makes the game more balanced.

Yeah it can. Look at Starcraft. It's the best balanced RTS game out there and all the units are unique. Seriously... the races don't share any of the same units at all.

Not having a given unit is fine so long as you have compensating advantages elsewhere.

[Kaelik]

Uh...

A system where Humans can build every type of unit and Orcs build certain types better cheaper stronger faster can be balanced.

It just means that Orcs use that unit type, and they are the Goths of Civilization. Or the Huns, if you prefer.

It's a valid balance mechanism to have people be good at different thing and have one person be adaptable, and able to wip out the basic Musketman to counter whatever orcs have, but then to use Spears to counter the elphants.

Meanwhile Orcs have extra strong hordes, and Elves have their Elephants and Tree Warriors that are better than human Elephants.

If everyone has their own unit specialty, yes, being better at making axemen is a legitimate balance reason to take not allow sword men.

It still needs to be balanced based on a ton of things I don't know about the game.

But the bare facts:

Orcs have better axemen.
Orcs cannot build Musketmen.

Humans have worse axemen.
Humans can build Musketmen.

Doesn't mean anything.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

These people have no idea what game balance is. They think that somehow denying one civilization a unit type is ok. I'm trying to say that doing this action in no way makes the game more balanced.

Yeah it can. Look at Starcraft. It's the best balanced RTS game out there and all the units are unique. Seriously... the races don't share any of the same units at all.

Not having a given unit is fine so long as you have compensating advantages elsewhere.

True, the problem is that the game isn't balanced to begin with. So when the best units (hint they pwn hard) in the game are Firebows, Fireball Golems, and Vampires, 3 unique units that come to civilizations that aren't orcs. Taking away available units from Orcs makes no sense in my view, when the Firebow comes from a human civilization that sacrifices no units whatsoever.

[Prak]

Hmm. Let me put it another way.

These people have no idea what game balance is. They think that somehow denying one civilization a unit type is ok. I'm trying to say that doing this action in no way makes the game more balanced.

I have a secondary argument related to flavor. That is: Every human civilization can build every unit and the nonhuman civs can't build certain units. Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, are denied certain units. I'm saying this is no more logical than the opposite. If you can't imagine Orcs as a Technically advanced Civilization, then why are they allowed to be a technically advanced Civilization.

Well, you could point out that in actual Civ 4, a civ is never denied a unit in exchange for a unique, their unique is a slightly better (even if only conditionally) version of a standard unit.

[cthulhu]

It makes perfect sense to deny people units. Say we have a game in which there are 3 unit 'types' and 2 units within each type, so A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2.

Say Orcs are really good at producing A1. The best counter to A1 is B2 (but B1 still works, just not as efficenctly). The best counter to B2 is C1 (but C2 works, just not as efficently). It may make sense to deny orks access to C1 to prevent them building hyper efficiency armies of A1 and C1 and force some inefficiency.

[Doom]

Wow, I think I played that mod once and didn't enjoy it...seeing as I'm currently wrapping up my third game this week, guess I'll take this as a hint to give it another look.

[MartinHarper]

Have you tried setting up an AI match between humans and orcs to see who wins?

Well, you could point out that in actual Civ 4, a civ is never denied a unit in exchange for a unique, their unique is a slightly better (even if only conditionally) version of a standard unit.

Except for Dog Soldiers, which are worse than Axemen.

[Username17]

Not having option A, while still having option B means that you will build option B and not A. If you have an advantage when building option B, you probably were not going to build option A anyway (given a sufficiently large advantage in that option), so there´s very little disadvantage to not being able to build option A at all.

So for example: in Pathfinder, you get an extra +2 to your casting stat from your race for no reason. This makes your cloud of bewilderment better. Then they put a nerf on your Glitterdust and call it even. But it´s obviously not even. You cast Cloud of Bewilderment and don´t even care whether you could be casting a nerfed Glitterdust or not, and pocket an increase in Save DC and hit points.

Removing or degrading options you were not going to use is in general a very poor payment for increasing the awesome of abilities that you in fact had every intention of using. Not because it hoses you to have less options, but because strength to win means more than diversity of strategic options. Remember: Variety isn´t power, Power is power.

That being said, when I tried out Fall From Heaven a couple of years back, I found it confusing, unbalanced, and most damning of all: uninteresting. Most games involved big piles of bullshit huge barbarian wankery wandering out of the darkness and shredding your guys with sticks long before you could actually make any of the overpowered late game madness. Would not buy again.

Anyhow, it´s all part of my non-love affair with Civ IV in general. While it´s a huge improvement on Civ III, I genuinely don´t feel that it has any of the elegance of Civ II, let alone Alpha Centauri. I don´t feel accomplished Axe Rushing people early on because I have a "copper" resource (goddammit motherfuckers, copper is fucking everywhere, the trade good for Bronze is TIN), the entire kamikaze catapult mechanic is fucking insulting, culture doesn´t push nearly hard enough to be an effective method of doing anything, the BtS Spying points were just nowhere near good enough, and warfare in general is just too inconsequential in the vast expanse of time between axe rushes and Rifles. Seriously: give me CivII style pocketbook fights any day.

I was seriously looking into hacking Civ IV into Master of Magic II, and eventually I just came to the blinding realization that Civ IV wasn´t a good enough game to waste that kind of effort on.

-Username17

[Korwin]

Masters of Magic 2 . . . . that would be: "A dream come true" *sniff*

--> still playing Masters of Magic

[souran]

How did somebody manage to muck up CIV? The factions are all of minor difference.

Honestly, CIV is not really a game where balance counts anyway because your starting position has a greater impact on the game than almost anything else.

If you had the option of starting human history as the people along the tigress and the euphrates or the people in the FUCKING DESERT next to them.

As for CIV 4 all I remember about that game was that cultural victory was so easy to achieve that I had to turn it off or I never got to the modern era.

As for your balance question unless humans can build any unit without having to have access to things like saltpeter or horses or the other little trade resources then starting position is still so much more of a balance issue than faction choice as to render it completly irrelevant to outcome.

[Koumei]

Is CivIV the one where you need horses to build helicopters?

[souran]

Is CivIV the one where you need horses to build helicopters?

Sort of;


As I remember/understood it you needed horses as long as horses were relevant to the things you wanted to build. You also could not develop things on the tech tree that required them without them.

So, without horses, you could never develop knights which means you never develop cavalary, which means you never develop tanks which means you never develop combined arms which means you never devlop helocopters.

So, across the length of the game horses = helocopters although the actual resource that you need to make helo's is aluminum.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

you don't need horses to build helicopters or tanks, but if you don't have horses, the entire horseline is unavailable to you until it gets obsoleted by tanks. Then you can build tanks.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Have you tried setting up an AI match between humans and orcs to see who wins?

I have. Orcs lose because the AI coding is atrocious not because of their inherent tactical advantages and disadvantages.

I guess an imperfect D&D correlation would be saying that there would be two nearly identical classes: Wizard and Wizardess. Wizardess's Magic Missle and Fireball spells do more damage, but she's denied Polymorph, Black Tentacles, and Web. As well as 9th level spells Shapechange, Timestop, Wish, and Gate.

[Kaelik]

Variety isn´t power, Power is power.

That's sounds vaguely familiar. Like I've heard it somewhere else before.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Googling "isn't power. power is power"

One result: http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006_0 ... chive.html

Canadian labor leader Bob Sass once said that "Knowledge isn't power, power is power." And power is necessary to effect workplace change. Tools of the Trade charts helps workers chart that course from hazards to information to power to change.

"power equals power" also appears here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html

[Doom]

Anyhow, it´s all part of my non-love affair with Civ IV in general. While it´s a huge improvement on Civ III, I genuinely don´t feel that it has any of the elegance of Civ II, let alone Alpha Centauri. I don´t feel accomplished Axe Rushing people early on because I have a "copper" resource (goddammit motherfuckers, copper is fucking everywhere, the trade good for Bronze is TIN), the entire kamikaze catapult mechanic is fucking insulting, culture doesn´t push nearly hard enough to be an effective method of doing anything, the BtS Spying points were just nowhere near good enough, and warfare in general is just too inconsequential in the vast expanse of time between axe rushes and Rifles. Seriously: give me CivII style pocketbook fights any day.

I was seriously looking into hacking Civ IV into Master of Magic II, and eventually I just came to the blinding realization that Civ IV wasn´t a good enough game to waste that kind of effort on.

-Username17

It's funny, those criticisms are all valid...and yet I still play the darn thing. Hate that 'axe rush' is pretty much the only tactic past Prince, hate that four catapults completely wreck me, really wish culture didn't take 4,000 years to work, ignore spying because it's pointless (helps the AI alot, though)...and hate that 1000BC-1500AD is pretty much an empty zone where primarily all you do is build up so the computer doesn't overwhelm/dogpile you.

But I do disagree about MoM2. MoM1 was great in principle, but had negligible AI. I've played enough mods of CiV4 to be convinced the underlying engine has potential (did you try the sci-fi mod, btw? Good for a 'one man show with no development'), and lawd knows there's at least a niche interest in a MoM game.

There's this Russian developer, 1C or something like that, that's bought up many old IPs and been refurbishing them (they redid King's Bounty, and I just finished their Majesty 2 campaign)...it's quality work, if less than awesome. I rather wonder if they've considered MoM.

[Kaelik]

Googling "isn't power. power is power"

One result:http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006_0 ... chive.html

Canadian labor leader Bob Sass once said that "Knowledge isn't power, power is power." And power is necessary to effect workplace change. Tools of the Trade charts helps workers chart that course from hazards to information to power to change.

It was a joke, because the other thread has me explaining that versatility isn't power, power is power, in nearly identical words, except variety replacing versatility.

[MartinHarper]

If you hate axe rushes, it's pretty easy to mod civ so that axes are less powerful. It's an interesting game balance exercise: what's the smallest change you can make so that axe rushing isn't as overwhelming without messing the early game up in other ways.