Ye Ol' Armor Debate

[Diazo]

I have not pulled any samples yet, but from the wiki page I made on damage has an example at the end about why I see Mark level differences breaking the current system.

Going from Mk I to Mk II you double both armor and damage. Therefore that one Mark level of difference doubles the effectiveness of armor (when the attacker is a lower Mark level).

This just gets worse when the difference is more then a single Mark level.

Now, how often this actually happens in game would require me to open the data files again and take another look (which won't happen until tomorrow) but I see this as the core reason why armor effects are so inconsistent and why players treat ships as binary "armored/unarmored" rather then trying to figure out the armor situation for each fight they get into.

@Hearteater: Ya, that is the same formula my last post was talking about. I have changed my position since my posts yesterday and agree that a straight numerical system does not work for armor due to the wide spread of damage different mark levels of ships have.

D.

[Hearteater]

Except that with PERCENTAGE damage reduction, increasing damage from Marks of the attack are equally effected by armor.  And with Armor and AP NOT increasing with Mark, the damage reduction will always be the same between ship types regardless of marks.  So again, all your problems with different Marks are solved.

[Diazo]

Erm, I think we are talking past each other.

I agree that a percentage reduction system is the way to go with the exact formula of: Damage*1000/(1000+Armor) currently being the favorite.

My comment about units getting both a small armor and armor piercing boost based on mark is something I'd like to see added, thematically a Mk II bomber should take less damage then a Mk I bomber when attacked by the same fighter. I'm only talking a few percent though, not the 20, 30, or even 40 percent that a mark level of difference incurs under the current system.

Something like this I guess:

Mk I Bomber: Command! That Mk I fighter just hit us for 1,000 damage!
Command: What! Upgrade! Have a Mk II Bomber (but it has the same percentage armor).
Mk II Bomber: Command! That Mk I Fighter just hit us for 1,000 damage! Why waste resources upgrading us? Give us more ships instead.
Command: What! Bad Engineers! Bad! Here's a Better Upgrade! Have a Mk II Bomber (with slightly higher percentage armor).
Mk II Bomber: Better! That Mk I Fighter just hit us for 900 damage! We might actually make it home!

.... erm, ya. Not sure where that came from, but that is why I'd like to see a small increase in both Armor and Armor Piercing to all units based on Mark level.

Remember that while a Mark II has it's stats doubled as compared to a Mk I, it also costs twice as much to build. I can build a Mk II that is exactly twice as good numerically for exactly twice the resources, that does not really sound like an upgrade.

(Yes, more units due to unit cap etc. but I've made my point.)

D.

[Hearteater]

I don't see any need for adding scaling Armor or AP with Marks back in, since it is such a problem.  I'd rather keep the basic system simple(r) and leave the design space clear for more interesting abilities later.

[Diazo]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree then.

I just realized I did not clarify my resources comment in my last post. So, here goes.

If I have 80 resources, Mk I cost 4 resources and Mk II cost 8 resources I can build 20 Mk I or 10 Mk II.

Now, if the percentage reduction of armor does not change for different mark levels, 20 Mk I and 10 Mk II are exactly the same when all together. The same number of shots to kill them, the same amount of DPS, the same everything. I would take 20 Mk I over 20 Mk II because I can split the Mk I's up as the higher unit count for the same combat power gives me more flexibility.

Where's the upgrade?

I realize I am ignoring unit caps but the current game currently has it where 10 Mk II are significantly more effective then 20 Mk I due to the fact that the Mk II's take less damage then the Mk I's due to their higher effective armor.

If we just pull this out and go to a flat percentage across all marks, Mk IV and V AI worlds just got a lot easier as the lower Mark human units assaulting them effectively just got a big damage boost.

D.

[TechSY730]

I don't see any need for adding scaling Armor or AP with Marks back in, since it is such a problem.  I'd rather keep the basic system simple(r) and leave the design space clear for more interesting abilities later.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree then.

I just realized I did not clarify my resources comment in my last post. So, here goes.

If I have 80 resources, Mk I cost 4 resources and Mk II cost 8 resources I can build 20 Mk I or 10 Mk II.

Now, if the percentage reduction of armor does not change for different mark levels, 20 Mk I and 10 Mk II are exactly the same when all together. The same number of shots to kill them, the same amount of DPS, the same everything. I would take 20 Mk I over 20 Mk II because I can split the Mk I's up as the higher unit count for the same combat power gives me more flexibility.

Where's the upgrade?

I realize I am ignoring unit caps but the current game currently has it where 10 Mk II are significantly more effective then 20 Mk I due to the fact that the Mk II's take less damage then the Mk I's due to their higher effective armor.

If we just pull this out and go to a flat percentage across all marks, Mk IV and V AI worlds just got a lot easier as the lower Mark human units assaulting them effectively just got a big damage boost.

D.

I think a compromise is in order. Linearly scaling up the damage deflection in relation to mark level like what we have now (linear in since that 2x the mark = 2x the deflection, ignoring floors) is a bit too much. However, no scaling up of damage deflection as mark goes up seems like too little. How about somewhere in between, where doubling the mark gives less than a doubling in armor (by a good amount less), but still gives more than 0 per mark up?

[Diazo]

Pretty much.

The effective armor increase has to be small to avoid our current situation where a single mark's difference can make you hit the 20% damage floor.

If we go with 1000 for the Dmg*1000/(1000+Armor), I'd say no more the 80 or 100 armor per mark. Worst case for a Mk I vs a Mk V would only be 400 or 500 armor which is quite noticeable but does not come anywhere near flooring the damage.

It would require running numbers to find the correct amount (and Keith/Chris to actually agree to implement these changes) but when you upgrade I want players going "Upgrade! Better Ships!", I don't want them going "Upgrade. More ships."

Now, More Ships is crucial and worth the upgrade in game terms, but it does not feel right to me.

D.

[TechSY730]

The effective armor increase has to be small to avoid our current situation where a single mark's difference can make you hit the 20% damage floor.

I still think that regardless of what path we take, damage floor due to armor should be reduced to 10%. That would make me start caring about armor.
(Again, it used to be 5%, but that proved too small, though after a rebalance and possible system adjustment, 5% may not be that bad)

[Hearteater]

I think we do have to agree to disagree.  Scaling Armor/AP by Mark is bad because it creates exponential damage scaling.  For example:
Mark I Defender: 1000 Armor, 100000 health
Mark I Attacker: 1000 AP, 10000 damage
Scale Armor and AP by 125 per Mark after Mark I (so +500 at Mark V).

Code: [Select]

                         Defender       
        I        II        III       IV         V
I    10,000     8,889     8,000     7,273     6,667
II   20,000    20,000    17,778    16,000    14,545
III  30,000    30,000    30,000    26,667    24,000
IV   40,000    40,000    40,000    40,000    35,556
V    50,000    50,000    50,000    50,000    50,000
So Mark on Mark it is normally 10 hits to kill.  Mark V vs Mark I is 2 hits, so the expected 5-times-as-powerful.  But the reverse case of Mark I vs Mark V it takes 75 hits to kill instead of the expected 50.  That is 50% more resistant to damage.  In a straight up fight, the Armored Ship is much more dangerous to lower mark targets than high Mark Armor Piercing ships.

In case it isn't obvious, this particular case the problem mark scaling armor and AP has is AP does nothing once Armor is zero.  But even if you take that out of it, looking at just the first row and you can see how the Armor scaling makes the Mark V ships 50% more powerful than their already x5 strength.  Meanwhile, a ship type without Armor doesn't get that much more powerful at Mark V.  This creates a discrepancy in how strong Mark V units are to weaker units.

Just chart it out if it still isn't clear.  Even for small Armor scaling (+50 per mark), the above example is still a 20% increase in durability.

[Wingflier]

Increasing the armor per mark doesn't seem like a bad solution per say, it just widens the gap between the marks which isn't necessarily bad - you see it in real war all the time. An assault rifle can tear through even the strongest body armor within a few shots, but you can shoot one at a Tank forever and never accomplish anything. As technology progresses old technology becomes obsolete.

However, if this is going to be a nightmare to balance I'd rather leave it a flat amount at all levels. I guess I'm saying they are good arguments for both sides.

[chemical_art]

Increasing the armor per mark doesn't seem like a bad solution per say, it just widens the gap between the marks which isn't necessarily bad - you see it in real war all the time. An assault rifle can tear through even the strongest body armor within a few shots, but you can shoot one at a Tank forever and never accomplish anything. As technology progresses old technology becomes obsolete.

True, but continuing that logic anything but bomber craft shouldn't hurt buildings, bomber craft wouldn't hit fighters, fighters would evade most fire except missiles, missile frigates would carry nukes on a regular basis (since in space that's the most efficent way to go), resources would be finite, etc, etc. And with your example, you'd also say that a assualt rifle couldn't stop a century old tank. It's not a matter of differing technologies as scissors can't cut rock.

What I'm driving at is realism =/= good game balance.

[Diazo]

I think we do have to agree to disagree.  Scaling Armor/AP by Mark is bad because it creates exponential damage scaling.

<Snip math>

So Mark on Mark it is normally 10 hits to kill.  Mark V vs Mark I is 2 hits, so the expected 5-times-as-powerful.  But the reverse case of Mark I vs Mark V it takes 75 hits to kill instead of the expected 50.  That is 50% more resistant to damage.  In a straight up fight, the Armored Ship is much more dangerous to lower mark targets than high Mark Armor Piercing ships.

In case it isn't obvious, this particular case the problem mark scaling armor and AP has is AP does nothing once Armor is zero.  But even if you take that out of it, looking at just the first row and you can see how the Armor scaling makes the Mark V ships 50% more powerful than their already x5 strength.  Meanwhile, a ship type without Armor doesn't get that much more powerful at Mark V.  This creates a discrepancy in how strong Mark V units are to weaker units.

Just chart it out if it still isn't clear.  Even for small Armor scaling (+50 per mark), the above example is still a 20% increase in durability.

Okay, we are almost on the same page, there are just two things I want to address.

First, and our big disagreement, is that I am fine with a ship being more powerful then the straight multiplication of Mark levels. I do agree that the 50% your example ended up with is too much, but I am okay with ships being 5-7% more powerful per mark level of difference then just the Mark multiplier. (In my opinion, I am aware you, and probably others, disagree.)

I want mark levels to matter. One level of difference should not matter too much but you end up throwing more resources into the fight. Two mark levels difference should be painful but doable at a horrendous resource cost. Three mark levels should be getting into the just can't happen territory.

Second, armor piercing ships could be an issue. Under this system as is, they would be more powerful then intended against ships that did not have additional armor as their armor-piercing would negate the armor level granted to them via mark level.

Maybe give all units 100 armor at mark I and grant an additional 50 per mark level? This does need some more thought to work in this model. I'm assuming armor-piercing values will also stay quite low under the new system here.

I'm not saying implementing this percentage armor system without granting armor per mark will break the system, but right now it is very present in the game, often granting 75% extra survivability with only a 2 mark level difference. Not implementing some sort of bonus based on mark level is certainly doable but the spread in effectiveness between ships of different marks will drop and further balance tweaks would be needed in other areas.

D.

[Wingflier]

Increasing the armor per mark doesn't seem like a bad solution per say, it just widens the gap between the marks which isn't necessarily bad - you see it in real war all the time. An assault rifle can tear through even the strongest body armor within a few shots, but you can shoot one at a Tank forever and never accomplish anything. As technology progresses old technology becomes obsolete.

True, but continuing that logic anything but bomber craft shouldn't hurt buildings, bomber craft wouldn't hit fighters, fighters would evade most fire except missiles, missile frigates would carry nukes on a regular basis (since in space that's the most efficent way to go), resources would be finite, etc, etc. And with your example, you'd also say that a assualt rifle couldn't stop a century old tank. It's not a matter of differing technologies as scissors can't cut rock.

What I'm driving at is realism =/= good game balance.

That's not necessarily true. I always used to believe that until recently when I played Wargame: European Escalation and I was blown away with how realistic the game turned out to be while still staying simple and fun. If a month ago you had told me, "Adam, you're going to play an RTS game where fuel, ammunition, and soldier morale are all resources which often run out." I would have laughed in your face.

You've taken what I've said to the extreme to make me sound ridiculous so let me do the same for you. Well gee Chemical Art, if realism isn't a consideration, why don't we just make the ships fire candy canes and rainbows! Obviously realism is a consideration which is why many elements of the game (such as planets) are there, even if they aren't used at all.

In conclusion, the more realistic the game, the more I think the player will connect with it. I think widening the gap between marks is the more realistic approach by far, but if it's a nightmare to balance I don't mind using a linear solution instead.

[keith.lamothe]

Next update: The Candy Cane Cannon

(I guess in light of recent TF2 updates I really should clarify that this is a joke)

[PokerChen]

On realism versus balance, I think Wargame is probably near the realism limit without tearing up fun. It also has a lot of RL-connections to buttress that impression if we refrain from thinking too hard about RL-purpose of Buk-M1s, etc. The arms-race concept is itself very realistic. The argument that says plate armour (forts) can protect very well against most attacks except piercing weapons (bombers) becomes outdated by invention of gunpowder, and similarly nations always try to make better fighters, and better missiles to take them down.

This doesn't need to translate into the game. Mark-IV Bomber against mark-II fighters might be in RL described as A-10s taking on P-51 Mustangs. Medieval cannons can be used against charging cavalry formations, and will die after the initial shot, which may not happen when a Plasma Siege is swarmed by fifty fighters. The point is, many of these are open questions.

Personally, I lean towards having a mark-III Fighter count as more than 3 mark-I fighters. There is a significant knowledge-cost involved in actually developing newer mark levels, which should justify some small boost over building the same ship N-stacks-at-a-time. I also think the triangle ships need a big spread in its armour values (even if its temporary). If we can't get both 0/low-armour ships and high-armour ships to scale well in this simple case, there is no hope for all of the other ones out there.

We need a model or a comparison of models, and some hard data. The discussion is getting to that stage now where there is plenty of ideas but no proof.
(1) Is it possible to do some playtesting with just triangle ships? (2) Shall we just link to Google Docs and Spreadsheets? Saves having to do tables on this forum.

- Model 0: Dmg - max(Armour-AP, 0) .  current model.
- Model 1: Dmg * 1000/(1000+ max (Armour-AP, 0) )
- Model 2: Dmg * Hull Size * Armour Type.