Tech tree

In the topic on galadrim(sp?) warriors the theme of obsolete units was brought up and highlighted and I believe someone mentioned as an example how motw would have a problem with three types of archers, first I'd like to point out that they actually have three kinds, and then that within the gondor archery range which only has two types of archers, gondor archers are obsolete, simply because they fulfill the same roll as ithilien, and ithilien do that job a lot better.

So I'm suggesting that a more complex tech tree be used to make sure you have to use everything in the game as you work on upgrading your entire base through various expensive prerequisites. The idea is that you might have to research camouflage, better bows, or something of that nature to unlock your elite archer unit, possibly even having to research something even simpler to get to that point, in this way, we could have something that actually looks like what it sounds like- a tech tree, starting with base upgrades that need to be acquired which lead into more advanced upgrades etc, all the way along unlocking new uses buildings, the ability to upgrade those buildings, or new units, unit upgrades, and perhaps various passive upgrades for your units or structures.

I know I don't have a solid idea on how this would look, but I'm just trying to pitch the general idea of it to the community and see what people think and if we should look into a more elaborate idea.

as far as i am aware, gondor only has two different types of archers: gondor archers, which are heavily armored in the main line, and ithilien rangers, which are used for stealthy ambushes. so they occupy different roles.

gondor has only two types, yes, but MOTW have yeomen archers as well, which isn't an issue once they split, but that could be a ways off

Also, ambushes in this game are highly ineffective/efficient, although their stealth allows them to go on guerilla raids(which I do use them for, and against the AI ambushes aren't entirely effective but their very fun). the point is is that gondor archers aren't really better than ithilien at anything, they may be better armored than ithilien, but they can't put out as much damage from as far away, which is all archers matter for, as a solid meat shield should keep them safe from other ranged attacks, so whilst the ithilien can fulfill the additional role of ambushes/longshot and what have you, they also do much better for everything else than gondor archers could ever hope too.

so yeah, the gondor archers sadly fall obsolete, as I do love them, their quite cool, their just not practical.

edit: the point of this thread isn't specifically about motw anyway, that's just an example, and all factions suffer from this problem somewhere... well maybe not all, but a lot of them do.

Edited by Arveanor, 11 January 2010 - 11:34 PM.

My idea was to make the stealth archers more like snipers. They have bigger range and faster move speed. They also would have a slightly stronger attack but their attack rate is really long. Meaning they are there to quickly take out the enemy they can't take on a prolonged battle since they would get off fewer shots allowing the enemy to close in for the kill. Also, naturally archers should be weaker against cavalry since fast moving cavalry is harder to hit. If cavalry was able to bypass the infantry and close into those Ithilien rangers they should be able to go down pretty fast. Meaning you really don't want the stealth arches in the middle of a battle since they are weak once they lose their range which should be their main strength.

However, this leaves them without much use except for hit and run attacks which is kind of the thing their supposed to do anyways. I think if resource buildings required workers around the resource structure which modify the structures resource output I think that would give them something to do which is raiding the enemy base.

Very interesting topic; has a lot of potential in it.

@isle In the end, with archers, it boils down to seeing if I can get more damage dealt between to a particular unit before it closes range, giving these units longer range/vision, added damage, and a slower rate of fire, would probably make them just as powerful or more powerful based on how much damage they can do to a unit before it closes range.

if one group of ithilien rangers can do x damage to y battallion before they get to melee range, and gondor archers can only do let's say .75x damage to y battallion before they get to melee range, I'll take the ithilien.

Melee units certainly throw in a wrinkle, but it basically turns out to be the same thing AGAIN! that is if an ithilien unit can deal out more damage over time(if they have a higher dps, that is), then I'll certainly take the ithilien! Not to mention that the ithilien would be able to hit the enemy before they got to melee range from your meat shield!

Also, naturally archers should be weaker against cavalry since fast moving cavalry is harder to hit. If cavalry was able to bypass the infantry and close into those Ithilien rangers they should be able to go down pretty fast.

I think your underestimating people's creativity and adaptability, I can't tell you how fast people would catch on and mix pikes with their archers, especially considering this already happens sometimes. Also the strength of every archer is their range, they are all highly vulnerable at close range, and any basic thick of battle archers would fall to cavalry if not protected well enough.

Anyway, I think the stealthy ambush thing could work, at which point that would be best, but I'd like that paired with my idea, so that we could see long range, mid-damage archers using stealth and speed to conduct raids on enemy resource structures, but I think you also need a plus side beyond just hurting your enemies, you ought to be aiding yourself as well.

I think a resource chest under all resource structures that holds say 50-150 resources in it would add the realistic element of raiding in order to get plunder, which is what early game hit and run attacks would be, this may not be the best idea, but I'm sure something good could be come up with.

And with this actual tech tree, we could make every player have to jump through all sorts of hoops involving time and money in order to develop siege, or good siege at least. With this method we could give the players a way to wage war early on without having any true game-ending rushes. The players would remain occupied while they battled for the upper hand to deploy siege sooner and have a more powerful army that can clear the path for the siege they worked so hard to build.

And since siege won't come around until the late game, I think it would be important to make sure walls are difficult to get, and once gotten they won't be too particularly strong. The gates should especially be a weak spot so that if a player wishes to deploy his troops he will have to risk creating a weak point in his defenses. All gates should start out as wooden or something equally weak, but preferably wood so that fire(which should be an early game staple) can easily destroy the gate letting the attacker through.

In the end, this system would allow us to have our precious end game, while maintaining the all important, incredibly interesting, and truly meaningful early game.

@Namo: A short comment begs a short reply, glad your interested

@Namo: A short comment begs a short reply, glad your interested

I just made that reply short, for lack of time, sorry.

I see this discussion as part of a much wider and more general debate, which concerns the eventual implementation of differentiated strategies for those factions where this is possible - although this probably will have relevance only for Beta V (or even later).

According to the lore, it will be possible to define more different types of units than necessary for a 'normal' faction (i.e. without differentiated strategies - meaning that some units become 'redundant' (and NOT 'obsolete' (meaning outdated) - wrong word). As the code and the assets for such units are already in the game, it could be tempting to utilize such units to make the choices for strategies wider.

The above remark relates to the discussion in this topic, as well as the recent discussion on the Golodhrim (Noldor) vs. Galadhrim warriors in the Lothlórien subforum.

I will join the debate (on the Elves) later, with some 'in-depth' info on the different Elven Realms, their peoples, etc.

meaning that some units become 'redundant' (and NOT 'obsolete' (meaning outdated) - wrong word).

Yeah, definitely thought about that but didn't care enough to type it differently, although I think obsolete makes some sense in this case as while they have some value in the early game, they go away in the late game, but since this mod virtually takes away the early game, redundant is a MUCH better word choice, thanks for pointing that out as all of us are quite incapable of getting it right on our own

And exactly what do you mean by differentiated strategies? do you mean entirely different strategies that involve different everything? Allowing the use of different heroes/resource structures/unit structures/implementation of units/BO/target priorities? Like going from a slow buildup of a siege worthy army to a quick army full of expensive units mostly ranged to attack the target?

If that's what you had in mind, it would be very difficult to get that to work right, especially concerning balancing strategies, though generally predictability plays a role in making sure we use different strategies.

@isle In the end, with archers, it boils down to seeing if I can get more damage dealt between to a particular unit before it closes range, giving these units longer range/vision, added damage, and a slower rate of fire, would probably make them just as powerful or more powerful based on how much damage they can do to a unit before it closes range.

if one group of ithilien rangers can do x damage to y battallion before they get to melee range, and gondor archers can only do let's say .75x damage to y battallion before they get to melee range, I'll take the ithilien.

Melee units certainly throw in a wrinkle, but it basically turns out to be the same thing AGAIN! that is if an ithilien unit can deal out more damage over time(if they have a higher dps, that is), then I'll certainly take the ithilien! Not to mention that the ithilien would be able to hit the enemy before they got to melee range from your meat shield!

That was the point in my post. As snipers while a single shot of damage would be high they shouldn't be firing of rapidly they have to wait for a good critical shot which reflects the damage output. The Gondor archers would be firing off quite rapidly. This means that over say 4-6 secs the Gondor archers would do a ton more damage on whatever units they are attacking. However, your right that within one second Ithilien would be higher damage output. I would say that Gondor archers should be able to get off at least 2-3 shots for every one of Ithilien. While one shot of Ithilien would be more powerful and at somewhat greater range the damage output quickly drops behind the Gondor archers.

I just think stealth archers should come in take out some stuff then run away before any reinforcements arrive cause they really shouldn't be able to take them. That would be another difference between G.archers and Ithilien is the ability to take punishment from regular attacks. Ithilien should go down in a few hits where as G.archers should be able to sit there taking hits for quite a while. Meaning you could pull the G.archers out to take on the pikes and even kill them off before going down allowing knights to come in.

I do agree with your idea for further upgrades and prerequisites. However, I think those upgrades should be there for further specialization. Meaning the tech tree would eventually lead to G.archers who are all around better suited for battle than Ithilien whereas Ithilien would be masters of hit and run. They should be used for constant annoying harassment taking out any workers and stalling the enemy economy forcing them to constantly keep units at home.

That was the point in my post. As snipers while a single shot of damage would be high they shouldn't be firing of rapidly they have to wait for a good critical shot which reflects the damage output. The Gondor archers would be firing off quite rapidly. This means that over say 4-6 secs the Gondor archers would do a ton more damage on whatever units they are attacking. However, your right that within one second Ithilien would be higher damage output. I would say that Gondor archers should be able to get off at least 2-3 shots for every one of Ithilien. While one shot of Ithilien would be more powerful and at somewhat greater range the damage output quickly drops behind the Gondor archers.

Ok, just to clarify, if the ithlien takes one shot and over that time the G. archers take two, I'm assuming in that scenario that a G. archers arrow is maybe half the strength of ithilien so that with a battallion twice the size, G. archers would end up doing more damage in that small time test.

Also your saying that, in keeping with the ever-present catch phrase of "keep an arrow ready"(or w/e it is) the ithilien would have said arrow ready so once in range they would quickly release the arrows, so they could effectively put down a small battallion of weaker units(like weaker cavalry) if all shots hit, allowing them to take care of minor problems.

Against larger threats, the ithilien would have to take the time to reload and take their carefully aimed shots(which means ithilien should have high accuracy) and they would be killed. In order for the ithilien to be effective though, they'd need to have higher structure damage as I said about Mirkwood archers in the Galadrhim/Noldor thread, this way Ithilien would be effective raiders, unless of course resource structures have workers, at which point ithilien could simply hit them, or in one volley kill a builder and retreat to the shadows.

I do agree with your idea for further upgrades and prerequisites. However, I think those upgrades should be there for further specialization. Meaning the tech tree would eventually lead to G.archers who are all around better suited for battle than Ithilien whereas Ithilien would be masters of hit and run. They should be used for constant annoying harassment taking out any workers and stalling the enemy economy forcing them to constantly keep units at home.

I do believe we're starting to better understand the essence of one anothers ideas, and understanding how our ideas can work together in one system, to make something greater than either of us set out to try and create(or at least have the team pick it up and create something based on our ideas). This certainly excites me, but I do believe that, whilst I would love to see a tech tree geared toward helping specialize units, it would also be awesome to use the tech tree to force players to specialize their entire army/base, to allow them to have certain units/structures at all.

For such specializations to occur, their would of course have to be certain researches that would inhibit you from getting a different one, forcing you to choose one specialization or the other, forcing you to increase the sabotage part of your armies, or the frontline soldiers; production speed or building armor; Unit Price or Unit build speed; better armor or more powerful weapons; more effective siege or more effective ways to keep your siege alive.

The possiblities are near endless, although they certainly need cut off at some point, but I have to hope you guys will like some of it.

Well as Nazgul has said the limits of such things rests with the AI. He said if the AI is incapable of handling such things then its out. That is what I see as the main reason that this might not work as it is a choice. I guess its possible to randomize it but will it truly be very effective as the strategy was intended is the issue. It could work though I just am not sure. Another issue is faction specific advantages. Now you mentioned unit armor and build speed. The goblins main strength is the ability to amass units really fast, but the Dwarves on the otherhand specialize in units with good hp and armor yet take longer to build. I don't think we should make them too uniform so that each faction looses its unique advantage.

Back in BFME I the structures gave cumulative discounts for units and upgrades(both the forge purchase cost and the individual unit ones). Such as the more barracks you have the faster barracks units are produced or something. The biggest problem to this as I was recently told is the lack of a variable system in the coding which is kind of ridiculous.

Yeah, as for factions losing their unique edge I was just throwing out some random ideas, I understand how many would not work and I fully agree with you.

As for the AI I guess me and you are mostly clueless but I would tend to think having a few different pre-set upgrade routes(like the pre-set build locations) would allow the AI to randomly choose one of maybe three upgrade paths and go with that one for the level. It would make the AI more interesting to play against and I think it would be possible.

As for the team, you guys are doing great work, and I don't want to burden you with this as it seems like it could be a lot of work I understand perfectly if you throw it out for just that reason or have to vastly postpone it, but please do consider it, and I'd be more than willing to learn this stuff and help out if someone could just get me started down the right path.