Balance Thread

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Ferox, Nov 9, 2016.


What you consider to be generally the strongest nation right now?

  1. Algeria / Turkey

  2. Austria

  3. England

  4. France

  5. Poland

  6. Prussia

  7. Russia

  8. Spain / Vencie

  9. Sweden

  10. Ukraine

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    You have to excuse me because I am not a modder, but are you proposing a market that is not effected by reverse trading? or simply a reduced effect to reverse trading?

    If you reduce the effect then the market becomes useless does it not?

    Not trying to to be funny, just do not understand?

  2. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member


    "...If you reduce the effect then the market becomes useless does it not?..."

    Mais non, monsieur.

    Reverse trading would be useless since it would not be able to be done. But, if there is a flat trade rate, i.e. ten stone for one gold, the market would still be quite useful.
  3. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    A flat market would really work for me.

    On a similar road, there is a 200% stone academy upgrade. There are many maps in play now where there is little stone in one's base area. It is like being doomed with reverse trading being available in its present form.

    I would like to see either this 200% option disappear or give the same button in the academy for wood collection.
  4. Falc09

    Falc09 Active Member

    If the Market has fixed ratios, the +200% Stone Upgrade could be retained if stone gets worse exchange rates then wood.

    10:1 stone to gold is a good starting point. During normal games (30pt, 5000) I usually see around 1,5 to 3,5 million of stone gathered by each of the players. That would eaqual 150'000 to 350'000 gold if all stone gets traded away. The gold from mines usually is around 50'000 to 100'000 from 4-5 mines, with 10 workers and adds up to those numbers

    That should be enough
  5. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    The math is right, BUT

    there would be an imbalance the other way with wood if there was the 100% wood and 100% upgrade for stone if the rate of exchange was lower for stone than wood........... I think. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that is how I am analyzing it.
  6. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    The first step to fixing the resource model is to remove reverse trading in the market. The next step is to give poorer prices for everything. In the res.script, resource "prices" are defined as ratios. It is the combination of the sellcostdef of the resource sold to the buycostdef of the resource bought that determines the ratio of a transaction e.g. when you sell a quantity of Food how much Coal you get for it. Coal is the example everyone knows about from the start of the 1000s game.

    Here are the definitions for Food and Coal in a market that gives prices quite close to what they were in Cossack 2. It's a market that gives poorer prices than the standard C3 market. It also stops reverse trading by setting the max and min definitions to the same value as the sellcostdef and buycostdef in each case. This completely closes or flattens the band that the market can move in.

    var i : Integer;
    for i:=0 to gc_ResCount-1 do
    case i of
    gc_resource_type_food : begin

    gEconomy.buycostmin := 36;
    gEconomy.buycostdef := 36;
    gEconomy.buycostmax := 36;
    gEconomy.sellcostmin := 12;
    gEconomy.sellcostdef := 12;
    gEconomy.sellcostmax := 12;

    .... Section of code removed for example ....

    gc_resource_type_iron, gc_resource_type_coal : begin
    gEconomy.buycostmin := 75;
    gEconomy.buycostdef := 75;
    gEconomy.buycostmax := 75;
    gEconomy.sellcostmin := 30;
    gEconomy.sellcostdef := 30;
    gEconomy.sellcostmax := 30;

    Why give poorer prices for everything? Well, what it does is ensure that the player must collect all six resources directly as trading for them is an option which gives a poorer return on peasant labor time, even with upgrades like the second stone one. The village looks more realistic with peasants working at all sites. The game-play outcomes are better too in my opinion. However, trading is still useful for emergencies and for some of those useless surpluses which can build up in a very long game. Why remove reverse trading? C3 ultimately is a military game, so economic tricks which take a lot of clicking should be secondary or removed altogether, so they do not have such a totally determining effect on the whole game. Also, as maps are never totally fair in resource placement, the fact that you need all resources and can't just concentrate on stone because you drew the map position with 10 stone quarries while your opponent drew 3 (I've seen that or close to it) means that a heavy stone resource endowment does not distort the overall game balance.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
    Falc09 likes this.
  7. colonel_panic

    colonel_panic New Member

    While I understand that you are suggesting more changes than simply altering the market, I want to point out that part of the draw of 'stone farming' is that it is easy to acquire ludicrous amounts of stone such that even an extremely poor exchange rate provides you with a healthy amount of gold for the amount of stone you likely have on hand.

    I would suggest two other changes :
    1) Reduce the effect of, the stone harvesting upgrades in the academy (or just remove the 200% increase tech)
    2) Reduce the cost of mine upgrades III and higher, which right now are prohibitively expensive.
  8. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    I would take it one set further.

    Take all upgrades away on wood, stone, even mills. give them a reasonable amount gathering ability, and concentrate on tactical matters.

    At This point the game becomes a game of position, and battle ability. everyone has a similar army, and cant afford expensive troops early, or even totally all expensive troops late. this will get all units into the game.

    I would play that!
  9. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    That is an unacceptably abusive comment. It deserves a rebuttal.

    1. Every person has the right to be patriotic and give their first allegiance to the nation that bore them, brought them up and gave them a cultural inheritance.
    2. This is a game. The makers of C1 through to C3 did a lot of brilliant things and made a lot of innovations in the RTS sphere.
    3. The two points above give them the right, if they wish, to make Ukraine a strong nation in this game.
    4. The devs have given us powerful modding tools and capabilities. Instead and whinging, blaming and insulting you could be constructive and mod your own vision of the game.

    I advise you to give up flaming and trolling. Become positive and DO something positive. If you really don't like this game, play tennis or take up mountain climbing or something. The North Face of Everest is just waiting for a person of your great accomplishments to climb it without oxygen tanks.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
    -Fisher- and Falc09 like this.
  10. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    You could also give all or most buildings stone maintenance. I did so and I pleased.
    enter units.script look for
    csid+'bar' : begin
    objprop.consume[gc_resource_type_stone] := 500;
    objprop.consume[gc_resource_type_gold] := 500;

    with that the amount of stone you get is much lower.
  11. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    ".... This is a game...."

    I beg to differ. It is a CARTOON game played on a computer, just like every other game that is played on line.
    Politics have nothing to do with playing a game.
    Ukraine the strongest? Doubtful at best, but debating that is not the purpose of my post. Would it make poster two above happier if the Dev's changed Ukraine to Hungary? Or changed the skins for Turkey? Or changed Algeria to some other nation? As to streaming cannon fodder, it is a tactic employed by some people to win a game. There are counters to that tactic, as well. But, each to his own, as the saying goes.

    As stated by Ftoomsh, mod your own version, and play it with your on line friends.

    "... They game is fucking biased based on the world view of a couple of ukrainian rednecks...." I imagine this means you want political correctness by the developers because of the "bias" they have supposedly displayed.

    As to Daddio's post- I would love to have a strictly tactical game. This is certainly possible and is indeed played after about 45 minutes of game time when advance formations, reserves, artillery including mortars, defensive positioning and cavalry poised not BEHIND you formations to shoot but on the flanks to counter cavalry attacks and to enable one to exploit weaknesses in the opponents' position. Don't forget protecting your own base, as well.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
  12. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    Hansol- An idea to explore.
    However, as I stated somewhere in the last week, there are several maps wherein one's base will not support large stone quarries with a heavy concentration of trees and little stone.
  13. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    A mod should work and resource smoothly from start to finish; from 18 peasants and 1,000s resources right up to massive 18th C armies. The economy needs to support this by being able to, with timely resource collection upgrades at each stage, provide enough resources for military development plus a reasonable surplus for further economy growth. However, in NO resource categories should the economy ever end up accumulating embarrassing excesses of one or a few resources, unless the player allocates peasant tasks unwisely. This statement presupposes a moderate-prices market (poorer prices than standard vanilla game by up to 2/3rds and NO reverse trading). With a moderate market it is more efficient, in terms of peasant labor power, to collect all resources directly rather than to trade for them. Trading remains available for emergencies, short-term shortages and that point where you need just a little boost to get your next structure or upgrade. By "embarrassing excesses" of one of more resources I mean;

    (1) A resource accumulation in one or more categories that looks greatly out of proportion to other accumulations;
    (2) A resource accumulation that can be put to no good direct use but only sold (for poor prices in the moderate market) for relatively poor amounts of another resource needed more.

    An example of 2 above is having 200,000 stone, with a moderate market, and no next structure that needs anything like 200,000 stone.

    There are a number of expedient methods, both general and specific, to control resource collection through the game for all resources. Here are the ones I can think of quickly. Remember that it can be tricky to allow collection of enough of a resource early but to control it later so that it doesn't turn into an embarrassing excess.

    (1) Change the costs of, and the percentage gains conferred by, various resource upgrades. In some cases, this can mean making some early resource upgrades cheaper and later ones dearer.
    (2) Reduce the rate that peasants collect a resource, though be careful as this can cause shortages early on in low resource games like 1,000 of each resource.
    (3) Reduce the collection points; currently in standard vanilla game 1 peasant can work on a wood tile, 2 on a mill field tile and 3 on a stone tile.
    (For my mod I am toying with the idea of reducing the field tile value to 1 and the stone tile value to 2. This has the advantage of not reducing collection early but limiting it in the long run.)
    (4) Increase either or both of structure and unit up-front costs AND "re-consume" (ongoing consumption) costs. Even add new re-consume costs where there were none before. Do this in a graduated manner early game to late game and from 17th to 18th C.
    As well as increasing unit and structure up-front initial costs (for the first one of anything) you can also increase the inflation rate (for both units and structures).

    Depending on your game concept and how you are integrating your economy and military - and even on how you are integrating the economy with the game environment as terrain and resources - then you will use different mixes and strengths of the above measures. It's a cocktail! :) Have your theories, mod according to your theories and then test and test and test to modify your values until they are right for your model and achieving everything you want at every stage of the game.
  14. Kamilow

    Kamilow Well-Known Member

    I suggest increase speed creation of 17c Musketeers. And maybe a little increase their attack power. In multiplayer battles they are not very useful.
    arpe likes this.
  15. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    Good suggestion, but he has already reduced the 17th musket to the same build time rate as the 17th pike.

    Pike is still the main unit early, but the musket controls the battlefield after the first 10 minutes or so.
    arpe likes this.
  16. Aistis1990

    Aistis1990 Active Member

    I think their creation speed is OK. It's about their range of shooting ;)
  17. Kamilow

    Kamilow Well-Known Member

    I suggest to improve:

    French Dragon XVIII.c

    now = 120 hp 7 attack
    improved = 200 hp 11 attack

    Prussian Hussar should be better than other Hussars not worse

    now = 250 hp 8 attack
    improved 270 hp = 12 attack
  18. Pan Sirko

    Pan Sirko New Member

    Do something, that 17c muskets will be playable. Because game is very simple, you make just pikeman on 0,10,20,30pt.
    People want to play various strategies
    Aduhi likes this.
  19. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    In OCMOD3 the 17th C muskets are playable. They volley and reload in a much more realistic firing system. There are realistic casualties and more casualties if you hold fire until the enemy are close. Then you must retire them to safety to reload. They cannot reload while walking. They still need cold steel support from pikes or cavalry.

    There is a dropbox link for this mod on the Modding Forum. Soon we will put this mod up on Steam Workshop.

    OCMOD3 also promotes more 17th C battles before advancing to the 18th C. The economy is more challenging and the market does not give reverse trades. Stone is no longer the master resource. You have to gather all resources directly. There are high upgrade costs to get to the 18th C and you need more mine upgrades to get to the 18th C and support a big army.
  20. brocart

    brocart New Member

    The game should allow to access barracks / calvary barracks / 18 th faster to improve the skill gap of players.

    The current problem is that the standard meta of the game is 2 barracks and diplomatic center for at least 10 minutes (considering game speed and taking european nation).

    Make the 2nd 17th barracks cheaper, the 3 rd barracks 17century at 5000 gold, faster cavalry production and improvement of their life and basic life points, make the 18th century cheaper as well.

    Considering experience from other strategy game, the player should choose between different strategies of production. i.e. cavalry, fast 18th century, 3 barracks of 17th century, mass dragoons from the diplomatic center, etc...

    NB: obviously, make equivalent adjustments to ukr / Russ / alg / Turk.

    It would be awesome