Larian Studios Forums Dragon Commander Dragon Commander - Beta Beta patch 1.0.142.9727

We've made quite some changes on the balancing as we are trying something out. Goldcost on Strategymap has been upped. Recruitment costs in Combat have changed across the board to reflect this.

Conversion from strategy to combat is as follows:
- all ground troops are 1 -> 3
- fighter and bomber are 1 -> 2
- ironclads and juggernaut are 1 -> 2
- zeppelin and transport are 1 -> 1

Balancing of unit vs unit has also changed a lot. hard counters to units are now more aparant. (example: Armour vs hunter, hunter vs tier 1 units, Devastator vs tier 1 units).

Beta patch 1.0.142.9727:
- major balancing changes due to tryout
- stability improvements
- connection fixes

Do you guys even sleep?

You guys are pumping out patches almost as fast as kerberos productions did after their forced release of sword of the stars 2. You guys are awesome.

lol please don't compare this game to Sword of Stars II

awsome thanks for the update

I don't know how you do it, but I need some sleep before trying it out...

Edit:
Ok, couldn't resist.
First impression: Did I missunderstand something? Gold cost in campaign map are much higher now (imho too high), but recruit cost in RTS seem the same (for infantry units at least).
Somehow I thought you intended to do the opposite?

Well, no more DC for me tonight, I really need to get some sleep now.

So far I like the difference on the strat map. It makes saving gold vs spending it right away a real trade off. Before I always felt more benefit from spamming lesser units like hunters and shaman. Combined with the harder counters those lower tier units are no longer the most desirable.

Also it takes longer to recover from your losses so target selection is more important.




Immediately noticing the hunter/armor counter. Especially since I use a lot of armors. Makes a real difference in game, don't know if its better or not yet though.

Not comparing the games im comparing the dedication of the devs to make patches so fast.

I agree that I really like the harder counters. I don't really like the upped gold cost on the strat map though. I feel that the increase in gold just means less units to play around with. While I like the increase of forces, when they cost so much to put out on the strat map I still end up with roughly the same sized armies I did in the previous betas. this completely nullifies the point of increased strat map representation as I still start out with similar forces (now sometimes even smaller) and the whole point of increasing the units per counter ratio was to have bigger starting forces.

As it is unless you do a MASSIVE buildup in the strat map your starting forces still don't really matter all that much. I can see Larians point about larger starting forces making it so leader skill doesn't matter as much but I still feel that the current setup renders that strat map near useless as you can just throw a few troopers against a massive force (at a 70% or more disadvantage) and the battle really doesn't feel that different from a battle where the roles are reversed. As it is unless the advantage is huge (90% or more) all the battles feel really similar regardless of what goes on in the strategy map (in terms of forces, research of course makes a big difference)

Another thing is wasn't some of the ground units already 3 per counter? I remember grenadiers always being 3 but I might be wrong. Just a though but how about light units are 5 per counter while other ground units are still 3.

One other thing, I don't know if it's my imagination or not but the AI is doing really well with the new counter system. I started producing hunters to counter their grenadier swarm and they stopped making grenadiers and made armors instead. When I switched to producing more grenadiers they switched back to troopers. So nice to see how fast the AI reacts, the RTS AI is getting really good!

Side topic; has the dragon gotten weaker? I took my dragon against just a small few grenadiers (maybe 4-5) and I was shot down in just a second or two it seemed. I used to be able to strafe huge blobs of grenadiers as long as I was quick and used dodge a lot. Now if I go near any AA at all I'm dead in seconds.

Looking at it that way I can see not liking the changes. But my thought before was that the increased costs would lead to strat map units being more significant. So far I think they are because when you lose one it hurts a lot more than before. I was just playing a campaign and I attacked a 0% country with 1 armor, 2 hunters, a grenadier and 2 shaman. I lost all units except 1 shaman and 1 armor. Now I have to hold the country off from almost the entire armies of my opponent. And it will take even longer to bring up reinforcements. And my expansion is slowed to a crawl.

I'm neutral on the unit multipliers right now. Against AI it just doesn't make much difference because they aren't smart enough to rush with overwhelming forces.



This was something I talked about on the other thread. I think this is more related to maps then anything else. Every map is a 4 player map. What I want to see is the map change based on the level of forces involved. That was my main suggestion for having battles of varying scope.

Detail:

- Trooper Armor reduced from 2 to 1
- Grenadier Armor increased from 3 to 6
- Warlock Recruit cost increased from 6 to 7
- Devastator Recruit Cost decreased from 35 to 18
- Hunter Range increased from 800 to 825
- Imp Fighter Range increased from 850 to 875
- Imp Fighter Recruit Cost increased from 12 to 14
- Bomber Balloon Recruit Cost decreased from 24 to 33
- Zeppelin Recruit Cost decreased from 14 to 12
- Ironclad Recruit cost decreased from 18 to 16
- Juggernaut Damage increased from 280 to 282

Campaign
- Trooper Gold Cost increased from 2 to 3
- Grenadier Gold Cost increased from 3 to 5
- Shaman Gold Cost increased from to 3 to 6
- Warlock Gold Cost increased from to 3 to 7
- Hunter Gold Cost increased from 4 to 9
- Armour Gold Cost increased from 5 to 14
- Devastator Gold Cost increased from 14 to 18
- Imp Fighter Gold Cost increased from 12 to 14
- Bomber Balloon Gold Cost increased from 20 to 22
- Zeppelin Gold Cost increased from 6 to 8
- Ironclad Gold Cost increased from 14 to 16
- Juggernaut Gold Cost decreased from 28 to 25

That is a pretty good point. I feel that starting units don't matter at all, but maybe on a map designed for 2 players that's quite a bit closer quarters might make starting troops matter more. As it is by the time your units reach the middle of the map your opponent already has a significant production capacity going and by the time you can reach their base they already have mass unit production up. On a smaller map that midpoint IS their base so you can hit them before production goes up.

I thought of what you said and re watched the "WTF is..." preview again and saw that the map was small enough that if he brought in a large force (which he did) he could use his starting army to really hammer the AI despite rarely building anything of value and really just using what he did build as reinforcements to his main force.

Taking a fresh look at the preview videos, if that size of map stays the norm, it could work as is (although I still like the older prices better. Slows things down too much with everything so expensive). I would have to actually test a 'normal map' (if the size of map in the preview vids are indeed the 'norm' for 2 players) to really be sure. But you might be right, the size of the map might be a real factor in making starting troops not really matter.

My main concern is for SP. So if those maps are balanced fine for starting forces (about the size of the few maps we've seen in preview vids throughout the campaign) then I'll probably be a happy camper. Kudos for pointing that point out though SniperHF. Maybe I'm just not liking it because we are dealing with such large maps (designed for 4 players) instead of the more bite sized ones (2 players).

The map in the WTF video was small (from the first section of the game, meant to be a bit of a tutorial). There were also only about 5 unit types available and few upgrades at that point. I don't know what size of the maps are in the single player campaign compared to the ones designed for 4 players.

Well... To be honest, it seems that the current balance does favour the RTS unit production compared to starting units even more than it did before. As an example an armor costs now 14 gold pieces on the campaign map - and only 13 (or something like that) recruits on the RTS map. Since the starting units are very quickly gone during the battle, someone who now would buy armors on the campaign map is just stupid - it is just a guaranteed waste of money!

I have played two battles against AI (on a normal/default setting):

During the first one I invaded a country with just one trooper unit. My enemy had two armors, a hunter, a grenadier and a trooper. The winning chances were 80/20 against me. Even before I could spawn my dragon I was able to completely turn the tide by spamming troopers, grenadier and LOTS of shamans.

Into the second battle I brought 5-7 hunters (not sure anymore about the exact number) and 2 armors. My enemy had just 2 grenadiers. I tried to rush the base but by the time my units could reach it, the enemy had already its production queue going on and spamming units. Combined with the anti-ground turrets, this was a death blow for my starting units. So, I guess I would have won the battle at the end anyway, but I did not see any point in doing it. All my initial units were gone (I always assign a hotkey to them) and the country would consequently remain in the enemy's hand. And I really deplored the loss of my expensive campaign-map units...

So, the best strategy for the current balance seems to be: Buy just a few cheap units on the campaign map and produce all the other units on the RTS map.

My suggestion for another try-out balance:

- Return the gold costs on the campaign map to where it was.
- Double the conversion rate from strategy to combat for all units (or just except a few like juggernaut and bomber balloon)
- Double the recruit costs for all units produced on the RTS map and for all buildings

This may be a little bit exaggerated, but at least let us try out a build with a similar balance. The changes can always be reverted again if many people do not like it. As it stands now, however, the whole strategy reduces to spamming units and producing GBOD on the RTS map...

As a sidenote, I like the harder counters.

And just a few words of praise: You guys are doing an amazing job! Thank you for all your endeavour to make all the changes which we wish for! If we seem to criticise a lot, that is just because we want the game to become as good as possible.

I've played a few matches now (in the campaign) and I'm not very convinced of this iteration.
You have only few units on the campaign map now, due to the high costs (at least for higher tier units), so you bring only very few into the battle.
As a consequence, in the RTS battles the ratio between initial and build units is even smaller than before.

Especially the early matches have been "spam cheap units like troopers, bazooka and shamans and wait until the enemy gives up".
It might get better later on, since you get more options and abilities, but with low build times and recruit-costs in the RTS, AI (and therefore perforce the player) keeps up a steady stream of fresh units, making decisive attacks difficult.
Instead the combat goes back and forth until recruits run out.
Initial units give you only a very small advantage now, since they are destroyed fast (and you don't have that many anyway, due to high gold cost).

Maybe the strategic unit cost should rely more on strategic value? Maybe it does. I have had my hunter rush through open territory (claiming it for me) to do battle in the next territory, and you can keep them ready for support at a large number of locations. They are worth a little extra on the map.

Certainly more than 4 gold.

The way I play this game (improficiently, draconically) any unit that can rush off to remote construction sites and claim them in my name is valuable. Probably because I'm not so good at the actual fights, and therefore seek to deny my (AI) adversaries their recruits.

So to me hunters have been a great help both in strategy and rts. Fully worth their 9.

With buildings rising in price as you build more of them, especially with the growing cost of gold mines, gold is now a lot more limited. Which means that the impact of the price increase is higher. It might be a bit much altogether.

I wonder if it crippled the AI more than it impaired me, or if I just got better overnight. (Clearly I have improved, but is that why I'm winning today?)

By the way: Did this patch make the AI more able to counter the dragon? Yesterday I essentially lost my battles, but had a few surviving structures/units and a dragon that neither enemy was equipped to touch. I would meticulously seek and destroy using only dragon until population is bled dry and victory can be achieved, because I had no power to do anything else. Today I fly into grenadier barrages. (But today I actually win battles by building forces to combat the enemy.)

Latest patch seems to have caused a few hangups during battle. (Requiring me to terminate the process.)

You seem to have sccidentally missed the "Recruitment costs in Combat have changed across the board to reflect this" part.

To reiterate,
Warlocks recruitment cost increased from 6 to 7.
Imp Fighters recruitment cost increased from 12 to 14.

Devastators recruitment cost decreased from 35 to 18.
Transports recruitment cost decreased from 14 to 12.
Ironclads recruitment cost decreased from 18 to 16.
Bomber Balloons recruitment cost decreased from 24 to 22.
Zeppelins recruitment cost decreased from 14 to 12.

Most of the changes DECREASE the RTS cost of units.


Effects:
- The amount of units you can bring in to RTS mode from the Strategy map has not really changed much. If anything, it might even have decreased.
- Strategy map units are much harder to replace, making them riskier to use.
- It is much MORE cost-effective to move a low cost unit or two into a territory, enter RTS mode, and build whatever you have there. Why move a trio of expensive 14 gold Armour units into a territory when you can make 9 yourself for only 125 recruits?
- Strategy map units are now much more effective for Auto-resolve than they are for RTS battles - the exact opposite of what the experiment was trying to find out
- The "Increase gold revenue" card is now less useful. Before, there was the option to use it on a low-income country with a War Factory so you could produce 6 units on it for a turn. Now unit costs are so high that there's no point in playing this card on anything but a capital country.

Buildings price now increases for the more of that type of building you already own. Combine that with the increased cost of units, and the effects are:
- It is now PROHIBITIVELY expensive to place a building after your first. You simply cannot afford the hit to your unit production budget.
- "Create a free building" cards are now a lot more valuable, as are "Destroy an enemy building" cards.
- Strategy map units take longer to move about because there are fewer buildings producing them. This slows the speed of the campaign down a lot. I think part of the desire for more valuable strategy map units was to INCREASE the speed of the campaign progression. Now RTS battles still take as long as they did before, but the campaign takes longer.




I agree with this. That's probably too far for the final final version, but it would definitely let us see the difference it would make.

When I first saw the game, I really did think that a pre-constructed army would be the main part of your force, and that you would only raise simple support-troops/cannon fodder during gameplay.

I actually expected something along the lines of not being able to construct advanced units in the field, or perhaps having to research field construction specifically. It seemed to me that this would make sense. It still does. In typical RTS games I usually try very hard to disregard the fact that I'm building power plants in the battlefield.

I think I would like this game more if the battle relied mainly on troops you brought in. (Mercenary cards are cool. Very flexible one time support.)


So... Wild idea.

Start the game mostly as you do today. But with 5 extra research points. Have a research group next to "Master" called "Field construction" where researched units can be researched again (same cost) to enable them for RTS production. For basic gameplay (no setting/story constraints) no field construction is researched initially. (You can spend your extra 5 points enabling troopers for RTS production.)

Now there's a significant cost to the RTS units (and a rather different premise for AI developers).


As for building prices (strategy buildings): How about increasing the price of all buildings by X gold every time any building is constructed, and reducing the cost by X once at the beginning of each turn? (Never reduce below base price, of course.) That allows you to build one building a turn with no penalty.

The map gets full pretty quickly though, so that would be more interesting if there were ways to build more, or good reasons to get rid of buildings and replace them with others.

Uhm... I have loads of suggestions/ideas, some of which I think worth mentioning, but this (thread) doesn't seem like the place. Is there a place? Are suggestions worthwhile?

I think that's a bit too far out there. RTS battles are just far too dependent on being able to produce units for this to be much fun.

5 Research points is nothing at all, it's not a significant cost, and two, it's especially not a significant cost if you're just giving everyone an extra 5 points at the start that they didn't have before.

Everyone would immediately spend their free 5 points on that immediately. It doesn't help upping that cost to 20 points, it would just mean that everyone spends their first 4 turns saving up for that mandatory functionality instead of spending them on interesting things like unit or dragon upgrades.




I'm not sure that the game really needed the last patch's increase to the building costs per number you own. The higher Campaign map unit costs already make you starved for gold. Adding hugely inflating building costs just makes producing buildings prohibitively expensive.




Of course suggestions are welcome. We may not all agree, but they're certainly welcome. You can make your own thread for suggestions and such.

Maybe a bigger standing army (strategical units) will do. I certainly want the units on the strategy map to be the main force, rather than what you drum up in the heat of battle. I hope this is *that* game, but it's quite good already. (Freezes and crashes aside.)

It seems to me that the higher building cost makes their placement more strategic. It also gives a reason to sell one and rebuild it somewhere else as your army makes its way deeper into enemy territory.

It makes you think twice about just building a lot of factories... Are you far enough from your core? Is it worth building a new one? Should you sell an existing one to make another etc? etc...

Also, it paces down the early game a tad (well the cost increase to various things, not just buildings)

All in all, I kinda like the changes.