Andrettin / Wyrmsun

Strategy game based on history, mythology and fiction
http://andrettin.github.io/
GNU General Public License v2.0
301 stars 47 forks source link

Units level up too slowly #211

Open SenhorFlibble opened 2 years ago

SenhorFlibble commented 2 years ago

As I play more, I'm increasingly convinced that units could level up a bit sooner.

I played several skirmish matches for testing v5.3.4, first against Normal AI, then against Hard AI because Normal is basically helpless. I used the Aurvang map with goblins, the AI would be dwarves. The map has a couple Firewyrms around the player's start location, which theoretically should add some extra experience points for the player's units (like creeps in Warcraft III).

So on Hard AI, I built up a force of swordsmen and archers, took out the wyrms with moderate losses, fended off several dwarf attack groups, again with a few losses, then raided outlying dwarf resource gathering sites, wiping out their workers and counter-attack parties. I then destroyed both barracks, a smithy and some farms (all the while picking off workers that ran about), and was basically ready to take down the Mead Hall and finish the match.

At that point, none of my soldiers levelled up, although some (mostly archers) have survived from the very first wyrm encounter, i.e. they are the earliest units that I built. Now some have accumulated about 330-something out of 400 experience points they need to level up, and maybe these few guys will gain a level while clearing up the rest of the enemy settlement -- but that would make no difference if they level up or not at this stage.

How I understand the whole unit level up concept, it should encourage the player to keep units alive to eventually get them stronger, which in turn will yield an advantage in combat. Ideally, the game should be set up so that before the main encounter with the enemy army, the player's units have the chance to gain XP, either by defeating enemy raids, or by having "practice" on neutral enemies like the afore mentioned creeps, or both. But the way the system works in Wyrmsun currently, this advantage seems almost impossible to achieve, at least in one-on-one matches (with the exception of workers -- these are the only units that routinely level up).

Keeping the units alive is a bit of a different story, although thanks to random damage and evasion, it's slightly easier than in vanilla Wargus. Still, before you have a temple, the only way to heal units is by purchasing food at the market, which restores only small amounts of health, and its availability is dependent on RNG. For example, I bought all three meat chunks that were available, but this was barely enough to heal a near-dead swordsman (a veteran of wyrm slaying) to about 80-90 percent health, if not less. At least, earlier versions had this option to buy/get food from farms, which essentially works a bit like Moon Wells for the Night Elves in Warcraft III.

On a different note, I wonder why the skirmish AI does not build defensive towers? I noticed none both on Normal and Hard difficulty. In fact, it was pretty easy to overcome the Hard AI with just swordsmen and archers, in part because there were no towers present.

Andrettin commented 2 years ago

How many soldiers did you have? Experience is divided between units, so the more you have, the less each will receive. Another factor to consider is that destroying buildings does not grant experience points (maybe this should be changed).

Something else that could be done to improve this is to add more low-level creeps to the map.

On healing, I'm not sure if a way to heal units before temples is necessary, since temples only require a lumber mill to be built. As a side note, I think the game could benefit from having 2x2 Shrine buildings which provide a healing aura, but otherwise do nothing (essentially temples but without the unit recruitment / upgrade functions).

About the towers, the AI does build them, but only after they have built essentially everything else (e.g. university and their third barracks). The way the system works is that the AI has a list of buildings with priorities. Do you think building some towers should be farther up on the list?

SenhorFlibble commented 2 years ago

Experience is divided between units, so the more you have, the less each will receive

I had about ten units, roughly five archers and five swordsmen. I guessed that having less units would have them gain XP faster, but so far the game plays so that it appears that having more units is a more efficient tactic than trying to manage a small group into levelled up units. Besides, there are no other factors constraining the army size, there are plenty of resources to build up.

Something else that could be done to improve this is to add more low-level creeps to the map.

That is definitely something I was going to suggest.

As a side note, I think the game could benefit from having 2x2 Shrine buildings which provide a healing aura, but otherwise do nothing (essentially temples but without the unit recruitment / upgrade functions).

That sounds like a good idea! Especially since temples are now limited to building sites.

About the towers, the AI does build them, but only after they have built essentially everything else (e.g. university and their third barracks).

The towers are always good for a line of defence. From what I played, both the normal and hard AI (haven't tried brutal yet) tend to send out all or almost all of their units to retaliate when the player attacks, without leaving any reserves, so essentially if you raid any outlying resource gathering outpost, you provoke a major battle with the bulk of the AI's forces, which leaves their base almost completely defenceless if the player wins. Towers would at least in part address this issue.

Furthermore, since siege machines are now very high on the tech tree, requiring several tech upgrades (somewhat like in the Age of Empires), it'd make sense to have towers rather early, which would encourage the player to research more tech to avoid losses during attack if only infantry/cavalry were used.

Andrettin commented 2 years ago

At present, the amount of XP required for leveling up a unit is 4x what the unit would give if it were killed (it's a bit more complicated if the unit has "extra" levels with special abilities, though). So for e.g. a swordsman to level up, they would need to defeat four other swordsmen.

You are possibly right that this is excessive. One idea is to remove that 4x multiplier, so that a unit only needs the same amount of XP that it provides in order to level-up. So that e.g. a level 1 swordsman who defeated another would gain a level-up right away.

The towers are always good for a line of defence. From what I played, both the normal and hard AI (haven't tried brutal yet) tend to send out all or almost all of their units to retaliate when the player attacks, without leaving any reserves, so essentially if you raid any outlying resource gathering outpost, you provoke a major battle with the bulk of the AI's forces, which leaves their base almost completely defenceless if the player wins. Towers would at least in part address this issue.

Furthermore, since siege machines are now very high on the tech tree, requiring several tech upgrades (somewhat like in the Age of Empires), it'd make sense to have towers rather early, which would encourage the player to research more tech to avoid losses during attack if only infantry/cavalry were used.

Yes, you're probably right that it would be good to update the build order to have towers be constructed earlier on.