What's new
Warhaven

Don't be a lurker, register an account and join the fun! Post, rate and participate with other members on Warhaven! Registering takes only a few clicks but gives you access to an amazing community and all its benefits. We hope you enjoy your stay and most importantly have fun!

Are Ranged units too OP in macro maps? How to make Melee units more useful?

Spectator

Gameplay First!
Donator
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
331
Any Macro Map player worth his salt knows that in most cases in most macro maps specially LTA, Ranged units are to too all the damage while melee are just meant to be tanks soaking up damage and holding the line. So generally everyone only gets 1 group of melee and rest are ranged. In short it is really lame and there is no melee unit diversity in this game and the tankiest one is always the best choice, forget about damage.
So I've been playing a lot of games in the Total War hammer 2 ladder mainly (Rank 300 and climbing baby!) and I thought how different the design philosophy is between that and Warcraft 3 and how Can Macro maps make Melee more viable. Generally Macro maps haven taken Warcraft 3 melee as inspiration for unit design which imo is a big mistake since melee was meant for skirmishes of few units and never built for all out battles between armies unlike macro maps.

So for those of you who never heard of Total Warhammer 2, here is the main differences regarding ranged and melee.

1- The map is generally far more open with less choke-points, making melee engagements more viable.
2- If you are a ranged unit and a melee unit has engaged you, you can't use your ranged weapon to hit them anymore and have to engage in melee with them (doing less damage than your ranged attacks usually) or have to run away to get in minimum range, sorta like the catapults in Warcraft.
(I Think another RTS named Battle Realms had a similar mechanic)
3- A lot high damage ranged weapons such a guns have a straight ark of fire. Meaning they can't magically shoot through the back of their allies into the enemy they have no straight vision of.
4- Shields and missile damage resistance is far more common on units.
5- You can't run and kite forever as there is fatigue but also the battle map is closed and sorta small.
6- Unit collision is high but Big monster units can easily pass through soldiers, for example a unit size of Magtherdon won't be blocked and held in place by a bunch of tiny footmen and instead just passes through them and gets to the backline. Only units of his size or Spears can try to hold him.
8- Both Artillery and other ranged units have limited ammunition and can't keep firing forever. Also they don't land every shot and have higher miss chance of their target is moving or if it's a single person. Making aiming of human sized heros with ranged much harder.
9- Another good thing is Warhammer units are on in groups always not seperate, so when a ranged group fires, they don't all fire at one poor unit in another group, instead diversify their shots and each one hits one unit in that group. Making Ranged less OP as this way they don't just kill off 100-0 one guy in a volley making that guy totally useless waste, instead they spread their shots and damage bunch of guys.
10- Overall due to Melee units being actually useful, it has allowed for numerous different types of them all having different applications giving players a lot choices and not making every battle play out the same.


I know you might argue that Warhammer is pretty open while LTA map is pretty choke pointed hence why people always pick ranged. Well that is true but even in the open area such as front of Dalaran ruins, No one would bring more than 1 group of melee and everyone would just mass ranged. One reason for that is obviously the massive collision and even more massive unit lag that exists in LTA but even in LTF where unit collision is low and unit lag is really low still people rather not get a lot of melee. (In LTF some cases such as OJ Hero squad melee can be useful that even get 2 even 3 groups and do damage as melee but the rest of the army is best to be ranged)

One huge factor that makes Ranged so OP is that at all time, all of them can be attacking while for melee only those in front can attack. So lets if you have 7 groups of melee vs 7 group of ranged. Only the melee group in the front is attacking while 6 others are stuck behind their back. Meanwhile all the 7 ranged units are always attacking, giving them a massive advantage.

Devs have tried to account for this by giving ranged units generally trash stats while giving melee super buffed stats, that has been helpful but generally has lead to a lot of issues.

My question is how you can make melee units more useful and have them play a role more than just holding tanks for ranged to do all the damage?

edit: Note I know putting points and getting melee units early can be a good idea on some factions but I'm talking about mid-game and late game here where everyone has enough gold for an actual army.

Cool fact: Did you know you can make an All melee Army in Total War as a legit strat? No, I'm not talking about feeding XP to the enemy you are soon to join after betrayal, I'm talking like winning battle. There actually entire factions who only have full melee roster and no ranged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elbadruhel

Well-Known Member
Map Maker
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
649
Hi man, i know what u mean. I have been playing TW games since Rome Total War 1, i worked doing a massive A song of ice and fire mod for medieval 2 total war and i arranged several tournaments like 6-7 years ago.

That is why i have inspired by battle system in Fall of Lordaeron map in TW battle system. I hope it works fine, we will see when test games starts. I would be awaiting your feedback, and if u know anything else i could add to balance it even better, let me know it ;)
 

Krotos

The Lore Judge.
Map Maker
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
562
Personally, I think that melee units should always do more damage than a ranged unit OR have substantially more health than them OR be substantially more resilient. In many maps ranged units and melee units tend to have these ratios completely skewed.
 

Elbadruhel

Well-Known Member
Map Maker
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
649
In Fall of lordaeron, ranged units do more dmg than infantry, but infantry is sturdier so infantry damage is more stable (a unit does dmg as long as it is alive, so if you do 10 dmg during 10 secs you do more than if you do 30 dmg in 3 seconds). Big units (cavalry, monsters, etc) inflict more damage than archers and have more hp than infantry, this means if you manage to move fast with cavalry and reach archers you will delete them. BUT, infantry can kill cavalry using bonus vs big, wich means cost efficient is really good. So... The idea is: cavalry>ranged>infantry>cavalry. But the system doesnt ends there, there is bonus vs big and bonus vs heavy. So depending on what your opponent is using you can use a different army to counter it, what means NO SPAMS, for example, your enemy spams normal damage ranged, orc archers for example, then you spam heavy footmen with sword, wich will recive really few damage due to heavy armour and shields and their normal damage will be enough to destroy the ligth archers, orcs die. So horde player starts to create grunts, wich will destroy footmen armour or raiders, wich as cavalry will recieve no so much dmg from swords, meaning human footman dies. And the game goes on.

The idea is that a pro vs a noob spamer will win easily. But a game between 2 pros will be dinamic, with armies improving and changing to counter what the other may use. This also means that if your ally is focusing in ranged light units and you appear with a heavy cavalry charge, you may take your enemy unprepared. Or you may bait your enemy using a lot of spearman so he goes heavy units, while you hide a bunch of axeman in your base to smash him later. Etc

I give the tools and try to balance it, i hope you bring the cool strategies :)

Ofc, apart from basic armour/damage, units have also different upgrades and bonuses to make them unique, like being able to go bersker, lay traps, go invisible, apply poison, trap enemies, move faster, attack 2 enemies at the same time, etc.

I accept more ideas :p
 

TheKaldorei

Queen of Warhaven
Moderator
Map Maker
Member
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
830
shameless plugging smh

The key to a balanced melee vs ranged fight is a (healthy breakfast) balancing out how melee units can defend themselves.
Usually melee basic shocktroops have Defend which allows them to reduce dmg from pierce but what about casters? Usually calvalry or heavy melee has some way to make up for casters evident powerlevel.
 

Nalesean

Communism has never been tried
Donator
Legend
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
515
The problem is that often defend is placed on a unit like the footman, which dies really quickly to magic damage from heroes in these kind of maps. Otherwise its a really cool counter and I would´ve like to see it be more efficient. I think the key is to limit the range of archers and such to around 5-600, never more, and keep them fragile hit point wise. Except for some units with quite op range I actually think LTA is quite allright in this regard, if you have a melee oriented army you are much more likely to win on open ground even though there are som ridiculous chokepoints.

But sadly the ranged spam has been a thing for a long time, in awlr we had then sentinel spam, 800 range if i remember correctly, and previously high elven rangers. I don´t even want to talk about the ranger faction in LTF, it pretty much sacked that map for me. So ya.. good luck :p
 

Onyx

GrimmHeart Darksbane
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
479
The problem is that often defend is placed on a unit like the footman, which dies really quickly to magic damage from heroes in these kind of maps. Otherwise its a really cool counter and I would´ve like to see it be more efficient. I think the key is to limit the range of archers and such to around 5-600, never more, and keep them fragile hit point wise. Except for some units with quite op range I actually think LTA is quite allright in this regard, if you have a melee oriented army you are much more likely to win on open ground even though there are som ridiculous chokepoints.

But sadly the ranged spam has been a thing for a long time, in awlr we had then sentinel spam, 800 range if i remember correctly, and previously high elven rangers. I don´t even want to talk about the ranger faction in LTF, it pretty much sacked that map for me. So ya.. good luck :p
The Rangers on LTF are strong, not because of their archers but because of their hero squad, if you wanna talk about archers on LTF then I suggest you check Highborne ones, they had a 20dmg searing arrow, while frost arrow from rangers was below 10, and both faction had aura
HB got nerfed a bit but they still do more dmg than rangers

On LTA, BE with 2 archers squad could kill a hero in less than a sec, only one volley required, and you can't do this with any range unit from LTF, so I think your knowledge about maps is a bit outdated, however you are right about sentinels on AW, always found druids of the spam more OP at this period tho
 

XenoMorphing

Funk Off
Messages
9
Reaction score
6
it depends on the faction mate as you said in LTA you mostly do this strategy as Dwarves since Dwarves melee units are super tanky while riflemen have high damage so you just upgrade melee armor and ranged damage, while playing Scourge lets say mostly in LTF you dont need to focus on ranged that much since you have cult specially if cult's good. about Silverhand in LTA its kinda hard just to focus on ranged more because you mostly need casters for healing and dispel and knights etc... But good strategy mate
 

Spectator

Gameplay First!
Donator
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
331
Hi man, i know what u mean. I have been playing TW games since Rome Total War 1, i worked doing a massive A song of ice and fire mod for medieval 2 total war and i arranged several tournaments like 6-7 years ago.

That is why i have inspired by battle system in Fall of Lordaeron map in TW battle system. I hope it works fine, we will see when test games starts. I would be awaiting your feedback, and if u know anything else i could add to balance it even better, let me know it ;)
Hey man can't wait to try the Fall of Lordaeron, I've been following the development but rather not give a full feedback yet until I played the map. I need to play it to see what your vision is and what you are going for then I can give feedback on how you can achieve what you want better. The best feedback/criticism imo is the one that helps improve what you want to achieve rather saying what I want you to achieve and right now I don't have enough information yet. Plus playing something is totally different than just theorizing about so I want to see how your ideas are in practice first before commenting it on it.

The only two things I reckon is best to consider before making the map are Chokepoints/base defenses and collision size. Keep in mind these two might not be an issue in your map but I'm just mentioning them cause they been plaguing LTA for example for a long time and its quite hard to change them after the map is made.

1- Chokepoints/base defenses

Tactical Choke points
Choke-points are generally underestimated I don't have anything against normal choke points, only when they are used as a base defense so the attacking player HAS TO to go through it in order to win. Those ones can be OP but the ones across the map can be fine and even add more tactical options. Here is an example of a good one:


Defender advantage Tactical Choke point: (Defenders are in blue, attackers in red)
upload_2019-1-16_8-32-57.png

Fair and Even Tactical Choke point
upload_2019-1-16_8-39-12.png


Its important that both Trisifal Monastery and the other area are both useless position, they are not bases someone has to destroy nor main paths someone needs to walk through so no one is forced to attack the players that are camping there. They give smart player the tactical value of retreating to in case of losing or being surrounded and then the ability to hold longer and flee from the other side. It also allows for some nice baiting. There are quite a fair bit of these in LTA and I kinda like them, it was smart decision to include them.

I also said Defender advantage and Fair. There are 3 types of choke points:
1- Defender advantage: Where the defender has more area in range can fit more units hence gaining an advantage by having more units firing than the attacker. Just like first pic. Usually the extra area is caused because attacker has to pass a narrow passage or bridge first before getting to the choke or there is some sorta obstacles reducing attackers area.
2- Fair and even: Where both defender and attacker have the same area so both can fit same number of ranged units attacking each other.
3- Attacker advantage: Where the attacker has more area in range can fit more units hence gaining an advantage by having more units firing than the Defender. These are rare but happen when the defender base is usually too small for whole army to fit while there is a massive base obstructing the area at the same time the attacker has whole outside area open to him. Here is an example:

Attacker advantage
upload_2019-1-16_9-10-17.png



However one important thing about fair Choke points. They can actually be really unfair depending on who is a defender. In choke point Melee units all become worthless trash and whoever has the best ranged unit always comes out on top. So you can cause a huge imbalance if you give a faction/team who has ranged superiority a fair choke pointed capital and then force a melee bases team/faction with terrible ranged units to attack it, here is an example:

upload_2019-1-16_9-22-51.png

Dalaran in LTF is fair choke point but when you have Undead sieging it against alliance, Its kinda terribly imbalanced. Undead are melee based swarm faction who focus on outnumbering opponents while Alliance is ranged based faction with strong defences, healing and magic. So in fair choke point undead swarm becomes totally useless and they are forced to beat alliance in ranged which is kinda impossible for them unless they are super super fed. So also be careful of giving the best ranged factions fair choke points as it can turn unfair quick.

Here are also two absolute avoid ones:

THE BS BRIDGED CAPITALS:
upload_2019-1-16_9-44-14.png

So in this case you are expecting a fraction of the attackers Army to be able to defeat the defenders army that if FAR FAR Larger than the attackers while also tanking massive AoEs while the Defenders Army is spread out. That means the attackers has to have units than can easily win despite being outnumbered 1-3 or 1-4 while tanking AoEs. In that case you got a serious balanced problem. Another things is also you have to kill Dalaran to win game. Dalaran is all purple has so you can't really call GG either. Its a total pain.


THE WTF PORTALS! (I knew you already said you are avoiding these but extra percussion to avoid nightmare like these can't hurt)
upload_2019-1-16_9-29-55.png

I think this does not need explanation.



However tho it depends on how your map is. You might be able to get away with shady base design. Azeroth Wars Legacy Reborn has some of these as well but it hasn't been a problem for AWLR. Mainly because Gold is actually really important in AWLR and can't easily be obtained so you won't last long on 3-4 CPs vs guy vs 30-50 CPs where as in LTA it barely matters. Another things is in AWLR there is generally less BS AoEs while worrying about mana is actually a thing. Also there is some nice Boss content in AWLR, Is your enemy camping his base like a bitch, good just go do Gilneas or Eye of Sergaras or C'thun or Ragnaros to become more powerful while he is turtling then go rekt him. So it depends on your map and judgment whether you need to worry about choke points much or not. Overall tho this is one of those cases where I would follow Blizzard's motto and put game play first and over aesthetics/lore.


Overall tho there are a lot of cool defense mechanics you can put for capital defense and just putting a choke point and calling it a day is not really being creative. Another good idea might be giving players more than just 1 important capital so you don't have to superbuff a sole capital as that capital is no longer all or nothing for the player.


2- Collision sizes

This one is a controversial one and in a perfect world it would not be a problem. But we don't live in one and the shitty WC3 engine is all we got and that engine CANNOT handle Large armies in normal collision sizes fighting each other. Unit lag will be a massive thing if you design this with LTA/AWLR collision sizes Unit lag will be massive pain. Overall the pain and imbalance unit lag causes is not worth the trouble and the benefits you get from going with low collision sizes like LTF outweighs the drawbacks.

Everyone thought at first it's a crazy idea with LTFs collision sizes and its not gonna work but LTF became quite popular regardless. Now here are benefits and drawbacks I can think of:

Benefits:
1- Far less or non-existent unit lag, leading to less crashes, frustrations etc.
2- Ability to chases down hit and run squads, making them less of a pain. A faction like Ice-trolls would be far less OP in LTF as you can now chase them and kill them where as in LTA unit lag would always slow you at the AA.
3- You can make swarm factions like Cult of damned ghouls possible, leading to some interesting game-play. If the ghoul summon and plague of cult had LTA sizes the game would crash into oblivion.
4- Your heroes now have less chance of getting stuck between your allies troops, It's really hard to see your allied heroes in battle and unless you on voice chat you won't ever know in time. This can lead to grouping and far less toxicity and frustration due to your ally getting your hero stuck.
5- Ability of units to move around portals and choke points. It is much harder on the engine to calculate high collision sized units moving around chokes and portals so when you have low collision sized units you don't need to worry as much.
6- Melee units are now more useful since they won't keep lagging when moving towards their target specially with high speed.
7- Ability to contest on macro game, Generally for example in AWLR if you make too much units as Teal you unit lag really hard making your units useless but if you don't you will lose the game vs for example alliance who has 3 members and does not suffer from unit lag. Reducing collision allows for more 1vX.

Drawbacks
1- Your melee units are more vulnerable to AoE like frost nova if you right click one unit with them. Though aiming with mass melee has never been viable option anyways.
2- Melee can now possibly just skip over enemy melee defense line and get to range. Tho that does not really work as micro-wise it's near impossible since units always attack to closest target while collisions are not to be that low. In LTF for example you will struggle to get pass enemy melee line.
3- This has been the most brought up: You can no longer deal with enemy heroes as you can't surround them while Also It makes the game braindead since surrounding is WC3 skill.

-Ok first of all surrounding is a skill in melee cause you only get few units and surrounding with 4 units is actually hard while also ur hero being surrounded is not the end of the world as you can easily TP out (TP makes you invulnerable) or other stuff. You are not skillful If you surround a guy with 200 freaking units available plus 20+ seconds CC locks and summons. Any buffoon can do that. Also in macro maps if a hero like LK gets surrounded you LOST the game GG. So it's way too cheesy as well.

- Heroes can no longer be killed. That is a sorta legit argument but collision is not the problem here, Lack of tools for killing heroes is! You can add other stuff for that e.g More CCs, Higher damage to heroes etc. It actually is far more skillfull in macro map to coordinate a CC lock and Burst as well it being more satisfying rather just look I summoned bunched of zombies on you. Now you dead.


But then again this one is also you judgment. It all depends on what type of fights and armies you have. If it is not Massive armies or massive summons like Cult you can get away with it. Both low and high collision have their drawbacks, its just depends on how easy you can deal with them. Just gotta play the game and do something testing to find out. I just mentioned this cause these 2 become harder to fix as time passes. Best of all luck with the editor :D

In Fall of lordaeron, ranged units do more dmg than infantry, but infantry is sturdier so infantry damage is more stable (a unit does dmg as long as it is alive, so if you do 10 dmg during 10 secs you do more than if you do 30 dmg in 3 seconds). Big units (cavalry, monsters, etc) inflict more damage than archers and have more hp than infantry, this means if you manage to move fast with cavalry and reach archers you will delete them. BUT, infantry can kill cavalry using bonus vs big, wich means cost efficient is really good. So... The idea is: cavalry>ranged>infantry>cavalry. But the system doesnt ends there, there is bonus vs big and bonus vs heavy. So depending on what your opponent is using you can use a different army to counter it, what means NO SPAMS, for example, your enemy spams normal damage ranged, orc archers for example, then you spam heavy footmen with sword, wich will recive really few damage due to heavy armour and shields and their normal damage will be enough to destroy the ligth archers, orcs die. So horde player starts to create grunts, wich will destroy footmen armour or raiders, wich as cavalry will recieve no so much dmg from swords, meaning human footman dies. And the game goes on.

The idea is that a pro vs a noob spamer will win easily. But a game between 2 pros will be dinamic, with armies improving and changing to counter what the other may use. This also means that if your ally is focusing in ranged light units and you appear with a heavy cavalry charge, you may take your enemy unprepared. Or you may bait your enemy using a lot of spearman so he goes heavy units, while you hide a bunch of axeman in your base to smash him later. Etc

I give the tools and try to balance it, i hope you bring the cool strategies :)

Ofc, apart from basic armour/damage, units have also different upgrades and bonuses to make them unique, like being able to go bersker, lay traps, go invisible, apply poison, trap enemies, move faster, attack 2 enemies at the same time, etc.

I accept more ideas :p
hmm Glad you are going with this System. I believe someone on Hive was experimenting with some Total War concepts as well. It's got like charges and things like that so maybe there is something interesting here for you. https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/warcraft-total-war-alpha-v0-74.304123/

One thing I always wondered, How hard/easy will it be to implent a system to take more damage from behind? I know Bristleback from Dota 2 had ability to take less damage from behind while rikimaru would do more damage from behind. So it might be cool to make flanking more effective for some units by letting them do more from behind. Can also make hit and run less effective
The problem is that often defend is placed on a unit like the footman, which dies really quickly to magic damage from heroes in these kind of maps. Otherwise its a really cool counter and I would´ve like to see it be more efficient. I think the key is to limit the range of archers and such to around 5-600, never more, and keep them fragile hit point wise. Except for some units with quite op range I actually think LTA is quite allright in this regard, if you have a melee oriented army you are much more likely to win on open ground even though there are som ridiculous chokepoints.

But sadly the ranged spam has been a thing for a long time, in awlr we had then sentinel spam, 800 range if i remember correctly, and previously high elven rangers. I don´t even want to talk about the ranger faction in LTF, it pretty much sacked that map for me. So ya.. good luck :p
Oh yes I totally forgot to mention range. Yea a bit of extra range can mean another massive firing line in a choke.

Another thing about rangers tho, They have an ability called Elune's Grace Which reduces piearcing damage by 50% and magic damage by like 50% (used to be 85%, 60%). Add medium Armor on top of that reducing more piearcing, Magic and Siege damage. They are really vulernble to melee but Totally dominant in range vs range. So if you don't have a chaos damage agaisnt them in ranged you are screwed. And when you are forced into a choke point as UD with terrible ranged and best you can send them is Nerubian weavers with piercing and frost wyrms with magic, You are kinda screwed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elbadruhel

Well-Known Member
Map Maker
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
649
Wow thats a looong post @Spectator i will need to work on mines or u will take my rank as wall texter xD.

Of course when i said i would await your feedback i meant once you play it :)
Tanks for all your tips, i have readed everything and will answer what i remember :p
- Im an engineer, that means im fucking "square minded", what results in me studying everything in my map, balancing everything with math programs, statistics, etc. I have lists with numbers and % of each kind of unit per faction, each kind of unit per race, each kind of attack and armour... Everything is calculated trying to have an "order", for example, i divided the map in "areas" according to lore and gameplay, and i made sure each areas has the same value (except the most external ones where i dont want people to turtle), i hope this gives no faction the feeling of "starting in a poor area".
- About shockpoints, i have created several narrow paths, good ambush areas, some shockpoints, mountain passes, etc around the map. I have kept a "balance" about the minimum size of the path so no one is too narrow. But all of them share something: you can avoid them. I mean, if you attack an enemy and he turtles in a point, he will have advantage. If you feel strong enough you can push in, but you can always retreat and find another way. I have done this intentional, so "there is more than one strategy to win", for example, with fast "raider" factions like orcs or trolls, you may prefer to attack from several points, backstab, harass, etc, the enemy cant turtle everywhere! Other factions like undeads are more "swarm undead", meaning you can try to sneaky in several points and start to damage from inside, so the enemy has to move troops there and you can smash the shockpoint; or simply use free risen units to swarm the shockpoint and while the enemy is bussy other army attacks from other place. And alliance has the point of numbers, 7 guys microing 7 armies, even weaker, will have much better micro and coordination than just 2-4 guys. Also alliance has more heroes, what balance the deal.
- But "having different ways to reach a point" wont matter if, in the end, you must conquer a city and that city is a nonsense shockpoint as you say. That is why i havent set any city as "must" in my map. At least yet. Yes, you can destroy Dalaran or Silvermoon, you can corrupt Stratholme, etc etc. But isnt a must, is just another way to weaken your enemy. For example, if the elves loses Silvermoon will lose power, yes. But if they lose all Quelthalas except Silvermoon they will even more fucked. There enters the players decisions of where to defend, where to strike, etc. Maybe you can abandon a point to destroy other. Or you may prefer to go full ahead to siege a big city (3 points) in a great battle, or you prefer to do better macro than your enemy and conquer three small ones (1 point each). In the end, that who does better warfare will end with more army, more units, and in the end, the victory. How to achieve it its in your own.
- Yes, i want to avoid portals as much as posible. In 0.1 will be only 1: Scholomance. And i only study to create 3 more in the future: New Dalaran, Naxxramas and Undercity. Dalaran and Naxxramas will be "buildings" so since you can kill them from outside i guess there is no problem with their portals. And for undercity i have already some ideas to try to minimize the portal issue, hope they will work xD.
- About "special defences" nowadays i only have them for Silvermoon and Tyr's Hand. Both caus i had no other cool ideas and cause i dont want to make more "key strongholds" than trully needed. Well, i guess troll special stuff could be understood as "special measures". But all these "special defences" can be disable, so even if you dont win the siege, you may weaken them, and have more options in next siege. What avoids the attacker feeling "he is wasting his time".

About collision sizes, nowadays i have small ones. Due to several reasons:
- Smaller size reduces lag and CTD. Im doing everything to have the map stable, so this is a must.
- Smaller size allows better micro. If my map is based on tw attack system, you click your vs Big units to attack a big unit, and they start to dance around due to unit size, someone may smash their pc agaisnt the wall frustratede. And we dont want that xD.
- I think that "trap" an hero with your units is lame and unreal. If some ghouls surround Uther in lore, he would run trough them charging with his hammer, instead of watching how others kills him from afar. In w3 vanilla is fine, cause battles are smaller, but in a so big map is weird. Also, i want that killing heroes is a... Reward? For playing fine. You need to use properly stuns, silences, etc to take down an hero, not some random unit block. Of course, if you defeat the enemy army and the hero is left alone and surrounded by your whole army, he will die, but not "being the first guy to die".
- Im trying to give melee units a good role. that means they need to be able to fight, reduced unit size allows it. If someone complains saying "they can run trough my frontline!", the answer is simple: then run away with your range units. While the enemy mele runs trough your infantry, they will kill them, and if you keep your ranged scaping, you wont recieve dmg. Ofc if you keep your archers at melee they will die, AS THEY SHOULD. Some ranger focused units have also some cool measures to avoid this... "ranger focus", Eastweald hunters for example can place "Hunter's Trap", wich will stun enemies that move there, so if the enemy charges trough your frontline to kill the hunters, they will just run away while the enemies are traped and your frontline kills them.
- I have different races, with different kind of power. Its not a nonsense of difference, but it exists. So if elves for example (the weaker at least without sunwell blessing) cant fight properly orcs or ogres, they will be smashed. But with reduced filesize an elven player may use more units (since they are cheaper) making a proper fight.
- About low unit size meaning vulnerable to AOE, the answer is... And that is bad? Not all heroes have AoE, if you are figthing a guy with reduced aoe area and you move stacked is your fault. On the contrary, most heroes with aoe have a BIG area, so even with an even bigger unit size your units would be caught. Now my point is, with lower unit size, your units move faster, react better and are less likely to get stuck, so if the enemy uses an AOE and you see it, you may run away since you have reduced filesize. Instant aoe spells have a different counter, if you see your enemy hero moving in the middle of everything you know what is he going to do... Just avoid to swarm on him till he uses the skill, or use that chance to stun him and aim him down.

Thanks for all your advices man, hope the map is ready soon so you can critize it deeply xD
 

Mesis

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,113
Reaction score
410
I have been saying this for years and I am glad more people start to be more vocal.

I personally would suggest AoE II as a great example. It is made for both skirmishies, small battles and endless unit spam and it works pretty much perfectly.
Not to mention each civilization somewhat feels more unique than most races in LTA/LTF.

I might go into more depth later but I am currently on the phone in a coffee shop
 

Nalesean

Communism has never been tried
Donator
Legend
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
515
The Rangers on LTF are strong, not because of their archers but because of their hero squad, if you wanna talk about archers on LTF then I suggest you check Highborne ones, they had a 20dmg searing arrow, while frost arrow from rangers was below 10, and both faction had aura
HB got nerfed a bit but they still do more dmg than rangers

On LTA, BE with 2 archers squad could kill a hero in less than a sec, only one volley required, and you can't do this with any range unit from LTF, so I think your knowledge about maps is a bit outdated, however you are right about sentinels on AW, always found druids of the spam more OP at this period tho
Allways found the Belf archers in LTA a bit overated. And the frost arrow is far more cancer in my opinion, but sure, I´d sack the highborne faction aswell. However to its credit it didnt rely only on archers, crazy balistas, and yes of course heroes (all of them ranged so i dont see how thats beside the point).
 

Spectator

Gameplay First!
Donator
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
331
The Rangers on LTF are strong, not because of their archers but because of their hero squad, if you wanna talk about archers on LTF then I suggest you check Highborne ones, they had a 20dmg searing arrow, while frost arrow from rangers was below 10, and both faction had aura
HB got nerfed a bit but they still do more dmg than rangers

On LTA, BE with 2 archers squad could kill a hero in less than a sec, only one volley required, and you can't do this with any range unit from LTF, so I think your knowledge about maps is a bit outdated, however you are right about sentinels on AW, always found druids of the spam more OP at this period tho
Allways found the Belf archers in LTA a bit overated. And the frost arrow is far more cancer in my opinion, but sure, I´d sack the highborne faction aswell. However to its credit it didnt rely only on archers, crazy balistas, and yes of course heroes (all of them ranged so i dont see how thats beside the point).
Guys LTF rangers are at least 3 times stronger than LTA ones. Firstly the LTF rangers do a massive bonus against air. However Most importantly LTF rangers have The BS Elven Grace. For some reason I just realized someone also thought it was not a stupid idea and gave that ability to HB archers as well. WTF.

So in short both LTA and LTF archers do a lot of damage. Difference is in LTA if I cast a AoE spell on LTA rangers or send dragons or other ranged units to attack them, the LTA rangers are screwed and get wiped in seconds. LTA ones do high damage but on the downside of being really squishy.

In LTF however if I cast a AoE or send dragons or other ranged units to attack LTF archers, It barely makes any difference as thanks to Elven Grace LTF archers just tank them and don't care. LTF ones also do high damage but are also super tanky unless you force them to melee (good luck with that since kiting is also rangers main strength)! It makes no sense balance-wise or in terms of game-play.

Not saying they are OP tho as alliance is actually pretty easy to crush by evil and rangers are also quite vulnerable since they lack dispel. But I can get why people get frustrated at LTF archers since there is no weakness they have you tactically can exploit like LTA archers and the only way to beat LTF ones is if you purely Overpower them.

In short tho personally I'm kinda dissapointed Rangers roster is just one Jack of all trades archer. Wish they have would have different types of archers instead e.g High damage but really squishy, Long range but slow, short range but fast, Magic dependent, Lower damage but can disable the enemy etc etc. There are a lot of cool ideas you can come with that than look here is just one archer you got and can spam and she is good at everything. It also allows for more than just one play-style option.
 

Nalesean

Communism has never been tried
Donator
Legend
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
515
I have been saying this for years and I am glad more people start to be more vocal.

I personally would suggest AoE II as a great example. It is made for both skirmishies, small battles and endless unit spam and it works pretty much perfectly.
Not to mention each civilization somewhat feels more unique than most races in LTA/LTF.

I might go into more depth later but I am currently on the phone in a coffee shop
isnt the key difference in AoE II that you don´t get experience? Take goths for example, as i understand it the faction normally wins by overwhelming its opponents by infantry (atleast thats how I´ve played it) but while its a viable faction, its quite rare to have a positive kda. In warcraft strategy maps its not as common to play like that, since it feeds the opponents.
 

Mesis

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,113
Reaction score
410
isnt the key difference in AoE II that you don´t get experience? Take goths for example, as i understand it the faction normally wins by overwhelming its opponents by infantry (atleast thats how I´ve played it) but while its a viable faction, its quite rare to have a positive kda. In warcraft strategy maps its not as common to play like that, since it feeds the opponents.
True but in warcraft strategy maps including LTA there are units that feed experience anyway and not necessarly infantry. I dont think we should bring XP as an argument into this as that is a separate issue. For example the most "feed" in LTA you can get is through summons which for some reason give more xp than normal units.
 

Ske

Filthy Casual
Administrator
Messages
848
Reaction score
634
I stopped reading when you claimed LTA players only build one melee group. Thats nonsense. o_O
 

Nalesean

Communism has never been tried
Donator
Legend
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
515
I stopped reading when you claimed LTA players only build one melee group. Thats nonsense. o_O
Precisely! A true LTA player doesnt make any melee groups :cool:
 

Onyx

GrimmHeart Darksbane
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
479
isnt the key difference in AoE II that you don´t get experience? Take goths for example, as i understand it the faction normally wins by overwhelming its opponents by infantry (atleast thats how I´ve played it) but while its a viable faction, its quite rare to have a positive kda. In warcraft strategy maps its not as common to play like that, since it feeds the opponents.
You could say XP is the main diff, but that's actually not for me, AOE2 is quite similar to SC2 in the way that you don't care about losing units, you care about how you lose those

On Wc3 you'll care about your units since heroes, especially on maps like LTA/LTF can worth armies, and feeding is like buffing one unit to hell, without the real possibility to kill it (unless unrevivable hero)

So the main diff for me is really a matter of ratio, which you absolutly do not care on SC2 and almost not on AOE2, as long as you got your economy going, while here on WC3, the best ratio you get, the stronger you get, and the higher your lvls are, the more money you save
Having a better ratio of kills compared to deaths is like spending the money you don't have, even if you don't have any economy you won't fall behind, or rather very rarely compared to sc2 or aoe2 on which, falling behind on eco means 99% of the time a loss for you

There are of course cases on which the player falling behind has a much better micro/macro management than his opponent and can still win thx to his higher lvl/experience as a player but thats not the matter here

So for me its the ratio and the fact that you care about losing units, it does imply xp but its not the only reason, and are we talking about ladder or macro maps? Highest lvls on ladder won't forcefully mean victory if you can't get a good enough ratio if you are behind on economy

PS : Overwhelming ennemies a Goth is A strategy, not the best, especially not on 1v1, doable on 2v2 but risky asf still
And imagine going full eco as Goth to overwhelm a turk or spain .... meh you're dead as balls
Halberds/Huskarls get 2 shots, champions 3shots, so you have to what? Change unit composition?
Ehhh no, solution is to kill them before they reach their tech, as their's counters yours
 
Top