Stupidity10

Join Date 09/2010

[.86]Encumbrance Analysis

In the latest version of FE it seems like we are moving away from the encumbrance system to a per armor/weapon piece initiative penalty.

Experimenting with a standard Umbar soldier and platemail, he suffers an encumbrance penalty of -3 and an armor penalty of -5, 1 for each armor piece. Any 2 strength traits will reduce encumberance penalty by 1. Mounting the unit on a horse will reduce the encumberance by 2 and adding a strength trait will remove it entirely. However you still suffer the -5 initiative penalty.

The armor initiative penalty is an awkward addition to the game, only some chainmail pieces have initiative penalties to represent it being lighter than plate and leather has none. I am not saying that we should be able to create platemail units with no penalty, but automatic -5 is too much and it should be handled by the encumbrance system so that unit stats come into play and strong units/champions only loses like 2-3 initiative. More Importantly the weight of platemail (-5) shouldn't be countered by holding a knife (+6) and a mage with a heavy staff should still cast spells quickly because his robes are light.

With a static -5 platemail/heavy weapons are just as good on a mage as a defender, at most there is a -2 initiative penalty. This isn't fair to warrior champions as it hampers growth. Where is the equivilant in mage champions, should becoming an archmage lower initiative by 5?

To work better encumbrance should be more rounded, removing dodge as well as initiative and a movement point at it's extreme. A more sensitive encumbrance could even be used instead of the awful weapon initiative bonuses, so that Mage with daggers dont cast spells faster. With this system only small penalties and boosts for weapons could be used (-+2). Allowing decent staffs to compete with daggers.

The wargs +1 initiative boost is strange compared to a horses ability to reduce -9 initiative to -7. Instead wargs should just have an attack bonus of around 2.

While my encumberance makes Strength even more important, this can be balanced and it's not like we don't already choose strength over other stats. On the plus side, making encumberance affect dodge for even units wearing leather and a heavy weapon would allow assasins some much needed identity, as light units could dodge better as opposed to heavy warriors having armor and dodging.

A sensitive and balanced encumbrance system that also affects dodge makes for a much better choice than large weapon and armor initiative modifiers. Implemented correctly it can help elemental overcome it's problems with underused assasins and mage weapons, as well as making platemail not as good for mages/assasins as warriors/defenders.

What do you think?

Locked Post +1 Karma

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

CdrRogdan

I think that Wargs (or at least Scaths) should add to attack bonus.

While a war horse could carry more weight or be faster, Scaths should have an attack bonus (due to the monster helping in the fight)

I like how Horses are -weight while Wargs are + initiative. (I think Wargs give +2 initiative iirc)

This allows for very fast mounted units if lightly armored and riding wargs.

I like how both Scaths and Spiders are -weight AND + initiative. While spiders have the webbed spell it would be good for Scath's to add to the attack.

If wargs also get +attack, it should be less than the Scath bonus. (maybe Warg +1-2, Scath +5?)

I think there should be some penalties to wearing plate-mail.

Currently Tower shields add dodge. This seems strange to me. Plate mail and Tower shields should lower melee dodge ... but a Tower Shield should GREATLY increase ranged dodge. (and possibly ranged defense).

Smaller shields should perhaps have melee dodge, but I don't think this is fitting for a Tower Shield.

Going on to my ideas on armor ... I think there should be penalties to wearing plate. Initiative is only one possible penalty. Other penalties include +10% mana cost fr spells, less dodge, less accuracy, and less movement.

Personally I think plate-mail should lower melee dodge (and not affect ranged dodge other than the tower), and should increase mana cost for spells (which would matter assuming spell casting is fixed and no longer tied to initiative).

The -1 initiative is fine as well ... but should probably be -0.75. And Chain either -0.5 or -0.4 initiative apiece.

Equally I think there should be potential upgrades to leather armor later down the tech tree, sharing the tech with something else ... so that you can still have leather armor at a decent defense, just not nearly as much as legendary plate of course.

Successfully updated karma reason!

My point wasn't there shouldn't be penalties it was that those penalties should be from the encumberance, so that weapons dont need +- 6 initiative and platemail isn't as good for an assasin/mage as it is a warrior/defender.

wargs in .86 are definetly +1 initiative

I agree that shields should only increase dodge vs ranged.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm.

I think full plate mail on average should give about -6 initiative penalty total.

(less for cavalry)

While a foot soldier might suffer -6 to -8 penalty for Plate mail ... (-5 or -6 if he has good strength) I think a Cavalry should be able to have only a -4 penalty or even less ... maybe a -2 penalty if he uses some trait to make the horse itself stronger.

This is why I think we need horse-specific traits.

-> Stalwart, +X weight carrying, cannot take Galloping

-> Galloping, +2 movement, cannot take Stalwart

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tasunke,

reply 3

I like how Horses are -weight while Wargs are + initiative. (I think Wargs give +2 initiative iirc)

This allows for very fast mounted units if lightly armored and riding wargs.

Agree.

Having both encumbrance and plate-armor intiative penalties seems like the are dinging us double, and overdoing it. Plate slows us down because it is heavy, so encumbrance OR initiative penalties make sense, but not both. I'd vote for keeping encumbrance and dropping the initiative penalty.

Also, from what I've heard, properly fitted plate doesn't actually slow you down or interfere with movement any more than chain-mail does. So why pick on plate for anything except its weight. Real-world, its expensive and takes high tech to make, but then it is generally so much better that nothing else makes sense (In case it matters, I'm thinking mostly of individual pieces like we have in the game, and like plate breastplates of the Elizabethan / conquistador era, not the full suits you see standing in museums).

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem with any initiative bonus is that it affects movement and spells as well as attacks. While I enjoy the idea of fast warg riders, riding them shouldnt let me cast spell faster, just like daggers shouldn't let me cast spells faster and platemail boots make me cast spells slower.

A pure encumberance system takes into account weapons and armour and applies initiative penalties. So that a mage with a heavy staff can still cast spells quickly because his robes are light, while a warriors platemail isn't countered by carrying a dagger.

Successfully updated karma reason!

maybe cuirasses shouldn't decrease init then? (only encumbrance)

but having plate on your arms and legs (vambrance, gloves, boots) should perhaps cause certain penalties.

For instance, Vambrances/Gloves and Pauldrons should likely decrease Dexterity, and possibly accuracy.

While (plate) boots should likely decrease initiative and dodge.

-> meanwhile 'champion' boots do the opposite, which is fine. But regular boots should probably decrease dodge.

Actually, All platemail should probably decrease dodge by at least half a point ... (melee dodge only), while Tower shield increases RANGED DODGE only.

So +6(or more) defense and +12 ranged dodge for a tower shield (instead of +6 defense and +8 any dodge)

Tower Shields should be mainly for blocking arrows. Such units are best met in the melee, OR possibly magical stave attacks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I actually agree with stupidity here. There is little reason to have so many elements affect initiative. I seriously don't want to have to break out my calculator to determine if using my toxic dagger is better than using my doom maul. More transparent functions in the game are better than a convoluted system even if it costs the game some 'realism'

If wargs (or any type of mount) provide attack bonuses, it should be for melee only.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yes true. mounted attack bonus should only be for melee

I know I don't have a perfect answer for things like plate armor ... but maybe an advanced encumbrance system would be better.

For Archers ... I think you could either choose to give them dex bonuses (for more powerful ranged attacks) or strength bonuses (for equipping heavier armor).

Currently you'd only want Accuracy and Strength (if encumbrance is an issue) while ignoring dex completely.

Well, Accuracy + Fast + Charge is good for archers, ... but choosing between inititiative for first strike, dex for stronger attack, and strength for heavier armor would be an interesting dynamic.

Personally I think mages and archers should want armor no heavier than chain, and often opt for leather instead ... I'm just not sure why yet

------> the Dex bonus thing is only if ranged attack is affected by dex in the future. Which I think makes good sense.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I too would like to see the Initiative penalties taken out and some more nuance to the encumbrance system. 25% encumbrance should give units a slight bonus to dodge and initiative. Once nice thing is that going over 100% will reduce movement by one. If you watch my video in the support forum about unit design, you can see that it is possible to game the system by adding all the strength traits, loading a unit with lots of heavy items, and then removing the traits. The effect is one less movement and -2 initiative. Not a bad trade for being able to ignore max encumbrance.

Also, the movement trait seems unclear. It says -10, which means -10 to maximum weight. One might mistake that for -10 percent maximum weight allowance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Interesting that you would say a movement penalty is preferable to initiative penalty.

I guess its an archer thing

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lord Reliant

Join Date 03/2006

+39

The problem with encumbrance as the only mechanic for penalties with armor is that it's too reliant on strength. If you have high Strength, you get good armor, avoid penalties with encumbrance, and get better attacks. Too much for one attribute, which was definitely the case with Strength prior to .85. The problem with things now that while I understand that it's silly that you can wear plate and compensate for it by equipping a dagger.

Encumbrance should reduce movement, initiative, and possibly damage.

Heavy armor should just require certain strength and possibly constitution, plus also cost a reasonable amount of resources, making it more rare and likely something mostly used in champions and your sovereign.

Not an easy thing to balance with all of these factors!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with tying the initiative modifiers solely to a re-organized version of the encumbrance system, one with finer grades and stronger penalties as one moves up the chart. Thus, the lightest weapons and armor (or none) would work essentially at base initiative and all heavier arms would adjust initiative negatively, therefore avoiding this whole +/- modifier nonsense.

Init could also be affected by carefully designed traits and magic (rarely, except for the most masterful traits and magicks, should initiative boni be given without some drawback.)

For magic, init should be based on encumbrance as well, and all spells should be cast on the caster's next turn (allowing for countering), which should be affected by the casting time of the spell which would turn out to be an initiative modifier. So a simple spell like burning hands could have an initiative modifier of 0, where fireball might have a modifier of, say, 20, which simply means a -20 init modifier on the caster's next turn, allowing a greater chance for the spell to be countered or disrupted, compared to the example of burning hands. Archery could actually work in a similar way, with a 'draw-and-release' mechanic, which could also be disrupted by quick-moving melee attacks and/or special attacks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Lord Reliant,

reply 12

This is the way it's been with all RPG's since the dawn of time.

Just because the character has high STR doesn't mean they have high dodge or hit points.

I agree these factors all need to be balanced, but the mechanics behind them are sound.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think encumbrance should affect damage or movement (unless maybe -1 movement at full encumbrance).

Instead I think encumbrance should affect Initiative, Dodge, and Accuracy (a reduction to all 3)

-> should not affect dodge vs ranged I think ... just dodge vs melee

Therefore you can have a lithe swordsmaster with low defense and high Accuracy/Dodge ... and then you have the high defense Man-At-Arms with (slower) translating as mostly lower dodge/Acc with a bit lower initiative as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Platemail isn't just (extremely) heavy; it's also bulky and restricts free movement so I personally think the double penalty to initiative is fine - a bunch of troops in platemail is pretty darn scarey even if they get to move last. The tower sheild gets a big dodge bonus because you can block with it - dodge is supposed to represent parrying too I think

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DGB246,

reply 16

dodge is supposed to represent parrying too I think

Correct.

Successfully updated karma reason!

@DGB The problem is that initiative doesn't determine move order, it determines combat speed. Meaning for example you might end up reducing your movement and attacks by half depending on the weapons and gear you are using. It creates a wonky method of determining the best equipment to use on any given character. I don't really see a reason for the doublewhammy in effectiveness.

Also @Mqpiffle There is no reason for strength to modify encumbrance when there are better ways to go about increasing it, or enforcing it's effects. Addtionally I take offence at your claim that all rpgs use this sort of system. Skryim, Final Fantasy and Shadowrun, among many other games, do not use strength as the determinant to what your character can carry or equip.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Maybe being encumbered should have a - str modification and the check for being encumbered could be made against dexterity. I see no real world reason not to have this sort of mechanism but that should not be where the argument is. It would increase the importance of dexterity and reduce the importance of strength as stats.

I agree that the initiative modifiers need some work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting feelotraveller,

reply 19

I agree that the initiative modifiers need some work.

The big thing is to balance the encumbrance system so that no item has a initiative modifier beyond +-2, unless magical. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Just affecting dodge, initiative and movement would be enough of a penalty, affecting damage or strength seems like overkill.

Quoting feelotraveller,

reply 19

The problem with encumbrance as the only mechanic for penalties with armor is that it's too reliant on strength.

As far as strength becoming overpowered goes, it seems like more of an issue with stats themselves than the encumbrance system. Just buffing dodge and making spell resistance affect dmg and mass spells would help a lot.

Perhaps you could make both constitution and strength increase encumbrance (by half as much). Maybe a tiny boost to initiative from dexterity?

Quoting feelotraveller,

reply 19

Champions already have their unique armor and items and platemail isn't a heroes only item. Without it we have 2 types of armor for troops, that's ridiculously few stretched out over the entire game, even 3 seems low.

Stat requirements for items is a proven system, but we already have encumbrance and initiative penalties and it seems unlikely that a third unrelated system will replace the two we have now. I just hope they don't add it on top of the two we already have

Successfully updated karma reason!

DsRaider

Join Date 11/2008

+70

Yeah the current system is a little unbalanced. You would think that a balanced encumbrance system wouldn't require things like blanket initiative penalties on armor. However I really don't like the frankly weird penalties on just some of the pieces of chain, that's just open to abuse.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Encumbrance needs to be entirely redone, yes. Both weapons and encumbrance affect initiative, and this is confusing.

The solution? Combine the two. Make encumbrance's penalties be more severe/positive, and remove initiative as a directly affected stat from equipment. Encumbrance is actually a pretty cool system (harkens to RPG's), but the 1-2 initiative penalty is pretty pathetic, and almost never a factor in determining equipment choice.

As others have mentioned, add in dodge and move penalties, and more severe initiative ones (which can be countered by increasing strength). And drop initiative as a stat from any weapons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting CdrRogdan,

reply 18

Addtionally I take offence at your claim that all rpgs use this sort of system. Skryim, Final Fantasy and Shadowrun, among many other games, do not use strength as the determinant to what your character can carry or equip.

Quite right. Don't know about the other two examples, but Skyrim's encumbrance is based off of Stamina. In that instance there is no strength score.

My apologies.

However, I still don't believe that the mechanic is out of whack, it simply needs refinement.

Successfully updated karma reason!