@Yang: Balance calculation to monster groups' size and composition

Dear Yang, you likely recall that late hour figuring some balancing out. I made some progress in fleshing some basic calculations out. Especially the second attempt should make thing clearer and more reliable.
Everyone is welcome to jump in to get a better grasp at the chokepoints. Testing out for more exact numbers needs simulations though.
This is the current state:

(General Notices)
Basic monster mechanics and properties

Directly cumulative, multiplicative:
Hitpoints +
Armor +
block/dodge chance if variable
=survivability factor

watch out for attack and armor types:
more common attack types need to be weighted higher
find the average value of weighted types
armor that is not effective against most weapons has a lower weight,
comparable to lotto chance calculations

special to SURVIVABILITY, likely requires an additive fix value for basic attacks they can score on average:
archers getting less likely attacked, getting an extra factor
the bonus at this point will also directly translate into
the end calculation since offensive advantages can be derived from living longer due to scoring hits unpunished.

Directly cumulative, multiplicative:
damage +
attack speed +
average damage to different armor types, again taking into account how common these are
=output value

Basic per-minion combat value to this point:
(survivability factor+ archery bonus)* output factor

To make things easier during balancing, the goal should be to get the damage factor to an intuitive value, such as damage a second or damage per hit.
This will make the calculation of the archery value easier as well.
Another way can be getting the survivability factor to a point of “average survival time” or “average hits to be taken”.

The harder factors: Classes and their interactions

You need a table with effectivity from each class to another after you got the basic combat value straight.

Adding knights would be a general raise to survivability.
The amount of archers and knights increases the effectivity of adding a knight
The higher the amount of knights, the lower the bonus each knight adds.
example would be new knight: (knight combat value*(1+0.30.9^knights+0.31.05^fighters+0.31.3^archers+0.31.3*priests))+group value

Adding archers raises the output value.
More archers will not decrease their effectivity value.
In fact, since they can hit and run and focus fire, the power added through each archer rises exponentially.
Defensive units will increase archers effectivity.
Example would be: new archer adding value=archer combat value*(1*1.1^archers *1.05^fighters *1.3^knights *0.95^priests)+group value

Fighters will add a pretty static value, multiple fighters will increase the effectivity by a small amount
due to the likelyhood of them not getting directly attacked in masses and their aoe effectivity.
Fighters back up archers and knights.
new fighter: fighter combat value*(1+0.31.02^fighters+0.31.05^archers+0.31.05^knights+0.31.1*priests)+group value

Adding priests will add a value that stays the same per priest.
Priests do however scale better with monsters that make good use of health, meaning armored ones!
The added value would be something like:
new priest: priest combat value*((0.7archers+1.1fighters+1.3*knights)/3)+group value

Whole group calculations (likely much more accurate!)

Group power=
//Calculating interactions from: archers-knights, archers-fighters, archers-priests
(archersCombinedPower *1.1^archers *1.3^knights *1.1^fighters *1.05^priests +

//Calculating interactions from: archers-knights, fighters-knights, priests-knights
knightsCombinedPower *1.3^archers *1.05^fighters *1.3^priests +

//Calculating interactions from: fighters-archers, fighters-knights, fighters-priests
fightersCombinedPower *1.02^fighters *1.1^archers *1.05^knights * 1.15^priests +

//Calculating interactions from: priests-archers, priests-knights, priests-fighters
priestsCombinedPower *1.05^archers *1.3^knights *1.15^fighters)

I intend to get into contact with a very clever guy that studys mathematics and hope that he can help me out on this =)

hey there @DeMaggo, welcome to the discourse :smile:

seeing as you’re looking for yang, paging @yshan!


@8BitCrab I guess she is quite busy. Its so hard to tell when @yshan would have actually read this when there is no answer on that.

@yshan You may also want to use this calculation for hardmode: You can decrease the total power of a group in the calculation to get a stronger group and make the use of tactic for players urgent. Most interaction values are lowered if you micro management your group better.

this might sound like an opposition, but I am more of the “simulation over boardgame” type.

i.e. don’t adopt direct abstract boardgame-like “balacing” on the results.
Instead, simulate the reasons why the enemies are there and what effects their “strength”. And the primary factors for determining the “enemy strength” should not just be a simple total worth, or town size etc. it should also be (actually more) dependent on past events and interactions with the hostile group. (i.e. player have more choice and influence over the type of enemy strength. not just unconditionally based on some town worth/size)


  • proximity and density of hostile settlements. The more, nearer, bigger hostile settlements, the more frequent encounters will be.
  • aggression (usually escalating) and purpose. size of frequency of aggressive parties should be dependent on general interest in the area vs the size of the home settlement of the party.
    • e.g. initial unplanned encounter between scouting party, which is small. If it is a raiding party on its way to or back from raiding another enemy settlement, it will be bigger.
    • after initial encounter, if any escaped, it will bring news of your town back to its home, which may increase frequency of additional parties. (conversely, if we can kill all witnesses, it will take longer for a second party to appear, and the size will not grow as fast, though eventually it will reach similar level since home settlement gets suspicious after several scouting parties not returning).
    • When sending a hostile party to player area, there should be some purpose.
      • a scouting party may just stay on the map and if not attacked by player, will go off by themselves. but if they do, it will increase chance of a more aggressive party as well as its size.
      • a raiding party is most likely next when scouting parties reported your town back to its home. Raiding party’s main aim is to kill and steal. and will go off after either being successful or overpowered.
      • when player town kills enough of the hostile settlement’s mobs, it may decide to send a war party. This will be large and varied and will build camps that increases the party size (simulate more supplies recruits arriving). War party can launch a campaign for extended period of time, but if not successful, it may withdraw (for the time being). Usually, aggression will reset after a war party as they will revert back to scouting, raiding to gain more intel and to prepare for next campaign.
      • when then player kills enough of several compatible hostile settments’s mobs, the settlements may join into a temporary alliance to launch a joint campaign on the player’s town. Multiple camps likely from multiple directions, each the size of war party, and the likelihood of additional special units/parties (e.g. siege engine party, wizard/shaman party, special giant “guardian” beast…

just some ideas for tot.

bottomline: “impossible” difficulty is still acceptable if it is “reasonable” :wink: Will make more interesting town stories than all towns having similar “progressive” encounters with hostiles.

EDIT: addin potentially friendly settlements (possibly even forming alliance) and allow them to interact in your town area. (e.g. befriended the Dwarves of the Beer Hall in the east, and they sent a party to help when your town is attacked by the joint Orc Tribes of Skull Mountain. Or ally with the Orcs instead and slaughter the Dwarves and Elves that dare to take revenge for their members you punished for intruding your lands)

I’m afraid you missed the point.

The calculations I posted here are supposed to determine how strong a group actually is, getting some sort of number for them. Like a group’s estimated power is “123”.

What you are talking about is how strong a group should be and that it should be depending on certain aspects.