Problems with Training/Experience equaling lots of life

This sounds just a dumb in its own thread as it did when it was a reply.

So are you saying a paralyzed elite soldier would survive a lightning strike as a minor wound yet kill the regular peasant to ashes?

OR

Are you saying the experience equals lots more life is dumb?

I'm saying neither.  with only a 10% difference in HP from the lowest level guys to the highest you make it quite likely that the stronger unit is killed by the weaker. All to satisfy some goofy scenario you've cooked up.

This would only work if you had a system in which defence did not reduce damage but completley block it in some cases. i.e. the peasents would have to do xxx attacks in one turn to hit the soldier and do actual damage.

Or in other words one peasent fighting alone against an elite soldier would never do damage as all his attacks would be blocked, where as 10 peaseants would actualy be able to kill him fairly easily. Personaly i would prefer this sort of system because it stops the possibilty of someone wearing down your elite troops by using small groups of weak troops produced in drips, and would add tactics in terms of skirmishes and large battles

Goofy scenario??  I'm providing actual basic examples of damage types in the game.  Take another basic example of a mass sleeping spell which causes all targets to fall asleep for at least 2 hours... why should the regular peasants die faster from a goblin jamming a shortsword into their heads than the elite soldier who is equally just as helpless.  I've discovered a flaw in a current experience design plan and seeking a solution so the giant tree crushes the paralyzed soldier with nearly the same result as the paralyzed peasant.  We've seen other games such as Dominions_3 and AgeofWonders provide minor life bonuses for experience while still having them more effective in battle and Elemental should do the same.

  While the more experience equals more life works for melee vs melee encounters it does not work for the other types of damage we see in a fantasy game and thus a better solution needs to be found.  The examples I've provided clearly shows the experience equals more life logic is flawed for variables such as instant damage and paralyzing effects.  A better solution exists and I'll provide my examples for improving this design flaw either later Thursday or Friday.

Haha.. Let me do some mind reading..   Kellen means "This sounds just as dumb".....

I do not like EXP increases HP either.   However, because Frogboy probably prefer to use STRENGTH instead of HP, it kind of getting a bit more sense.   STR is something quite vague, it can mean a lot of thing to different people; so some people will consider it alright.  

For me, I will not say I love this EXP increases STR concept, it is barely acceptable (in the context of Suspension of disbelief)   OTOH, I don't have much idea on how to resolve the combat mechanics problems Frogboy is attempting to resolve.  So I am withholding my judgement at the moment.

I know a few better methods for resolving the combat mechanics... but I'll wait for others to post their ideas first. 

You are confusing two very different things. An elite soldier is not an experienced peasant. We have no idea how much 'HP' Stardock intends to add per level, but I very much doubt it will be anything remotely adding up to a factor of 10 times more HP for even the most experienced troops.

Your argument is still valid nonetheless (an elite soldier is still a person, made of the same stuff as a peasant and so if he is disabled or struck by lightning, then realistically he should be just as vulnerable as the peasant in those scenarios). The question to ask, however, is - would that be fun? I know for a fact that something like the current system in this regard will (or at least can) be fun - it's been done often enough before. Take HoMM for example - that has the exact same 'problem' you bring up here but it doesn't even remotely stop me from enjoying those games immensely. To the contrary, if my paladins were equally vulnerable to magic, or if they were equally vulnerable to enemy attacks when blinded or paralyzed as peasants then I would be quite unhappy with the game.

The same is true in AoW, really. Compare the HP of Halberdiers to Knights. Putting a guy on a horse isn't gonna make him hurt any less from lightning or something similar. Paralyzing him would likely be even worse than paralyzing a foot-soldier, because he'd no longer be able to keep himself on his horse and would fall off; and being paralyzed he wouldn't be able to catch his fall, and in all that armor that could do some serious damage in and of itself... So really, you could take this argument as far as you want, but it all comes back to: is it fun?

My answer is: no. It wouldn't be.

Quoting Brad again since its the key point. HP is an abstraction to make combat work better. An ultra-realistic combat simulator would be an incredibly not fun game. You know why? One solid arrow hit would take out most units.  It becomes a game where first strike is the single strongest effect on the battlefield.

HP as an abstraction has been used throughout RPGs to solve this problem. No, your level 1 Barbarian with 12 HP (to use a D&D 3rd edition example) isn't any more likely to survive a dagger through the heart then my level 1 Wizard with 4 HP is. But in that type of game, nobody is very tough and its not fun. So they give a "tough" melee unit more HP. Maybe your unit is more adept at leaning, rolling, twisting, or generally doing things to turn what would be a fatal strike into just a painful one, while my Wizard isn't trained in such things.

Borderlands is a good more recent example of the same abstraction. Realistically people can't take very many direct gunshot wounds, but going down in one hit isn't fun. So you get HP, and you get more of it as you level so you can be tougher. It doesn't make sense realistically, but it doesn't matter. As a game mechanic, it works pretty well.

Consider what happens if you don't have something like this? I train peasants. You train expensive soldiers. I fry them with lightning. You fry my guys with lightning. I've got several times more units then you do because mine are so much cheaper. I bet I can fry all yours before you can fry all mine due to sheer numbers, so I win by default in any fight where we can both use magic.

Now if your Knights are elite trained and have double the HP of my peasants? I can't just blow them up so easily with magic, and maybe this is more of a fair fight for the resources being spent. That is why this mechanic works, and has worked for a very long time.

Exactly what I was going to say.  Yes, an elite knight in steel armor getting hit by 5 lightening bolts in a row offends my sensibilities too.  I would love to have a fantasy game that managed to take into consideration the frailty of the human body.  Doing that and creating a sophisticated, balanced game though is very, very difficult.  And if we end up with a game that satisfies and explains away all of our ancedotes about "what would happen in real life if"'s, it's much more likely we'd end up with a violently unbalanced mess than a playable game.  I would much rather risk suffering an implausible game than an unplayable game.

Well, given that miliary training is teaching you how to deal with Mass Kill situations, I don't know why Magic death is so special.  Depending on your scenario you could have anything from personal talismans to activate in defense, minor cantrips the troops memorize, etc.  Or it could be as basic as taking cover when you see lightning clouds or "always shoot at the guy with the pointy hat and stick"  

Unless you have a simplistic assumption about magic (it always works, works instantly, nothing protects against it), there is a lot that training could do for troops (consider Nuclear/Biological/Chemistry warfare). 

I wonder if they will have Tactics in the Research.  Perhaps types of bonus that scale with your unit size (ie. small bonus for <10, larger at 10-99, bigger >100)?  That would encourage Large armies rather than lots of smaller armies

Ren

My only problem with increased hit points from training is that I really think characters should get increased hitpoints from experience. It makes sense in my head that you have a well-armed well-trained green soldier who nonetheless has little survivability in combat versus a peasant who has been fighting all of his life and shrugs off battle wounds. In that way increased hitpoints is really more of a heroic thing than it is something that belongs to the grunts.

I don't think that humans should be able to survive getting stabbed in the face though... not really from anyone. Maybe you get major bonuses when attacking helpless people... something which should probably be the case anyway.

The core problem here really is the HP abstraction generally.  It is by far the least realistic damage model around, but it has worked for a long time as a way to make things fun.  You can always take the approach that the recent editions of D&D have done and say that HP isn't just the ability to take damage but also represents "heroic luck" coming into play.

Im pretty sure regular troops will be 1-5 strength while elite troops will be like 10-50 strength (imho), with perhaps some heroes getting up near the 100 range. Sovereign is probably only one with God-like 1000 hp, except for the really rare and powerful monsters.

Even elder dragon is only said to have 100 hp (im guessing a regular elder dragon, as opposed to some legendary gargantuan Elder Dragon of the Obsidian Plane)

A Wyvern I would think could have 10 attk 5 def and 20 stength.

Again, strength is a "life" stat that represents HP, SKILL (in attack and defense), LUCK, and UBERNESS

Based on the Frogboys statement I'm worried we'll end up with a game using the following model:

Basic Soldier 10Hitpoints

Trained Soldier 25Hitpoints

Advanced Soldier 45Hitpoints

Expert Soldier 70Hitpoints

Elite Soldier 100Hitpoints

Battles would not feel fun watching an elite enemy soldier wearing only leather fall asleep on the battlefield then two of my soldiers stick him with short swords and unable to kill him before he wakes up 3 turns later!  I'll be updating my original post with suggestions for fixing this issue hopefully tonight.

Dude, you're jumping the gun trying to 'fix' something before the whole system is even completely set up. If you're worried about elite soldiers being >>>> then peasants then thats a balancing issue and not something inherently wrong with the system. As well as something we should wait til we have some actual numbers instead of pulling them out of thin air and expecting the worst.

The point of mentioning this topic is for detailing the problem of using life as the solution for trained soldiers surviving many weak soldiers which is what Stardock indicated as their current intentions.  That's a pretty basic explanation it's not like Stardock provided a list of other variables.  The earlier a problem is addressed the easier it can be fixed.

The system is not 'broken' and need 'fixing' because you dont like it(which seems to be your main issue). The problems highlighted so far have been made up scenarios which may or may not have any relevance to actual game mechanics. We need actual details before conclusions can be made on how to fix something.

enough with the anti-HP crusade ... I would much rather see such a system implemented the way they decide to implement it once second beta comes around, nearby christmas. More detailed criticisms (extra state critiques included) can wait till then.

I think the only stats that effect not only individual units but the "entire flow of the battlefield" are morale and endurance, which can represent the levels of a soldier, unit, or army; as an example of how macro these stats truly are.

anyways, from some posts it seems possible a basic unit will have only 1 hp (which im perfectly fine with) ... where basic units are 1 hp, "good" units are 2 hp, and "elite" units are 5 hp. Of course, it all depends on how the system will be implemented. which is why its silly to have these arguments naow. And, in any case ... I am PERFECTLY fine with an all-encompassing HP/Strength stat. you seem to be obsessing over sleep spells and paralyze effects. Do you think a nervous peasant is going to know how to make a lethal blow on an opponent automatically? Perhaps even the initial miss/grazing wound would wake opponent from their effects. Perhaps a weaker unit will simply pass-out, and after the battle try to hobble away, or get taken prisoner (via victory screen), or enter the wilds and either become a wild man or get eaten. Either way, you don't have to focus on paralyze/ sleep spells.

Well, there are already some info about attributes and tactical combat being disclosed by Frogboy.  So I won't say it is too early to discuss.  Sure, we do not have complete picture, but why can't we discuss some concern we have now?  They are reading this forum.

From what Frogboy said so far about the STRength attribute, it has 2 purposes.   STR means:
1)  HP (traditional AD&D, when HP=0, it dies)
2)  the Number of units it can attack per turn

Because STR has more than 1 meanings, some of us will not like why training will improves both of these meanings.  And other do not like gaining EXP will improves on both of these meanings.   In OP, NTJedi express that it does not feel right that training will increases HP.  But maybe (just maybe) he will agree that more training can mean a soldier can attack more targets per turn.

Fusing 2 quite different concepts in one stat STR is not ideal.  For a lot of us here, HP has certain pre-defined quality because we have played D&D (or other games) that use the HP concept a lot.  This HP concept become less abstract to us.   For more causal gamers, the STRength stat is good enough for them in the suspension of believe.  

Should training increases HP?
Should gaining EXP increases HP?
Should training increases the # of attack it can perform?
Should gaining EXP increases the # of attack it can perform?

My answer is NO, Minor increase, Minor increase, Minor increase.  But i am sure everyone will have their answer & reason.

Or are the above 4 questions wrong questions?  Should the question be how can gaining EXP or training or HP or STR make the game more fun?

(And I only remembered SD say training will increase HP.  I can't recall SD say gaining EXP will increases HP.  I maybe wrong here, correct me if indeed)

Take into account if you are naming DnD that in the latest edition (4e) Hit Points aren't related anymore only to physical concepts, but also to other things like morale...

The numbers are pulled as examples the same as Frogboys example of 1000 hitpoints from the original post.  The point of this topic is saying that training equals life as the solution for making elite troops last longer is flawed.   I never said I had a problem with the best trained and best equipped troops shrugging off the large number of weak ones...  I have a problem with an elite soldier wearing leather who's sleeping like a puppy for 3 turns who remains alive after several soldiers were thrusting shortswords at his head.

Thanks for keeping an open mind climber and I also agree regarding the minor increases you mention.

armor will still protect a paralyzed unit for an attack round. Just not any defense skill. If you track my posts, initial posts wished a separation between Equipment based Attk/Def and Skill based Attk/Def.

However, I would like to temporarily part with old ideals and see how this works.

Now, by my reckoning essentially what the OP is asking for is a variation on the Warhammer system, instead of experience increasing the soldiers number of wounds (HP for those not familiar with Warhammer) it increases their weapon skill (an abstraction that covers your ability to attack and defend with melee weapons) so that stabbing someone through the face will still kill them, lesser units just have a harder time doing it (Other modifiers aside obviously).