TotA: (im)balance issues?

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi,

Since the races in TotA will now be radically different due to the individual tech trees, do you think that this will enhance or introduce imbalances between races?

Are balancing issues really obvious in TBS games compared to some RTS? I know that the relevance of the following example can be doubtful...

Take StarCraft for instance. Still today, 10 yrs on, it is lauded for its remarkable balance between the three playable races. Only three races, but excellent balance. Right.

Now. Another RTS, this time Dawn of War, apparently ruined by the introduction of severe imbas especially in the 2nd expansion Dark Crusade. Interestingly, DC also introduced 2 new playable races, bringing the number of playable races to 7.

On top of that, each patch has introduced more issues for the "fans" because they (the patches) were nerfing such unit (making them unplayable) and was buffing such unit. The latest expansion, Soulstorm, will not only introduce 2 new races (9 races in total) but also the new concept of flying units. The "fans" go berzerk: Heresy, feature creep, more "imba", you name it... :p

What I love about TotA is just that. No new race, but mainly an enhancement of the existing features, bug fixing, improvements, but AFAIK, no obvious "take from this race to give to another"  :)

But will this sophistication bring balance to the forces in action, or to the contrary, increase the imbalance? I think I read on this forum that the Korath was the race that was the most played because of the power of their spore ships. Do other races have a chance against them? :NOTSURE:

Please ear in mind that I am a casual player and a complete n00b :D

Thanks
6,952 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Every race has their setting that they will be "the race" to play. This means that some races are best on small maps and others on large. Some are better with team play, other's not. Some better with a crowded map, ....etc.

If you only play with the same game settings each time, you can assume that X race will be kicking people's butts or fold like a deck of cards.

Back in DL was the closest you would have gotten to each race being equal in every situation. Oddly enough though...the Iconians still suck. I may recall that statement after this next patch when the major race's get the AI overhaul.

Also, due to such differences between races, you can no longer play each race the same and expect the strategy to work. Iconians and Thalans really come to mind with their early game economic issues. They really play well later in the game...it's just getting to that point is rougher than others.

*edit*
Oh and the Korath are nasty in TA. It's not just their spore ships they received back in DA. Now they also have one HECK of a production machine to back those war efforts. IMHO the Dregin got the biggest shaft in the switch from DA to TA. They are still fairly similar to the Korath, but while the Korath leaped ahead with the other races, the Dregin seem to have been left bobbing in the water calling for help.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Unless my memory fails me, standard GC2 was relatively balanced. Some races were slightly better than others due to the race specific bonuses, but it wasn't a clear thing. The first real imbalances were introduced with the super abilities of Dark Avatar, and now they will most likely be increased with the individual tech trees. I guess that there won't be a clear winner that will be played in 90% of the difficult Metaverse submission games (at least I hope so), but there may well be a few which will dominate in this kind of games (!) because they're easier to play or fit certain styles of play.

I don't think this is a problem though. Since GC is singleplayer only, multiplayer balance is a non-issue fortunately. I judge the benefits of significantly different races higher than some monotony in the top something of the Metaverse. Persistent high-level gaming for the Metaverse usually is somewhat repetitive anyway (galaxy setup, racial abilities, strategy - all depending on personal style of course), racial imbalances won't make things much worse and don't affect those who don't care much about the Metaverse anyway. The benefit of TA for non MV-optimisers is greater choice, both for the race played by you and your opponents. You can choose the difficulty level both with the AI settings and the race you "have" to play against such and such enemy. As long as every race has a special something for some players, the effort of diversification will have been worth it.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
IMHO the Dregin got the biggest shaft in the switch from DA to TA. They are still fairly similar to the Korath, but while the Korath leaped ahead with the other races, the Dregin seem to have been left bobbing in the water calling for help.
End of quote


OK that's interesting. So according to you the 2 races that missed the buff train from DA to TA are the Iconians and the Drengins.

I suppose compared to the Korath, the Drengins seem...friendly :p

I like to play against random races and pray not to be pitted against the scary Korath (:(

Are imbas then strictly created by a "Scissors/Stone/Paper" situation, and the victory conditions/galaxy configurations?

Thanks for your input :)
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the prime example for a perfectly balanced situation, and as such it is the anti-example for an imba(lance).

It is more difficult to create a balanced game the more factions you have and the more different they are from each other. In GC2 you have, well, a lot of races now and there are going to be a lot of differences, read: it will be almost impossible to balance them out without sacrificing their diversity - and the latter won't happen because it was the target in the first place.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Unless I'm mistaken, the current TA beta hasn't yet been updated with any major changes to the AI, so that it knows how to make optimal use of the new "unique" racial techs. If that's true, then it's too early to know how evenly balanced the races will be, or if Stardock is aiming for perfect balance.

Even with optimized AI, the unique techs (especially the economic ones) may make some races more challenging for the player than others. That's fine by me, as long as the AI can still put up a decent fight when it's driving that faction. I like the kind of asymmetry you can get in single player strategy games, where you don't need perfect multiplayer balance, and some factions can be a lot harder to play than others. It's like having the choice in Medieval 2:Total War between playing a very easy faction like Spain, or a harder one like Hungary. Right now the TA beta Korath are Spain, and the Thalans are the Hungarians. :)
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Iconians have their use once they have got a foothold on their territory and economy. In the games I played as the Iconians, my fleets were hard pressed to be matched.

The Dregin are better suited still to smaller/quicker games due to their super ability and cheap factories.

Unfortunate for those two races, I often don't play in situations that would allow them to flourish. So my views on them may be skewed.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Drengin are, quite clearly, an inferior version of the Korath. I still feel that they are competitive in games without tech trading (which minimizes the effect of their diplomacy penalty. The Thalans are terribly underpowered. They can't get the MCC and don't have enough going for them to compensate even that loss, but they also have crippling pop growth and diplomacy penalities. Ouch. The Arceans may also be a slight touch weak, but that is very debatable. Other than that, every other race seems playable. If you were to ask me right now what race is strongest overall, I'm not sure I could decide between the Terrans, Korath, Drath, Torians, Yor and Iconians. I think it would come down to play style and galaxy setup. For instance, it's possible the Drengin will see some use in the Metaverse league, where small and tiny galaxies are common and the bonuses to speed and ground combat make a rush easier.

So basically, other than the Thalans (and to a lesser extent the Drengin and Arceans), I think Draginol has done a fantastic job of balancing the races. If it were multiplayer, like Starcraft, I imagine that a clear hiarchy would arise. But I would guess that we won't see one race dominating the metaverse and that each race can be competitive once they are through. I think that's about the best balance you could hope for with so many races that play so differently.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Most of my games are played as Thalans, Kyrnn and Korath all depending on my mood and how I wish to win.

I like the Thalans due to how different they are vs the other races. Really makes me feel I'm playing a different game.