Research: Fixes for bugs in the unit file [Archive]

hrvojej

02-24-2005, 16:40

*Disclaimer: I am not taking the credits for finding and/or fixing all of the things listed below, I am merely compiling a list of fixes in one place. Thanks to the people who found and/or fixed these, it certainly made my game better*

Ok, here are the fixes. Please remember to back up your files before attempting any changes. If you don’t happen to agree with some of these changes, I guess nobody is forcing you to make them. ~;) Though these are IMO things that are not working as intended, but in any case we can save the discussion for the Colosseum.

\Data\export_descr_building.txt file

1) Seleucids are able to recruit armoured elephants everywhere, and this fix limits them to recruiting only in provinces that have elephants as a resource present, just like any other elephant unit.

Under the entry for circus_maximus find the following line:

recruit "greek elephant cataphract" 0 requires factions { seleucid, }

change that to

recruit "greek elephant cataphract" 0 requires factions { seleucid, } and resource elephants

2) Praetorian cohorts are not limited to being recruited only after Marian reforms. This fix limits their recruitment to post-reform period.

Under the entry for imperial_palace find the following line:

recruit "roman praetorian cohort i" 0 requires factions { roman, }

change that to

recruit "roman praetorian cohort i" 0 requires factions { roman, } and marian_reforms

3) Thracian phalanx pikemen would be recruitable at the third tier barracks, but as you upgrade the barracks (or as the AI upgrades them for that matter), you are unable to recruit them any more. This fix enables the recruitment of phalanx pikemen for Thrace in all higher-level barracks.

Under the entries for army_barracks and royal_barracks find the following line:

recruit "greek pikemen" 0 requires factions { seleucid, macedon, }

change to

recruit "greek pikemen" 0 requires factions { thrace, seleucid, macedon, }

4) Cavalry auxilia are not limited to being recruited only after Marian reforms. This fix limits their recruitment to post-reform period.

Under the entries for cavalry_barracks, hippodrome and circus_maximus find the following line:

recruit "roman cavalry auxillia" 0 requires factions { roman, }

change to

recruit "roman cavalry auxillia" 0 requires factions { roman, } and marian_reforms

5) Gauls are able to recruit +1 experience naked fanatics in 1st level farming shrines (not temples, just first level shrines). Gauls do not have the ability to build farming temples at all, and it's only linked to shrines (not upgraded temples), so this fix eliminates that quirk.

Under the entry for temple_of_farming_shrine find the following line:

recruit "barb naked fanatics gauls" 1 requires factions { gauls, }

and delete it.

6) Spain has the ability to get Longshield cavarly in custom battles. They do not, however, possess the same ability in the campaign. This fix enables them to recruit Longshield cavarly in the campaign as well.

Under the entries for cavalry_barracks, hippodrome and circus_maximus find the following line:

recruit "carthaginian medium cavalry" 0 requires factions { ct_carthage, }

change to

recruit "carthaginian medium cavalry" 0 requires factions { ct_carthage, spain, }

7) Spain has the ability to get onagers in custom battles. They do not, however, possess the same ability in the campaign. This fix enables them to recruit onagers in the campaign as well.

Under the entries for archery_range, catapult_range and siege_engineer after the following line:

recruit "carthaginian peltast" 0 requires factions { spain, }

add this line

recruit "carthaginian onager" 0 requires factions { spain, }

\Data\export_descr_unit.txt file

8) Since 1.2, horse archers and related units are not able to fire on the move any more. This fix enables them to do so again, with a side-effect of changing the "ranged attack" cursor to spear-like one instead of the bow-like one. The fix for the elephant archers is still not known.

For the following unit types:

barb chariot light briton
barb horse archers scythian
barb horse archers slave
barb noble horse archers scythian
barb scythian noblewomen scythian
east persian cavalry
east cataphract archer
east horse archer
east chariot archer
egyptian bedouin
egyptian chariot archer
egyptian general's bodyguard early
rebel amazon chariots
merc horse archers
merc bedouin archers

find the line

stat_pri_attr no

change to

stat_pri_attr thrown

9) Since 1.2, generals upgrade their bodyguards after Marian reforms. However, this ability is missing for the special upgraded generals of Scythia and Pontus. This fix corrects that.

For the following unit types:

barb scythian general scythian
east pontic general

find the line

attributes sea_faring, general_unit, hide_forest, hardy

change to

attributes sea_faring, general_unit, hide_forest, hardy, general_unit_upgrade

\Data\descr_model_battle.txt file

10) Spanish family members appear on the battlefield wearing blue - a stark contrast to the brownish color of the rest of the army. This fix enables them to wear their faction's colors.

Find the following line:

;texture spain, data/models_unit/textures/officer_celt_general_spain.tga

change to

texture spain, data/models_unit/textures/officer_barb_general_spain.tga

\Data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_mercenaries.txt file

11) Due to the typo, one mercenary pool was missing the mercenary horse archers that were supposed to be there. The fix here corrects this by replacing the " ' " symbol with "1" in the entry where the maximum number of merc units is specified. Note: however, it could have been that the maximum umber of units was intended to be 2, we don't know.

Under the entry for pool Armenia find the following line:

unit merc horse archers, exp 0 cost 800 replenish 0.1 - 0.18 max ' initial 0

change to

unit merc horse archers, exp 0 cost 800 replenish 0.1 - 0.18 max 1 initial 0

Have fun! ~:)

edit: Added short descriptions of bugs and fixes.
Cheers,

vs the world

02-24-2005, 16:50

Good start to the thread, hrvojej, however can I suggest explaining what each of the fixes are supposed to change?

player1

02-24-2005, 20:54

4) Cavalry auxilia are not limited to being recruited only after Marian reforms. This fix limits their recruitment to post-reform period.

Under the entries for cavalry_barracks, hippodrome and circus_maximus find the following line:

recruit "roman cavalry auxillia" 0 requires factions { roman, }

change to

recruit "roman cavalry auxillia" 0 requires factions { roman, } and marian_reforms

I don't think CA intended to have them in post-marius time only.
Otherwise 1st stables upgrde, would give ZERO benefits (now it gives cavalry auxilla).
Other stables upgrades at least give better experience to Equites.

Simetrical

02-25-2005, 03:23

Desert Axemen have 2 shield points, but they don't have a shield in-game. To fix this, find the following line in export_descr_unit.txt for egyptian_infantry:

stat_pri_armour 5, 5, 2, metalAnd change it to:

stat_pri_armour 5, 5, 0, metal
Desert cavalry have a unit size of 40. All other cavalry (that I know of) have a unit size of 27. To fix this, find the following line in export_descr_unit.txt for egyptian_cavalry:

soldier egyptian_cavalry, 40, 0, 1And change it to:

soldier egyptian_cavalry, 27, 0, 1-Simetrical

Pode

02-25-2005, 07:25

I'd have sworn my desert axes had the same puny shield as the skirmshers. Mine have an armor line of

stat_pri_armour 0, 7, 3, flesh

They're wearing only a skirt (armor 0), are heavy infantry (defnese skill 7 similar to other non-elite but quality troops), are wearing the same small shield graphic as the skirms (shield 2), and now don't make that ridiculous plinking sound when arrows hit their invisible force fields. ~D

To atone for this nerfing, I made them the only one-handed axemen in the game with armor-piericng axes, so their attacks are 50% stronger vs armored troops (like Seleucid armored elephants and cataphracts, maybe?)

stat_pri_attr ap

Along the same lines, I removed the pharoah's guard's bonus for their invisible shield and gave 3 points to armor and 2 to def skill, but shield of 0, for no net nerf.

player1

02-25-2005, 10:54

Doesn't flavor text for custom battles says that DA are heavily armored troops?
Would that mean that CA intended them to be armored, but gave them a little problematic clothing.

Kraxis

02-25-2005, 15:32

Doesn't flavor text for custom battles says that DA are heavily armored troops?
Would that mean that CA intended them to be armored, but gave them a little problematic clothing.
It does indeed (now changed in mine)... But at the same time the normal description doesn't say anything about armour, but it does say they are good against armoured opponents. So you can take your pick. I just go with the look of the unit. I think more than one person was working on the DA and they got mixed up at some point.

I changed the DA and PG just like Pode did (interesting we did the same thing) but I made DA sound like flesh like Heavy Peltasts. And yes they do have shields.

Merc Beduin Archers are given a shield stat but they have none. To make up for the loss I gave them two points in def.

Pontic Phalanx Pikemen are only 40, the cost fits it, but I'm not certain that they are supposed to be smaller. In fact I think they are a relic of an earlier development that didn't get upgraded later on.

R3dD0g

02-27-2005, 00:54

3) Thracian phalanx pikemen would be recruitable at the third tier barracks, but as you upgrade the barracks (or as the AI upgrades them for that matter), you are unable to recruit them any more. This fix enables the recruitment of phalanx pikemen for Thrace in all higher-level barracks.

Under the entries for army_barracks and royal_barracks find the following line:
Code:

recruit "greek pikemen" 0 requires factions { seleucid, macedon, }

change to
Code:

recruit "greek pikemen" 0 requires factions { thrace, seleucid, macedon, }

In this change, should the header line

army_barracks requires factions { ct_carthage, armenia, pontus,, egyptian, greek, roman, }
be changed to include the thrace faction?

hrvojej

02-27-2005, 03:16

In this change, should the header line

be changed to include the thrace faction?
Nope - "greek" (as in Greek culture) includes Thrace as well.

Epistolary Richard

02-27-2005, 06:26

On the topic of some units have their Post-Marian tags omitted, I recall discussions over the fact that the Armenians, the Seleucids and the Numidians can build legionaries before the Romans can, even though they're supposed to have been copied from them.

Has a consensus been reached as to whether this was a 'feature', a mere oversight not worth correcting, or a bug?

HarunTaiwan

02-27-2005, 18:09

I guess you have to give them credit for having all this in the open...but its sucks to find this stuff out.

Kraxis

02-28-2005, 01:17

They also have the wrong shield. The unit graphic shows a hoplon aspis, while in game they have the tiny phalangite salad plate instead. They are getting +5 for the little shield...me thinks CA ran out of time and failed to make a specific model for them so they got stuck with the greek_pike_phalanx. There are quite a few units deserving unique skins/models who didn't get them. I originally didn't feel that the game was a complete rush job, but the more I look at the stats and graphics, the more I see how wrong I was.

Some of the same is probably true for some of the various units such as Bastarnae and some peltasts which are said to be unarmoured, but have greaves and helmets.

And let's not forget the Pharaoh's guard with +5 shield, but no shield. Incidentally, I'm relatively certain that the Desert Axemen were originally intended to use this same skin--hence the high armour stat in 1.0.
I'm tolly in line with your thoughts... It seems that there are more than a lot of units that seems to have been rushed, especially the Desert Axemen (their description doesn't even fit). At least the pontic pikemen have the correct description, but there are a number of other problems with them.
This might also explain why the barbarian units are the same (not in names per se, but in stats). I have made an effort to make the factions bettern in certain departments. For instance the Gauls have better armour than the others. The Germans are mixed in good attacks and stronger charges, the same is true for the Britons while the Dacians are the best defenders (in general, their Falxmen are better than the Thracians), while the Scythians have the best light cavalry (barbarians cavalry) by far.

Epistolary Richard

02-28-2005, 14:34

So potential issues for patch so far:

1) The bugs listed by hrvojej, which so far have been agreed with _except_:

2) Cavalry auxilia recruitable before marian reforms

also

3) Desert cavalry unit size larger than other cavalry

4) Pontic Phalanx pikement unit size smaller than other phalanxes

5) Non-Roman legionaries recruitable before marian reforms

6) Discrepancies between unit stats, graphics and descriptions (Desert Axeman, Pharoah's Guard, Merc Bedouin Archers)

I think we all agree that all of 1) are bugs and should go in the patch.

I agree that 2) is incongruous but, as player1 and Red Harvest said, I think it is intentional. I think CA wanted both pre-Marian and post-Marian Roman armies to have missile cavalry and therefore reused the same unit. It's just a shame they called them auxilia.

As I believe it was intentional it's not a bug and shouldn't be included in the patch.

3) & 4) if the cavalry and phalanx unit sizes are constant across _all_ the other types, then I'd agree these are bugs and should go in.

5) similar to 2) it could be the case that CA just wanted Armenia, Seleucia and Numidia to have some heavier infantry mid/late game and used the legionary across the board to save time. If, in spite of their description, they are meant to represent heavier infantry then tying them to the Marian Reforms shouldn't be done. :dizzy:

I can buy this in relation to Numidia and perhaps Armenia, but the Seleucid infantry is quite heavy enough, thank you. In their case, the Seleucid legionaries look like CA was intentionally trying to represent the model of warfare changing from the Hellenistic to the Roman. Therefore Seleucia shouldn't be able to create them before the Romans and they should be tied to the Marian Reforms. And if we tie one to the Reforms we've got to do them all. Bit silly to have the Numidians invent the legionary before everyone else. :rolleyes3:

IMO it's a bug and the fix should go in the patch.

(But against this, the issue was known about before v1.2 and CA didn't change it then so perhaps this is their intention or perhaps they didn't get round to it :dizzy2:)

6) I think the problems here are caused by game balancing and graphics being done separately. Ideally, these discrepancies shouldn't exist, but in trying to correct them we are left with a choice - do we make the stats fit the graphic or the graphic fit the stats?

These stats are obviously how CA intended these units to work, irrespective of the graphic. Changing the stats away from what they were supposed to be, as most fixes do, leads us into the realm of game balancing which I would assume to be beyond the scope of this patch.

(We should also consider that because armour/defence/shield ratings have different effects there are (as this thread has already shown) various different ways of correcting them, each of them as valid as the rest.)

So we should really be changing the graphic, but doing that is a whole new ball-game and probably even further beyond the scope of this patch.

Because I don't consider them bugs but they are nevertheless annoying, I suggest they be included in a second patch which would have a wider brief of correcting these stat/graphic discrepancies where more personal judgement is involved in the solution.

Such a patch could also do something about issues like the Roman cavalry auxilia, by creating a pre Marian version of the unit that was called something different (ie, not auxilia).

player1

02-28-2005, 21:36

3) & 4) if the cavalry and phalanx unit sizes are constant across _all_ the other types, then I'd agree these are bugs and should go in.

Well, this one is tricky.

But if you look a bit, you'll see that Brit chariots have size of 36, Selucid 18, and Egyptans 54, so not all things are of same size. Interesthing how egypt has both high stack size for chariots and cavalry. Maybe high stack cavalry is there to keep it an option compared to 54 stack chariots. Also look how smaller stack, but better stats Nile Cavalry has almost same cost as desert cavalry.

While there is some reasoning for cavalry, there are numerios infantry units of size 120, so why not have one such phalanx.

Personnaly, I'm not for altering this. At least not for a fix patch that should not alter the rule if probably working as intended.

I can buy this in relation to Numidia and perhaps Armenia, but the Seleucid infantry is quite heavy enough, thank you. In their case, the Seleucid legionaries look like CA was intentionally trying to represent the model of warfare changing from the Hellenistic to the Roman. Therefore Seleucia shouldn't be able to create them before the Romans and they should be tied to the Marian Reforms. And if we tie one to the Reforms we've got to do them all. Bit silly to have the Numidians invent the legionary before everyone else. :rolleyes3:

Don't forget that highest level Selucid barrack upgarde won't do the thing if legions are not there. Same thing to other nation legons. Removing them gives emptiness on some barrack levels.

So, no, no if you ask me.

player1

02-28-2005, 23:11

Many Selucid pike units also have 120 stak size, so one such Pontus unit is NOT a bug.

And forget my "chariot rant", I just realized that different chariots have different number of crew.

As for Desert Axeman, it has mostly worse stats then Numbian Cavalry, with only armor piercering as redeeming quality, but it still costs 540, compared to 420 gold for Numbians.

So, I would say weird stack, but still balanced.

Kraxis

03-01-2005, 00:29

Many Selucid pike units also have 120 stak size, so one such Pontus unit is NOT a bug.

As for Desert Axeman, it has mostly worse stats then Numbian Cavalry, with only armor piercering as redeeming quality, but it still costs 540, compared to 420 gold for Numbians.

So, I would say weird stack, but still balanced.
Ok the Seleucid phalanx units that are smaller are the Militia Hoplites. All hoplites are fewer than the pikeformations. All but the Pontic pikes. That seems odd to me. About the Desert Cavalry (not Desert Axemen people)... AP is very powerful. Remove half of any unit's armour. Imagine that against the Cataphracts or Armoured Hoplites... Nasty! But obviously the DC needs to be made cheaper at smaller sizes. And since they are available earlier (aren't they?) it is perfectly ok that they are weaker.

player1

03-01-2005, 00:48

Still, it's the cost that makes them balanced (not to mention their pathetic charge bonus).
Reduce the stack, reduce the cost.

Although I see it more as a modwork, then a fixwork.

hrvojej

03-01-2005, 00:58

I don't know why all the fuss about the unit sizes? They seem to have a logic behind them for me. Egyptian units (you all seem to have forgotten the bowmen, btw) represent Egypt's manpower - the ability to raise a large number of levies quickly. They basically overwhelm you, not with quality, but with numbers. And increasing unit size is one of the viable ways to simulate this.

Pontic pikemen are the only phalanx pikemen not recruited by a Greek culture faction. So, less people is trained to fight like phalangites, hence making the units smaller. Again, basically a (specialized) manpower issue. If you want, you could even rationalize it by stating that the lowest-tier units of Pontus are not hoplites/phalangites either, so not enough people are trained to fill the ranks later.

And nobody mentioned Scythian noble women, a 18 (wo)men unit of cavalry. Again, makes sense to me. How many noble women warriors would they have as opposed to noble men warriors?

And what about the specialized units having 12, 16, etc. men? I don't think we want to go there with something that should evolve into a "community patch". Those are tweaks based on a preference, not fixes, IMHO.

Simetrical

03-01-2005, 01:00

Out of precisely fifty cavalry units (not counting generals, elephants, or chariots, but counting camels and duplicate units), two have a unit count other than 27—Scythian Noble Women, with 18, and Desert Cavalry, with 40. Unless somebody can come up with anything that sets these two units apart from the 96% of cavalry that have a unit size of 27, I think they should be changed (but with no changing of their other stats).

It's sorta similar with long_pike units, with two important (but related) differences: there are only five units in the game with long pikes, and the percentage that has the "standard" unit size is therefore a lot lower (80%). Also, the Pontic pikemen were also clearly intended to be inferior (-110 cost, -80 upkeep, and same building level), but their +3 shield makes them strictly superior to ordinary Phalanx Pikemen if their number is raised (and even if you remove that, they'd still be strictly better than Greek pikemen due to the cost). Based on this, I think that a unit size of 40 is in keeping with the developers' intent.

-Simetrical

Epistolary Richard

03-01-2005, 16:51

Non-Roman Legionaries

Don't forget that highest level Selucid barrack upgarde won't do the thing if legions are not there. Same thing to other nation legons. Removing them gives emptiness on some barrack levels.

The highest level barracks would only be empty pre-Marian reforms. After the Marian reforms you could build non-Roman legionaries normally.

I've gone back and forth a bit on this one, but given the numerous references to them being "copies of the Roman originals" (which admittedly is not conclusive) I just can't get behind the possibility of the Numidians being the first to field the legionary. It's just illogical, captain. :vulcan:

Small Pontic Pikemen
There's been some good stat analysis, and while that's not the be-all and end-all I feel pretty comfortable with the smaller unit size.

@ Kraxis, what are your thoughts in light of the previous posts?

Large Desert Cavalry
I note the point about the Scythian noblewomen, but I would consider that it would be far more likely that a rogue 40 could find its way in there, rather than an 18.

But equally, their higher cost over the Nubian cavalry must contribute to something if they should be the same size as other cavalry units.

I think where it's not clear if it's a bug or not we have to err on the side of caution and leave the game as is.

Cavalry Auxilia
Any other comments?

@ hrvojej, I know you just reported it, but are you happy that perhaps they're supposed to be recruitable pre-Marian and that Auxilia is just an unfortunate name?

hrvojej

03-01-2005, 19:20

I am of an opinion that the abberant unit sizes are intentional. As I said, it has a logic behind it for me, and also the associated costs match the sizes.

I'm ok with having cav auxilia pre-Marius, though this is something that will remain changed in my own game.

Also, Illyrian mercs are missing their skirmisher mount effects. Though here I'm not sure whether they should have them or not.

I think where it's not clear if it's a bug or not we have to err on the side of caution and leave the game as is.

I agree 100% with Richard on this.

Kraxis

03-01-2005, 23:59

Small Pontic Pikemen
There's been some good stat analysis, and while that's not the be-all and end-all I feel pretty comfortable with the smaller unit size.

@ Kraxis, what are your thoughts in light of the previous posts?

Interestingly the pontic pikes are given the skin called east_hoplite, that added to the point that they have a shield bonus of 5 and a smaller size that does not fit the normal pike size, but rather the hoplite size, makes me believe it was intended to be a hoplite from the get go. At some point various devs and designers went their seperate ways. We have already seen the results of that with the Desert Axemen.
If it is because of the smaller population for a greek heritage I think we are taking a very wrong road. First of all there lived lots and lots of greek people in the old colonies, often themselves quite large cities. Plenty of population for a phalanx of pikes.
Second, this should also apply to the Seleucid Empire. There were macedonian and greek colonists but they were not enough to supply the empire with its needs (and they were great).

So I agree that the pontic pikes are intentionally made this way, but only due to several people pulling them each way and never getting the full control of the unit.

Large Desert Cavalry
I note the point about the Scythian noblewomen, but I would consider that it would be far more likely that a rogue 40 could find its way in there, rather than an 18.

But equally, their higher cost over the Nubian cavalry must contribute to something if they should be the same size as other cavalry units.

I think where it's not clear if it's a bug or not we have to err on the side of caution and leave the game as is.
Indeed... We have already seen one case of a person mixing up Desert Cavalry and Desert Axemen. I find it very possible that he is not the first case. And 40 is after all the size of the Desert Axemen.
Also it is the normal practice that the devs work at different jobs. So some create the unit, some give it stats and some balance the units with costs at some point (hopefully after some balancetesting). So if a dev in the stat department by accident made the Desert Cavalry bigger the next guy in the cost department wouldn't know something odd was up, so he would just give them a 'correct' cost. This of course applies to the pontic pikes as well.

About the immitation legionaries.
None of them were really made post-Marius. The Seleucids fell long before Marius was even a grown man. Numidia had become more of a special province and Armenia had been noticing the Roman advance against the Seleucids.
But given the Silver Shields are made to look like Legionary Cohorts I think it is far too much work to make them into a less able unit (would need another skin). Also this way they become a nice special unit. The Armenian and Numidian legionaries fit well enough and thus I see no need to change their recruitment.
Also we should not put too much emphasis on the name 'Legionaries'. While the later Roman infantry was called that they were also called that prior to Marius. They just had a specific name that told people where they stood in the line (there is a logic to the names). Hastati, Principes and Triarii existed long after Marius had died, but by then in name only. As the allied infantry was arrayed in cohorts rather than legions it was only the Roman troops that could be called legionaries, and since they were now all the same it made sense to be calling them legioanries rather than Hastati, Principes and Triarii (those terms were most likely relegated to a strictly military parlor at high command when discussing tactics and strategy).

Epistolary Richard

03-02-2005, 15:35

So I agree that the pontic pikes are intentionally made this way, but only due to several people pulling them each way and never getting the full control of the unit.
...
Also it is the normal practice that the devs work at different jobs. So some create the unit, some give it stats and some balance the units with costs at some point (hopefully after some balancetesting). So if a dev in the stat department by accident made the Desert Cavalry bigger the next guy in the cost department wouldn't know something odd was up, so he would just give them a 'correct' cost. This of course applies to the pontic pikes as well.

Hmmm... if this is the case then it would make it very difficult to determine what the original design intention was behind the unit because the costing will actually be balanced for the 'flawed' stats.

Nevertheless, we do what we can.

I think that we've come to a consensus on the following:
Roman Cavalry Auxilia - misleading name but not intended to be Post-Marian only and therefore shouldn't be changed in the community patch
Pontic Pikemen - incongruous unit size might be there for various reasons but the lower costing implies a smaller unit and therefore shouldn't be changed in the community patch

That being said, I'll certainly be looking to make some adjustments to my own personal game from the issues raised so far.

Large Desert Cavalry
I've done a side-by-side on this:

Desert Cavalry Nubian cavalry
unit size 40 27
mount light medium
primary 7, 3, mace 9, 8, spear
attr ap
secondary 0 9, 3, sword
pri armour 344 leather 064 flesh
sec armour 00 flesh 01 flesh
mental 4, trained 8, untrained
cost 540 420

The Nubian cavalry seems pretty much superior in every respect (though slightly slower and more vulnerable to being shot at) apart from the ap ability.

The question is: do people think that the ap ability on its own makes up for the lower attack (7 lower charging, 2 lower in combat), 50% lower mental and is worth an extra 29% on the unit cost?

IMO no. So I think the 40 may have gone in by accident, but the cost has obviously been determined with the 40 unit size in mind.

Non-Roman legionaries

As for the legionaires...this one is tricky, because the basis for them is really Roman influence in their regions. When Rome began to enlist areas as allies, they started raising some of their own legions. Some of this predates the reforms (in the case of Numidia and perhaps Greece IIRC.) I don't think there is a single "correct" answer.

But given the Silver Shields are made to look like Legionary Cohorts I think it is far too much work to make them into a less able unit (would need another skin). Also this way they become a nice special unit. The Armenian and Numidian legionaries fit well enough and thus I see no need to change their recruitment.

I'm happy to concede this one. Damn silly to have all the references to them being copies of the Roman original though.

So, not for the community patch, but like hrvojej's cavalry auxilia I'll keep this one for my personal game.

Sarmatian Mercenaries
Let's have a look at this one. Sarmatian Mercenaries are obviously supposed to be identical to Scythian Noblemen and they are, except that they're missing:

mount_effect elephant -8, camel -4
which is common across all other cavalry.
So, I agree with this. It's a bug and should be fixed.

Illyrian Mercenaries
I agree with this one as well. All the other peltast types have:

mount_effect elephant +6, chariot +6
apart from the Illyrian mercenaries. It's a bug and should be fixed.

And another one to consider
Wardogs
Much as I'd like to see the mangey mutts put out of their misery...
As far as I can tell, the dogs resource doesn't do anything. To recruit camels, you need the camels resource; to recruit elephants, you need the elephants resource, but to recruit dogs you don't need the dogs resource.

I would suggest adding the dogs resource requirement to all the wardogs entries in export_descr_buildings:

recruit "barb wardogs briton" 0 requires factions { britons, } and resource dogs

player1

03-02-2005, 17:31

Sarmatian Mercenaries
Let's have a look at this one. Sarmatian Mercenaries are obviously supposed to be identical to Scythian Noblemen and they are, except that they're missing:

mount_effect elephant -8, camel -4
which is common across all other cavalry.
So, I agree with this. It's a bug and should be fixed.

Well, elephants and camels are supposed to scare horses, so it is indeed a bug.

Illyrian Mercenaries
I agree with this one as well. All the other peltast types have:

mount_effect elephant +6, chariot +6
apart from the Illyrian mercenaries. It's a bug and should be fixed.

Don't agree.

They don't have in their description bonus agains elephants and chariots, compared to other peltasts.

So they are really supposed to be special in some way.

Epistolary Richard

03-02-2005, 18:15

It's a good point. We have seen discrepancies with descriptions before, but at least it's one piece of evidence towards their intention.

I thought it may have something to do with the formation as I believe the bonus is supposed to represent the fact that elephants and chariots are less effective against loosely formed skirmishers who can jump out the way and throw spears at them. The formation for most peltasts are 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 3, square whereas Illyrian mercenaries are 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square.

There are however two other units with that formation (Heavy Peltasts and Mercenary Peltasts) and they both still get the mount bonus.

hrvojej

03-02-2005, 18:30

The unit "barb archer slave" has an officer associated with it, in the line

officer barb_warguard

whereas none of the other archer warbands has an officer. The officer turns up wrongly anyway, as a blue chosen swordsman. I think this line should be deleted, or at least an officer should be changed (maybe to barb_standard, but I don't think so, since none of the regular, i.e. not chosen, archer warbands have one).

Epistolary Richard

03-02-2005, 19:40

It's definitely atypical for higher-tier units to cost less than ones beneath them as in this case. I might play around with the numbers a bit tomorrow to see if we can get a rough idea on weighting.

player1

03-02-2005, 23:36

No. You have cause and effect backwards. Part of the description is pulled from the stat change. If you mod them you will see the bonus description in their stats (I have only modded their mount effects, and now the info is in the description, which I did not touch.) If you delete the mount effects from other units, the description disappears. Part of the description is generated from the stats file. Morale and stamina descriptions should work the same way.

The weapon type is the key. Javelin skirmishers were effective against both types of units. My guess is that some of the merc units were added early (or late) with standard stats and not rechecked with final stats for uniformity.

That is a good point, maybe it's bug after all.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 00:06

To an extent I'm not so willing to make the Illyrians good against the eles and the chariots. I guess it is because the Illyrians are the best skirmishers out there and they are in fact a sort of factional unit for a faction that does not exist.
So there is a small penalty for hiring the best skirmishers. I kind of like that. But of course looking at it rationally they should have the bonusses.

I'm positive the Desert Cav are wrongly too big. The same goes for the pontic pikes. And yes AP is worth the weaker attack and charge (they have better defense). More than a lot of units have more than 4 in armour (which is the threshold for making the AP worthwhile compared to the Nubians) and those that have not are often brittle enough to break at the same time. So I think AP is very much stronger than it was in MTW (maybe because there is no lower limit like there was in MTW and armour can go much farther up this time).
There is no doubt in my mind that I would rather have a unit of Desert Cav than a unit of Nubian Cav when facing a unit of Legionaries, or even a unit of plain normal hoplites. And this is with the smaller size. But of course their cost is wrong for a smaller size, but I have already argued why that might be so.

All in all we can only speculate on how things are supposed to be. Who knows... the devs might have been drunk and thus have made the units as they are intendedly with every little oddity there is.

drone

03-03-2005, 00:49

If descr_regions.txt contains the actual resources available to a region, should the export_descr_buildings.txt be modified to limit wardogs and flaming pigs to regions with dogs and pigs? Assuming you haven't already modded them out, of course... ~D

So for stables, cavalry_barracks, hippodrome, and circus_maximus:

recruit "barb wardogs briton" 0 requires factions { britons, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs dacian" 0 requires factions { dacia, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs gaul" 0 requires factions { gauls, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs german" 0 requires factions { germans, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs scythian" 0 requires factions { scythia, } and resource dogs
recruit "roman wardogs" 0 requires factions { roman, } and resource dogs
and for hippodrome, and circus_maximus:

recruit "greek incendiary pigs" 0 requires factions { greek_cities, } and resource pigs
recruit "roman pigs" 0 requires factions { roman, } and resource pigs
Would this require

hidden resource dogs
hidden resource pigs
at the top with the sparta line?

I think this is probably in line with what the developers wanted.

If you don't like the v1.2 doggie brigade, you could leave dogs to be buildable, but change the descr_regions file to limit where they could be recruited. Any regions historically known for their wardogs?

Simetrical

03-03-2005, 04:29

One thing I want to add about the disputed unit sizes and cost: I am of the opinion that cost and upkeep were determined via some sort of formula based on stats.I really doubt it. Notice how they changed some of the costs with both the 1.1 and 1.2 patches? I don't think they'd have done that if they had a hard-and-fast costing system. Probably the costs were just eyeballed—there's no reason to think otherwise.

Would this require

hidden resource dogs hidden resource pigsat the top with the sparta line?No, because the resources aren't hidden.

Any regions historically known for their wardogs?War dogs, in the RTW sense, didn't exist. A few were probably brought along with a lot of armies for hunting, guard duty, whatever, but there are no records that anyone's been able to come up with about the use of dogs en masse in battle for any purpose whatsoever. So no, no regions were historically known for their war dogs.

-Simetrical

Epistolary Richard

03-03-2005, 15:23

Woof woof snort snort

If descr_regions.txt contains the actual resources available to a region, should the export_descr_buildings.txt be modified to limit wardogs and flaming pigs to regions with dogs and pigs? Assuming you haven't already modded them out, of course... ~D

Yes, I completely forgot about the pigs (having never used them or had them used against me), but yes throw the bacon on the grill as well!

So dogs and pigs should be limited to provinces with the dogs and pigs resources, in the same way as camels and elephants. Now, dogs and pigs are pretty much everywhere anyway, so the impact would be minimal, but this will at least prevent the barbarian nations recruiting wardogs in the middle of deserts.
Where's a pig smiley when you really want one?

AFAIK the dogs & pigs resources serve no purpose at the moment, so I think it must have been the designers' intention to limit recruitment to those provinces.

But as Simetrical says, as they're resources anyway, like camels and elephants, they don't need to be added to the top of export_descr_buildings as far as I'm aware.

Illyrian mercenaries
I think we're settled that their missing mount effects are a bug?

Rogue barb_archer_slave officer
I agree this is a bug and the line should be deleted.

Thracian bodyguards
Kraxis raised this at the beginning:

Thracian normal and upgraded bodyguards are the same. Well they use the same stats... Maybe not a bug, but a very odd feature as all other factions gets upgraded.
... but it's not been commented on. Is this a bug? If it is, what's the fix?

A couple more 'hard' errors to consider:

Skinny Seleucid Legionaries
Seleucid Legionaries only have mass 1 whereas all other legionaries (including Armenian and Numidian) have mass 1.3.

Macedon Royal Pikemen
Only have the spear attribute and not the long_pike attribute as well. Both lower levels of Macedon pikemen (levy and phalanx) have both spear and long_pike attributes.

Invisible mounts
Many infantry units have the following line:
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh even though the narrative at the top of the export_descr_unit says that these are only for mounts (and indeed that ridden horses are not supposed to have a separate defence).

These units include:
All legionaries (including non-Roman)
Hastati
Principes
Spartans
Chosen Archers
Foresters
Scutarii
Bull Warriors
Merc Cilician Pirates
Merc Spanish Infantry

Back to more judgemental areas:
Pontic Phalanx Pikemen

If it is because of the smaller population for a greek heritage I think we are taking a very wrong road. First of all there lived lots and lots of greek people in the old colonies, often themselves quite large cities. Plenty of population for a phalanx of pikes.

Though we've kind of settled that this is an ill-designed unit that's nevertheless been costed correctly, it's even stranger that the lower level pike unit should be kept at 40, while the elite pike unit, the Bronze Shields - which would presumably be even more specialised manpower - should be 60.

I agree with Red that a costing formula was applied to incorrect stats - leaving us with a 'fair' cost for the unit, despite it not fitting in with the rest. Again, I would suggest we look to include a larger, more expensive, pike unit in a potential 2nd community patch (to mod all those 'left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing issues').

I really doubt it. Notice how they changed some of the costs with both the 1.1 and 1.2 patches? I don't think they'd have done that if they had a hard-and-fast costing system. Probably the costs were just eyeballed—there's no reason to think otherwise.
It wouldn't have been had-and-fast but the simplest way for them to derive the original costing for their units would have been a formula based on attributes. We can already tell from the identical costs for the same unit between different factions that they didn't do any faction balancing (ie, how much that unit is worth to that particular faction).

There will have been some stat changes after the costing formula and some rounding differences and so forth, but my preliminary work on infantry costing is actually looking vaguely promising but that's a conversation for a different thread.

hrvojej

03-03-2005, 16:19

Macedon Royal Pikemen
Only have the spear attribute and not the long_pike attribute as well. Both lower levels of Macedon pikemen (levy and phalanx) have both spear and long_pike attributes.

Actually, when you look at them, they are not really pikemen at all. They look like and are more like hoplites - they have shorter spears, larger shields, and a unique soldier model. In short, they are hypaspists, not just run-of-the mill sarissaphoroi, but unfortunatelly had been named "pikemen" which is a bit confusing.

edit:
Speaking of which, do we think we should do something about the mount effect of eastern heavy spearmen (in the text file "east heavy infantry")? They are the only phalanx-capable unit in vanilla that have those. Again, I can see some logic behind it, but it is also fairly obvious that it doesn't fit with the general theme.

player1

03-03-2005, 18:59

Well, I'm only for those fixes that are clear that they are errors.

Anythibng that is shady should not be changed (exempt in the mod). Like many of these oditties from last post.

P.S.
About Thracian bodyguard:
Well, maybe CA though that they only need reskinning after Marius.

player1

03-03-2005, 19:15

About Rolyal Pikemen:

In their historical description it explicitly says that they carried "shorter hoplite spears". No bug.

player1

03-03-2005, 19:20

About invisible mounts:
If they serve no purpose why modify them?
If they do serve some purpose, then since so many units have them, CA intentionaly put it there and thus is hardly a bug.

Skinny Seleucid Legionaries:

Is this even noticable in the game?
If not, why just bother with them at all?

player1

03-03-2005, 19:32

Let's see. Post marius legions have 1.3 mass.
Pre-marius hastati and triarii have mass 1, while principes 1.3, although triaii looks heavier.

The points is, that if we start looking all unit masses resonable, there will be lots of disparencies.

Similar to units with no shields have shield bonus problem.

I would leave that to mods, and keep fixes to obvious, easy fixable errors.

Epistolary Richard

03-03-2005, 19:33

Actually, when you look at them, they are not really pikemen at all. They look like and are more like hoplites - they have shorter spears, larger shields, and a unique soldier model. In short, they are hypaspists, not just run-of-the mill sarissaphoroi, but unfortunatelly had been named "pikemen" which is a bit confusing.

Yes, that was my wrong presumption. I found the following in the unit description:

The tough royal pikemen carry the shorter hoplite thrusting spear

Invisible mounts

About invisible mounts:
If they serve no purpose why modify them?
If they do serve some purpose, then since so many units have them, CA intentionaly put it there and thus is hardly a bug.
I don't know if they're impacting the game or not, which is why I've raised it as a discrepancy. As for the "there are so many units that have them therefore it must be intentional" argument, you can make the same argument concerning the dogs & pigs and the horse archers.
No dog or pig unit requires the dog or pig resource, so therefore it was never CA's intention to make them require it. However, in that case, what is the purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?
Horse archers, none of them are able to fire on the move anymore, therefore it must have been CA's intention to limit their abilities from v1.1. Several posters have cogently argued that this in fact was the case. Nevertheless, when v1.2 came out it was considered a bug.

Seleucid Legionaries

Let's see. Post marius legions have 1.3 mass.
Pre-marius hastati and triarii have mass 1, while principes 1.3, although triaii looks heavier. The points is, that if we start looking all unit masses resonable, there will be lots of disparencies. Similar to units with no shields have shield bonus problem.

It's not a matter of trying to make the mass reasonable with how the unit 'looks', it's a matter of bringing it into line with near identical units, just as we're doing with the Illyrians and the Sarmatians. If you can convince me that CA intended Seleucid legionaries to be mass 1 when Armenian, Numidian and Roman legionaries are mass 1.3 then I'd be happy to agree with you.
:medievalcheers:

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 22:53

Mass is very important as it determines very well who can push who back.
If a unit of Seleucids face off with a Legionary Cohort they will end up losing badly eventhough they have equal stats.
Mass is also important in charges as it determines how long a charge carries on. Of course this is most visible with the cavalry. Why do you think weak cavalry like Militia Cavalry can charge down most light infantry... MASS!
The barb swordsmen have a 1.5 figure of mass which I find totally in common with the tough charger and the strong warriors they are.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 23:46

Don't forget the merc Bastarnae, they are even 'lighter' than the Thracian Mercs (1 compared to 1.2). That can't be right. They should be 1.5 or at least 1.2. This might explain why I have feared sending them against cavalry, as they keep getting beaten up. And they are horrible in pushing through a contested gate.

Jambo

03-04-2005, 00:15

Good stuff guys!

Word on the Greek Royal Pikemen - they aren't supposed to be long_pike (official word from the powers that be). :)

player1

03-04-2005, 00:51

Invisible mounts

I don't know if they're impacting the game or not, which is why I've raised it as a discrepancy. As for the "there are so many units that have them therefore it must be intentional" argument, you can make the same argument concerning the dogs & pigs and the horse archers.
No dog or pig unit requires the dog or pig resource, so therefore it was never CA's intention to make them require it. However, in that case, what is the purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?

Purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?
Probably a leftover of badly descigned idea.

Seleucid Legionaries

It's not a matter of trying to make the mass reasonable with how the unit 'looks', it's a matter of bringing it into line with near identical units, just as we're doing with the Illyrians and the Sarmatians. If you can convince me that CA intended Seleucid legionaries to be mass 1 when Armenian, Numidian and Roman legionaries are mass 1.3 then I'd be happy to agree with you.
:medievalcheers:

Well, my main probelm with is is if we change this for SelLegions, then when will we stop. We'll start questioning Trarii, then Bastarnae, then some other unit until we're all gone in the happey land of modland.

In this particular case, it's pretty likely that it could be just a typo, but my main case is drawing a line, when other units start to get questioned for the same thing.

player1

03-04-2005, 00:52

Delving into meddling with stats that drift into the modding category: cilician pirates and "horde." The horde formation really makes their pila unusable with default stats. It makes their effective range about 10 meters using default projectile ranges and only "large" unit size. Range is set by using the rear of the missile formation to the middle of the enemy unit from what I can tell. With horde and untrained they are spread all over the place. They have no defense to speak of, so they really do need some opportunity to use their pila. They should be switched to "square" and left with their untrained stat. Yes, this would fall into the tinkering category, but I doubt CA intended to make their pila unusable.

Well they are suppsed to be a bunch of disorganized pirates...

player1

03-04-2005, 01:27

It's pretty possible that Bull Warriors have low mass to balance out their double hit points, and full 80 man stack.
Just consider what would happen if they had both good mass and 2hps. Nasty!

As far as Triarii, it's pretty possibile that it got 1.0 rating since 1.0 got most spear/hoplite/pike-like units.

Anyway, when I think about it, in case Selucid Legions, it's pretty possibile that it's indeed typo and should be 1.3
Also, the same thing for Bastarnae Mercenaries (to 1.2).

So count me in, in labeling those 2, and only those 2 unit masses as bug.
What convinved me, was that all other similar units had standardized mass size.

player1

03-04-2005, 11:58

player1,

If you believe that there is a clearly marked boundary for where something is a fix and where it is a mod, you are mistaken. CA obviously had a system and methodology to much of this, but in some cases they failed to follow it, or made typos, or some things were overlooked or changed at a later date.

Well, I think some things are obvious, while some othert things are less obvious. Change obvius errors in the fix, change less obvious ones, or those that can be changed in mutiple ways, in personal mod.

Your argument on Bull Warriors runs into trouble because several other 2 hit point melee units have masses of 1.2 and 1.3. The others that have 1's are velite gladiators and arcani--both specialty units outside the realm of heavy infantry. Personally, I don't see how a 2 hit point elite melee heavy infantry unit wouldn't be able to have fairly high push capabilities. In fact, it seems backward to me that they can't. Again, this is the same sort of problem as the phalanx mass. But as I said, I'm not saying all of these should be changed in this attempt to fix more obvious errors. I was just illustrating inconsistencies. Should they be changed as a standard practice in other mods to make them more realistic? Yes, I am certain of that.

Of course, no other 2hp units have 80 people in the stacks, usually 40 or even less.
Both 2hp and high stack count means that they could survive enemy push with few loses, while some other 1hp unit would die easily.

Kraxis

03-04-2005, 15:05

player1

03-04-2005, 20:18

player1, you forget that the Bull Warriors cost almost as much as the Spartan Hoplites, but are clearly weaker (no phalanx). The Spartans have 1.3 in mass, 2 hitpoints and a full unit of men. Why haven't the Bull Warriors got the mass? The argument falls to the floor.

Don't forget that Spartans can only be built on very few places. And Bull Warriors have their javelins too, and are fast moving.

There is a consistency of heavy infantry having 1.3 in mass for civilized factions and 1.5 for barbs (the Spanish are a bit off as their Scutarii, light infantry, have 1).

Well, Scutari have lighter armor then Hastat (1.3) for example. ~;) And don't look much different then Iberian Infantry (also mass 1).

Also, it's not all just matter of consistency.
It is a question is something a bug, or maybe deliberate.
Otherwise we'll end up changing all shield and armor values for many units, stack sizes and what else. then we'll get maybe more consitent rules, but it won't be anymore original rules, it would be a MOD.

For Bastarnae Mercenaries, or Selucid Legions it was easy to prove that they are bugs since they are modeled on units which have almost same stats.

Bull Warriors, on the other hand are unique.
They have 2hp, so can survive enemy charges, they have javelins so they can soften up enemies before closing, they are fast and they have full unit stack. I haven't seen other barbarian units with similar set of abilities.

Or maybe CA though that Bull Warriors are just power up of Scutari, so they should have same mass? That's some consistency too. They don't look more "massive" then Scitari.

Intersting to note that exempt "generic" Naked Fanatics, all Spanish Infantry has low mass (1 or less). Also, exempt fanatics, all Spanish Infantry is organized civilized infantry. Could be deliberate.

And the Cilicians need the square formation as their are close to useless in horde. They are indeed ill disciplined pirates, but most horse archers were ill disciplined and many ofthe cavalry units would be too. But do we say that those should be put in horde? No.
The Cilicians were meant to be able to use their pila as that is about the only saving grace about them. In horde that becomes impossible. Thus they are very overpriced and very much not like they were intended to be.

Very subjective matter. Difference between bug and unusual stats (or ill design).

For example, I like them having represented by horde and don't consider that a bug, even if it makes when not fully effective with their pilla.

Changing from horde to square is power up of the unit.
And powering up, is something you do when you try to do balance changes, like when make a mod, not when you just want to fix obvious bugs that don't threaten current balance state of the game.

And it's not like they don't fire their pila. They fire them nicely, and it looks to me that their range is no less then legionary pilla. And horde formation is used to make them vulnerable on defense, chaning it would change "how unit works".

P.S.
Note that I don't have anything against MODs.
I just think that there are many players that want some bugs fixed, but don't want "messing with ruleset" or changing balance state of original game.

We could make community mod later for that...

Epistolary Richard

03-04-2005, 21:36

Well, I think we’re making good progress here. Great to see so many issues arising so that this patch will have a real purpose (and the other hand, it’s a bit scary to see so many as well).

So now we’re on our third page let’s just summarise where we’ve got to:
Consensus
1) Seleucids should only be able to build armoured elephants in provinces with the elephant resource.
2) Praetorian cohorts should be limited to post-Marian period.
3) Thracian pikemen should not disappear from their third tier barrack.
4) Remove reference Gaul naked fanatics from farming temples when Gauls are unable to build farming temples.
5) Spain should have the ability to build longshield cavalry in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
6) Spain should have the ability to build onagers in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
7) Horse archers (et al.) should be able to move and fire.
8) Upgraded general units for Scythia and Pontus should be activated by Marian reforms.
9) Spanish family members should wear brown and not blue.
10) Mercenary horse archers should appear in Armenia.
11) Sarmatian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
12) Illyrian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
13) Rebel archer unit should not have a Briton chosen swordsman as officer.
14) Seleucid legionaries should have mass 1.3.
15) Bastarnae mercenaries should have mass 1.2.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, please speak up! ~;)

Matters unaddressed/still under discussion
Non-upgraded Thracian bodyguard
Limitation of dog and pig recruitment to provinces with those resources
edit Whether Eastern Heavy Spearmen phalanx should retain mount effects
Effect of invisible mounts? (awaiting testing)
Smaller Desert Cavalry unit - potential modwork
Increase mass of Bull warriors - potential modwork
Increase mass of phalanxes - potential modwork
Cilician pirates changed from horde to square - potential modwork
Any other topics in play?

Dogs & Pigs
There are left over bits of ideas that didn’t quite pan out all over the files, however the narrative is normally pretty good at telling us where a stat or similar is no longer used (eg, food stat), so it’s my strong opinion that these units should require the dog/pig resource in the same way as camels and elephants.

Potential modwork
I’ve identified these items as such because almost everyone who has mentioned them has agreed that, although they look wrong, they border on modding the game rather than fixing the game.
Bull warriors –it’s weird but I agree with both Red Harvest and player1 that it’s not clear for this patch.
Phalanxes – again, unrealistic, but again I agree with RH that it’s not right for this patch.
Cilician pirates – they stick out like a sore thumb in horde, but it’s a VERY obvious issue to be a bug, so I agree with RH and player1 – not for this patch.
On a side note, for modding them, have you considered narrowing the gaps between the soldiers to make a more solid formation? If you reduce the spacing, but maintain the horde formation, you might find them readier to use their pila and be more effective.

*phew*
~:cheers:

Edit: Okay... I missed some movements in opinion as I was writing this ~D
Cilician Pirates - absolutely not, for the reasons above ~D

Bull Warriors - Okay, there are five types of heavy infantry with mass 1, two of these (Seleucid Legionaries, Bastarnae Mercenaries) we've agreed should be increased. That leaves the Bullmen in the same league as the Desert Axemen ( ~D ) and the Arcani. The Bullmen are a little incongruous. I note that the Spanish generally use the 1 civilised mass, rather than the barbarian 1.2, and I appreciate that we could get in over our heads here. I also note that, typically, elite infantry are given a small mass boost over their regular brethren.

I think we should remember that we're not the ones who are going to have the final say as to what goes into this patch. If this is to be an 'Org community patch' then it's going to be the Org that makes the final decision as to what goes in and what stays out. There's nothing wrong with discussing an issue and leaving it unresolved. We're going to present them with a list :deal2: but they are going to read down our discussions and make a judgement based on their own experience.

:medievalcheers:

hrvojej

03-05-2005, 00:14

Any other topics in play?

Yea, the mount effects of east heavy infantry, the only phalanx-capable unit that has them. Since they don't retain spears as secondary, I don't see why they should have one, and they have bonus vs. cavalry when they wield the spears anyway.

In other words, if so inclined, in export_desc_unit.txt file under the unit east heavy infantry find the line

mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4

and delete it.

edit:
As a side note, is it going to be possible to make a poll which would allow people to vote for more than one proposed answer? This way, we could make a poll with all presented fixes, put it in the Colosseum for example, and let people vote for every point they agree that should be changed. This way, we could actually make it for the people who would like to have these changes, yet are not confident enough to dabble with the files themselves (let's face it, most of the people who propose the fixes in this thread will not need the patch as such). What does everyone think about this (if it's possible)?

Epistolary Richard

03-05-2005, 00:28

therother

03-05-2005, 00:32

Thanks for your summaries, Epistolary Richard. They are much appreciated. :medievalcheers:

As for this mod/fixes argument, my intention in starting this thread was to compile a list of 'fixes' that would be completely uncontroversial - fixing things thing were obviously wrong, e.g. the HA bug and the Praetorian recruitment pre-Marius. IOW, this is to be a must-have patch. Perhaps then we can then think about correcting the more subtle inconsistencies.

player1

03-05-2005, 00:48

Yea, the mount effects of east heavy infantry, the only phalanx-capable unit that has them. Since they don't retain spears as secondary, I don't see why they should have one, and they have bonus vs. cavalry when they wield the spears anyway.

In other words, if so inclined, in export_desc_unit.txt file under the unit east heavy infantry find the line

mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4

and delete it.

I may be a little inxeperienced about how some bonuses work, but what exaclty is buggy if they stay as they are?

Epistolary Richard

03-05-2005, 00:54

@ therother
How well-formed are your plans for how this patch will finally take shape?
Is this something that will come with the Org's proverbial stamp of approval (not that I'm trying to turn you into the Trivium or anything :laugh4:)?

Because someone is going to have to make a final yea or nay on what goes into this patch - even with apparently cut & dried examples such as horse archers I know that there are two sides to the discussion. And ultimately someone's going to have to decide where the "uncontroversial" line is drawn. :grin2:

player1

03-05-2005, 00:57

I got it.
Is it that heavy east infantry keeps anti-cavalry bonus even when fighting with swords?

If that so, I guess that line should be removed.

In case of community patch, I am for as conservative version as possibile. Only true bug fixes, no oddity fixes, or pure balance fixes. We could always make expanded version later.

therother

03-05-2005, 01:01

Because someone is going to have to make a final yea or nay on what goes into this patch.Well, in terms of the 'patch' that will come out of this thread, it will be my decision I guess, although I'll certainly be taking into account the views of others in the thread. I'll also be happy to host other versions of the 'patch' in the LM webspace and give them equal footing in the Colosseum thread.

player1

03-05-2005, 01:02

Incorrect info there, player1. Scutarii are as well armoured as Hastati, and reflect this in the stats (unless my backup file was accidentally altered.) Actually, Iberian infantry are nearly as well armoured as Hastati, but unfortunately their stats don't reflect the graphics, which is a shame since CA really nerfed them.

I think that Scutari have defense of 12, Iberian Inf 8, while Hastai 14.

EDIT: although yes, Scutari armor = Hastati armor.
But also Scutari armor = Bull Wariors armor
And Bull Warrior shield < Scutari shield

Changing Cilicians from horde to square is not a "power up" since it doesn't change the attack/defense. It just makes the unit functional by allowing them to use their pila. Regardless, I don't see that being the test of getting intended stats in use. Some changes to stats are going to effect the strength of units, get over it. There would be no reason to correct errors if they didn't. Don't like the changes, don't use them. If your way of determining what fits or what doesn't is to say, "that might effect them in battle somehow" then you are in the wrong thread. After all, Spain will get its Long Shields, HA's will work right, phalanx pike will remain available when they should, etc.

While I just think that they lose their flavor, if you change their formation.

Horder looks --> cool
Square formation --> just another legion wannabe

It's really a preference issue, not a bug issue.
Especially considering that they do use their two pilas, before attack.

player1

03-05-2005, 01:14

Well, in terms of the 'patch' that will come out of this thread, it will be my decision I guess, although I'll certainly be taking into account the views of others in the thread. I'll also be happy to host other versions of the 'patch' in the LM webspace and give them equal footing in the Colosseum thread.

I already compiled my personal "bug-fixer patch" that contains most fixes from traits and unit threads. The reason why I haven't uploaded it somewere is a lack of documentation.

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 01:29

type spanish scutarii
dictionary scutarii ; Scutarii
category infantry
class light

So you see they are classified as light, just liek Hastati who have mass 1. So that is ok.
The mess-up can be that the Bull Warriors have the same armour as those two, but then Bastarnae should be mass 1 too and be light infantry. It all gets quite confusing if we use armour as a way to do it.
You forgot about the Bastarnae (both factional and corrected mercs) before. They are lighter than the Bull Warriors but get the mass 1.3 as they should.
Btw, I was wrong before. The Spartans are significantly stronger than the Bulls. They can beat them hands down out of phalanx and even with the bulls getting off their pila and even with equal mass. So the near equal cost should really have some basis in the mass at least.

They are the only heavy, non-spear, infantry that don't get 1.3 or 1.5, disregarding Swordsmen.

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 01:36

It's really a preference issue, not a bug issue.
Especially considering that they do use their two pilas, before attack.
Hardly... I have seen the AI use pila often enough, but with the Cilicians I have been able to march up phalanxes without getting a single pila thrown at me until we were engaged (and then quite a few will kill Cilicians). I have even had Cilicians sit on my flank attempting to throw pila at me. Scared as I was I couldn't do anything about it (was fully engaged), to my great surprise they threw 4-5 pila in all before charging in (and got chopped to pieces). That has to be wrong, I don't mind them getting beaten in melee, but if they can't use their greatest asset because of formation style, then away with it. Of course another fix that might be more to your liking would be to up the range of the pila, but that doesn't seem fair to the normal pilachuckers.

hrvojej

03-05-2005, 01:36

Is it that heavy east infantry keeps anti-cavalry bonus even when fighting with swords?

Yes. And they are also the only phalanx-capable unit that has mount effects (meaning that the mount effect also applies on top of what spears usually give as well, unlike the rest of the said units).

player1

03-05-2005, 01:46

So you see they are classified as light, just liek Hastati who have mass 1. So that is ok.
The mess-up can be that the Bull Warriors have the same armour as those two, but then Bastarnae should be mass 1 too and be light infantry. It all gets quite confusing if we use armour as a way to do it.

It intersting that in-game, both Hastati and Scutarii are classified as heavy (for blacksmith and similar upgrades).
What is difference in those in game calssification and one in text files?

And Bull Warrior have less equipment that Scutarii (smaller shield).

Or we could say that units that are supposed to be "barbaric chargers" get good mass, while those more suptile, like throw then charge get average mass. Or more if having heavier armor (like principes, and unlike bull-warriors). There is some logic for 1.0 too.

You forgot about the Bastarnae (both factional and corrected mercs) before. They are lighter than the Bull Warriors but get the mass 1.3 as they should.

Actually, they are 1.2, not 1.3

Btw, I was wrong before. The Spartans are significantly stronger than the Bulls. They can beat them hands down out of phalanx and even with the bulls getting off their pila and even with equal mass. So the near equal cost should really have some basis in the mass at least.

It's not all about 1 on 1 battles.
It such cases it's really not important is your unit fast moving, or can you recruit it in just few places in the world.
And really do they have mass 1.3, 1.5, or 1 won't really change the outcome of 1:1 battle against spartans.

player1

03-05-2005, 01:54

Yes. And they are also the only phalanx-capable unit that has mount effects (meaning that the mount effect also applies on top of what spears usually give as well, unlike the rest of the said units).

So, it's pretty good chance that this is a bug?

player1

03-05-2005, 02:05

Hardly... I have seen the AI use pila often enough, but with the Cilicians I have been able to march up phalanxes without getting a single pila thrown at me until we were engaged (and then quite a few will kill Cilicians). I have even had Cilicians sit on my flank attempting to throw pila at me. Scared as I was I couldn't do anything about it (was fully engaged), to my great surprise they threw 4-5 pila in all before charging in (and got chopped to pieces). That has to be wrong, I don't mind them getting beaten in melee, but if they can't use their greatest asset because of formation style, then away with it. Of course another fix that might be more to your liking would be to up the range of the pila, but that doesn't seem fair to the normal pilachuckers.

I've seen them make two volleys against my hoplites before melee.

Jambo

03-05-2005, 02:09

I had heard the Eastern Heavy Inf were suppsoed to be this way...

hrvojej

03-05-2005, 04:08

It intersting that in-game, both Hastati and Scutarii are classified as heavy (for blacksmith and similar upgrades).
What is difference in those in game calssification and one in text files?

One is a weapon upgrade (i.e. what blacksmith etc. you need to upgrade their weapons), the other influences AI recruitment preferences (heavy inf., light inf. etc.).

I had heard the Eastern Heavy Inf were suppsoed to be this way...

Yes, eastern heavy infantry could have been designed as such (they are spearmen not hoplites, are from the east where people relied more on horsemanship, and similar reasoning). I just pointed out the inconsistency of the design for the debate.

player1

03-05-2005, 15:24

Well I think removing mount effect from heavy spearman should be right option considering that no way should unit get anti-horse bonus when fighting with swords (or were they daggers?)

All other spear units with mout effects don't have phalanx formation (like triarii or light east infantry).

I think that at only point CA switched them from basic spear-like unit to phalanx type unit, but forgot to remove mount effects.

In reference to player1's comments on bull warriors. Look at chosen swordsmen and chosen axemen. Both have 1.5 mass. Yet the chosen swordsman shield is only slightly larger than the caetra--and for some bizarre reason is still given a "5". And the chosen axeman has neither shield nor armour at all. Falxmen also get a 1.5 mass without shield or real armour. Clearly, being elite and heavy melee is enough for a mass upgrade from stock values.

I think that CA gave good mass rating to those units that are supposed to be "good chargers". Bull Warriors are a bit more sophiticated with their javelins, like Scutari. So if they should not get same mass as Hatati or Scutarii (1.0), I could agree that 1.3 would be next resonable option .

But, as far as I've heard in this thread, being light or heavy in no way influences the combat value of infantry, only AI recruit preferences.

I see the resoning for higher mass, but I see the reaons of not changing the value too.

Back to other units, some quickies that will need reverification:

1. Kraxis Posted about the later Thracian Bodyguards not having updated stats. I agree. The answer looks very simple. Copy ALL relevant stats for them from the other bodyguard units using the "Gothic cav" animation. They are the same units with different color and ownership.

While it does border with moding, if all general units with same animation have same stats, and if that's true not only for gothic, but for other general units sharing same animation, I'm for it.

But it needs to be carefully planned. Standard general is not barbarian warlord, so upgraded one should not be called choosen warlord.

So only those fields that govern unit stats, but not desciption should be changed (keep type and dictionary fields unchanged).

2. Also the Early Thracian Bodyguards are getting a shield bonus, but have no shield. That should be set to zero. This used the greek medium cav as its graphic.

3. The late Pontus Eastern General is getting zero for a shield rating, yet they have a considerable shield, perhaps even larger than the Early Eastern General. At minimum they should get a 2 for the shield. If you look at the others for consistency they would get a 4. They are heavily armoured already...but looking at the region, they will be facing Cataphracts.

They are just way too many units with no shield having shiled bonus or similar things.
It's just not something that can be easilty solved exempt with heavy moding.

P.S.
As far as I see early thracian general has stats of chartaginian general with added snow bonus, wedge, removed secondary weapon and greek graphics.

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 16:40

I have long wondered if I should post the Arcani... But here goes.

They get a small shield bonus (+2), yet they carry no shield, but then again they wield two swords and since they only actively use one sword I have taken it that the other sword is defensive. But it is still not perfect as the sword has to be a bad choice compared to a shield when you are faced with archers... But I'm not certain what should be done and I in fact rather like the Arcani, and they are weak as it is so a nerf will hit them hard. Perhaps removing the shield and add 2 points of armour (or 1?).

Also find it interesting why the greek Bastarnae have only got a defensive ability of 2 compared to the 4 of the merc version. In general it is the other way round or equal.

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 16:53

Alas, Bastarnae, militia hoplites and some other units also fail to get armour credit for helmets and greaves. (Mil hops are treated as if they were nude, while Bastarnae get only a 2...compared to barbarians with pants and no shirt or helmet getting a 3 armour rating.)
The Thracian Mercs are identical to the Bastarnae, having greaves and such, so they too should get a point in armour. But that is definately modding the game. That much I can agree with player1 about. I'm just certain that the Bull Warriors are meant to be superior troops and a low mass limit that. If we look at the chargebonus then it becomes obvious that the Bull Warriors are indeed in the same class as the heavier mass units. They get 5 while the Principes get only 2 and Chosen Swordsmen get 6. So I don't think they are more sophisticated, they are meant to deliver a knockout blow in melee.

And no, the upgraded Pontic general isn't too heavily armoured. Especially not if you compare to theor upgraded generals that get 11 points (Greek upgraded) and 18 (eastern upgraded, and essentially a 2HP cataphract unit with a stronger charge).

Bob the Insane

03-05-2005, 17:20

They are just way too many units with no shield having shiled bonus or similar things.
It's just not something that can be easilty solved exempt with heavy moding.

I wonder if this is simply the fallout (a workaround) for the fact the the defense skill only applies to the front and right of a individual... This would leave an elite unit without a shield completely undefended (other than their armour value) when attacked from their left...

Maybe all those units that are not modeled with a shield but get a shield value are making up for that deficency???

Jambo

03-05-2005, 18:23

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 18:52

Yes, that can't be right... Flesh it should be.

Bob might have caught onto something, but even if that was the case there are several units that gets the bonus regardles, such as the Beduin Archers.
One problem is that the shields adds armour to the front and left, so not only does it add armour to the side where it doesn't belong but it also adds extra armour and defensive power to the front where it isn't 'needed' either. Such a case smells badly of a last ditch effort to balance the game, but since the game is hardly balanced (and shouldn't really be) then it is not plausible. Also I don't think CA would create a great directional engine only to realize it wasn't good enough.
For the moment I'm not buying it, but later perhaps.

player1

03-06-2005, 00:54

Nonsense. If they don't have shields, they shouldn't get a bonus (with the possible exception of the arcani--because their situation is quite a bit out of the norm.) If they do have shields they should get a shield bonus.

Common sense should prevail over the "don't touch anything" view you espouse.

There is just too many units with such differences.
Rememeber almost naked desert axemen with huge armor bonus.

If we change all units depending on thier looks, we will get very different rule set, with different balance set.
That won't be amymore bug-fixing, but moding.

Rememer that Principii with just extra 2 poitns of defense cost extra 50gold.
Who know how much balance of the game can be changed by chaning every other unit in the game to fit thier image.

player1

03-06-2005, 10:27

Well, this one could be intentional to be a bug, but is weird neverdless.

Greeks, in cities that can't build Spartans, with highest level barracks only gain +1exp hoplites. It's that kinda useless, since Armored Hoplites are much better unit.

Is it possibile that it should've been Armored Hoplites who get +1exp?

To Red Harvest:
The point is that there are dozen, yes dozen and more units which don't look as their stats. If you change all of them, then their cost to keep balance, you'll get very different rule set, which someone needs to balance out. I would have no problem is just one or two units were like that. But there is dozen of them.

Is it really so bad to make differece between bad design and a real bug? Real bugs have one soultion and bad design one can have many ones.

Jambo

03-06-2005, 12:55

I agree the Greek tech tree is a bit unusual at the top end. However, armoured hoplites are already a superior unit buildable at a relatively early stage in the tech tree and therefore I wouldn't make them tougher!

I'd be more inclined to give the Greeks (and by that I mean greek_cities only) a bonus to their Greek cav and Greek militia cav at their top horsey building. At the moment all it does it give incendiary pigs... lol. Useless.

player1

03-06-2005, 14:04

Ok, something about thracian general and late pontic general.

First, thracian general costs 770gp (custom battles).
If you remove shield bonus, it would be overpriced compared to greek general (690gp).

Second, pontus general has very similar stats to late scythian general. -1 to attack and charge, +1 to defense. It has cost of 940gp, while scythian 980gp. Giving them extra shield binus would make them overpriced.

So, in conclusion, both of these general units are priced, and thus balanced, on their current stats. So that's my argument of not chaning thier stats (for non-mod patch).

P.S.
And thracian general uses barbarian warlord description, with "barbarian" word removed.

player1

03-06-2005, 14:14

Also find it interesting why the greek Bastarnae have only got a defensive ability of 2 compared to the 4 of the merc version. In general it is the other way round or equal.

It should not be forgotten, that merc version is more expensive too (important for custom battles). Pesonally, I would not change it since it would be nerf to merc version, which is already more expensive. And it could be that just mercs are more focused on defnse then on offense.

By the way, the something about metal or flesh rating of armor. It is used for sound only, right?
While I'm against moding to much for fix-patch, there are some more units with this type of inconsistency (desert axemen with metal sound). Should we fix them all to use proper sound?

Jambo

03-06-2005, 14:33

player1

03-06-2005, 14:44

I know that, but full picture is important, including custom battles.

player1

03-06-2005, 14:45

About 4th level greek barracks (another hypothesis):

Maybe it was supposed to be to get 1exp holpites with 3rd level barracks and armoured hoplites with 4th level barracks? (effectively a nerf to greeks, resembles numidian infantry progression)

Anyway, the way it is now, 4th level barracks are useless outside Sparta and Syracuse (at least you get the pigs with stables upgrade).

player1

03-06-2005, 14:47

Ok, Merc Bastarnae and Desert Axeman should change their armor sound from metal to flesh.

Any other bug offender?

P.S.
I think I saw some units that have flesh, but look like having leather armor, but I think it's too minor to bother (and sometimes looks just can be wrong). I think just big offenders need to be chnaged (like metal to flesh).

player1

03-06-2005, 17:17

Let's see...
Iberian Infantry, Scutaii and Spanish Mercenaries all appear wearing same armor (leather + metal plate in the middile, Hastai used similar thing).
Iberian Infantry is labeled as flesh, Spanish Mercenary as leather and Scutarii as metal.

In this case I think it is pretty harmless to be a bug, since units with this type of armor can easily be hit in flesh (arms and legs not protected), leather or metal plate.

player1

03-06-2005, 19:01

But isn't it kinda big move to beef up/or tone down stats and costs of units, for a simple fix-patch that should stick to the core. I mean if are going to do that there are many other inconsistancies then just two general units.

player1

03-06-2005, 19:13

Keep in mind thaty in case those 2 units cost adjustemnt would be around +/-100gp.

Thracian to cost of early greek general (making it almost indentical unit), pontus to cost of late greek general (having good shield instead of armor).

I'm just not keen on making such chnages, for this of patch, since it requires good eye for balance and personal judment, something I would be more inclined to do when moding.

I would rather go hunting just pure bugs that have 100% accurate solution.

player1

03-06-2005, 20:34

Flesh, leather, metal. General rule is:

Flesh = 0, 1, 2 armour
Leather = 3, 4 armour
Metal = 5 or greater armour

There is a set of exceptions that is noteworthy--many pikemen and hoplites are often getting a "leather" sound despite having 6 armour. Elephants (including cataphract) are getting a flesh sound despite high armour ratings.

If we are going to change any I'm only in for fixing the extremes (why bother with many small inconsistencies you won't notice in the game).

Like completly naked units with metal descptor (Desert Axement, Mern Bastarnae).

player1

03-06-2005, 20:38

The reson why I advocate "change the little" aproach too often is that I would like to keep "core rules compatilbity".

For example, it's resonable that Deset Axemen should have no armor and get AP capability, like it's Desert Horsemen equivalent.

But, that would pretty much make most of already written strategies in using Desert Axemen useless, wouldn't it?

player1

03-06-2005, 20:49

Any other opinions on highest level greek barracks problem?

Solutions:
1) small greek boost: +1exp armored hoplites instead oridinary +1exp hoplites
(triarii model)
2) big greek nerf: +1exp hoplites at 3rd level, armored hoplites delayed till 4rd level
(numidian model)
3) the way it is (useless 4th level barracks, exmept in Sparta and Syracuse)
4) something else?

I would really like this one moved from status quo.

I think 1st and 3rd option are the closest in keeping rules compatibility (with 3rd not fixing anything), while it is pretty likely that at one point 2nd option could've been the way that CA planned, but switched 3rd and 4th level barrack benefits (armored hoplites are a bit powerful for 3rd level barracks).

player1

03-06-2005, 21:35

I didn't say anything about changing these particular stats, I was merely pointing out the rules that appear to have been used to apply the factor. QUIT PANICKING! The sound is a secondary thing that at one time at least appears to have been tied only to armour level (for primary armour stats.) Did CA originally set many hoplites/phalanx to about 4 armour, then later raise them to 6 for game balancing before 1.0 was released? That is where I would put my money.

There is no "core rules compatibility" as you seem to view it. CA made quite a few changes to the core rules in 1.2 without rebalancing the game. The pri/sec bug removal took away 4 attack from all (or at least) pila units, yet CA did nothing to rebalance the factions. FF fixes made skirmishers useful, hidden morale changes made elephants more manageable. Phalanx effects vs. cav got nerfed. Spear vs. pike effect was changed, and cav charge vs. sword units was reduced from what I can tell.

The "change nothing" approach of digging in your heels to EVERY comment is beyond irritating.

Ok, don't panic...

player1

03-06-2005, 21:50

It is odd that you advocate no changes for the obvious on one hand, and then on the other propose this. To me, this is clearly out in the modding region because there is no obvious error. I vote 3.

You got me there. ~;)

But, it does seam strage to have top level barracks give effectively nothing, doesn't it?
+1exp Hoplites serve no purpose at that time, don't they?

The more I think about it, the more I think that armored hoplites were supposed to be 4th level units and +1Hoplites 3rd level units.

.

As for previous, post, there is a difference between official patch, unofficial community bug-fixer.
You won't expect from someone to make a strategy guide by referencing changes done in non-official bug-fixer mod.

EDIT:
Is it so bad to make two versions of fixes? One more liberal and one more conservative?

player1

03-06-2005, 21:52

Looking back in the thread, I saw this mistake and do not think anyone addressed it. The base chariot unit size is 9 in all three cases. They are indeed all the same size, just like elephants are all the same size units. Bodyguard chariots have a base size of 6 for Egypt, and 9 for Briton. The post above confused rider count with the chariot count (and you also have to use 2x for large unit size but this was a given.) Chariot units fight on a per chariot basis, with hit points per chariot. Bodyguard sizes often differ from regular unit size.

I corrected myself few posts lower.

Epistolary Richard

03-07-2005, 14:25

Hope everyone enjoyed their weekend :barrel:. A few specific points:

Eastern Heavy Spearmen
I agree with all the above, they shouldn't have a mount bonus when fighting with their secondary weapons (it looks like this was last minute dithering about how this unit and phalanx is a harder to miss) so the mount bonus is a bug and should be removed.

Greek barracks
I don't have a problem with the highest-tier only adding exp unless you've got the Sparta resource. The highest-level Roman barracks don't add anything until the Marian Reforms. I don't think this should be changed.

Arcani
Who knows what these guys should be like? Without direct comparables it's very hard to say that, yes, any part of them is definitely a bug. Unless we can say that for definite, I don't think we should alter it in this patch.

Right, onto the main topic:

Discrepancies between unit stats, graphics and descriptions (Merc Bedouin Archers, Thracian bodyguard, Pontic etc. etc. etc.)
As back on page 1, when we covered this in relation to Desert Axemen and Pharoah's Guard, it is clear that the unit graphics and the unit stats were developed independently and when it was all brought together not everything matched up. Ideally, these discrepancies shouldn't exist, but in trying to correct them we are left with a choice - do we make the stats fit the graphic or the graphic fit the stats?

Changing the graphic is beyond the scope of this patch.

Changing the unit stats to fit the graphic inevitably leads us into judgemental areas:
eg, a unit does not appear to have a shield, and yet it has a shield attribute, do we?
- remove the shield attribute and otherwise leave it unchanged?
- remove the shield and add armour or defence points? If so, in what ratio?
- adjust the costing of the unit for any of the above?

I agree with Red Harvest's hypothesis that the unit costing was probably originally derived from a formula based on some of the attributes, with subsequent adjustments being made. The point that player1 was making was that if we believe this to be correct then the unit costing is correct for the stats - whether the stats themselves are inconsistent or otherwise. This means that any changes to the significant stats (unit size, weapons, armour/defence/shield) will require us to change the unit costing.

So, even in the case where we were to remove a factor (such as a shield) then there would still be judgement made in how to recost the unit.

therother's scope for this patch was, as he said, to compile a list of fixes that would be completely uncontroversial. Ultimately, he's going to make his choice about what that includes, but I would assert that nothing which involves recosting the unit can ever be completely uncontroversial.:saint:

I say we proceed like this, start drawing up what we would consider would fall within this uncontroversial list and then we can start brainstorming :idea3: about resolving these graphics/stats balancing and costing issues in preparation for a second 'WYSIWYG' patch, because I'd ideally like my game to make sense as well.:grin2:

Here's my opinion on the listing of fixes for the first 'uncontroversial' patch:
1) Seleucids should only be able to build armoured elephants in provinces with the elephant resource.
2) Praetorian cohorts should be limited to post-Marian period.
3) Thracian pikemen should not disappear from their third tier barrack.
4) Remove reference Gaul naked fanatics from farming temples when Gauls are unable to build farming temples.
5) Spain should have the ability to build longshield cavalry in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
6) Spain should have the ability to build onagers in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
7) Horse archers (et al.) should be able to move and fire.
8) Upgraded general units for Scythia and Pontus should be activated by Marian reforms.
9) Spanish family members should wear brown and not blue.
10) Mercenary horse archers should appear in Armenia.
11) Sarmatian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
12) Illyrian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
13) Rebel archer unit should not have a Briton chosen swordsman as officer.
14) Seleucid legionaries should have mass 1.3.
15) Bastarnae mercenaries should have mass 1.2.
Edit - pig & dog resource apparently do not work as other resources and therefore this 'fix' dropped 16) The pig and wardog units should only be recruitable in provinces with the pig and dog resource respectively.
17) Eastern Heavy Spearmen should not have their mount effects.
18) Bastarnae mercenaries and Desert Axemen should have their 'metal' armour sound changed to flesh (as I believe this effects only the sound).

What are other people's lists? :deal2:

player1

03-07-2005, 14:55

Greek barracks
I don't have a problem with the highest-tier only adding exp unless you've got the Sparta resource. The highest-level Roman barracks don't add anything until the Marian Reforms. I don't think this should be changed.

Actually, highest level roman barracks give +1exp Triarii (that why I labeled first fix options as Triarii model)

Highest level greek barracks, outside Sparta only give +1exp hoplites with doesn't serve any purpose since armored hoplites are much better.

Here's my opinion on the listing of fixes for the first 'uncontroversial' patch:
1) Seleucids should only be able to build armoured elephants in provinces with the elephant resource.
2) Praetorian cohorts should be limited to post-Marian period.
3) Thracian pikemen should not disappear from their third tier barrack.
4) Remove reference Gaul naked fanatics from farming temples when Gauls are unable to build farming temples.
5) Spain should have the ability to build longshield cavalry in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
6) Spain should have the ability to build onagers in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
7) Horse archers (et al.) should be able to move and fire.
8) Upgraded general units for Scythia and Pontus should be activated by Marian reforms.
9) Spanish family members should wear brown and not blue.
10) Mercenary horse archers should appear in Armenia.
11) Sarmatian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
12) Illyrian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
13) Rebel archer unit should not have a Briton chosen swordsman as officer.
14) Seleucid legionaries should have mass 1.3.
15) Bastarnae mercenaries should have mass 1.2.
17) Eastern Heavy Spearmen should not have their mount effects.
18) Bastarnae mercenaries and Desert Axemen should have their 'metal' armour sound changed to flesh (as I believe this effects only the sound).

What are other people's lists? :deal2:

agreed

I would add changing all Tracian upgraded bodyguard stats to Choosen Warlord stats (exempt unit descption). They use same icon after all.

16) The pig and wardog units should only be recruitable in provinces with the pig and dog resource respectively.

I don't know how much will this add to gameplay (seems kinda like unneeded change)? For some reson CA removed/never finshed them. Maybe it would be problematic for players since there are no resource icons for pigs and dogs?

I would like to hear oppinion of other posters on this.

player1

03-07-2005, 15:37

I just tried adding pogs and pigs as prerequisite for some units and it didn't worked.

Epistolary Richard

03-07-2005, 15:47

I just tried adding pogs and pigs as prerequisite for some units and it didn't worked.

Warpogs! Truly the ultimate weapon :laugh4:

I forgot we were supposed to test these things before we suggested them. :dunce2: It's only going to have minimal impact as the resources are pretty widespread anyway. If it doesn't work, I'll forget it.

Kraxis

03-07-2005, 16:18

Here's my opinion on the listing of fixes for the first 'uncontroversial' patch:
1) Seleucids should only be able to build armoured elephants in provinces with the elephant resource.
2) Praetorian cohorts should be limited to post-Marian period.
3) Thracian pikemen should not disappear from their third tier barrack.
4) Remove reference Gaul naked fanatics from farming temples when Gauls are unable to build farming temples.
5) Spain should have the ability to build longshield cavalry in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
6) Spain should have the ability to build onagers in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
7) Horse archers (et al.) should be able to move and fire.
8) Upgraded general units for Scythia and Pontus should be activated by Marian reforms.
9) Spanish family members should wear brown and not blue.
10) Mercenary horse archers should appear in Armenia.
11) Sarmatian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
12) Illyrian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
13) Rebel archer unit should not have a Briton chosen swordsman as officer.
14) Seleucid legionaries should have mass 1.3.
15) Bastarnae mercenaries should have mass 1.2.
16) The pig and wardog units should only be recruitable in provinces with the pig and dog resource respectively.
17) Eastern Heavy Spearmen should not have their mount effects.
18) Bastarnae mercenaries and Desert Axemen should have their 'metal' armour sound changed to flesh (as I believe this effects only the sound).

What are other people's lists? :deal2:

Good list. But we should add the upgraded Thracian bodyguards.
Also the Pontic Pikes are indeed outside the right frame. Why should they be smaller when the Bronze Shields are full size? At the very least it should have been the other way round.

I think there are lot of other sounds out there that might be wrong. Teh sound shouldn't be fitted to a number of armour points but rather the image of the unit. So hoplites and hoplite mercenaries should have leather sound as they carry the linnen cuirass, such armour would not sound like metal at all, but very much like leather.

hrvojej

03-07-2005, 16:55

I agree with numbers 1-13 and 17 on the list. The mass and other stats things are not really for the minimalistic patch that aims to only fix the bugs for people who are not confident enough to edit the text files themselves. I do enjoy the discussion in this thread, and have made many of the little tweaks proposed myself, but those things do not coincide with my view of the intention of the fix patch.

However, it's really great to have a dedicated place to discuss (and read about) all those interesting tweaks and inconsistencies, and I think that having the second more exstensive patch (in the vein of WYSIWYG) as well is a great idea.

drone

03-07-2005, 18:43

Warpogs! Truly the ultimate weapon :laugh4:

I forgot we were supposed to test these things before we suggested them. :dunce2: It's only going to have minimal impact as the resources are pretty widespread anyway. If it doesn't work, I'll forget it.
I suppose I deserve that for suggesting patches from work...~;)

Never did get around to testing it, I'll try it tonight. I was thinking that you would need the "hidden_resource" tag for them, since they are not in the desc_strat.txt file, only in descr_regions.txt.

player1

03-07-2005, 18:52

Good list. But we should add the upgraded Thracian bodyguards.
Also the Pontic Pikes are indeed outside the right frame. Why should they be smaller when the Bronze Shields are full size? At the very least it should have been the other way round.

Because they cost less? ~D

Seriously, maybe it is because it is Pontus first phalanx formation unit in the tech tree. Not unitl the highest level barracks they mastered full 120 stack pikes.

All other factions that have pikemen, start first with 80 stack militia hoplites.

Epistolary Richard

03-07-2005, 19:11

I suppose I deserve that for suggesting patches from work...

Please, I get to play RTW perhaps once a month if I'm lucky. I might as well put "this may work, I haven't tested it" in my signature ~;)

re: the mommas and the porkas, yep, the hidden resource approach would definitely work. But I was working on the assumption that the pigs and dogs resources had been properly set up (like the camel and elephant resources) and someone had just forgotten to tie the units to them. However, if the resources haven't been set up properly, then it was obviously just another one of CA's ideas that was dropped intentionally before the final release and therefore not a bug.

re: Pontic Pikes, my only issue with raising the soldier count of this unit is that it would throw the cost off, it's certainly one of the topics for the second patch.

Once everyone on this thread has posted their list of what they think the first patch should include, therother can take them away and have a think about them and we can corral together everything else that has been mentioned in this thread and start discussions on the second patch. :gossip:

player1

03-07-2005, 23:56

That is factually incorrect. The other pikemen factions start with levy pikes at one level below this and they are 60 man units. Other hoplite factions start at the barracks level below as well, with mil hops of 40 man size. There is nothing at all consistent about Pontic pikes starting at 40 men.

But other factions have 80men militia hoplites as their first phalanx formation (this includes Macedon and Selucids), while Pontus doesn't not. Although "piked", it is still their first phalanx type formation.

80 stack formation could easiliy demostrate their inexperience in phalanx fighting (until it gets mastered with highest level barracks).

Armored Hoplites are gained at 3rd level barracks, by the way (best 3rd level stats, for non-barbaric nation).

I am less interested in a later mod discussion and will probably bow out, not as some sort of protest whether or not this or that is changed in this fix, but because true modding gets more into our individual philosophies, rather than trying to pick through what CA intended with stats and "make it so." I doubt that we can reach a concensus on such a mod.

Well, many of the isses you listed are really like that.
How many shield points some unit should need, how much cost it needs to balance out, etc... Current discussion proved that it difficult to reach concensus for such things.

The Early Thracian Bodyguards should have their shield have their shield removed--it is a clear error and the unit stat and cost/upkeep can be easily copied from the other unit using the same graphic: greek general's guard cavalry early. Again, obvious error, easy equitable fix.

Actually, they don't have same general icon as other greek factons (similar, but not same). Considering that they have snow bonus too, CA obviously wanted then to be in some way different then Greek bodyguard.

EDIT:
Intersting I just realised that upgraded Thracian bodyguard doesn't really use same icon as Choosen Warlord, but Gothic Cavarly icon. Similary as early bodyguard uses Lancers icon, but not Greek general one. Maybe they weren't supposed to be exactly same copies of them?

player1

03-08-2005, 00:26

Well that 80man pike unit is their start phalanx, isn't it?

player1

03-08-2005, 02:40

Calm down, hitting the walls won't help your argument.

Pontic phalanx pikemen is a starting phalanx unit for Pontus.
Simple as that.
They have no Militia Hoplites, they have no Leavy Pikemen.

It does make sense for me, it does not make for you.
End of discussion.

Epistolary Richard

03-08-2005, 11:12

Thanks for the info, it confirms what others have thought that the sec_armour doesn't need adjusting.

I'm sorry you feel like that about this thread, I personally have appreciated the contribution of everyone here, but especially members like yourself who have shown such dedication. It wasn't an easy task, but in my opinion we have been successful in what we set out to do. therother has a list, he and others can judge where the consensus is on uncontroversial patches. I share your concerns on the difficulty of reaching consensus on 'modding' areas and, in retrospect, think that therother had the right idea in limiting the original scope as he did.

I'd encourage everyone who's been involved in this thread bob the insane, Simetrical, Pode, Jambo and drone plus anyone else watching to post their lists of what they believe should be included, so that therother has as much information as possible on which to evaluate final content.

Going forward, in order to distinguish between work on the first and the second patch, I would suggest that this thread be wound down and a new thread opened. therother has said that he's happy to host a second patch on Ludus Magna, however as the discussions on this thread will likely encompass both game research and modding I don't know whether you would consider it appropriate to keep the thread on Ludus Magna or whether it should be moved over to the modding forums (albeit, I don't immediately see an obvious home for it there).

Once a second thread is opened, we can gather together the outstanding topics from this thread and cart them across.