PDA

View Full Version : Kingdoms Battles Balance



CeltiberoMordred
08-08-2007, 10:15
If someone is interested:

http://blogs.sega-europe.com/blogs/totalwar/entry/7


As outlined in the recent blog by Jason, there has been some significant re-balancing of unit stats for Kingdoms, the expansion pack for Medieval II. I am Jack Lusted, now a Games Tester at The Creative Assembly UK, but when I helped Jason by contributing to the balancing of Kingdoms I was a modder from the Total War Community.

Although the last blog described the process involved in balancing Kingdoms, it did not say what has changed. In this blog I will aim to explain how the balance has altered from Medieval II, give examples of how specific units have changed, what most unit types should be used for, and how the balance varies between the four Kingdoms campaigns.

The re-balance is not a small one, there have been some big changes. Almost all, if not all of the units have had changes to their stats. Some minor, some major. This is to reflect the fact that the whole balance of the game has been re-examined.

The really big change is to cavalry. Cavalry unit sizes are now smaller, and their stats have been dropped. They are now 30 soldiers on normal unit sizes, which means on huge they are 60. But before you all cry 'nerf!', let me explain what this means in-game. The smaller unit sizes makes cavalry more maneuverable as the size of cavalry units in update 1.2 proved to be a little unwieldy at times. Now you can use them more fluidly. And despite having their stats dropped, an increase to the mass of the mounts they ride means that heavy cavalry still pack a devastating punch from the rear or flank. This means that heavy cavalry have moved away from frontal charging wrecking balls, towards how they were used in the original Medieval: Total War - fast moving flanking units who pack a devastating punch. Even with a frontal charge, they can still wreak major damage upon non-spear, pike, or halberd troops.

There have been several global stat changes. All armour values have been reduced by 2, and all shield values have been raised by 2. These changes are designed to increase the importance of shields in combat when charged, but make units more vulnerable from the rear. Most units without shields have also received a boost to their defense skill so they have not been weakened in melee. The exception being missile units but they now have greater accuracy and therefore more deadly projectiles, so it balances out.

An example of one of the units that has had major changes to its stats are the Zweihanders. In update 1.2 this unit had the following stats:

Attack: 14
Charge bonus: 6
Attack attributes: none
Armour: 7
Defense Skill: 4
Cost: 680

In Kingdoms their stats have been changed to:

Attack: 15
Charge bonus: 9
Attack attributes: armour piercing (only counts half target armour when attacking)
Armour: 5
Defense Skill: 8
Cost: 520 (390 in Americas where all unit costs are lower. More on that later)

Quite a big change as you can see. Now they are true shock troops who have a very powerful charge. With the changes in unit stats, there has been a redefining of how some unit types are used. I'm going to go through and try and cover every unit type and how they should be used in Kingdoms.

Heavy cavalry - no longer sweep all before them in frontal charges. Spearmen, pikes and halberds can all stop frontal charges from them, and heavy infantry are better at resisting them. However heavy cavalry still deliver a punch that can't be beat to the rear and flanks of other units, which combined with the fact they're cavalry, means they can get into positions which allow them to deal the hammer blow. Rear and flanking charges also come with morale penalties to the enemy so they're great at routing parts of the enemy line.

This has proved to be a more fun balance, and one that offers better for gameplay. Do not think that heavy cavalry are now underpowered, they are not. For instance in the Crusades campaign, knights are crucial to t he Kingdom of Jerusalem. No other unit can match the maneuverability, impact of charge or morale effect from a charge that heavy cavalry has. They're not nerfed, they just have a different use now.

Light cavalry - fast and maneuverable - they should be used for dealing with skirmishers, routers, horse archers and possibly rear charges into infantry if the infantry is engaged.

Horse archers - with the improved missile accuracy and smaller more manageable cavalry unit sizes, these guys are as deadly as they should be. Vulnerable to archers and faster light cavalry.

Elephants - no major changes here, still the wonderfully fun point and click weapons of destruction they've always been. Just like before flaming arrows, artillery, javelins etc. are the counters to them.

2 handed swordsmen - all 2 handed sword units have gained the armour piercing ability and similar changes to the Zweihanders. They are now perhaps the best shock infantry in the game, but are vulnerable to missles and cavalry, and will suffer heavy casualties in prolonged melee. If used in conjuction with sword and shield infantry to exploit the damage done by the 2 handers charge, they should be able to breach most battle lines.

2 handed axe / polearm units - these guys have been made tougher in melee, and have had slight tweaks to their attack stats. They can now survive better in melee and deal out lots of damage on the charge. Think of them as infantry versions of heavy cavalry. Vulnerable to missiles and cavalry charges.

Spearmen - their main use in Kingdoms should be as the most common anti-cavalry unit type, but with the boost to their attack, they can also take on other infantry a bit better. But as always suffer from the penalties they get from having the spear trait so will be outclassed by other infantry.

Pikemen - the specialist anti-cavalry unit. With much higher mass in Kingdoms no cavalry charge can beat them frontally, and they can also deal with infantry slightly better too. Very weak when flanked and not as good as spears against other types of infantry.

Halberds - they have received boost to their attack values and to mass, so they are better against both cavalry and infantry. Good assault troops, but slow moving and vulnerable to missiles.

Halberds without spearwall - from instance Janissary Heavy Infantry. Have had boost to their attack and defense stats and reductions to cost. Great shock troops but can also do better now in prolonged melee.

Sword and shield infantry - no big changes here, these are still the best prolonged melee infantry unit, and probably the best all round unit type. There is now more variation between units like dismounted Feudal Knights and Dismounted Chivalric Knights.

Missile infantry - have been weakened in terms of their melee abilities slightly, but this is compensated by their increased missile accuracy will become more important due to the higher number of casualties they can inflict with their missiles.

Whilst the overall balance for each of the Kingdoms campaigns is the same, there are differences between each campaign for game-play reasons.

In the Teutonic campaign, all cavalry units are stronger with higher secondary attacks. The Teutonic Order units are also stronger than equivalent unit of other nations, but this is balanced out by the fact that the elite units need to have a cetain percentage of catholicism in a region before they can be recruited. The Order is reliant on those troops to expand and further it's goals so this balances things and prevents the Order from becoming too powerful, too quickly. The Orders units also cost more because of their higher stats so things are also balanced out this way.

For the Crusades, like the Teutonic campaign all cavalry are stronger with higher secondary attacks. But unlike the Teutonic campaign, the Crusader factions do not have superior troops compared to their Muslim enemies. Even so the Crusader nations will be fairly reliant on their strong cavalry to win the campaign.

With Britannia it is spears that are the unit type that receive a boost. This results in a proliferation of good anti-cavalry units, so infantry will dominate the Britannia campaign. But cavalry are not completely negated, they will still be usable units, just not as powerful as in the Crusades or Teutonic campaigns.

And finally in the Americas campaign, New Spain gets smaller units, but sword armed infantry and cavalry with 2 hit points, and a new generals unit with 3. This is to reflect the small numbers of Spanish troops used in the New World, and the extra hit points prevent the smaller units from being overwhelmed. Unit costs are also adjusted to reflect these changes, so overall most units are cheaper but Spanish units are about the same as in M2TW. The Native units will not be pushovers either, and will put up a strong fight.

That just about wraps up my overview of the balance changes made through the unit stats and hopefulle, gives you an idea as to how you'll be adapting your tactics to use these changes in each of the four campaigns in Kingdoms.

Regards,

Jack Lusted

YellowMelon
08-08-2007, 12:40
This is good news indeed. Palamedes had many conversations with me regarding the new unit specs, and what wasn't really outlined there is how important the change in missile units is. Apparently they fall somewhere between RTW and MTW in terms of power, which means they might actually be worth taking now ^^

Swoosh So
08-09-2007, 14:33
From this basic outline the changes sound good and perhaps we will once again have a nice tactical game, unfortunately the engine is still flawed as is the foyer and and game setups, lag etc which is unfortunate.

Ill try kingdoms for muliplayer and see how it plays with these changes as they sound nice, like mtw1 in some respects. But ca really have to work on the code and foyer gamesetups etc to take make the game at least of the quality it once was.

These balance changes alone wont bring back the old community as id like, but coupled with changes to the engine, foyer etc it possibly would.

KrooK
08-10-2007, 14:08
Sorry but did someone deleted my post here?

Kronos
08-10-2007, 14:10
I'm not a fan of some of these changes if they are actually how they're described. The cavalry units being smaller is a good idea, however with the decrease in stats as well it seems as though this may become a completely infantry dominated game amongst mp players who are able to tie cavalry up with their cavalry and get infantry into the fight which with the increase, especially in spearmen, will make heavy cavalry overpriced for what it can do. I do hope that light cavalry has been drastically nerfed however as at the moment it can stand upto heavy cavalry too well imho.

If archers are like they were in rtw except with some units such as longbowmen having ap on top of the increased ability then it will drastically improve the online experience, but could lead to some factions becoming overpowered who have the infantry and the archers such as England or moors.

The ha limits almost certainly going to go back to 2 now, just imagine what mounted xbows will do to cavalry if they've been increased along with classical horse archers, even further diminishing the use of heavy cavalry:wall:

One things for sure these changes will change the game completely, but we'll have to wait and see i guess to know the full effect. Hopefully the game won't change into something along the lines of bi though, god I hat that game:laugh4:

TosaInu
08-10-2007, 15:54
Sorry but did someone deleted my post here?

Hello Krook,

None of us deleted your post. There is the ever slim chance that something happened (host backup and fix, server hiccup), but I'm not aware of that.

KrooK
08-11-2007, 01:05
Looks like i wrote post and forgot to press "post"

RTKBarrett
08-11-2007, 01:19
HIGHHH fiiiVE!

Gd news indeed... could the mp community finally get some form of satisfaction from a tw product :D

Swoosh So
08-15-2007, 16:00
Sure if they now fix lag and that nasty looking foyer! :)

Wolf_Kyolic
08-15-2007, 18:42
Perfect balance with 2 frames per second. https://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9411/mehgd5.gif

Kronos
08-17-2007, 04:06
Well the latest bad news from CA is that the rebalancing in kingdoms won't be added to standard mtwII for whatever reason (sounded like a mixture of incompetence and not bothering to fix a flawed product because there's no money in it for them to me).

The reason they gave was actually because it caused an incompatibly between people playing mtwII who have the expansion and people playing mtwII without it. Which imo I think everyone would prefer to still having a broken game. It's either no one plays mtwII because it's a peice of **** or everyone plays mtwII but some people can't play with others even though atleast 90% of people would have kingdoms if not all as it's pretty much hardcore total war players online.

From the info about kingdoms so far the multi looks like it's going to be pretty poor, so it's either a broken game or a poor multiplayer game, which isn't much of a choice:wall:

Lets not forget that the actual issue that has been presented as the cause for the incompatibly is pretty much solely CA's fault and doesn't seem particularly hard to correct from my limited knowledge.

I've been a strong follower of CA for al ong time when alot of other people bashed htem however this is just rediculously bad on their part.

Swoosh So
08-17-2007, 18:25
Get used to it tbh, ever since CA left EA the multiplayer got worse and worse.

CA dont care about MP people just have to face up to it, theyre just tacking it on at the end of each game, why else would they not continue sucessful features like the chat and tournament rooms and online ladder....

I used to blow my top trying to get improvements or the old features reimplimented, now i just have fun with single player and tell my ideas for mp to anyone with an open ear, but i dont expect as i used to that CA would put a little effort into mp.

Paolai
08-18-2007, 01:13
These are good changes, what MTW2 needed to be a good game. Well done.

ELITEofBLIZZARD
08-18-2007, 14:51
Better listen to Kyolic :/

Even if balancing is great now, it wouldnt help anything. MTW2 (Kingdoms) will begreat to play in about 3 years, i assume.
When 4000 or even higher connection are common, like today DSL 1000 are, MTW2 will run smooth and therefore will be fun again... Its the same with MTW/VI. Before the release of RTW, most 4vs4 were pretty laggy (at least for me), nowadays, it runs without any problem at a pretty good fps rate. And my DSL 1000 connection didnt changed since that.

Think I'll handle Kingdoms like I handled BI. First "try" it, and if some mach valued vets it really recommend it I'll think about buying...

Benandorf
08-25-2007, 06:07
So, wait, will these changed only affect the Kingdoms campaigns, or will they affect the units in vanilla M2:TW too?

I like my huge number of cav...

CeltiberoMordred
08-25-2007, 12:31
So, wait, will these changed only affect the Kingdoms campaigns, or will they affect the units in vanilla M2:TW too?

I like my huge number of cav...

It will only affect Kingdoms factions, not M2TW vanilla.

Noir
08-26-2007, 12:12
The balancing sounds pretty good. It is interesting that from the sound of it the RPS is strengthened and the MTW model is used (again) as a basis for balancing purposes, things that have been long advocated from the mp community.

If i was more interested in M2 mp than i currently am, i would be interested to know about the relative percentages of casualties that cause routs on a one on one basis in Kingdoms.

Many Thanks

Noir

CeltiberoMordred
08-26-2007, 13:59
The balancing sounds pretty good. It is interesting that from the sound of it the RPS is strengthened and the MTW model is used (again) as a basis for balancing purposes, things that have been long advocated from the mp community.

If i was more interested in M2 mp than i currently am, i would be interested to know about the relative percentages of casualties that cause routs on a one on one basis in Kingdoms.

Many Thanks

Noir

About casualties that cause routs: on a one on one it will be same than M2TW, but with a difference: the 2 armor points that go to shield. That makes rear and flank attacks more deadly, causing more kills and therefore units will rout easier if you can flank properly.

The other change that could affect the rout point is heavy cavalry charges: in kingdoms there will be a HUGE difference if you charge with light cavalry or heavy. You can't use light cavalry to charge against heavy infantry anymore, they will be only useful to pursue routing units and killing missiles, and some rear charges (but not melee). Heaviest cavalry is very powerful charging vs non anticav units even frontally, specially if they don't carry shields, no matters how heavy the infantry unit is.

A good point with cavalry smaller size (apart from more maneuverable) is that it recover the old MTW relationship between cav and anticav units sizes: 75:30 = 100:40. A bad point is that the smaller size of cavalry unit will make them gain experience in battle faster than in vanilla M2TW, as usual.

In summary: better missiles to make these units more useful (specially vs rushes, cavalry and 2 handed weapon infantry), more variety in the use of cavalry, better 2 handed weapon units in melee, and spears that are very good vs all cavalry but very bad vs infantry with swords/axes, etc.

IMO it's the strongest RPS system since STW. A shame we cannot change difficulty settings (to set the impact of morale and exhaustion) or fix the lag in multiplayer, though.

Puzz3D
08-26-2007, 17:24
A good point with cavalry smaller size (apart from more maneuverable) is that it recover the old MTW relationship between cav and anticav units sizes: 75:30 = 100:40. A bad point is that the smaller size of cavalry unit will make them gain experience in battle faster than in vanilla M2TW, as usual.
Creative Assembly could remove the battlefield upgrades in multiplayer just like they removed them in MTW/VI. These upgrades change the relative unit balance as the battle progresses, and therefore undermine the effort of the devs who are trying to design a particular playbalance for the battles.

Noir
08-26-2007, 17:34
Thanks for answering CeltiberoMordred,

after reading Palamedes' blog i understand that your clan has been heavily involved into the rebalancing; kudos to all of you - i will certainly give it a go as i feel it will overcome the dissapointment that all current M2 versions presented gameplay/balance wise, so far.

Regarding the valoring up, IIRC there was a single digit value in the UNIT_PROD file in MTW that determined the rate the unit was gaining experience; most units were at 1 as default, but small strength/high attack units like berserkers for example were set to 2; presumambly i guess it was related somewhat to the number of kills the unit needed to make in-game to get a valor point. I do not remember if i encountered it in RTW, although i meddled with the files a lot some time ago though.

I would find it hard to believe however, that the parameter was removed and that this is not controllable anymore for home modding purposes, at least. I remember setting it to 4 in my home mode for MTW as default, to avoid jedi units being generated during SP campaigns by quick valoring up especially at the higher difficulties.

Many Thanks

Noir

CBR
08-26-2007, 18:26
IIRC we did tests and didnt see changing the parameter had any effect in MTW/VI.

I find it outright silly why battlefield upgrades havent been removed a long time ago. At least they dont have the same impact as in MTW but still...


CBR

Jambo
08-27-2007, 16:05
Will the weapon upgrade still give +6 attack? Imho, that was one of the worst balance decisions ever. It was touted a while back that this might be altered in Kingdoms, but the fact it's been confirmed that there will be no changes to the vanilla game seems to suggest the contrary.

Indeed, I can't even conceive how people with Kingdoms will even be able to play online against people without...

Puzz3D
08-27-2007, 20:21
Indeed, I can't even conceive how people with Kingdoms will even be able to play online against people without...
It looks like Kingdoms will split the community which has already been split several times. This splitting happened because Creative Assembly didn't continue to make incremental improvements to the engine and maintain the playbalance which would have allowed the fanbase to move smoothly to the next game. Instead, they remade the engine which radically changed the gameplay, introduced new problems and brought back problems that were already solved, and the playbalance was degraded because they put too many units into the multiplayer game. It's common knowledge that beginning with MTW the winner was determined primarily by what units were purchased rather than how the units were used on the battlefield. Out of about 100 unit types only about 14 were worth taking. As a consequence, a large portion of the fanbase was alienated, and didn't move to the next game. It isn't a question of money for most people. It's a question of deteriorated quality in the gameplay and network performance while the system requirements increase.

I can see now that an attempt is being made to improve the playbalance, but the engine is limiting what can be done compared to the older and supposedly inferior engine. Movement speed and reload times are now tied to animations which won't be changed because it's too much work to change them, and while the running speed was reduced in M2TW, they forgot to reduce the charge speed from the extremely high speeds of RTW. The combat cycle is also tied to animations which vary depending on weapon type and this complicates playbalancing. The person who does the playbalancing is stuck with parameters dictated by the animations which were chosen by a graphic artist long before the game was in a playable state.

Unwanted side effects result when you try to compensate for an imbalanced caused by one parameter by changing a different parameter. For instance, the idea of adjusting cav effectiveness in melee vs infantry by reducing the unit size by 25%, which has been done in Kingdoms, causes HA to also have reduced effectiveness in a skirmish with foot archers when that is a separate issue. What's needed are separate accuracy parameters for mounted bow and foot bow so that they can be adjusted independently. Without that you cannot balance the HA vs inf and cav in both melee and ranged effectiveness. LongJohn recognized this back in the original STW. Why does Creative Assembly not recognize this now?

CeltiberoMordred
08-27-2007, 21:59
Will the weapon upgrade still give +6 attack? Imho, that was one of the worst balance decisions ever. It was touted a while back that this might be altered in Kingdoms, but the fact it's been confirmed that there will be no changes to the vanilla game seems to suggest the contrary.

Indeed, I can't even conceive how people with Kingdoms will even be able to play online against people without...

It will be nerfed to +3 for Kingdoms AFAIK. In multiplayer (and in custom, and retrain in campaign), weapon upgrade cost will change according to the +3 instead of a simple +1.

Jambo
08-28-2007, 00:38
Mordred,

How can the weapon upgrade be +3 in the campaign and multiplayer if we've had word from CA that there's absolutely no change being made to the vanilla game?

CeltiberoMordred
08-28-2007, 01:33
I'm not talking about vanilla m2tw. This thread and the +3 bonus is for Kingdoms only (IIRC). There won't be any change for vanilla m2tw yet in balance terms.

Jambo
08-28-2007, 12:18
So those without Kingdoms can't play against those with Kingdoms?

What's this 1.3 compatibility patch then? It's for vanilla.

Orda Khan
08-28-2007, 16:27
Yes, the patch is for vanilla....but only so that those without Kingdoms can still play those with Kingdoms.
Neither the patch nor Kingdoms will adjust anything within the M2TW SP campaign or M2TW multiplay.
In short......it's a mess

......Orda

nooooooooober
09-19-2007, 03:15
are there any MP mods out?