Brainstorming: Inconsistencies in the unit file

[therother]

Okay, new thread - old one is here. This thread is for voicing ideas for things you think are wrong or inconsistent in the units file. I am aware that this thread might well veer towards the modding sphere, but in bear in mind this is still intended to fix only bugs, so nothing too radical will probably be accepted. Also keep in mind the specific rules of this forum.

We may transfer in a few posts from the old thread, or maybe not. We haven't yet decided.

Anyhow, let the ideas/research commence...

[player1]

Why is "What You See Is What You Get" difficuly to do in without some heavy moding in RTW?

Too many internal inconsistances in unit stats.

For example, look all those barbarian units, they pretty much wear no armor, but most of them get armor rating of 3.

On the other hand, few of them, like woard warriors, nakaed fanatics or choosen axemen get 0. Why? I don't think that trousers add to armor rating


Then there is big inconsistency about should helemt and greaves add too armor rating or not.

Militia Hoplite with metal greaves and helmet, get 0, while Heavy Pelistas gets 3, Bastanae get 2, while Gladiators get whooping 7 (although there is some extra protection on one of the hands).


Then some barbarian bodyguards are intersting, they usually have lower armor then barbaric cavalry that uses same skin.


Then, Landcers have same skin as Greek cavalry, but they are supposed to have no armor, it's is different colored, but still looks light armored.


Then leather armor used by most spanish and carthaginian troops goes from values of 2 to 5 (while still looking the same).


All cavalry units have same shield stats of 4, although many units have different sizes of shields.


Then lots of shield bonuses for infatry are wrong too. Many same size shields get values from 2 to 5 (most noticable with barbarian factions).

Of course, there are also few units that are missing shields but have shield bonus (Bediun archer, Thracian bodyguard, Pharaoh Pikemen), and few with shield but no bonus (upgraded pontus general).


Now, the main question is when to draw the line. Many of thses inconsistances are incosistant with WYSIWYG, but are consistant with each other (like most barbarian units that get 3 poitns of armor), or all cavalry giving same shield bonus. If we chnage them all we get a game that could be much different then original RtW. Also question of cost remaines, how to price upkeep, weapon upgrades and unit cost for such units. Some reverse engineering of oririginal stats could be useful.


Some of these issues could be "reskin" related too. For exmaple, it is possibile that most barbarian units at one point of development were supposed to have leather armor (evidence: look rebel and mercenary warbard), but is was later decided otherwise. And armor rating misteriously remained.


EDIT:
Sorry, if this maybe souded like rant, but it isn't suposed to be. Just to point out some difficulties when searching for unit inconsistances.

[Bob the Insane]

Just to a a little abstraction to the thought process...

The shield value need not only represent how big a shield is, it could also represent how proficiently it is handled...

The Armour value may not just be the physical armour but also the ability to dodge (think D&D and the dexterity bouse to AC.. )

[player1]

I think I reverse engineered, how costs of weapon and armor upgrades are calculated.

For weapon upgrade cost, divide unit cost by 10 and then round up to nearest number with last digit 0.

For armor upgrade cost, divide unit cost by 10, then multiply result with 1.5, and then round up to nearest number with last digit 0.


For example Axemen costs 450gp.
Weapon upgrade would cost 45, so round up to 50.
Armor upgrade would cost 45*1.5=67.5 round up to 70

On the other hand, Falxmen which costs 500gp.
Weapon upgrade would cost 50, with rounding up stays 50.
Armor upgrade would cost 50*1.5=75 round up to 80


There is a small exption by the way.
Units with cost of 470 would need armor upgrade of 70.5, which is rounded to 70, not 80.

I guess that's beacuse first number is first transformed to integer (and thus loses extra 0.5).


By the way, upkeep cost for units is usually not directly related to unit cost.

[Jambo]

Yeah, the term "opening a can of worms" can definitely apply to this project!

My immediate suggestions would be these:

1. Get some of the "mass" values updated for units (e.g. bull warriors, thracean bastarnae, silver legionaries, etc.).

2. Add shield values where appropriate to units that have them but don't benefit from the stats. I think this is more important than removing shields from uniots that don;'t have them simply because archers are so potent anyway and units that clearly display shields should benefit accordingly. People play to what they see, not to hidden stats.

3. Pikemen should be size 60. To me it's clear the eastern phalanx pikemen should be this size as they're almost a complete replicate of the Macedon version. Cost should be adjusted to suit.

4. Full size pikemen (60) should have 8 ranks while the smaller sized hoplites (40) should have 5 ranks. There's currently a discrepancy or two in the files.

More to come as I remember.

[player1]

3. Pikemen should be size 60. To me it's clear the eastern phalanx pikemen should be this size as they're almost a complete replicate of the Macedon version. Cost should be adjusted to suit.

That would make them more expensive then bronze pikes.
Maybe better compromise would be "cloning" macedonian Phalanx Pikemen.

[Jambo]

sorry. That's what I actually meant! :O ;)

[Kraxis]

Desert Axemen are still too heavily armoured. Their armour value should not exceed 3 (since this is what various barb units get for being naked ). But personally I would prefer a total lack of armour, but that is certainly modding it as they would need some compensation in attack and defensive ability.

Cavalry getting 4 in shield bonus is increadible. As already mentioned many get too much bonus for the shield size. But we often forget that the large shields such as those of the Legionary and Praetorian Cavalry can only be used on one side, the cavalryman can swirl in the saddle like the Rebel Bodyguards can for instance. So their ability to use the shield is hampered. In general I think cavalry shields add too much as even the largest shield can't protect much of the horse itself.

[therother]

I am aware that this might well be opening a can of worms, which was one reason why I decided to co-opt Red Harvest's brainstorming idea. For the moment, all we are after is suggestions and ideas. I think that only correcting factual errors is appropriate for the time being - we'll worry about consensus later. I just want to see a free flowing of idea for now.

[Betito]

Alright, some issues i think that must be taken in consideration:

1) Pharaoh's guards shield value : This is (IMO) the most notable shield inconsistency in the game, just like desert axemen were for armour rating.

2) Upkeep costs : Especially for cavalry, but also true in the case of missile units. I think all the upkeep costs for cavalry should be increased in order to get some economical consistency. And perhaps the costs for some skirmishers, archers and slingers are a bit too high...

...i'll think on some more...

[player1]

2) Upkeep costs : Especially for cavalry, but also true in the case of missile units. I think all the upkeep costs for cavalry should be increased in order to get some economical consistency. And perhaps the costs for some skirmishers, archers and slingers are a bit too high...

...i'll think on some more...

Well high upkeep for archer represents that they need arrows.
Should stay, epsecily if you consider common complains that archery is uber.

[Betito]

Well high upkeep for archer represents that they need arrows.
Should stay, epsecily if you consider common complains that archery is uber.

Yeah, perhaps they should...

So, this would mean that missile cavalry should have a larger increment in upkeep cost? I mean, even a bit greater than the rest of the cavalry? (of course, assuming there will be such an increase). For we would be applying this same idea of needing ammo...

[player1]

Although one possbile problem for higher costs of cavalry would be higher deficit for Parthia. They already have hard start, and more upkeep for thier cavalry could put them down for good.

[player1]

BUG-FIXER, an unofficial patch for Rome: Total War released:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=716695

[Kraxis]

Skirmishers should have a much lower upkeep than archers. Take your pick, either archers should have theirs increased or Skirmishers should have theirs lowered. I'm for upping archery costs.

But most certainly cavalry is far too cheap in upkeep, especially Cataphracts.
Cetainly units such as eastern horse archers and scythians horse archers should stay relatively cheap in upkeep, or else we kill the eastern factions off. But anything heavier like Pontic heavies, Cappadocians, Cataphract archers and other heavier cavalry should be expensive. The Scythians should perhaps get off a bit cheaper with their heavy cavalry types, but even they should have it increased.

[CeltiberoMordred]

Praetorian cohorts aren't hardy. It's weird, because all the other roman cohorts (even auxilia) have good or stamina.

[MajorFreak]

gaaaaaaaaahhh...Wardog/Pigs can't be attached to the resource? aieeee...hmmmm. Right then, nothing else to do but remove them from the export_building.txt, right? Anyone had any luck with stopping the AI from building them willy-nilly?

BTW, on that thought (ie. dogs/pigs in battle = dumb) is there a substitute i can throw into the stables section? Britons stables are EMPTY without dogs.

[player1]

Praetorian cohorts aren't hardy. It's weird, because all the other roman cohorts (even auxilia) have good or stamina.

Maybe it has something to do with them not being trained in barracks?

[sunsmountain]

The Armour value may not just be the physical armour but also the ability to dodge (think D&D and the dexterity bouse to AC.. )

This is no abstraction, this is actual gameplay: Attacks from all sides have to roll against armour to score a hit (and most units 1 hitpoint means wounded/dead)

I would advise people worrying about pharaoh guards having too small shields to cover their genitalia, to create some new textures and reskin these models. I'm happy with what CA did, and applaud their choices as far as game balance is concerned. What worries me is the AI, but that's not the subject.

There may be inconsistencies in the unit file, but not for me. (exception: bugs, see bug-fixer)

Although one possbile problem for higher costs of cavalry would be higher deficit for Parthia. They already have hard start, and more upkeep for thier cavalry could put them down for good.

Which is why i advise against modifying the upkeep costs at all. Play on normal, and cavalry are not as good as you think they are. On higher difficulties the attack value is increased by +4/+7 for Hard/Very Hard, both for the AI and the player. Attack value is crucial for cavalry, who need to score many hits fast (and they are faster because of the charge and their speed), which means cavalry is overpowered in Rome:TW on Hard and Very Hard, but not on Normal. They're even a little weak on Easy.

[Weirwood]

I agree about those eastern pikemen, they should have the same stats as hellenic ones. IIRC, there's an inconsistency about Armenian heavy spearmen, they get phalanx mode AND the +4 bonus vs cav that non-phalanx spearmen get.

Also, I think unit sizes should be consistent, I'm thinking of Egyptian archers, scythian noblewomen, egyptian desert cav and arcanii here, don't know off my head if those are all. they should have the same size as like units.

[sunsmountain]

IIRC, there's an inconsistency about Armenian heavy spearmen, they get phalanx mode AND the +4 bonus vs cav that non-phalanx spearmen get.

Yeah but they're still weak as crap.

Also, I think unit sizes should be consistent, I'm thinking of Egyptian archers, scythian noblewomen, egyptian desert cav and arcanii here, don't know off my head if those are all. they should have the same size as like units.

Arcanii have 2 hitpoints each (and have a general-assassin-type/role), egyptian archers and desert cav have higher upkeep than similar troops of other factions, and scythian noble women is probably low on numbers for some historical accuracy.

The only reason i can think of for this thread to exist is for multiplayer balancing, other than that i yet have to hear the first good reason.

[player1]

Analysis of mass values for melee infantry units.


There are two groups here.
Barbarian infantry and civilized infantry.

Barbairian melee infantry has mass of 1.2 or 1.5. Those units can also be distinguished by inablity to make sap points (so Thracian Bastarnae is also barbarian infantry).

Most of them have mass of 1.2. It seams that 1.5 mass is reserved either for "beserk-units" (0 armor and great attack), like Falxmen or Woads, or for units with good armor, like Chosen Swordsmen. Even units such as Bastarnae have just 1.2 mass, since they still have some small armor rating (due to helmet).

As for cilized units, most have mass of 1.
1.3 mass is reserved for units with good armor (7+), but with some exeptions. It seems that spear units, in order to have 1.3 mass, either need even greater armor (like Armoured Hoplites), huge attack (like Spartans), or something in the middle (althouhg that does not explain why Poeni has mass of 1.3, while Pharaoh Guards do not).


There are few weird things too. Like Selucid Legion that has just mass of 1, although being heavy, as well as Merc. Bastarnae with mass of 1, although no much different then non-mercenary version.

Spanish Scitarii and Bull Warriors are interesting too. They together with Naked Fanatics are only Spanish units that can be considered barbaric, since they have no ability to sap (does not include Spanish Mercenaries that can sap). So it would be common sense to have them with at least mass of 1.2. Still they have mass of 1.

[player1]

The only reason i can think of for this thread to exist is for multiplayer balancing, other than that i yet have to hear the first good reason.

What so wrong about pointing inconsistencies?
Some of them could actually be errors or typos, and not design decisions.

[sunsmountain]

Well i find nothing inconsistent about the unit rosters: I have nothing else to compare it to. Although there could be typo's of course.

The Spanish barbarians have mass value of 1, interesting, but does that mean we wish to change that? The title of this thread suggests 'Fixes' of some sort, and perhaps im not clear on the purpose of this thread.

[player1]

The Spanish barbarians have mass value of 1, interesting, but does that mean we wish to change that? The title of this thread suggests 'Fixes' of some sort, and perhaps im not clear on the purpose of this thread.

Search for potential typos that are not ment to be?

Anyway it's mostly brainstorming, since it's very subjective what is an error, or what is not the way it is designed to be.


Although I must say that Pontic Phalanx Pikemen unit size seems suspicious to me. Their stats are pure copy of Armenian Heavy Spearmen, with exeption of long pikes. Then their desciption says that they have 8 rows, while in reality it is just 5 due to their 40/80 stack size. Not to mention 5 shiled bonus, with their small sheild.

[Sfwartir]

Although I must say that Pontic Phalanx Pikemen unit size seems suspicious to me. Their stats are pure copy of Armenian Heavy Spearmen, with exeption of long pikes. Then their desciption says that they have 8 rows, while in reality it is just 5 due to their 40/80 stack size. Not to mention 5 shiled bonus, with their small sheild.

Good point, I've noticed this and it seems rather awkward. Bug? Or is it some historical facts on Armenia that backs this up?