[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[TheShakAttack]

I would agree with Ludens that this is not a big deal in MP. If it was an issue, we could always modify the relevant file for a historical battle. We tend to play h. battles with specialised EDUs anyways, so we could certainly do a modified projectile file.

[Kival]

Perhaps I just overread the reasoning but why did gamegeek increase lethality for the the iberian ap-swords but not for the hellenic ones. Were the iberian ones deadlier?

[antisocialmunky]

I would agree with Ludens that this is not a big deal in MP. If it was an issue, we could always modify the relevant file for a historical battle. We tend to play h. battles with specialised EDUs anyways, so we could certainly do a modified projectile file.

I don't think it'd be an issue.

[TheShakAttack]

@Kival

Afaik, the "kopis" used by the hellenic troops was classified as more of a cavalry weapon than an infantry one. The "iberian machiara/falcatta" was an infantry one. Also, presumably the Iberians were more adept at wielding the falcatta since it was a very "standard weapon" for them, whereas the kopis was less commonly used by the hellens?

Also, I guess it might have something to do with game-balancing?

[vartan]

@Kival

Afaik, the "kopis" used by the hellenic troops was classified as more of a cavalry weapon than an infantry one. The "iberian machiara/falcatta" was an infantry one. Also, presumably the Iberians were more adept at wielding the falcatta since it was a very "standard weapon" for them, whereas the kopis was less commonly used by the hellens?

That's really good historical information, but it doesn't say anything about how or why a kopis is less "deadly" (by what standards?) than a falcata.

EDIT: To elaborate. That a piece of weaponry was used by the cavalry goes to show its scarcity, its not being ubiquitous. How only those who could afford to be cavalry would afford such weaponry. That it was a piece of weaponry wielded only by cavalry would by definition (at least in antiquity) mean its rarity ("less commonly used").

[TheShakAttack]

That is certainly a valid interpretation of the facts and may well be true (unfortunately my knowledge is rather limited so i cannot confirm nor deny).

My thoughts were that the kopis was longer than the falcatta, and therefore was useful for cavalry (to help with reach) and because a larger weapon allowed more momentum to be generated. The same could be slightly troublesome/unwiedly in melee, which is why sabres for instance were very popular with cavalry, but no so much with infantry.

I am unable to categorically state why one is statted as "deadlier" than the other, only thing I could put it down to is how ubiquitous it was and possibly to make cartho/iberian units more balanced.

[vartan]

On that note, longswords are longer and heavier than shortswords. Let's make them less deadlier because apparently falcata are deadlier than kopis? Course not. gg2's it's a party in this EDU...

[gamegeek2]

You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.

[vartan]

You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.

In other words, what is the EDU going to want?

[Lazy O]

type iberian infantry dunaminaca
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.16
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership spain, gauls, scythia, slave


;539
type iberian infantry dunaminaca mercenary
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Mercenary Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.15
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership seleucid, egypt, slave

Fix it.

[TheShakAttack]

@GG2

Hmm....in that case should the same not apply to a longsword? Perhaps its because of the animation? (Talking out of total ignorance here). If longsword units have slow animations to reflect how "unweildy" it was, then it would make sense having a higher lethality than shorter swords.

In comparison, if Falcatta and Kopis have equal "delay" animations, it is necessary to differentiate their lethality.

[Lazy O]

Whats gonna happen to the eagles. I missed the whole discussion

[-Stormrage-]

Guys is there anyway we can Remove Guard mode, and can we execute Order 66 on guard mode.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.

Shouldn't this translate to higher lethality but lower attack, somewhat similarly to the longsword? Harder to successfully connect with a kopis because it is more unwieldly, but if you do, the extra weight would make for more damage to be done to the target.

[gamegeek2]

Attack and Lethality are interchangeable.

[antisocialmunky]

Are you sure about that? Its like (1+lethality) ^(attack - defense) or something right?

[Kival]

Shouldn't this translate to higher lethality but lower attack, somewhat similarly to the longsword? Harder to successfully connect with a kopis because it is more unwieldly, but if you do, the extra weight would make for more damage to be done to the target.

Agreed.

@gamegeek/asm

When are people only thrown to the ground but not killed? Does that have nothing to do with lethality?

[-Stormrage-]

Agreed.

@gamegeek/asm

When are people only thrown to the ground but not killed? Does that have nothing to do with lethality?

Lethality is the percent chance a strike will hit or the person will fall and stand up again.

For example lethality 0.15 , thats 15% chance that person will die when he falls down and 85% chance he will get back up.

[antisocialmunky]

My understanding is attack is the chance to hit which clauses flinching and knock down, lethality is the chance to kill as opposed to knock down. So high attack + low lethality = knocked down while low attack + high lethality = less knockdown, more dying.

[Kival]

Lethality is the percent chance a strike will hit or the person will fall and stand up again.

For example lethality 0.15 , thats 15% chance that person will die when he falls down and 85% chance he will get back up.

No, that's actually wrong, it's not a 1 to 1 representation



@asm

Yes, I thought so, too. And my observation agrees with it. But this formula you have does not really agree with it, unless it's the formula for actually killing with no informations about hitting alone.

[-Stormrage-]

attack is the value that gets your sword through the armor, lethality is if that sword will kill when it penetrates the armour or just wound (knock down).

So inconclusion, you need high attack value to get your sword to penetrate your enemies armour, you need lethality to make sure that penetration actually kills.

[vartan]

By interchangeable gg2 doesn't mean equivalent. They're tied together hand-in-hand, but they aren't reduplicated stat values.

[gamegeek2]

I don't think lethality has anything to do with knockdown, but I definitely could be wrong.

[-Stormrage-]

GG i have to say i love your Panda Phalanxes :DD

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yeah, I've heard that a successful hit but poor luck from the lethality "roll" would lead to a knockdown but this can't be the case. That would mean that approximately 80% of successful attack/defense strikes would lead to knockdowns, meaning that masses of men would be lying on their butts during the battle which is clearly not the case. I think knockdown is just one of the animations that happens when a strike is not totally successful, aka various flinching/dodging animations or even the shield raising ones.

[Kival]

Yeah, I've heard that a successful hit but poor luck from the lethality "roll" would lead to a knockdown but this can't be the case. That would mean that approximately 80% of successful attack/defense strikes would lead to knockdowns, meaning that masses of men would be lying on their butts during the battle which is clearly not the case. I think knockdown is just one of the animations that happens when a strike is not totally successful, aka various flinching/dodging animations or even the shield raising ones.

Though I've heard about stamina (and morale?) effects of knocking down but not killing... and at least in my obsverations there is a difference in the percentage of knockdowns compared to kills for high lethality vs low lethality.

[antisocialmunky]

No, that's actually wrong, it's not a 1 to 1 representation



@asm

Yes, I thought so, too. And my observation agrees with it. But this formula you have does not really agree with it, unless it's the formula for actually killing with no informations about hitting alone.

Its to kill chance, I found it in the TWCenter modding wiki or the Ludus Magna.

[Kival]

That does not make sense, a chance should be a value between 0-1, this formula does not have this range of values. Now I'm confused, I've to look that up more serious.

[-Stormrage-]

I call upon GI to give us the Interpretation of this hadeeth.

[TheShakAttack]

Please refrain from making religious references.