View Full Version : Creative Assembly longjohn: Take building valor bonus out of patch!
AgentBif
10-09-2002, 01:04
In an abstract sense, good game design involves providing the gamer with a variety of tactical choices, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. No single tactical approach should always be effective. Moreover, the strongest choice in a given situation should generally not be obvious.
Unfortunately, MTW presently is heavily biased toward cheap units. People right now tend to field armies composed almost entirely of the lower cost spear or sword and only employ other types for trace "specialty" roles.
This is not what I'd call tactically rich game design. Moreover, it is not realistic either. Right now, approaches focusing on missiles, cavalry, and expensive heavy infantry are just not viable options in MP. There is pretty much only one viable tactical approach to this game: hordes of cheap light infantry.
In SP, the more interesting, more expensive units are just so cost ineffective that the only real reason to use them is whimsical rather than tactical.
And so here is the point of my request: If building valor bonuses are implemented like they were in Shogun, this would just make the problem twice as bad (or worse), rendering the more expensive, tactically interesting units almost totally useless.
In Shogun, the high valor was only available to the cheap units. High level troops that required advanced buildings would not receive significant benefit from this feature. Since often the more pricey squads differ from the lower peasantry by only a couple points in melee, defense, etc, blessing the peasant units with 2 or 3 valor would completely wash out the meager tactical advantage the elites would otherwise have. In fact, in reality, elite troops often had _massive_ advantages over weaker armies. But the valor bonuses on training facilities, if they are granted preferrentially to peasantry, will render elite units barely more effective, if at all.
There are several possible ways to fix this:
1) Do not implement the valor bonus at all.
2) Make valor bonus a checkbox option.
3) Make separate buildings for each unit type to provide valor bonuses to all units of that type (ex: elite training facility for spear, missile, sword, cavalry, naval, siege). This way, both cheap and expensive units can obtain valor bonuses.
4) Dramatically increase the cost of training a unit with a valor bonus.
Please head off this problem before the patch is distributed. The game already suffers from the peasant bias, and this feature, if it is implemented as I understand it, would heavily diminish the quality of gameplay, IMO. (Not to mention, be heavily unrealistic!)
bif
Right now, the few valor bonuses that work give them equally to everybody. Both nubian spearmen and saracen infantry get +2 from workshop.
I think this is the way to go.
LittleRaven
10-09-2002, 03:15
Quote Originally posted by andrewt:
Right now, the few valor bonuses that work give them equally to everybody. Both nubian spearmen and saracen infantry get +2 from workshop.
I think this is the way to go.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm...I’m not sure about that. There are two problems with this approach.
1) Valor is tremendously important to morale. As Kraxis pointed out in another thread, if everything is valor 3, we’re going to have battles where people hardly ever run, and most elite units will probably fight to the death every time. That’s not necessarily a balance issue, but I’m not sure it’s what the developers intended.
2)I suspect that this may have a “flattening” effect on unit performance. Consider the difference between, say FS and FMAA.
FS – Attack 0, Defense 1
FMAA – Attack 3, Defense 4
If they are both at valor 2, then we have
FS – Attack 2, Defense 3
FMAA – Attack 5, Defense 5
Before the valor boosts, the FMAA had 4 times the defense of the FS. Afterwards, they have less than twice as much, even though each got the same boost. Unfortunately I’m not familiar enough with the mathematics behind battle resolution to say if this actually will “flatten” results or not. Does anyone know exactly how the math works?
At this point, though, I don’t think anything is going to be changed before the first patch comes out, so I guess we should just wait and see....I have faith in the devs, they’re smart guys. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
The developers have said that attack and defense values are relative, not absolute. If that is true, then you cannot compare the absolute values to one another, but the spreads between any two units. And the spreads between attack for any two units and the spread for defense between any two units remain the same at the equivalent valor levels - hence no problem exists. Assuming that what was previously said was true.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by LittleRaven:
Before the valor boosts, the FMAA had 4 times the defense of the FS. Afterwards, they have less than twice as much, even though each got the same boost.[/QUOTE]
Not really as the stats can be negative... how many times stronger is the FMAA than the Peasants (attack -1, def -3)??? It would be a negative answer then... Not really the correct one is it?
But in reality, there will not be much change for the FS as they are now produced at V2 when we get them, while they should be V0, and they can only get to V3 in all... And I don't find them to be too strong in any case...
But the point stands, though I guess people would still go for the 'stronger' units.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Not really as the stats can be negative... how many times stronger is the FMAA than the Peasants (attack -1, def -3)??? It would be a negative answer then... Not really the correct one is it?[/QUOTE]
Which makes perfect sense when the values need to be compared on a relative value instead of an absolute value as I noted above. You have to compare the spreads not the absolute values.
Grifman
LittleRaven
10-09-2002, 04:06
Like I said, I don't know enough about the math to know if flattening takes place or not. Does anyone know the exact mathematics that go on to determine if a guy dies? (leaving out external factors like terrain bonuses and such) I know that attacks are simultaneous, but that's about it. Does it maybe say in the strat guide?
Obviously, values are not absolute. (we can go negative, after all) But to what degree they are relative I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure that if the difference between the stats are the same, the resulting equation comes out with the same results every time.
Meaning V0 FMAA vs V0 FS is the same as V2 FMAA vs V2 FS. Not evening out the odds.
But I guess we will have to get an answer from the people of knowledge...
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I read somewhere that the formula for combat resolution is:
df = attack - defend
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^df
So no, it doesn't matter if you increase both units by two valor -- the resultant differences between atk and def remain the same.
It's also interesting to note that the exponential form of the function means that in some sense there are increasing returns to extra attack, and decreasing returns to extra defense.
Perec_Dojo
10-09-2002, 05:47
The problem in SP is not the giving of valor bonuses to infantry per se (although I find that this is pretty unrealistic, given the lack of emphasis on infantry training during the early period), but that the buildings give valor and morale bonuses at each level, so that:
Spearmen produced by a level one boulding are valor 0, but produced by a level 2 building are valor 1, etc.
Since most cavalry (and in particular knights) are several tech levels up from basic infantry, they tend to be valor 0 when much of the infantry they face will be valor 1-2. This gives infantry an unfair and unrealistic advantage.
Also, it should be noted that the whole point of shock troops (and in particular heavy cav) is to break the enemy's morale, and valor inflation tends to de-emphasize this function of shock troops.
In truth, MTW doesn't feel very feudal. As the absolute ruler of your faction, pretty much everything is within your control, including the nobles. I would prefer if the forts, keeps, castles, etc. came with their own knights. As for the infantry, I think they are too permanent. Upkeep on standing armies should be far more expensive than currently, meaning that you would have to field lots of peasants to go with your free knights in the early game.
Maybe upkeep on standing armies would go down (or be simply more affordable due to better economies) in the high and late periods. It also makes mercenaries more attractive.
MajorFreak
10-09-2002, 10:17
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
The developers have said that attack and defense values are relative, not absolute. If that is true, then you cannot compare the absolute values to one another, but the spreads between any two units. And the spreads between attack for any two units and the spread for defense between any two units remain the same at the equivalent valor levels - hence no problem exists. Assuming that what was previously said was true.
Grifman[/QUOTE]
hi hi...can i get a confirmation on that, please? sounds intriguing.
personally, no matter what, the building valour should be a factor BECAUSE heirs are usually high command. (talking brass tacks, if you want to nuke building Valour, then also urge them to take not only hier experience away, but Virtues&Vices)in other words, mate, i'm NOT in favour of the thread's title[/list]
------------------
Quote Originally posted by MajorFreak:
Originally posted by Grifman:
The developers have said that attack and defense values are relative, not absolute. If that is true, then you cannot compare the absolute values to one another, but the spreads between any two units. And the spreads between attack for any two units and the spread for defense between any two units remain the same at the equivalent valor levels - hence no problem exists. Assuming that what was previously said was true.
Grifman
hi hi...can i get a confirmation on that, please? sounds intriguing.
personally, no matter what, the building valour should be a factor BECAUSE heirs are usually high command. (talking brass tacks, if you want to nuke building Valour, then also urge them to take not only hier experience away, but Virtues&Vices)in other words, mate, i'm NOT in favour of the thread's title[/list]
[/QUOTE]
See the recent thread I started asking about an explanation on armor. It's in there.
Grifman
AgentBif
10-09-2002, 23:31
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
I'm pretty sure that if the difference between the stats are the same, the resulting equation comes out with the same results every time.
Meaning V0 FMAA vs V0 FS is the same as V2 FMAA vs V2 FS. Not evening out the odds.
But I guess we will have to get an answer from the people of knowledge...
[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen longjohn2 post anything for a while, I fear he may be taking a long break from the boards and may miss some really important discussions. Anyone have any better ideas of how to reach him?
A while ago, several sites had a great detailed list of all the bonuses that went into affecting the combat equation in Shogun. There were things like +4 for flank, +6 for rear, +4 inf vs cav, +2 inf vs cav in woods, etc... I would assume that the combat engine for MTW is quite similar and that many of the mods have been carried over from that game. It would be nice if we could get such a list again.
In any case, when you look at the atk and def parameters for each of the units, you see that they are generally quite small values... most under 4, few (any?) exceed 8. When you then look down the list of combat mods for Shogun, you see that it is quite probable that under most combat conditions, these situational mods will add up to be at least comparable, if not dominant over the inherent atk and def values of most units in the game.
This means that if you take, say, Chiv Foot Knights vs Feudal Sergeants, you are pitting a 4/6 unit vs a 0/-1. (I don't know how shields work, but that detail won't be more than a 3 factor on def, I believe, not really relevant.) When you only account for atk/def, that ratio sounds like the Knights should totally dominate the spears. However, situational bonuses could easly fudge the final atk and def values +-8 or so, perhaps even more. So the knight is attacking the spear at a +5 and the spear attacking the knight at -6 but the situational bonuses could even the combat odds. This is an extreme example and you can see that the geometric and psychological factors in the battle can easily (and often do) wash out differences in inherent combat capabilities.
My point then is that elite units are already less dominant in the game than they probably should be. Adding further valor bonuses to both lower and upper class units will fade these differences even more. And preferentially adding valor bonuses to the peasantry will simply decimate the game ;^)
My vote would be to first tweak all the units so that there is a significantly greater spread in the inherent atk and def values; Then make valor bonuses available to all levels of units.
(Actually, a clumsy but easy approach might be to simply multiply all atk and def values by 1.5 or 2.0).
Ah well, I always was the crazy radical type...
bif
which buildings give valor bonuses?
longjohn2
10-10-2002, 00:32
Well strat map stuff is nothing to do with me, so I couldn't change things even if I wanted to.
However, I believe the way that valour upgrades work has been changed for the patch, so that generally higher level buildings don't give valour upgrades. There are some levels that do, but these are generally ones that don't give you any new units to build. The upgrades are supposed to work properly now. ECS or Target might be able to confirm this rumour.
I also made an accross the board reduction in prices of units costing above 300f. The size of the reduction depending on their cost, but being around 20% for the more expensive units. Chivalric Knights now cost 650f I believe. I can't remember any of the others, so don't even think about asking http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif).
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 00:56
Quote Originally posted by longjohn2:
I also made an accross the board reduction in prices of units costing above 300f. The size of the reduction depending on their cost, but being around 20% for the more expensive units. Chivalric Knights now cost 650f I believe. I can't remember any of the others, so don't even think about asking http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif).
[/QUOTE]
Thanks much for the reply dude. Good news about both the valor and the high cost units.
Whee, now Chiv Knights merely cost 13x as much as spears instead of 17x!
It should help though, thanks for that move.
BTW, in the epic cavalry debates, there seems to be a concensus congealing that cavalry should probably have a more dramatic impact on morale when they charge. Have you been following those discussions?
bif
Deamoclese
10-10-2002, 01:08
I don;t really understand how valor bonuses work right now as is... If I have the highest level possible swordsmith and I make a FMAA, how much valor will he get? What if I make a chivalric MAA, what will it be for him?
I can't figure out what units I should make in campaign.. all this talk about upgrades is confusing... if I understand it right, the more elite units get no bonuses with the best buildings, while the cheap units get good bonuses and are hence better than the elite one's?
Can anyone explain in laymen's terms to me?
longjohn2
10-10-2002, 01:37
I'd advise people are interested in historical accuracy to play without giving units any upgrades. Most of the things people are suggesting are already in the game, but upgrading valour or giving the army a 9 star general tend to mean that morale effects count for little.
You also have to understand that MTW is not a wargame or a simulation. It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market. This menas that there are many features in the game that can't necessarily be justified historically, and it means we try to have clear combat rules such as spears beat cavalry.
That said I have made a couple of slight tweaks with regard to cavalry fighting spears, The basic rule remains though. Cavalry should certain be more cost effective vs other types too.
A lot of people have expressed the view that units charged in flank or rear should just fold up and die. Given the way you easily manoeuvre your units with no delay, I don't think this would improve the game, especailly for MP.
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 06:19
K, thanks for your time.
bif
Good points longjohn2, and ones we tend to overlook. A game has to walk a thin line sometimes between the "hardcore" and the "mass market" and sometimes it's not an easy job. FYI, given everything, I think ya'll have done a good job at both. Sure, there are some things everyone would want done differently, but it's not my design or my job - I just get to enjoy it. Great game, and great job on it.
Grifman
Quote You also have to understand that MTW is not a wargame or a simulation. It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market. This menas that there are many features in the game that can't necessarily be justified historically, and it means we try to have clear combat rules such as spears beat cavalry.[/QUOTE]
What what? MTW is NOT a wargame? You mean all this time I've been playing a historically themed strategy game aimed at the mass market? Ye gods man, what was I thinking? I'll burn in hell for this act of heresy! I'd better pull out my old hex based map and dice wargames and uninstall these Total War games immediately! Oh, wait, that didn't sound right did it? Total War... games? Let's break it down shall we? These games feature HISTORICALLY ACCURATE NATIONS bent on the CONQUEST of their neighbors via the movement of vast ARMIES of ARMED MEN led by GENERALS with each ARMY being composed of various UNIT TYPES that, once arrayed in FORMATION on the varying TERRAIN of the BATTLEFIELD, endeavor to DEFEAT their KING's enemies in REALTIME and whose behavior, effectiveness and ultimate success is determined by TACTICS, UNIT FACINGS, MORALE, WEAPONRY and ARMOR. Well call me a silly Yank but it sounds like you chaps made yourself one helluva wargame!
And to think that this 31 year old gamer was finally witnessing one of his favorite genres join the 21st century!
P.S. I think your producers and/or publishers underestimate the mass gaming market. If the masses are willing to put up with the dizzying myriad of units, buildings and upgrades of say, the Warcraft/Starcraft series or even the enormous depth and complexity of 'populist' games like Sim City or Civilization series then having them accept the fact that Spearmen won't always stop a Heavy Cavalry charge doesn't seem too daunting a task now does it? You've done an excellent job of hiding these complex issues from the average gamer and for those of us desperate for more information it's there if we want it. Modeling MTW to be more historically accurate should not, in any way, detract from its popular appeal. So congratulations CA, you've done it: You've simulated war in such a way as to not put the average gamer to sleep as they would with a traditional hex based wargame. And after all, what do people buy MTW for if not in anticpation of WAGING WAR!
Dorkus,
That equation does match the table printed in the strategy guide for probability to kill. Since the system is centered at about 2%, it does at first look like you can get more benefit by adding attack rather than defend, but that's not actually the case.
Consider the similar equation:
chance to kill = 2% * 2^df,
and you have two 3/3 (att/def) men, A and B, who will fight. Each man will have a 2% chance of killing the other during each combat cycle.
Man A or Man B:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Now suppose I buy +3 attack points for man A:
Man A:
att - def = 6 - 3 = 3
chance to kill = 2% * 2^3 = 16%
Man B:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Man A has 8 times the chance of killing man B in each combat cycle.
Now, rather than buy +3 attack, buy +3 defend for man A.
Man A:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Man B:
att - def = 3 - 6 = -3
chance to kill = 2% * 2^-3 = 0.25%
Man A still has 8 times the chance of killing man B in each combat cycle. So, there is no advantage or disadvantage to buying either attack or defend. What does change is the killing rate. You buy attack when you want to accelerate the kill rate, and buy defend when you want to slow it down.
Quote Originally posted by longjohn2:
You also have to understand that MTW is not a wargame or a simulation. It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market. This menas that there are many features in the game that can't necessarily be justified historically, and it means we try to have clear combat rules such as spears beat cavalry.
[/QUOTE]
That's a very disappointing statement.
I assumed when I bought this game that it had been properly researched. Now your telling me its nothing more than Medieval Red Alert.
Not good news.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Soapyfrog
10-12-2002, 01:01
Erm... it's definitely a wargame.
Is it an ACCURATE simulation of medieval warfare? Welll.. no...
Didz: if you wanted accuracy, once you made your initial dispositions you have very little control over the battle.
In MTW we have a level of realtime control that immediately makes the game so far off-base for a genuine military simulation. In a real battle you would bascially have almost no control... maybe some sort of tactical reserve that you could tell when to engage or withdraw.
It's like claiming Sid Meier's Gettysburg is an ACCURATE ACW battle simulator.
It is, however, a LOT of fun, and has the flavour of the period...
Didz, ultimately, it's whether you have fun or not that determines the quality of the game.
AgentBif
10-12-2002, 01:05
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Now your telling me its nothing more than Medieval Red Alert.
[/QUOTE]
That's a low blow Didz, and it's not accurate either. Clearly some research and effort was made to incorporate all kinds of realism. He just means that realism wasn't the primary determinant in the game design... a significant one, just not the dominant one.
bif
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
That's a very disappointing statement.
I assumed when I bought this game that it had been properly researched. Now your telling me its nothing more than Medieval Red Alert.
Not good news.
[/QUOTE]
Were you enjoying the game before this less than stunning revelation? If so, then what's the difference?
Grifman
If this guy is going to be stupid and insult the game, just ignore him.
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Dorkus,
That equation does match the table printed in the strategy guide for probability to kill. Since the system is centered at about 2%, it does at first look like you can get more benefit by adding attack rather than defend, but that's not actually the case.
Consider the similar equation:
chance to kill = 2% * 2^df,
and you have two 3/3 (att/def) men, A and B, who will fight. Each man will have a 2% chance of killing the other during each combat cycle.
Man A or Man B:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Now suppose I buy +3 attack points for man A:
Man A:
att - def = 6 - 3 = 3
chance to kill = 2% * 2^3 = 16%
Man B:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Man A has 8 times the chance of killing man B in each combat cycle.
Now, rather than buy +3 attack, buy +3 defend for man A.
Man A:
att - def = 3 - 3 = 0
chance to kill = 2% * 2^0 = 2%
Man B:
att - def = 3 - 6 = -3
chance to kill = 2% * 2^-3 = 0.25%
Man A still has 8 times the chance of killing man B in each combat cycle. So, there is no advantage or disadvantage to buying either attack or defend. What does change is the killing rate. You buy attack when you want to accelerate the kill rate, and buy defend when you want to slow it down.
[/QUOTE]
Ah Puzz, but that's my point exactly: Would you rather increase your kill rate by around 15%, or decrease your death rate by 1.5%?
In this case, it's the ABSOLUTE, not relative, increase or decrease that matters most. Even aside from rounding and min kill values (which will make a BIG difference for the smaller kill chance values), a 15% bump in kill rate will change the tide of the battle -- you'll very rapidly rout your enemy and move on to new targets (in addition to causing a morale penalty to the enemy army).
Decreasing your death rate by 1.5% will have no such effect, as you and the other unit will continue in approximately the same stalemate as you did previously.
In truth the calculation is not quite as stark depending on the circumstances because it's not really the attack or defense upgrades that are exponential but the DF value. Thsi means that if you start out with a very low attack against a very high defense enemy, increasing your attack will NOT result in a noticeable increase in kill chance (you might kill one man instead of zero in a particular round). On the other hand, if you have extremely low defense against high attack enemies, an increase of one defense may pay big dividends in survivability.
In other words, I'm NOT concluding that weapon upgrades are better than armor upgrades. I AM making two other conclusions:
1. Every additional weapon upgrade increases your kill chance proportionately more than the last. The opposite is true of armor upgrades. Thus my remark about increasing/decreasing returns.
2. It pays to give low defense units more defense, and high attack units more attack. Wasting your armor upgrades on swiss pikemen, or granting attack bonuses to gothic sergeants, probably isn't as cost effective as upgrading the armor AND weapons of those crazy ghazi infantry!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif
PS Puzz, assuming you have the strat guide, could you do me a BIG BIG BIG favor (and a favor to all the rest of us w/o a strat guide)? Do you think you could post the atk/def/mor bonuses penalties at
www.totalwarforums.com (http://www.totalwarforums.com)
in the gameplay faq sticky? I'd like to know the exact penalties and bonuses for various terrain/situations/maneuvers, but I'd rather not shell out $20 for stuff that should have been in the manual http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif
You don't ahve to do it all at once, if it takes too long. Just post a few of them once in a while (perhaps when you look up a value for yourself), and edit the post to add more over time.
If you could do this, I (and the rest of us w/o strat guides) would be very grateful http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Dorkus (edited 10-12-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Spino:
P.S. I think your producers and/or publishers underestimate the mass gaming market. If the masses are willing to put up with the dizzying myriad of units, buildings and upgrades of say, the Warcraft/Starcraft series or even the enormous depth and complexity of 'populist' games like Sim City or Civilization series then having them accept the fact that Spearmen won't always stop a Heavy Cavalry charge doesn't seem too daunting a task now does it? You've done an excellent job of hiding these complex issues from the average gamer and for those of us desperate for more information it's there if we want it. Modeling MTW to be more historically accurate should not, in any way, detract from its popular appeal. So congratulations CA, you've done it: You've simulated war in such a way as to not put the average gamer to sleep as they would with a traditional hex based wargame. And after all, what do people buy MTW for if not in anticpation of WAGING WAR![/QUOTE]
Have you played Warcraft3/Starcraft recently on battle.net? In Starcraft, all units and upgrades are useful. Warcraft3 isn't as polished yet but most units and abilities are useful. However, unless you battle someone with a certain skill, you'll never see more than 25% of the actual number of units. For example, only a few Night Elf players know what to do once their huntress rush got countered. The others just wait for their death.
Dorkus,
I base my decision to buy more attack or more defense on whether or not I expect to win or loose the matchup. In my example, A is going to beat B whether I increase attack by 3 or defense by 3, and it will win by the same kill ratio in both cases. However, it's better to buy attack because A will win faster, and be free to attack something else sooner as you have said. Now if there is a second pair of similar units, C and D, and the other player has applied his 3 combat points to defense on unit D, he's lost if I can get the A/B and C/D matchups and get both sets of combat going at about the same time. A will beat B and go over and clobber D from behind unless of course A is too far away to make it before C looses. Given that dynamic, I'll might add attack to a unit that already has a high attack value and defense to a unit that's already highly defensive. The correlary to this is, if I expect to loose a matchup, I want the most defense I can get so I loose as slowly as possible.
MajorFreak
10-12-2002, 18:57
Quote Originally posted by longjohn2:
Well strat map stuff is nothing to do with me, so I couldn't change things even if I wanted to.
However, I believe the way that valour upgrades work has been changed for the patch, so that generally higher level buildings don't give valour upgrades. There are some levels that do, but these are generally ones that don't give you any new units to build. The upgrades are supposed to work properly now. ECS or Target might be able to confirm this rumour.
I also made an accross the board reduction in prices of units costing above 300f. The size of the reduction depending on their cost, but being around 20% for the more expensive units. Chivalric Knights now cost 650f I believe. I can't remember any of the others, so don't even think about asking http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif).
[/QUOTE]
thanks for the succinct answer. very interesting. BTW, i do love it when the trolls come out to play when a dev talks...they're so cute. lol!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.