View Full Version : How to make spearmen more vulnerable in MTW?
Hi!
I think that in threads like "Knights are too weak" and "The myth of the cavalry charge" people have agreed that the current balance of cavalry vs spearmen and swords vs spearmen is somewhat flawed in MTW. As I could see from the postings, many have agreed that the problem is that spearmen and pikemen are currently too invulnerable to flank and rear attacks, as well as able to keep rear-rank bonuses even in situations where they would loose formation cohesion like running and charging.
So, the question I launch in this thread is how to change spearmen and pikemen units in MTW so that their behaviour becomes more REALISTIC in those situations.
Here are some sugestions in addition to the mechanisms already present in MTW:
- Spearmen and pikemen (S&P) should not be able to wheel and face the attacker while being attacked from the flank or rear.
- Flank and rear attacks should make S&P loose any charge bonuses if the unit is charging forward.
- S&P running or charging more than a few meters should suffer from disordered ranks penalty and receive no supporting ranks bunus while disordered.
Cheers,
Antonio
Swoosh So
10-09-2002, 17:36
I think the problem stems from the unit sizes, this wasent a problem in shoggy, the stats for individual men are maybe balanced but 60 vs 100 men makes them perhaps unbalanced, I kindov like the different sized units in single player but id probably hate it in multi player, If its such a problem they should increase the cost of the spear units that contain 100 men or 96.
Swooooooooosh
-Higher morale penalty when attacked by cavalry in the flank/rear.
-Higher bonus for cavalry attacking a unit in the rear (and flanks?)
CBR
yes, good points
more fundamentally, another option to explore is to postpone the appearance the standard spearman unit (right now strangely available to all faction). One point made earlier in one thread is that urban militias, and not spearman, should be the run of the mill of armies in Early.
The standard spearman could also be supressed altogether ; the role of anti cav would fall back on other 'late' spear units (intalian inf, feodal sergeants, etc.). This way, the cavalery would enjoy a supremacy early, but be severely checked later on, which is closer to historical reality.
erm what years does the early,high and late ages represent?
It was really pikes that dominated in the later years but spears are simply good enough so there is no point in getting pikes which have some disadvantages...
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Swoosh So:
I think the problem stems from the unit sizes, this wasent a problem in shoggy, the stats for individual men are maybe balanced but 60 vs 100 men makes them perhaps unbalanced, I kindov like the different sized units in single player but id probably hate it in multi player, If its such a problem they should increase the cost of the spear units that contain 100 men or 96.
Swooooooooosh
[/QUOTE]
One major problem is unit costs: from a basic spearman/woodsman who cost 1.25 florin/man to the most expensive cavalry..royal knights 38.75 florin/man I think it is. Thats 1:31.
I have talked about miniature wargaming before but will gladly mention it again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I have several rulesets and think the ratio is anywhere from 1:7 to 1:10 IIRC
These are games that are based on an ongoing game development for more than 30 years. Lots of research to make historical army lists..making rules that gives historical results....there are ofc differences between the rulesets but overall they agree on lots of things.
I find it difficult to belive that we will ever get a real good and balanced game as long as we have units which simply are way too expensive compared to their worth on the battlefield.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
One major problem is unit costs: from a basic spearman/woodsman who cost 1.25 florin/man to the most expensive cavalry..royal knights 38.75 florin/man I think it is. Thats 1:31.
I find it difficult to belive that we will ever get a real good and balanced game as long as we have units which simply are way too expensive compared to their worth on the battlefield.
CBR
[/QUOTE]
Historical accuracy in unit behaviour should in my opinion come first. Then, unit costs should be adapted to the units' characteristics. To keep units unrealistic and simply adapt the cost will not in any way improve MTW. It will even preclude one of the most important aspects of the game, which is to recreate historical battles and campaigns.
Regards,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Historical accuracy in unit behaviour should in my opinion come first. Then, unit costs should be adapted to the units' characteristics. To keep units unrealistic and simply adapt the cost will not in any way improve MTW. It will even preclude one of the most important aspects of the game, which is to recreate historical battles and campaigns.
Regards,
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
Yes! I agree. Historical accuracy is paramount and must take precedent.
I would also point out that we must not get too fixated on Cavalry v Spearmen as in my expereince even swordsmen can stand against and in some cases charge cavalry successfully.
I think there needs to be a general reveiw of the morale effect of cavalry on foot soldiers with specail penalties incurred by foot units caught in the flank, rear or during movement.
In effect the only way foot units should be able able to ensure a reasonable chance of standing when charged by cavalry is if they are halted, on Hold Formation and facing the right direction.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Yes! I agree. Historical accuracy is paramount and must take precedent.
I would also point out that we must not get too fixated on Cavalry v Spearmen as in my expereince even swordsmen can stand against and in some cases charge cavalry successfully.
I think there needs to be a general reveiw of the morale effect of cavalry on foot soldiers with specail penalties incurred by foot units caught in the flank, rear or during movement.
In effect the only way foot units should be able able to ensure a reasonable chance of standing when charged by cavalry is if they are halted, on Hold Formation and facing the right direction.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree that the problem is not only spearmen and pikemen. Flank and rear attacks should be devastating even for cavalry, and specially if caught disorganized running or charging.
Cheers,
Antonio
I would be concerned about making cavalry flank and rear attacks too powerful. Spear and pike units lack the "hedgehog" formation which protects against flank and rear attacks. Without this formation capability, making flank and rear attacks too powerful by cavalry would also hurt the tactical balance of the game.
Quote Originally posted by Jagger:
I would be concerned about making cavalry flank and rear attacks too powerful. Spear and pike units lack the "hedgehog" formation which protects against flank and rear attacks. Without this formation capability, making flank and rear attacks too powerful by cavalry would also hurt the tactical balance of the game. [/QUOTE]
You can always form a square or hedgehog formation with several units. Anyway, I think that flank and rear attacks should not be too powerful, but be powerful enough. I disagree that the infantry should not run away in a second when attacked from flank or rear, but they should take heavier casualties eventually leading to a rout.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
You can always form a square or hedgehog formation with several units. Anyway, I think that flank and rear attacks should not be too powerful, but be powerful enough. I disagree that the infantry should not run away in a second when attacked from flank or rear, but they should take heavier casualties eventually leading to a rout.
Cheers,
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
Its worth noting that in reality most casualties occur after a unit has broken not before. The concept that heavy casualties cause units to rout is not supported by historical evidence. Indeed in most cases one or other unit will break before a melee combat becomes serious.
For example in the clash of shield walls most of the action is based upon push and shove rather than cold steel. The real killing only begins when one side collapses or breaks contact exposing themselves.
The Romans attempted to hasten this process by use of the pilum to force down the enemy shield wall and create panic but the essential principles were the same.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-09-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Its worth noting that in reality most casualties occur after a unit has broken not before. The concept that heavy casualties cause units to rout is not supported by historical evidence. Indeed in most cases one or other unit will break before a melee combat becomes serious.
For example in the clash of shield walls most of the action is based upon push and shove rather than cold steel. The real killing only begins when one side collapses or breaks contact exposing themselves.
The Romans attempted to hasten this process by use of the pilum to force down the enemy shield wall and create panic but the essential principles were the same.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to consider front vs front combats. In flank or rear attacks, the attacked side is not in a position to offer much resistance, and yes it may take heavy losses.
Antonio
Erithtotl
10-09-2002, 22:01
Anyone thought about modding their files to just reduce the abilities of spearmen, or reduce the cost of elite units, or increase the cost of spearmen? I know this doesn't help multiplayer but could help single player.
I'm curious as to how the AI evaluates units and the build tree to determine whether it should build certain things. For example, if we decrease the abilities of spearman and decrease the cost of knights, will it build more knights and less spearmen?
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Historical accuracy in unit behaviour should in my opinion come first. Then, unit costs should be adapted to the units' characteristics. To keep units unrealistic and simply adapt the cost will not in any way improve MTW. It will even preclude one of the most important aspects of the game, which is to recreate historical battles and campaigns.
Regards,
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
well where have I said that cost alone should be enough? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
And when I say good and balanced I mean historical accurate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Its worth noting that in reality most casualties occur after a unit has broken not before. The concept that heavy casualties cause units to rout is not supported by historical evidence. Indeed in most cases one or other unit will break before a melee combat becomes serious.
For example in the clash of shield walls most of the action is based upon push and shove rather than cold steel. The real killing only begins when one side collapses or breaks contact exposing themselves.
The Romans attempted to hasten this process by use of the pilum to force down the enemy shield wall and create panic but the essential principles were the same.
[/QUOTE]
In MTW we are already doing too many casualties in direct dombat before enemy routs. I just want the cavalry to do more damage when attacking in the flank/rear of an enemy infantry unit. Im not talking about a clean wipeout in a few seconds..just more http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
CBR
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Yes, I agree that the problem is not only spearmen and pikemen. Flank and rear attacks should be devastating even for cavalry, and specially if caught disorganized running or charging.
Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Now I must admit that I hve focused more on cavalry versus infantry. But the way I see cavalry versus cavalry combat it looks ok. Flank/rear attacks will hurt a unit. Having cavalry reserves to throw at the enemy when he has expended all his means a lot.
CBR
Swoosh So
10-09-2002, 22:53
One of problems perhaps the main one is that cav are good at attacking flank (says so in the manual http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif) but when you attack the flank of a 100 man unit with 40 peeps that unit wont really falter or waver as they havent suffered enough casualties therefor the cav charge is greatly reduced and abit silly,In shogun a 60 peep unit could be attacked in the flank if that unit had around 30 men you knew there would be a good chance of it breaking, So i really think this 100 man unit thing vs 40 man or 60 man units is the main problem. Solutions? even out the unit sizes or change the value of the higher man units, Also hold off your cav charge till the unit is reduced to 30-40 men?!
I must be missing something. I would think
that the most obvious thing change is
to award the defense/attack bonuses for
ranks ONLY to the people fighting forward.
The way it is now, the whole attack bonus
of an elite cavalry unit charging someone
in the back is about negated by the rank
defense bonus... and it is beyond me how
having four pikemen in front of you helps
against a lance in the back.
Furthermore, the moral loss from casualties
should be not only related to the total
loss of life since the battle onset, but
also to the loss of life in the last
minute. Losing thirty percent of your men
in one minute should be about minus ten to
moral.
And last, it would be nice if spearmen
were not so damn good at reforming. I have
seen my guys adopt V formations, and make
mincemeat of the knights that charged them
in the flank. I can see this from a
military academy trained elite unit, but not
from a bunch of freshly recruited
spearmen.
All spearmen unit right now have all the
tricks. Namely:
+ Rank bonus applying for back and flank.
+ Ability to reform to engage multiple
troops from multiple sides.
+ Very quick reforming.
+ Marching speed comparable to other infantry
+ Ability to go over any terrain
This is wrong! These should be traits of
some, but certainly not all of the spear
carriers. Your run-of-the-mill spearmen
should move slowly if in close formation,
lose cohesion over broken terrain/forest,
have real trouble reforming ranks to deal
with flank attacks...
Now, your military accademy trained, well
armoured, DAMN EXPENSIVE ELITE pikemen
might to outrun a skirmisher, turn on a
dime, make a square while in the forest, and
form three people in four ranks, but they
better cost almost as much as a chivalric
knight.
Quote Originally posted by Tuidjy:
All spearmen unit right now have all the
tricks. Namely:
+ Rank bonus applying for back and flank.
+ Ability to reform to engage multiple
troops from multiple sides.
+ Very quick reforming.
+ Marching speed comparable to other infantry
+ Ability to go over any terrain
This is wrong! These should be traits of
some, but certainly not all of the spear
carriers. Your run-of-the-mill spearmen
should move slowly if in close formation,
lose cohesion over broken terrain/forest,
have real trouble reforming ranks to deal
with flank attacks...
Now, your military accademy trained, well
armoured, DAMN EXPENSIVE ELITE pikemen
might to outrun a skirmisher, turn on a
dime, make a square while in the forest, and
form three people in four ranks, but they
better cost almost as much as a chivalric
knight.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is indeed the problem and the only change that needs to be made. In fact most of what we have been saying is claimed by the developers to be in the game (e.g. extra losses in flank attack). What do you think?
The morale problem is also interesting casualty-rate should be very important in addition to simple total-casualties.
Cheers,
Antonio
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 01:20
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Maybe this is indeed the problem and the only change that needs to be made. In fact most of what we have been saying is claimed by the developers to be in the game (e.g. extra losses in flank attack). What do you think?
The morale problem is also interesting casualty-rate should be very important in addition to simple total-casualties.
[/QUOTE]
The magnitude of the rank bonus is only like +2 isn't it? I don't think that's nearly enough of a mod to make a difference. Gold armor, swords, and other factors in the game would dwarf that minor difference and there would be hardly any change in the affect of cavalry in the game.
Personally I think either reducing all 100 units to 60 (cept perhaps the peasants) or dramatically boosting morale hit from cavalry charge are promising approaches.
But constantly losing control of your men could really be frustrating in terms of gameplay and valor bonus on cheap units in multiplay would become even _more_ important than it is now.
So perhaps the 60-man spear squad is really the best approach to try first?
Ah, but then there's the problem with FMAA standing up to cavalry like rock-solid hollywood heros.
Sigh.
Ok, ok... How about 60 man spears and _some_ morale penalty boost from cavalry charge? Spears, afterall, are some 15-25 times cheaper than knights.
bif
> The magnitude of the rank bonus is only
> like +2 isn't it?
The 'only' puzzles me. Four ranks, for a
total bonus of 8 to defense seems pretty
significant to me. After all, no one gets
more than 8 for a charge bonus. Sure, a
horsemen charging a pikemen unit from the
front should get hurt as bad as the targets,
but why should the pikemen in the last
rank that has a lance going for his kidney
enjoy a defense bonus?
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 02:00
Quote Originally posted by Tuidjy:
> The magnitude of the rank bonus is only
> like +2 isn't it?
The 'only' puzzles me. Four ranks, for a
total bonus of 8 to defense seems pretty
significant to me. After all, no one gets
more than 8 for a charge bonus. Sure, a
horsemen charging a pikemen unit from the
front should get hurt as bad as the targets,
but why should the pikemen in the last
rank that has a lance going for his kidney
enjoy a defense bonus?[/QUOTE]
Ok, I didn't know it was per-rank. That's pretty significant. Does it max at 4 or 5 ranks?
Still, fixing this alone doesn't solve the problem with FMAA and such being nearly cavalry immune.
bif
The rank bonus maxes out at 2 or 4 depending
on the unit (spearmen vs pikemen) I think
the first thing CA should try for balance
AND historical accuracy is to get rid of the
bonus except from the front.
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 03:11
Absolutely!
To get rank bonuses units should be stationary if fighting cavalry, and rank bonuuses should be much higher for defence than attack.
Quote + Rank bonus applying for back and flank.
+ Ability to reform to engage multiple
troops from multiple sides.
+ Very quick reforming.
+ Marching speed comparable to other infantry
+ Ability to go over any terrain
This is wrong! These should be traits of
some, but certainly not all of the spear
carriers. Your run-of-the-mill spearmen
should move slowly if in close formation,
lose cohesion over broken terrain/forest,
have real trouble reforming ranks to deal
with flank attacks...
[/QUOTE]
lol - NO ONE should be able to do these!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Even the best disciplined troops were stil only human - the Swiss did occasionally surrender and take prisoners, Spartans did break and run, etc.
However a couple of points- all troops on foot can move the same speed - anyone who has done SCA heavy combat wil ltell yuo it's easy to run in a full suit of armour - you just get tired faster or have to be fitter to keep it up.
I think MTW simulates this - heavier troops get tired faster.
Also anyone can move over any terrain - it's whether or not they can fight effectively that's more important!
Funny that you would mention SCA. Less than
three months ago I saw the funniest pile-up
when a heavy fighter in the front rank
stumbled and fell during a charge.
And I did not mean that the pikemen should
always move slower. Only when they are
maintaining close formation and getting the
rank bonus - not so much because of armour,
but because of the need to keep their exact
position in the formation. And if you
think that's easy, you have not been in the
army trying to get a bunch of recruits march
in anything ressembling order. (No pikes,
either, just AKMs)
As for running in armour, been there, done
that, still can smell the sweat. Especially
since I was wearing chain under the plate,
and I have yet to see someone actually do
this in SCA (I certainly do not)
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 04:11
longjohn has taken the time to reply to some relevant questions in the "building valor bonus" thread.
bif
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 04:16
Yep - you're not likely to see anyone in the SCA wearing armour other then the minimum necessary to look good!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Yes indeed keeping formation slows things down - especially since they did not march in step in those days.
I haven't seen anything like your example of an SCA fighter tripping (big battles in this part of the world have maybe 20 ppl a side!!), but there are a lot of accounts of similar - especially among close order cavalry charging!!
For those who wonder what SCA is - the Society for Creative anachronism - a medieval "reenactment" group, which has a fairly well regulated contact fighting component - ppl hit each other HARD with weapons made of Rattan cane that roughly weigh in as much as their historical prototypes (swords, axes, maces, staff weapons, spears) - all on foot AFAIK so far.
The fighters wear armour to prevent injuries, especially heavy steel helmets adn otehr specified requirements for particularly vulnerable body parts (hands, knees, forearms, elbows, upper spine, kidneys, groin, breasts for women fighters (there are a few), and carry shields sometimes, and block with their weapons, etc.
Large SCA battles can have 2500-3000 ppl per side!!
First of all, imo, there should NOT be a reduction/equalization of unit sizes. People here talk about historical accuracy (I am more inclined to look at the game as being just a game, not a simulator, but rather a nice extrapolation of the setting). Well, what was the composition of the real medieval armies, did they have the same amount of spearmen and heavy cavalry? Personally, I really like the unequal sizes, and I think it's a step forward from STW. Having spear units of 100 men just means that you have to apply a different tactic to them since it takes longer to exterminate them. Again, imo, this is the way it should be, since they figure as the mainstay of armies. Elite troops are by definition few in numbers. And now when I look back and think that in STW I had the same number of heavy cavalry in a unit as I had in the ashigaru or yari samurai unit, it stikes me as a bit silly. I like using cavalry, and in STW I could use armies comprised only of naginata cavalry, since this would give me the same number of troops as the enemy, while of a much higher quality. i cannot really do that in MTW, and I'm glad because of that.
Another thing is that now I need 6 units of spearmen for my main line to have 600 men, and that leaves me with 10 slots to fill with various different units and explore and exploit their strenghts. If I'm going to need 10 units to fill that same role, I'll be left with only 6 slots, giving me much less variety in the choice of the supporting units. If you want combined arms armies, the unequal size is the way to go, since it gives you much more opportunity for diversity.
I agree that the spears can turn to face attacks from all directions too easily. What I'd like to know is whether they retain their rank bonuses when they do that. I think that they shouldn't. Also, can somebody give a clear explanation as to when do the spears lose their formation bonuses, how many men should be outside the tightly packed ranks, how far away should they be?
And I was under the impression that the spears get the rank bonuses for each rank *above* the third, not for the first three? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
And the cost, well, the only thing that counts in the SP is the maintenance cost, and here they come pretty close to the knights. Why would you be concerned with the one-time cost of a unit, when you'll spend an equal ammount of money on its maintenance in 3-4 yrs?
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 15:02
What about using the Fear stat to simulate the Knight vs Spear relationship a little better?
Though I dont know exactly how much Fear reduces moral on a unit but it has some advantages on making knights better in general or spears weaker in general as it is a direct relationship between the unit that fears and the unit that is feared.
I didnt test it jet, but making the spears fear armored cavalery of all sorts should make them break on impact or even on being charged more often.
Though this would probably not be implemented officialy by CA, it would be possible to become a fairly popular mod, both for SP and MP.
Maybe it should even be considered to implement a complex web of units fearing other units, so the rock paper scissor system would be enriched by a more complex system of historical psychological effects.
(in their time the Crusading Orders were almost universaly feared for example)
I will test later, but if anyone knows how fear works already (between cav an camels for example), I would be gratefull to know.
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
You seem to consider front vs front combats. In flank or rear attacks, the attacked side is not in a position to offer much resistance, and yes it may take heavy losses.
Antonio[/QUOTE]
In such a situation the attacked side rarely stood firm to receive the charge and so the combat in effect went straight into massacre mode.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
well where have I said that cost alone should be enough? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
[/QUOTE]
Cost is a irrelevance apart from in MP where players are obsessed with 'bang for buck'.
What matters is that units perform appropriately to their historical role on the battlefield and reflect their historical availability. The emphasis should be on encouraging players to feild historically representative armies.
Quote
And when I say good and balanced I mean historical accurate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]
Historical armies are not balanced. In fact ideally they are totally imbalanced in favour of yours. On a cost basis alone we have situations where very often the cost of the missile is far greater than the cost of the tank it can destroy.
What matters is that MTW unit performance on the battlefield is on a par with what could have been expected of its historical counterpart.
The only issue I have is that at present MTW units seem to be far too resilient especailly at the lower end of the scale.
Peasants and hastily raised levies should panic more often and with greater ease and foot soldiers should suffer an variable morale penalty for moving near mounted troops (dependant upon the type of horsemen).
At the moment I am slaughtering Spanish Knights with sword armed AUM's and whilst I need to win these battles I wonder at how likely such victories woudl have been in real life.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Personally I think either reducing all 100 units to 60 (cept perhaps the peasants) or dramatically boosting morale hit from cavalry charge are promising approaches.
But constantly losing control of your men could really be frustrating in terms of gameplay and valor bonus on cheap units in multiplay would become even _more_ important than it is now.
So perhaps the 60-man spear squad is really the best approach to try first?
bif
[/QUOTE]
I disagree with this. Remember that a swordsman needs more space to wield his weapon, while spearmen/pikemen fight closely packed. To have unequal sizes tries in my opinion to emulate this, and in fact it forces you to extend your formation in order to present an equal frontage (though in reality swordsmen would keep depth while equaling spearmen frontage because they just needed more space between men side-by-side).
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Tuidjy:
All spearmen unit right now have all the
tricks. Namely:
+ Rank bonus applying for back and flank.
+ Ability to reform to engage multiple
troops from multiple sides.
+ Very quick reforming.
+ Marching speed comparable to other infantry
+ Ability to go over any terrain
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think that these items need to be checked in the first place. They are so damn obvious! (though the marching speed is more debatable, anyway even if keeping speed as it is there should be a penalty for spearmen or pikemen caught on the move by a charge)
If someone from from the developer team is reading this thread, could you please confirm that rank bonuses also apply to the sides and rear? And why was that decision taken?
Cheers,
Antonio
Michael the Great
10-10-2002, 16:08
Quote Originally posted by Swoosh So:
One of problems perhaps the main one is that cav are good at attacking flank (says so in the manual http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif) but when you attack the flank of a 100 man unit with 40 peeps that unit wont really falter or waver as they havent suffered enough casualties therefor the cav charge is greatly reduced and abit silly,In shogun a 60 peep unit could be attacked in the flank if that unit had around 30 men you knew there would be a good chance of it breaking, So i really think this 100 man unit thing vs 40 man or 60 man units is the main problem. Solutions? even out the unit sizes or change the value of the higher man units, Also hold off your cav charge till the unit is reduced to 30-40 men?![/QUOTE]
Btw,is there ANY advantage to keep infantry(non-spear/pike)in hold formation(as they don't get thy rank bonus)??
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael the Great
10-10-2002, 16:17
Quote Originally posted by Tuidjy:
> The magnitude of the rank bonus is only
> like +2 isn't it?
The 'only' puzzles me. Four ranks, for a
total bonus of 8 to defense seems pretty
significant to me. After all, no one gets
more than 8 for a charge bonus. Sure, a
horsemen charging a pikemen unit from the
front should get hurt as bad as the targets,
but why should the pikemen in the last
rank that has a lance going for his kidney
enjoy a defense bonus?[/QUOTE]
Gothic Foot Knights get 9 charge.......
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Cost is a irrelevance apart from in MP where players are obsessed with 'bang for buck'.
What matters is that units perform appropriately to their historical role on the battlefield and reflect their historical availability. The emphasis should be on encouraging players to feild historically representative armies.
[/QUOTE]
Cost means everything both in SP and MP. What does it matter if all units work as they historically did if some units are so damn expensive that you dont want to buy them anyway??
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Historical armies are not balanced. In fact ideally they are totally imbalanced in favour of yours. On a cost basis alone we have situations where very often the cost of the missile is far greater than the cost of the tank it can destroy.
[/QUOTE]
Ok I'll say it even more clearly now so Im not misunderstood again:
By balanced I mean that the correct balance between the different troop types. What a player wants with his army is up to him and that could mean that the army is not a "balanced" army: that could be an all infantry army ..great for a defensive position on top of a hill perhaps but not great if he wants to maneuver a lot in face of an enemy with lots of cavalry.
And we shouldnt look at production cost only to find the price of a unit but look at effeciency on the battlefield (its combat strenght..whatever you will call it) and how much it was used. Thats why I have mentioned miniature wargaming as thats already a system that is out there. Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel and wasting a lot of time trying to make this game more balanced/historical correct/fun (have I left anything out??)I just suggest that we should at least take a look on what they have done and start from there.
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
What matters is that MTW unit performance on the battlefield is on a par with what could have been expected of its historical counterpart.
The only issue I have is that at present MTW units seem to be far too resilient especailly at the lower end of the scale.
[/QUOTE]
Yes precisely!
Ok Im a bit paranoid but I really feel my other postings about balance has suddenly been completely forgot. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
I would really like some changes to the combat mechanics to get it more historically correct and Im totally convinced that when I mean correct I mean balanced and when I mean balanced I mean fun!
Changes in the combat mechanics is not enough as we always have to look at cost compared to effeciency AND historical use of troops . I saw LongJohn write in another thread that the more expensive units has been reduced in price up to 20% or something, so thats good news although I think there still might be some problems but I'll wait for the patch before I can make any more comments on that.
Hope I have made myself clear now.
CBR
I see most are concerned with historical accuracy. Whilst I read such debates with interest I have always felt the most pressing issue for MP is unit balance, regardless of history. With little variation in the armies you observe the longevity of MP (which is longer than SP by far) is severely curtailed.
Quote Originally posted by Drspike:
I see most are concerned with historical accuracy. Whilst I read such debates with interest I have always felt the most pressing issue for MP is unit balance, regardless of history. With little variation in the armies you observe the longevity of MP (which is longer than SP by far) is severely curtailed.[/QUOTE]
What most people defend is to have realism built first, and then assign fair unit costs according to unit overall performance, which makes for balancing in the costs.
Antonio
Pellinor
10-10-2002, 19:39
One comment I would make about cost is that there is a big difference between SP and MP.
AFAIK the basic cost in MP is the same as the SP cost-to-build. However, in SP you have to have invested a considerable amount in infrastructure in order to be able to produce the more advanced units. Getting castles up to citadel or fortress costs a lot, as well as the buildings themselves. If you're going to have to spend tens of thousands of florins to get your pikeman factory, then the SP cost of having each pike unit is really a lot higher than the basic cost suggests.
I'm not altogether sure I know where I'm going with this, but I think what this boils down to is that the balance of either the MP game or the SP game (or both) is going to be out. Assuming the cost-effectiveness to be perfectly balanced in SP, then the MP cost should be rather higher for a high-tech unit.
Another way to look at is is to say that the MP prices should not necessarily reflect the SP build costs - they should be balanced separately.
Quote Originally posted by Pellinor:
One comment I would make about cost is that there is a big difference between SP and MP.
AFAIK the basic cost in MP is the same as the SP cost-to-build. However, in SP you have to have invested a considerable amount in infrastructure in order to be able to produce the more advanced units. Getting castles up to citadel or fortress costs a lot, as well as the buildings themselves. If you're going to have to spend tens of thousands of florins to get your pikeman factory, then the SP cost of having each pike unit is really a lot higher than the basic cost suggests.
I'm not altogether sure I know where I'm going with this, but I think what this boils down to is that the balance of either the MP game or the SP game (or both) is going to be out. Assuming the cost-effectiveness to be perfectly balanced in SP, then the MP cost should be rather higher for a high-tech unit.
Another way to look at is is to say that the MP prices should not necessarily reflect the SP build costs - they should be balanced separately.[/QUOTE]
I think infrastructure should not be taken into account. Yes, you must make a building in order to have a certain troop type. But in the long run you have that
n*X/(n*X+Y) approximates '1' as 'n' increases
where n is the number of units of that type that you build, X is the cost per unit of that type, and Y is the cost of the building.
So I think that to take into account battlefield performance only is a good approximation. Even in the SP, it will motivate you to defend the provinces where you have built recruitment facilities, or at least to choose well where you build (i.e. in order to avoid your buildings being destroyed, which is a loss of investment). Also the cost to keep your troops in each turn will add to the strategical challenge.
Antonio
Pellinor
10-10-2002, 21:07
True, but given the cost of upgrades (high) and the number of top-notch units produced (not that high) you get a non-trivial additional cost.
Working out what it is, however, is completely subjective and has too many variables, hence IMO one should start from scratch and balance SP and MP separately.
I think non cavalry units should have next to zero charge bonus. I also think cavalry shouldnt be so vulnerable when withdrawing and reforming for additional charges.
olaf
Hakonarson
10-12-2002, 06:43
I think it is reasonable for infantry to get charge bonuses - only against other infantry or troops on foot suc as artilllery tho.
As for historical accuracy and play alance - there is NO NEED to trade these off!!
Point values are easily changed and are there to reflect fighting ability in "pick up" games IMO - so each side can have an equal fighting ability.
That doesn't mean that some troops can't be vulnerable to otehrs tho - for example you might have knights vulnerable to stationary longbowmen who are themselves vulnerable to dismounted men at arms who can be ridden down by knight (paper/scissors/rock as many have posted).
In a historical setting tho (basically the SP campaign) those points are not so important - given the economic nature of the campaign the economics of troops are important - it costs as much to feed a peasant as a seargent (maybe less than a knight tho!!), while pay can differ.
It's therefore easy to calculate actual historical costs. Eg I read today that a mounted bowmen was paid 6pence/day, a foot bowman 3 pence, while mounted troops were paid 4 shillings a day for a knight-banneret, 2 shillings for a knight bachelor and 1 shilling for a squire or hobilar (pay rates are for the English at the Time of Crecy, 1346).
Do the multiplication!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
A florin is 2 shillings, a 40 man knight unit might have 1 banneret, 15-20 knights and 20-25 squires, fo a total daily cost of 59 shillings/day up to 64.
For a 100 man "peasant" or spearman unit the cost was about 8 1/2 florins a day, or 2500 florins/year!!
IRC a florin is 2 shillings, so that's about 9000 florins a year for the knights (= 1 turn in MTW!!) - ok - maybe it can be scaled down a bit!! lol
But that's the kind of pay ratios we should be looking at historically
amrcg,
This is from the Strategy Guide, which I suppose could be wrong, but spears can claim up to 2 supporing ranks behind the first rank and pike can claim up to 4 supporting ranks.
For each supporting rank 1 is added to the defense factor.
For each supporting rank 1 is added to the charge factor.
For every 2 supporing ranks 1 is added to the attack factor.
A spear can get a max of +2 charge, + 1 attack and +2 defend
A pike can get a max of +4 charge, +2 attack and +4 defend
The rank bonuses are only supplied in the direction that the men are facing. To see if rank bonuses are in effect watch the combat animation. When you see a man standing behind participate in the combat animation then a rank bonus is being applied.
There is a moment of confusion when a spear or pike is attacked from the side or rear, but it's probably the size of the unit which allows it to absorb the blow and turn to fight at which point the men start aligning themselves to pick up the rank bonuses again.
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
amrcg,
This is from the Strategy Guide, which I suppose could be wrong, but spears can claim up to 2 supporing ranks behind the first rank and pike can claim up to 4 supporting ranks.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the note. It's good that extra rank bonuses only apply in the facing direction.
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
There is a moment of confusion when a spear or pike is attacked from the side or rear, but it's probably the size of the unit which allows it to absorb the blow and turn to fight at which point the men start aligning themselves to pick up the rank bonuses again.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is precisely what I think is wrong since the beginning. Spearmen, pikemen and similar units should not be able to maneuvre so fast, mainly while being attacked. And they should be prone to disorder while running or charging long distances or when pursuing a defeated foe.
You know, after analysing MTW and seeing its historical innacuracies I'm thinking about buying the good old Medieval 2.
Cheers,
Antonio
some of u got the nail on the head, the problem we have now, are the 100 men units!
a unit of 100 men got 40% more mens, so its hard to calculate but if this unit is down to 60 men, the stats counts equal compard to a 60 men unit!
so if we take this 40% more power, a spear with a valour of 3, has maybe 3A/7D so the stats should mean, if this unit got reduced to 60 men, 4,5A/10D.
if u would had a 60 men unit with 4,5 attack and 10 defence, WOW this would be hard to beat. ofcourse u cant count like this, just my thougths....
imo, the spears and pikemen are not so good, but some think so.
they are good but not superb! but 1 thing is sure, its impossible to balance this units.
and cav shouldnt have a chance vs the spears, so ofcourse the cav should lose, also in the back of such a unit.
koc
Quote Originally posted by Kocmoc:
and cav shouldnt have a chance vs the spears, so ofcourse the cav should lose, also in the back of such a unit.
koc[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. Cavalry should have a chance vs spears/pikes/polearms in several situations, e.g.:
- Flank and rear attack.
- After spears/pikes/polearms break formation to pursue a routing foe.
- After spears/pikes/polearms charge or run for too long, breaking the formation.
- When spears/pikes/polearms receive a charge of heavy cavalry with a depth less than 6.
Moreover spears/pikes/polearms should move slower than they do now.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
amrcg,
This is from the Strategy Guide, which I suppose could be wrong, but spears can claim up to 2 supporing ranks behind the first rank and pike can claim up to 4 supporting ranks.
For each supporting rank 1 is added to the defense factor.
For each supporting rank 1 is added to the charge factor.
For every 2 supporing ranks 1 is added to the attack factor.
A spear can get a max of +2 charge, + 1 attack and +2 defend
A pike can get a max of +4 charge, +2 attack and +4 defend
The rank bonuses are only supplied in the direction that the men are facing. To see if rank bonuses are in effect watch the combat animation. When you see a man standing behind participate in the combat animation then a rank bonus is being applied.
There is a moment of confusion when a spear or pike is attacked from the side or rear, but it's probably the size of the unit which allows it to absorb the blow and turn to fight at which point the men start aligning themselves to pick up the rank bonuses again.
[/QUOTE]
Puzz you are slightly wrong... Spears can fight with two ranks and be supported by two more... meaning that they are at their best when they have four ranks (usually I keep them at four and a half to keep the four ranks for longer), while Pikes are at their best at eight ranks... EIGHT!!! Of course I never have them in such a deep formation, it makes them too weak against flanking and fighting swords. But against spears it is great, as they are in Hold Formation and won't engage the flanks, while your Pikes will trample the Spears' center.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
I strongly disagree. Cavalry should have a chance vs spears/pikes/polearms in several situations, e.g.:
- Flank and rear attack.
- After spears/pikes/polearms break formation to pursue a routing foe.
- After spears/pikes/polearms charge or run for too long, breaking the formation.
- When spears/pikes/polearms receive a charge of heavy cavalry with a depth less than 6.
Moreover spears/pikes/polearms should move slower than they do now.
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
I would say the infantry should lose its bonus v cavalry whenever it moves running and losing formation should only make it even worse. Infantry had to stand firm and recieve charging cavalry..morale and good dense formations means everything.
Dont know if they should move slower... Again if I take miniature wargaming as an example: if being in shieldwall or square (both formations good for defending against cavalry) then the infantry unit is slower but not in normal formation.
For MTW....
If infantry loses most of its benefits against cavalry by just walking, the effect will be that any player will be careful moving his infantry units and they will move slower: stopping often to dress ranks, turning a bit to cover a flank and rarely run.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
I would say the infantry should lose its bonus v cavalry whenever it moves running and losing formation should only make it even worse. Infantry had to stand firm and recieve charging cavalry..morale and good dense formations means everything.
Dont know if they should move slower... Again if I take miniature wargaming as an example: if being in shieldwall or square (both formations good for defending against cavalry) then the infantry unit is slower but not in normal formation.
For MTW....
If infantry loses most of its benefits against cavalry by just walking, the effect will be that any player will be careful moving his infantry units and they will move slower: stopping often to dress ranks, turning a bit to cover a flank and rarely run.
CBR[/QUOTE]
I said that spearmen/pikemen/polearms should move slower because that's the way of keeping formation during movement. If they are stripped from bonuses always while on the move, you will prevent units from advancing in formation to attack the enemy line.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
I said that spearmen/pikemen/polearms should move slower because that's the way of keeping formation during movement. If they are stripped from bonuses always while on the move, you will prevent units from advancing in formation to attack the enemy line.
Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]
You dont need the bonuses for defending and attacking cavalry when attacking an enemy infantry line anyway.
I was thinking of removing defense bonus only as halbardiers need their special cavalry attack bonus.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
You dont need the bonuses for defending and attacking cavalry when attacking an enemy infantry line anyway.
I was thinking of removing defense bonus only as halbardiers need their special cavalry attack bonus.
CBR[/QUOTE]
Ok, with that I agree.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Ok, with that I agree.
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Anyway, CA has already stated that they don't care about realism and prefer the mass market. They will not change these mechanics and will just enforce their simpler rock/paper/scissors approach. I wish that the programming language for the unit definition files was more complete with all unit details being defined there instead of in the main program. It would allow the definition of new units and to change all tactical mechanics with a mod.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Ok, with that I agree.
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was just me not being clear enough sorry http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Its also a question of how to make infantry rushes less deadly. Not just spear/pikes v cavalry, although with changes like this you would think more about just charging all infantry at the enemy. If 2 of your units get mixed up in one big mob there should be penalties even when fighting against infantry...maybe there already is..just not big enough heh.
Things that make the "select some units and doubleclick on enemy unit" more potientially dangerous as loss of control could mean a disaster just waiting around the corner.. against enemy cavalry and infantry in reserve.
CBR
Yes its sad if they wont make any changes. I hope that if we keep coming up with good arguments that both are historical and will give better game balance they will think about it.
CBR
Kraxis,
The Strategy guide is quite clear that spears and pikes can claim supporting ranks behind the "first" rank. So, the second man is supporting the first rather than getting an independent attack on the enemy man. You can clearly see the synchronization of the two or more supporting men with the first man's motions in the animation.
If the spear formation is penetrated, men in the second rank or even further back can start fighting independently. When that happens, the first rank man looses the support the second and third men were giving him. If the formation is deep enough, the second or third rank men can pick up full rank support from the men behind them.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.