Unit Balancing!

[Fisherking]

I don't know what is behind some of the changes but so far we have had several units rendered useless by this crap. And yes I mean crap.

Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation. Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.

Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.

From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.

Most of the things done in the name of balance need undoing! It is stilting the tactics and making it into I don’t know what...

The general statement that it is done for game play is bogus. The game played well other than for bugs when it started and now it is just turning to crap.

How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!

[Sheogorath]

If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!

Second.

If my use of internet lingo can be pardoned, let the tourneyfags have their own units. If the spastic Super Smash Brothers/Starcraft crowd wants rock-paper-scissors super-rushing-explosion-tactic games, let them have it. Just roll back the single player units stats to what they used to be.

[Hooahguy]

this is why i love mods

[Sheogorath]

this is why i love mods

The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.

[econ21]

Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

...

How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

I am with you on preferring realism to artificial balancing, but am sceptical about mortars. Indirect fire is surely of its nature less accurate than direct fire? Even in World War 2, mortars were something you fired in the direction of the enemy and hoped you got lucky. Frankly, I suspect mortars in the ETW period were siege weapons only and don't belong in the field battles the game simulates. Hitting a big stationary fort is one thing, deploying them quickly to hit troops on the move quite another. The MP houserule "no mortars" may be good for gameplay AND realism.

[FactionHeir]

The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.

What he said. Its a shame the modders don't release individual components of changes but just bundle it all in big package and that's it.
I'm guilty of it too, but at least with M2TW you can take a single file and use it, so its not as bad as ETW. :grin:

[Hooahguy]

The problem with relying on the mods (Darthmod) for example is that oftentimes you end up with unwanted changes. I've heard several people say the same thing about Darthmod. They love the naval and AI changes, but think a lot of the other stuff is annoying.
true, but i use a bunch of mini mods, like reskin packs, blood mods, and a few other misc mods. most often, the "big mods" can be found broken up, if you look hard enough.

[Husar]

I pretty much agree, they want to rebalance ships so some of them actually get some use they supposedly never got, yet make mortars completely useless. :dizzy2:

I'm really looking forward to hour-long battles chasing that AI brigg around with my big ships after it somehow sank my last frigate. :sweatdrop:

The new effective range of howitzers is also just a hundred meters or so, any further is max range and any closer is below min range.

Having different sets of stats for MP and SP really wouldn't hurt, and fixing the unit stats on the campaign map unit cards wouldn't hurt either, why is it so hard to show the actual stats there?

[Slaists]

I don't know what is behind some of the changes but so far we have had several units rendered useless by this crap. And yes I mean crap.

Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation. Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.

Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.

From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.

Most of the things done in the name of balance need undoing! It is stilting the tactics and making it into I don’t know what...

The general statement that it is done for game play is bogus. The game played well other than for bugs when it started and now it is just turning to crap.

How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!

Mortars: as stated above, I believe, they were meant to be siege weapons for most part. However, another fact is worth mentioning: the 'accuracy' (damage versus troops) of indirect weapons improves drastically at larger unit sizes. Which I find historically accurate too. If you have a field swarming with troops (on ultra sized setting), that mortar will hit someone almost with certainty. Maybe not the guy (or spot) you were aiming for, but surely someone standing next to the original target. On the other hand, you have to be quite lucky for it to hit anything on small unit sizes.

Bottom line: the smaller the unit size, the less efficient indirect guns become in the game.
That's not new to TW games either. Even in RTW, missile (archer) lethality went through the roof on huge unit settings whereas it was quite weak for small units.

That having been said, I still find mortars and howizters useful for 'directing' the AI troops towards your straight guns in the middle. 2-4 howitzers behind your lines, can easily 'squash' AI's flanks (by creating 'no-pass' killing fields), making them bunch up in the middle (where your straight guns can rake up killing scores).

As for the naval changes: sigh... I wished they fixed two things only:


Ships SHOULD NOT be able to sail against the wind. But that 'thing' they're stubbornly leaving in the game for the sake of 'playability' and speed of battle resolution.

Ships shouldn't be able to turn as fast as they can in the game. I've seen it suggested in some naval topic posts that one should always make sure to "swing the ship to the other side" so both sides have a go at the enemy (single target). One can do it in the battle, but that's nonsense in real life tactics terms.

[Prussian to the Iron]

and the worst thing about it is that when you click the button to disable atuomatic updates, it stays like that until the next time you start up your computer. so basically, unless you have reflexes better than your computer to turn off auto-updates again before it starts updating the game, youre screwed.

however, im using the AUM mod, which uses its own balancing. unfortunately, i think the patches still effect units.........grrrrrrrrrrr

[Luddite]

Developers seem to have some kind of balance fetish. It is the bane of games today, the cry goes out on forums that faction X has an unfair advantage and developers rush to nerf it and surprise now faction Y is the next whipping boy.

It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

As gamers we want variety, but that is always going to create imbalance and no matter how much developers try and prevent it, any beneficial adavantage given to even the smallest numerical change will be magnified in play. It is a holy grail quest to go for both, either clone armies and balance, or variety and imbalance... given the choice I vote imbalance every time.

[Cheetah]

If it is all for multiplayer than give them a separate unit set and stop fouling up the single player units!

I hope you are aware of the fact that your are making up a strawman here. Please check the MP forums (here and elsewhere) and show me the threads in which people requested Jack to rebalance either steamships or the naval game in general. I help you out, you will find none. Yes, mortar rebalancing were requested but mortars were way too accurate before the patch.

I just do not see:
1, Why do you want to create friction where there were none (i.e. setting up SP players vs MP)
2, Why do you think that your point of view is the most important out of all existing point of views.

[Luddite]

Surely it is not a case of SP vs MP. But if changes are implemented more for MP balance it is legimate for those of us who are primarily SP players to express concern as these fundamentally change the campaign experience.

[Zenicetus]

As for the naval changes: sigh... I wished they fixed two things only:


Ships SHOULD NOT be able to sail against the wind. But that 'thing' they're stubbornly leaving in the game for the sake of 'playability' and speed of battle resolution.

Ships shouldn't be able to turn as fast as they can in the game. I've seen it suggested in some naval topic posts that one should always make sure to "swing the ship to the other side" so both sides have a go at the enemy (single target). One can do it in the battle, but that's nonsense in real life tactics terms.


The second problem is a consequence of the first one. If they had modeled sailing more accurately, then ships would turn fairly quickly with the wind astern, and much more slowly when moving the bow across the direction of the wind. A ship with major battle damage to the sails wouldn't be able to get up enough headway to turn across the wind at all, but could still turn with wind astern. The "weather gage" advantage of starting upwind from the enemy would then be tactically meaningful, as it was historically. You wouldn't be able to do these silly turning-in-place tricks to maximize broadsides.

There's another, deeper structural problem that hasn't been mentioned much (I don't think). It's the way the naval battles start out just like the land battles, with the player fleet and enemy fleet heading directly towards each other from opposites sides of the battle space.

In a real sailing environment that would seldom happen. The fleets would be sailing for wind advantage on similar or adjacent tacks (square riggers especially). With the current design, there isn't an opportunity for a traditional "grand battle" to develop with parallel lines pounding away at each other for extended periods, or taking opportunities to break up the battle line (i.e. Trafalgar). The way the battles start out with fleets approaching head-on, is more like the way a fighter plane dogfight develops. It's an initial head-on pass, then maneuver for position, devolving into a chaotic furball.

I don't know how the modders can fix that one, since it looks like a hard-coded aspect of the game design. In a better (IMO) design, there would be sighting of the enemy fleet at longer range, and you'd have time to draw your ships up in whatever formation you wanted, relative to the wind direction, and you'd have some idea of what the enemy fleet could or couldn't do, again relative to the wind direction. It would probably require a larger area for the battles, for one thing. The current design is either a direct copy from the land battles, or just aimed at getting the action started and over with as quickly as possible, so the "action gamers" won't get bored.

[Jack Lusted]

Mortars were accurate because they had no real recoil that required them being repositioned. Now you are lucky if they can it an army on the field, but you know they usually miss.

Mortar accuracy was dropped because they were far too accurate before, though they will be receiving a slight boost to their accuracy in 1.4 as the previous changes went a bit too far.


The Steam Ships were turned into carronade frigates without explanation.

They've always had carronades, and they have carronades in order to give them a lot of firepower.


Several of the Infantry have been nerfed and Austria's Grenzers need rifling to be built but they are not riflemen.

Quite a few units have had their stats changed, any in particular you are referring to? And the Grenzers thing is something that could perhaps be looked at.


Now the Naval game is undergoing a rock ,paper ,scissors balancing job that it doesn’t need.

I have no trouble with changing ships guns’ range but not for the light guns! Sloops and Brigs already have some unrealistic advantages in speed, other than upwind. Many of the guns are underpowered and have too short a range.

No gun has realistic range, damage is being changed for all naval gun types as part of the rebalancing, smaller guns are getting less damage bigger guns are getting more damage.


From what I read in Lusted’s update he is making all the ships guns more accurate but the SOLs will have the least accurate and shortest ranges of the three classes of ships. (excepting carronade vessels, I assume) This just is not so and it is an advantage that doesn’t need to be portrayed. Sloops(cutters) and Brigs were to harass trade ships and cutters were used as curriers because they could sail near the wind. They took to their heals if a real fighting ship showed up.

SOL have a range of 400 compared to 500 for frigates and sloops/brigs. The low accuracy of SOL only hampers them against small targets as other SOL are such big targets it is pretty much impossible not to hit within a certain range.

And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.


How can you justify making mortars so inaccurate they have trouble hitting a fort? Their shots are off by hundreds of meters! All indirect fire weapons are turning in to big losers!

Mortars have a very long range, if their accuracy had not been lowered they would just have continued to dominate in normal land battles.


The new effective range of howitzers is also just a hundred meters or so, any further is max range and any closer is below min range.

The min range for howitzers is being lowered by 100 for 1.4, so their overall effective range will increase.


Having different sets of stats for MP and SP really wouldn't hurt

Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.

[Cheetah]

Surely it is not a case of SP vs MP. But if changes are implemented more for MP balance it is legimate for those of us who are primarily SP players to express concern as these fundamentally change the campaign experience.

It is legitimate to voice your concerns about unit balance but it is not legitimate, not well grounded and not helpful at all to blame it on the MP players.

The fact is that MP players asked for separate SP vs MP stats long time ago (during MTW2 or perhaps during RTW), even wrote petitions to CA (signed by hundreds of people) but no one listened to them.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i find it funny that mr. Lusted didnt care to respond to:



Developers seem to have some kind of balance fetish. It is the bane of games today, the cry goes out on forums that faction X has an unfair advantage and developers rush to nerf it and surprise now faction Y is the next whipping boy.

It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

As gamers we want variety, but that is always going to create imbalance and no matter how much developers try and prevent it, any beneficial adavantage given to even the smallest numerical change will be magnified in play. It is a holy grail quest to go for both, either clone armies and balance, or variety and imbalance... given the choice I vote imbalance every time.

[Jack Lusted]

Developers seem to have some kind of balance fetish. It is the bane of games today, the cry goes out on forums that faction X has an unfair advantage and developers rush to nerf it and surprise now faction Y is the next whipping boy.

It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

As gamers we want variety, but that is always going to create imbalance and no matter how much developers try and prevent it, any beneficial adavantage given to even the smallest numerical change will be magnified in play. It is a holy grail quest to go for both, either clone armies and balance, or variety and imbalance... given the choice I vote imbalance every time.

Well I believe you can have varied factions with strength and weaknesses and still have a well balanced game. Many of balance changes made so far have been because units haven't been balanced as well as they could have been.

[Cheetah]

i find it funny that mr. Lusted didnt care to respond to:

I will help out Mr.Lusted here, hope he does not mind it.


It is unrealistic to try and create a rock paper scissors, if you want games with equality then have identical factions on a featureless map.

The fact is that it is not unrealistic. Equality is not the same as featurless maps and clone factions. You can have both a good RPS system and faction variety (not to mention map diversity). RPS requires a basic relationship betwen unit types. Factions still can have variety the point is that weakness in certain unit types should be balanced out by strenght in other types. In other words, you can push factions towards certain roles in the RPS system. The only thing you have to be careful about is that there should be no faction which is strong in all (or in almost all) departments.

edit: Mr.Lusted was faster! ;~p

[TinCow]

And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.

Brigs and sloops were never used in major fleet battles, why are you trying to make that the case in ETW? Those ships were pretty much only used as privateers, coastal raiders, and general merchant interception. They weren't even good enough for scouting missions, frigates were used for those purposes. Anything under 40 guns wasn't used in fleet battles. You are screwing up what was the strongest area of the game to give "more of a role" to units that never had that role in the first place. if you really want to make brigs and sloops important, do something to make them better against trade fleets, since that was pretty much their only purpose.

[edit]An example of this would be to allow fleets controlled only of Brigs and Sloops to attack other fleets without causing a declaration of war. This would mimic their role as privateers and encourage their use against poorly guarded trade spots or wandering, weak fleets that would be naturally vulnerable to privateering.

[Zenicetus]

The fact is that it is not unrealistic. Equality is not the same as featurless maps and clone factions. You can have both a good RPS system and faction variety (not to mention map diversity). RPS requires a basic relationship betwen unit types. Factions still can have variety the point is that weakness in certain unit types should be balanced out by strenght in other types.

That can be valid for a game designed from scratch, like Warcraft or Starcraft, etc. But this is supposed to be a historical wargame, where the interest comes from seeing what the player can do within the historical constraints of the period. Otherwise we'd all just be playing Starcraft.

It's ridiculous to give sloops completely unrealistic gun range and speed, just for the sake of giving them a role in major fleet battles. Sloops were never used that way! They have other roles, in other, more minor battles.


In other words, you can push factions towards certain roles in the RPS system. The only thing you have to be careful about is that there should be no faction which is strong in all (or in almost all) departments.

Why not, if that's the way it was historically? The term "ship of the line" means that the type could survive the pounding in a line of battle against similar powerful ships. Aren't there enough differences in the various larger ships already? Why should sloops and brigs have a role in this type of battle?

And if that's CA's design philosophy, then why are the land battles so different? We don't see cheap, early-game infantry units being given ridiculous range, speed, or other enhancements so they can take on the better-armed, elite units that show up later in the game.

[Sheogorath]

Brigs and sloops were never used in major fleet battles, why are you trying to make that the case in ETW? Those ships were pretty much only used as privateers, coastal raiders, and general merchant interception. They weren't even good enough for scouting missions, frigates were used for those purposes. Anything under 40 guns wasn't used in fleet battles. You are screwing up what was the strongest area of the game to give "more of a role" to units that never had that role in the first place. if you really want to make brigs and sloops important, do something to make them better against trade fleets, since that was pretty much their only purpose.

[edit]An example of this would be to allow fleets controlled only of Brigs and Sloops to attack other fleets without causing a declaration of war. This would mimic their role as privateers and encourage their use against poorly guarded trade spots or wandering, weak fleets that would be naturally vulnerable to privateering.


I was under the impression that fourth-rate frigates DID sometimes take part in line battles.


That is a good suggestion, though about the trade fleets.

[A Very Super Market]

Fifth-rates already have 47 guns....

[TinCow]

I was under the impression that fourth-rate frigates DID sometimes take part in line battles.


That is a good suggestion, though about the trade fleets.

Frigates did not usually stand in the line of battle, but they did so often enough to warrant their inclusion there in the game. I'm not talking about frigates though, I'm talking about Sloops and Brigs. Those ships NEVER stood in the line of battle.

[Husar]

Mortar accuracy was dropped because they were far too accurate before, though they will be receiving a slight boost to their accuracy in 1.4 as the previous changes went a bit too far.
[...]
The min range for howitzers is being lowered by 100 for 1.4, so their overall effective range will increase.
Sounds good to me.



And we felt that birgs and sloops should have more of a role on the battlefield and for there to be more differences between ship types. Not accurate, but it is what we wanted to have happen to make naval gameplay more interesting for both SP and MP.
Well, it's nice that you tried that but now that you know that pretty much noone at least on this forum and the way i understand others, noone on other forums, agrees with it, you can drop it, save yourselves the hassle and make us all happy as well. :2thumbsup:
Perhaps a few of the balancing guys would like to "balance" the campaign AI/diplomacy. :mellow:


Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.
Well, most people don't want any real balance in SP it seems so there wouldn't be all that much of a need to test it thoroughly, it's mostly fine as it is anyway, make a poll about the minor requests players have and do whatever the poll result is, you will make the majority happy and save yourselves a lot of work. :shrug:
You can then spend all your time balancing out the MP part if you wish, just an idea but since MPers seem to want almost the same as SPers it might not be that big of an issue anyway.

[Karash]

Good idea about the Sloops and Brigs btw...hope Jack read that.

Not that it will change anything.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Well I believe you can have varied factions with strength and weaknesses and still have a well balanced game. Many of balance changes made so far have been because units haven't been balanced as well as they could have been.

haha! touche!

i remember a thread i posted in, in which i posted certain strengths and weaknesses of cavalry, infantry, light infantry, and arty for each of the major factions. if i can find it ill post it here.


i think what we all want is more historical stats at the least. if i play as russia and send my line infantry against british or prussian line infantry, i fully expect myself to recieve a thorough ass-whooping. :2thumbsup:

[AussieGiant]

To expand on TC's point.

It's just a fundamentally unsound move to try and increase the role of Sloops and Brigs in the tactical battle field.

Instead this should/could be confined to the strategy map as TC has suggested. This would also seem to be a fair less invasive move to the game than dealing with substantial balancing issues in the tactical sphere. Plus be far more believable and relevant. There are a multitude of options even off the top of my head that could make Sloops and Brigs more relevant.

A 36lb cannon being out ranged by a Sloop's main battery for game play reasons...:shame:

Game play experience in relation to a series of games based on historical context should be more historical than a-historical (if that is a word). But I think you get my meaning.

If not, then take your CA butt cheeks into TW:Space where there is no uncomfortable issues...like "History" to contend with.

And no one should underestimate the MP gang (tourneyfags) influence.

I'd love to have Lusted address the "reasoning" behind this move.

What's more concerning gentlemen...

Steam is going to give CA such a huge, and I mean massive insight into their fan base.

Once it's confirmed that the majority of players are kids with an attention span of 12 minutes you can bet the bottom dollar that the direction of this franchise will drift further off it's original course than you are already experiencing.

Once I finish the project I'm working on, I'd love to generate enough capital to poach those from CA who would to stay true to the concepts and create a new development house.

[Fisherking]

Thank you for the reply Jack!

Explanations go a long way in making some of these things acceptable, so thanks again.

Though it does not seem too many people are happy with the naval changes as they stand.

By the way the Grenzers are still not recruitable for some reason.

@ Cheetah

I don’t mean to separate everyone into SP/MP.

It is not that I intend to only play the game SP. But I find the balance issue silly. Units should be as close to real as possible and let the chips fall where they may. If a faction is unpopular it just is...

[Durallan]

I would like to thank Jack for posting aswell, considering this game is CA's baby I'm sure some of the comments we make in our frustrations can sometimes be rather upsetting, anyway, I must say that I would really love for sloops and brigs to have some sort of different role because they really don't work out for battles once everyone starts building 6th rates even, the most exciting thing about sloops and brigs is watching them explode :D

Although i must say I have had the AI many many times try to form a battle line with me, but not realising that was the normal way ships battled in that time I've kept trying to break it up and fight them one at a time which is incredibly hard now that they don't follow you where you go, my naval battles are now very challenging!

I suppose the most annoying things about sieges is if you are defending yourself against the AI, it just wants to run up to your forts walls everytime and run for the flag, which makes every defensive fort battle boring because there's no exchange of artillery fire unless you have some mortars, and then you can mostly fight off the units one at a time, so unless there are heavy heavy odds you will win every time, I don't know how you can make the AI smarter sieging but I think it could be improved, I normally don't send units in until I've breached the walls or unless I have no artillery, (which has never happened I make sure I have artillery if I'm sieging) something like that anyways.

[AussieGiant]

Since the undocumented patch I've certainly notices Sloops and Brigs doing a very good job of being annoying in large battles.

I just built the Victory, and a Sloop blew up right next to it. It caught fire and routed off the map. Luckily it didn't explode or sink.

This happened because they have have a great habit of getting in close and sitting between the big 3rd rates I have who are in the line astern formation. They use their superior manoeuvrability to stay out the massive broadside cones and snipe away from very close range.

I had the Victory split off the main line and start cleaning up the situation...clearly it was a very large hammer for a very small peanut.

It's very well done.

I really hope Jack reconsiders the Range and Accuracy issues.

[Fisherking]

For a while now sloops, brigs, and galleys act as little fire ships, provided you shoot them with round shot.

When they get close then change the ammo. They will rout or strike.

[Discoman]

Why is it that Sloops, and frigates are being made more useful, while Militia and other weak land units are being nerfed? I always saw Sloops and Frigates as just early ships that the player, and the AI, would build as they tiered up to the SOL.

If anything needs to be balanced its Native Bowmen, they have 100 range, 40% accuracy, and their reload time allows them to get off 3-4 arrows per man before the Standard line can fire off.


Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.
To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

I recall that other TW games barely tweaked the unit stats, and that was mainly good apart from MTW2 Shield and 2handed glitch, and RTW's Romans and Phalanxes were super rigged. Can't CA just freeze the SP unit stats and just revise them with the MP stats only when its drastic or extremely needed?

[peacemaker]

As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.

As for the brig/sloop rebalancing, it seems sort of silly. Still, if a brig or sloop wanders into the range of a SOL then I'm pretty sure it's in big trouble. The AI is most likely incapable of micromanaging that efficiently (and I know that I'm not either)



If anything needs to be balanced its Native Bowmen, they have 100 range, 40% accuracy, and their reload time allows them to get off 3-4 arrows per man before the Standard line can fire off.

I think this is somewhat acceptable. The Native Bowmen are half the size of a standard line infantry unit, and the Native Americans had been using the bow for hundreds of years and therefore had likely had excellent training. The bow also is much faster to reload and is most likely easier to aim accurately without dozens of others next to you shooting off VERY loud muskets/cannons.

EDIT:I was thinking the other day, since it's likely that the forums don't represent all the TW players, why not re-introduce that voting system from M2-kingdoms? There was that little poll that was in the corner every time you booted the game up, and this could probably be an easy way to find out whether players in general appreciate the new changes.

[Veho Nex]

As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.

As for the brig/sloop rebalancing, it seems sort of silly. Still, if a brig or sloop wanders into the range of a SOL then I'm pretty sure it's in big trouble. The AI is most likely incapable of micromanaging that efficiently (and I know that I'm not either)




I think this is somewhat acceptable. The Native Bowmen are half the size of a standard line infantry unit, and the Native Americans had been using the bow for hundreds of years and therefore had likely had excellent training. The bow also is much faster to reload and is most likely easier to aim accurately without dozens of others next to you shooting off VERY loud muskets/cannons.

EDIT:I was thinking the other day, since it's likely that the forums don't represent all the TW players, why not re-introduce that voting system from M2-kingdoms? There was that little poll that was in the corner every time you booted the game up, and this could probably be an easy way to find out whether players in general appreciate the new changes.

Historically I believe when a commander was faced to sail into the wind he did a zig zag motion and used the wind at his side to build up momentum, but you know then again I could be wrong, my knowledge for this time is about as expansive as yours.

[Sheogorath]

I, too, think the native bowmen are accurate. Bows SHOULD have the advantage over muskets. At least until breechloading rifles become common.


For the polls, I don't think that would work with steam. That was what was nice about MTW2 having its own launcher and all...

[Fisherking]

Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.

I am also wondering what has happened to the Grenzers and why Austria went from a strong rifle faction to one who has no rifle units at all. And buy the way it was the Jaegers who had rifles and not the Grenzers. But all that aside even if they had standard rifles it would be an improvement.

As to the naval changes, I am not overjoyed but if ranges are extended for the light ships then I hope galleys are included, as gunboat, which they most nearly represent, were a threat to the SOLs. With their heavy guns and maneuverability they posed a threat especially in confined waters, where the other small ships also came into play.

As to sailing into the wind; I am willing to take CA‘s explanations for doing it. I seem to recall they even tried auto-tacking (which the AI uses at times) but found it too confusing for casual players.

And yes! Bows were dangerous to musket men. Bowmen retained their advantage until repeating arms became available.:smash:

[Sheogorath]

Galleys DO pose a thread to ships of the line, although admittedly one has to use them right and, since the 'derp derp rotate in place' mechanic is unlikely to go away, it can be a bit frustrating.

Still, I've nearly managed to sink a first rate with four of them.

[Durallan]

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

[AussieGiant]

The more I think about it the more the naval balancing move is aimed purely for MP.

That's why a strategic solution in the campaign SP can't be considered.

[Husar]

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

To be good with a bow you need years of training, you can tell a man how to use a musket in a few hours/days, all the other training included, you can raise armies in a few months.

[Fisherking]

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

When the whites met the redman for the first time everyone was using body armor. Muskets put an end to that.

The amaricans tended to use rifles and light tactics against them. Also as you pointed out numbers helped so the army sent numbers. But in the Redsticks’ war it was mostly other Native Indian tribes that took care of the problem, even while Jackson got most of the credit.

The other secret the army used was buck & ball loads that gave a very high percentage of hits at 200 yards...something the game doesn’t offer.

The Siminole Wars went on for ever and were deadly bloody affairs that cost the US most dearly in blood and money.

The threat was defeated by number and the advent of repeating arms.

[Jack Lusted]

Why is it that Sloops, and frigates are being made more useful, while Militia and other weak land units are being nerfed? I always saw Sloops and Frigates as just early ships that the player, and the AI, would build as they tiered up to the SOL.

Well we don't want frigates and sloops to just be ships you use pre-SOL.


To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

All the nations that had unique stats for their line infantry in 1.0 still do, that hasn't changed.


I recall that other TW games barely tweaked the unit stats, and that was mainly good apart from MTW2 Shield and 2handed glitch, and RTW's Romans and Phalanxes were super rigged. Can't CA just freeze the SP unit stats and just revise them with the MP stats only when its drastic or extremely needed?

Well we felt is was needed as we think the changes that have been made to land battle balancing and the upcoming changes to naval balancing to improve gameplay.


As to the naval changes, I am not overjoyed but if ranges are extended for the light ships then I hope galleys are included, as gunboat, which they most nearly represent, were a threat to the SOLs. With their heavy guns and maneuverability they posed a threat especially in confined waters, where the other small ships also came into play.

Well galleys keep their ability to manouevre well and their high damage guns so they have their uses.


Galleys DO pose a thread to ships of the line, although admittedly one has to use them right and, since the 'derp derp rotate in place' mechanic is unlikely to go away, it can be a bit frustrating.

Still, I've nearly managed to sink a first rate with four of them.

Well turn rate whilst stopped has been dropped a lot for most ships, ships such as galleys being an exception of course.


The more I think about it the more the naval balancing move is aimed purely for MP.

That's why a strategic solution in the campaign SP can't be considered.

No it is aimed at SP as well, but even if changes were made to the campaign stats for the ships we'd still want them to have more of a role on the battlemap.

[Zenicetus]

Historically I believe when a commander was faced to sail into the wind he did a zig zag motion and used the wind at his side to build up momentum, but you know then again I could be wrong, my knowledge for this time is about as expansive as yours.

Correct. You're supposed to be at a serious disadvantage if the enemy has the weather gage, which means he's upwind from you. Tactical maneuver to achieve the weather gage over an opponent was a big part of the initial maneuvering, before anyone even got within gun range.

The zig-zagging is called tacking, and if you do it right, you can fire broadsides on each tack at an upwind foe as you gradually pull closer. The enemy is still going to have the advantage of faster turning (wind astern) and more control of the battle.

All of this assumes a true dead zone of something like 90 degrees or more (for a square rigger) in the direction of the wind, where you simply can't make any headway at all, and you'd be a sitting duck if you pointed your ship that way. I don't know if mods like this Darthmod being talked about are doing that, or if they're just adjusting the speed to be a lot slower when you sail directly upwind. Has anybody actually modded zero motion in the direction of the wind, and if so, can the AI handle it? Does the AI know how to tack as a combat maneuver?



Well turn rate whilst stopped has been dropped a lot for most ships, ships such as galleys being an exception of course.

Right, because we all know that spinning in a circle while stopped in the water, is such a great and historically relevant combat tactic.

(headdesk!).

[Zenicetus]

I, too, think the native bowmen are accurate. Bows SHOULD have the advantage over muskets. At least until breechloading rifles become common.


The only advantage they should have (IMO) is range. They do seem a little overpowered in combat effectiveness compared to firearms. Getting hit with an arrow shouldn't have the same impact as getting hit with a bullet, especially if the natives are firing at long range to stay outside the range of muskets. The European units weren't armored, but they did have multi-layer jackets, gloves, boots, etc. that would provide at least a little deflection for an arrow. The Eastern unit (horse archer, can't remember the name) might be a little more realistic, if they were using compound bows that hit harder.

Speaking of range.... it's a little annoying how enemy units like bowmen will approach and stop just outside the range of your line infantry muskets. I mean, literally a few feet outside their range. It makes sense that the natives would know, from experience, that they had longer range weapons. But there should be a little more randomness, or slack, in trying to stay outside musket range. Marching right up to the range marker exposes the game mechanics and breaks the illusion. It's like the way enemy ships will instantly reduce sails, the second you switch to chain shot. All the enemy admirals and field commanders must be telepathic.

[antisocialmunky]

... bows had advantages to tate of fire, indirect fire, and were probably equally good as muskets if you're going to close and finish off the wounded. The main issue is just ease of use.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i somehow think that primitive bowmen shouldn't have a 50% higher range then musketmen, who would undoubtedly have better range.

however, if the range was reduced to, perhaps, 60, and their rate of fire reduced to 10 shots a minute, and somehow make it take 2 shots to kill any line infantry and above, then i'm sure that the argument would be subsantially reduced.

[peacemaker]

The only advantage they should have (IMO) is range. They do seem a little overpowered in combat effectiveness compared to firearms. Getting hit with an arrow shouldn't have the same impact as getting hit with a bullet, especially if the natives are firing at long range to stay outside the range of muskets. The European units weren't armored, but they did have multi-layer jackets, gloves, boots, etc. that would provide at least a little deflection for an arrow. The Eastern unit (horse archer, can't remember the name) might be a little more realistic, if they were using compound bows that hit harder.


firearms were (I believe) developed because they could easily shred through the armor of heavy knights, which arrows couldn't. This made bows obselete and muskets became mass produced. The problem with this is that when people started using muskets, armor was removed so many used light armor as opposed to heavy chainmail and such.

If I remember correctly from my history class last year, many troops in the American colonies were low on supplies. In the American revolution, the Americans were often walking barefoot and starving. This may not be the case, but arrows could quite easily penetrate fur or cotton (or whatever material was used) uniforms.

[A Very Super Market]

Not necessarily. Bows were made obsolete by the simply use of firearms, namely, the aiming (In the loosest sense of the word, with the horrible accuracy of early firearms) and pulling the trigger. A good bowmen would take a lifetime to train and be of use in a war, while any chump could be trained to hold a musket. Early firearms made armour more or less obsolete, not bows, which were used enough until the pike-and-shot era.

For those that seem to think that arrows should do less damage than a bullet, remember that an arrow is essentially a slower, heavier, and larger bullet. That wedges yourself into you. It hurts. With it's size, nerve and muscle damage is sure to occur, which more or less incapacitates anyone who gets hit. You don't pull out arrows from yourself as if they were minor inconveniences, like in the movies, you fall on the ground in agony from the shock, and the amount of force inflicted by it.

Muskets fired slower-moving projectiles than modern guns. Using non-direct fire, a bowmen would most likely outrange a musketeer, who could theoretically try aiming his gun at a silly angle, but wouldn't do much good. The main thing is accuracy. At far range, the arrow will still fly straight at it's target in an arch, while a musket ball will have begun to fly wildly long ago. Effective range is exactly that. Effective range. Farther than that, you may get one or two stray shots, but the vast majority of bullets end up plowing into the ground, or going nowhere near the intended target.

The main problem with the natives is their huge stockpile of manpower to attack you with. Surprisingly enough, it is their numbers that actually makes it annoying to fight them, not their troops, which are only average.

[antisocialmunky]

We need a 'small pox blanket' option or something. Muskets could do more tramatic internal damage that would result in a killing wound especially if it did something stupid like shatter. An arrow would incapacitate/wound or bleed you to death instead. Plus its alot harder to figure out where those arrows are coming from.

I think you guys are thinking too much of massed military archery which N. America lacked because people didn't fight in large man-bricks. Instead they would have used a more shallow arc such as in normal hunting where you aim for a target rather than a general area.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, you get the same result. Some poor chump moaning on the ground.

Precisely. They should keep their current distance and accuracy. Just run them down with cavalry.

[peacemaker]

My main problem with native Americans is their numbers; they come at me in 3-4 full stacks which run down the American protectorates who don't seem to enjoy recruiting troops of any sort. I've never, in any campaign, seen Great Britain obtain the US with anything south of Boston

[Slaists]

Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.



Hmm. Are we playing the same game? I've played (not to the glorious end) 3 campaigns in 1.3 and in all 3 Marathas eliminated Mughals. I guess, results vary and that's good.


My main problem with native Americans is their numbers; they come at me in 3-4 full stacks which run down the American protectorates who don't seem to enjoy recruiting troops of any sort. I've never, in any campaign, seen Great Britain obtain the US with anything south of Boston

Again, we must be playing different games. The 'berserkness' of North American indians seems to vary widely depending on which faction the player chooses to play. When I played as Britain and France, the natives overran the colonies fast. When I played as UP, Britain, Spain and France (AI) got their protectorates in 1710 intact and healthy. All three games were on VH difficulty.



All of this assumes a true dead zone of something like 90 degrees or more (for a square rigger) in the direction of the wind, where you simply can't make any headway at all, and you'd be a sitting duck if you pointed your ship that way. I don't know if mods like this Darthmod being talked about are doing that, or if they're just adjusting the speed to be a lot slower when you sail directly upwind. Has anybody actually modded zero motion in the direction of the wind, and if so, can the AI handle it? Does the AI know how to tack as a combat maneuver?

(headdesk!).

I am not sure exactly what Darth has done, but trying to go against the wind is a dead affair in his mod. Also, I've seen the AI do tacking very diligently in his mod. Not sure how he achieved that.


i somehow think that primitive bowmen shouldn't have a 50% higher range then musketmen, who would undoubtedly have better range.

however, if the range was reduced to, perhaps, 60, and their rate of fire reduced to 10 shots a minute, and somehow make it take 2 shots to kill any line infantry and above, then i'm sure that the argument would be subsantially reduced.

I have no problem with the current bowmen balance. I find it realistic that bowmen outrange muskets until the age of rifle. As mentioned before, muskets made the armor obsolete, not bows. However, those 'woolen layers' mentioned here would not have done much to stop an arrow. Even full leather armor did not help much to stop arrows in its (historical) time... So, arrows should be deadly for European troops dressed in plain cloth.

And it's easy to run those bowmen down with cavalry.


As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.


Well, on weather gauge:

"An upwind vessel is able to maneuver at will toward any downwind point, since in doing so the relative wind moves aft. A vessel downwind of another, however, in attempting to attack upwind, is constrained to trim sail as the relative wind moves forward and cannot point too far into the wind for fear of being headed. In sailing warfare, when beating to windward, the vessel experiences heeling under the sideward pressure of the wind. This restricts gunnery, as cannon on the windward side are now elevated, while the leeward gun ports aim into the sea, or in heavy weather may be awash. A ship with the weather gage, turning downwind to attack, may alter course at will in order to bring starboard and port guns to appropriate elevations. Ships seeking to evade capture or attack, however, have the advantage being downwind if they are faster vessels or are close to friendly land."

Pretty neat stuff, isn't it? I find it way more interesting than the current ability of the ETW ships to sail against the wind and spin around while standing still.

[Fisherking]

Originally Posted by Fisherking
Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.






Hmm. Are we playing the same game? I've played (not to the glorious end) 3 campaigns in 1.3 and in all 3 Marathas eliminated Mughals. I guess, results vary and that's good.




In a way it is, but given the unbalanced armies the Mughals use it is still cause for examination. Also three times running, but then again the Marathas started as my trade partners. That is the likely cause.:laugh4:

[Slaists]

In a way it is, but given the unbalanced armies the Mughals use it is still cause for examination. Also three times running, but then again the Marathas started as my trade partners. That is the likely cause.:laugh4:

In the games I mentioned (in which Marathas took over) I was trading with both: Mughals and Marathas.

[Fisherking]

Well, I guess it is just too hard for the AI to kill them both!
:yes:

[Prussian to the Iron]

To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

balance? a couple points difference create balance? i think not!

certain factions infantry shoul annihilate equal infantry of other certain factions. if i pit prussian line inf. versus russian line inf., then they should destroy the russians in a shoot-out. however, in melee, russians would probably win.

conversely, russian light inf. would probably beat just about anyone elses.