View Full Version : EB2 Comabat balance
brodinis
09-03-2014, 11:27
Hello,
Played with many factions like 2 days now and i can say i am not impressed. Maybe you guys did nothing with combat and balancing units. It is clear to me and other not ignorant people who have online 1v1 experience that some unit types do not deliver combat feeling at the battle map. So i decided to write those things that make me worry about the actual combat.
1) I noticed that you wanted battles to be prolonged. Witch is a good thing, but for that some unit types like skirmishers, HA, Elephants, skirmishing chariots and jav cavalry does not deliver their effectiveness to the player. Examples are very obvious :
2) Elephant morale is very weak, and their effectiveness is really lacking, charge is lacking, high upkeep cost( 2500 ) for a bad unit that cannot even do some real damage to inf units while charged from behind is ridiculous. Their not worth recruiting and even placed at the battle lines.
3) Foot skirmishers, javelin throwers. All i can say they do not have their place in the battlefield. Why? cause they suck, and a lot. There is no real advantage to have them there. Not sinchronized projectile throw by all the unit models in the unit is really terrible. They supposded to be your armor piercing unit from behind off phalanx, but their not, they do not pierce armor and they do no damage to the enemy. Why ? because they throw javs like 5 in 2 minutes, and the damage effectiveness is really lacking in that regard, not to mention how they bug out and do not throw anything at all, just imitating, or just running arround and fails to attack the enemy. There is not even good reason why you as a player should tech to elite skirmishers, cuz they do no damage asvell. What is the point , of better morale or melee? They need to be changed. I suggest throw speed like you did with other units, like spearmen throwing spears to enclosing enemy really fast. I know you wanted battles to be prolonged with units dealing less damage overall, but jav throwers do no damage in that regard, my suggestion do not leave them as cannon fodder as they are now, make them less missiles to throw but a lot faster, and then they just fill the gaps on the melee and support the heavies. Because now they only good for cannon fodder or throw them away, and really feels that they do no impact on the battlefield, just running arraund and do no shit.
4) Next is javelin throwing cavalry. They suck at the same reason they attack very slow. This is simillar situation with foot javelineers. And most of them just rout when they see heavy cavalry unit approaching them. You need to do their morale higher and javelin throwing speed much faster, after javelins thrown out, they just go and act like light cavalry. The morale with helenes javelin cavalry is really lacking not even engaged in melee they rout form simple medium cav. This should not be like this. They hardly throw any javelins at the enemy, and you can hardly call them harrasers !
5) Slingers and foot archers. Now those deal no damage at all if you compare them to rome1 and EB1. Atleast in rome1 if you run with the archers and slings on the enemy's infantry sides where there is no shields or even in the back, they were dealing like 50% or 100% more projectile damage, that was logical, cuz enemy were fighting your infantry body and was not prepared to raise the shield to defend. Slingers do not pierce armor at all or even do so real work on damaging enemy's. This need to be done in other way. When in battle you should feel their role and effectiveness as a player, otherwise, battles for me are like dead. Slingers asvell might do fatigue damage if you do not want them to be killing too fast. These units should be effective and make the feel like you need them on the battlefield. And now it feels like cannon fodder with no real impact on battlefield.
6) Horse archers. You made them with such small ammunition capacities that if you summon like 10 hoplite unit you would loose almost emmediatly to every hellenic faction being as HA faction. I tested HA with Sarmation. AI had like 8-9 classical hoplite units and i had like 14-16 HA with like 6 elite HA. SO Ammuniton went down really fast and aproximetly out off 81 men in a squad of hoplites there were dead like 11 unit models, so about 70 hoplites were alive in a squad. This is a death wish to HA faction campaigns. In rome1 or EB1 for instance, you were microing your HA that they appear on the backs of the enemy or sides where there is no shields, and do some real work. But now, there is no such factor at this mod, it means you have to rely on heavy cav, witch at the start you do not have. And it feels like HA combat is bold now, with no reason to micro and do stuff on the battlefield.
7) Chariot archers and javelineers. Pathing problems, javelin throw speed too slow, really not effective.
I HOPE YOU READ THIS POST, i love what you do, but at the moment the game is lacking, and i have no interest to play battles when there is no tactics just plain slaughter.
a completely inoffensive name
09-03-2014, 11:39
While I do agree with the sentiment that slingers and skirmishers and archers could use a buff, I think a large part of the problem is just buggy combat. Obviously having skirmishers do a throwing animation but throw nothing is a bug (at least in my eyes). I am sure for later versions, the combat animation and bugs will be worked out and the power of those units will be fully realized. Same goes for chariot pathing.
joshmahurin
09-03-2014, 17:37
The unit balancing is undergoing constant work. The skirmisher types especially are going to receive a fix in the next patch I believe.
I_damian
09-04-2014, 00:40
Honestly, skirmisher units are so broken that we don't even need to mention it - you just KNOW that's the first thing that's going to be fixed in the next patch/version. I mean... it has to be... they're totally ****ed.
Hello,
Played with many factions like 2 days now and i can say i am not impressed (terribly sorry). Maybe you guys did nothing with combat and balancing units. (uh...no: see reply) It is clear to me and other not ignorant (including the guy who made and tested the system) people who have online 1v1 experience that some unit types do not deliver combat feeling at the battle map. So i decided to write those things that make me worry about the actual combat.
first off, this took months of testing just to get it this far with the M2TW engine (and believe me, it was a real pain in the *** doing so). And it is based off a system developed for another mod, which was adapted for M2TW (the original was for Rome: Total war BI and ALEX). Thing is, testers were very few, and the person who made the system himself did not have as much time as he wanted to test the system (also, he had serious reservations about taking this post: he only accepted because no one else was there to do it). He has a job after-all, family, and another mod, to worry about. Did I mention that he's also forced to travel a lot and is applying to graduate schools? And being a human being, he has other interests too, like going on walks, or hiking, or checking out the latest market wares. he's kind of old-fashioned that way :clown:
second, we know things are imperfect. This is a beta afterall, and it will take time to refine this. This isn't an excuse for any problems: they're there, they need fixed or bypassed, but we are working on them. I am sorry this doesn't meet your satisfaction, but then, it doesn't meet mine. But That's the whole point behind this beta release: we need input and new team members. I can at least tell you that when we're actually done, it will God-willing be a lot less buggy.
Anyways, let us address the meat of the matter:
a) Elephant morale is very weak, and their effectiveness is really lacking, charge is lacking, high upkeep cost( 2500 ) for a bad unit that cannot even do some real damage to inf units while charged from behind is ridiculous. Their not worth recruiting and even placed at the battle lines.
Well, that was what they were like in real life too: overpriced panicky things that weren't too effective in combat, and were more psychological. I mean the Romans could scare them by opening their files and then making lots of noise. if only that could be done to people and horses...
but even leaving that aside: Elephants are indeed imperfectly stated, but We are working around the limitations of the engine--which has been the single biggest obstacle at this time for elephants.
b) Foot skirmishers, javelin throwers. All i can say they do not have their place in the battlefield. Why? cause they suck, and a lot. There is no real advantage to have them there. Not sinchronized projectile throw by all the unit models in the unit is really terrible. They supposded to be your armor piercing unit from behind off phalanx, but their not, they do not pierce armor and they do no damage to the enemy. Why ? because they throw javs like 5 in 2 minutes, and the damage effectiveness is really lacking in that regard, not to mention how they bug out and do not throw anything at all, just imitating, or just running arround and fails to attack the enemy. There is not even good reason why you as a player should tech to elite skirmishers, cuz they do no damage asvell. What is the point , of better morale or melee? They need to be changed. I suggest throw speed like you did with other units, like spearmen throwing spears to enclosing enemy really fast. I know you wanted battles to be prolonged with units dealing less damage overall, but jav throwers do no damage in that regard, my suggestion do not leave them as cannon fodder as they are now, make them less missiles to throw but a lot faster, and then they just fill the gaps on the melee and support the heavies. Because now they only good for cannon fodder or throw them away, and really feels that they do no impact on the battlefield, just running arraund and do no shit.
God you sound like Diocle at the IBFD forum...:clown:
anyways: the single biggest problem with the skirmishers has to do with the way the engine treats projectiles, not the animations or stats themselves. As a result, there tends to be a "minimum range" to the units. We only caught this problem relatively late, and were in the process of applying a solution when the stop work was in effect (and in fact, the reason the prec units work was because we did have just enough time for them). And players on here have been very kind to provide alternate versions of the Descr_projectile and some advice to help bypass the problem--which we are incorporating now. I suggest you look at those as well.
c) Next is javelin throwing cavalry. They suck at the same reason they attack very slow. This is simillar situation with foot javelineers. And most of them just rout when they see heavy cavalry unit approaching them. You need to do their morale higher and javelin throwing speed much faster, after javelins thrown out, they just go and act like light cavalry. The morale with helenes javelin cavalry is really lacking not even engaged in melee they rout form simple medium cav. This should not be like this. They hardly throw any javelins at the enemy, and you can hardly call them harrasers !
I have news for you: that was what they did in real life. Put yourself in their shoes: you're a random akontist, the nearest neighbor is 6-9 feet away, you are armed with javelins and only a dagger for self defense. You honestly think they'll sit their and fight the medium and heavy cavalry? if you think so, then nothing I do to fix this will help you.
having said that: you are right that the hippakontistai should throw their javelins first, and that they need to be faster. But again, we know, and are working on this. do not worry
5) Slingers and foot archers. Now those deal no damage at all if you compare them to rome1 and EB1. Atleast in rome1 if you run with the archers and slings on the enemy's infantry sides where there is no shields or even in the back, they were dealing like 50% or 100% more projectile damage, that was logical, cuz enemy were fighting your infantry body and was not prepared to raise the shield to defend. Slingers do not pierce armor at all or even do so real work on damaging enemy's. This need to be done in other way. When in battle you should feel their role and effectiveness as a player, otherwise, battles for me are like dead. Slingers asvell might do fatigue damage if you do not want them to be killing too fast. These units should be effective and make the feel like you need them on the battlefield. And now it feels like cannon fodder with no real impact on battlefield.
-the problem here is actually with the battle_config file. And a solution was actually released as a fix by Moros. I suggest you download it. We will improve in this area over time.
6) Horse archers. You made them with such small ammunition capacities that if you summon like 10 hoplite unit you would loose almost emmediatly to every hellenic faction being as HA faction. I tested HA with Sarmation. AI had like 8-9 classical hoplite units and i had like 14-16 HA with like 6 elite HA. SO Ammuniton went down really fast and aproximetly out off 81 men in a squad of hoplites there were dead like 11 unit models, so about 70 hoplites were alive in a squad. This is a death wish to HA faction campaigns. In rome1 or EB1 for instance, you were microing your HA that they appear on the backs of the enemy or sides where there is no shields, and do some real work. But now, there is no such factor at this mod, it means you have to rely on heavy cav, witch at the start you do not have. And it feels like HA combat is bold now, with no reason to micro and do stuff on the battlefield.
again, see Moros' fix. they'll look a lot different when this is over.
7) Chariot archers and javelineers. Pathing problems, javelin throw speed too slow, really not effective.
well, I'm not an animator (well, not for M2TW anyways), so I can't fix that. If you can animate, we could always use more animators. As to pathing problems: hey, we're dealing with a stubborn engine here, and are trying to fix it. You should see what it was like when I started helping the EB team: people would go due north instead of west :clown:
I HOPE YOU READ THIS POST, i love what you do, but at the moment the game is lacking, and i have no interest to play battles when there is no tactics just plain slaughter.
well, warfare is just plain slaughter: tactics are what let you slaughter more efficiently. :clown:
and yes, we will read the posts. And you can be sure I have read EVERY post on this forum regarding the stat system, and noted it--no matter how stupid or petty the complaint may seem to some. I'd have failed my charge if I didn't.
brodinis
09-04-2014, 05:56
Well, you don't need to be that rude. i Don't think my post was worthless or stupid. Just my observations. If i wouldn't care about this game i wouldn't be writing a wall of text here ;) I just want every unit possible with their role in battles. Glad you responded.
P.s Dacian ( getai ) archers deal 7 missile damage?
I'd also like to add Cavalry in general, I've not been able to get a single good charge off.
Most of the time they just charge up to the enemy... then stop just as they make impact.
It's even worse if one or two in the unit get ahead, it sometimes causes the whole unit to stop.
In EB1 a good charge could completely reverse a battle, causing lots of casualties and a big morale shock.
But this is probably has to do with the Med 2 engine, as charges in vanilla were very hit and miss (most of the time completely whiffing like in EB 2 and once in a while causing extreme damage).
Hi
I don't think he was being rude, you could read your OP and think you were being rude. NEVER read an on line post and put your nuance on the words. You have to read them without emotion or you will misinterpret them.
I actually found Ibrahim's post informative and elucidating, giving me a better idea about the issues they have been battling with over the past six years.
And are still working on.
If you want people to improve something you are getting for free, keep the feedback coming and try and be a little bit more understanding of them, their efforts and the limitations of a two dimensional medium. :)
brodinis
09-04-2014, 10:38
I'd also like to add Cavalry in general, I've not been able to get a single good charge off.
Most of the time they just charge up to the enemy... then stop just as they make impact.
It's even worse if one or two in the unit get ahead, it sometimes causes the whole unit to stop.
In EB1 a good charge could completely reverse a battle, causing lots of casualties and a big morale shock.
But this is probably has to do with the Med 2 engine, as charges in vanilla were very hit and miss (most of the time completely whiffing like in EB 2 and once in a while causing extreme damage).
+ 10 exactly, i forget to mention this problem too.
brodinis
09-04-2014, 10:42
Hi
I don't think he was being rude, you could read your OP and think you were being rude. NEVER read an on line post and put your nuance on the words. You have to read them without emotion or you will misinterpret them.
I actually found Ibrahim's post informative and elucidating, giving me a better idea about the issues they have been battling with over the past six years.
And are still working on.
If you want people to improve something you are getting for free, keep the feedback coming and try and be a little bit more understanding of them, their efforts and the limitations of a two dimensional medium. :)
Yes you are right. My emotions exploaded a bit. I ll try to be more concervative and calm for future posts. I just want the perfect game in the battles and campaign ;)
Well, you don't need to be that rude. i Don't think my post was worthless or stupid. Just my observations. If i wouldn't care about this game i wouldn't be writing a wall of text here ;) I just want every unit possible with their role in battles. Glad you responded.
I didn't say that. I suggest you reread my post. I said something quite a bit different. And no, I don't personally think what you said was either. It's a common complaint, and it has basis in fact, so what is the problem?
P.s Dacian ( getai ) archers deal 7 missile damage?
I know...I know. I had fixed this repeatedly (it's supposed to be a 3) prior to release, but some guy keeps overriding it, not heeding the commit's notes. I only recently uploaded it again unto the trunk (and am hoping it hasn't been lost yet). just change it to three, and let the matter drop. next release, you will get that value from the get-go...if someone doesn't override it again :laugh4:
that brings me to another thing: Since the system used now is so different to other mods, the EDUmatic goes unused for the battlefield stats. I'll leave you to figure out how values are implemented.
as to cavalry: yep--the engine is really the problem. just have them gallop/canter well ahead of where you charge, and hope they lower their lances. then they are respectable, though obviously you can't use them on their own: they're there to deal the mortal wound to the enemy army--like in real life. Just please, don't charge head on either way. That's a great way to lose cavalry.
brodinis
09-04-2014, 11:31
My problem is, i want the game perfect. Since i waited a loong time for it to become real ;)
brodinis no offence, but you kind of push it too hard :). I am sure EB team appriciates suggestions and probably you do not wish to sound rude but in fact, in my opinion, you do. You started a couple of threads just to make complaints and you are not right in even half of them but again, just try to be more polite:) Maybe EB team doesn't look at you the way I do but could really try to be more "mature". If you want the game to be perfect contribute to it in other way than just by making complain threads.
I hope you understand my point and bear no grudge towards me. Have fun :)
brodinis
09-04-2014, 21:38
These are not complaints, these are my feedback while playing / testing the game. i am sure EB2 team see the same problems with the game at the moment as i see them. I understand certain mechanics of MTW 2 is quite difficult to overcome, but while i have experience playing many mods i can tell that this can be fixed/ reworked. Since other moding teams done the fixes for other various mods, especially with missile units/ skirmishers. And where i wasn't right with my threads it is your opinion with that. And thank you i am having a blast with EB2 at the moment ;)
I'd also like to add Cavalry in general, I've not been able to get a single good charge off.
You can get good cav charges off -- you have to give them lots of room. I have no problem with it, it's very satisfying when one actually comes off with a perfect hit, and it's hard to spam, which makes it feel much more real.
as to cavalry: yep--the engine is really the problem. just have them gallop/canter well ahead of where you charge, and hope they lower their lances. then they are respectable, though obviously you can't use them on their own: they're there to deal the mortal wound to the enemy army--like in real life. Just please, don't charge head on either way. That's a great way to lose cavalry.
Why do they act like that though?
Doesn't Med 2 use the same engine, or at least a modified version of it, as Rome 1?
I really like the way cavalry handled in Rome.
Why do they act like that though?
Doesn't Med 2 use the same engine, or at least a modified version of it, as Rome 1?
I really like the way cavalry handled in Rome.
If I recall correctly (and it's a long time ago that I read this), the developers set the minimum charge distance too low for cavalry in M2:TW. I am just surprised this was never patched. And yes, M2:TW uses a modified version of the R:TW engine.
My problem is, i want the game perfect. Since i waited a loong time for it to become real ;)
So.
1) The game is never going to be perfect.
2) The fact you waited a long time for it has nothing to do with anything.
As other's have noted, the EB2 team has every intention of improving the things that can be improved. Some we can control, others are hard-coded and will never get better, while a very large subset will come down to design decisions made by the team. Not every person will agree with those, but that's just how it is.
AND. We were very EXPLICIT in stating that EB2 is "incomplete". If that is unacceptable, you can create your own submods to address the issues you find most annoying. What you may not do is hurl insults at the team or question our motivations or work ethic.
Majasprat
09-08-2014, 20:22
The javeling throwers are completely bugged. I also think that skirmisher cav is too good in melee. I tend to just use them as a melee unit.
Majasprat
09-08-2014, 20:33
"My problem is, i want the game perfect. Since i waited a loong time for it to become real ;)"
Just be patient. It is a small team and they can only do so much, I find it remarkable that they even managed to make EBII.
Nightshift
09-09-2014, 23:13
Skirmishers and archers work quite well for me, as for javelin throwing units you have to micro a lot how they are positioned, I like how they run unsynchronized throwing five and then ten spears, have to disable skirmish mode for it to have descent results.. Its just that lethality should be much higher same applies to arrows. If this could be done in some global setting file or whatever I would very much appreciate if someone could point me to that file and give me some tested numbers I could insert?!
As in EB1 I would need like three horse archer units to decimate one phalanx until arrows were gone and finish them off in melee/ charge.
(of course a single infantry unit on your side to nail that phalanx would shift the outcome dramatically)
What I do like about the combat is that its alot about morale. Once they panic the killing starts, but before its just bashing shields and once in a while some unlucky guy falling out of line beeing picked off. Could imagine thats quite accurate representation.
Well here is my input. The lowered lethality (2.0 not 2.1 I haven't played enough yet) might be more realistic, but makes things slower, sometimes too slow (especially in sieges) for us who are not full time in-game soldiers and only allocate some time for entertainment here and there in the form of this awesome game. It does however have the effect of requiring a subtler morale-based set of tactics. In order to win a battle you have to route the enemy (not annihilate units one be one) and in order to do that, proper unit maneuvering is far more effective than having Gaesatea-type units slaughter a hole in the enemy line and use that as a focal point for the route contagion to spread. This is a bit harder to do, but more rewarding.
As for elephants, well it's true they cost too much, are not very useful against infantry and only a decent cavalry screen, frankly, a spearman unit is a better screen in 2.0. But except for that last comparison, this was true of elephants on ancient battlefields... more or less. They did cost a lot to recruit and maintain, they were not very useful against infantry that knew how to deal with them or was very disciplined and were an excellent cavalry screen. What is important to note is that they were a battle-deciding force. Whether at the battle of Gaza, the battle of Zama, the battle of Ipsos, the battle of Panion (probably) and against the Galatians too. They are not such a force in 2.0.
And I still don't get the +28 classical hoplite charge bonus.
Nightshift
09-15-2014, 10:46
And I still don't get the +28 classical hoplite charge bonus.
Tried Pontos yesterday (2.1) and attacked Eloitheroi general at the start. Had my Keltoi units set up for a defensive line. Plan was to let them hold it until other units could flank or get into the rear (as usual). Celtic spearman was charged by classical hoplite (1 on 1):
THEY ROUTED WITHOUT A SINGLE CASUALTY!!!!.
After less than 2 minutes 80% of my infantry was running. I barely won the battle because this lead to a situation where the pursuing enemy units were scattered around the battlefield and after my units stopped running I could take them out one by one.
(Only because I had two strong general cavalry and two descent skirmisher cavalry.) -> this was on medium by the way!
Gneisenau
09-15-2014, 17:30
Tried Pontos yesterday (2.1) and attacked Eloitheroi general at the start. Had my Keltoi units set up for a defensive line. Plan was to let them hold it until other units could flank or get into the rear (as usual). Celtic spearman was charged by classical hoplite (1 on 1):
THEY ROUTED WITHOUT A SINGLE CASUALTY!!!!.
After less than 2 minutes 80% of my infantry was running. I barely won the battle because this lead to a situation where the pursuing enemy units were scattered around the battlefield and after my units stopped running I could take them out one by one.
(Only because I had two strong general cavalry and two descent skirmisher cavalry.) -> this was on medium by the way!
i don't like the low morale of this version, and when in one siege battle, my troops with "stairs" and siege towers jumped on the wall, all they routed (without casuality), i decided to modify the stat of all unit in the game... try my "highermorale" submod on the submod section, i think it make the battle more playable and enjoyable, (and for my opinion also more tacticals)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148136-Higher-morale
Nightshift
09-15-2014, 19:01
Might give it a go. On the othere hand I kinda enjoy not winning those battles just as easily. And in my gallic campaigns I didn't had those 'issues' since it was celtic spearmen vs. celtic spearmen. Will test a bit further if I really don't like it I will try your submod and tell you how I fell about it if you wish so.
Tried Pontos yesterday (2.1) and attacked Eloitheroi general at the start. Had my Keltoi units set up for a defensive line. Plan was to let them hold it until other units could flank or get into the rear (as usual). Celtic spearman was charged by classical hoplite (1 on 1):
THEY ROUTED WITHOUT A SINGLE CASUALTY!!!!.
were there any enemy units near yours who were cavalry or elites? need not be fighting your men, just nearby. If a large line of units comes charging at your men and they have a smaller line and weaker morale and worse equipment, they may end up running away, regardless of whether the enemy unit can frighten foot or horse in the EDU or not. your soldiers' morale was designed so that panic can happen at any moment, for any number of reasons (superior enemy equipment, flanking, envelopement, heavy losses (~50% is more than enough), successful ambushes, etc. It is your job to make sure that happens to your enemy before it happens to you. your general is key here: make sure his presence is felt throughout the battle, and that they are always receiving good news.
having said that: the Celtic units are now different morale wise in the trunk build. even I think they were too weak in this department; the Celts were feared as warriors--if even a bit undisciplined, so the morale of theirs must reflect this: have gone ahead and made all "impetuous", with average to above average morale.
btw, glad you enjoy the challenge! hopefully the next full revision will be even better. :yes:
Gneisenau: for the most part, I'm not going to change the morale system: it is there for a specific (and admittedly sadistic) reason--which combined with the low hit rates, kdrakak pretty much nailed. Having said that: I endorse your submod if any wish for better morale than by design.
kdrakak: the charge is an experiment in simulating hoplite tactics. let me know how it works.
Gneisenau: for the most part, I'm not going to change the morale system: it is there for a specific (and admittedly sadistic) reason--which combined with the low hit rates, kdrakak pretty much nailed. Having said that: I endorse your submod if any wish for better morale than by design.
kdrakak: the charge is an experiment in simulating hoplite tactics. let me know how it works.
Thanx for the ACK. It is always good to receive some confirmation on hunches and assumptions. Unfortunately, I am in the middle (beginning is more like it) of an Aruernoi campaign, which I am happy to say is very rewarding and gives a feeling that it is more developed and closer to completion than other factions' campaigns (GJ Brennus and everyone!!!). In fact I am reluctant to apply V.T.'s hotfix seeing how I'd have to start over.
Then again, I suppose I could start a KH campaign to see what you've done with the hoplites... since you let on it's a little smt special. In fact I just decided I will!
Cullhwch
09-22-2014, 07:27
I think a major problem with Celtic sword units is their animations. Their attack animations look great but take too long to connect. Weaker enemy spear units can quickly stab and interrupt the swordsmen's attacks, which means that swordsmen will underperform relative to their stats.
Is the team at all interested in adding some quick stabbing or slashing animations for longsword units?
I think a major problem with Celtic sword units is their animations. Their attack animations look great but take too long to connect. Weaker enemy spear units can quickly stab and interrupt the swordsmen's attacks, which means that swordsmen will underperform relative to their stats.
Is the team at all interested in adding some quick stabbing or slashing animations for longsword units?
I am actually looking into it now. I agree they could use a little extra speed.
I think a major problem with Celtic sword units is their animations. Their attack animations look great but take too long to connect. Weaker enemy spear units can quickly stab and interrupt the swordsmen's attacks, which means that swordsmen will underperform relative to their stats.
Is the team at all interested in adding some quick stabbing or slashing animations for longsword units?
But wasn't that the issue? Celtic longswords weren't as efficient or deadly as the gladius for exactly the reason you mention. Using a gladius-type animation for a longswordsman is missing the point. Now if we're talking about changing the stats so that when they DO connect, the result is nastier, well, that makes sense.
Cullhwch
09-23-2014, 08:38
But wasn't that the issue? Celtic longswords weren't as efficient or deadly as the gladius for exactly the reason you mention. Using a gladius-type animation for a longswordsman is missing the point. Now if we're talking about changing the stats so that when they DO connect, the result is nastier, well, that makes sense.
They could also chop down a spear in real life. But that's not possible in the M2TW engine, and with the current animations, a longsword unit can start his attack animation first and fail to connect because a quick spear thrust interrupts him.
It's one of the reasons that siege battles take forever, even with elite units against levies. The levies won't ever land a killing blow, but their own attacks keep them alive for an absurdly long period of time.
Cullhwch
09-23-2014, 08:39
I am actually looking into it now. I agree they could use a little extra speed.
Great! It may be as simple as reducing the frames needed for a full swing.
Nightshift
09-23-2014, 13:01
were there any enemy units near yours who were cavalry or elites? need not be fighting your men, just nearby. If a large line of units comes charging at your men and they have a smaller line and weaker morale and worse equipment, they may end up running away, regardless of whether the enemy unit can frighten foot or horse in the EDU or not. your soldiers' morale was designed so that panic can happen at any moment, for any number of reasons (superior enemy equipment, flanking, envelopement, heavy losses (~50% is more than enough), successful ambushes, etc. It is your job to make sure that happens to your enemy before it happens to you. your general is key here: make sure his presence is felt throughout the battle, and that they are always receiving good news.
Has been a while ago but if I remember correctly I have been pretty sloppy:
Main line was consisting of spear units only with better troops all concentrated on far flanks. Second thing is they were still moving instead of standing and thus beeing able to "embrace" any charge. And yes the enemy had very good cavalry moving around.
As for my general, I wanted to take him as a flanking unit for one side as I only had one light cavalry unit.
All of this should probably explain the outcome plus I think that enemy general had a pretty high ranking.
But again I liked the fact that my overconfidence and lazy planning+preperations gave me that surprise.
I like to play with medium difficulty (hard in campaign) as it usually leads to nice battle where you could still beat a much bigger force.
I'm glad I have to rethink and be more carefull now. Keep up the good work!
Had to reinstall the whole thing now since I experienced unbearable CTDs. Hope it works now and I can enjoy the new patch and quickfix for traits. Thanks for that too.
They could also chop down a spear in real life. But that's not possible in the M2TW engine, and with the current animations, a longsword unit can start his attack animation first and fail to connect because a quick spear thrust interrupts him.
It's one of the reasons that siege battles take forever, even with elite units against levies. The levies won't ever land a killing blow, but their own attacks keep them alive for an absurdly long period of time.
Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".
Cullhwch
09-24-2014, 04:58
Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".
Wasn't my intention at all. I just wanted either a bit of a reduction on the windup or a rebalancing on unit stats for autoresolve purposes. It's beyond annoying and immersion-killing to see a levy unit kept alive by short pokes that never ever manage to kill an elite unit. Why prolong the suffering for a foregone conclusion?
Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".
that is not necessary; only something slightly faster.
Why prolong the suffering for a foregone conclusion?
:laugh4:
well, when the new EDU is up for public consumption, it'll hopefully be a step forward here. animations themselves will take longer to deal with, and whether it will be available in the future is another matter. I'm an animator myself (need to be for my own mod), but have had no luck applying what I know to M2TW animations from RTW: can never get the script to work. Either way, the point is that it is very time consuming, and difficult to get right, and naturally, there are too few animators out there. If there are people who can work on it, I would be very happy. if I can get it to work, I'll do it myself.
either way, I still intend to keep battle speeds slow and relatively historical. we'll see what happens.
Nightshift: yeah, it was as suspected. but glad you enjoy the fighting!
As per a previous post, I played a brief KH campaign. I made peace with Epeiros and wiped out Makedonia. I also took Krete before turning to the mainland. Took Knossos, Korinthos, Demetrias and Pella with hardly any open field battles. Since sieges are not that good a testing ground with the low lethality and all the narrow corridors, I decided to try a few custom battles to see how the hoplites fare against different opponents. I used a mix of 6 Haploi, 4 regular, 2 epilektoi and a bodyguard unit, complemented by 2 Xystoforoi
First up were the Aedui:
14505
This reminded me of the Norman charge at Hastings :rolleyes:
The Gauls are no match for a hoplite line head-on. I didn't charge much in this battle; I didn't have to. Plus with a Brihentin and a Donno Eponodoi unit roaming unengaged in the battlefield, a hoplite unit does not want to find itself off formation. Generally the heavier line held better and longer. The hoplite charge results in a few casualties upon contact, something like 10 kills against 160 men unit. Depending on the enemy unit's composition (and disposition) there can be some effect on the formation consistency. This and further casualties are more a result of attrition though.
Then the Camillan Romans
14506 I called this the Sabeli sandwitch. A sabellian spearmen unit is caught between a Haploi and an Epilektoi unit.
I noticed that even haploi delivered a similar effect when charging, which can be explained with the +28 charge bonus shared with other hoplite units. Still I am not sure that makes sense. Same for a comparison between epilektoi and regulars.
Then the Polybian Romans.
14507 This epilektoi charge had an almost negligible effect on the Hastati and Principe units mixed in that part of the map. It managed to hold them in place though and keep them both engaged until another unit could deliver the kill. The epilektoi were even causing more casualties than the were receiving, following the charge, despite the heavier armour of their opponents (perhaps there was a fatigue factor involved?).
All in all, I think they deliver what you guys were going for. They hold the line, they charge effectively, but not devastatingly, and they behave very convincingly once engaged, either slightly enveloping their opposing unit if it presents a narrower front, while they pack tighter together when being hard pressed themselves. Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.
14504
But don't they look awesome?
All in all, I think they deliver what you guys were going for. They hold the line, they charge effectively, but not devastatingly, and they behave very convincingly once engaged, either slightly enveloping their opposing unit if it presents a narrower front, while they pack tighter together when being hard pressed themselves. Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.
That's exactly what I was looking for: the whole idea is to recreate the shock and horror of a hoplite assault on an enemy--not unlike what was described by Xenophon (where even a mock charge was enough to frighten the viewers). In addition, this test gives me an idea of how to implement infantry shock in general--something some celtic units will need as well.
As to the haploi having a similar charge: that is deliberate. It is intended that hoplites of all classes be relatively powerful, differing only in staying power (the heavier being the better), as measured in armor, unit defense, unit mass, and perhaps unit radius (better/worse cohesion). Hoplite warfare after-all evolved for use by amateurs (i.e. militia). Attack itself will be left to the usual divide between elite and non-elite.
QuintusSertorius
09-29-2014, 08:02
Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.
Uh, Hippeis aren't "decent medium cavalry", they're pretty poor medium cavalry. Greek native cavalry is amongst some of the worst in the game - by design.
Uh, Hippeis aren't "decent medium cavalry", they're pretty poor medium cavalry. Greek native cavalry is amongst some of the worst in the game - by design. not really...
I didn't design the unit's stats that way specifically. just the way the stats fell together at the time. they lack a shield, which with their spears puts them at a distinct disadvantage against the Xystophoroi and Hetairoi (who have armor, but still no shield). The Roman cavalry units are similar, but have a shield: this makes all the difference in the world. (btw: the hippeis are getting an armor upgrade: with new information about the cuirass, it is necessary).
frankly I'm puzzled by the lack of shields on the unit (EDIT: or while we're at it, a secondary kopis), but I didn't design the unit's appearance or equipment, so it's not my problem. I go by what is available, as best as I can. bear in mind that till recently, I had no automated means of entering stats in--hence any inconsistencies.
QuintusSertorius
09-29-2014, 22:55
I didn't design the unit's stats that way specifically. just the way the stats fell together at the time. they lack a shield, which with their spears puts them at a distinct disadvantage against the Xystophoroi and Hetairoi (who have armor, but still no shield). The Roman cavalry units are similar, but have a shield: this makes all the difference in the world. (btw: the hippeis are getting an armor upgrade: with new information about the cuirass, it is necessary).
frankly I'm puzzled by the lack of shields on the unit (EDIT: or while we're at it, a secondary kopis), but I didn't design the unit's appearance or equipment, so it's not my problem. I go by what is available, as best as I can. bear in mind that till recently, I had no automated means of entering stats in--hence any inconsistencies.
That's how they were in EB1 and I assumed they were simply translated across much as is (which is why I said by design - they're not supposed to be good). The main thing is that lacking either a lance or kopis/axe means they don't have the same impact on charging and fare poorly in melee against others who have AP secondary weapons. Basic Greek cavalry was never very good, which is why anyone with a choice used anything else available to them (Thessalians, Illyrians, Scythians, Thraikians, Numidians, Persians, Keltoi, etc). The Greeks (and Romans) were amongst some of the worst horsemen in antiquity.
As to the lack of shields, it's my understanding that before contact with the Keltoi, most Greek cavalry didn't use shields, preferring to have two hands on a lance and trusting to their cuirass to protect them against missiles. Using a shield on horseback requires quite a bit of skill, too.
Do you have an automated means of entering stats, now?
Two questions while you're on. Firstly, what's the underlying philosophy behind unit costs? Is it an assessment of quality? Availability/frequency? Something else?
Secondly, what's the effect of the move_speed_mod attribute? I ask because either cavalry are too slow, or infantry too fast, and there isn't enough distinction between light and heavy cavalry, speed-wise. Heavy cavalry struggle to catch fleeing infantry - even heavy infantry who shouldn't be very fleet of foot at all. Light cavalry can't catch fleeing heavy cavalry, or indeed anyone else much of the time. So that's an area that feels off, balance-wise.
That's how they were in EB1 and I assumed they were simply translated across much as is (which is why I said by design - they're not supposed to be good). The main thing is that lacking either a lance or kopis/axe means they don't have the same impact on charging and fare poorly in melee against others who have AP secondary weapons. Basic Greek cavalry was never very good, which is why anyone with a choice used anything else available to them (Thessalians, Illyrians, Scythians, Thraikians, Numidians, Persians, Keltoi, etc). The Greeks (and Romans) were amongst some of the worst horsemen in antiquity.
perfect then. But no, the stats were not translated.
As to the lack of shields, it's my understanding that before contact with the Keltoi, most Greek cavalry didn't use shields, preferring to have two hands on a lance and trusting to their cuirass to protect them against missiles. Using a shield on horseback requires quite a bit of skill, too.
they had shields in EB I, which was what puzzled me. I suppose new research came in :shrug:
Do you have an automated means of entering stats, now?
Trying to get it to work right now: it was brought to my attention from the TWCenter. We'll see what will happen.
Two questions while you're on. Firstly, what's the underlying philosophy behind unit costs? Is it an assessment of quality? Availability/frequency? Something else?
I did not design that aspect of unit design: my work is entirely to do with the battlefield. I know there's talk inside our work forum about dealing with this, but what will come of it, I know not.
Secondly, what's the effect of the move_speed_mod attribute? I ask because either cavalry are too slow, or infantry too fast, and there isn't enough distinction between light and heavy cavalry, speed-wise. Heavy cavalry struggle to catch fleeing infantry - even heavy infantry who shouldn't be very fleet of foot at all. Light cavalry can't catch fleeing heavy cavalry, or indeed anyone else much of the time. So that's an area that feels off, balance-wise.
I agree with you there: this is one area I only recently started to look into. The values as they are were from before I started.
and yes, move_speed_mod does affect the speed of unit movement. the default speed should be about 120 steps a minute for infantry, so the number shown will affect the above. I'll be giving the Roman infantry the equivalent of 100 steps a minute. other armies will depend on what I find.
QuintusSertorius
09-30-2014, 09:08
I agree with you there: this is one area I only recently started to look into. The values as they are were from before I started.
and yes, move_speed_mod does affect the speed of unit movement. the default speed should be about 120 steps a minute for infantry, so the number shown will affect the above. I'll be giving the Roman infantry the equivalent of 100 steps a minute. other armies will depend on what I find.
I might have a go at altering cavalry speed in the meantime. What do you think are sensible, rough gauges for light, medium and heavy cavalry? Currently they range from 0.74 to 1.13, from Parthian Cataphract to Numidian Skirmisher Cavalry. Something like 1.8, 1.5 and 1.2? Higher?
I'm also wondering about either making light infantry a little faster, or heavy infantry a little slower. Any thoughts?
QuintusSertorius
10-01-2014, 17:48
I've had a go at cavalry speeds in my latest edit (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148232-Submod-light_spear-and-javelineer-EDU-fixes), heavy cavalry are 30% faster, light/missile/skirmish are 60% faster.
antisocialmunky
10-03-2014, 02:46
How do other mods deal with animation speed issues? I thought they just made it so animations were all roughly the same speed to make balancing easier.
PS: Remember when MIITW first released and peasants were the best units because they attacked so fast and stun locked everything they touched?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ZeD40Rg8A
QuintusSertorius
10-03-2014, 23:28
Ibrahim - if my testing is any good to you, I think heavy cavalry need to be 25% faster and light cavalry (basically everyone else) need to be 35% faster.
Ibrahim - if my testing is any good to you, I think heavy cavalry need to be 25% faster and light cavalry (basically everyone else) need to be 35% faster.
seems reasonable. I'm also looking at RC's philosophy of this, and hope to see if this can be improved on. if not, I'll just integrate your cavalry speeds into the trunk.
As to the question on unit costs, that is my area. The equation I have devised is not perfect and there will be room for tweaking after all the numbers have been crunched (eg. multipliers for upkeep for regionals). Essentially the goal is to find the average cost per man on a very rudimentary level dependent on the following:
A = social level
B = amount of armor
C = type of weaponry
H = horse type plus level of barding
D = training
That final value is then multiplied by the number of men in the unit. I'm leaning on EB1 numbers and so expect some changes. For example, Epilektoi Hoplitai will have the same number of men as Hypaspistai.
Since we can control the recruitment pool, cheap units cannot be spammed - nor are they very good at holding a line anyway. That being said, once you start including armor, the cost begins going up dramatically. This will provide a standard framework across factions and provide some sense and logic to cost -- even if it isn't perfect historically.
QuintusSertorius
10-06-2014, 09:10
seems reasonable. I'm also looking at RC's philosophy of this, and hope to see if this can be improved on. if not, I'll just integrate your cavalry speeds into the trunk.
I'm still testing those numbers, some heavy cavalry seem a little twitchy looking; so perhaps 20%/30% might be a safer amount to increase if we want to keep a simple rule of thumb. Otherwise if you want something more in depth and unit-dependent, anywhere between 20-35% could be viable.
I'm also looking into a suggested change of formation for the underarm lancers, and possibly shortening charging distances, though I don't know if the latter will shift the balance too far in favour of cavalry.
As to the question on unit costs, that is my area. The equation I have devised is not perfect and there will be room for tweaking after all the numbers have been crunched (eg. multipliers for upkeep for regionals). Essentially the goal is to find the average cost per man on a very rudimentary level dependent on the following:
A = social level
B = amount of armor
C = type of weaponry
H = horse type plus level of barding
D = training
That final value is then multiplied by the number of men in the unit. I'm leaning on EB1 numbers and so expect some changes. For example, Epilektoi Hoplitai will have the same number of men as Hypaspistai.
Since we can control the recruitment pool, cheap units cannot be spammed - nor are they very good at holding a line anyway. That being said, once you start including armor, the cost begins going up dramatically. This will provide a standard framework across factions and provide some sense and logic to cost -- even if it isn't perfect historically.
It probably won't surprise you when I say things felt about right in EB1, so to hear you're using it to help inform costing is reassuring to me. As you say, there's already a separate mechanic to control spamming of cheap units, so I think gameplay is probably the bigger consideration than historicity.
Any thoughts on the suggestion of high recruitment/low upkeep from this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148267-Way-To-Many-Armies-%21%21%21%21&p=2053619708&viewfull=1#post2053619708)?
I'm still testing those numbers, some heavy cavalry seem a little twitchy looking; so perhaps 20%/30% might be a safer amount to increase if we want to keep a simple rule of thumb. Otherwise if you want something more in depth and unit-dependent, anywhere between 20-35% could be viable.
I'm also looking into a suggested change of formation for the underarm lancers, and possibly shortening charging distances, though I don't know if the latter will shift the balance too far in favour of cavalry.
have already implemented a tighter formation in the trunk build for Hellenistic and Roman cavalry: been reading that Peter Connolly work of his, and it mentions the spacing: according to what was said, the spacing in the current release is likely too wide. yes, it does make the charge stronger...perhaps a bit too strong with some units. might increase mount radius in descr_mount...
some units will get a shorter charge distance, but I need some data on what the charge distance actually was: I would use data from the 18th century (charge distances depended on the army's tactical doctrines), but obviously there are issues with that :clown:
QuintusSertorius
10-06-2014, 14:52
have already implemented a tighter formation in the trunk build for Hellenistic and Roman cavalry: been reading that Peter Connolly work of his, and it mentions the spacing: according to what was said, the spacing in the current release is likely too wide. yes, it does make the charge stronger...perhaps a bit too strong with some units. might increase mount radius in descr_mount...
some units will get a shorter charge distance, but I need some data on what the charge distance actually was: I would use data from the 18th century (charge distances depended on the army's tactical doctrines), but obviously there are issues with that :clown:
I don't envy you the tricky business of trying to get the balancing right! Is there any chance you'll release your updated EDU before the next full patch, or is it too interdependent on other changes elsewhere, making it hard to integrate into 2.01?
Yeah, I suspect even moreso than with infantry tactics, the amount of hard data on cavalry tactics is pretty thin. I guess 18th century data is better than nothing, at least they were practised uses of cavalry, not just theoretical musings.
Have you made any changes to javelineers (infantry and cavalry) since 2.01? They both suffered the same problem of having a range too close to their skirmishing distance. And a projectile weapon with poor accuracy. Plus inefficient animations for the infantry.
I don't envy you the tricky business of trying to get the balancing right! Is there any chance you'll release your updated EDU before the next full patch, or is it too interdependent on other changes elsewhere, making it hard to integrate into 2.01?
to be honest, I do not know :shrug:
some changes are being made right now, which I am having trouble finishing due to RL issues.
Yeah, I suspect even moreso than with infantry tactics, the amount of hard data on cavalry tactics is pretty thin. I guess 18th century data is better than nothing, at least they were practised uses of cavalry, not just theoretical musings.
trust me, it would not be a good idea. Cavalry in that time-period had swords only, and were in way tighter formations. they also charged at much greater distances if following the prussian model.
Have you made any changes to javelineers (infantry and cavalry) since 2.01? They both suffered the same problem of having a range too close to their skirmishing distance. And a projectile weapon with poor accuracy. Plus inefficient animations for the infantry.
yep--many changes, and a new set of animations. Javelins have greater distances of course. also, the battle_config was changed. the accuracy should be about 0.1 or so (and may be lowered more): more inaccurate than arrows and slingshot, but better than the 0.2 originally there.
Ibrahim, regards sources on cavalry, here is some that might be of use, if you didnt consult them already:
Medieval Cavalry Tactics. Europe AD 450-1250 (http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Medieval-Cavalry-Tactics-Europe-450-1250-David/7038949893/bd), Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warhorse-Cavalry-Ancient-Philip-Sidnell/dp/1847250238), and Xenophon's On Horsemanship.
QuintusSertorius
10-08-2014, 10:23
to be honest, I do not know :shrug:
some changes are being made right now, which I am having trouble finishing due to RL issues.
I've suggested in the recruitment thread that you enlist the aid of torongill. I was going to offer to help, since I have time and attention to detail, but his understanding of the EDU dwarfs mine.
trust me, it would not be a good idea. Cavalry in that time-period had swords only, and were in way tighter formations. they also charged at much greater distances if following the prussian model.
They had carbines and lances as well as swords in the 18th century. Did lancer tactics not make it into the period manuals?
yep--many changes, and a new set of animations. Javelins have greater distances of course. also, the battle_config was changed. the accuracy should be about 0.1 or so (and may be lowered more): more inaccurate than arrows and slingshot, but better than the 0.2 originally there.
In the kludge I've put out as unofficial hotfix, I switched the weapon to the more damaging ones in the descr_projectile.txt. Infantry javelineers were using the prec_javelin80, which had an accuracy of 0.08 so only slightly better than 0.1. I'm not sure I'd go lower than that, unless they've been made a lot more lethal in the battle_config.xml.
Do cavalry javelineers have the same range as infantry ones in your latest EDU?
QuintusSertorius
10-08-2014, 10:25
Since we've been talking about units in here too, I thought I'd query something I raised over on TWC: Hippakontistai.
For the most part I've ignored the specifics of individual units, since I've been focused on entire classes of them (javelineers, secondary spear users, cavalry, etc), but this is one that's jumped out at me. I have a sneaking suspicion that as an expediency the Akontistai model has been re-used to do the Hippakontistai. A knife as a backup weapon is fine for psiloi, especially since they represent the poorer members of a poleis, thus that's all they'd likely have.
However, it doesn't fit for Hippakontistai for two reasons. The main one is that any man who owns a horse (and by implication remounts, since a man isn't a cavalryman unless he has at least two, or better yet four horses) is not poor. Hippakontistai are a call-back to the older form of Greek cavalry before Philip of Macedon, where the aim was to be mobile, harry routers and be able to flee if things went badly for the poor buggers in the phalanx. A man who can afford a horse can afford a sword or spear as backup.
Secondly, a knife is useless on horseback, it's too short to reach anything. Holding back a heavier javelin for melee would make more sense than something not much longer than your hand. The kopis was a popular weapon for this sort of cavalry (mentioned in Xenophon and indeed was the model in EB1), and would have been well within the budget of a man who can afford horses. Doesn't even have to be a kopis like they had in EB1, arguably it's the Hippeis who should have one since they're supposed to reflect an adaptation to Macedonian warfare, any sword will do.
Here's the relevant bit off the EB1 website:
Hippos Akontistes (literally "javelin horsemen") are the standard among Hellene light cavalry. They are lightly armored, often wearing nothing but padded cloth for protection. The key to their method of warfare is speed, and they are armed accordingly. They ride small, but swift horses and harass enemy infantry and heavy cavalry with javelins. This is their primary use, because their light armor is really a detriment when they are engaged in any kind of melee combat. Their swords and shields are simply no counter to lances or heavier cavalry swords.
Historically, Hellas did not have a great tradition of light cavalry warfare, or indeed of any cavalry warfare. Hippakontistai were much like the Equites of Rome, the spoiled children of the richest families that could afford horses. They were usually not used in any front line capacity other than skirmishing and pursuit, and their equipment reflects this. Makedonian cavalry of the same type operates in a similar fashion, but generally comes from the poorest noble families, those who can afford horses but not the heavy armor required for the heavy cavalry
I've suggested in the recruitment thread that you enlist the aid of torongill. I was going to offer to help, since I have time and attention to detail, but his understanding of the EDU dwarfs mine.
while I do not doubt he may have the know-how, I have to assured he'll actually continuously contribute for me to begin to think of it. I had an assistant before, but he disappeared off the radar and has not been heard from since, which leaves me wary of new offers of that nature. If he's accepted into the team though and is constant, perhaps. :yes:
They had carbines and lances as well as swords in the 18th century. Did lancer tactics not make it into the period manuals?
no, they didn't, because there weren't any (not in the ones I study: I am a member at www.kronoskaf.com). Lancers in the Napoleonic wars were a reintroduction inspired by Polish cavalry (which itself was a bit of a throwback, and rarely took the field during this time--the 18th century, not the Napoleonic wars, calm down :clown:). Certain units were equipped with lances prior to that, but they were few, largely irregulars, and in small numbers (and as mentioned, no known manuals). As to carbines: these were not used in a standard charge, but often on patrol or dismounted. in fact by 1750, hardly anyone used pistols on the charge, instead preferring to directly have at it with the sword (which was held forward in order to act as a super-short lance). the only exception I know of after 1750 was in the Austrian army, where horsemen formed super tight ranks and fired their pistols at the trot (if even moving), but that was a measure against Ottoman cavalry, not regular European varieties (the same enemy also meant that Austrian cuirassiers only wore the full cuirass and a lobster-tail helmet against the Ottomans--as late as 1789 in fact: against other Europeans they wore only the breastplate and a secret, which was a latticework of iron fitted into the tricorne to provide protection from downwards cuts by the pallasch or sabres of European cavalry..
and again, even ignoring all the other stuff: the formations really are much tighter than what I have gathered on ancient cavalry formations thus far: the men are riding knee to knee in most armies. this would make cavalry using lances of the Hellenistic period way overpowered.
In the kludge I've put out as unofficial hotfix, I switched the weapon to the more damaging ones in the descr_projectile.txt. Infantry javelineers were using the prec_javelin80, which had an accuracy of 0.08 so only slightly better than 0.1. I'm not sure I'd go lower than that, unless they've been made a lot more lethal in the battle_config.xml.
pretty much what I have in mind as the most accurate possibility. for now I'll keep it at 0.1 and see how that works.
Do cavalry javelineers have the same range as infantry ones in your latest EDU?
roughly the same, yes.
Since we've been talking about units in here too, I thought I'd query something I raised over on TWC: Hippakontistai.
I refrain from quoting the whole passage only to save space and avoid spoilers, but I was not the one who decided to design them with knives: they were in the game in this state when I started. Will bring it up with paullus, who might know the basis for this choice. until I have a sword in their hands, I had to go with their concept--hence the small (pathetically so) attack they have.
Sarkiss: already have Xenophon. will see about the others. thanks!
Yeah, it was an expediency thing a while back, and was always intended to be addressed. I'll talk to someone about making that change. Hopefully it would not be too complicated.
QuintusSertorius
10-08-2014, 19:47
while I do not doubt he may have the know-how, I have to assured he'll actually continuously contribute for me to begin to think of it. I had an assistant before, but he disappeared off the radar and has not been heard from since, which leaves me wary of new offers of that nature. If he's accepted into the team though and is constant, perhaps. :yes:
I was going to offer my own services, if you needed help with the gruntwork. My EDU knowledge is rudimentary, but I'm pretty thorough and document what I've done (see here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148305-Unofficial-Hotfix-Functional-inf-cav-javelineers-improved-spearmen-faster-cavalry)). I'm not going anywhere, either. ~:)
no, they didn't, because there weren't any (not in the ones I study: I am a member at www.kronoskaf.com). Lancers in the Napoleonic wars were a reintroduction inspired by Polish cavalry (which itself was a bit of a throwback, and rarely took the field during this time--the 18th century, not the Napoleonic wars, calm down :clown:). Certain units were equipped with lances prior to that, but they were few, largely irregulars, and in small numbers (and as mentioned, no known manuals). As to carbines: these were not used in a standard charge, but often on patrol or dismounted. in fact by 1750, hardly anyone used pistols on the charge, instead preferring to directly have at it with the sword (which was held forward in order to act as a super-short lance). the only exception I know of after 1750 was in the Austrian army, where horsemen formed super tight ranks and fired their pistols at the trot (if even moving), but that was a measure against Ottoman cavalry, not regular European varieties (the same enemy also meant that Austrian cuirassiers only wore the full cuirass and a lobster-tail helmet against the Ottomans--as late as 1789 in fact: against other Europeans they wore only the breastplate and a secret, which was a latticework of iron fitted into the tricorne to provide protection from downwards cuts by the pallasch or sabres of European cavalry..
and again, even ignoring all the other stuff: the formations really are much tighter than what I have gathered on ancient cavalry formations thus far: the men are riding knee to knee in most armies. this would make cavalry using lances of the Hellenistic period way overpowered.
Interesting, I'll freely admit my knowledge of 18th century warfare is pretty thin (and more focused on infantry than cavalry); what I do know more about is the later Napoleonic period, which as you highlighted is different. I didn't realise lancers were a re-introduction, don't see many of those in the development of tactics.
pretty much what I have in mind as the most accurate possibility. for now I'll keep it at 0.1 and see how that works.
Cool.
roughly the same, yes.
I guess that makes sense. You can throw with your whole body on foot, but you potentially have the horse's momentum to add to your power from horseback.
I refrain from quoting the whole passage only to save space and avoid spoilers, but I was not the one who decided to design them with knives: they were in the game in this state when I started. Will bring it up with paullus, who might know the basis for this choice. until I have a sword in their hands, I had to go with their concept--hence the small (pathetically so) attack they have.
You were statting to concept, as above with the Hippeis, so no fault there.
Yeah, it was an expediency thing a while back, and was always intended to be addressed. I'll talk to someone about making that change. Hopefully it would not be too complicated.
I suspected as much, glad to hear it was temporary. Any thoughts on giving the Hippeis a kopis now they've (rightly) lost their shield?
Go ahead and offer your services officially, and I'll see about you going in. I just don't want you disappearing on me though :clown:
EDIT: I'll admit, once accepted though, I'm not so sure where to begin: much needs to be done at this time, and a lot of ideas need testing.
@Ibrahim (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?27842-Ibrahim).
there is also this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sassanian-Elite-Cavalry-AD-224-642/dp/1841767131). it is Osprey and outside EB timeframe, yet probably better than nothing:shrug:
@Ibrahim (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?27842-Ibrahim).
there is also this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sassanian-Elite-Cavalry-AD-224-642/dp/1841767131). it is Osprey and outside EB timeframe, yet probably better than nothing:shrug:
I've read it (in fact I have a copy): I'm also aware of the "reputation" it (the specific book) has among some circles. How reliable it is is too uncertain for me too use quickly. In fact (and I suspect you agree) I tend to be leery of Osprey books--even more so of the pictures within: the few I use I only do so because the author's reputation is solid and well known, so reliability can be assessed quickly for a given topic.
Peter Connolly's book I use, and it quickly helped with the Hellenistic and Roman cavalry (and for stats, the works of Graham Sumner are a god-send). The other books you give I need a really cheap versions of, as they're comfortably outside my book budget (100 dollars per month).
bear in mind, the real challenge right now are formations for the cavalry outside the Hellenistic and Roman spheres, as well as basic tactics.
I remember photos of Polish lancers charging from the period between I and II world war. Did a quick search and found this page:
http://http://www.lucznictwokonne.pl/zurawiejki/kawaleryjskie/regul/regkaw/rr.html
it contains Polish Cavalry Rules Book 1936. From paragraph 183 there is a description of the lance and it's use. Paragraph 257 describes compact formation and paragraph 262 loose formation. Then there is a description of a charge in paragraph 266.
The site is in polish so I'll try to translate the most important facts - the compact formation is described as riders touching each other with their stirrups, in the loose formation there is a space of 6 "steps" between each horsmen and 40 "steps" between sections. It is also said that cavalry charged in compact formations as well as in loose formations, when under fire. The distance from which the cavalry started the charge is 200 meters.
The site is mainly on horse archery so it may be helpful in other areas. Unfortunatelly I dont have enough free time to translate much of it, if it is usefull maybe someone else can help.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.