View Full Version : Creative Assembly defensive bonuses
Well, I'm wondering, do pikemen and billmen and all the other spearcarriers get an extra bonus when you set them to hold position?
And I don't understand the defense and attack ratings. If I'm the defender, and the enemy charge and then I order my units to charge, are they using their attack or defense?
Each man has an attack value and defend value used in calculating the chance to kill his opponent on each "strike" in a combat cycle. Each man who is fighting gets one "strike" within a combat cycle, but can parry many times.
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ df
difference factor df = attack - defend + bonus
attack is the attack value of the striker
defend is the defend value of the opponent
bonus is any combat modifier that applies
charge is added in as a combat modifier
Charge (from the Strategy Guide):
Clicking on an enemy unit causes your unit to go to charge speed once it gets close to the enemy unit. It takes 2 or 3 seconds to reach maximum charge speed (presumably from walking speed). A charging soldier makes immediate strikes against all opponents he contacts. Each time he fights a little momentum is lost. When sufficient momentum is lost, the charge ends and the soldier looses the charge bonus. (Note: we know now that running speed is above the momentum threshold for charge bonus. So, men moving at full running speed get the charge bonus if they contact enemy men.)
Pushback:
In an attack, the striker has a chance of pushing back his opponent which gives him a strong combat bonus on the next strike. Factors affecting the chance of pushback are: kill chance, advantage in supporting ranks, mounted vs foot. Charging cavalry always pushes back any foot soldier who is not facing him with a spear, pike or polearm. (Note: v1.1 patch altered spear, pike and polearm pushback so that charging cavalry has a chance to pushback these men even when they are facing the charging cavalryman.)
Combat modifiers:
Formations
+3 atk, -3 def for wedge formation
-2 atk, +2 def for hold formation
Spear/pikes
+1 def per rank (up to 2 for spear, 4 for pike)
+1 atk per 2 ranks when not charging
+1 atk per rank when charging
No rank bonuses in trees
Terrain
+1 atk for camels in sandy desert
-1 atk for camels in lush or temperate
-2 atk, -2 def for cavalry or camel in trees
Bonus to atk for being uphill (amount depends on height difference)
Penalty to atk for being downhill (amount depends on height difference)
Fear of camels
+4 def for camels against horses
+2 atk for camels against horses
Positional
+5 atk for flank attack
+7 atk for rear attack
+2 atk for charging into flank/rear
+6 atk on the following combat cycle after 'pushing back' the enemy
+5 atk when target squeezed too tight (example: bridge or castle gate)
Exhaustion
-2 atk when quite tired
-3 atk, -1 def very tired
-4 atk, -2 def exhausted
-6 atk, -3 def totally exhausted
Routing
+4 atk against routing enemies
-8 def if routing
Armor Piercing
atk bonus = (target armor - 1)/2
(remove the contribution of the shield and horse to target's armor before making this calculation)
Shield
If striker hits target from the rear:
+2 atk if target is footman with large shield
+1 atk if target is mounted or footman with small shield
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 20 2003,12:17)]+6 to atk when 'pushing back' the enemy
-5 def when squeezed too tight
How are these two things determined exactly? When does pushing back occur? I guess that squeezed too tight means that two units of the same player overlap, but to what exent?
Wow. this is exactly what I was looking for. I typed this up a while ago but reformatted my hd recently.
Thanks puzz
Quote[/b] (hrvojej @ June 20 2003,21:04)]How are these two things determined exactly? When does pushing back occur?
A pushback occurs when a charging unit hits a defending unit with sufficient force to cause it to drift backwards. Cavalry is very good at pushing back infantry, especially if they charge downhill.
puzz, you don't have the analogous stats for morale, do you?
Like what effect losing half of a unit has on its morale, etc.?
Quote[/b] (Dorkus @ June 20 2003,20:10)]puzz, you don't have the analogous stats for morale, do you?
Like what effect losing half of a unit has on its morale, etc.?
Well, you can check this link (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=4;t=2379;st=25). Look for Crandaeolon's post.
Maybe "squeezed too tight" is for troops on bridges? And maybe castle gates? I must say, the detail of these modifiers would be impressive for a hardcore wargame, let alone one that is positioning itself in the mass real time strategy market. The squeezing reminds me of the French in Blenheim - apparently they were packed into a town too tight and were cut up by the British. Hard to simulate in most games, where numbers are what matters. Maybe the French knights at Agincourt were a similar example? Makes me wonder if the modifier is just for bridges and gates or can come in more often.
Here's Crandaeolon's post on morale with some corrections and additions:
MORALE
States
Impetuous: 10 and above
Steady: 2 to 14
Uncertain: -5 to 5
Wavering: -14 to -5
Routing: Less than -6
Rout point is -16 in MTW v1.1, and probably moved to -18 in VI for MP. Routed units will keep routing until their morale rises to -6 or above.
Hitting the rally key pumps +8 morale into the unit.
Impetuous units will pursue enemies for longer, and may disregard orders to hold position. Some troop types may charge without orders.
Uncertain or wavering units which are not fighting are less likely to charge, and those who are fighting are more likely to fall back.
Negative
Loose or disordered formation: -2
Outnumbered 2 to 1: up to -4 (range = about 75 meters)
Outnumbered 10 to 1: up to -12 (range = about 75 meters)
Outclassed in quality and speed: modifies the outnumbered penalty.
One flank threatened: -2 (range = about 60 meters)
Two flanks threatened: -6 (range = about 60 meters
Charged in flank: -4
Infantry charged by cavalry in flank or while disordered: -6
Charged in flank by unit hidden in forest: -8
General's death (for first few seconds): -8 to all his units except highly disciplined units
General's death (after first few seconds): -2 to all his units except highly disciplined units
Routing Friends: up to -12 for seeing 2 equal or higher level friendly units routing. Elite and disciplined units consider lesser types as 1/2 a unit for this calculation.
10% of unit is dead: -2
50% of unit is dead: -8
80% of unit is dead: -12
Taking casualties from enemy missle fire: -2 for a duration less than the reload of the firing unit (additional -4 for gunpowder weapons)
Unit is very tired: -2
Unit is exhausted: -6
Unit is totally exhausted: -8
Losing: Up to -8 (up to -14 if losing to cavalry)
Skirmishing without ammo: -6
Skirmisher pursued for a long distance by equal speed unit: -6
Positive
Two flanks protected: +4
No retreat possible (usually castle sieges): +8
No enemies around: +4
Two enemies routing: up to +8
Uphill Position: +2
Winning: up to +6
Unordered charge: +4 (such as when impetuous knights charge automatically)
Outnumber Enemy 3 to 1: +4
General's unit: +2
Within 50 meters of general: +1 morale per command star
Beyond 50 meters from general: +1 morale per 2 command stars
Archer and xbow open fire range = 100 meters (2.5 tiles)
Normal infantry marching speed is 1.68 m/s (speed 6)
Thanks Puzz. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Great to see all this in one place. Copying and saving the info. Would you also be so kind to clarify when does the pushing back occur, and when are units considered as being squeezed too tight, if you have time?
Thanks
I added some info to my post on combat about charge, pushback and squeezed to tightly. If squeezed to tightly had been incorporated for units in the open field, the engine would give a better simulation of what apparently happened at Agincourt.
As I recall, the morale penalty for infantry being charged by cavalry was changed in the v1.1 patch, but I don't know by how much. I believe it was increased. The -6 morale figure applies to v1.0. The v1.1 also gives sword infantry a +1 atk when fighting spears.
Once again, thank you very much for the trouble, Puzz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That's what I wanted to know, does squeezed too tightly happen on the open field. In other words, does it matter if I charge, let's say, three units into a single target. They basically occupy the same spot in the battlefield if that is the case, which happens fairly often, so I was wondering whether they should be spread out more so as to not incur any penalties. I assume that if they get penalties for bridges and gates, if it's not the terrain that counts but rather the actual formation of the unit, the same would apply when positioned against the cliff or wrapped around trees. All in all, great info.
Cheers
edit: Wasn't it also the case that there is no bonus for rear attacks on the footmen with shields, but rather that the shield bonus to the defence is simply negated when they unit carrying it is attacked from direction other than front? I mean, this bonus is applied after the shield bonus is removed, which would then give the attacker +4 difference when compared to attacking target from the front side (when looking at the defence as listed in unitprod file), or is it just to compensate for the shield?
The "squeezed to tight" penalty seems to be simply a consequence of being on the bridge or in the gateway, and not because you're physically squeezed together. Projectile units do very well shooing at a unit on a bridge, but I don't remember if that's an adjustment to accuracy or just due to the closer spacing of the target.
The removal of the shield for rear attack is actually implemented as an atk bonus for the striker according to the Strategy Guide. It comes in as a bonus during the strike, so you have to boost atk to negate the shield. However, I agree that it's more intuitive to think of it as a reduction to the def. The Varangian guard apparently doesn't suffer this penaly since they use a two handed weapon and put the shield over their back, but I wonder if that unit then looses the shield bonus from the front?
There is no mention of shield removal for side attacks. I assume the shield is in effect for strikes from the side. Some tests I did with archers also suggest that benefit of the shield is in effect when firing into the side of a unit. Those same kind of tests showed an increase of kills when firing into the back of a unit with a shield as compared to the front.
Ok, so then it is definitely the actual substrate that determines the "squeezed too tight", in the same way that forests do to cavalry. Good to know that.
I would say that units that don't use their shield in attack have no shield bonus from the front or any other form of HtH attacks, i.e. they didn't have it in the first place. That's how I interpret why it isn't listed under defence in f1, their defence rating is equal to the one listed in the unitprod file (unmodified), and this would apply to all units that don't use them in HtH combat, such as huscarles, JHI, pavises, etc. Whether it's still in effect as a bonus to armour to protect from missiles while they are fighting, I don't know, but I would guess so. I remeber the discussions between yourself, Kraxis and Arkatreides, if I'm not mistaken, about whether Varangian shields actually protect from arrows in the back when they are fighting, and IIRC there was no definite answer.
longjohn2
06-23-2003, 20:19
The penalty for being squeezed too tight applies everywhere, and doesn't depend on whether or not a unit is on a bridge or in a gateway. Indeed, one of the main purposes of it is to stop people cheating and getting two or more units to occupy the same space.
As well as the penalty for being attacked, overlapping soldiers also only fight at half effect.
Hm, well, then I have to change my "tactic" of attacking a king with my entire army at once. Thanks longjohn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
shingenmitch2
06-24-2003, 14:29
Yuuk,
U da man with da stats... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Great post, this one better get "pinned" to the board as it will ALWAYS be useful.
Between this post, the Berzerk unit compare tool and the wolf logfile reader peeps should have a chance at really understanding what is happening with the game and hopefully all will become better players.
----------------------
Thought:
Adding pushback on spears/anti cav units from front, in my opinion is a mistake. Horses would never impale themselves on spears and so should not be given any sort of benefit for doing so in the game. (if charging a set, facing spear unit is fiction -- then the "reality" of momentum should not be given to a fictitous event)
-----------------------
Question to anyone:
How does this "too squeezed" work... what is the trigger? Does it apply if I have 3 units stuck in same space BUT are drawn in single lines?
And on that note...
The single lines of inf. disturbs me a bit... how does a unit of 1 depth know if it is flanked? If it spins on axis in middle of enemy unit, is the enemy flanked?
-----------------------
LongJohn
Could u explain abit on the logic in the morale system about those double morale swings ---
i.e. If my unit is losing, I get hit with morale penalty. At the same time if I'm losing the enemy is must be winning and thus gaining a morale bonus. Isn't the penalty for the loser OR the bonus for the winner enough? The combined swing between the winner and loser can be huge... to the point where it looks like too much. (unit out-numbered does the same sort of thing)
My thought is that any penalty to one unit is by nature a bonus to its enemy. So why do you give a penalty to a unit and a bonus to its enemy? Isn't this sort of a double whammy?
shingenmitch2
06-24-2003, 15:38
LongJohn ---
I'm sure the Devs have something like the Berserk unit compare tool, but if not you guys really ought to get it when u begin looking at unit balancing.
It is the best way to see what is happening to a unit's fighting value versus the money spent. For instance, look at the Janisary Inf fighting ability at V3A1 for their cost and then compare to CMAA V3 and cost. Then consider which unit gets to shoot...
This stats & cost compare really shows how upgrades can be exploited and which units are probably doing things not intended when designed.
Mitch,
I believe the pushback on spears was introduced because of the historical arguments in this thread: Knights are too weak (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=5947;st=0) and the "Myth of the cavalry charge" thread which I can't find.
It looks to me like a unit is flanked for morale purposes if the center of an enemy unit is within about 60 meters and beyond the quardrant defined by the 90 degree arc projecting from the front of the unit (i.e. beyond 45 degrees from the center line drawn perpendicular to the unit's front), and the flank in question is not "covered". There are four quardrants around a unit, and you would need units in two of the three "flank" quadrants to inflict the -6 morale penalty for threatening two flanks.
"Insufficient space to fight" is the term used in the Stategy Guide for the penalty that gives a +5 atk bonus to the striker. I'm not sure what longjohn means by overlapping soldiers fight at half effect. Maybe that Agincourt simulation could be done after all.
My take on some of these things:
If you position units, for example in the initial deployment, so that parts of them overlap, they will move to spread out by themselves. That would mean that there is a way for the computer to determine whether the units occupy the same space, i.e. that it takes into account the space that the entire unit occupies, and not just how close the unit centers are. Therefore, I assume that overcrowding can be determined, and penalties applied, to individual men, just like valour is applied individually.
The double swing on morale bonus/penalty when units are winning/losing is there so as to compensate and work with other morale modifiers. For example, a unit that is outnumbered but winning will get a bonus and a penalty which may cancel each other out, while at the same time the opposing units get bonus for otnumbering but penalty for losing. If you take one of these out, the balance shifts (and by balance I don't mean that bonus+penalty necessarily results in zero; more like they are designed to work together and reflect the complexity of the situation). It's true that when looking at only two units fighting alone, it may seem as a double swing, but it's designed to compensate for more complex situations.
Another note, regarding the valour of a unit after merging or retraining, since we're talking about how the things actually work. This was a discussion some time ago, between longjohn2 and AgentBif. It was stated that the combat bonus is formed by adding a man's personal valour to his unit valour, and then splitting it between attack and defence. In other words, if one half of the unit has valour 0, and the other half valour 4, the valour of a unit is shown as 2, but the first half of the unit effectively have valour 1 (0+2=2; 1 to att, 1 to def), and the other half has valour 3 (2+4=6; 3 to att, 3 to def). Morale is determined on the unit basis (so valour 2 unit always has +4 morale for all men). This is an interesting thing to know when looking at the logfiles. I'm not all too sure about how the valour is actually gained when making kills, but I remember somwthing being said that not all kills will make the same contribution to valour gain, and I think it depends on the quality of troops killed, relative valour difference, and whether they were routers or not.
shingenmitch2
06-24-2003, 21:33
overlapping --
sounds like each soldier has a required space around him in which there can be no other friendly soldier, else the penalty takes hold. This then would explain the use of the fact that some units are more compact than others. (i.e. a Roman soldier only needs 3' around him to fight with short stabbing sword, while Gaul needs 5'+ to swing long slashing sword.) Within the unit, the soldiers automatically keep the propper distance, but since units can move through each other, maybe this almost instantly violates the natural spacing for the soldiers.
This would be the way they solved the ND/Monk combinded with spears on hold "force multiplier" back in STW. I like it a lot However I think it has F'd me a bunch in MTW as i was not considering this at all... perhaps including last night in that forest vs. Louis...
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 24 2003,20:53)]Maybe that Agincourt simulation could be done after all.
Yes I think I have seen this effect in a few battles.
One of the worst newbie mistakes is to select all units and doubleclick on one enemy unit. It doesnt happen often but the result has always been few casualties for me and a total rout for the enemy...maybe bad upgrades is part of the answer too, but it feels like the squeezing modifier happens in situations like that.
CBR
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-24-2003, 21:56
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Mitch,
I will look at the replay, but I had noticed that your guys were stacked which made it easier for me to hold them with my inferior units, but honestly I think that An's naphta did the trick on your left flank...(those naphta killed 53 which is I think the record I have in my logfiles... good job An). More than possible that Naphta works better with overlapping units.
JI cost vs CMAA cost... well JI take advantage of the missile discount, but somehow, Turks need some sword units. They don't have the equivalent of CMAA, FMAA, MS and the like. And they need something. The fact that JI ends up with a bow does not make a big difference. You don't want to lose them in miss duel early on. Don't let the bow lure you, JI are turk version of the CMAA.
I think I am going to post about it in JF, but I would like to try a v2 limit for sword / hybrid unit. That would stop the most blatant use of pump up unit (v4 militia sergeant, v4 handgunners, v4 arquebusier...). A v2 handgunner might be dirty cheap but has too low a morale to be really effective against more elite CMAA and the like, even if those CMAA are also v2. No valor limit upgrade for spears, cav and everybody else... (including polearm... real polearm not axe or poleaxe...).
Louis the Simurgh,
Naphtas certainly work better on overcrowded units, since you get more men positioned within the blast radius, i.e. more chances to kill them. The same thing goes for missiles with high power, when the projectiles that would normally go through the gaps in ranks hit the guys in the other unit(s) that occupy those gaps. Depending how sensitive overcrowding is, it could make a huge impact in melee as well, since you would almost be better off if each unit is fighting one on one in certain situations. For example, in flank charges a lot of the flankers actually end up intermingled with the friendly unit holding the opponent. I'm not saying flank is a bad thing, but it could explain some situations where you get more casualties than you woudl expect, and people experiencing jedi generals when they throw five units at the king, and why he ends up killing so many of them in the process.
longjohn2
06-25-2003, 00:02
The squeezing effect is indeed calculated on a man level basis. Each man needs a 1 meter diameter circle of personal space to be able to fight effectively. Cavalry need more.
Naptha and most artillery work on area damage model, having a certain chance to kill any man within a given radius of where they land, so they'll certainly be more effective against tightly packed units.
I think hrvojej explained the morale issue very well. The only thing I'll add, is that the winning unit getting a morale bonus, doesn't really directly affect the losing unit, so from that point of view, it's not really a double penalty.
I've discussed kills and valour before. Suffice to say that they are bunch of factors that determine how many kills a particular kill actually accounts for. They were put in for Shogun, so have something of an honour based theme. They depend on relative honour levels, social status, and such factors as whether the victim was killed in melee, shot, or hacked down while running away.
Thanks once again for the input, longjohn.
The squeezing effect is a really useful thing to know. I've already started to adjust my tactic to this new knowledge, and I seem to be getting by with less losses.
And just to add another thing that occured to me to the winning/losing morale modifiers. For example, unit A could be winning against unit B and gaining a morale bonus, while unit B doesn't necessarily get a penalty since it can have an "evenly matched" status if it's losing to unit A but winning against unit C, and therefore there's no penalty. That's why the double swing is only really applicable to one vs. one, and not in the multiple-unit fray.
shingenmitch2
06-25-2003, 13:30
-------------------
LongJohn,
Thanks for the clarification.
-------------------
Ah louis,
you too easily discount that range capability. Check how mo saves his JI, very much the way I saved my LBs. And if, in the course of battle, you do get the upper hand in missle duel, then u can force an enemy to charge under fire -- a big neg for attacker. When lines come together you can have a couple JI hang back as fire support (killing w/o risking themselves at all) or they can be thrown into the attack with the value of a cmaa if things look bad.
I have not used them enough to be good, but I've seen what mo and you can do with them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I have always had issues with the way upgrade buys can skew the system. But it is really bad with dual-use units who get the "missle" discount -- and none more so than the JI. The fact they they cost/fight as good as some of the best infantry and can shoot too, and have (AFAIK) no armor penalty vs. anti armor unit and high morale, is problematic. I am not one to say that "Turks are unfair," but it must be recognized that the JI is a very unbalanced unit that is not comparable in any other army -- although a few other dual action archers come close.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-25-2003, 13:59
Yes JI are a good units.
Mitch, let's move this discussion to this thread in JF.
JI Analysis / Sinan topic (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=8431)
Louis,
hrvojej,
There seems to be something missing from the posted morale modifiers. That would be the morale effect of suffering a casualty. I've seen wavering units fighting and rout as soon as they loose a man and it seems to be independent of whether they are winning or loosing, although, I suppose at the moment they suffer the casualty they might switch to loosing and get the penalty from that. My theory is that each casualty produces a fixed magnitude penalty for some finite period of time and these penalties can add up if they overlap. I guess it's all incorporated under the morale modifiers for "winning" and "loosing", but my impression is that there is a difference between "loosing without casualties" and "loosing with casualties". The winning and loosing designations do not seem to follow actual casualties in many situations. I've seen units designated as "winning" suffer more casualties than the unit they are supposedly beating which is a statistical possiblility.
The Strategy Guide actually refers to morale penalties for 10%, 50% and 80% casualty "rates". However, I've observed identical units which started with 100 men in different morale states because one had 49 men and the other 51 men. So, that would imply the 10%, 50% and 80% are not rates but totals, and that it is a permanent penalty which is how it's worded in the post on morale modifiers.
longjohn2
06-25-2003, 21:10
Surprised it's not in the strat guide, but yes there is a morale penalty for taking cassualties, that depends on the percentage suffered in the previous combat round. These are quite prone to random variations, so an unlucky round can tip a low morale unit into rout. Missile cassulaties count here too, so a lucky volley can be much more effective than the relatively small penalty for being under fire would suggest.
The indication of who's winning and losing takes into account push backs as well as kills, so it is possible to be winning whilst suffereing more cassulties.
Puzz,
These are my impressions as well. There seem to be two different morale penalties for losing a certain amount of men and for each particualar casualty. It's very logical that there are timed penalties for each suffered casualty, since there are also other penalties that expire after a certain amount of time, such as the one upon the general's death, and the missile reloading time penalty. I also recall that it was mentioned in some discussion long ago that the rate at which the unit is losing men is also important, and timed penalty for each loss would explain that very well. This would also mean that 10%, 50% and 80% penalties are permanent, i.e. these are the thresholds after which the unit would lose a certain amount of morale beyond recovery. So there is a dynamic and a static component of the morale modifiers due to the casualties suffered.
Some thoughts on what this means in battle:
A unit that loses a lot of men in the initial charge would be very likely to break and rout. The faster unit is losing men, the quicker the penalites will build up and rout it. Also, around the point when the permanent penalty kicks in, that single casualty could come with an added penalty of losing e.g. 50% of unit, and those would be important breaking points The other scenario would be that that particular casualty count as a normal one, and the only thing different is that the unit cannot recover morale above certain point when it stops suffering casualties (standing alone somewhere), just like it's the case with fatigue. There are several situations where this would be clearly visible. For example, unit A has 60 men and is charged by cavalry, loses 10 in the first charge, gets a huge temporary penalty and breaks. The same wouldn't happen to unit B that loses none in the charge, or unit C that loses 10 men over a longer period of time. Therefore, a momentum is very important. Another case would be that a severely depleted unit that has only a few men left of initial 60, with its lowered morale due to the permanent effect of size reduction, could rout if it loses one more man, since it would throw it below routing point. I have seen occurences of both of these, and they are well explained with this reasoning, IMHO.
I also think that winning or losing status have something to do with the ratio of attack and defense of the units involved. For example, unit A has 5/5 att/def, and unit B has 3/3 att/def. Unit A is going to be designated as winning (on a flat field, no other modifiers applied for the sake of the argument), even though it might suffer more casualties than unit B due to the randomness effect in battle calculations. Unit A will therefore get a bonus for being designated as "winning", yet it will also suffer penalties for each casualty. Unit B will suffer a penalty for "losing', yet no additional penalties if it suffers no casualties. Therefore, unit A better start inflicting some damage, otherwise it is going to be the first one to rout regardless of the winning status. This is likely to happen with units such as ghazi, who will be winning against almost anyone due to the insane attack, but will rout nevertheless since they die like flies.
edit: Well, longjohn beat me to it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I've only myself to blame for writing such a long-winded post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
editedit: If it's the percentage that counts, than losing 5 men at once would hurt a 60 men unit more than a 100 men unit, though none of them actually lost more than 10%. This would hold true even if the units are not at full strenght. One dead spearman would have less of an effect on its unit's morale than one dead swordsman. Another interesting thing to know. Thanks longjohn And I'm going to stop this post for now... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks for that clarification LongJohn.
The section in the Strategy Guide on morale penalties due to casualties reads:
10% casualty rate = -2 morale
50% casualty rate = -8 morale
80% decimation = -12 morale
When you play the game it seems like those are static penalties. There definitely seems to be a static morale penalty below 50% unit strength. The morale penalty due to casualty rate feels different to me than those numbers suggest. In the multiplayer game, I believe I've seen a 4 man cav unit, which is uncertain and winning, rout when it looses a single man which would be a 25% casualty rate. An uncertain unit is at least 11 points above the rout point (13 points in VI multiplayer). So, if those 10%, 50%, 80% numbers are rates, the morale penalty due to loosing the man would be at most -2 (for > 10% rate) -8 (max for loosing) = -10. It doesn't seem like an uncertain unit could rout from loosing a single man by those numbers unless it only had 2 men in the unit. I'll look over some replays and see if I can find an example.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-26-2003, 17:29
Hum... Interesting. That means that choosing between armor and weapon upgrade has some morale implications.
Low morale troops would benefit from defense upgrade to limit the morale penalty with previous turn loss. High morale troop, caring less about morale penalty may prefer weapon upgrade to make opponent rout faster.
Interesting.
I also think that there are two morale penalty; make perfect sense. This post shall be made sticky.
Louis the Simurgh,
He could suddenly be out-numbered. If there were 6-7 enemies in the 75 meters range, the 4-men cav is not out-numbered 2:1. But it is suddenly out-numbered 2:1 when it is down to 3. Suffers an extra -4.
Or there were between 30 and 40 men in the 75 m range, hte unit could suddenly found out-numbered 10:1 when losing 1 man.
Hmmm... May be that's why sometimes my decimated allan cav refuse to attack the 60-men pav.arb. because it found it is out-numbered, although I know the Alan can kill those arb. any time...
Annie
LadyAnn, I believe that the outnumbering is resolved on a unit base, regardless of how many men are in those units. I also believe that is how flanking works, so it seems logical that the outnumbering does as well. I might be wrong though.
There are two morale penalties that haven't been mentioned yet.
One is "disheartened by constant retreat" which happens when you manouver your units within the range of an enemy a bit too much. This emulates giving meaningless commands to a unit, which then starts to "doubt" your generalship skills. But, it can also be nasty as it can happen when you're trying to disengage the unit, such as cavalry, for example to repeat the charge. If you click wildly around in eagerness to move them away, they can actually rout from that. I believe that this is also a timed penalty, but I have no idea of the magnitude.
The other one is "dismayed by the destruction of the army". You usually see this with routers after the whole army is fleeing the field in replays, but I've also noticed that it's not necessary for the whole army to rout to observe it. I had the last unit of an enemy army showing this in morale description, although it wasn't routing itself. Therefore, I conclude that it has something to do with the large percentage of an overall army being routed, something like 90% or so. I have no idea about the magnitude of this one either.
I've also done some fiddling with numbers, and if it's true that the initial size of a unit determines the percentage when calculating the morale penalty for each casualty, this would mean that 5 dead spearmen incur the same penalty as 3 dead swordsmen or 2 dead cavalrymen do on the morale of their respective units. Each swordsman represents a 1.66% of his own unit, each spearman represents 1%, and each cavalryman 2.5%. However, it may also be the case, as Puzz said, that it's the current number of men in a unit that counts, not the initial one. This would mean that depleted untis behave in the same way, regardless of their initial size, while the other scenario would imply that the initial size always matters. I tend to lean more towards the initial size always being important, but, as I said, these are merely my own speculations from my observations.
And finally, a question. What are the maximum bonuses and penalties to attack/defense for fighting uphill/downhill? I know they depend on the slope, but how high can they get?
edit: Oh, yes, and the static morale penalties are definitely there for those percentages. Units start to show "worried about so many casualties" after they drop below one of those thresholds.
longjohn2
06-26-2003, 22:02
As you've all guessed the 20% etc losses penalties are static, and as such depend on the initial size of the unit. There are another set of penalties (I'll try to look them up for you when I'm at work) dealing with cassulties sufferred in the preceding second. These percentages are worked out on the current strength of the unit.
Outnumbering is based on both numbers and men, and combat power. A unit has to be outnumbered by the requisite amount in both areas to get the penalty. This was a change from Shogun which was based on a straight banner count. The change was mainly aimed at helping to get rid of small units at the end of battles.
The army destroyed penalty kicks in when most of an army's combat power has been eliminated. Again it's intent is to speed up the end of games by getting rid of small units that have rallied well away from the action, and would be a chore to hunt down.
The "disheartened by constant retreat" penalty is related to the Benny Hill detection code that routs your unit if you try to win a battle by running around avoiding combat until the timer runs out. As the retreat counter builds up you get a morale penalty that serves as a warning, and may if you're lucky tip your unit into a normal recoverable rout, rather than the unrecoverable Benny Hill penalty rout
I can't remember the maximum slope bonus, but I'll see if I can remember to check http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-27-2003, 15:26
Quote[/b] (longjohn2 @ June 26 2003,16:02)]Outnumbering is based on both numbers and men, and combat power. A unit has to be outnumbered by the requisite amount in both areas to get the penalty. This was a change from Shogun which was based on a straight banner count. The change was mainly aimed at helping to get rid of small units at the end of battles.
That was not my understanding so far; I am learning something here. I thought it was on banner counts only, and it's a good news that it's not. A welcome change.
Longjohn, what do you mean by combat power for outnumbering?
Interesting topic which shall be kept preciously.
Louis the Simurgh,
As always, your input is much appreciated, longjohn.
It would be very interesting to know how the combat power is determined, as well as the other things you've mentioned that you may check. Our speculations are one thing (and it would seem that a fair share of mine proved incorrect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ), and the actual info on how things work is always very interesting.
Cheers
shingenmitch2
06-27-2003, 23:11
Hi Louis,
I'm gonna take a wild swing at this... but combat power for outnumbering might be like this:
Each unit is given a Unit Power Rating (UPR) that trips morale/outnumbering.
UPR = (Atk/Def+other bonuses score) * (#of men in unit)
So for arguements sake: 1 ChivKnight has total attack/defense value of 10, while a peasant spear 1.
A full unit of 40 Chiv knights would have UPR = 400 while the full peasant of 100 men = 100 and thus the CK is "worth more" towards a morale hit. Perhaps it then gets dived down to simple numbers: the Cav = morale hit 4 and spear morale hit 1. (4:1) maybe that cav acts like 4 peasant units in that instance... and ofcourse outnumbering is just 1 of dozens of other morale modifiers that are added into the final morale tally.
Now if that Chiv knight has casualties is down to 15 men, it is UPR = 150 so the morale hits are like (1.5:1) almost equal.
I could be totally wrong, but that's my guess http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
------------------
Pushing what might be an incorrect take even further...
The UPR might be a number that the unit both contributes and keeps as a counter to morale/outnumbering. Using FULL units only, with my hypothetical stats & theory:
1 CK vs 1 CK = 4:4 which is 1:1 [even]
1 CK vs 3 CK = 4:12 which becomes 1:3 [old STW]
1 CK vs 3 PS = 4:3 which becomes 1:0.75 [advantage CK]
1 PS vs 3 CK = 1:12 [that sucker will run real fast]
1 PS vs 3 PS = 1:3
1 PS vs 1 PS = 1:1
3 CK vs 5 CK = 12:20, for any the individual on the left side they would feel like 1:1.67
and of course somewhere in there a maximum hit kicks in and cuts off too huge a morale/outnumbering bonus
Of course, LongJohn2 inputs are much appreciated. Until then, i speculate along the line of Mitch: it is the sum of product of enemy units in viscinity. The product being (att + def) * men.
However, I would also throw in the combat power of friendly units. Otherwise, everyone would be outnumbered in a big melee. The friendly units are also sum of product to be used to compute the ratio.
Annie
shingenmitch2
06-27-2003, 23:27
hehe annie u were posting while i was editting and adding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, but i think i addressed how that might work.
These are my thoughts as well. Though if you factor in the number of men in the unit in the combat power, and you also get the separate effect of the actual number of men in vicinity, that would mean that the number of men is actually figured in twice, and therefore would probably be the most important factor in the equation. Which actually makes sense, since the effect is indeed called outnumbering, and the morale description says that the troops are worried by the enemy numbers.
And yes, there has to be a way to figure in friendly units. Probably the combat power takes into account the combat powers of all units, both friendly and hostile, within a certain radius, as well as the combat power of the unit in question, to calculate whether each respective unit feels outnumbered or not.
longjohn2
06-28-2003, 00:02
The actual combat power calculation is quite complex, but involves all the factors you'd expect including numbers of men, combat factors, valour and upgrades. It's the figure the a.i. uses when picking match ups.
As you've surmsised, the combat power and numbers of all units in a 75m radius are added to give friendly and enemy totals, which are compared to decide the morale effect. The unit's own strength is added in twice (I think) to help out lone units.
For a morale effect to happen, the outnumbering must happen in both morale and combat power. So for instance if a CK unit faces off against a peasant unit, the CK doesn't get a penalty for being outnumbered in men, because it has superior combat power. Similarly the peasant unit doesn't suffer for being "outnumbered" in combat power, as it isn't outnumbered in pure numbers of men.
Question: When we upgrade valor and/or weapon, does the charge bonus upgraded as well?
Annie
It's very cool that the valour is factored in as well.
Since valour is factored in separately, as well as upgrades, and all these things also contribute to attack and defense, this would mean that by looking at the effective values of attack and defense you can have a pretty good idea about the combat power (even though the equation is more complex). Also, the number of men is then indeed counted in combat power as well, meaning that is very important in inflicting the morale penalty.
My interpretation would be that combat power is there more as a safety guard. In the example given, that CK wouldn't get a penalty for facing a unit of peasants, since now in MTW we have different-sized units, as well as different unit statuses.
LadyAnn, do you mean whether by having a weapon upgrade the charge bonus of e.g. CK goes from 8 to 9?
shingenmitch2
06-29-2003, 05:22
annie,
my understanding is that it does not.
Charge is static, thus the high valor games reduce the effect of cavalry (i.e. all attak/Defense has gotten larger, which shrinks the charge effect by comparison -- which is the big cavalry stat.)
I think charge comes in as a bonus on the difference factor, i. e. df = att - def + bonus. If you make a weapon upgrade, you'll have a larger df during the charge phase since the att value is increase by 1 point. Although the charge value itself hasn't been increased by the weapon upgrade, the unit does have a higher chance to kill during it's charge phase. I think the same is true of valor upgrades because they increase the att value. I think An is looking for a confirmation from longjohn about this, so I hope he comments on An's question.
Mitch,
It's the difference that counts. If both units have valor upgrades, those upgrades effectively cancel each other in the att - def calculation and the charge maintains the same kill probablility. However, since valor upgrades increase morale, the ability of the cav to rout a unit during the charge is reduced. In fact, since routing is a threshold effect and morale penalties are of a fixed magnitude, we see this ability for cav to rout the enemy abruptly stop at some valor level. For example, the effect of cav routing v2 Orderfoot fairly easily in v1.1 to cav hardly being able to rout the same v2 Orderfoot unit in v2.0 due to the +2 morale boost in v2.0. As Longjohn stated in the Strategy Guide, the intended effect is for the cav to beat an inf unit by routing it during the charge and, if it isn't able to do this, the cav looses in the ensuing melee.
Cuirassier66
07-01-2003, 01:35
Very interesting thread, especially for a modder like me. I am one of the Lords working on the Napoleonic mod.
I would be grateful if any of you could help solve the following.
*I have resigned myself to the fact that the individual units can not form square. I have (sort of) fixed this by setting NUM_SUPPORTING_RANKS to 7, PREFERRED_NUM_RANKS to 8 and setting the UNIT_CLASS label for infantry to "DEFENDER, SPEARM STRONG".
Now when the AI inf faces my cavalry, it holds position in 8 deep ranks and withstands a frontal cav charge reasonably well. The problem is when I first send in my deployed infantry followed by the cavalry. Seeing my inf deploy, the AI also deploys it's inf thus getting slaughtered by my cavalry that comes through later.
My question is :
Is there a way to get the AI to revert back to 8 ranks deep formation if it is being charged by my cavalry? Once it is deployed (in 3 ranks deep formation) for a firefight it never goes back into the 8 deep formation that is so handy to repel cavalry. Any way out of this?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
-Cuirassier
I guess that upgrading weapon would not increase charge bonus. That makes sense.
Almircar's VIArmyBuilder.exe program is now showing that charge bonus is the constant reading out from the stat files.
Annie
longjohn2
07-02-2003, 22:36
I afraid you're asking a little too much of the ai curassier66. It's hard enough to get it to play Medieval without expecting it play napoleonics too.
Cuirassier66
07-03-2003, 00:17
Quote[/b] (longjohn2 @ July 02 2003,16:36)]I afraid you're asking a little too much of the ai curassier66. It's hard enough to get it to play Medieval without expecting it play napoleonics too.
Awwh shoot Anyways it was worth a try LongJohn My dream Napoleonic game is yet to come I guess.
Anyways, if you have some time and patience, I would be grateful if you could give me some info on the following:
1* Column18, Unit Class Labels, "DEFENDER,SPEAR,STRONG" etc. Any description as to what they are?
2* How does honour level affect the combat? Is honour level a static parameter or does it change dynamically during combat?
3*Column45, Unit Specialities Labels, "DEFENDING_RIVER", "DEFENDING_CASTLE" etc. Are there any other specialties descriptions that the AI recognises? For example "DEFENDING_FOREST", "DEFENDING_HOUSE" etc
4*Column53, Suitability values for the troop formation types
like "SKIRMISH", "ADVANCE_PARTY" etc. Are there any other descriptions that the AI recognises? For example "SHOCK_TROOP", "LIGHT_INFANTRY" etc
Thanks
Cuirassier
longjohn2
07-04-2003, 00:04
Concerning questions 1 and 3, I think they're something too do with the strat map, but I've no idea what they do, or whether they do anything at all.
I think the column you refer to in q4 is one left over from Shogun that no longer has any effect.
Honour gives +1 and +1 defence per level, and +2 morale. It may change during the battle. The entry named honour_bouns in the spreadsheet is actually the base morale level for the unit type though.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.