Swords against spears [Archive]

Dionysus9

10-29-2003, 21:48

I voted 20 men.

Swords are outnumbered, but are better equipped to fight in close quarters. The swords should lose 5-10 men on the initial charge because its hard to charge into a spearman (lose 1/4-1/3 of front line). But once the swords close into sword-wielding range they should start tearing up the spears.

I'm assuming the swords are wedged and the spears are in tight formation. It is really hard to fight in close quarters with a spear, especially if your enemy is using a shorter weapon and is staying close to you. If the swords can penetrate into the formation (using a wedge), the spears should have a very difficult time fighting in such cramped quarters.

I think the swords should lose about 20 men, the spears about 45-50 men and then the spears would realize the jig is up and run off.

tootee

10-30-2003, 03:46

i go with Bachus.

Tomisama

10-30-2003, 05:18

A little spear versus sword history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The Macedonians (Alrexander the Great and his father, Philip) perfected the older Greek Phalanx formation in the 4th cenury BC. This fighting organization consisted of heavily armored infantry carrying a shield and a long (up to 18 feet) spear. The basic formation was 250 men wide and 16 men deep. The Macedonian innovation was to have each rank holding the spear at a different length so that when the spears were held parallel to the ground, the front of the formation was a wall of spear points. When charging at a trot, the Phalanx carried all before it, whether the foe be infantry, cavalry, or even chariots. This formation was unwieldy, and required constant practice to make it work on the battlefield. The Romans beat it by being even more flexible on the battlefield, using tactics which permitted their swordsmen to pass under the spearpoints, and maneuvering to hit the Phalanx on its vulnerable flank or rear.

Skomatth

10-30-2003, 05:21

You're probably correct, but this is medieval warfare http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Tomisama

10-30-2003, 15:29

Exactly my point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hundreds of years before, the finest spear unit war machine conceivable (the phalanx), had be bested by swords. I’m sure this was common knowledge to all Medieval commanders (basic training), and that there was no need to repeat history. But then again, here we are several thousand years later debating the same question http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

The_Emperor

10-30-2003, 18:45

In a head on charge between a well ordered unit of Spearmen and a Unit of Swordsmen, I'd lay my money on the Spearmen. However if they lose formation and get flanked... its certainly another story

As has been said above, Swordsmen would win if the "wall of Spears" could be disrupted and the swordsmen managed to get in close, but in reality this was mainly done by flanking the spear unit.

In MTW Swordsmen seem to roll right over spearmen too easily in a head-on battle, even when the spearmen hold formation and do not get flanked. Doesn't seem realistic that a sword unit could get that close without suffering badly in the initial head-on charge against the spearmen.

Jacque Schtrapp

10-30-2003, 19:12

A spear is a two hand weapon. A sword is usually wielded in a single hand allowing the wielder the flexibility of simultaneously utilizing a shield with which to block. Swords may be used to slash and thrust whereas a spear is fairly ineffectual in any role other than thrusting. Couple this with a sword being forged of metal and a spear consisting of a metal tip mounted on a wooden shaft, and I think the swordsmen has a distinct advantage.

Were I in command of a group of sixty Feudal Men at Arms faced with assaulting a defensive position manned by a group of one hundred Feudal Seargents, I would spread my formation out to two line of thirty men so as to create as much pressure on as wide a front as possible without risking a break in my lines. Even if the FS were to hold formation so as to fight from multiple ranks, the FMA should be able to successfully parry thrusting attacks while seeking to chop the metal tips from as many spears as possible. Those FS whose weapon tips are shorn may attempt to continue stabbing with the shaft or bludgeon the FMA. Wearing armor and being stabbed/pounded with a wooden shaft is merely going to annoy or at worst momentarily unbalance a swordsmen.

A careful approach is essential as the initial impact of an all out charge would be too costly. The only way I could see the FS having an advantage would be if they were break formation and swarm the FMA with their numerical superiority.

Of course this does not factor in the programmed physics of the MTW world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Orda Khan

10-30-2003, 19:23

Well I say 30....
It's a head on rush and the swords are outnumbered, almost 2 to 1
But what does it matter? Will people change their approach to the game? I doubt it

....Orda

shingenmitch2

10-30-2003, 19:44

Umm Schtrapp not quite:

A pike was a 2 handed weapon...

A spear was wielded 1 handed and could be used very effectively at close range using an overhand stab. Ancient greek hoplites would be butting shields with their enemy and still could stab with their spear. They only went to their swords after the spear had broken. The vikings used spear tactics pretty darn close to old phalanx fighting.

In a frontal assault, the spear should more than hold its own versus swords. The key here is that this is formation fighting. The sword is better adapted to 1v1 style of fighting, where as the spear begins to suffer in the 1v1 fight. Thus the spear troops need cohesion and this limits their speed, and maneuverability on the battlefield.

The sword should probably slowly lose in a frontal attack vs. a full spear formation, but the sword unit should be able to move quicker and spin faster to face different threats -- allowing the sword to out maneuver the spear unit and catch it's flank.

Another difference between the 2 weapons in a formation is formation density. A sword needs/ demands more space in which to be wielded than a spear does (the difference between swinging a sword and whacking buddies and stabbing foward and back with a spear). Thus u can pack more spears per area of frontage. This usually means in a formation battle, you will find each swordsman that attacks a formation confronted by 2-3 spearmen. Advantage spearmen.

Swordsmen = independence and a flexible unit - individual soldiers can easily protect the sides of the formation by turning, without weakening the overall unit.

Spearmen = directional dominance and unit that needs cohesion and support. The formation is weak on the flanks as it can't afford to have guys peel off on their own to confront threats -- the whole damn thing needs to turn.

Oh, and spears are way cheaper (or at least they should be).

shingenmitch2

10-30-2003, 20:11

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif CB --

That rethinking got me to thinking about my position on RPS and that swords should beat spears. I was wrong with that, they should be DIFFERENT than spears.

The spear unit should kick ass from the front, but be slow (er) marching and take a long time to spin/turn. The spear should, rightly, be a larger unit in terms of number of men. It should also have the soldiers tightly packed.

Pikemen should be like Uber-spears, but with all things magnified: even greater ass kick from the front, but worse speed and turning.

The sword unit should be considerably faster than spears or even halbeards, and should be able to turn quite rapidly. It should lose to the spears from the front, but it's speed would make it a constant flanking threat. It also would be able to handle unexpected enemy coming from new directions better than the spears.

Swords should also take less of a hit from a flank attack OR, conversely, spears might get a greater penalty than other units for being flanked.

Thus it wouldn't be a question of RPS swords beat spears or vice versa, but simply they have very different roles, strengths and weaknesses.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Puzz3D

10-30-2003, 20:12

Mitch,

I think mtw v1.0 had the sword/spear relationship you describe, and it's in line with what the Official Strategy Guide says about swords. The SP players lobbied against this and it was changed in mtw v1.1 with more expensive spears, more chance to pushback spears, less expensive cmaa and +1 combat bonus for swords vs spears. This changed the gameplay from one of spear lines clashing and fighting for a very long time while swords and cav tried to find flanks to attack to one of more direct attacks with cav and swords to the extend that we see no spears now, and the florins had to be raised high so that your battleline would fight for a reasonably long time. In mtw v1.0, battlelines fought for a longer time at 10k than they do in vi at 15k with +2 morale because in vi the battleline is all swords. It's interesting that at 5k where spears are used more, you sometimes get these long fights along the line once again. The spears were a bit strong in mtw v1.0, but the changes made in mtw v1.1 all added together constituted a rather large change to the sword/spear relationship.

CBR

10-30-2003, 20:20

The Romans had problems when facing pikes. But their better maneuverability meant they could exploit holes created by terrain or because some parts of the phalanx advanced quicker than other.

At Cynoscephalae elephants helped the romans in disordering the Macedonian left wing. At Pydna we are told how the Romans initially were pushed back but managed to exploit the holes created by the uneven MAcedonian advance (as well as winning the cavalry battle on one flank)

In Medieval times we have the Swiss whose halberdiers (what most were armed with in the 14th and first half of 15th century) had big trouble against dismounted men-at-arms who used their lances. Later on halberds and sword-and-buckler men were part of the Early Renaissance pike blocks but more as support when 2 pike blocks became locked together(moving on the flanks)

Swords as a primary weapon was a lot more rare compared to what we see in MTW. Main weapons used were always spears/pikes and polearms. But many had swords as a sidearm of course.

Pikes are not an easy weapon to use and requires training in a level that was not seen in most medieval units until the Swiss perfected its use.

CBR

CBR

10-30-2003, 20:26

Mitch:

In my MPwars mod for 1.1 I had the Italian Wars era. I gave the pikes a very tough charge value that insured that any halbs or two-handed swordsmen would be slaughtered if caught. Most pikes were 150 men units while halbs and swords came in 40 and 60 men units. I also made halbs/swords faster so it was easier to outmanuever pikes. IMO it worked perfect considering the limitations of the MTW combat engine. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

Dionysus9

10-30-2003, 20:33

Well it seems we all agree that if the swords can penetrate the spearwall the swords should win.

Maybe my intial estimate did not favor the spears enough, but I'm still thinking in MTW terms. If the sword unit loses 31 men, i will most likely rout-- which just doesn't seem right given the current engine.

But if you want to talk history, then maybe Mitch is right.

Yuuki has a great point about MTW 1.0, and I kind of miss the spear (center), sword (flanks), cavalry (far flank) battles. Dunno why everyone hated it so much...and I dunno why CA eviscerated spears.

But we are stuck with what we have, and based on how things work now I think a 25 vs. 50 man loss ratio is what we'd end up with on the field.

CBR

10-30-2003, 20:46

We always have mods http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I have made a thread with some test results. Go check the numbers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

Puzz3D

10-30-2003, 20:48

The MPwars battles were easily the best I have ever played with this game. It was very easy to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of the units so you could pick up on the army purchase and correct tactical play very quickly. I saw players using it for the first time doing very well on the battlefield. The unit types were limited, and you didn't buy upgrades. You bought the same unit in various sizes and cost was figured on a per man basis. Ranged units were improved in ranged fire to be worth what they cost. Basically, the RPS worked, the morale was high enough to avoid chain routs, and you didn't need the discounts on ranged units because they were more effective shooters. MPwars was designed for a fixed florin level, and that's what you played at so there was no confusion or jumping around from one florin level to another. You didn't win battles with upgrade trickery.

Orda Khan

10-30-2003, 21:13

Which is why nobody will play it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

......Orda

shingenmitch2

10-30-2003, 22:12

CB/ORDA

I gotta take a second look at that mod

The reason peeps didn't play it -- or at least I never did -- was because it was an unofficial mod that not many peeps had. And I'm not so comp savy or have the time for install/reinstall if I'm messing with the orig game. That was the only reason. If it comes with a good .bat file for switching versions then I'm all for it.

shingenmitch2

10-30-2003, 22:18

Oh and by the way CB... why do you even care about this? We all know you simply want lots of horsey and an easy one-time click... Bwah hahaha ahahah.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Kraxis

10-30-2003, 23:43

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Oct. 30 2003,15:18)]Oh and by the way CB... why do you even care about this? We all know you simply want lots of horsey and an easy one-time click... Bwah hahaha ahahah.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Says the man with the word "sideswipe" in his title. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

I don't know why, but I clicked for the 20 kills, I should have clicked for the 30. I guess I thought it was a question to hoe many they kill normally when we face them... No matter now.

Yuuki, I was one of the 'weaken spears' SP guys back then. And I say that the SP crowd were completely valid in their/our wish. But what nobody had expected was the complete changeover. Personally I had been perfectly satisfied if cavalry could charge head on (not going into the debate) and the bonus to swords.
What nobody had expected was the cheaper swords and more expensive spears as well as the greater pushback. But the SP crowd didn't rise up in anger again because it had less of an impact. Initial cost is not so much a problem in SP and most people won't notice if a unit is 25-50-75 florins more expensive. But in MP such a change is felt much more.

hellenes

10-31-2003, 02:02

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Oct. 30 2003,22:43)]
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Oct. 30 2003,15:18)]Oh and by the way CB... why do you even care about this? We all know you simply want lots of horsey and an easy one-time click... Bwah hahaha ahahah.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Says the man with the word "sideswipe" in his title. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

I don't know why, but I clicked for the 20 kills, I should have clicked for the 30. I guess I thought it was a question to hoe many they kill normally when we face them... No matter now.

Yuuki, I was one of the 'weaken spears' SP guys back then. And I say that the SP crowd were completely valid in their/our wish. But what nobody had expected was the complete changeover. Personally I had been perfectly satisfied if cavalry could charge head on (not going into the debate) and the bonus to swords.
What nobody had expected was the cheaper swords and more expensive spears as well as the greater pushback. But the SP crowd didn't rise up in anger again because it had less of an impact. Initial cost is not so much a problem in SP and most people won't notice if a unit is 25-50-75 florins more expensive. But in MP such a change is felt much more.
Again comes to the surface the BIZZARE split between SP and MPAll my friends that play warcraftIII and other like RTS liked MTW when i presented it to them (its not popular in greece ive counted 4 of us in the foyer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) they ALL asked if there was country building in MP...I was ashamed to tell them that there wasnt one and that it was only an army buyng and battleing without purpose...

Hellenes

Puzz3D

10-31-2003, 03:11

hellenes,

Is a game like chess without purpose? MTW/VI multiplayer is a tactical game, and proper balance of that aspect is important because that's the whole ball game for those players. However, it is disappointing to purchase a strategy + tactical game and then find out that multiplayer is lacking the strategy element.

MizuKokami

10-31-2003, 06:16

'i' never...ever ever....complained about spears being too powerful.
my fellow clansmen that know me from shogun can attest...i have allways been a spearman. it is my firm belief that ever since the very first spear hit the battlefield, it became the backbone of all armies all the way up until the point of gunpowder. and even then, until gunpowder units became versatile, spears still ruled the battlefield. not by killing quickly, but by liveing longer. by holding 'critical' areas of the battlefield, and restricting enemy movements.
well...when mtw first came out...it wasn't too bad...but public outcry demanded powerful cav. so the patch came out, cav became deadly as heck, and spears were weakened so much, that we were better off buying peasant units instead of spears. it was like...i lost the backbone of my armies. the game ceased to be any fun for me at all. and again...my clan brothers will attest, i have gone from being a person on every night for 3 or more hours, to a person on for 5 to ten minutes. and even then, i don't even use my clan name, as i don't wish to bring shame to clan takiyama.
with the new patch that has come with vi, i understand that spears now do a bit better job then they did before, but with loseing to swords, i feel they miss the mark. swords, are shock troops, and as such, should do quick damage. but also, as shock troops, as soon as they lose their charge bonus, lose their momentum, get caught with their pants down...etc, their value as shock units are gone. the purpose of swords is to break the enemy lines quickly...emphasize on quickly. if they fail due to misuse, or superior enemy tactics, then they should lose, all day long.

one last thing...it seems to me, from what i've seen, that total war has degenerated to a numbers crunch, as if the art of war no longer exsists. i've further noticed that old friends and allies seem to be breaking down to nothing more then a cold civility. i don't know if i'm miss seeing this, but ugly elmo seems to have made it a point to edit and delete all his posts here on the org, as if he's tired of the seemingly endless bickering. this is doubly sad, as the uglies, especially elmo, have been friends and allies to clan takiyama for as long as i have been comeing here.

Puzz3D

10-31-2003, 16:08

Kraxis,

In the viking invasion suggestion thread, I asked for spears to be put back to their v1.0 costs. That was a minimal change, but didn't even get that in vi. I was accused of being a spear lover. Well, the game is final now, and it is what it is. One can play at 15k without spears, unless one wants to sit in the foyer for long periods of time without a game.

Kokami,

I think it's the upgrade system that turns the game into a number crunch. If you just picked unit types without upgrades and no one unit type dominated the game, it would be more of an exercise in combined arms instead of what we have now which is more like finding what upgraded unit dominates the battlefield.

Kongamato

10-31-2003, 17:04

In my 10k early army, I bring three spear units to protect my swords, and another two Almughavars for flanking and to protect from flanking. I've had the ability to skirmish with everything but Turk hybrid armies. I'm able to use light cav against archers and I can protect my own from enemy cavs, which are often too heavy to keep up and get shot in the process. My frontal spear unit has only 2 ranks, which is all that is needed to deter cavalry.

When the second stage of the game begins, enemy swords have lost men and have lower morale. I can hit the enemy's swords with my own swords or with my knights, and I can expect to break through them. My spears on the flanks can hold out long enough for assistance to arrive after the center has broken, and my frontal spear and two Almughavars prevent enemy cavalry from breaking through the line or charging into my rear.

Just because spears cannot go toe-to-toe with swords and win does not make them useless. Their deterring ability gives my cavalry a sort of superiority in the missile war, allowing me to use my archers to their fullest.

Orda Khan

11-01-2003, 22:40

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Oct. 31 2003,15:08)]I think it's the upgrade system that turns the game into a number crunch. If you just picked unit types without upgrades and no one unit type dominated the game, it would be more of an exercise in combined arms instead of what we have now which is more like finding what upgraded unit dominates the battlefield.
Exactly the point I've been making for ages. The Unit Compare Tools are wonderful work but they have only helped the game degenerate into a numbers crunch like Kokami says. Upgrades are the worst thing about MP, they have a purpose in SP because you are building your empire. In MP they only serve to cause imbalance......and hence all the arguing that has destroyed the game and the community

........Orda

Dionysus9

11-02-2003, 00:19

Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Oct. 30 2003,23:16)]' . . . spears still ruled the battlefield. not by killing quickly, but by liveing longer. by holding 'critical' areas of the battlefield, and restricting enemy movements.'
Koka,

Spears are not quite powerful enough, I agree-- but as Konga says; some players are able to use them to good effect.

As for number crunching, the problem is exacerbated by upgrades-- but the real basis of the problem is the wide variance in stats compared to base cost. The higher the combat ability of a unit at v0, and the lower the cost-- the more the unit will become a "power unit.

Chivalric Knights and MAA are great examples of that.

So even at v0, they wil dominate due to cost/benefit ratio.

If the devs kept the combat ability to base cost ratio in a tighter range, the problem would not be as prevelant. But unless they keep all units with def:5 att:5 at an equal base cost, the problem will persist.

MizuKokami

11-06-2003, 04:45

i hear you dionysus, the upgrade system is the problem. which is why i would love to give my idea a chance. you buy troops with your money, but upgrades would be a matter of availability. ie...the host assigns points to each of the three...armor, weapons, and valor upgrades. the units would all come with their base unit stats, then you would spread points amonst them. for example...the host hosts a game at 10k florins, 10 valor upgrades, 10 weapons upgrades, and 10 armor upgrades. depending on what type of army you want, you would devide them accordingly. i personnally would put armor on my spears, weapons on my shock, and split as evenly as possible valor. tho with this system, i might decide to throw a couple extra valor points onto a few units to be a group of special forces. but it's just a thought.
but, if not able to do this, at the very least, the amount of florins spent on upgrades should work by ratio, haveing the effect of equal value. ie...if you spend 500(totals are wrong here) to upgrade the weapons for byz inf, and 1000 to upgrade the weapons of your chiv knights, then the increased attacks shouldn't be the same for both of these units, but should reflect the value of what you put into your troops. certain factions would be screwed over by this, but the reality of this would be that in history, certain factions were screwed in different eras. not because their men sucked, tho the byz sure did get quite complacent, but because they didn't keep up with technology.

CBR

11-06-2003, 14:24

Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Nov. 02 2003,00:19)]As for number crunching, the problem is exacerbated by upgrades-- but the real basis of the problem is the wide variance in stats compared to base cost. The higher the combat ability of a unit at v0, and the lower the cost-- the more the unit will become a "power unit.

Chivalric Knights and MAA are great examples of that.

So even at v0, they wil dominate due to cost/benefit ratio.

If the devs kept the combat ability to base cost ratio in a tighter range, the problem would not be as prevelant. But unless they keep all units with def:5 att:5 at an equal base cost, the problem will persist.
Yes cost in a tighter range is better. The current cost formula has an extra fudge formula for all expensive units just to decrease cost, so something is wrong. Some things might cost too much in the formula (spears/polearms with their anti cav stats)...but thats technical number cruncher stuff http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Good units should have a better cost/benifit ratio otherwise there would be no point with all the units we have in this game. A mounted sgt must never be able to upgrade to Lancer level for the same cost as Lancer.

The best limitation is the low money game where you simply cant buy 16 of the best units. Its also the only way to give the "lighter" factions a chance as their light units are more numerous compared to the heavy enemy units. With lots of money the light faction has to spend more on upgrades but it will never give him the same combat power.

CBR

Puzz3D

11-06-2003, 16:04

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Nov. 06 2003,07:24)]The best limitation is the low money game where you simply cant buy 16 of the best units. Its also the only way to give the "lighter" factions a chance as their light units are more numerous compared to the heavy enemy units. With lots of money the light faction has to spend more on upgrades but it will never give him the same combat power.

CBR
Well at the top end of v4 when cost of inf is around 1300, it's getting pretty close to equal for some of the discounted ranged units which might be why some want to stay up around 15k. The cost limitation benefit on elite units is pretty much going away once you go over 7k. The main attribute of 8k to 10k is that the morale level is pretty good in that range. It really depends on which gameplay aspect you value most which determines where you prefer play the game.

CBR

11-06-2003, 16:31

Yes of course but that is another thing with the cost formula, as the constant that has been added to missile units means they are too expensive at v0. The current upgrade reduction helps the higher florins but not low florins.

Yes you could say its about what gameplay aspect you want: if people want swords that can stop frontal cavalry charges then they need to have high morale and therefore money to get a minimum 1-2 valor.

But I would prefer RTW to not developing into another game where lightly armed units can be pumped up to nearly same level as roman legionnaires. I will always prefer intuitive and historical army selection instead of some fantasy based on number crunching.

Maybe we can have both but it needs more support from CA so we dont end up with solutions that hurts the equal valor gameplay that CA actually intended.

CBR

shingenmitch2

11-06-2003, 17:46

"But I would prefer RTW to not developing into another game..."

Well, I can only pray that cav swiping is reintruduced for RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Puzz3D

11-06-2003, 19:53

Well it's pretty clear now from the experience with mtw/vi that the MP game is very sensitive to morale level. From 5k to 15k you're only talking about a 4 point change in morale. So, it's important to get that right and balance the units for that morale level.

Orda Khan

11-06-2003, 22:07

Heh..If you want to see swords and spears go download Barocca's STW Mod. At v0 they fight to the last, almost http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Not exactly on topic I know...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

.....Orda

Dionysus9

11-06-2003, 22:47

Yuuki you are 100% correct about florin levels and morale, etc.

CBR is right-on about the cost of units & the difficulty/problems that exist in "accounting" for less tangible benefits such as armor piercing and speed, or anti-cav capabilities. By its very nature it is voodoo science...but maybe we could develope some better guidelines for CA to follow in their pricing? A daunting task-- but for example:

"Well ordered spears should beat cavalry, at half the cost."

Take that as a hypothesis and see how it works.

Heh, I also had an idea for a mod-- the RPS mod. Actually have units that were "Rock" "Paper" and "Scissor", it would be funny. If you modded the sprites to have little scissors (light cav) and big rocks (heavy infantry) running around, and "paper" shooting confetti http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

I think its easy for CA to "build" on what they've already done, but what they probably need to do is go back to square one and re-build some of the cost forumlas based on a solid RPS system. An RPS mod might help us/them do that.

All of that being said, I'm no good at modding and wouldnt be much help http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

LadyAnn

11-07-2003, 01:23

I think +2 morale increment is too much. The bad guy is the equation v = a + d + 2m.

The range between peasants and knights should not be -2 to 8 but more like 0 to 6, with increment of 1.

Annie

shingenmitch2

11-07-2003, 15:17

Dion --

Yes, that is the hypothesis modify to be "from the front..."

Hehe your mod would be hilarious ;D

You are dead on, CA needs to revisit square one on the balance issue. But my fear is that the code for this game is such a monstrosity that to do that would be nearly impossible for them -- unless they built this in such an efficient way...

Annie --
There is much truth in that observation. First off, that equation should be in 2 parts for multiplay. I also think breaking it apart would make balancing easier as the effect of each part of that equation can be better understood and adjusted.

V = a +d
M = m

As for the range for "M" I'd have a hard time guessing what the levels should be without extensive testing. But I do know that the P (power) of a unit is still out of whack
in this equation:

P = V + armor + weapon

when that range is:
V=0-4 (5 steps), Arm = 0-3, Weap = 0-3.

It is better than the old [V=0-9 (10 steps)] but it still creates units that can do stuff that they should never be able to do compared to non-upgraded units.

And as long as we can spend $ as we like, there will always be these "pumped up units" vs. non-pumped units.

shingenmitch2

11-07-2003, 19:52

Yuuk --
"Well it's pretty clear now from the experience with mtw/vi that the MP game is very sensitive to morale level. From 5k to 15k you're only talking about a 4 point change in morale. "

Your point reinforces Annie's call for 1 pt. morale steps.

I think moral is FAR more senstative than I or any of the developers ever thought it would be. But it just makes sense that it is such a huge factor. It is the only combat factor that is an On/Off switch. With everything else your men will fight -- they will win or lose at differing rates, but they will still be there. Routing is the only factor that stops a unit from fighting altogether and it can't be gradiated -- they run or fight but never the twain.

Thus the subtlest shifts in the game that have morale implications become amplified far beyond what one might expect (see my comment on defense ratings to slow game play -- but this might inadvertently affect morale)

Any big changes to morale (the differential in start-points of a unit's base morale or the ability to buy morale at a 2 point clip--to actually be able to add upto 8 points onto a unit ) has cataclysmic affects on the game.

Morale is also one of the hardest things to guage because it is affected by so many compounding factors. The fact that in MP, the developers have arbitrarily tied morale to Attack / Def increases (which in themselves circularly affect morale) makes good balance all but impossible to achieve. (I understand the theoretical/ real-life concept for why they did it, but in all practicality it doesn't work.)

--------------
I think that from what I've read about RTW, they might have helped mitigate morale and have it work even better -- instead of being a full unit stat, it is applied to each individual soldier. So instead of having entire units break as a single entity, routing will act as another form of attrition on the unit. I would think entire units would be suseptible to chain routing, but that is still better than having a singular on/off switch for the unit as a whole.