View Full Version : Secret of the Jannissary Heavy Infantry.
While plowing through the export_descr_unit.txt while trying to figure out the strange happenings with the 2hd axemen, more specifically the varangian guard. I ran across the JHI. It seems that they not only have the AP and attack value of their 2hd axemen brethren but also have a swordsmen weapons speed. This might actually explain why they seem to plow through almost any other infantry in the game.
The average for all swordsmen is 1, spears .6, axemen 1.33, 2hd swordsmen 1.3, pikes 1 also. But halberds have a speed of 1, with ap stat and a 4 spear bonus to cavalry. This may very well explain why any halberd (voulge swordstaff included) can tear through quite a lot, and why JHI being better then almost any can decimate nearly anything.
I doubt that the billmen and 2hd axemen have an animation problem vs's cavalry. But they have such a slow attack speed compared the cavalry that they end up in a near continual parry lock. I have tested them quite a lot and have noticed that on very rare occasions they will indeed kill a knight after a charge, just very rarely.
A speed increase might be in order for them, and probably at least the 4_spear attribute for the billmen.:2thumbsup:
If I remember correctly, 0 is the absolute fastest? Which makes 2-handed swordsmen slower than halberdiers? That doesn't really make sense.
Billmen is bugged against cavalry, because 2-handed swordsmen have a speed of 1.30 and billmen have a speed of 1.33. The difference between spears, at 0.60, and swords at 1.00, is barely noticeable, so how can a difference of 0.03 be so dramatic? 2-handed swordsmen totally rip cavalry apart, while billmen don't. Yes, they do swing once in a while, I've seen it before, but that is only when the billman is exactly at the side of the cavalry unit, and is standing extremely close to it. Notice also that billmen have no problem attacking spearmen as well, who are supposed to be extremely fast?
Burakius
12-06-2006, 09:24
dude... my jannisaries get decimated when fighting against dismounted knights in melee combat....
Yeah, I don't know if this exactly explains it BigTex. That, or there might be a hidden bonus for zweihanders. My zweihanders, on average, tear through enemy infantry faster than dismounted feudal knights or even chiv knights. It definitely is something to take into account though.
FactionHeir
12-06-2006, 10:19
Mounted Feudal knights totally tear through JHI in melee (no charge) when neither has any boni (none from general either).
They also got killed by dismounted ones.
Dave1984
12-06-2006, 11:21
If I remember correctly, 0 is the absolute fastest? Which makes 2-handed swordsmen slower than halberdiers? That doesn't really make sense.
Billmen is bugged against cavalry, because 2-handed swordsmen have a speed of 1.30 and billmen have a speed of 1.33. The difference between spears, at 0.60, and swords at 1.00, is barely noticeable, so how can a difference of 0.03 be so dramatic? 2-handed swordsmen totally rip cavalry apart, while billmen don't. Yes, they do swing once in a while, I've seen it before, but that is only when the billman is exactly at the side of the cavalry unit, and is standing extremely close to it. Notice also that billmen have no problem attacking spearmen as well, who are supposed to be extremely fast?
As a bit of a test, I played around with billmen's attributes in EDU and gave them a +4 bonus against cavalry. On testing this in custom battle against mailed knights with heavy billmen, the billmen were torn to shreds. I then tried adding a spear bonus to them, with the same results. Zooming in I noticed that as you mentioned they barely ever get an attack in. They just stand there.
Then I changed their attack speed to 1 instead of 1.33 and this time, and the several times thereafter, the billmen either won or inflicted heavy losses on the horsemen, as opposed to 10-15 if they were lucky before.
I was pleased to see the billmen swinging their weapons at the horses alot this time, obviously to do with the speed.
They probably need a little more balancing but at least we know we can fix it fairly easily!
As a bit of a test, I played around with billmen's attributes in EDU and gave them a +4 bonus against cavalry. On testing this in custom battle against mailed knights with heavy billmen, the billmen were torn to shreds. I then tried adding a spear bonus to them, with the same results. Zooming in I noticed that as you mentioned they barely ever get an attack in. They just stand there.
Then I changed their attack speed to 1 instead of 1.33 and this time, and the several times thereafter, the billmen either won or inflicted heavy losses on the horsemen, as opposed to 10-15 if they were lucky before.
I was pleased to see the billmen swinging their weapons at the horses alot this time, obviously to do with the speed.
They probably need a little more balancing but at least we know we can fix it fairly easily!
Maybe try changing the attack speed to 1.3 so it would be equivalent to zwiehanders. Very interesting results.
dude... my jannisaries get decimated when fighting against dismounted knights in melee combat....
Most infantry do get torn to shreds by dismounted fuedal knights. Statistically speaking the fuedal knights should always win. They have an equal attack speed, but they still have far superior stats. The AP wont even knock the dismounted knights defense lower then their defense even. If fuedal knights didn't win almost every time, then there would be some major problems.
Mr Frost
12-06-2006, 12:40
It is not attack speed , that is a function of minimum delay {the stat just before Skeleton compensation factor in melee} which is how many 1/10s of a second pass between each attack animation cycle {as I understand it} .
When playing around with it in RTW {a lot} , I never saw it {Skeleton compensation factor in melee , the last number in the stat_pri line} alter the speed of actual attacks . What it did do however was effect how likely a successful attack was to kill . Lowering it to 0.1 {lowest viable setting I believe} resulted in the same rate of attacks as 1 {highest valid value in RTW , but not in MTWII apparantly , Peasants have 1.8 !} and most soldiers being able to get up after a successful hit .
The Skeleton compensation factor in melee seems rather to effect how likely a successful hit is to actuall kill , rather than knock down {RTW , don't see it happen in MTWII yet} or simply rock the target {whom then shakes it off and keeps fighting} .
Interesting Mr Frost. But that doesnt explain the strange results then. Almost every unit has a 25 attack delay, but many units will attack slower then others. This includes 2hd axemen, even swordsmen have 25 delay. If lowering it from a 1.33 to a 1 increased kills, something has changed. Not only increasing kills but fixing the billmen, so they slaughtered cavalry, this is strange. I had known it worked like that in RTW but still wierd.:dizzy2:
Okay just checked export_descr_unit, and at the top that value is described as the 'Skeleton compensation factor in melee. Should be 1'. In RTW it was clearly stated as 'lethality'. I have absolutely no idea what 'skeleton compensation' means though.
Okay just checked export_descr_unit, and at the top that value is described as the 'Skeleton compensation factor in melee. Should be 1'. I have absolutely no idea what that means though. Mind if somebody switch the value of billmen to 1 and check if they start the slaughter?
They already have look at D Wilsons post. It increased it's kills, actually allowing them to slaughter the cavalry.
Yeah, I remembered it just as I hit enter, so I edited it out. Unfortunately, I wasn't fast enough.
However, I think I know what Skeleton Compensation is for. I believe its the 'range' value, or how much to subtract off the default range or something. I believe this is so because units equipped with those pansy daggers all seem to have a value of 1.8, while spears get a value of 0.6. I suppose 1.3 is the max before the 'bug' sets in?
Now somebody needs to set it to a value of 0, or very close to 0, and see if the unit begins its attack from a distance away or something.
Mr Frost
12-06-2006, 13:15
As a bit of a test, I played around with billmen's attributes in EDU and gave them a +4 bonus against cavalry. On testing this in custom battle against mailed knights with heavy billmen, the billmen were torn to shreds. I then tried adding a spear bonus to them, with the same results. Zooming in I noticed that as you mentioned they barely ever get an attack in. They just stand there.
Then I changed their attack speed to 1 instead of 1.33 and this time, and the several times thereafter, the billmen either won or inflicted heavy losses on the horsemen, as opposed to 10-15 if they were lucky before.
I was pleased to see the billmen swinging their weapons at the horses alot this time, obviously to do with the speed.
They probably need a little more balancing but at least we know we can fix it fairly easily!
As I stated above , unless the stat function has changed drastically , it isn't attack speed , that is the stat before it {number of 1/10 of a second between attacks . Either they did change it {senseless when the stat that was before it was for exacly that puropse , ie speed of attacks} or did something different in the modded fights .
Had you left the cav_attack bonuses in ? Did you alter anything else {like the stat just before it which actually is supposed to effect attack speed and is usually 25} ? Did you drop the Skeleton compensation factor in melee to 1 or did you forget to remove the decimal point so you got 1. , which might confuse the code {or try to make it 1.0 , but accidently delete the decimal point so you got 10 ;p} ?
The other possibility is it works the same as in RTW up to value of 1 , the reverses the progression , but it makes no sense that they did that , and wouldn't explaint the performance of the "uberpeasants" with a Skeleton compensation factor in melee of 1.8 verses spearmen with a 0.6} .
In RTW , halving that stat {say from 1 down to 0.5} halved the kill-rate . What you did {dropping their Skeleton compensation factor in melee from 1.33 to 1}should have lowered their kill-rate , not increased it , and by a significant margin .
The 2-handed animation has numerous different attacks in it repetiour , and one of them does KO mounted units every time {the big "king hit" where they swing the weapon right over their heads as far as it will go and step forward whilst they chop downwards with the weapon with all their might} .
They almost never use it against horses unmodifyed which is silly given every time I've seen it done it killed the Mounted Knight , but they use it more often on infantry . It is very a slow/time consuming attack , and perhaps the AI chose to use more of the slower "power hits" against the cavalry because they now had less "punch" all round {could it be coded like that , it would make sense in real life if you could only drop you enemy with certain big hits to use they a lot if he was in your face ?} ?
Again , what you claim is completely different stat behavior that that stat gave in RTW , and would rather have been what I would have expected from the stat before it {ie faster attack} . Something is off :inquisitive:
Gah , it looks like my post is a little out of sync with the pace of the thread . I'm very tired and took a long time to compose it and it is now a little lagged ;p I'm going to play a little to wind down and then get some Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
However, I think I know what Skeleton Compensation is for. I believe its the 'range' value, or how much to subtract off the default range or something. I believe this is so because units equipped with those pansy daggers all seem to have a value of 1.8, while spears get a value of 0.6. I suppose 1.3 is the max before the 'bug' sets in?
Now somebody needs to set it to a value of 0, or very close to 0, and see if the unit begins its attack from a distance away or something.
This sounds very plausible. Do all the bugged 2-handers (dismounted English knights, Billmen, Varangian Guard, etc) have a value of 1.33?
They do, i just looked, and changed it to 1 which im about to test. I've noticed that non bugged 2handed troops have it set to 1.2.
I just tested it, and billmen still don't swing, at least in my game. Would D_Wilson please post his EDU entry of billmen so we may take a look at it? Would be interested in your findings too, Lusted.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I tested billmen set at 1, as well as 0.6.
Just going off to test now.
I just tested it, and billmen still don't swing, at least in my game. Would D_Wilson please post his EDU entry of billmen so we may take a look at it? Would be interested in your findings too, Lusted.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I tested billmen set at 1, as well as 0.6.
Yeah just got done testing the skeletal factor, doesnt seem change a thing.
Edit~: Did some more testing. Going off the idea that it increases their reach, I bumped their Skeletal factor up to 1.8. The results against simple militia cavalry was simply a massacre. Lossing less then 40 men and recieving 3 full charges the billmen laid waste to them.
Could you clarify your statement please? I didn't quite understand you.
Who got massacred?
Anyhow, I tested this out, and billmen still don't attack horses for me. Also, if skeletal factor is indeed about reach, then less is more, since 1.8 is the value that men with daggers have, and 0.6 is the value for spears.
Could you clarify your statement please? I didn't quite understand you.
Who got massacred?
Anyhow, I tested this out, and billmen still don't attack horses for me. Also, if skeletal factor is indeed about reach, then less is more, since 1.8 is the value that men with daggers have, and 0.6 is the value for spears.
The cavalry were beaten and killed. But with more testing that was more of a fluke. Intriging though. They still didn't swing.
Dave1984
12-06-2006, 15:14
As I stated above , unless the stat function has changed drastically , it isn't attack speed , that is the stat before it {number of 1/10 of a second between attacks . Either they did change it {senseless when the stat that was before it was for exacly that puropse , ie speed of attacks} or did something different in the modded fights .
Had you left the cav_attack bonuses in ? Did you alter anything else {like the stat just before it which actually is supposed to effect attack speed and is usually 25} ? Did you drop the Skeleton compensation factor in melee to 1 or did you forget to remove the decimal point so you got 1. , which might confuse the code {or try to make it 1.0 , but accidently delete the decimal point so you got 10 ;p} ?
Yeah, I was looking at this thread instead of the top of the EDU when I ran these tests, having not modded anything but skins in RTW and so being a little unfamiliar. What awoke me to it was someone calling the figure something elsewhere somewhere else, which led me to actually read up on it and think "aha"
It turned out had changed the Skeleton Compensation factor, not the speed, although I notice that in the notes at the top of the file it says it should be 1 anyway.
There are no decimal places left anywhere.
I do stand by the results I got but I acknowledge that we're not always going to get exactly the same results every time.
Whatever happened, the only factor I changed that produced a noticeable difference was the skeletal compensation factor.
This is my EDU entry for heavy billmen as used in my tests. As you can see I've added a spear bonus and an anti-cav mount effect (which I'm not sure if it only applies if the unit itself is mounted as well, but no-one got anywhere without giving it a go!)
As you can see the speed is unchanged and the SC factor is down to one.
type Heavy Billmen
dictionary Heavy_Billmen ; Heavy Billmen
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Heavy_Billmen, 48, 0, 1.2
mount_effect horse +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 15, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap, spear_bonus_4
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 3, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 7, 8, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 5, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 300, 150, 75, 55, 300, 4, 70
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Heavy_Billmen, Heavy_Billmen_ug1
ownership england
era 2 england
;unit_info 15, 0, 10
With this I saw better results against peasants and better results against cavalry although they still struggle a bit with each.
But at this point all I was pointing out was that I noticed that the issue with them never seeming to be trying to hit cavalry seemed to have been resolved in my case.
Should this be in modding research now?
No, not yet... this is still about gamemechanics that can be of use to all, and not just modders.
Keep going, I'm following this intently.
I've been testing the billmen issue for a couple of hours. Methodology: I control a unit of Scots Border Cavalry, and walk them towards AI English billmen. Therefore, the billmen get the first charge.
Regardless of settings, the billmen will kill 7-10 cavalry on the initial charge. The billman general (wielding a sword) will kill a few more.
After that, they do not attack. It doesn't matter if the skeleton compensation wotsit is 0.1, 0.6. 1.0, 1.2, 1.33, etc. It doesn't make any difference if you change delay between attacks, give them a secondary weapon identical to primary (just in case it was treating melee with cav as 'secondary'), etc etc.
On the other hand, keeping vanilla settings for billmen but replacing the 'soldier model' with (for example) militia halberd, and the unit does fight, and does so very well regardless of the default 1.33 figure.
It's the animation.
I'm wondering, what's the speed for Venetian heavy infantry? I preferred these guys over the dismounted feudal knights in my Venetian campaign because of support costs and wondering how they really stack up in melee against the dismounted knights.
Kobal2fr
12-06-2006, 19:36
The cavalry were beaten and killed. But with more testing that was more of a fluke. Intriging though. They still didn't swing.
You did say the cav charged thrice. That would be it. I've noticed almost every successful proper charge kills some of the charging horsemen in the collision, even charging peasants in the back will do it.
You did say the cav charged thrice. That would be it. I've noticed almost every successful proper charge kills some of the charging horsemen in the collision, even charging peasants in the back will do it.
Indeed it would seem so. Was a little late and things were getting jumbled. It did seem that the higher it was the longer the charge laste though.
Thanks redmark for the insight.
On the other hand, keeping vanilla settings for billmen but replacing the 'soldier model' with (for example) militia halberd, and the unit does fight, and does so very well regardless of the default 1.33 figure.
How did you accomplish that? England doesn't have Halberd Militia, wouldn't you end up with invisible troops due to the lack of textures?
How did you accomplish that? England doesn't have Halberd Militia, wouldn't you end up with invisible troops due to the lack of textures?
Like so:
type Billmen
...
soldier Halberd_Militia, 48, 0, 1
...
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2
armour_ug_models Billmen, Billmen_ug1, Billmen_ug2
...
The only changed bit in bold. What I think happens is that the unit listed after 'soldier' determines the underlying model for animation, but the displayed graphic is that defined under armour_ug_models. In the custom battle, the unit displayed is recognisably billmen, but they fight with the the halberd militia animation (I presume, not sure I've used halberd militia - certainly isn't the billmen attack animation seen against infantry, anyway).
Ah... Interesting.
That will help me out some.
Of course what I really want is to be able to create new textures so I can take existing units and make them available to other factions. Particularly Arquebusiers and Musketeers...
To be honest when the unpacker comes out I'll probably make a quick cut and paste type job to give every unit textures for every faction, so that I can give any faction any unit after that...
In the mean time, for purely bug-fix purposes, what we should do is compile a list of the units we know work, and the ones we know don't, and just replace the soldier line for each one with a similar unit we know does work, and release that.
For instance, I know Voulgier, Venetian Heavy Infantry, and Halberd Militia work properly in the polearms category so we could use those animations for Billmen and Berdiche Axemen (Who are also bugged)...
Which two handed sword types work? We could use those to fix the Dismounted English Knights and Varangians...
You know that this bug was in the demo.
And I was the only one who noticed ? Nobody at CA QA noticed ? Maybe I was imagining it.... ..... .. .. . ... ..
Anyway what's the deal with JHI.
If I understand correctly they fare well because they have a higher attack speed ?
Whoa... If you give Berdiche Axemen the Venetian_Heavy_Infantry soldier they become the killing machines their stats indicate they should be.
In fact... they become just a tad frightening.
Not necessarily. Apparently the halberd attack animation actually works better against cavalry.
Well, Berdiche Axemen were bugged so badly they wouldn't engage other infantry... They just stood there and got hacked to pieces... With the VHI soldier they turn other Infantry units into dog food... Plus it would look silly for them to be using those axes like spears...
I've fixed the Dismounted English Knights (Used the Halberd animation since they use a very similar polearm to a halberd), now on to Billmen...
[EDIT: I checked it, and the Berdiche Axemen beat Mailed Knights with 93 men left vs the Knights with 9 men left... That's pretty good for a unit that isn't specialist anti-cavalry... I don't see any reason to "upgrade" them to the Halberdier animations]
ScrapTower
12-07-2006, 03:41
Well, Berdiche Axemen were bugged so badly they wouldn't engage other infantry... They just stood there and got hacked to pieces... With the VHI soldier they turn other Infantry units into dog food... Plus it would look silly for them to be using those axes like spears...
I've fixed the Dismounted English Knights (Used the Halberd animation since they use a very similar polearm to a halberd), now on to Billmen...
What file can i fix the English Knights in?
After going through all the units in the game looking for one with animations that would look ok for two-handed axe units but would speed them up enough that they don't suck any more, I settled on the Janissary Heavy Infantry animations... And Varangian Guard can now crush a unit of Zwei Handers... Which they should when going by their stats.
I'm going to apply it to all the other two handed axe units. It looks ok, at least they dont try to stab with their axes.
So then I will have fixed: Billmen, Dismounted English Knights, Berdiche Axemen, and all two-handed axe units... What else is left?
You know that this bug was in the demo.
And I was the only one who noticed ? Nobody at CA QA noticed ? Maybe I was imagining it.... ..... .. .. . ... ..
Anyway what's the deal with JHI.
If I understand correctly they fare well because they have a higher attack speed ?
The bug was in the gold demo yes, but it wasn't in the PCGamer demo, the one where billmen had that overhead spin and headbutt attack anims, which looked seriously retarded. Seems like they redid the animations pretty quick and left a few mistakes here and there.
JHI decimate people simply because of their attack animations, they seem to attack ridiculous fast, have a high engagement range, also due to the anims, and coupled with their high attack, they normally win with the first hit, which they almost always get.
Edit: D_Wilson, I tested out your settings and cavalry still don't attack for me. One or two of them seems to be able to suddenly charge out, when they are engaged, to kill the horses, but apart from that, they don't swing while standing.
Musashi (or anyone else for that matter),
Once you've managed to fix all the "bugged" unit animations, would you be so kind as to post the corrected file(s) up for people to download. After all, it's entirely possible that CA won't have fixed this in the proposed patch...
Regards
Well, I can post the altered export_descr_unit.txt file, but you'll be on your own to install it and get it working. I'm certainly not going to whip up an installer for it ;)
I hate how you have to start a whole separate game to play with mods. Wiped out all my campaign progress.
I just gave all the units with the 2 handed bug the janissary heavy infantry in export_descr_unit(as it is now the armour upgrade lines lower down that dictate the actual look of as unit), and they all work perfectly in combat now, plus the animation suits all the units with the bug quite well.
Well, I can post the altered export_descr_unit.txt file, but you'll be on your own to install it and get it working. I'm certainly not going to whip up an installer for it ;)
That would be perfect, thanks!
Well, I can post the altered export_descr_unit.txt file, but you'll be on your own to install it and get it working. I'm certainly not going to whip up an installer for it ;)
You wouldn't need to.
Either CA fixes it (great), or we just replace the unit file with this one post patch (and unpacker).
ScrapTower
12-07-2006, 14:58
This is a huge bug... if CA dosent fix it Ill be pissed...
Where can I find this new export_descr_units.txt file? And will it have any other changes made to it?
ScrapTower
12-07-2006, 15:36
Im looking at the text file... I dont see where I can change the animation... Is it under primary weapon?
No, you need to edit the soldier line. For the units with the 2 handed bug, replace the soldier entry on the soldier line with janisarry_heavy_infantry. Trust me, this works ingame, as the soldier line seems to affect only the animation unlike in RTW where it also affected the look of a unit.
ScrapTower
12-07-2006, 15:47
Ah, I see it. Thank you...
Okay, so I change the soldier to "janisarry_heavy_infantry" for the billmen, berdiche axemen, varangians and who else?
Here is the list of al the bugged 2handed units
Billmen
Heavy Billmen
Bill Militia
Heavy Bill Militia
Norse Axemen
Varangian Guard
Berdiche Axemen
Dismounted English Knights
Dismounted Noble Knights
Dismounted Portugese Knights
ScrapTower
12-07-2006, 16:28
Is there a quicker way then making a mod folder and .bat file... cant I just place the text file into the installation data folder... There are subfolders in the data folder too... Im not sure where to put it
Zatoichi
12-07-2006, 16:31
Is there a quicker way then making a mod folder and .bat file... cant I just place the text file into the installation data folder... There are subfolders in the data folder too... Im not sure where to put it
There is a very handy post by Olmsted over at the .com with full mod switch instructions:
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessageRange?topicID=10185.topic&start=21&stop=40
It's on the second page - I managed to get it to work, so it must be idiot proof!
Is there a quicker way then making a mod folder and .bat file... cant I just place the text file into the installation data folder... There are subfolders in the data folder too... Im not sure where to put it
No. Until we get the unpacker(and perhaps even then we wont be able to put it in the data folder) it must be done via the mod switch.
Is their any way to fix them in the Demo? I haven’t got the game yet (won't be able to afford it till I’ve got all my Christmas presents, and that’s going to eat all my money~:(). So it would be nice to make Agincourt a littlie fairer, I’ve lost 3 and won 1 on that one. All due to that rear charge by the knights. So fixing billmen might help a lot~:(.
Thank you for the unit list. Should Croat Axemen be on that list as well?
Also, if anyone wants to copy my .com post about the .bat files and etc. over to one of the data bases here, that is fine by me. This forum has a much better retention rate than the .com.
Merlin's Apprentice
12-07-2006, 17:05
No, you need to edit the soldier line. For the units with the 2 handed bug, replace the soldier entry on the soldier line with janisarry_heavy_infantry. Trust me, this works ingame, as the soldier line seems to affect only the animation unlike in RTW where it also affected the look of a unit.
Im guessing here
the lines that determine look are
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2
armour_ug_models Billmen, Billmen_ug1, Billmen_ug2
each level is determined by the level of the upgrades
Exactly. I reversed those entries on the Venetian Archers and Venetian Heavy Infantry to fix the armour upgrade bug with them.
Only somewhat related, but has anyone figured out what the "reach" setting is? One reason why pikemen switch to swords too quickly has to do with reach: the back ranks of pikemen start poking but the front ranks are then too close to the enemy and switch over to swords.
TheFluff
12-07-2006, 18:34
I just wanted to say that the egyptan 2h axe men (talberrya, not sure of the spelling) Can beat dismounted chic knights and during the fight has "victory is certian". I also notice there animations dont seem broken , and they use side swing of their long axe, overhead, and others and dont seem to be bugged. Perhaps someone can compare them to other 2h units and see whats going on as i dont mod myself? Also note i upgraded their armor once in the testing as i would never send them unupgraded in the campagin anyway.
Kobal2fr
12-07-2006, 20:18
Here is the list of al the bugged 2handed units
Billmen
Heavy Billmen
Bill Militia
Heavy Bill Militia
Norse Axemen
Varangian Guard
Berdiche Axemen
Dismounted English Knights
Dismounted Noble Knights
Dismounted Portugese Knights
You can add :
Croatian Axemen
Woodsmen
Religious Fanatics (christian)
Somethingwwa's (muslim Jihad religious fanatics with big clubs)
Taberryaa (sp? The egyptian last infantry type)
They all won't swing at cav.
Its mutatawwi'a and Tabardariyya.
I just wanted to say that the egyptan 2h axe men (talberrya, not sure of the spelling) Can beat dismounted chic knights and during the fight has "victory is certian". I also notice there animations dont seem broken , and they use side swing of their long axe, overhead, and others and dont seem to be bugged. Perhaps someone can compare them to other 2h units and see whats going on as i dont mod myself? Also note i upgraded their armor once in the testing as i would never send them unupgraded in the campagin anyway.
Most (all?) of the bugged units do fine against other infantry, it's the animations vs cavalry that are missing/bugged.
I just wanted to say that the egyptan 2h axe men (talberrya, not sure of the spelling) Can beat dismounted chic knights and during the fight has "victory is certian". I also notice there animations dont seem broken , and they use side swing of their long axe, overhead, and others and dont seem to be bugged. Perhaps someone can compare them to other 2h units and see whats going on as i dont mod myself? Also note i upgraded their armor once in the testing as i would never send them unupgraded in the campagin anyway.
It is becasue they work against infantry... not so against cavalry.
TheFluff
12-07-2006, 21:32
Ah i dident test them against cav, but i did test them against infantry to see if they had simmilar problem as the veg guard as far as loosing in matches they should normally dominate in.
Further complication, crossposting from the twc thread on the subject...
Actually, I think it's more complicated (i.e. bugged). I just had Highland_Nobles fight vs Voulgier, and noticed their animations were very similar to the billmen/DEK animation - despite being slashing/sword and piercing/axe respectively. In a weak-cavalry vs voulgier test, I noticed the voulgier didn't really fight, they just prodded occasionally, and spent more time stood upright, weapons pointing skyward. I modded out the shieldwall (phalanx) ability, and hey presto - they have no animation at all. I had a unit of Merchant Milita Cavalry charge (weak) into a braced unit of voulgier, and the voulgier routed after 20 seconds.
I just wanted to say that the egyptan 2h axe men (talberrya, not sure of the spelling) Can beat dismounted chic knights and during the fight has "victory is certian". I also notice there animations dont seem broken , and they use side swing of their long axe, overhead, and others and dont seem to be bugged. Perhaps someone can compare them to other 2h units and see whats going on as i dont mod myself? Also note i upgraded their armor once in the testing as i would never send them unupgraded in the campagin anyway.
Actually, Varangian Guard will beat Dismounted Chivalric Knights too... That's not really the problem, the problem is their animation is so slow that they don't win by enough, and they lose to Zwei Handers who have worse stats than the Varangians.
After switching their animation to the Janissary_Heavy_Inf animation, they even rock Dismounted Gothic Knights, so obviously the default animation leaves them somewhat weaker than they should be.
Interesting though, I just tested the Tabardariyya, and even though they seem to have the same animation as Varangians and other 2h Axe units, they seem to do a lot more killing (And it's not because of stats, because Varangians are better)... They can actually crush a unit of Zwei Handers, but only just barely. Their animation might be ever so slightly faster than the others...
Aztec Eagle Warriors also do surprisingly well, but JHI are unquestionably the best animation for two handers vs infantry.
Ok I finished the modifications... Unfortunately the file is 13000 characters too long to post here (Hehe, they have a 500,000 character post limit... learn something new every day ;) ) so if someone wants to host it for me...
I hope that if you've given the units with the 2 handed bug the JHI or Me_halberd_militia soldier thing that you've drastically reduced their attack as a result ot balance them. Those 2 animations are very useful in combat, hence why JHi are so deadly with an attack of 12. I reduced the attack of Dismounted English Knights by 13 to balance things out.
I didn't nerf their stats any. I'm not trying to balance them to my preferences, I'm trying to make them perform as well as their stats indicate they should (In other words, DEKs and VGs should be ripping other units to shreds)
You could upload the file here on the org...
I didn't nerf their stats any. I'm not trying to balance them to my preferences, I'm trying to make them perform as well as their stats indicate they should (In other words, DEKs and VGs should be ripping other units to shreds)
But their stats are deisgned around the animation they use. At 530 florins a unit of DEK should not rip JHI at 720 florins to pieces.
You could upload the file here on the org...
I'd have to know how to do that first ;)
Main page a few places wher it says files or upload... try them.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 00:42
If CA does not fix this bug that means a big chunk of the available units will be left to the modders to fix and balance. I'm all for a good mod but leaving the community to finish your game is just wrong. We are playing with settings that none of us can honestly claim to understand. It is making unusable units usable again, but at what cost? Now dismounted english knights went from unusable to supermen. I just hope that CA will fix this stuff so the modders can focus on improving the game, not fixing it.
Thanks, got it now, and uploaded :)
But their stats are deisgned around the animation they use. At 530 florins a unit of DEK should not rip JHI at 720 florins to pieces.
Not necessarily - at least not in the campaign game. You have to balance the usual economic situation of the two factions as well.
I'd say that CA probably didn't test them a great deal. So, I think they should have a working animation and the stats they came with.
Not necessarily - at least not in the campaign game. You have to balance the usual economic situation of the two factions as well.
I'd say that CA probably didn't test them a great deal. So, I think they should have a working animation and the stats they came with.
Well i've made a modified EDU where i've given the units with the 2 handed bug the "fix" described in this thread, and i've rebalanced the stats accordingly. If you do not modify the stats of the Dismounted English Knights, and give them the janissary_heavy_inf soldier they will beat every other infantry unit in the game, and quite a few cavalry units as well. And they only cost 550 florins. So i rebalanced everything accordingly, and i think it works well. You can find the file in this post:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1365847&postcount=61
I didn't give them the Janissary Heavy Inf animation... I gave them the Halberd Militia animation. I gave the JHI animation to all the two handed axemen, not the pointy stick dismounted knights.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 01:05
Well they do have one of the highest attack ratings in the game and they are supposed to be superior infantry... I have not tested them much after moding them so I dont know if they are TOO good yet. Normally you would think that the animation would not really effect the number crunching going on behind the screen but the other way around...
Normally you would think that the animation would not really effect the number crunching going on behind the screen but the other way around...
I know but that's not true in M2Tw. Stats are very misleading.
I didn't give them the Janissary Heavy Inf animation... I gave them the Halberd Militia animation. I gave the JHI animation to all the two handed axemen, not the pointy stick dismounted knights.
i gave them all the Me Halberd animation and they were still lkilling machines. That and the JHI animation have very fast kiing moves so units with them can attack again and again.
Well, the Dismounted X Knights are obviously meant to be cavalry destroying machines of terror... So I think it's fine.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 01:15
I may be wrong but dont the dismounted english knights use Halberds? So wouldnt their attack be just as fast as Halberd Militia? A halberd and a billhook are pretty similar right?
Well, the Dismounted X Knights are obviously meant to be cavalry destroying machines of terror... So I think it's fine.
But they're not just cavalry destroying machines of terror, they're EVERYTHING destroying machines of terror(at least they were with the JHI soldier swap). Those units can beat anything. I've managed to rebalnce them so they perform well against can and infantry, whilst not being too strong compared to more expensive units.
K just tested DEK this time giving them the halberd_militia soldier like you have. Im using them with my redone stats(designed around them using the Me_halberd_militia soldier) and they owned both D Chivalric Knights(who are more expensive, DEK have 87 soldiers left at the end) and FK(DEK had 78 men left at the end).
So they are still very overpowered.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 01:26
dismounted english knights are a special unit like italian infantry... they should beat some more expencive units
With the changes in the edu i have, they can beat Dismounted Chivalric Knights(but it's close) and Feudal Knights, but they lose to JHi and Varangians.
and Dismounted English Knights are a key part of the main English battle line, used against both cavalry and infantry. I'd hardly call them specialised.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 01:36
Cool, sounds like you have them pretty close to where they should be...
I didnt mean specialized, I just ment they are faction spacific and should not be compared to other factions equivalent units. The english are supposed to have superior infantry and that pretty much means DEK should be pretty wiked...
Cool, sounds like you have them pretty close to where they should be...
Yup, that's what im trying to do.
I didnt mean specialized, I just ment they are faction spacific and should not be compared to other factions equivalent units. The english are supposed to have superior infantry and that pretty much means DEK should be pretty wiked...
Unfortunatley the DEK are equivalent to Dismounted Portugese Knighhts and Dismounted Noble Knights(French). So they're hardly unique stats wise. Likewise the Armoured Swordsmen are equivalent to Dismounted Chivalric Knights.
The Billmen are the true unique part of the english infantry, and im working on making them more powerful so they become a more useful part of the army.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 01:45
Yes but the DEK use a billhook/halbird so they should get a boost vs armor and cav that the others do not...
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-08-2006, 01:57
What I don't understand is why the giant, bladed halberds don't get a bonus attacking cavalry, and yet a bunch of guys pushing around a huge wooden cross on wheels get a bonus against cavalry....
Yes but the DEK use a billhook/halbird so they should get a boost vs armor and cav that the others do not...
The DEK use a Poleaxe. Something similar to a halberd but far deadlier. It has a axe to one side, a very long hard spike at the top and a mallet on the opposite side of the axe. Their just a little shorter then a halberd, but they are far more flexible. There was a good reason knights slowly began to fight more and more dismounted, the dismounted polaxe knights should definately be able to decimate almost any unit.
As for the varangians and, other highly trained danish axe wielding infantry, they had some of the fastest attacks in the miedeval world. Usually they would be in a spaced out formation and would approach or stand and start swinging their axes well before contact. Their defense is that if the axe doesnt stop nothing's touching them. A lot of latter dismounted sabre technique's used the same method to fight with, quick 8 figured slashes that didn't stop.
What I don't understand is why the giant, bladed halberds don't get a bonus attacking cavalry, and yet a bunch of guys pushing around a huge wooden cross on wheels get a bonus against cavalry....
The halberd's do indeed have a bonus vs's cavalry, they just don't have the spear attribute so it isnt listed on the units special abilities. It's a x8 or x4 if I recall correctly.
I'd reckon giving the polaxe and bill hook units the halberd animation should be about right. Giving the JHI animation to lesser near peasant units of 2hd axemen may be a little overpowering though. Havent tested it, but maybe their low defense value's may help.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 03:11
Alright! I can use my uber DEK and not feel so bad now :P
What I don't understand is why the giant, bladed halberds don't get a bonus attacking cavalry, and yet a bunch of guys pushing around a huge wooden cross on wheels get a bonus against cavalry....
Because the cavalry dies from laugh:laugh4:
have any of these mini mods been uploaded?
Yeah, it really doesn't overpower the low end axemen to give them the JHI animations, their terrible defense means they'll never win versus true heavy shock troops (But they will beat spearmen and peasants, as they should).
And I wouldn't nerf the DEK (Or DPK or DNK) stats, I'd make them more expensive if anything... Your faction specific troops should always be something awesome you really really want to bring to the field.
I uploaded my modified export_descr_unit file, but I don't know what happens to it after that lol
TheFluff
12-08-2006, 07:02
faction specific troops should always be something awesome you really really want to bring to the field.
This is not true. Just because a unit is at a high teir, or a unique unit doesnt mean it should be the "end all" solution and can beat any infatry unit or cav unit and is invunrable.
-
Anyway there is a point where game balance needs to be upheld, DEK or dismounted 2h knights are not, and should not be considered a "super unit" infact i think you guys should stop compareing everything to JHI simply because that unit isent supposed to be to powerfull, and its stats should take a hit. Its the only obvously OP'd unit in the game but yet for some reason you guys want to scale everything accoring to it, and not visa versa. THe only units you should honestly be scaleing units to are Fudual and chiv knights, mounter and dismounted, and perhaps fully upgraded spearmen/pikes and halberders, but not unique units, and certently not the most powerfull unit in the game that is unexaplanably so. Alot of things need to be takein into account before editing units, like the cost,upkeep, era, req buildings, intended game purpose and historical purpose. The answer to every "what unit should i build should never be "ok, let me just build only DEK's and Longbow men". The player should allways have a use for every unit i would think.
Well I still disagree... If a unit has a 23 attack strength is should damn well use it. You should be able to look at a unit's stats and know how it will perform. And DEKs have a very high attack stat. However, they also have a very low defense stat for a unit of their tier and expense, so they're always vulnerable to ranged troops.
You fail to see Fluffs point... The fact that you use the JHI as a template. With 12 in attack they are obviously overpowered and a bad template for balance.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 07:32
I dont think balance is a huge issue untill CA wants to get serious about the multiplayer and/or the AI end of the deal.
I agree that units should perform like their stats say they should. Anything less is just silly.
TheFluff
12-08-2006, 07:39
There is something wrong with unit stats or just untis in general, i dont know, howerver consider this. Mounted men at arms have something like 8 attack, 6 charge and 18 defnece if i recall. DEK have 11 defence i think (or is it 13?) and 23 attack, and charge bonus also. Now your teling me that the DEK , and rember this is looking at the "paper stats" should out damage mounted unit of the same teir? Because clearly, even if you consider that the chrage bonus is emmense,a dismounted unit can disout the same ammount of damage or more, since 23 + charge is almost double that of the chrageing man at arms unit. Anyway what im geting at is there are some odditys in the game, and stats shouldent be takeing as is, i mean there is alot that seems to be in question in reguards to units and how they respond to suatuions, but i been thinking since i day one that there is just something wrong with the unit stats themselfs, as many are extreamly misleading...this being an example.
The Fluff, I think your missing alot of the thread was figuring out. The reason the JHI's are so powerful is pretty well explained. They have an insanely fast attack animation, meaning they chew through units pretty fast regardless of the stats. Which is a note another poster made, stats are nearly secondary, the animations are where units seem to derive how strong their going to be.
Also this is merely a bugfix for 2hd animations, not an attempt to rebalance the game. It's merely here till the patch comes out so the varangian guard isnt stomped by scouts. Also the Men At Arms have the ability to have a formed charge, increasing their damage by 100% if I recall correctly. They'll completely stomp dek's if they can perform the formed charge.
Really any animation other then the originals will cause problems. But that's why this is merely a shotgun fix for a major problem that there isnt a patch for. Really it would be laughable to give the varangian guard a militia halberd animation, honestly I don't think the danish axe was used to poke people to death with. Also you should not he used the Militia_Halberd animation for the DEK's and other polaxe armed units. The JHI are on the 2hd axemen. And they look quite realistic.
DEK's should tear through fuedal knights though, as they are a teir above in the knight progression. Not only that but armed with a latter weapon development, there was good reason the sword wasnt used all that often when knights were dismounted in the latter era. The polaxe was prefered becuase it was so supperior to the sword.
After running a few other tests, I'm beginning to think there are other units affected by the bug but have this 'disguised' by using shieldwall/phalanx formation (which either has it's own animation, or causes units to 'poke' at cavalry). Try removing the ability from Voulgier, for instance - they have no animation vs cavalry.
As I'm not really eager to test every single unit in the game with different abilities added/subtracted, I'm playing EB until the patch arrives to see if that resolves the issue. Rebalancing is pointless until the underlying animations are resolved.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 10:25
Ok I tested Vanilla DEK and DEK modded with ME_Halberd_Militia vs Noble Swordsmen...
DEK:
Florins: 530
Unit Size: 60
Attack: 21
Defence: 13
Charge: 6
Effective against armor, Combat bonus in woods or snow, Good morale, Well armoured, Good stamina
Noble Swordsmen:
Florins: 610
Unit Size: 60
Attack: 13
Defence: 22
Charge: 3
Effective against armor, Combat bonus in woods or snow, Good morale, Well armoured, Good stamina
Vanilla DEK vs Noble Swordsmen:
Swordsmen win 3 out of 3 but with 20 men or less left standing.
Modded DEK vs Noble Swordsmen:
DEK win 3 out of 3... Its glaringly obvious that this makes them supermen. They decimate/rout the swordsmen with only 10-20 casualties.
The results show that Vanilla DEK are much closer to where they should be then the Modded DEK, but given these results I see no need to ever train a Vanilla DEK... Youre prolly better off with Armoured Swordsmen. This is not the fix...
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 10:36
Scratch "Effective against armour" for Noble Swordsmen.
This is why i've been rebalancing stats in my modified EDU with the workaround to the 2handed bug in it, so that units of a similar cost are closely matched in combat, but allowing for certain bonuses each unit has.
My rebalanced DEK with the ME_halberd_militia animation can beat Dismounted Chivalric Knights, Feudal Knights, but get beaten by JHI(im keeping them more powerful because they cost more than DEK, plus they are one of the strengths of the Turks), and by high level cavalry(though sometimes they can beat them).
If you use the fix you really need to rebalance things as otherwise DEK own everything, as ScrapTowers tests show.
Zatoichi
12-08-2006, 12:13
I've been following this thread avidly, well done to all you folk who are putting in the research!
I have a question though - if you mod the attack stats of DEK so that they are no longer too powerful with the JHI animation, will this not make autoresolve results screwy? Or am I not understanding the mechanics of autoresolve? I'm just worried that if the AI plays as England it will lose battles due to having DEK with lower stats.
Mr Frost
12-08-2006, 12:25
Has anyone tried altering Min delay between attacks in conjunction with animation swaps ?
It was a useful variable in RTW , I used it for example to give Elites much higher attack rates {so they still stood out even in the presence of non elite units with very high experience ... I'm glad they toned down experience} .
On the main issue of this thread {as it stands now} , I think it would be best if one good "middle-ground" animation was chosen for each weapon type .
For example , Halberd for all swinging polearm units {including Janisary Heavy Infantry , The Min delay between attacks variable could be used to give them back a "speed edge"} , Taberwhateveryoucallems for all 2-H axe-like weapon units etc .
The result would be that stats would be the defining medium that would separate unit performance within each category , and balancing with stats is much easier than with animations {not to mention , resulting in a more intuitive presentation of unit capabilities in game , which has already been well documented to be lamentably absent in MTWII .
Another suggestion I would make would be that someone good at controlled tests and compiling useful reports from the data gained {ie , not me} test the effects of Skeleton compensation factor in melee values greater than 1 given the preliminary evidence given by D_Wilson that suggests to me that super1 Skeleton compensation factor in melee values might be bugged , and in some bizarre fashion at that .
At the very least it would be best to make sure there is no bug there {or discover it if there is} as a second patch would likely be a long distance into the future .
I should think we can fix many of the worst flaws in this game swiftly if we pool our combined modding know-how .:book: Geek power if you will .~;p
I have a question though - if you mod the attack stats of DEK so that they are no longer too powerful with the JHI animation, will this not make autoresolve results screwy? Or am I not understanding the mechanics of autoresolve? I'm just worried that if the AI plays as England it will lose battles due to having DEK with lower stats.
Autoresolve is screwy anyway, but even with my heavily rebalanced stats(eg DEK now with an attack of 8) the balance n battles against similar units is about level so it should be alright.
Mr Frost
12-08-2006, 12:29
I've been following this thread avidly, well done to all you folk who are putting in the research!
I have a question though - if you mod the attack stats of DEK so that they are no longer too powerful with the JHI animation, will this not make autoresolve results screwy? Or am I not understanding the mechanics of autoresolve? I'm just worried that if the AI plays as England it will lose battles due to having DEK with lower stats.
Good point .
Yet another reason I favor one standard animation per unit type with stats being the defining medium .:yes:
To redmark,
I am pretty sure voulgiers have attack anims. Were you using the voulgiers or was the comp using them? Sometimes too, the AI just makes all the voulgiers into space cadets and they all stand there, voulges pointed up, and getting chopped to pieces.
Get the patch tomorrow and see if they fixed the problem.
Ok I tested Vanilla DEK and DEK modded with ME_Halberd_Militia vs Noble Swordsmen...
DEK:
Florins: 530
Unit Size: 60
Attack: 21
Defence: 13
Charge: 6
Effective against armor, Combat bonus in woods or snow, Good morale, Well armoured, Good stamina
Noble Swordsmen:
Florins: 610
Unit Size: 60
Attack: 13
Defence: 22
Charge: 3
Effective against armor, Combat bonus in woods or snow, Good morale, Well armoured, Good stamina
Vanilla DEK vs Noble Swordsmen:
Swordsmen win 3 out of 3 but with 20 men or less left standing.
Modded DEK vs Noble Swordsmen:
DEK win 3 out of 3... Its glaringly obvious that this makes them supermen. They decimate/rout the swordsmen with only 10-20 casualties.
The results show that Vanilla DEK are much closer to where they should be then the Modded DEK, but given these results I see no need to ever train a Vanilla DEK... Youre prolly better off with Armoured Swordsmen. This is not the fix...
I don't see how they're "closer to where they should be"... DEKs should beat Noble Swordsmen handily, not lose to the Noble Swordsmen while they still have 20 men left.
Again, while the halberd animation may make them slightly too powerful, the fact is that the main "issue" with them is their price... They should be more expensive and stronger. They're a late period armor piercing dismounted knight, and they should damn well rock.
Argh, I just went to run my mod this morning and realized there's a bug in my export_descr_unit.txt file that I uploaded... I typed Janissary_Heavy_Infantry instead of Janissary_Heavy_Inf in one spot... I could have sworn I tested it last night...
The Janissary Heavy Infantry animation seems fine for Varangian Guard... I labbed them versus Dismounted Gothic Knights...
Varangian Guard:
Attack: 20
Charge: 6
Defense: 15
Dismounted Gothic Knights:
Attack: 14
Charge: 6
Defense: 14
The Varangians won all battles, average men remaining were 50 Varangians and 20 Gothics when the Gothics routed. (From 121 man units)
That seems about right considering the disparity in their stats, and the fact that the Varangian Guard have an armor piercing weapon and the Dismounted Gothic Knights don't.
Dismounted Gothic Knights are 300 florins more expensive though, they should not win the fight given the relative costs. Now i've made Varangian Guard more expensive to balance them out.
I'm not worrying about unit costs at the moment, I'm worrying about their stats as printed.
I'll rebalance their costs later.
I don't see how they're "closer to where they should be"... DEKs should beat Noble Swordsmen handily, not lose to the Noble Swordsmen while they still have 20 men left.
Actually looking at their stats the match should be pretty even, depending on the armourlevel of the Nobles. In any case the DEK should just about win the matchup in terms of stats.
And you yourself proclaim you work out from the stats.
DEKs get armour peircing attacks which reduce the defensive stats of the the Nobles.
Thus DEKs should spank Nobles, but fair worse than nobles against mass mobs of milita.
I disagree with that, Musashi. The costs are tied to the stats and give a pretty good indicator of how units should be, strength-wise. Special faction-defining units like Varangians are less expensive compared to normal units with the same strength but the Gothic knights and JHI are also faction-defining units for their respective factions.
If you look at the stats, JHI are overpowered. However, if you look at the cost and the fact that they are a faction-defining unit for the Turks, they are perfectly fine. The Varangian Guard has clearly overpowered stats compared to its cost. The cost shows that CA didn't really intend them to be as powerful as the later, more expensive units. While I think stats should be pretty accurate, the costs right now are a better baseline on how the units should be stacked against each other.
Varangians should own every unit early on. However, they should be eventually outclassed by the later units. While Varangians have better stats compared to dismounted gothic knights, I don't think they should be more powerful than the dismounted gothic knights. Reducing their stats will make them closer to what is intended by CA and what is historically accurate than increasing their cost compared to the dismounted gothic knights.
That said, I think CA should add attack speed and dps to the stats. I've played enough games to know that dps is a better indicator of damage. That's one of the biggest reasons that the stats seem wrong. Another reason is the defense. Shield, armor and defense skill all have different properties but the defense just lumps them all in.
I don't think you all understand that you don't need to balance the costs, unless you are worried about multiplayer. The costs are balanced by the campaign map. Since you cannot play multiplayer with the modded stats, I really wouldn't worry about balancing the costs to what you think is objectively fair.
DEKs get armour peircing attacks which reduce the defensive stats of the the Nobles.
Thus DEKs should spank Nobles, but fair worse than nobles against mass mobs of milita.
No not spank, they should win however. The AP takes off 4 points of defense for the Nobles, but the nobles are a little bit ahead in total stats already, so it is less of an impact. Also, since the stats degenerate in effect as they get higher, the DEK actually suffers the worst here. They take away 4 of the least important points of the Nobles, while their own advantage of a strong attack is hampered by the same lessening of power. All in all they are very even units, but the DEK should win, but not by a great deal.
I disagree with that, Musashi. The costs are tied to the stats and give a pretty good indicator of how units should be, strength-wise. Special faction-defining units like Varangians are less expensive compared to normal units with the same strength but the Gothic knights and JHI are also faction-defining units for their respective factions.
If you look at the stats, JHI are overpowered. However, if you look at the cost and the fact that they are a faction-defining unit for the Turks, they are perfectly fine. The Varangian Guard has clearly overpowered stats compared to its cost. The cost shows that CA didn't really intend them to be as powerful as the later, more expensive units. While I think stats should be pretty accurate, the costs right now are a better baseline on how the units should be stacked against each other.
Varangians should own every unit early on. However, they should be eventually outclassed by the later units. While Varangians have better stats compared to dismounted gothic knights, I don't think they should be more powerful than the dismounted gothic knights. Reducing their stats will make them closer to what is intended by CA and what is historically accurate than increasing their cost compared to the dismounted gothic knights.
That said, I think CA should add attack speed and dps to the stats. I've played enough games to know that dps is a better indicator of damage. That's one of the biggest reasons that the stats seem wrong. Another reason is the defense. Shield, armor and defense skill all have different properties but the defense just lumps them all in.
Going to have to disagree with the idea that Varangians should be outclassed by Gothics... VG should be the strongest shock infantry in the game, going by their stats, and by the fact that they're Byzantium's most powerful unit, and Byzantium is the oldest, wealthiest state. Assuming that Byzantium survives into the later periods in an intact (Or even expanded) state, they would certainly have put the Varangians in advanced plate, and you'd be looking at platemailed two handed axemen, which should easily trump the Gothic Knights who are platemailed two handed swordsmen.
But that's only if you ignore the cost differences. It's all very well talking about how units should be, but in the end it all comes down to balancing them, and making sure thier stats and costs are balanced.
Which is why I'm increasing their costs. I'd rather do that than nerf their effectiveness, and anyway this is only for singleplayer so the balancing isn't critical.
Also, to settle the DEK vs. Noble Swordsmen debate once and for all... I gave DEKs the SAME animation as the Noble Swordsmen, and labbed them.
DEKs win, average men remaining at rout: 70.
So, in a TOTALLY even fight, where only their stats matter, the DEKs CRUSH the Noble Swordsmen.
In other words Attack > Defense, which should have been obvious to anyone.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 20:20
There is something more going on in the animations then any one of us can claim to understand. You cant give DEK the NS animation and call it a fair fight. It the beginning of the file is says that the soldier stat is actually linked to another file that has not yet been released.... I dont think we can really start to understand whats happening until we see whats in that file.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 20:51
Here is the description of the line of code that we are moding:
; soldier Name of the soldier model to use (from descr_models_battle.txt)
; followed by the number of ordinary soldiers in the unit
; followed by the number of extras (pigs dogs, elephants, chariots artillery pieces etc attached to the unit)
; followed by the collision mass of the men. 1.0 is normal. [Only applies to infantry]
Here is what the unmoded line of code looks like:
soldier Dismounted_English_Knights, 48, 0, 1.2
In the descr_models_battle.txt file under Janissary_Heavy_Inf my lie the real "Secret of the Jannissary Heavy Infantry"... I cant find this file. Has it been released yet?
Merlin's Apprentice
12-08-2006, 21:12
missed this in first post of the DATA files released?
BTW before you ask 'Where's the descr_model_battle.txt file?' - I tell you now - there is no dmb file used in the game.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 21:15
I donat understand you dude. Yes there is.
To redmark,
I am pretty sure voulgiers have attack anims. Were you using the voulgiers or was the comp using them? Sometimes too, the AI just makes all the voulgiers into space cadets and they all stand there, voulges pointed up, and getting chopped to pieces.
Maybe; it was the AI, as I was controlling the horse to walk into the Voulgier, to avoid a strong charge routing them immediately. Regardless, I do think other units are affected; just not been noticed because no-one would normally put them against cavalry anyway. I'll wait for the patch and see what's happening then.
Kobal2fr
12-08-2006, 21:24
@Scrap : I don't think that file has any clue in it. My guess would be it's just a list telling the game which 3D models , which 2D sprites and which texture files to use with that particular kind of soldiers.
(as an aside, for some reason, I always read this thread thinking of Me-262's :book: :laugh4:. JHI : Secret Weapon of the Turkwaffe !)
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 21:28
No you are wrong. Changing the the soldier name stat is causing major things to happen. This is all hidden inside that file. Please guys if you are not testing these things yourself, or are new to the conversation, try to understand what we are talking about first. I mean that in the most friendly way possible :P...
Merlin's Apprentice
12-08-2006, 21:35
I should of did the quote thingy
here is a part of it
Caliban from CA Oz has sent me the following data files to release:
BTW before you ask 'Where's the descr_model_battle.txt file?' - I tell you now - there is no dmb file used in the game.
Now if there is no DMB it has to be somewhere
Where is it is what needs to be asked
Look, if you give the DEKs the Noble Swordsmen soldier, they use the SAME EXACT animation. Attacks are linked to animations in this game, so yes, it does make it an EVEN FIGHT.
What this tells us is simply that high attack and armor piercing weapons with low defense is better than low attack with a high defense.
Attack factor is therefore more important (By a lot) than defense stat in figuring out which unit would win.
But anyone who pays any attention to things would know that without having to lab it. I just did it because some people seem to be unusually thick here.
(If you need even better proof, take any given unit, copy the whole entry for it, rename it to make a new unit with the same animation and model and everything. Now give one 10 attack and 20 defense, and the other 20 attack and 10 defense. I guarantee you that the high attack/low defense unit will win by a landslide)
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 21:46
Ok now I understand what you were saying. Im not sure if I understand "no DMB file in the game" Maybe this file will never be unpacked.
Something feels awfully wrong about changing the soldier name variable. I think we need to be looking the appropriate lines of code in the newly dubbed "mystery file"...
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 21:54
Look, if you give the DEKs the Noble Swordsmen soldier, they use the SAME EXACT animation. Attacks are linked to animations in this game, so yes, it does make it an EVEN FIGHT.
What this tells us is simply that high attack and armor piercing weapons with low defense is better than low attack with a high defense.
Attack factor is therefore more important (By a lot) than defense stat in figuring out which unit would win.
But anyone who pays any attention to things would know that without having to lab it. I just did it because some people seem to be unusually thick here.
(If you need even better proof, take any given unit, copy the whole entry for it, rename it to make a new unit with the same animation and model and everything. Now give one 10 attack and 20 defense, and the other 20 attack and 10 defense. I guarantee you that the high attack/low defense unit will win by a landslide)
No Musashi, it might not be an even fight. The lines of code are the same for each unit I agree, but how do you know that the variables in the hidden lines of code are not multiplying by the units stats in which case yeah the code is the same but produce vastly different results. That’s just one example. We all keep calling it the “animation” but the animation is only ONE of the things effected by the mods we are making. Like I said you cant claim to know whats going on until you see the mystery file.
Because it's pure common sense... All that the DMB file did in past games was to tell the game which model and texture files to use.
In this game there is no DMB file (According to someone who should know)
What we do know is that ALL the combat stats for a unit have ALWAYS been in export_descr_unit.txt. There is NO reason to suspect this has changed.
But if you don't believe me, do the second test I suggested. If you create an IDENTICAL unit with slightly different stats, it's OBVIOUS that only the stats will determine which unit wins.
If you disagree with THAT you're just being deliberately stupid.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 22:08
Because it's pure common sense... All that the DMB file did in past games was to tell the game which model and texture files to use.
In this game there is no DMB file (According to someone who should know)
What we do know is that ALL the combat stats for a unit have ALWAYS been in export_descr_unit.txt. There is NO reason to suspect this has changed.
But if you don't believe me, do the second test I suggested. If you create an IDENTICAL unit with slightly different stats, it's OBVIOUS that only the stats will determine which unit wins.
If you disagree with THAT you're just being deliberately stupid.
Indirectly calling me stupid with an if statement is lame. By changing ONLY the soldier name, which is what we have been talking about the whole time, is causing units ability to fight to change dramatically.
; soldier Name of the soldier model to use (from ; soldier Name of the soldier model to use (from descr_models_battle.txt))
It clearly states that the variable we have been changing (soldier name) is described in descr_models_battle.txt file! If this file is only graphical, why is it effecting the units ability to fight!?
You are taking this too personally dude. You don’t understand it, but don’t feel bad because nobody does at this point.
Kobal2fr
12-08-2006, 22:17
There's no disagreeing there from me, but I do believe CA gave these units such stats keeping in mind that they would use such and such animations.
Unit balance is twofold this time, unlike it ALWAYS WAS : now it's stats + anims, instead of just stats, with the stats tailored to the anims and fine-tuned with them, not abstractly.
Like Lusted said, JHI have awful stats and cost a mint, that is because their animation is über. Varangians have godly stats and relatively low cost because they use poor animations. Wether the Varangians or DEKs deserved to be a better unit or not is an entirely different matter.
What I am saying is : don't go by stats alone to determine what a given unit should be able to do or not do. It's a wrong outlook on things. Like Lusted said, unit price is a better indication of what the different head-on matchups will result in. DEKs cost less than DFKs don't they ?
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 22:18
By the way I have a BA in computer science and I am a professional .net programmer. My understanding of code and how it works is quite strong. The stupid crack is mealy showing your frustrations.
That's fine. I know lots of people with programming degrees who don't understand anything. Don't worry, you're not alone.
Again, the file is just graphical, and that comment (Like many of the comments in the file) is old and outdated. If you were to pay some attention you'd realize that many of those comments are from previous games.
What you're not understanding is that the way this game works, the skeleton determines the animations, and the animations determine the attack rate of the unit. The strength of those attacks is purely determined by the stats in the export_descr_unit.txt file.
You can keep on claiming we don't know that until you're blue in the face, and you're right, we can never be 100% sure that there isn't some little bit of code somewhere that does something we don't understand. But you can (And probably will) say that after we get access to the unpacker and you see the model allocation system, because we can never know 100% about anything unless we have access to the engine code itself, which we're never going to have.
What we can do, is test things and make obvious conclusions, like any scientist approaching an unknown thing.
And what those experiments are telling us right now is what I just told you: The stats are all in the export_descr_unit.txt file, and all that changing the "soldier" line does is set the skeleton and animation set of the unit.
Deal with it.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 22:29
Grow up man. Any reasonable person can see you are frustrated and do not understand a thing i have said.
@Musahi: Now i have never so much as touched modding in a TW game before. BUT i have done som work on another game (DoW if you must know), and i've got a good grasp of basic logic.#
According to this line:
What you're not understanding is that the way this game works, the skeleton determines the animations, and the animations determine the attack rate of the unit. The strength of those attacks is purely determined by the stats in the export_descr_unit.txt file.
That only the stats matter and that the apperance, (and by definition animation), don't. Based on what modifying the Animations is doing to the kill rates it OBVIOUS somthing else is having an effect. Weather this is somthing deep in the engine or in some mystery file dosen't matter. It's there and it matters and we really need access to it to see how it works.
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 22:38
@Musahi: Now i have never so much as touched modding in a TW game before. BUT i have done som work on another game (DoW if you must know), and i've got a good grasp of basic logic.#
According to this line:
That only the stats matter and that the apperance, (and by definition animation), don't. Based on what modifying the Animations is doing to the kill rates it OBVIOUS somthing else is having an effect. Weather this is somthing deep in the engine or in some mystery file dosen't matter. It's there and it matters and we really need access to it to see how it works.
That's fine. I know lots of people with programming degrees who don't understand anything. Don't worry, you're not alone.
Again, the file is just graphical, and that comment (Like many of the comments in the file) is old and outdated. If you were to pay some attention you'd realize that many of those comments are from previous games.
What you're not understanding is that the way this game works, the skeleton determines the animations, and the animations determine the attack rate of the unit. The strength of those attacks is purely determined by the stats in the export_descr_unit.txt file.
You can keep on claiming we don't know that until you're blue in the face, and you're right, we can never be 100% sure that there isn't some little bit of code somewhere that does something we don't understand. But you can (And probably will) say that after we get access to the unpacker and you see the model allocation system, because we can never know 100% about anything unless we have access to the engine code itself, which we're never going to have.
What we can do, is test things and make obvious conclusions, like any scientist approaching an unknown thing.
And what those experiments are telling us right now is what I just told you: The stats are all in the export_descr_unit.txt file, and all that changing the "soldier" line does is set the skeleton and animation set of the unit.
Deal with it.
Exactly.
TheFluff
12-08-2006, 23:00
It clearly states that the variable we have been changing (soldier name) is described in descr_models_battle.txt file! If this file is only graphical, why is it effecting the units ability to fight!?
Perhaps it has more to do with the death/defence animation or simmilar? This is just a shot in the dark as i havent tinkerd with MTW moding myself.
But all that aside, from this thead and information we have all established that the actual unit attack animation is far more important then the unit stats, since some units can do instant KO's even if there stats are relitivly low on paper (halberders come to mind). So my question is, are we looking haveing to possibly have extreams in unit stats in order for units to be effective or perhaps have"defenitive role"? I mean as it is now, dismounted knights have values that are way higher then spear milita (rightfully so) but the fact that there is such a huge gap in values but not being the RTW legion chohort type kill all unit is makeing me wonder what values could be possibly left other then unitstats, animations and some other detials that govern a fatial hit to a non-fatial hit ( i dont recall the name but its dicuessed on this thread also) ? Perhaps someone can explain this to me, since im still not entirely clear on how exactly a crossbow bolt can land a "hit" on a unarmored unit, and not down it, or how 2h axe units are not as effective against sheild/spear units when historically and pratically speaking, an axe is designed to split armor and wooden shieilds. Also has anyone been able to use this new peice of reliased info to figure out the guard formation and loose vrs tight formation in terms of why loose seems to be more aproprate for some units increasing (or at least not diminishing) there melee effectiveness?
Again im not one to mod myself like many people who read these forums, but im still amiss as to what is actually going on with all of this. Any new theroys?
ScrapTower
12-08-2006, 23:16
Also has anyone been able to use this new peice of reliased info to figure out the guard formation and loose vrs tight formation in terms of why loose seems to be more aproprate for some units increasing (or at least not diminishing) there melee effectiveness?
CA said that they placed heavy penalties on clustered and "blobbed" up units as it deminishes the units ability fight. Perhaps the reason some units fight better in loose formation is a side-effect of this implementation.
Also, to settle the DEK vs. Noble Swordsmen debate once and for all... I gave DEKs the SAME animation as the Noble Swordsmen, and labbed them.
DEKs win, average men remaining at rout: 70.
So, in a TOTALLY even fight, where only their stats matter, the DEKs CRUSH the Noble Swordsmen.
In other words Attack > Defense, which should have been obvious to anyone.
You're too concerned with the stats on the stat screen. I've played World of Warcraft and many other games, both RPG and strategy. DPS is generally more important than pure damage. The attack you see on the stat screen, to me, seems like how powerful a single attack is from the unit. So, units wielding these big, huge 2H weapons would have a more powerful attack, all else being equal. However, you can't convince me that somebody wielding a small dagger would have the same number of attacks per second than somebody wielding a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE axe.
Maybe CA erred in showing just attack on the stat screen instead of the equivalent "dps". However, I'm sure the difference in animations exist for a reason and that they were calculated in the costs for the unit and the overall balancing. What you're trying to do here is basically make somebody swing their HUGE, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG 2H halberd with the same speed somebody else swings their lighter weapon. If there's any bug or oversight on CA's part, it's not showing the attack speed to players. The stats and animations are fine, except for the cavalry thing.
That huge axe should be no slower than a huge two handed sword.
PS: Halberd using troops actually attack very fast. People were complaining about me giving the DEKs the halberd animation because it's "too fast" for their taste. Go actually watch the Varangians fight and then come back here and say they're fine.
PPS: If you want to see what the DMB file would be sorting out, you might want to look at descr_skeleton.txt
It's fairly obvious that the "Soldier" entry is a label in a file which simply points the game engine at the skeleton to use... The skeletons obviously define the animation set... If you look through descr_skeleton this is obvious.
Actually, two-handed weapons might be swung faster than one-handed weapons since you are using two hands on them, giving them leverage and twice the normal amount of force used to control weapons.
The thing is, both sides are almost starting a flame war over a tiny modification that is purely done according to taste, and for a single player game, for himself. Everybody, lets cool for a moment please?
It clearly states that the variable we have been changing (soldier name) is described in descr_models_battle.txt file! If this file is only graphical, why is it effecting the units ability to fight!?
You are taking this too personally dude. You don’t understand it, but don’t feel bad because nobody does at this point.
There's no difference between killing a unit and the graphic in this round of M2TW. This has been mentioned 1000's of times by CA trying to sell this game "the units now have combination attacks and kill moves". It would seem, and the evidence backs this up that the graphic file has in it a list of kill moves, pary's and combinations. This would be why some units like halberds have such high killrates, they have a fast kill movements. We will have to wait to be sure, but considering CA's adiment pre release raves I'm betting the graphics and unit kill rates are inexurably linked and that there isnt a seperate file that is effecting this.
So, units wielding these big, huge 2H weapons would have a more powerful attack, all else being equal. However, you can't convince me that somebody wielding a small dagger would have the same number of attacks per second than somebody wielding a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE axe.
No, simply wrong here. The Danish axe was one of the fastest weapons developed during the dark ages. It would be used in a constant swinging figure 8 motion. It was only slow when it was stopped. Granted there's very little that's actually going to stop the danish axe, it's going to go through most armor and body's and it's shaped so it will merely glance off and not stop. It's sad that the norse and rus axemen don't have a special formation as they actually used.
ScrapTower
12-09-2006, 20:09
There's no difference between killing a unit and the graphic in this round of M2TW. This has been mentioned 1000's of times by CA trying to sell this game "the units now have combination attacks and kill moves". It would seem, and the evidence backs this up that the graphic file has in it a list of kill moves, pary's and combinations. This would be why some units like halberds have such high killrates, they have a fast kill movements.
I agree, there seems to be an attack speed or something now.
We will have to wait to be sure, but considering CA's adiment pre release raves I'm betting the graphics and unit kill rates are inexurably linked and that there isnt a seperate file that is effecting this.
I dunno. I think there is something is in that missing text file. Im thinking we will be able to mod attack speed in that file or somthing similar. Even if there is nothing in that file, we all agree that there is somthing in the soldier name variable that is dramatically effecting the units ability to fight. We need to find out why.
ScrapTower
12-09-2006, 20:26
It's fairly obvious that the "Soldier" entry is a label in a file which simply points the game engine at the skeleton to use... The skeletons obviously define the animation set... If you look through descr_skeleton this is obvious.[/QUOTE]
The soldier entry is much more. It also has variables for unit size and collision mass. Lusted and I both have tested moding ONLY the name variable on the soldier line. This is changing the animation. This is making them supermen.
You are completely ignoring the results of the tests. I think you got trigger happy and when crazy modding attack and defence ratings, along with the name varible on the soldier line... Its no longer obvious to you that the name variable on the soldier is effecting the units ability to fight.
ScrapTower
12-09-2006, 20:35
THe first line in the above post was supposed to be a quote from Musashi's post.
Curious, heading off to work so I don't have the time to text file search. But could the descr_skeleton file direct which animations are kills and which are parry's or combinations?
Can anyone tell me where to find these files you are on about?
Thanks Musashi for the work, and upload.
If people don't agree with something, they can change the game to suit their needs. I only care about making the game work how it 'should' in my mind.
To me stats are second only to actual skill of use in terms of what the outcome should be. A unit with higher attributes should beat a unit with lower attributes, regardless of what their costs are. If the higher cost unit loses all the time, and there are no other circumstances (bugs) present, it simply means the costs need to be tweaked, not necessarily the stats.
Unless you want the units to have different stats. Then that's a personal choice.
Guys, it's not a matter of a "stat" giving kill speed or attack rate... It's actually encoded into the animations... Do you even know how animations work in a 3d game?
If you're referring to me, yeah I got that. I was more responding to people saying that there's other things wrong, which very well could be. But one problem at a time.
Actually I was replying to ScrapTower who's been arguing with me for pages and pages, and I couldn't figure out why he was being so thick about it, but I just realized that he doesn't seem to understand the process involved at all.
For his benefit:
Animations are created in special applications, sometimes these applications are part of the 3D modelling program, but often they are standalone apps. You take the skeleton you created in the 3D modelling program and using the animtion program you painstakingly generate an animation for it, and then save that animation. Various applications use various formats for their animations of course.
Now if you look in descr_skeleton.txt you'll see a list of animation references under each "unit type". What the engine does with these is, given a specific "situation" in the game, it loads the relevant animation based on what it sees in this file. The animation is then played back.
What the "soldier" entry in the export_descr_unit.txt file does, is has the game look into a file, and see which animation set in descr_skeleton.txt it should be looking at. The attack speed is actually a part of those animations... The animations dictate everything in this game... Basically the animations control when the character attacks, instead of the game stats controlling when a unit attacks and then playing the animation after the fact.
So if you set the soldier entry to the same thing on two different units, what you are doing is giving them the same animation set, which gives them the same attack speed. That's basically all it does.
majesticchapel
12-10-2006, 23:07
I usually don't step into other people's arguments but I'm going to have to break my own rule this time.
Neither of you is thickheaded or dumb, you are actually in agreement with one another. Please stop arguing, its hilarious. Musashi just says that changing the animations DOES change the killing speed of a unit BUT through another stat that is a PART of the animations file.
Neither of you is thickheaded or dumb, you are actually in agreement with one another.
Quoted for truth. You say the animations are stored in a particular file, and that’s been what I was on about all along and so was Scraptower.
All we where saying was that their was a file we don't currently have that’s influencing the killrate. That just happens to be the Animations file you mentioned, it doesn’t contain the animations themselves according to you, just references to them. By varying what’s in here we can change how a unit performs.
Yes, but we'll never be able to edit the animations as they're usually created with very expensive software that I'd imagine most of us can't afford.
The main argument arose because I stated that giving two units the same animation set via the "soldier" variable means that they have the same exact attack speed, and therefore it's only the stats in the export_descr_unit.txt file that determine who wins and who loses at that point, and ScrapTower insists that that is not the case...
and ScrapTower insists that that is not the case...
That didn't seem to be what he was saying, but maybe thats just me. All he was saying was that somthing other than the export_descr_unit.txt file was determening outcomes and he thought it was that skeleton file. in reality you identified the Animations file in your last post and thus said which file it actually was. Befoe you where insisting it wasn't the Skeleton file without atually telling us the name of the file that was having an effect.
Yes, but we'll never be able to edit the animations as they're usually created with very expensive software that I'd imagine most of us can't afford.
The DOW Modders seem to do okay, and i'm pretty sure they have to pay. Their'll be somone who can fix it all for us. But in the end i expect the developer to do it for us, so we won't all need it.
Ebay is your freind:p.
This was the post I made that ScrapTower first replied to:
Also, to settle the DEK vs. Noble Swordsmen debate once and for all... I gave DEKs the SAME animation as the Noble Swordsmen, and labbed them.
DEKs win, average men remaining at rout: 70.
So, in a TOTALLY even fight, where only their stats matter, the DEKs CRUSH the Noble Swordsmen.
In other words Attack > Defense, which should have been obvious to anyone.
The argument had been going on over whether DEKs, if their animation was the same as Noble Swordsmen, would beat them given their stats (DEKs having 23 attack and 13 defense, and Noble Swordsmen having 14 attack and 20 defense). Many were saying that DEKs would only win by a little, and that it was the JHI animation that was causing them to destroy the NS so badly.
Therefore I ran a test where they used the same animation set, and showed that the DEKs still crushed the NSs horrifically, showing that having a high attack value and an armor piercing weapon made a unit vastly superior to a unit with high defense but a low attack and no armor piercing abilities.
I felt that this should be obvious because if attack is not more valuable than defense you have a situation where a unit with an attack rating equal to their target's defense rating cannot kill a single member of that unit, which we know is not the case. Testing showed that attack is vastly more important than defense in a melee combat though, even moreso than expected.
Scraptower however, denied that the test I ran was even:
There is something more going on in the animations then any one of us can claim to understand. You cant give DEK the NS animation and call it a fair fight. It the beginning of the file is says that the soldier stat is actually linked to another file that has not yet been released.... I dont think we can really start to understand whats happening until we see whats in that file.
And we've been arguing about it ever since.
Grrr... Double posted... Forum's acting all wonky today.
I think he just didn't understand things right. Allthough if you think about it, the fact that the same animation has diffrent effects with diffrent stats is odd considering the animation seems to be fairly important in deciding who lives or dies. Obviously the Stats still interface with the animation somehow? The question is how? Is their a file somwhere that decribes this? Maybe thats what he was refering to?
I'm not really sure TBH.
Also your argument before the section of Scraptower you quoted seemed to be that it was only the stats that mattered, (when it's clear that both stats and animation are involved). Not intentional i'm sure, but it was that impreshion that made me stick my nose in the first time round. It's only now you've clarifyed your postion that i get your meaning.
P.S. The forum is being buugy today, (to say nothing of that damm mosquito).
NightStar
12-11-2006, 05:50
Well the problem with the Varangians is that they are much much weaker than Byzantine infantry. I had a unit of Varangians defend a wall and they were getting spanked by cheap jihad units while the byzantine infantry were slaughtering the same type of unit.
The Byz infantry costs 400 to recruit and 125 to maintain vs 520 to recruit and 175 to maintain for the Varangians. I've had battles where the Varangians kill 10 and lose 86 out of 90 in a pitched battle.
Bottom line is I dont use Varangian Guards, they are a waste of good money.
And this was against other infantry. They are good killers on the charge after that their slow attack gets interrupted by faster units...and they get bogged down and die like flies.
where is musahi's modded file uploaded? i cant find it
ScrapTower
12-13-2006, 22:45
To clarify, the argument was about the "name" variable on the soldier line. This variable is linked to another file that has yet to be released. Changing this variable will cause any unit, not just DEK and NS to fight differently. Some people think that this unreleased file is mearly graphical, but if the comments written by CA in the code are correct (some people calim these comments are left over from rome), and the tests results are not merely flukes, this file is clearly more. Since the first patch will not fix the 2 handed bug, It will be up to us to fix it. I can only inform anyone looking for a mod to fix this bug should stear clear of any mod that is claiming to fix this by changing the name variable.
Since the first patch will not fix the 2 handed bug, It will be up to us to fix it. I can only inform anyone looking for a mod to fix this bug should stear clear of any mod that is claiming to fix this by changing the name variable.
But that is how you fix it, you edit the soldier line for a unit with the bug, give it the one from a unit with a working 2 handed animation, rebalance the stats to compensate for the new attack speed of the animation.
Aaaaand it begins again.
ScrapTower: What you're not understanding is that animations control combat effectiveness in this game. Thus there is no such thing as "purely graphical" alterations. If you change a unit's animations it changes it's combat effectiveness, but that really is all that the soldier name variable does, it changes the animation set.
It just so happens that a unit's attack rate is dependant on the animation, and not some sort of "stat" you can easily access. You're not going to be able to fix units the way you want to unless you're actually set up to edit animations.
In the mean time the only possible fix is to change the unit's animation set to one that isn't craptastic.
ScrapTower
12-13-2006, 22:55
But that is how you fix it, you edit the soldier line for a unit with the bug, give it the one from a unit with a working 2 handed animation, rebalance the stats to compensate for the new attack speed of the animation.
I should have been more clear. Lusted's mods are taking into account the massive fighting boosts that the units get when changing the name. He is the only modder I have seen who understands this and is compensating. Lusted gets my vote for the unofficial fix.
That's just a matter of personal preference... Whether you nerf their stats or just increase their cost....
If i was to balance DEK by increasing their cost i'd give them a cost of about 2500, thats how effective they are if you give them the Me_halberd_militia soldier and don't nerf their stats.
I should have been more clear. Lusted's mods are taking into account the massive fighting boosts that the units get when changing the name. He is the only modder I have seen who understands this and is compensating. Lusted gets my vote for the unofficial fix.
Why ty, i've tried my best to fix things and keep them balanced.
ScrapTower
12-14-2006, 06:56
Aaaaand it begins again.
ScrapTower: What you're not understanding is that animations control combat effectiveness in this game.
Thats what I have been screaming this whole time. Many posts ago I expressed that there very well may be an attack speed variable (or something similar) exposed in this missing file. I'll post a link to it if you like. It is clear that the name variable will modify the animations. It is clear that the name variable will modify the effectiveness of the unit. It is also clear that after changing the name of DEK to HM, they still look like DEK, so you can scratch the units graphical model off the list of things that the name variable will change. At this point, a cant wait to get my hands on this missing file. (Remember you claim this file does not exist, and the commented code is an oversight on CA's part :dizzy2: ).You may have to eat your words.
No... I don't believe I will, considering the person who released the files says that that file does not exist.
That said, what I keep trying to get through to you is that it's not a variable in a missing file that's the key, it's the animation itself.
ScrapTower
12-14-2006, 07:39
No... I don't believe I will, considering the person who released the files says that that file does not exist.
That said, what I keep trying to get through to you is that it's not a variable in a missing file that's the key, it's the animation itself.
CA said there is no DMB file. Im talking about descr_models_battle.txt... Notice its .txt and not .dmb... I'll post the comments one more time...
; soldier Name of the soldier model to use (from descr_models_battle.txt)
; followed by the number of ordinary soldiers in the unit
; followed by the number of extras (pigs dogs, elephants, chariots artillery pieces etc attached to the unit)
; followed by the collision mass of the men. 1.0 is normal. [Only applies to infantry]
Please understant what file I am talking about before you deny its existance.
Descr_Models_Battle.txt = DMB
ScrapTower
12-14-2006, 07:58
You are right. They are talking about the text file. My mistake. I didnt read the post till now and will proceed to shoot myself in the foot for that. This means that there will probably not be any variables exposed that the modders can use to modify attack speed. Lusteds approach is an probably always will be the best way to fix the 2 handed bug.
Don't feel bad... I made my own personal use mods for MTW and RTW, (And I've modded a bajillion other games) so I had a head start ;)
There are several things to consider here, but before I go into these, I might ask that all of you go back to the pre-gold demo and look at how devastating the DEKs were in the battle of Agincourt. Back then their animations worked in full flow and if I recall correctly they owned all the uber chevron French chivalric knights! It might be worthwhile to press pause during the demo battle and right click on the DEK card to see what their stats were back then? If they're the same as the gold version, then maybe we have a case that CA intended these guys to rock!
Anyway, other things to consider for the units and balance:
1. When do they come into play in the campaign, i.e. how late are they and how easy are they to build. From a brief look, DEKs are the tier above Feudals and so should be better equipped. JHI and VGs seem to be available from a different line of buildings than the knights and therefore, I'm not sure whether this guys are more readily available/easier to build or not.
2. In terms of the campaign, cost doesn't necessarily equal use and ability. The English are clearly stated to have good infantry, so it might figure that their infantry are going to give a bigger bang for their buck.
3. A unit of high end cavalry will still decimate DEKs if they perform the full charge.
4. The armour piercing (ap) ability really does make a massive difference when the high end units battle it out. How do the reduced DEKs/VGs in Lusted's mod actually fair against other units, e.g. against lightly armoured units and high armoured units?
Back to the pre-gold demo, and this is mainly a question for redmark. If one copies and pastes the pre-gold demo's animation files into the mymod data folder, one can use the demo's animations in the campaign. If this is done, do the halberd troops (e.g. Voulgier) perform better against cavalry? Like redmark, I too have noticed that the Voulgier tend to stand after initial contact and do very little, particularly when in the hands of the AI. In fact they lose to Border Horse!
Regards
Back to the pre-gold demo, and this is mainly a question for redmark. If one copies and pastes the pre-gold demo's animation files into the mymod data folder, one can use the demo's animations in the campaign. If this is done, do the halberd troops (e.g. Voulgier) perform better against cavalry?
Campaigns dont seem to work with the pre-gold demo animations, as im guessing the campaign animations are not included in them
How do the reduced DEKs/VGs in Lusted's mod actually fair against other units, e.g. against lightly armoured units and high armoured units?
Very well, but it looks likle ym fix for the VG didn't actually fix them, so im giving them the same animation as the one i've given the DEK in 1.2.
Campaigns dont seem to work with the pre-gold demo animations, as im guessing the campaign animations are not included in them.
Really? If that's the case it's a real shame. They pre-gold demo animations seem to work fine for the custom battles. I wonder why they wouldn't work in the campaign?
Really? If that's the case it's a real shame. They pre-gold demo animations seem to work fine for the custom battles. I wonder why they wouldn't work in the campaign?
Becuase the pre-gold demo animations only include the animations needed for battles. The fiiles don't include those for the campaign map characters.
Very well, but it looks likle ym fix for the VG didn't actually fix them, so im giving them the same animation as the one i've given the DEK in 1.2.
Really? What animation did you give them that didn't work? I gave them the JHI animation and it works great. They get stomped by mounted sergeants if you try to receive the charge (Only makes sense, they're not a spear unit and they can't brace against a charge) but they can and do attack during a protracted melee with cavalry, and if you countercharge they can win against light cavalry (I'm thinking they'll lose to almost all heavy cav though).
This seems to put them right where they should be... Uber infantry killers who can't be relied upon to repel cav charges.
i gave thme the taraaaysywawhatever animation, as i thought it wasn't bugged. I've now given them the me_halberd_militia animation.
Halberd Militia is likely to make them too good against cavalry... Additionally it looks funny to see a squad of VGs using their axes like spears...
Back to the pre-gold demo, and this is mainly a question for redmark. If one copies and pastes the pre-gold demo's animation files into the mymod data folder, one can use the demo's animations in the campaign. If this is done, do the halberd troops (e.g. Voulgier) perform better against cavalry? Like redmark, I too have noticed that the Voulgier tend to stand after initial contact and do very little, particularly when in the hands of the AI. In fact they lose to Border Horse!
I've really been waiting for the patch and unpacker; a few days ago I'd been playing with descr_skeletons to switch animations, which seemed to have no effect whatsoever, suggesting changes to that file depend on the unpacker. I'm not entirely satisfied with Lusted's approach (or animations selections), so will play around with the files again following the unpacker. Once we have the unpacker and visibility of more files, I don't see why mixing demo-animations with retail campaign animations shouldn't work.
If not, I'll probably look at using the Highland Nobles animation (or look for another suitable) for the DEK and some other bugged units. A custom battle between the two shows that the animations are actually quite similar, other than the DEK being rather slower (and therefore losing to a weaker 'early' unit).
I really was hoping this would be fixed though. I do suspect that other units, such as the Voulgier, have animation problems in certain situations which may not all have been identified yet. I really don't fancy running several thousand custom battles to identify them all.
I'd like to add something to the conversation.
A few weeks ago before my exams kicked in I ran a rather large series of unit vs unit tests.
I haven't looked at animations or anything but...
It would seem to me that the Danish Obudshaer is using the same animation as the HJI.
Obudshaers absolutely destroyed every unit they faced in my test, with the exception of the HJI, which beat them in relatively close battles.
If you look at the stats the HJI are just slightly statistically superior.
Finally I made a guess as to why the HJI and Obudshaers were so dominant.
When watching the fights break down, the HJI and Obudshaers generally took the majority of their casualties in the immediate clash.
Something interesting began to occur after that. As the HJI and Obudshaers killed the individual soldiers that had penetrated and disrupted their formation a bufferzone was created. In essence a significant gap appears between these units and their opposition. The majority of units they face are using weapons with a short reach and they simply walk through this gap. While walking through this gap to close the distance they are getting tomahawk chopped to death by the HJI and Obudshaers.
It seems likely that the dominance of these two units could be attributed to both of these factors. A quicker animation and this tremendous reach advantage.
The DEK use a Poleaxe. Something similar to a halberd but far deadlier. It has a axe to one side, a very long hard spike at the top and a mallet on the opposite side of the axe. Their just a little shorter then a halberd, but they are far more flexible. There was a good reason knights slowly began to fight more and more dismounted, the dismounted polaxe knights should definately be able to decimate almost any unit.
As for the varangians and, other highly trained danish axe wielding infantry, they had some of the fastest attacks in the miedeval world. Usually they would be in a spaced out formation and would approach or stand and start swinging their axes well before contact. Their defense is that if the axe doesnt stop nothing's touching them. A lot of latter dismounted sabre technique's used the same method to fight with, quick 8 figured slashes that didn't stop.
The halberd's do indeed have a bonus vs's cavalry, they just don't have the spear attribute so it isnt listed on the units special abilities. It's a x8 or x4 if I recall correctly.
I'd reckon giving the polaxe and bill hook units the halberd animation should be about right. Giving the JHI animation to lesser near peasant units of 2hd axemen may be a little overpowering though. Havent tested it, but maybe their low defense value's may help.
I know that this is trudging up old history, but I'd really like to see a source for this information. I know from personal experience that swinging a heavy object without connecting to anything can lead one to dislocate an arm or, at the very least, cause extreme fatigue. All of the momentum that one applies to the object has to either be transfered to another object, or is transfered to the joint of the arm.
For a relatively safe at home test, try punching as hard as you can without connecting to anything. Then imagine weilding a twenty to thirty pound axe. I think you'll get my point.
I know that this is trudging up old history, but I'd really like to see a source for this information. I know from personal experience that swinging a heavy object without connecting to anything can lead one to dislocate an arm or, at the very least, cause extreme fatigue. All of the momentum that one applies to the object has to either be transfered to another object, or is transfered to the joint of the arm.
For a relatively safe at home test, try punching as hard as you can without connecting to anything. Then imagine weilding a twenty to thirty pound axe. I think you'll get my point.
Swinging a sword has all the same problems. An axe of a similar size is actually lighter than an equivalent sword, because the weight is all concentrated at the end for maximum impact.
ScrapTower
12-15-2006, 03:40
'sashi, Im off to the MP lobby (M0rph30us)... since we enjoyed battling in this thread so much I think we should take the next logical step eh? :whip:
Then imagine weilding a twenty to thirty pound axe. I think you'll get my point.
20-30 pounds?!?! Bloody hell, most troops wouldn't even be able to swing that more than a couple times.
5-10 pounds is more reasonable, and perhaps over the top as well. 10 pounds is considered heavy for a rifle, and you use that with both arms, and you get fatigued pretty fast. Imagine double that in one hand perhaps... Outlandish.
Melee is greatly exhausting, you can't use heavy stuff for very long (you can wear it but not really use it), thus most swords, axes, maces ect. were pretty light.
But in any case I actually got to see Billmen do al ittle damage in my campaign.
I attacked a stack of English, that contained a unit of Bills. So to capitalize on their weakness I sent my Teutonic Knights to chop them up. Well, that was not the best choice. The charge went well enough, causing heavy casualties, but the Billmen caused a lot back. Then in melee I saw no less than two attacks on my men, one of which caused a death. And it seemed there were more considering the losses. However had they not been bugged I would likely even have lost or suffered horrendous losses (lost perhaps 20 of 60).
I know that this is trudging up old history, but I'd really like to see a source for this information. I know from personal experience that swinging a heavy object without connecting to anything can lead one to dislocate an arm or, at the very least, cause extreme fatigue. All of the momentum that one applies to the object has to either be transfered to another object, or is transfered to the joint of the arm.
For a relatively safe at home test, try punching as hard as you can without connecting to anything. Then imagine weilding a twenty to thirty pound axe. I think you'll get my point.
Will have to dig it up. I know alot of texts that have to do with the battle of hastings will mention the danish axemen formations. Punching into the air should never cause injurry, if it does your punching incorrectly. Also a danish axe isnt 30 lb's. It is also top heavy allowing one to swing it with less fatigue then if it were more balanced. Once the innertia of the axe is overcome it will continue to swing with little effort and little impact on your shoulders. A better representation of it's swing is a wieghted warmup bat. Swinging that in a figure 8 pattern as hard as you can doesn't cause truama on your shoulders.
Well, this soldier file or whatever to the "soldier Heavy_Billmen" etc., line refers should have at least for types of information:
1, the animations (one unit type can have different types of attacks)
2, some way to decide which animation to use (it can be purely eye candy, we dont know)
3, triggers: what triggers and attack? Probably there is a proximity trigger, like attack if enemy soldier is within x distance.
4, frequency of attack (or intervals between attacks).
Note that the frequency is not necessarily determined by the animation since usualy there is a much longer pause between attacks than that the animation would demand.
Obviously the deadliness of a unit type depends very much on the frequency with which it delivers the strikes. More strike you deliver within a given interval the more enemy soldier you can kill. So far so good. However, it also should depend on the triggers. On the one hand it should depend on the proximity trigger, but it seems that there is a unit type trigger as well.
Now it seems that axe (billmen) units are simply not "interested" in killing cavalry. They do have the animations, since they perform perfectly vs infantry, and they also can kill the horsemen if they swing their weapon. The problem is that they do not swing it, which means that the proximity of enemy horsemen do not trigger the attac. It is not the animation, it is the triggers. Enemy horsemen is simply switched off as a trigger for attack for axes and billmen.
This is very easy to show. We all know that if an axe unit lets say VG attacked by horsemen they just stand around. Now, I did some test, mixing up spearmen in lose formation with horses in lose formation vs VG. As long as only the horses were close to the VG, the VGs did nothing. However, as soon as the spearmen got close to them they strated swinging their axes, killing both spearmen and horsemen! Obviously, those horse kills were "accidental" so to speak, VG hitting the horse instead of the spearman they aimed for. However, it shows that:
1, axemen have the animations, there is nothing wrong with that
2, axemen can kill a horseman if they attack.
They do nothing not because of the lack of animations but because cavalry is switched off as a trigger for attack. (VGs were just walking between the horses as if walking in a forest searching for spearmen, they were practicaly ignoring horses.)
The next obvious question is that why is this so? Why cavs switched off as target for axemen and billmen? This is where the RPS system and unit balancing comes in and this is why I think it is not a simple bug.
If it were a bug we would expect some kind of random distribution, all kinds of units effected. However if we make list we can see that only the cheap armourpiercing units are effected: billmen, axemen, dismounted english/portugese knights.
None of the halberds are effected, none of the spears, none of the swords, etc.
Now what is the chance that a bug (a coding mistake) in each corresponding soldier file would effect all the cheap armourpiercing units and nothing else? In my oppinion it is close to zero.
The only chance is if these soldier files, or references have some other files in them which are shared between a given unit type, so lets say cheap armourpiercing units all have the same "triggers file".
However, even in this last case the cost of these units suggests that it is not a bug. All of the effected unit types are cheaper than their "counterparts". Billmen are dirt cheap, dismounted english knigths (DEK) are cheaper than other dismounted knights, axemen are cheaper than swordsmen. As others already noted cost is the most reliable indicator of performance. Why would these units be so cheap if they would be useful vs all unit types? Why would DEK be cheaper than dismounted chivalric knights if DEK could do the same? Why would VG be almost half the price than JHI if VG would be equally good vs cavs? The huge difference in price suggest that VG has a definite weakness and the effect is intentional.
Now, what comes is a bit of a guesswork and obviously only CA can confirm or disprove it, however to me this is the only logical explanation. What shall be the weakness of axemen? If anyone here played BI then the answer is obvious: cavalry. The problem is that in BI cav killed axes because: (a) charge, (b) light armour of axemen, (c) pushthrough.
Now in MTW2 the charge effects everyone so it is not a special anti-axe effect. Axes and billmen have lot more armour than in BI. CA obviously tried to discourage pushthrough.
So what else can we do to make cavs strong vs axes? Giving some kind of anti-axe bonus sounds silly. The obvious solution would be to give conditional attack frequencies to axes and bills, like they would attack faster vs inf and slower vs cavs. It seems it is not possible.
So they did the only thing that is possible: switched off cavalry as an attack trigger for axes and billmen.
If this is so then obviously it is crude solution, but again it is intentional and reflected in the price of the given units.
Of course I can be wrong and indeed it can be a bug due to some shared trigger file. Only CA can tell.
However, based on the observations I am still leaning toward the oppinion that it is not a "random bug".
GreatWarrior
12-15-2006, 07:24
So what are all the units affected by this? I've read the whole post but its long as hell, and lusted's mod changes things I don't want changed so could anybody tell me which units I should stop making?
Well, this soldier file or whatever to the "soldier Heavy_Billmen" etc., line refers should have at least for types of information:
1, the animations (one unit type can have different types of attacks)
2, some way to decide which animation to use (it can be purely eye candy, we dont know)
3, triggers: what triggers and attack? Probably there is a proximity trigger, like attack if enemy soldier is within x distance.
4, frequency of attack (or intervals between attacks).
Note that the frequency is not necessarily determined by the animation since usualy there is a much longer pause between attacks than that the animation would demand.
Obviously the deadliness of a unit type depends very much on the frequency with which it delivers the strikes. More strike you deliver within a given interval the more enemy soldier you can kill. So far so good. However, it also should depend on the triggers. On the one hand it should depend on the proximity trigger, but it seems that there is a unit type trigger as well.
Now it seems that axe (billmen) units are simply not "interested" in killing cavalry. They do have the animations, since they perform perfectly vs infantry, and they also can kill the horsemen if they swing their weapon. The problem is that they do not swing it, which means that the proximity of enemy horsemen do not trigger the attac. It is not the animation, it is the triggers. Enemy horsemen is simply switched off as a trigger for attack for axes and billmen.
This is very easy to show. We all know that if an axe unit lets say VG attacked by horsemen they just stand around. Now, I did some test, mixing up spearmen in lose formation with horses in lose formation vs VG. As long as only the horses were close to the VG, the VGs did nothing. However, as soon as the spearmen got close to them they strated swinging their axes, killing both spearmen and horsemen! Obviously, those horse kills were "accidental" so to speak, VG hitting the horse instead of the spearman they aimed for. However, it shows that:
1, axemen have the animations, there is nothing wrong with that
2, axemen can kill a horseman if they attack.
They do nothing not because of the lack of animations but because cavalry is switched off as a trigger for attack. (VGs were just walking between the horses as if walking in a forest searching for spearmen, they were practicaly ignoring horses.)
The next obvious question is that why is this so? Why cavs switched off as target for axemen and billmen? This is where the RPS system and unit balancing comes in and this is why I think it is not a simple bug.
If it were a bug we would expect some kind of random distribution, all kinds of units effected. However if we make list we can see that only the cheap armourpiercing units are effected: billmen, axemen, dismounted english/portugese knights.
None of the halberds are effected, none of the spears, none of the swords, etc.
Now what is the chance that a bug (a coding mistake) in each corresponding soldier file would effect all the cheap armourpiercing units and nothing else? In my oppinion it is close to zero.
The only chance is if these soldier files, or references have some other files in them which are shared between a given unit type, so lets say cheap armourpiercing units all have the same "triggers file".
However, even in this last case the cost of these units suggests that it is not a bug. All of the effected unit types are cheaper than their "counterparts". Billmen are dirt cheap, dismounted english knigths (DEK) are cheaper than other dismounted knights, axemen are cheaper than swordsmen. As others already noted cost is the most reliable indicator of performance. Why would these units be so cheap if they would be useful vs all unit types? Why would DEK be cheaper than dismounted chivalric knights if DEK could do the same? Why would VG be almost half the price than JHI if VG would be equally good vs cavs? The huge difference in price suggest that VG has a definite weakness and the effect is intentional.
Now, what comes is a bit of a guesswork and obviously only CA can confirm or disprove it, however to me this is the only logical explanation. What shall be the weakness of axemen? If anyone here played BI then the answer is obvious: cavalry. The problem is that in BI cav killed axes because: (a) charge, (b) light armour of axemen, (c) pushthrough.
Now in MTW2 the charge effects everyone so it is not a special anti-axe effect. Axes and billmen have lot more armour than in BI. CA obviously tried to discourage pushthrough.
So what else can we do to make cavs strong vs axes? Giving some kind of anti-axe bonus sounds silly. The obvious solution would be to give conditional attack frequencies to axes and bills, like they would attack faster vs inf and slower vs cavs. It seems it is not possible.
So they did the only thing that is possible: switched off cavalry as an attack trigger for axes and billmen.
If this is so then obviously it is crude solution, but again it is intentional and reflected in the price of the given units.
Of course I can be wrong and indeed it can be a bug due to some shared trigger file. Only CA can tell.
However, based on the observations I am still leaning toward
the oppinion that it is not a "random bug".
intersting post - it would be very lame if ca did do what you are suggesting and this "bug" is intentional. it is still a bug in the sense that it is very stupid a game-ruiing with certain factions.
Cheetah: Have you perhaps not looked in descr_skeleton.txt?
The reason it affects all those units, is that they all use the same animation set, as defined by that file.
Heck, I'll just post the relevant piece:
type MTW2_2H_Axe
strike_distances 1.15 1.8 2.8 3.5 4.0
locomotion_table soldier
anim default data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_basepose.cas
;;;Defend
anim eager_defend_lo_stab data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_stab_mid.cas -fr -if:5 -parry -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_stab_mid.evt
anim eager_defend_mid_slashlr_light data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_slash_left.cas -fr -if:6 -evade -prob 10 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_slash_left.evt
anim eager_defend_mid_slashrl_light data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_slash_right.cas -fr -if:8 -evade -prob 10 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_slash_right.evt
anim eager_defend_overhead_stab data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_stab_hi.cas -fr -if:6 -parry -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_defend_stab_hi.evt
;;;Reaction
anim knockback_from_front data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_front.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_front.evt
anim knockback_from_back data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_back.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_back.evt
anim knockback_from_left data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_left.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_left.evt
anim knockback_from_right data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_right.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_from_right.evt
anim knockback_move_from_front data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_front.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_front.evt
anim knockback_move_from_back data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_back.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_back.evt
anim knockback_move_from_left data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_left.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_left.evt
anim knockback_move_from_right data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_right.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockback_move_from_right.evt
anim knockdown_forward_launch data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_launch.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_launch.evt
anim knockdown_forward_lying data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_lying.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_lying.evt
anim knockdown_forward_recover data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_recover.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_forward_recover.evt
anim knockdown_launch data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_launch.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_launch.evt
anim knockdown_lying data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_lying.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_lying.evt
anim knockdown_recover data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_recover.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_knockdown_recover.evt
;;;Death
anim die_forward_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_forward_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_forward_1.evt
anim die_forward_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_forward_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_forward_2.evt
anim die_backward_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_backward_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_backward_1.evt
anim die_backward_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_backward_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_die_backward_2.evt
anim die_falling_cycle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_die_flailing_cycle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_die_flailing_cycle.evt
anim die_falling_end data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_die_flailing_cycle_to_land.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_die_flailing_cycle_to_land.evt
;;;Non-Combat
anim stand_a_idle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_idle.evt
anim stand_a_hf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_a_hf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_a_hf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_hf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_a_lf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_a_lf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_a_lf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_a_lf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_a_to_stand_b data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_stand_B.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_stand_B.evt
anim stand_a_to_stand_c data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_stand_C.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_stand_C.evt
anim stand_a_to_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_walk.evt
anim stand_a_to_run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_run.evt
anim stand_a_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_ready.evt
anim stand_a_to_hide data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_hide.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_hide.evt
anim stand_a_to_climb_up data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_climb_up.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_climb_up.evt
anim stand_a_to_climb_down data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_climb_down.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_to_climb_down.evt
anim stand_a_turn_45_cw_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_45_CCW.cas -mintd:10 -maxtd:68 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_45_CCW.evt
anim stand_a_turn_45_ccw_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_45_CCW.cas -mintd:10 -maxtd:68 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_45_CCW.evt
anim stand_a_turn_90_cw_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_90_CW.cas -mintd:67 -maxtd:115 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_90_CW.evt
anim stand_a_turn_90_ccw_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_90_CCW.cas -mintd:67 -maxtd:115 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_turn_90_CCW.evt
anim step_forward data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_forward.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_forward.evt
anim step_backward data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_backward.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_backward.evt
anim step_left data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_left.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_left.evt
anim step_right data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_right.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_A_step_right.evt
anim taunt_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_1.evt
anim taunt_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_2.evt
anim taunt_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_taunt_3.evt
anim celebrate_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_celebrate_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_celebrate_1.evt
anim celebrate_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_celebrate_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_celebrate_1.evt
anim stand_b_idle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_idle.evt
anim stand_b_hf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_b_hf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_b_hf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_hf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_b_lf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_b_lf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_b_lf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_lf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_b_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_stand_A.evt
anim stand_b_to_stand_c data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_stand_C.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_stand_C.evt
anim stand_b_to_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_walk.evt
anim stand_b_to_run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_run.evt
anim stand_b_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_B_to_ready.evt
anim stand_c_idle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_idle.evt
anim stand_c_hf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_c_hf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_c_hf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_hf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_c_lf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_1.evt
anim stand_c_lf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_2.evt
anim stand_c_lf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_lf_idle_3.evt
anim stand_c_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_stand_A.evt
anim stand_c_to_stand_b data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_stand_B.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_stand_B.evt
anim stand_c_to_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_walk.evt
anim stand_c_to_run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_run.evt
anim stand_c_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stand_C_to_ready.evt
anim ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_idle.evt
anim ready_hf_idle_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_1.evt
anim ready_hf_idle_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_2.evt
anim ready_hf_idle_3 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_3.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_hf_idle_3.evt
anim ready_lf_low_morale_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_low_morale_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_low_morale_1.evt
anim ready_lf_low_morale_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_low_morale_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_low_morale_2.evt
anim ready_lf_high_morale_1 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_high_morale_1.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_high_morale_1.evt
anim ready_lf_high_morale_2 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_high_morale_2.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_lf_high_morale_2.evt
anim ready_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_stand_A.evt
anim ready_to_advance data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_advance.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_advance.evt
anim ready_to_retreat data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_retreat.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_retreat.evt
anim ready_to_combat_jog data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_combat_jog.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_combat_jog.evt
anim ready_to_charge data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_charge.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_to_charge.evt
anim ready_turn_cw_15 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_15CW.cas -mintd:5 -maxtd:30 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_15CW.evt
anim ready_turn_ccw_15 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_15CCW.cas -mintd:5 -maxtd:30
anim ready_turn_cw_45 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_45CW.cas -mintd:29 -maxtd:68 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_45CW.evt
anim ready_turn_ccw_45 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_45CCW.cas -mintd:29 -maxtd:68 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_45CCW.evt
anim ready_turn_cw_90 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_90CW.cas -mintd:67 -maxtd:115 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_90CW.evt
anim ready_turn_ccw_90 data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_90CCW.cas -mintd:67 -maxtd:115 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_ready_turn_90CCW.evt
anim shuffle_left data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_left.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_left.evt
anim shuffle_right data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_right.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_right.evt
anim shuffle_forward data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_forwards.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_forwards.evt
anim shuffle_backward data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_backwards.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_shuffle_backwards.evt
anim walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk.evt
anim walk_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk_to_stand_A.evt
anim walk_to_run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk_to_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_walk_to_run.evt
anim stealthy_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk.cas -fr
anim stealthy_walk_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk_to_stand_A.evt
anim stealthy_walk_to_hide data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk_to_hide.cas -fr
anim stealthy_walk_to_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk_to_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_stealthy_walk_to_walk.evt
anim combat_jog data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog.evt
anim combat_jog_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog_to_ready.evt
anim combat_jog_to_advance data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog_to_advance.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_combat_jog_to_advance.evt
anim run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run.evt
anim run_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_stand_A.evt
anim run_to_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_walk.evt
anim run_to_charge data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_charge.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_run_to_charge.evt
anim advance data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance.evt
anim advance_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance_to_ready.evt
anim advance_to_combat_jog data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance_to_combat_jog.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_advance_to_combat_jog.evt
anim retreat data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_retreat.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_retreat.evt
anim retreat_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_retreat_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_retreat_to_ready.evt
anim charge data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge.evt
anim charge_to_ready data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge_to_ready.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge_to_ready.evt
anim charge_attack data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge_attack.cas -fr -id:-0.235,0.796,1.722 -if:14 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_charge_attack.evt
anim hide data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_hide_idle.cas -fr
anim hide_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_hide_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_hide_to_stand_A.evt
anim hide_to_stealthy_walk data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_hide_to_stealthy_walk.cas -fr
anim climb_up data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_up.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_up.evt
anim climb_down data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_down.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_down.evt
anim climb_up_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_up_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_up_to_stand_A.evt
anim climb_down_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_down_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_down_to_stand_A.evt
anim climb_idle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_climb_idle.cas -fr
;;;swim
anim swim data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim.evt
anim idle_to_swim data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle.cas -fr
anim swim_to_idle data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle.evt
;anim swim_to_swim_idle data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_to_Swim_Idle.cas -fr
anim swim_idle data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle.evt
;anim swim_idle_to_swim data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_idle_to_swim.cas
anim swim_shuffle_forward data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_forward.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_forward.evt
anim swim_shuffle_backward data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_forward.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_forward.evt
anim swim_shuffle_left data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_left.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_left.evt
anim swim_shuffle_right data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_right.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_shuffle_right.evt
;anim swim_attack_1 data/animations/mtw2_knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_swim_attack1.cas -id 0.03, 0.0, 1.11 -if:15
;;;crew requirements
anim stand_a_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_stand_A_to_crew_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_stand_A_to_crew_stand.evt
anim crew_stand_to_stand_a data/animations/MTW2_Knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_crew_stand_to_stand_A.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Knifeman/MTW2_Knifeman_crew_stand_to_stand_A.evt
anim crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_idle.evt
anim crew_stand_to_carry_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_carry_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_carry_stand.evt
anim crew_stand_to_push data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_push.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_push.evt
;anim crew_stand_to_wide_push data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_wide_push.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/carry_and_artillery/Art_17 Stand 2 Push heavy object.evt
anim crew_stand_to_pull data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_pull.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_pull.evt
anim carry_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_idle.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_idle.evt
anim carry_stand_to_carry_walk data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_to_carry_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_to_carry_walk.evt
anim carry_stand_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_to_crew_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_stand_to_crew_stand.evt
anim carry_walk data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_walk.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_walk.evt
anim carry_walk_to_carry_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_walk_to_carry_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_carry_walk_to_carry_stand.evt
anim push data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_push.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_push.evt
anim push_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_push_to_crew_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_push_to_crew_stand.evt
;anim wide_push data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_wide_push.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/carry_and_artillery/Art_18 Push heavy object loop.evt
;anim wide_push_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_wide_push_to_crew_stand.cas -fr
anim pull data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_pull.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_pull.evt
anim pull_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_pull_to_crew_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_pull_to_crew_stand.evt
anim crew_stand_to_raise_hand_1 data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_raise_hand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_crew_stand_to_raise_hand.evt
anim raise_hand_1 data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_raise_hand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_raise_hand.evt
anim raise_hand_1_to_crew_stand data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_raise_hand_to_crew_stand.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_Crew/MTW2_Crew_raise_hand_to_crew_stand.evt
;;;attacks
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_a_push_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_push_fail.cas -fr
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_a_push_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_push_success.cas -fr -id:-0.142,0.469,0.936 -if:13 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_push_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_b_slashlr_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_fail.cas -fr
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_b_slashlr_fatality data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_fatality.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_fatality.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_b_slashlr_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_success.cas -fr -id:0.368,-0.217,1.700 -if:38 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_b_slashlr_victim data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_victim.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v0_victim.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v1_s0_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_A_fail.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_A_fail.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v1_s0_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_A_success.cas -fr -id:-0.403,-0.040,2.012 -if:43 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_A_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v1_s1_stab_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_B_fail.cas -fr
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashlr_v1_s1_stab_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_B_success.cas -fr -id:0.165,0.263,2.189 -if:29 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_2_hit_B_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s0_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_A_fail.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_A_fail.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s0_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_A_success.cas -fr -id:0.115,0.173,1.285 -if:53 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_A_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s1_slashlr_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_B_fail.cas -fr
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s1_slashlr_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_B_success.cas -fr -id:-0.017,0.256,2.557 -if:23 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_B_success.evt
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s2_stab_fail data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_C_fail.cas -fr
anim eager_attack_centre_mid_c_slashrl_s2_stab_success data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_C_success.cas -fr -id:0.134,0.032,1.542 -if:23 -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_attack_3_hit_C_success.evt
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; WEAPONS
type MTW2_2H_Axe_primary
anim default data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/weapon/2h_axe_default.cas
anim stand_a_idle data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/weapon/2h_axe_default.cas
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
type MTW2_Fast_2H_Axe
parent MTW2_2H_Axe
anim default data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_basepose.cas
anim run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_Fast_2H_Axe_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_Fast_2H_Axe_run.evt
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
type MTW2_Slow_2H_Axe
parent MTW2_2H_Axe
anim default data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_2H_Axe_basepose.cas
anim run data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_Slow_2H_Axe_run.cas -fr -evt:data/animations/MTW2_2H_Axe/MTW2_Slow_2H_Axe_run.evt
Cheetah, polaxe armed knigths, norse axemen, berdiche axemen are not cheap units. They are some of the more expensive units in the game, they also have very high upkeep costs. They arent cheap armor piercing infantry, their top of the line troops. There's already a downside for polaxe knights instead of chivalric, they have very low defense. So low it is rather easy to kill them when they get bogged down. That's their downside, without the bugged animation.
Go check out the gold demo, you'll notice that there's a different animation for the 2hd axemen. One that looks ridiculous and one on which a couple reviews poked fun at. More then likely CA made a rush fix on the animation and screwed them vs cavalry.
However, as soon as the spearmen got close to them they strated swinging their axes, killing both spearmen and horsemen!
They didn't attack the cavalry. The swing from the axemen can kill more then one opponent.
So what are all the units affected by this? I've read the whole post but its long as hell, and lusted's mod changes things I don't want changed so could anybody tell me which units I should stop making?
Originally Posted by Lusted
Here is the list of al the bugged 2handed units
Billmen
Heavy Billmen
Bill Militia
Heavy Bill Militia
Norse Axemen
Varangian Guard
Berdiche Axemen
Dismounted English Knights
Dismounted Noble Knights
Dismounted Portugese Knights
Croatian Axemen
Woodsmen
Religious Fanatics (christian)
Somethingwwa's (muslim Jihad religious fanatics with big clubs)
Taberryaa (sp? The egyptian last infantry type)
They all won't swing at cav.
__________________
Kobal2fr
12-15-2006, 08:17
Tolkien-long stuff
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. Think about it in a RPS way : the simple model is fairly straightforward : spears kill cav, cav kill swords, swords kill spears. Archers kill everything, everything kills archers. So where do axes fit in there ?
Now remember : in M2, spears don't kill jack. They've been neutered, either on purpose or not I'm not sure, but the fact remains. Spears kill zilch, spears last long and that's about it, and can only face cav if you deploy them very deep, but then you have to field even MORE of the useless buggers to widen your line. Not cost efficient at all.
So what kills cav ? Well errr...um...cav ? And what else should ? My answer : axes. Since swords kill axes (we know for a fact that DFKs kill DEKs, and both have a very close florin worth), and they don't kill spears that good either, it's the logical role for axes/billhooks. Their high stats and AP bonus ensure that they fight with heavy cav on much fairer ground than swords do once the charge is over, or should if they friggin' striked. Historical as well of course : the billhook was designed to cut horses knees and then pry open the fallen knights like tincans in the first place, wasn't it ?
Polearms (halberds, swordstaves etc...anything that has spearwall-like abilities) fill a slightly different niche, the phalanx niche : they beat pretty much everything from the front, but their flanks and back are defenseless.
This is my conception of things. Of course, it may very well be wrong.
Actually, even with the supposedly uber and unbeatable JHI animation, the Varangian Guard (Best axemen in the game) will lose to any heavy cav if they receive a charge. They could be used to kill engaged cavalry, but that's it.
They crush spearmen though ;)
Cheetah, polaxe armed knigths, norse axemen, berdiche axemen are not cheap units. They are some of the more expensive units in the game, they also have very high upkeep costs. They arent cheap armor piercing infantry, their top of the line troops. There's already a downside for polaxe knights instead of chivalric, they have very low defense. So low it is rather easy to kill them when they get bogged down. That's their downside, without the bugged animation.
Go check out the gold demo, you'll notice that there's a different animation for the 2hd axemen. One that looks ridiculous and one on which a couple reviews poked fun at. More then likely CA made a rush fix on the animation and screwed them vs cavalry.
They didn't attack the cavalry. The swing from the axemen can kill more then one opponent.
I did a little reading BigTex, and I am wrong on the weight of the axes used at the time. I was assuming that most metals used in the earlier periods would have been heavier, but apparently smithing techniques weren't as primative as I had assumed.
Just one note though, I think that bedirche axemen cost around 380 florins. That would make them one of the cheaper units.
Actually, even with the supposedly uber and unbeatable JHI animation, the Varangian Guard (Best axemen in the game) will lose to any heavy cav if they receive a charge. They could be used to kill engaged cavalry, but that's it.
Cavalry can wipe out most units with a charge, even mailed knights can wipe out JHI with a single charge.
Actually, even with the supposedly uber and unbeatable JHI animation, the Varangian Guard (Best axemen in the game) will lose to any heavy cav if they receive a charge. They could be used to kill engaged cavalry, but that's it.
Cavalry can wipe out most units with a charge, even mailed knights can wipe out JHI with a single charge.
Heinrich VI
12-15-2006, 12:43
does your lands to conquer mod include the fix for 2-handed weapons lusted?
i plan to use it for my next campaign together with shaba wangys diplomacy mod.
Yes it does, but i would suggest you wait for 1.2 of my mod to come out, as it will feature more improvements and the latest version of shabas campaign ai/diplomacy mod improvements in it.
Here's a copy of a post, with a few edits, that I made on a thread at .com and twcenter:
Personally, I don't think Lusted's mod (v1.1) really does the trick - no offense intended of course.
Making their animations work is essential, but lowering stats by the amount he has is bound to have massive ramifications in other areas. For instance, it's been shown to affect autoresolving results which in turn will affect AI to AI battles, majorly nerfing England. Will the AI even recruit them with their lower stats?
The best fix I've found for me is a compromise. I've settled on using the 2 handed sword animation (Highland_Nobles) for all broken 2 handed axe units. The main reason for this is it's slower and far less lethal than the Halberd or JHI animations whilst still working against cavalry. The animation doesn't look out of place either. Of top of this, to counter their new-found effectiveness (they also have the armour piercing ability!), I've lowered their stats by small amounts which are proportional to the initial value. For example, DEKs, DNKs and VGs having the highest attack values of 21 and 20, have each had 4 taken off their attack. Billmen having only 13 or 15 for attack have had 2 removed. The "in betweens" e.g. Berdiche Axemen, Norse Axemen, Croat Axes, etc, have each had 3 taken off their attacks.
This seems to work nicely in my tests and with all two handed swords and axe units now using the same animation, the game feels fairer and more balanced. That to me, is the best fix. You mileage may vary of course. One thing to remember is the two-handers don't have shields and thus their achilles heel remains heavy barrage of missiles and of course also a well timed cavalry charge.
The list of bugged 2-handed axe units is:
Varangian Guard
Tabardariyya
Berdiche Axemen
Dismounted English Knights
Dismounted Noble Knights
Dismounted Portuguese Knights
All Billmen units
Norse Axemen
Free Company Men at Arms
Galloglaich
Woodsmen
Croatian Axemen
And possibly:
Mutatawwi'a
Religious Fanatics
Okay, I know I am a nubee at all this Modding stuff, but I could really do with some help.
Here is what I have changed in the Unit.txt folder with regards to all bugged 2H units:
type Heavy Billmen
dictionary Heavy_Billmen ; Heavy Billmen
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Janissary_Heavy_Inf, 48, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 15, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 1.33
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 3, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 7, 8, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 5, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 300, 150, 75, 55, 300, 4, 70
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Heavy_Billmen, Heavy_Billmen_ug1
ownership england
era 2 england
;unit_info 15, 0, 10
In Bold are the only things I have altered. Yet when I do a custom battle the Billmen still get nailed by Cav and just stand there accepting their mortality. Do I need to add a Spear bonus in the stat_pri_attr ap?
Or what else do I need to do?
Many thanks in advance.
Lusted where can I find Paz Vega... errrr .... I mean your... mod ?
Lusted where can I find Paz Vega... errrr .... I mean your... mod ?
Below his Sig
JFC: You know about the whole mod switch system yes?
Yeah I do know about this.
But I ran the unpacker and just altered the normal M2 Unit.txt file in the Data folder. Then just ran the game normally.
Is this where I am going wrong then?
Yes... You can't do it that way any more, it has to be run as a mod from a mod folder...
Eltharon
12-15-2006, 21:33
Another easy way to switch between mods in using the MedManager program. I think there's a link to it on this site, and i know theres one at twcenter. It effectivly does the mod folder thing, but since its a program desgined to do it, its much easier on the user.
Eltharon
12-15-2006, 22:08
Quick update: I ran some testing and it seems that the T-however they're spelled (the egyptian axemen) arent bugged. I ran some mailed knights into them and the knights got absolutly slaughtered. Maybe we should use that animation rather then JHI or Highlanders
Personally, i think it's great that animations are now a factor (and a big one, so it seems) for determining the actual effectiveness of any given unit. This adds a whole new dimension, and opens the door to a lot of possibilities.
Now, the part that is not so great is that this new feature was not supported by a similarly complete summary of the unit, and got the same old stats summary we had in the previous TW games. This worked just fine before, because the level of complexity in the unit summary and in the actual battlefield matched completely.
Clearly, this is not the case anymore: Actual battlefield effectiveness calculations are far mor complex than the report we get in the campaign map. This leads to the apparent 'conflicts' between what it is expected from the unit, based on the stats, and what happens in the battles. Our expectations are based on the campaign map report, that is understandable; and when we see the real performance doesn't match what we wore told, it's also understandable to see some frustration.
My point is: with the addition of animations as a real factor, rather than just an appearance stuff, a new way of reporting effectiveness should have been implemented as well. If stats alone did not describe the full performance, then we should not be given just the stats information to make our decisions. I would like to see qualitative ranges (Something in the fashion of MTW stats: excellent, very good, good, weak, very weak...) that took into account the animation factor, the stats AND any other meaningful factor(how? i have no clue, sorry~:(). If this could be made for the expansion, it would be great (i think this would not be an easy thing to do, certainly not something that could be reasonably expected to be in a patch)
Bottom line is: I don't want to see meaningless numbers, but accurate appreciations
Eltharon
12-16-2006, 01:15
Yeah, that would be nice, but I don't see CA or SEGA doing it.
Also, turns out that Tabardariyya animations don't work. Apparently my first test was a fluke. Crap.
Cheetah: Have you perhaps not looked in descr_skeleton.txt?
The reason it affects all those units, is that they all use the same animation set, as defined by that file.
Heck, I'll just post the relevant piece:
No I have not looked into those files, thx for posting the relevant piece. However, I have some doubts/questions: do billmen use the same set of animations?
Also, as I said I think the problem is not with the animations but with the triggers. There has to be a file which describes the relevant conditions under wich an attack (hence an attack animation) is triggered. I think that you (we) should find this file (I looked into the code you posted but could not find anything that would refer to triggers, but I could be wrong).
Cheetah, polaxe armed knigths, norse axemen, berdiche axemen are not cheap units.
Well, norse axemen do not fit the pattern, but NA seems to be unbalanced anyway as they get beaten up by DCK and even by VG. However, all the other units are cheaper than their sword/halberd weileding "counterparts". Polaxe armed knigths cheaper than DCK, VG cheaper than swords, and berdiche axemen is one of the cheapest axemen in the game.
They didn't attack the cavalry. The swing from the axemen can kill more then one opponent.
I know, that is why I said in the next sentence that these kills were "accidental". ~;) But IMO it still shows that they can kill cavalry if they swing.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. Think about it in a RPS way : the simple model is fairly straightforward : spears kill cav, cav kill swords, swords kill spears. Archers kill everything, everything kills archers. So where do axes fit in there ?
MTW2 is a new game, it need not fit the simple model ~;) I do not know why everyone assumes that all TW games should fit the simplest cav/sword/spear/arcerhs RPS system and nothing else is feasible.
Now remember : in M2, spears don't kill jack. They've been neutered, either on purpose or not I'm not sure, but the fact remains. Spears kill zilch, spears last long and that's about it, and can only face cav if you deploy them very deep, but then you have to field even MORE of the useless buggers to widen your line. Not cost efficient at all.
They do kill pinned down cavs very fast. You have to stop the charge with something else but once you did spears kill cavs.
So what kills cav ? Well errr...um...cav ?
Yes, and spears, and archers, and musketeers, and pikes, and halberds, and javelins and cav archers ... we have a few units here right?
and what else should ? My answer : axes.
Well could be I am not saying that the game cannot be balanced this way. However in BI cav was counter to axes (though not pinned cav) so seems logical if they wanted to continue this line of logic.
Since swords kill axes (we know for a fact that DFKs kill DEKs, and both have a very close florin worth), and they don't kill spears that good either, it's the logical role for axes/billhooks. Their high stats and AP bonus ensure that they fight with heavy cav on much fairer ground than swords do once the charge is over, or should if they friggin' striked. Historical as well of course : the billhook was designed to cut horses knees and then pry open the fallen knights like tincans in the first place, wasn't it ?
Lets not confuse billmen with axes. Also billmen are quite useful as they are, dirt cheap and they can kill swords/spears. I understand though that this system is highly counterintuitive.
Well Billmen were both historically and in the unit's description meant to be counters to cavalry. Perhaps not the charge, but certainly after that. The bill was just a different version of the halberd, it's use and effect was much the same. Just not here, which is rather odd.
Rurik the Chieftain
12-16-2006, 17:17
IMHO, the purpose and strength of 2h axe units is in the shock troops/flanking role. Unlike sword and shield armed heavy infantry, they should lack enough defense to make them a wise choice to commit to the front line. Their strength should lie in their offensive power. Use them to flank pinned units, or fill gaps in a line, where they will be able to focus on killing everything with their axes without being attacked back. The stat blocks are tailored to fit this tactic. They are cheaper because they must be used with more finesse than crashing them head on with the enemy, and CA seems to place more value on armor than attack. Units like VG will charge and cause heavy casualties. It's just when they engage in melee that their bugged animations prevent them from doing their job. Of course, all this comes with their current bugged inability to attack cavalry. There is really no reason for this, historical or not.
The so called RPS model is a bit more complicated than spears beat cav, swords beat spears, cav beat swords etc. You have to take into account who is attacking, who is defending, unit cohesion and formation, and all sorts of other stuff.
Also in my opinion, halberds and the like should be like weaker (maybe more heavily armored) axemen with the ability to form anti cav spear walls and maybe a bonus. This would express their hybrid purpose and design. Too bad the anti cavalry spear effect isn't working too well either. Currently, units like JHI and Obudshaers are overly powerful against infantry, without having really any disadvantages. Why did they have to put the power in the animations and not tell us anything about it?
Eltharon, Musashi and of course LUSTED.
Cheers all for your help. I finally managed to alter my 2 handed chaps. They now kill cav with elegance.
Cheers. If any of ya want a Sig like mine or any help with photoshop stuff for Modding, don't hesitiate to ask!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.