View Full Version : Research - Armor Upgrades Work Properly
I don't know if this debate was already settled previously, but if not - I've just done some tests which confirm that the Armor Upgrades function properly, it is merely the numbering in the unit descriptions which is incorrect.
For those unfamiliar with the question at hand. Armour is in 7 levels.
Lvl 0 = Flesh, 0 defense
Lvl 1 = Leather/Padded, 4 defense
Lvl 2 = Light Mail/Chain, 6 defense
Lvl 3 = Heavy Mail/Breastplate, 7 defense
Lvl 4 = Partial Plate, 8 defense
Lvl 5 = Full Plate, 10 defense
Lvl 6 = Advanced Plate, 11 defense
Now, this means that when you upgrade the armour on a light unit - from say lvl 0 to lvl 1, you should notice a 4 point increase in defense. However, the ingame description will only show you a 1 point increase. Thus, the question becomes, is the proper armour value being used, and not reported correctly - or is the game using the value shown and causing units to not benefit fully from armor upgrades?
In all tests I used Normal unit size, Medium difficulty, a single unit of player controlled Desert Archers firing upon a unit of computer controlled Pikemen, and the Grassy Plains map. Nothing was clicked, I de-selected Skirmish mode before starting the battle, then allowed the archers to fire upon the pikemen until melee was reached, at which point I exited battle and recorded pikemen remaining...
Test 1: Desert Archers vs. unaltered Pike Militia (Defense vs Arrows: 0)
Battle I: 21, Battle II: 31, Battle III: 33, Battle IV: 30, Battle V: 22, Average: 27.4
Test 2: Desert Archers vs. gold armour upgrade Pike Militia (Defense vs Arrows Listed: 3, Proper Defense vs Arrows: 7)
Battle I: 41, Battle II: 48, Battle III: 50, Battle IV: 45, Battle V: 41, Average: 45
Difference: 17.6
Test 3: Desert Archers vs. unaltered Tercio Pikemen (Defense vs Arrows: 0)
Battle I: 24, Battle II: 22, Battle III: 21, Battle IV: 16, Battle V: 29, Average: 22.4
Test 4: Desert Archers vs. silver armour upgrade Tercio Pikemen (Defense vs Arrows Listed: 2, Proper Defense vs Arrows: 7)
Battle I: 40, Battle II: 46, Battle III: 49, Battle IV: 40, Battle V: 47, Average: 44.4
Difference: 22
Test 5: Desert Archers vs. unit file altered Pike Militia (Defense vs. Arrows: 3)
Battle I: 37, Battle II: 36, Battle III: 38, Battle IV: 37, Battle V: 28, Average: 35.2
Difference from Test 1: 7.8
Difference from Test 2: 9.8
Adding three points to the Pike Militia directly gave results in-between the unaltered Pike Militia and the upgraded Pike Militia. Clearly then, the upgrade raised the armour of the Pike Militia by 7 points, not 3. Also, it is plain that upgrading the Tercio Pikemen resulted in an additional 7 points of defense, not 2. Two points of defense is not sufficient to explain an average difference of 22 men in the time it takes a pike unit to close to melee.
The results are clear to me. If anyone disagrees, please do your own tests and post them.
FURTHER CONFIRMATION:
1 unit of pike militia (player) vs 1 unit of peasant archers (computer)
normal unit sizes. grassy plain, 3 sets of 10 tests. archer's ammo capacity reduced to 10. pike militia taken out of spear wall and defensive stance. clear weather for all tests.
Set 1, unmodified pike militia with 3 armor upgrades. (armor stats says 3, should be 7)
Men Remaining
test 1= 57, test 2= 50, test 3=52, test 4= 50, test 5=50, test 6=53, test 7=46, test 8=54, test 9=56, test 10=51.
average men remaining= 51.9
Set 2, modified pike militia with armor stat set to 8, no armor upgrades. (armor stat 8)
test 1=55, test 2=55, test 3=61, test 4=57, test 5=56, test 6=54, test 7=54, test 8=55, test 9=57, test 10=63
average men remaining= 56.7
a difference of 4.8
Set 3, modified pike militia with armor stat set to 3, no upgrades. (armor stat 3)
test 1=47, test 2=46, test 3=46, test 4=44, test 5=45, test 6=46, test 7=44, test 8=48, test 9=46, test 10=47
average men remaining 45.8
which is 6.1 men less than the unmodded upgraded pikemen.
clearly the upgraded pikemen are performing better than their stats reflect
Alright, I've set out to settle this stupid debate. In the first test, we have longbows vs italian militia modded to have 7 armour. The second will feature italian militia (copied a second time into the file w/ a tweaked name) modified to have 0 armour and given 3 armour upgrades, which the OP has speculated should confer them the same 7 armour the first unit has. Results follow.
7 armour unit losses:
35
36
36
31
30
---
168
3 upgrade, 0 armour unit losses:
27
36
35
35
34
---
167
As anyone can readily see, this result cannot in any way be explained if the armour upgrades only grant +1 each, as the unit stat sheet says they do. The units suffered practically identical losses, which is extremely strong evidence that the OPs assertion is the correct one: the armour upgrades function exactly as they are described by type (4 for leather, etc), and not as the stat sheet reports them as simple plus 1s for any given upgrade. As it turns out this makes the leather shop a ridiculously important upgrade since it adds a full +4 to all applicable units.
All battles Very Hard difficulty, Spanish plains at midday with clear weather. All done with unmodified M2Tw with me controlling the non-missile unit. All tests done v peasant archers.
Units tested were Billmen, Berdiche Axemen, Heavy Billmen.
They have the following armour levels:
Billmen:
Flesh(0)
Leather/Padded(4)
Light Mail(5)
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5)
Heavy Mail(7)
Partial Plate(9)
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7)
Partial Plate(9)
So there is an overlap between the different armour levels to see whether armour upgrades do give more than the +1 indicated on the unit card.
Test results(number is men remaining):
Billmen:
Flesh(0) 3 8 4 6 4 Average 5
Leather/Padded(4) 22 14 15 18 26 Average 19
Light Mail(5) 34 28 41 38 36 Average 35.4
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5) 40 37 33 30 34 Average 34.8
Heavy Mail(7) 62 60 55 58 59 Average 58.8
Partial Plate(9) 74 81 85 76 79 Average 79
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7) 59 64 63 56 54 Average 59.2
Partial Plate(9) 82 78 82 85 79 Average 81.2
So as you can see Berdiche Axemen unupgraded, and Billmen with level 2 upgrade have basically the same amount of men left, which is what should happen as both have the same armour level.
Same with Berdiche Axemen level 1 upgrade and Heavy Billmen, and Berdiche Axemen level 2 upgrade and Heavy Billmen level 1 upgrade.
So armour upgrades are working properly, just an incorrect value is shown on the unit cards.
Here some test results of mine. Firing unit was peasent archers, target was scots pike militia, with arrows modified to have 25% accurracy all the time and only 6 volleys of ammo.
Armour Silver Upgrade, Basic 0
12
10
12
13
12
Total Kills: 59
Armour Basic 5
19
14
17
13
16
Total Kills: 79
Whilst it tells us somthing weird, (Silver armour upgrade is more effective than 5 armour in the EDU file), Regardless it proves beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that armour upgrades ARE NOT just +1 per level.
Ok, i finished with my tests. What i found? There IS something behind armor upgrades. I can definitelly confirm, that armor upgrades adds a bonus to the upgraded unit.
pevergreen
02-20-2007, 09:28
Now, this means that when you upgrade the armour on a light unit - from say lvl 0 to lvl 1, you should notice a 4 point increase in defense. However, the ingame description will only show you a 1 point increase. Thus, the question becomes, is the correct armour value being used, and not reported correctly - or is the game using the reported value and causing units to not benefit fully from armor upgrades?
If its being reported wrong, thats great. But experience from myself is that it's being reported correctly.
well... the tests I just did are right there... I think the results are pretty clear - what numbers have you gotten that make you think differently?
Random point SMZ, Terrico pikes have 0 armour normally, so they have no missile defence without upgrades. so Silver Armour Terrico pikes should have a lower armour value than Gold Pike Militia, a much BETTER way to check would be to re-run the first Pike Militia test, but with them altered inn the EDU file to have 7 armour defence.
Lastly, your armour typ listing is wrong, it should be:
Lvl 0 = Flesh, 0 defense
Lvl 1 = Leather/Padded, 4 defense
Lvl 2 = Light Mail, 5/8 defense
Lvl 3 = Heavy Mail, 7/8 defense
Lvl 4 = Partial Plate, 7/9 defense
Lvl 5 = Full Plate, 9/10 defense
Lvl 6 = Advanced Plate, 10/11 defense
In fact I don't think their IS a standered value for ANY of the armour levels, they all have variances, just look through the western Knights at the top of the EDU file and see how many are wrong.
lol, I know the txt file is very inconsistent, but that's what the values are listed as supposed to be, in my own txt file I went thru and manually set each unit to the correct numbers, although on mine I put full plate at 10 instead of 9
secondly, it's true, I forgot that defense skill doesn't count to dodging arrows, however that doesn't alter the conclusion at all... if the Tercios only received 2 points of armor from being upgraded to silver, why would they all of a sudden have 23 fewer casualties? That's not a 2 point difference... that's a 7 point difference... as it is supposed to be.
Nonetheless, I'll run the test you suggest with the Pike Militia first altered to have an armor rating of 3 and then an armor rating of 7
secondly, it's true, I forgot that defense skill doesn't count to dodging arrows, however that doesn't alter the conclusion at all... if the Tercios only received 2 points of armor from being upgraded to silver, why would they all of a sudden have 23 fewer casualties? That's not a 2 point difference... that's a 7 point difference... as it is supposed to be
Good, point, would still be intresting to see the result though.
lol, I know the txt file is very inconsistent, but that's what the values are listed as supposed to be, in my own txt file I went thru and manually set each unit to the correct numbers, although on mine I put full plate at 10 instead of 9
Ahh, right, fair enough.
FactionHeir
02-20-2007, 14:33
Arrows are a very random factor, unless you change their accuracy to near 100%. They miss more the less soldiers remain in a unit.
You probably want to run your test in a melee situation with defense values set to 0.
Arrows are a very random factor
the grouping of my results says they are reliable enough... the results in the tests are pretty consistent
and I did arrows because it removes one less variable from the testing - if I do a melee contest, then the rate at which the enemy kills me also affects how quickly I kill him, the rate at which both units are swinging, the location of the generals, etc, etc, etc - all come into play.... arrows makes for a much easier measurement... but lemme go do the new manual alter tests
alright, I went back and did two more tests on the upgraded Tercios to finish that set of five, and then I did 5 tests on Pike Militia which I'd altered in the unit file with 3 points of armour....
as I was hypothesizing, the results landed in between - it's clear therefore that the armor is working correctly
Actually I'm going to guess that any tests done previously probably were borked due to the shield bug... there would've been no way to tell what was going wrong until ppl knew about that - undoubtably leading to all sorts of weird results
Thats, most intresting, thanks for that.
I just wish I knew how to make it say the right thing now...
oh, and as I was fixing the armor numbers earlier today I was thinking, I bet a lot of ppl would like having this cleaned up... but since I can't even remember all the other little tweaks I've done, I can't just upload my file for ppl to get =/
pat the magnificent
02-20-2007, 16:17
I just did some tests and I'm sorry to say, I'm absolutely certain your conclusion is incorrect.
here's the test...
1 unit of pike militia (player) vs 1 unit of peasant archers (computer)
normal unit sizes. grassy plain, 2 sets of 10 tests. archer's ammo capacity reduced to 10. pike militia taken out of spear wall and defensive stance. clear weather for all tests.
Set 1, unmodified pike militia with 3 armor upgrades. (armor stats says 3)
Men Remaining
test 1= 57, test 2= 50, test 3=52, test 4= 50, test 5=50, test 6=53, test 7=46, test 8=54, test 9=56, test 10=51.
average men remaining= 51.9
set 2, modified pike militia with armor stat set to 8, no armor upgrades. (armor stat says 8)
test 1=55, test 2=55, test 3=61, test 4=57, test 5=56, test 6=54, test 7=54, test 8=55, test 9=57, test 10=63
average men remaining= 56.7
a difference of 4.8
considering that the armor stat difference is only 5, I'd say thats fairly significant and isn't likely the result of a statistical anomaly.
conclusion= the armor upgrading system not only appears screw up, its also functionally screwed up. i wish it weren't so, but it is.
Actually your tests confirm armour upgrades work, as a 3 armour upgrade unit of pike militia should have a defense of 7, despite only 3 being shown on the unit card. So having a difference of 4.8 between them and a unit of pike militia with their defense set to 8 is about right.
pat the magnificent
02-20-2007, 16:46
I'm rethinking my conclusions, i just ran a third set of tests.
modified pike militia with armor manually set to 3. no upgrades
results as follows
47, 46, 46, 44, 45, 46, 44, 48, 46, 47
average men remaining 45.8
which is 6.1 men greater than the unmodded upgraded pikemen.
clearly the upgraded pikemen are performing better than their stats reflect
pat the magnificent
02-20-2007, 16:48
here's another question that needs to be posed, what value does the autocalc engine use, the real defence value, or the displayed defence value?
here's another question that needs to be posed, what value does the autocalc engine use, the real defence value, or the displayed defence value?
We've been told that the autocalc engine uses the same mechanics as the battlefield does, so it is reasonable to assume anything you find out about the battlefield engine applies similarly to autocalc. This may not always be the case, but it's generally supposed to be so we should assume they mirror each other in the absence of contradicting evidence.
As for the find, I'm glad someone finally took the time to do it. In truth I had actually forgotten this issue was still hanging around. I would point out though, SMZ, that if you speculate that a given upgrade makes the unit have 7 defense, then the way to prove this is not really to modify it to 3 in the EDU and note that the results seem better with the upgrade - it's to set the unit to 7 in the EDU and more or less prove that you get identical results. That way you're not just generalizing by saying the upgrades do more than the sheet says, you're actually quantifying the value it does apply.
In other news, now I find myself wondering if each armor upgrade adds a base value (i.e. an armor bonus) or if it actually replaces the value the unit listed with the given value for the set of armor it's been upgraded to. That is, there are two real possibilities I see, and am curious which is used. Let's look at lvl 1, leather/padded:
1. Any affected unit has its armor value replaced by a 4 in the calculation.
2. Any affected unit has 4 added to it's armor value in the calculations, because leather has value 4 and no armor has value 0, so 4-0 is +4 armor.
The main thing that has me concerned, then, is the shield fix - if the values are replaced instead of given as a bonus, then shield fixed units actually take an armor penalty for achieving their first armor upgrade. It would probably have been easier to code as a bonus from a lookup table, but one never knows...
@Foz: It's got to be an addition because not all units have the same Armour value at a given Armour level in vanilla, so if it was fixed you'd get the same issue you describe possibly happening with the shield fix.
Guys, Darth did good research about animation files, and i can confirm that in vanila game there is nothing that links unit look to unit resistance. All units have the same values used.
Standard values are -0.090000004 0 0 -0.34999999 0.80000001 0.60000002
where
-0.090000004 = min effective pitch for left hand (animation node)
0 = max effective pitch for left hand (animation node)
0 = max effective pitch for right hand (animation node)
-0.34999999 = min effective pitch for right hand (animation node)
0.80000001 = probably works as an attack modifier for the skeleton (The bigger the more)
0.60000002 = probably works as a defense modifier for the skeleton (The bigger the less)
Same line is applied for armor upgrades. so there is no secret system that links unit look with armor protection.
I cannot help but feel Darth is wrong in this matter given what the test results show.
Guys, its not that hard to test it... just remove shield value from spearmens and put italian militia against seargant spearmen with bronze upgrade. In your teory, they should have same protection - leather, but Italian with armor 4 will kill seargants with much lower looses than if they had armor 1 or 2 or 3 or anything...
As i wrote on TW, try Point Blank EDU with shieldfix, it clearly shows, that armor upgrades gave +1 point only, and unit with +1 benefit will have advantage. That EDU is the most balanced EDU for M2TW yet.
Italian Militia are better in close combat then sergeant spearmen. You need to test both of them against missile troops.
Not just that, but their are a hell of a lot of other factors going on in melee that can bugger things up quite badly. Missile tests are the only ones where you can draw accurrate conclushions in this case.
Lusted, Point Blank even created his own armor classes, he has 12 upgrade levels instead of vanila 6. Burrek created lots of new units, Darth modified animation factors, with all that below, if there is any background system behind, it should definitelly screw those mods with faulty battle results.Opposite is true. I got realistic results when i used that EDU - Dismounted knights were able to do a lot of damage to low quality units,but were innefective against units in heavy armor because sword is not very good at fighting somebody in Plate... Spear units without armor upgrade were beaten by same type upgraded units ... try it! and you will see it. many mods are starting to implement that system (ask Re Berengario f.e...)
And yet im not as the evidence points to armour upgrades working correctly in M2Tw without Darths fiddling around with a number no one really understands, or knows how it works.
Missile damage is working differently. I had looses even if i lovered missile attack to 1 and left unit to be under arrow fire...(not big thou) Shield is not working as it should, it has just 9 degree coverage. + it decrease armor value in melee.
Yes shields are not working correctly. Why do you think the tests in regards to armour upgrades have been done using shieldess units?
If you remember, i send you an IM to ask developers about that. I posted same question on Totalwar.com forum and i was told that there is no backbround system behind armor upgrades. It was planned, but something went wrong, so they removed it.
You asked me about an unused stat line in the export_descr_unit.txt file. At the time i knew people had been testing the armour upgrade system, but there had been no definitive test results due to the shield bug. Now there are definitive test results.
Because i did lots of tests with all kind of units. I had a big disscusion about that with TimeCommander Bob few mounths ago (at that time we didnt know anything about shield bug) he did all his tests using melee, I used missiles.His tests show that italian militia has same resistance that unit with upgrade armor 1 - leather, but shield substracted -6 from protection.
I tested pikes and billmens, and my tests show that unit with armor 1 is worse that unit in armor 2 and unit in armor 3 etc... no mather whic armor level unit had.
Units have mortality factor 0.6 right now, so even if unit has no armor at all it will not die immediatelly if hit. (it ignore 40% of hits)
Units have mortality factor 0.6 right now, so even if unit has no armor at all it will not die immediatelly if hit. (it ignore 40% of hits)
Im guessing CA set it as that because of the armour system that is in game, and is working based on the test results shown here. I'll go and do some tests if you want to see if i can reproduce the results the opening poster got.
Lusted, you can still chceck that message i send to you, it was really about explanation how armor upgrade works. I can resend it to you if you already deleted it
Try this, use archers against Billmen with 0,1,2,3 upgrade and then do the same against Heavy Billmen.(plate armor)
Well i've found a pm from you asking me to ask the CA devs how it works. No explanation or anything.
For more information about Point Blank EDU check this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82671
FactionHeir
02-20-2007, 18:58
Another thought.
Ever tried peasants with 7 armor and nothing else vs an upgraded pike unit with true armor of 7 (unit card may show something else) vs a missile unit with 7 armor and nothing else?
It could well be that the type of unit may react differently?
You can have different results due to a different formations units use. Arrows are not that good for tests, lots of them didnt hit anything. I suggest use crossbows for tests, (ofcourse remove AP ability...) and use very low attack values. if you will use damage 1, unit with armor 7 should be quite resistant, right? much more than unit with armor 1...
Well i've found a pm from you asking me to ask the CA devs how it works. No explanation or anything.
Yea, because at that time, there was lots of unknown, so i wanted you to ask them if there is any background system behind armor upgrades.
Well im almost half way through my tests,and everything points to armour upgrade system working properly despite what the unit card says. I'll post the full test results when im done.
Alright, I've set out to settle this stupid debate. In the first test, we have longbows vs italian militia modded to have 7 armour. The second will feature italian militia (copied a second time into the file w/ a tweaked name) modified to have 0 armour and given 3 armour upgrades, which the OP has speculated should confer them the same 7 armour the first unit has. Results follow.
7-armour unit losses:
35
36
36
31
30
---
168
3 upgrade 0 armour unit losses:
27
36
35
35
34
---
167
As anyone can readily see, this result cannot in any way be explained if the armour upgrades only grant +1 each, as the unit stat sheet says they do. The units suffered practically identical losses, which is extremely strong evidence that the OPs assertion is the correct one: the armour upgrades function exactly as they are described by type (4 for leather, etc), and not as the stat sheet reports them as simple plus 1s for any given upgrade. As it turns out this makes the leather shop a ridiculously important upgrade since it adds a full +4 to all applicable units.
Why dont you ask developers about that, they can confirm it or deny it, everything will be clear after that...
Alright, I've set out to settle this stupid debate. In the first test, we have longbows vs italian militia modded to have 7 armour. The second will feature italian militia (copied a second time into the file w/ a tweaked name) modified to have 0 armour and given 3 armour upgrades, which the OP has speculated should confer them the same 7 armour the first unit has. Results follow.
7-armour unit losses:
35
36
36
31
30
---
168
3 upgrade 0 armour unit losses:
27
36
35
35
34
---
167
As anyone can readily see, this result cannot in any way be explained if the armour upgrades only grant +1 each, as the unit stat sheet says they do. The units suffered practically identical losses, which is extremely strong evidence that the OPs assertion is the correct one: the armour upgrades function exactly as they are described by type (4 for leather, etc), and not as the stat sheet reports them as simple plus 1s for any given upgrade. As it turns out this makes the leather shop a ridiculously important upgrade since it adds a full +4 to all applicable units.
Well im almost half way through my tests,and everything points to armour upgrade system working properly despite what the unit card says. I'll post the full test results when im done.
Did you removed the shields?
In my tests, im doing billmen, berdiche axemen and heavy bilmen, all upgrade levels. All units without shields.
FOZ: As i told, i'm using EDU with 12 armor levels. Developers had just 6. that would mean PB levels are not hardcoded,so how do you explain that they actually work?
About your test: Longbow has AP arrow, that means only half of armor counts, so 3.5+6 vs 1.5+6 is not that big difference, especially if 40% hits are ignored.
To test it correctly you need to remove all special abilities as AP bonus, because they a re creating a lot of confusions.
Try that metod i mentioned earlier : arrow damage 1, unit with armor 4 leather, unit with armor 1 (after upgrade to leather), that means damage 1 needs to overcome 4times greater prottection than against 1.
Here are my test results.
All battles Very Hard difficulty, Spanish plains at midday with clear weather. All done with unmodified M2Tw with me controlling the non-missile unit. All tests done v peasant archers.
Units tested were Billmen, Berdiche Axemen, Heavy Billmen.
They have the following armour levels:
Billmen:
Flesh(0)
Leather/Padded(4)
Light Mail(5)
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5)
Heavy Mail(7)
Partial Plate(9)
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7)
Partial Plate(9)
So there is an overlap between the different armour levels to see whether armour upgrades do give more than the +1 indicated on the unit card.
Test results(number is men remaining):
Billmen:
Flesh(0) 3 8 4 6 4 Average 5
Leather/Padded(4) 22 14 15 18 26 Average 19
Light Mail(5) 34 28 41 38 36 Average 35.4
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5) 40 37 33 30 34 Average 34.8
Heavy Mail(7) 62 60 55 58 59 Average 58.8
Partial Plate(9) 74 81 85 76 79 Average 79
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7) 59 64 63 56 54 Average 59.2
Partial Plate(9) 82 78 82 85 79 Average 81.2
So as you can see Berdiche Axemen unupgraded, and Billmen with level 2 upgrade have basically the same amount of men left, which is what should happen as both have the same armour level.
Same with Berdiche Axemen level 1 upgrade and Heavy Billmen, and Berdiche Axemen level 2 upgrade and Heavy Billmen level 1 upgrade.
So armour upgrades are working properly, just an incorrect value is shown on the unit cards.
Did you removed the shields?
Yes. As I invented the shield fix, my units have been without shields since the first version of said fix was out. Sorry I didn't make that explicitly clear, but you can assume it's always the case when I test.
Very nice testing Lusted. I call that... definitive. I now consider the matter closed, as there's a mountain of evidence that it works correctly and only unfounded comments suggesting it does not.
But hey... it's nice that the armor upgrades do in fact work like they are supposed to.
As for your 12 levels of upgrades, JaM... I'm gonna guess that they're whacked out beyond belief. Your first 6 levels may in fact give the bonuses that the 6 levels in the vanilla game are supposed to give (which are wildly different than just +1)... and who knows if your top 6 levels work at all, and in what amount. I suppose this is what happens when people go about changing things before they actually know how they operate.
Of course it's also possible that when a different number of levels are used, the game ignores the predetermined setting of what the values of the levels should be, but I certainly wouldn't count on that.
thanks muchly Pat, Foz & Lusted for confirming my results
the reason I didn't go back and mod the pike militia to 7 armor, was just I was getting tired of testing, and I thought the testing I'd already done was sufficient, lol - I know it wasn't scientific neccessarily, but the further results you guys got should be scientific enough for anyone.
To the people still mentioning different results from melee contests, allow me to repeat - Melee has MANY factors to determining who wins. It is much harder to isolate a single factor, such as armour upgrades. As I said, something as simple as where the general is standing can make all the difference in a melee contest, if he lands in the midst of a group of the enemy, he'll proceed to slay all the weaker men around him - if he lands out on the edge, he might spend the whole battle trying to slowly sidle around the flank, and maybe get approached by only one or two enemy, while in the mean time the enemy general is slaughtering away
doing a missile test in the fashion I described removes almost all variables except the unit defense of the target - the killing power of the archers will be generally the same each time - you can isolate your variable (defense) and figure out clearly what it's doing
the results are clear over and over, the unit with the better armor has a definitive difference in men surviving, as they should
Dont wanna be so negative, but: your test didnt proof one base thing: Armor values are ignored, only type of armor counts.
Unit without armor is overmatched by any attack value 100% so even attack 1 overmatches it. Thats why you see unit with armor 0 to be killed so much.
All you need to try is use two same units, one with armor 4 leather and second with armor 1 leather. attack it with missile 1. If your teory is right, both units will take similar looses. If I'm right, unit with armor 1 will take more looses. easy like that.
i'm in work right now, but i will post my tests very soon.
huh? I wouldn't expect a unit with 4 armor to take similar loses to one with 1 armour - i'd expect the 4 to take less casualities... that's three more points of armor
I think you're either slightly confused about my conclusion from these results or about the issue at hand...
Armor values are ignored, only type of armor counts.
4 people have now done indepentent tests establishing that units both with armor upgrades and manually set armor values have the same defense... what more do you need? getting the first 3 armor upgrades and manually adding 7 points of armor to a unit do the same exact thing - as proved, over and over
are you playing with the shield fix? and why would you expect your play experience to establish anything as regards to vanilla when you're using a customized upgrade system?
Here is my disscusion with Olmsted:
JaM1977
Registered User
Posts: 2
(1/18/07 1:55 pm)
Reply Armor Upgrades
Can someone from Developers explain how armor upgrades are coded in game? There are some units that have base armor much higher than if unit became upgraded to the same armor type - Italian militia - leather armor 4, Town Militia after upgrade to leather armor 1. Is there a some secret code and all unit with leather armor have the same protection or upgrades just add+1 point?
Thanks
Olmsted
Admin
Posts: 7298
(1/18/07 2:32 pm)
Reply Re: Armor Upgrades
Upgrades just add 1 point to the armor value. The more advanced method that would have made more sense was never fully implemented.
JaM1977
Registered User
Posts: 4
(1/22/07 7:46 pm)
Reply RE Is there a plan to fully implement new system for upgrades? (that with " ; " in EDU)
Olmsted
Admin
Posts: 7482
(1/22/07 8:57 pm)
Reply Re: RE We don't know. We can only hope for those changes...
If your teory is right, both units will take similar looses. If I'm right, unit with armor 1 will take more looses. easy like that.
No my theory is that armour upgrades work correctly, which they are.
You may be right in that armour value is being ignored, but the main point is that the armour upgrade system works.
JaM, Olmsted is not a CA employee. He is an admin at the official forums who works for free in his spare times. He has less contact with the devs than i do.
Well, I'd like to see his comments on the test results from 4 different people which have led each person to come to the same conclusion.
Considering that CA devs themselves were unaware of some of the habits of their engine (ie: shield bug), whatever Mr Olmsted thinks was going on, isn't neccesarily the same thing as what is actually going on... well, anyway - I'm not going to argue about it - I don't see the point - it's like arguing about how many registered users are on this board or something... the numbers are there - you can't argue with numbers
I'm not confused. All you are talking is that unit with armor 4 leather has same protection like unit with armor 1 leather (after upgrade)
The whole method you are suggesting is quite hard to implement from code perspective> Just imagine - game has specific file for units, there are values for protection of unit,but it is not used, instead of this there is some other table where upgrade 1 means armor 4, upgrade 2 armor 5 etc... That dont make sense. Right now we know file structure quite well. Darth can confirmed that there is no bonus for armor upgrades in animation file.
I spend a mounth playing a game with EDU where all attack and armor,shield defence values were halved. (because with that metod +1 armor add means same amount as if you add +2 to normal vanila unit) With that table in mind, all my spearmens upgraded to armor 1 with upgrade 1 had armor protection 4 instead 1 that was displayed. But those units were not ! They were as storng as those with base armor 1. no benefit 3 more points!
Im not quite sure what you are getting at JaM. What we are saying is that the armour upgrade system works. So that despite the unit card only showing an increase in defense of 2, a unit going from flesh to light mail will infact have an increased armour factor of 5.
So armour upgrades are working properly, just the incorrect details are shown on the unit card.
The whole method you are suggesting is quite hard to implement from code perspective> Just imagine - game has specific file for units, there are values for protection of unit,but it is not used, instead of this there is some other table where upgrade 1 means armor 4, upgrade 2 armor 5 etc... That dont make sense.
It actually makes quite a bit of sense, as it allows them to define an armour system seperate of the unit stats, with the armour values in the edu allowing for more initial variety.
No my theory is that armour upgrades work correctly, which they are.
You may be right in that armour value is being ignored, but the main point is that the armour upgrade system works.
JaM, Olmsted is not a CA employee. He is an admin at the official forums who works for free in his spare times. He has less contact with the devs than i do.
I'm not telling that armor values are ignored. I'm just pointing, that if your idea works, it means armor values are ignored!
Olmsted is admin for MTW II AI discussion and Code feedback (http://p223.ezboard.com/MTW-II-AI-discussion-and-Code-feedback-/fshoguntotalwarfrm64) , so i think he must have atleast some connection to devs too. (why he is admin in section for code feedback...)
My opinion is that armor upgrades just add +1 and nothing more. Units with armor 0 are heavily overmatched by any attack value, thats why they took such looses. Its because from mathematical point of view 1/0 = 5/0= 100000/0, but 1/1 = 1/4 ?
(http://p223.ezboard.com/MTW-II-AI-discussion-and-Code-feedback-/fshoguntotalwarfrm64)
All you are talking is that unit with armor 4 leather has same protection like unit with armor 1 leather (after upgrade)
well, actually armor 7 flesh (what moded pike militia have) ends up being the same as armor 3 (*7) breastplate (what upgraded pike militia have) - which shoots your whole theory to pieces
Just imagine - game has specific file for units, there are values for protection of unit,but it is not used, instead of this there is some other table where upgrade 1 means armor 4, upgrade 2 armor 5 etc... That dont make sense.
have you even looked at the file? there IS such a table! look, right below stat_pri_armour, is ;stat_armour_ex in which the values to use after upgrades are listed - we know those values aren't just for display, because the display doesn't use them - the display uses +1, +2 & +3... so what are those values for? answer: the game mechanics
type Pike Militia
dictionary Pike_Militia ; Pike Militia
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Light
banner faction main_spear
banner holy crusade
soldier Pike_Militia, 60, 0, 1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit, pike
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 4, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr spear, long_pike, spear_bonus_8
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 0, 1, 0, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 4, 5, 7, 1, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 3, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 10
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 150, 125, 75, 60, 150, 4, 30
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3
armour_ug_models Pike_Militia, Pike_Militia_ug1, Pike_Militia_ug2, Pike_Militia_ug3
ownership france, hre, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, sicily
;unit_info 7, 0, 1
Olmsted is admin for MTW II AI discussion and Code feedback , so i think he must have atleast some connection to devs too. (why he is admin in section for code feedback...)
I've spoken to Olmsted, he does have less connections to the devs to me, im not sure if he has any. Just because he is an admin at the official forums does not mean he is talking to the devs.
My opinion is that armor upgrades just add +1 and nothing more.
And you've been shown to be wrong. The test results definitely show otherwise. For instance despite the fact the armour upgrade level 2 billmen only have 2 armour according to their unit card, they take the same amount of losses as unupgraded Berdiche Axemen with 5 defense. So the billmen must have the same defense.
AussieGiant
02-20-2007, 21:49
You guy's are very scary...
...and I love your work!!!
Great job all :2thumbsup:
well, actually armor 7 flesh (what moded pike militia have) ends up being the same as armor 3 (*7) breastplate (what upgraded pike militia have) - which shoots your whole theory to pieces
have you even looked at the file? there IS such a table! look, right below stat_pri_armour, is ;stat_armour_ex in which the values to use after upgrades are listed - we know those values aren't just for display, because the display doesn't use them - the display uses 1, 2 & 3... so what are those values for? answer: the game mechanics
type Pike Militia
dictionary Pike_Militia ; Pike Militia
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Light
banner faction main_spear
banner holy crusade
soldier Pike_Militia, 60, 0, 1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit, pike
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 4, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr spear, long_pike, spear_bonus_8
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 0, 1, 0, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 4, 5, 7, 1, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 3, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 10
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 150, 125, 75, 60, 150, 4, 30
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3
armour_ug_models Pike_Militia, Pike_Militia_ug1, Pike_Militia_ug2, Pike_Militia_ug3
ownership france, hre, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, sicily
;unit_info 7, 0, 1
If you look at that line you will see ; - thats mean this line is ignored! You can easilly remove it and game will work without any problems. That line was linked with that system Dev's wanted to add, but they disabled it before release as it didnt worked. If you remove that ; - game will crash...
If you look at that line you will see ; - thats mean this line is ignored! You can easilly remove it and game will work without any problem. That line was linked with that system Dev's wanted to add, but they disabled it before release as it didnt worked. If you remove that ; - game will crash...
Yes the game will, but i think the values are representative of the hidden armour system which we cannot edit.
More important is: armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3 - this line actually says which upgrades you are using + armour_ug_models Pike_Militia_ug1, Pike_Militia_ug2, Pike_Militia_ug3 - that means model Pike_Militia_ug1 will be used for upgrade 1 etc... In model file there is a line for animation capabilities (attack offset, deffence offset etc... look at some of my previous posts ) but ! all units in vanila use the same values!
Wow, excellent work, testers. :2thumbsup:
Nice to have people find that armour upgrades work the way they should. I only hope they fix the +1 representation in the patch. (Any chance of mentioning that to Palamedes, Lusted)?
As it turns out this makes the leather shop a ridiculously important upgrade since it adds a full +4 to all applicable units.
Indeed. Rushes to put this info in the FAQ and tell the other players in our HRE PBM. :charge:
Yes the game will, but i think the values are representative of the hidden armour system which we cannot edit.
Or system that was ignored by Dev's becouse it was not working, or they were not able to make it work, M2TW is still RTW engine after all...
More important is: armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3 - this line actually says which upgrades you are using + armour_ug_models Pike_Militia_ug1, Pike_Militia_ug2, Pike_Militia_ug3 - that means model Pike_Militia_ug1 will be used for upgrade 1 etc... In model file there is a line for animation capabilities (attack offset, deffence offset etc... look at some of my previous posts ) but ! all units in vanila use the same values!
Correct, those numbers, 0, 1, 2 represent what 'type' or armour the unit has each upgrade level. and despite what Darth might say he is wrong in this case, the evidence is overwhelming that armour upgrades add more than just +1.
Oh, and there is absolutely no documentation about what half of the numbers in the battle_modles.modelsdb file do.
Nice to have people find that armour upgrades work the way they should. I only hope they fix the +1 representation in the patch. (Any chance of mentioning that to Palamedes, Lusted)?
Im certainly going to talk to him about him the next time i have a chat with him.
Here some test results of mine. Firing unit was peasent archers with arrows modified to have 25% accurracy all the time and only 6 volleys of ammo.
Armour Silver Upgrade, Basic 0
12
10
12
13
12
Total: 59
Armour Basic 5
19
14
17
13
16
Total: 79
Whilst it tells us somthing weird, (Silver armour upgrade is more effective than 5 armour in the EDU file), Regardless it proves beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that armour upgrades ARE NOT just +1 per level.
Just imagine - game has specific file for units, there are values for protection of unit,but it is not used, instead of this there is some other table where upgrade 1 means armor 4, upgrade 2 armor 5 etc... That dont make sense.
Of course it dosen't make sense, with base, (i.e., what a unit has before any upgrades), armour values for a given level varying by 2 or 3 points for almost all values and some tests relating to EDU's modified with the sheild fix it's quite clear that each level of upgrade ADDS to the existing Armour value. All they have to do their is specifiy how much each level of upgrade adds to a units base value. So level 1 would be +4 for example.
What was the unit in question?
Scots Pike Militia.
WOOPS, sorry about that missing peice of data.
Here some test results of mine. Firing unit was peasent archers with arrows modified to have 25% accurracy all the time and only 6 volleys of ammo.
Armour Silver Upgrade, Basic 0
12
10
12
13
12
Total: 59
Armour Basic 5
19
14
17
13
16
Total: 79
Whilst it tells us somthing weird, (Silver armour upgrade is more effective than 5 armour in the EDU file), Regardless it proves beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that armour upgrades ARE NOT just +1 per level.
Of course it dosen't make sense, with base, (i.e., what a unit has before any upgrades), armour values for a given level varying by 2 or 3 points for almost all values and some tests relating to EDU's modified with the sheild fix it's quite clear that each level of upgrade ADDS to the existing Armour value. All they have to do their is specifiy how much each level of upgrade adds to a units base value. So level 1 would be +4 for example.
Again: thats not a proof! What was arrow attack value? what were resoults against unit with base armor 2?
More important is: armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3 - this line actually says which upgrades you are using + armour_ug_models Pike_Militia_ug1, Pike_Militia_ug2, Pike_Militia_ug3 - that means model Pike_Militia_ug1 will be used for upgrade 1 etc... In model file there is a line for animation capabilities (attack offset, deffence offset etc... look at some of my previous posts ) but ! all units in vanila use the same values!
I'm sorry I lied earlier, but this is really the last time I repeat that:
armour 7 flesh is the same thing as upgrade 3 breastplate
I'll admit without being prodded that I know very little about modding, coding, etc - all I know is the results... I don't know how it works - I just know it works... ppl can argue about HOW the game does it til they're blue in the face, and I'll have to just keep referencing them back to the first post which now has results from 4 people and something like 100 test runs all leading to one inevitable conclusion... it's not an anomaly, it's not an isolated case - it's a simple test which can be repeated by anyone over and over and over, and they will get results consistent with those already shown
Of course it dosen't make sense, with base, (i.e., what a unit has before any upgrades), armour values for a given level varying by 2 or 3 points for almost all values and some tests relating to EDU's modified with the sheild fix it's quite clear that each level of upgrade ADDS to the existing Armour value. All they have to do their is specifiy how much each level of upgrade adds to a units base value. So level 1 would be +4 for example.
Good to hear.
And JaM, just read through this thread gain, more than enough evidence has been posted by me, SMZ, Carl and Foz. If that is not enough to convince you, nothing is.
Again: thats not a proof! What was arrow attack value? what were resoults against unit with base armor 2?
I didn't do the test but I don't need to. The Scots Pike Militia have a LOWER loss rate with silver armour than with 5 armour, Higher armour=better missile defence, their no WAY the Scots Pike Militia could suffer less dead from the attack AND have a lower armour value at the same time, it's IMPOSSIBBILE, unless armour dosen't ork right against missile fire, and a low armour value actually provides the best missile defence.
Lastkly, having a Higher attack than your opponnents defence DOES NOT instantly give a 100% chance of a kill. According to others in the know, the values range from 0-64 to +64. So peasent archers will not have a high enoughj attack (at 5), to get the maximum possibbile value,. which is where 100% kill chances per hit come in.
oh yeah, and if you're doing any tests, make sure you clean up the file for at least that particular info first
given how inconsistent the file was, I can't remember if scots pike had a 5 a 6 or a 7 for the second upgrade number, before I cleaned mine up - did you already check that beforehand Carl? it might explain why they did better than 5
and as I said, I don't know much about coding - but if the ';' character says a line is to be ignored, then how does the last line: ';unit_info' still work? if I change a value there it will show up in game in the descriptions... so it would seem to me that lines prefaced by ';' do still have an effect =/
and as I said, I don't know much about coding - but if the ';' character says a line is to be ignored, then how does the last line: ';unit_info' still work? if I change a value there it will show up in game in the descriptions... so it would seem to me that lines prefaced by ';' do still have an effect =/
Wait, what? Changing the unit info will result in changes ingame?
Guys, i will post my tests soon. My point is: Unit with armor 0 will take much higher looses than unit with armor 1. its because any attack value will overmatch armor 0 by extreme margin in mathematical formula. It is not that big margin against armor 1 or 2 or3 etc... Simple mathematic.
All you need to test, how resistant will be unit with armor 1 leather in comparation to armor 4 leather.
it changes what is displayed... maybe I'm wrong, I'll check - I was certain a second ago, now you've got me wondering - but I was positive that the unit_info line determines what text is displayed for the units numbers
oh yeah, and if you're doing any tests, make sure you clean up the file for at least that particular info first
given how inconsistent the file was, I can't remember if scots pike had a 5 a 6 or a 7 for the second upgrade number, before I cleaned mine up - did you already check that beforehand Carl? it might explain why they did better than 5
and as I said, I don't know much about coding - but if the ';' character says a line is to be ignored, then how does the last line: ';unit_info' still work? if I change a value there it will show up in game in the descriptions... so it would seem to me that lines prefaced by ';' do still have an effect =/
;unit_info dont work too, they wanted to implement different system, but didnt worked. same like upgrades.
it changes what is displayed... maybe I'm wrong, I'll check - I was certain a second ago, now you've got me wondering - but I was positive that the unit_info line determines what text is displayed for the units numbers
Your wrong, i just tried it myself. I was worried for a second as a ; before a line should mean it is not read.
My point is: Unit with armor 0 will take much higher looses than unit with armor 1. its because any attack value will overmatch armor 0 by extreme margin in mathematical formula. It is not that big margin against armor 1 or 2 or3 etc... Simple mathematic.
All you need to test, how resistant will be unit with armor 1 leather in comparation to armor 4 leather.
That test DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.
It is IMPOSSSIBILE for a unit with less than 5 armour to suffer LESS kills than the same unit modified to have 5 armour. That what my tests show, it dosen't matter what the diffrance between 0 and 1 is. what matters is the diffrance between 5 armour and 2 silver on Scots Pike Militia, the results CLEARLY show that 2 silver is BETTER than 5 armour. T
This CLEARLY shows that Silver Armour MUST give Scots Pike militia a BETTER armour value after the upgrade than 5.
Not just that, but the diffrance in overmatching is a mere 1 point diffrance betwen 1 and 0. the maximum overmatch is 64, so clearly 4 and 5 respectivly can't be that far apart or the uper end of the 64 scale would be meaningless. This clearly isn't the case.
apologies JaM & Lusted, I was wrong about the ';' lines - just checked, I was confused on that
FactionHeir
02-21-2007, 00:04
Do armor upgrades work correctly in conjunction with base armor values though?
All the testing has been armor X vs armor 0 with upgrade Y but nothing like armor X vs armor Z with upgrade Y where X should equal Y+Z.
It could well be that the armour upgrade could override the base armor value given for example instead of adding onto it.
Afterall, in late game battles where units may have same stats but only 1 upgrade difference, the kill difference isn't all that large.
It could well be that the armour upgrade could override the base armor value given for example instead of adding onto it.
No carl did the tests. A unit has the armour upgrade for each level added onto their base.
but nothing like armor X vs armor Z with upgrade Y where X should equal Y+Z
Thats exactly what i did in my tests. Billmen with 2 armour upgrades should have an armor rating of 5. Berdiche Axemen unupgraded have a defence of 5. They both get the same results v peasant archers so both must have armor values of 5, despite the billmen unit card showing armor of 2.
Ok, i finished with my tests. What i found? There IS something behind armor upgrades. I can definitelly confirm, that armor upgrades adds a bonus to the upgraded unit. To me, it looks like faulty programing. (why they created two systems for upgrade? to make players more confused?) Results of my tests are clear. There is no armor upgrade table, where upgrade 1 = armor4, leather.
In my tests i used PointBlank EDU, because he uses more armor upgrade levels than vanila (12).
I got exactly same results when i set armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3 and armour_ug_levels 7, 8, 9, 10
jumps in bonus between upgrades were - 20% (average casaulties)
FactionHeir
02-21-2007, 01:04
Ah, I didn't see your post on page 2.
About your tests though, how come armor 4 takes significantly more casualties than armor 5 in comparison to a difference of 2 points between say 5 and 7 or 7 and 9?
Also, for some of the tests your variance is quite high....
Its good to see that they also work together with an armour set value though.
About your tests though, how come armor 4 takes significantly more casualties than armor 5 in comparison to a difference of 2 points between say 5 and 7 or 7 and 9?
My guess is the level 1 armour type upgrade does not provide as big a armour value boost as level 2 armour type upgrade.
To me it looks that armor upgrade 3 = armor upgrade 2 + armor upgrade 1
Armor upgrade 2 = armor upgrade 1 + armor upgrade 1
Here is my table:
Armor upgrade levels 7, 8, 9, 10 - Point Blank - Realcombat mod EDU
armor upgrade 7 kills :49,59,58,48,51 - 53 average
armor upgrade 8 kills: 46,48,36,46,39 - 43 average
armor upgrade 9 kills: 34,33,29,35,33 - 33 average
armor upgrade 10 kills: 23,22,18,26,25 - 23 average
Same results when i used Armor upgrade levels 0, 1, 2, 3
i'm starting to think i bought this game too early... They told us, this game will be much more moddable than RTW. instead of that, wee have a lot of backgroung hard coding that prevents any own modifications...
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 01:49
Well I'll copy and paste my observations from my post at TWC so to maximize the probability that people more expert than me can give some hints.
I presume maybe there's another formula which take in account something that we don't actually know that modifies armor AFTER upgrades are calculated and that new value isn't the one shown.
To be clearer:
int base_armor;
int armor_upgrade_level;
int upgraded_armor;
int unknown_factor;
int definitive_armor;
Formula 1
upgraded_armor = base_armor + armor_upgrade_level; THIS IS THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE UNIT INFO
Formula 2
definitive_armor = upgraded_armor + (or * or / or whatever) unknown_factor;
THIS IS THE VALUE USED FOR COMBAT CALCULATIONS
This "unknown value" can be linked to anything. It could be weather, it could be linked to the era from which the unit comes, making old units less lethal when confronting units of following eras (this because otherway low lethality would lead to looooong and boring battles early in the game). It could be a fixed factor linked to the fact that the unit is player controlled or AI, it could be a mix of everything with maybe also some randomization inside just to give different battle outcomes everytime a battle is played.
And if we really have a fixed 40% chance of survivability to successfull hits, it seems to me that it is a huge value of variance in statistical terms considering that fights are really shorts in time terms. But I'd let this to say to statistical expert as I'm not one.
All considered we really DON'T KNOW which value is used in combat unless some nice CA programmer will reveal us the arcane matter.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 01:59
i'm starting to think i bought this game too early... They told us, this game will be much more moddable than RTW. instead of that, wee have a lot of backgroung hard coding that prevents any own modifications...
Note entirely true, if the "unkown factor" I was talking about is used for every combat then it will be a sort of "fixed variance" while we can play with the rest of the stats to modify the final outcome.
Of course if the weight of the modificable stats is not the most significative in combat calculations then the game is unmoddable, the armor importance is completely depleted and all that counts is the number of the troops.
I'm not telling that armor values are ignored. I'm just pointing, that if your idea works, it means armor values are ignored!
Just wanted to point out that this is not the idea we've been representing. We don't primarily think that a unit attaining level 2 upgrade will have its armour value replaced by a 5. What we think (at least I do I know) is that the upgrade will ADD 5 to whatever unit gets it). Thus the values in the EDU do still matter quite a lot - it's just that the armor upgrades give bonuses that aren't always just +1.
As for Re Berengario I's recent post, we do not care at all what value is actually used in the combat calculations by the game. Only two things matter for the purposes of this discussion:
1. Units that perform the same in a given situation with only ONE variable changed, must in fact have equal values of that variable, or else that variable is entirely inconsequential (zero effect in the battle calcs). These two cases are the only ways the results can be equal.
2. We've shown in many many cases already that units using upgrades to gain armor consistently perform identically to units having those same armor amounts set in the EDU (armor amounts as understood by the value system, as opposed to the +1 system).
In all our testing, we kept everything the same except for giving the units defense from one of two sources: upgrades, and numbers in the EDU. That we then achieve identical results either way indicates one of the following (from 1 above):
1. armor values and armor upgrades are both ignored in battle calculations.
2. armor values and armor upgrades were causing identical effects in battle calculations.
#1 is clearly seen to be false, as you get varying results by setting different values of armor in the EDU for any given unit. That leaves #2 as the only possible explanation.
So it really makes no difference what the game does with those armour amounts - it is enough that we understand each point of armor has a positive effect on unit defense, and 5 points of armor, not 2, are equal to upgrade level 2. You don't need to understand underlying game mechanics in order to comprehend the relative value of a given armor upgrade level, and how the method in place grants more benefits than a simple +1 upgrade scheme would.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 03:16
Foz, I'd agree with you if the units info scroll would say:
Armor: base 10 + upgrade 1
But unfortunately for CA it says:
Armor 11
And always very unfortunately 11 is not 15 in decimal notation... or maybe the unit info switch to hexadecimal when armor upgrades are presents and 11 hex becomes then 17 in decimal. Nasty trick, isn't it? ;)
Then I refuse to believe professional programmers like CA ones use two different values for the same thing. If you're right and 11 is 15 in real terms you know that this means something really really wrong is in the code?
If you're right and 11 is 15 in real terms you know that this means something really really wrong is in the code?
You mean like values suddenly inverting depending on the kind of attack?
HoreTore
02-21-2007, 05:01
uhm...nothing has to be "really really wrong", as this thread has shown that the battle mechanics work like they should....The only fault is the unit card description... And I would call that a minor visual bug.
That's how it affects non-modders anyway. If you want to go crazy in the files it may be a bigger problem, I wouldn't know about that really, my own tweaking is rather minor...
Foz, I'd agree with you if the units info scroll would say:
Armor: base 10 + upgrade 1
But unfortunately for CA it says:
Armor 11
And always very unfortunately 11 is not 15 in decimal notation... or maybe the unit info switch to hexadecimal when armor upgrades are presents and 11 hex becomes then 17 in decimal. Nasty trick, isn't it? ;)
Then I refuse to believe professional programmers like CA ones use two different values for the same thing. If you're right and 11 is 15 in real terms you know that this means something really really wrong is in the code?
11 is 10+1. Is it so hard to imagine that the line of code responsible for the display value takes 10 and adds 1*(number of armor upgrades) to it? All that would have to happen is for two different people to write the 2 parts of the code that are in question, and for one of them to not correctly understand that the upgrades had values that weren't simply +1 each. It's also possible that the code came from somewhere else (maybe RTW or ideas considered for it?) and was subsequently overlooked for modification, resulting in this disparity. As multiple programmers are involved in the project, and it runs for so long, I actually would find it a bit remarkable if no such disparities could be found in any given project...
ha - I think it's pretty established that there are several really really wrong things in the code, not knocking CA - i still love their game, and I'm sure they did their best with the time they had and we know they're still working hard to make it better - just stating a fact... I don't think oddities should be that surprising... just in doing my own simple tinkers I've found out how easy it is to make mistakes - a project this big with that many ppl working on it... I'm starting to understand why ppl say: be glad it's in working condition
secondly, I'm thinking that the level two upgrade moves the defense on par with a 6 instead of a 5, that would explain Carls results, and in Lusteds tests the 5* Billmen performed slightly better than the 5 Berdiche, and there's one value on the 5*Billmen which falls outside of the grouping... so given that lvl 2 is supposed to be "Light Mail" - I think going from Leather to Chain might actually be a 2 point bonus
I think going from Leather to Chain might actually be a 2 point bonus
That would actually make a lot of sense... the difference between leather armor of the best kind and metal of any kind is dramatic.
What killed my day was not just the upgrades, BUT I used archers with arrow damage 1, and they did a damage to a unit with armor 12!
looses were:13,14,11,19..... Thats what is wrong.Arrows are extremly powerfull.
About chain, Chain is not too much stronger than Leather, look at Point Blank formula. Padded armor is able to stop attack with 30J of energy. Hardenned leather 60J and Chail mail 75J.
What if you will wanna create mod with different armor representation? What then? You will have to abadon whole upgrade thing, because you will be not able to upgrade unit and have value 2,3,4... because it is HARDCODED!
That means, only one official way of armor representation is possible (even if it is not right), for me, it is totally mod killing thing. Even more than that shield bug.
and that should really sink home how important it is to refit pikemen, since most of them jump straight to chain with their first upgrade - that'd be 6 extra points of armour... and the misleading descr only says 1
Arrows are extremly powerfull.
The only powerful thing about arrows is that they allow you to strike the enemy without being struck back...
even eastern peasants with attack of 1 could cause casualties - it's just that in melee you're killing them a lot faster than they can kill you... and then with their crappy morale, they rout - so they prolly only cause 1 or 2.... but with arrows, you get free shots at the enemy - if you give anybody free shots, they will cause casualties - ie: if you flanked with peasants, they would cause casualties before the other unit could respond
Chain is not too much stronger than Leather
ehh... it's a lot harder to slash thru metal links than it is thru boiled leather - poking with enough force works yeah, but that's why most warriors wearing chain wore thick padding underneath, prevents discomfort, and stops poking... so really chainmail clad warrior would be significant better defended than just leather/padding guy, cause chainmail guy will have padding on too
I'm ok with that. But why there are only official values possible? why there is no modding possibility for armor upgrades? Why it is Hardcoded? That makes all attempts to balance units totally imposible, because whole system is hardcoded that only official EDU will work. Any changes to that are prohibited and will not work... thats Total Comunism...
Does any brave soul want to summarise the results of this thread, in a non-tester, gameplay oriented way so I can put it into the FAQ?
Specifically, what do we now know about the effect of the various armour upgrades, particularly in terms of equivalent increments in the armour stat?
I'll take a stab at it after work if no one else does, but I'd rather it came from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
well, I imagine that's just being business savy - I mean, it'd be nice if they released the code completely so we could run free with it - but that would make it easy for unscrupolous persons and companies to steal their work...
biggest thing that's bugging me right now is inability to choose faction heir... but i mean, you can't run a company on the honor system, if you put all your merchandise out on the street corner and walk away... it won't be there when you get back - so I think it gets down to, if you want complete freedom over a game, you gotta make it yourself
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 10:07
We're not talking about having the source code under our fingers but just to have some numbers which can make sense.
Take as example d20 system. If your 20 faced dice roll plus your attack value can overcome your opponent armor you scored a hit.
You then can design every armor system which is coherent and consistent using those values. A base armor of 25 cannot be hit by someone who has a attack value of 4. Period.
But those are values where 1 means 1 and not 4... wait maybe 6 if it's from leather to chain... or maybe it's 5?
@ econ - well, iunno if you want to quote this, but to summarize - so far we know...
lvl 0 = flesh = 0 defense (this is sure)
lvl 1 = leather/padded = 4 defense (this is sure)
lvl 2 = light mail/chain = either 5 or 6 defense, and I'm inclined to say 6
lvl 3 = breastplate/scale = 7 defense (this is sure)
lvl 4 = partial plate = 8 defense (this is sure)
lvl 5 = full plate = either 9 or 10 defense, I'm not sure quite yet, most of our tests focused on the lower end where it was easier to see results... will get back to you
lvl 6 = advanced plate = 11 defense (this is sure)
Armour upgrades apparently function as they are described to. There is no cut and dry answer of how much defense the first, second or third upgrade will add, it depends on the unit. If you want to know how much the upgrade will benefit you, you'll need to compare what armour you have now, what type of armour you will be getting, and the above table. For instance, most pikemen are trained with only their bare skin and a tunic, so they come out with 0 defense from armour. However, their first upgrade says they will be refited with Light Mail - and so, after upgrading them once, they will have an additional 6 points of armour. A second upgrade will only improve them by one more point, and the third upgrade by one further point.
This capability can completely change the way you use units. For instance, Viking Raiders start out with only 9 defense, barely better than Town Militia - however after three upgrades they will gain an additional 7 points of defense to end up at 16, and capable of filling in for your Norse Swordsmen.
We're not talking about having the source code under our fingers but just to have some numbers which can make sense.
Take as example d20 system. If your 20 faced dice roll plus your attack value can overcome your opponent armor you scored a hit.
You then can design every armor system which is coherent and consistent using those values. A base armor of 25 cannot be hit by someone who has a attack value of 4. Period.
But those are values where 1 means 1 and not 4... wait maybe 6 if it's from leather to chain... or maybe it's 5?
in fairness however - that's one of the things I actually don't like about d&d - it's just as much of an abstraction as CA's mystical leprauchaun gears - more in some ways... regardless, I doubt it's a case of random numbers - the mistake is simple.. the text is wrong... it's a typo, that's all
just like the Sherwood Archers are described as being able to "hide anywhere" and in fact they can't... we don't have to run around in circles wondering how we'll ever figure out what the unit is like and is supposed to be like - we know that's a typo
and likewise, now we know the armour upgrade numbers are typos
I think advanced plate is 10 or 11. Gothic Knights are 10, Gendarmes are 11, but both are level 6 for armor upgrades.
the file is full of inconsistent numbers... i don't know if it was meant to be like that or not, but in my own - I standarized the armour numbers and made up the differences in the defense skill numbers
since these armour upgrades aren't modifiable however, we are able to figure out what the numbers are supposed to be for the natural armour scores
That makes all attempts to balance units totally imposible, because whole system is hardcoded that only official EDU will work.
No it just means you have to take into account the armour upgrade system
when balancing units.
And im guessing you didn't mod RTW, because the armour upgrades/weapon upgrades weren't modifiable in it either, but a lot of other things hardcoded in RTW have been opened up for us in M2TW.
Im thinking of doing more tests to work out exactly what armour value each armour level gives. If other people want to help me here is what im testing.
All battles done in an unmodified M2TW, map spanish plains, midday, clear weather VH difficulty.
All battles versus Frech peasant archers.
Units to test, testing each one 5 times unpugraded, and 5 times on each of its upgrade levels.:
Billmen: Base armour 0. Armour levels: Flesh, Padded/Leather, Light Mail
Croat Axemen: Base armour 4. Armour levels: Padded/Leather, Light Mail
Berdiche Axemen: Base Armour 5. Armour Levels: Light Mail, Hevy Mail, Partial Plate
Heavy Billmen: Base Armour 7. Armour Levels: Heavy Mail, Partial Plate
Heavy Pike Militia(with spearwall and guard mode OFF): Base Armour 8. Armour Levels: Partial Plate, Full Plate
Dismounted Gothic Knights: Base Armour 10.
I cannot find any units with armour levels 5, 6 without a shield, so i cannot really test that. And i cannot find any units with armour level 5 and without a shield.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 12:24
the file is full of inconsistent numbers...
That's exactly the problem and the point I was trying to bring to general (and hopefully CA's) attention.
I'm not arguing that their combat system is bad or good, I just wanted to know if it is consistent.
If SMZ and Foz are right about their findings then the first armor upgrade counts like 4 armor, the next one 1 or 2, the second 1, the third... etc
All in all it doesn't make any sense and if it works this way balancing units would be a nightmare.
I am starting to suspect that the basic value for armor is hidden from us and it's linked to the "quality" of the armor (none, leather, chain, etc...) and that the armor value in EDU is just needed to fine tuning units inside the same armor category. This would also explain why peasants tested with native 4 armor are a lot less resilient than peasants with 0 native armor and 3 armor upgrade.
This would also explain why peasants tested with native 4 armor are a lot less resilient than peasants with 0 native armor and 3 armor upgrade.
Well yes because if armour upgrades work correctly like the tests are showing, then armour upgrade 3 peasants have 7 defense, not 4.
If SMZ and Foz are right about their findings then the first armor upgrade counts like 4 armor, the next one 1 or 2, the second 1, the third... etc
All in all it doesn't make any sense and if it works this way balancing units would be a nightmare.
But it does make sense, these values help to distinquish between the different armour types, and tie into the new armour upgrade system in M2TW.
And i am guessing like you that the variances in basic armour stats allow for variety within the various armour levels.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 12:33
And i am guessing like you that the variances in basic armour stats allow for variety within the various armour levels.
It's the only possibility for the system to have a logic and that's also explain the unit info bug. Actually they didn't use 2 different formulas, simply put who wrote the unit info code made an addition of two different variables which weren't supposed to be added (and aren't added anywhere else in the combat code).
It's the only possibility for the system to have a logic and that's also explain the unit info bug. Actually they didn't use 2 different formulas, simply put who wrote the unit info code made an addition of two different variables which weren't supposed to be added (and aren't added anywhere else in the combat code).
Or they didn't update the code that linked the unit info to the new armour upgrade system, so it still uses the RTW code that shows +1 for every armour upgrade.
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 12:41
Well we are a lot better off than yesterday, now we have a clearer picture of how things work and can proceed from there.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 13:03
Unfortunately I am at work but if anyone can, please do this little test.
Get pesants and while mantaining stat_armor of 0 give them an armour_ug_levels of 4 and test them together with Dismounted Noble Knights (which are shieldless and with a base armour_ug_levels of 4 too but stat_armor of 8).
If the outcome will show little difference than we'll know that the real armor stat is the armour_ug_levels (which defines the different kind of armour) while stat_armor is just a rebalancing inside the same level.
Well didn't Carl or SMZ earlier in this thread do a test of giving pike militia armour 0 upgrade 3, and then armour 7 and got the same results, showing that the armour value is used.
I'm pretty sure, that there is not a table Lusted mentioned. I got exactly the same values, when i changed upgrade levels from 0,1,2,3 to 7,8,9,10
so it looks that we have an secret bonus for Bronze, Silver, Gold upgrade, no mather upgrade level...
I'm pretty sure, that there is not a table Lusted mentioned. I got exactly the same values, when i changed upgrade levels from 0,1,2,3 to 7,8,9,10
so it looks that we have an secret bonus for Bronze, Silver, Gold upgrade, no mather upgrade level...
Well if you also do the test im going to be doing we can show whether there is a table or not.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 13:17
So an unit with base armour_ug_levels 4 and stat_armor 0 and one with base armour_ug_levels 5 and stat_armor 0 are identical?
Can you please test it?
I did it yesterday. And got exactly the same numbers, no mather the upgrade level. unit with silver armor had the sme resistance with armor level 2 and armor level 8 (default armor in EDU 0)
I will be able to do more tests later, have to lgo to work....
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 13:20
I did it yesterday. And got exactly the same numbers, no mather the upgrade level. unit with silver armor had the sme resistance with armor level 2 and armor level 8 (default armor in EDU 0)
Do it with both units with stat_armor 1 then.
I did it yesterday. And got exactly the same numbers, no mather the upgrade level. unit with silver armor had the sme resistance with armor level 2 and armor level 8 (default armor in EDU 0)
No, just do the test i suggested earlier. You have a modified EDU, please do it with an unmodified one.
So an unit with base armour_ug_levels 4 and stat_armor 0 and one with base armour_ug_levels 5 and stat_armor 0 are identical?
Can you please test it?
Sure thing once i've done the other tests.
Okay i've only done 1 test buts it's pretty conclusive. I gave Dismounted Italian Men At Arms armor value of 0 but with armour level 4. After 1 test battle they ended up with 6 men left, about the same result i got when testing unupgraded billmen who have armour value of 0 and armour level 0. So armour value does work properly.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 14:29
Okay i've only done 1 test buts it's pretty conclusive. I gave Dismounted Italian Men At Arms armor value of 0 but with armour level 4. After 1 test battle they ended up with 6 men left, about the same result i got when testing unupgraded billmen who have armour value of 0 and armour level 0. So armour value does work properly.
Then armour level is not an additive value as it seemed by previous posts, that's why I asked to do a test with an armor value of 1 to check if it's a multiply factor.
Then armour level is not an additive value as it seemed by previous posts, that's why I asked to do a test with an armor value of 1 to check if it's a multiply factor.
It must be an additive value and not a multiplier as billmen who start with armor 0, end up hsuffering the same casualties as Berdiche Axemen(armour 5) when upgraded to silver armor. As their is no armor value to multiply it must be an added value.
And none of the units in the test i did with Dismounted MAA had armour upgrades.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 14:37
How can be additive if you said that MAA with 0 armour value and 4 armour level behaved similarly to billmen with 0 armour value and 0 armour level? :dizzy2:
Because im referring to the armour levels like this:
Level 0: Flesh
Level 1: Padded/leather
Level 2: Light Mail
Level 3: Heavy Mail
Level 4: Partial Plate
Level 5: Full Plate
Level 6: Advanced Plate
If the armour upgrade wasn't an additive value, then every unit with 0 armor wouldn't see any benefits from armour upgrades if they were a multiplier effect.
The armour values for each level appear to be:
Level 0: Flesh - 0
Level 1: Padded/leather - 3/4
Level 2: Light Mail - 5
Level 3: Heavy Mail - 7
Level 4: Partial Plate - 8/9
Level 5: Full Plate -9/10
Level 6: Advanced Plate - 10/11
Now each level must add a certain amount onto armour to be effective. So a unit which starts armour level 0, and 0 armour, and which then upgrades to level 1 armour must get a value of about 3/4 added onto their armour value. The different armour levels are sued in the edu to create the armour system used in M2Tw.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 15:01
Then MAA with armour level of 4 and armour stat of 0 should have effective armor of 8/9 while Billmen with 0 armour stat and 0 armour level should have effective armour of 0.
Then MAA with armour level of 4 and armour stat of 0 should have effective armor of 8/9 while Billmen with 0 armour stat and 0 armour level should have effective armour of 0.
No, becuse all units armour level 4 have an armour value set to 8/9 in the edu. The armour level alone does not set the armour value for a unit, CA have worked out a system of armour values for each armour level, and given those to each unit with each armour level in the edu. Then the upgrades add a certain amount to the armour value to bring the armour value up to that of the next armour level.
Because im referring to the armour levels like this:
Level 0: Flesh
Level 1: Padded/leather
Level 2: Light Mail
Level 3: Heavy Mail
Level 4: Partial Plate
Level 5: Full Plate
Level 6: Advanced Plate
If the armour upgrade wasn't an additive value, then every unit with 0 armor wouldn't see any benefits from armour upgrades if they were a multiplier effect.
The armour values for each level appear to be:
Level 0: Flesh - 0
Level 1: Padded/leather - 3/4
Level 2: Light Mail - 5
Level 3: Heavy Mail - 7
Level 4: Partial Plate - 8/9
Level 5: Full Plate -9/10
Level 6: Advanced Plate - 10/11
Now each level must add a certain amount onto armour to be effective. So a unit which starts armour level 0, and 0 armour, and which then upgrades to level 1 armour must get a value of about 3/4 added onto their armour value. The different armour levels are sued in the edu to create the armour system used in M2Tw.
Lusted, Point IS that when i used levels 7,8,9,10 (Point Blank EDU With added levels) i got same results as with 0,1,2,3. Looses were in the same region for bronze (43 average) Silver (34 average) Gold (22 average) upgrade.
To me it looks, that upgrade to bronze add % bonus from max armor value, so do the silver and Gold. I suggest to use extreme values because with those you can see the difference better
Lusted, Point IS that when i used levels 7,8,9,10 (Point Blank EDU With added levels) i got same results as with 0,1,2,3. Looses were in the same region for bronze (43 average) Silver (34 average) Gold (22 average) upgrade.
I am using an unmodified edu to see if it works correctly in that, i am not testing with new levels because i want to see what the existing levels provide.
I'm just pointing out, that it looks it is not hardcoded for levels 1,2,3,4,5,6 because during my tests i got exactly same results using levels 7,8,9,10,11,12 which are not in Vanila game!
So if there isnt a table that makes upgrade 1=3or4, upgrade 2 5/6 etc, that means upgrade itself provide a bonus that is counting differently regarding base value.
My theory is: You can have upgrade 5 as a base, then upgrade unit to 6, but if your base armor was 0, you will still got just the same bonus as if your armor upgrade level was 0 upgraded to level 1
If your base armour is 0 you would only get a small armour upgrade bonus. I am not saying each armour level replaces the armour value with the ones i listed, im saying those are the values given for those armour levels based on the units that have them in the edu. So upgrading from level 1 to level 2 armour should only give a bonus of 1. Whilst upgrading from level 0 to level 1 should give a bonus of 4.
New armour levels will probably revert to a default value for armour upgrades.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 15:24
No, becuse all units armour level 4 have an armour value set to 8/9 in the edu. The armour level alone does not set the armour value for a unit, CA have worked out a system of armour values for each armour level, and given those to each unit with each armour level in the edu. Then the upgrades add a certain amount to the armour value to bring the armour value up to that of the next armour level.
Ok, then we have a unit with armour state of 8 that because of that 8 in the EDU has also an armour level of 4, then upgrading the unit to armour level 5 the unit info will show 9 armour but the effective armour would range between 9 and 10.
And on top of this an unit with armour stat 11 still get damage from archers with 1 attack power.
Nice :dizzy2:
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 15:36
Its reasonable that attack 1 should have a chance of damaging an armor level 11 target, through low-percentage shots like through the visor etc, it should just be a very very low chance.
New armor levels gave me the same results as the old one.
Isnt the leather armor value 4? so with upgrade from level 0 to level 1 you should have protection equal to 4, right?
Its reasonable that attack 1 should have a chance of damaging an armor level 11 target, through low-percentage shots like through the visor etc, it should just be a very very low chance.
Point Blank, in my tests peasants with base armor 12 tok looses from missile fire (Arrow damage 1) After 6 salvos looses were 11,14,12,19,13 .... thats quite a lot, not just a small chance... to me it looks that it is possible to kill somebody with full gothic armor by a dart or what?
Just imagine: you have 150 Gothic Foot Knights advancing aginst 120 peasants bowmens with weakest arrows possible. they will shoot at you 6x120 (720 arrows, just maybe 1/3 hits anything...) arrows and 14 knights would die? Thats almost 10% effectivity...
In my test i used even original Dismounted Gothic Knights, but they have much wider formation than peasant formation, so they didnt take so many hits peasants did.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 15:47
From what I understood not.
With stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 0 you just need to upgrade to armour_ug_levels 1 to have something comparable to stat_armor 4.
I know it doesn't make any logical sense but this is what people has tested to be truth and I cannot argue against different trusted witnesses.
And I still think that because of it balancing units is not hard, is completely unuseful in a "system" (I'd call anarchy) like this.
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 15:47
New armor levels gave me the same results as the old one.
Isnt the leather armor value 4? so with upgrade from level 0 to level 1 you should have protection equal to 4, right?
I think that's what is being suggested, but I am through making assumptions about how things work in this game.
From what I understood not.
With stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 0 you just need to upgrade to armour_ug_levels 1 to have something comparable to stat_armor 4.
I know it doesn't make any logical sense but this is what people has tested to be truth and I cannot argue against different trusted witnesses.
And I still think that because of it balancing units is not hard, is completely unuseful in a "system" (I'd call anarchy) like this.
Fun part is, that you will get same bonus if your upgrade will be stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 5 upgrade to armour_ug_levels 6
or
stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 7 upgrade to armour_ug_levels 8 etc...
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 15:54
Point Blank, in my tests peasants with base armor 12 tok looses from missile fire (Arrow damage 1) After 6 salvos looses were 11,14,12,19,13 .... thats quite a lot, not just a small chance... to me it looks that it is possible to kill somebody with full gothic armor by a dart or what?
Just imagine: you have 150 Gothic Foot Knights advancing aginst 120 peasants bowmens with weakest arrows possible. they will shoot at you 6x120 (720 arrows, just maybe 1/3 hits anything...) arrows and 14 knights would die? Thats almost 10% effectivity...
In my test i used even original Dismounted Gothic Knights, but they have much wider formation than peasant formation, so they didnt take so many hits peasants did.
Well that is clearly too high, but as it all looks quite hard-coded and we only really have 11 armor levels to play with, we are probably stuck with it, unless we can use the values Darth found to give extra resistance to high armor levels - that would be a decent work-around, but I am not yet convinced about what he has found.
But look at it this way, 120 bowmen fire 10 shots each = 1200 arrows, causing 12-15 casualties - thats casualties, not necessarily kills, which isn't determined until the end of the battle. So 1 arrow in 100 is causing a casualty who is unable to continue the fight, of which maybe 60% will be counted as kills. Maybe not so far off.
Unit upgraded to armor 12 (using Point Blank upgrades, not vanila ones - armour_ug_levels 9, 10, 11, 12) is toughter than unit with base armor 12.
those upgrade levels are not coded by CA, so that formula for upgrades 1,2,3,4,5,6 should not apply to them,right? But It does...
Well that is clearly too high, but as it all looks quite hard-coded and we only really have 11 armor levels to play with, we are probably stuck with it, unless we can use the values Darth found to give extra resistance to high armor levels - that would be a decent work-around, but I am not yet convinced about what he has found.
But look at it this way, 120 bowmen fire 10 shots each = 1200 arrows, causing 12-15 casualties - thats casualties, not necessarily kills, which isn't determined until the end of the battle. So 1 arrow in 100 is causing a casualty who is unable to continue the fight, of which maybe 60% will be counted as kills. Maybe not so far off.
They fired only 6 salvos, i counted it and then ended battle imediatelly. repeated 5 times
Point Blank, in my tests peasants with base armor 12 tok looses from missile fire (Arrow damage 1) After 6 salvos looses were 11,14,12,19,13 .... thats quite a lot, not just a small chance... to me it looks that it is possible to kill somebody with full gothic armor by a dart or what?
As I said, according to people in the know the chance of a kill does not drop to 0% unitl the targets defence is 65 or MORE points higher than the enemies attack, (or at least thats how it suposedly was in RTW, things i've seen in the files make me suspect this value has been reduced, but i belive it's still over 40). By the same token, an attack that is 65 point higher than the enemies defence has a 100% kill rate.
Unit upgraded to armor 12 (using Point Blank upgrades, not vanila ones - armour_ug_levels 9, 10, 11, 12) is toughter than unit with base armor 12.
those upgrade levels are not coded by CA, so that formula for upgrades 1,2,3,4,5,6 should not apply to them,right? But It does...
I suspect that this is because the game probably sets things up so that a unit going from level 0 to the max klevel will gain +11 armour. so if you double the number of levels, the amount you get per level is reduced. How it the deals with having each level give a diffrent amount of armour I don't know.
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 16:04
Look at the armor levels here in terms of what I was talking about in RC, joules of force etc. We now (semi-apparently) have the following:
Armor Value Joules to Penetrate
Leather 3/4 60
Light Mail 5 100
Heavy Mail 7 140
Partial Plate 8/9 180
Full Plate 9/10 200
Advanced 10/11 220
or about 20J/armor value. This would pre-suppose a thicker jack under the armors than I did previously, and its a bit light on the plate armors, but its not too far off. And if you are basing things on this kind of data then the first upgrade from no armor to leather should bump your armor value to 3/4.
Look at the armor levels here in terms of what I was talking about in RC, joules of force etc. We now (semi-apparently) have the following:
Armor Value Joules to Penetrate
Leather 3/4 60
Light Mail 5 100
Heavy Mail 7 140
Partial Plate 8/9 180
Full Plate 9/10 200
Advanced 10/11 220
or about 20J/armor value. This would pre-suppose a thicker jack under the armors than I did previously, and its a bit light on the plate armors, but its not too far off. And if you are basing things on this kind of data then the first upgrade from no armor to leather should bump your armor value to 3/4.
Just an therory: What if armor upgrade adds 25% frm max armor value used(12)?
So upgrade 1 means 25% from 12 - value 3
upgrade 2 means 3+3 = 6
upgrade 3 3+3+3 = 9
I'm not able to test it now (due to work...) Can somebody look into this?
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 16:17
So in this new, uh 'vanilla' system, if I have a unit with stat armor 8 upgrade level 4, and I upgrade it to level 5, then it goes up to armor 9 or 10 right, not 11/12? It doesn't get 3/4 because its the first upgrade for that unit right? The game is smart enough to know that upgrading from upgrade level 4 to upgrade level 5 means just 1 or 2 additional armor?
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 16:25
Just an therory: What if armor upgrade adds 25% frm max armor value used(12)?
So upgrade 1 means 25% from 12 - value 3
upgrade 2 means 3+3 = 6
upgrade 3 3+3+3 = 9
I'm not able to test it now (due to work...) Can somebody look into this?
Let us hope not, because that would lead to horrible results like units that upgrade 0, 1, 2, 3 having 12 armor at upgrade 3.
Let us hope not, because that would lead to horrible results like units that upgrade 0, 1, 2, 3 having 12 armor at upgrade 3.
9 actually.
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 16:32
9 actually.
Its still horrible.
Its just a theory that needs to be confirmed or not. I'm not able to test it now. I will test it in 6-7 hours...
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
Let us hope not, because that would lead to horrible results like units that upgrade 0, 1, 2, 3 having 12 armor at upgrade 3.
Actually they would have 7 from my results, as that is what level 3 appears to correspond to.
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 16:37
Been reading back in the thread again, results like the following by Lusted look clear that the vanilla system is working OK:
Billmen:
Flesh(0) 3 8 4 6 4 Average 5
Leather/Padded(4) 22 14 15 18 26 Average 19
Light Mail(5) 34 28 41 38 36 Average 35.4
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5) 40 37 33 30 34 Average 34.8
Heavy Mail(7) 62 60 55 58 59 Average 58.8
Partial Plate(9) 74 81 85 76 79 Average 79
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7) 59 64 63 56 54 Average 59.2
Partial Plate(9) 82 78 82 85 79 Average 81.2
Been reading back in the thread again, results like the following by Lusted look clear that the vanilla system is working OK:
Im doing some more testing atm, trying to see if every armour level works correctly.
Problem is that only vanila system will work, no modding possible to that system... thats not what they told us M2TW will be. (easily modable? dont think so anymore...)
Problem is that only vanila system will work, no modding possible to that system... thats not what they told us M2TW will be. (easily modable? dont think so anymore...)
Take M2Tw are compare it to almost every other game that is ou tthere. Most are nowhere near as moddable as M2Tw is. Whilst we cannot mod the source code, we can mod a hell of a lot through text files, and more than with RTW. So yes, M2TW is easily moddable as most of it is done through text files, and most text fiels are not that difficult to understand. We do have limits to what we can do though.
Re Berengario I
02-21-2007, 17:01
I'm not negative biased about the moddability of the game, but I think that some definitive CA words on how combat calculations are handled is necessary for people who want to have a go at different kind of units.
Right now it's all based on raw testing, buts and ifs...
Edit: but a better scripting parser is so much needed... we need variables!
Point_Blank
02-21-2007, 17:02
Problem is that only vanila system will work, no modding possible to that system... thats not what they told us M2TW will be. (easily modable? dont think so anymore...)
Well vanilla system, if it actually works, isn't so bad. Would have been nice to have a greater range of armor values, but it certainly workable as is.
Take M2Tw are compare it to almost every other game that is ou tthere. Most are nowhere near as moddable as M2Tw is. Whilst we cannot mod the source code, we can mod a hell of a lot through text files, and more than with RTW. So yes, M2TW is easily moddable as most of it is done through text files, and most text fiels are not that difficult to understand. We do have limits to what we can do though.
Not to me. Even in RTW we were able to change unit armor, to balance it better than in vanila game. Right now it is not possible anymore, because original values are presented as the only right ones... other point of view is not allowed anymore...
Not to me. Even in RTW we were able to change unit armor, to balance it better than in vanila game. Right now it is not possible anymore, because original values are presented as the only right ones... other pint of wiev is not allowed
We can change unit armour in M2TW as well, there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. People just now need to take into account the new armour upgrade system.
....new armor upgrade system, that works completely diferent that it shows in game... nice
Can I please, with all due respect, request that we keep this discussion to figuring out what is going on IN THE VANILLA GAME.
Anybody who has significant modwork done which changes the nature of their game is just confusing the research being done. How about, AFTER, we figure out how the vanilla system works, THEN we can start babbling about how to modify it and how it works with modified systems. If you just really want to discuss these things, please make your own thread for it - because all you're accomplishing now is confusing the clear transfer of information on this subject to anybody trying to read this thread.
Thank you.
Can I please, with all due respect, request that we keep this discussion to figuring out what is going on IN THE VANILLA GAME.
Agreed - discussion of the implications for modding should be in the mod chat forum.
This is what I have put in the FAQ to summarise the results of this thread:
Q: Are armour upgrades worth it? They only give +1 armour.
A: The +1 armour effect of each upgrade appears to be misreporting by the game. Testing by SMZ, Carl, Lusted and Foz implies that armour upgrades work as expected, in that each upgrade provides the reported type of leather (padded, light mail etc). The upgraded armour stat does not appear to be correctly reported, but the unit is still as resistant to missile fire as you would expect from a unit with that type of armour. Here is Lusted's summary of what armour stat corresponds (roughly) to each armour type:
Level 0: Flesh - 0
Level 1: Padded/leather - 3/4
Level 2: Light Mail - 5
Level 3: Heavy Mail - 7
Level 4: Partial Plate - 8/9
Level 5: Full Plate -9/10
Level 6: Advanced Plate - 10/11
The implication is that the lowest type of armoury is a great bargain - raising the armour stat of your initially unarmoured troops by around 3-4 points.
Have I understood the basic result correctly? If so, I am very pleased with the way upgrades work.
gardibolt
02-21-2007, 23:02
That's what I understand from my reading of this thread, econ, but you'll obviously want confirmation from the principals.
Excellent work, all, on getting to the bottom of this mystery. I think I'm going to build leather tanners in every city and castle....
Can I please, with all due respect, request that we keep this discussion to figuring out what is going on IN THE VANILLA GAME.
Anybody who has significant modwork done which changes the nature of their game is just confusing the research being done. How about, AFTER, we figure out how the vanilla system works, THEN we can start babbling about how to modify it and how it works with modified systems. If you just really want to discuss these things, please make your own thread for it - because all you're accomplishing now is confusing the clear transfer of information on this subject to anybody trying to read this thread.
Thank you.
If you will stick to the original files you can came with incorect conclusions. The only possible way how to figure out how system works is to use extreme numbers to find out the changes in behavior in comparation to normal situation.
@JaM: We havn't got that far in the testing because qwhere STILL trying to fully understand how the basic system works, without that all those extreme number examples are usl;ess as we don't know how extreme numbers vary from normal behaviour.
My latest tests:
Another bunch ot tests: Same units like yesterday - Peasant archers - arrow damage 1 vs modified peasants
type Peasants
dictionary Peasants ; Peasants
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Peasants, 60, 0, 0.8
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, is_peasant, peasant
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 1, 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, spear, 50, 0.6
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 0, 1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 0, 1, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 1, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay -20000
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 120, 70, 65, 50, 120, 4, 20
armour_ug_levels 0, 4, 5, 6
armour_ug_models Peasants, Peasants_ug1
ownership england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, slave, normans, saxons
era 0 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
era 1 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
era 2 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
Results:
Upgrade 4 looses: 46,44,43,40,35 - 42 average
Upgrade 5 looses: 35,32,31,28,25 - 30 average
Upgrade 6 looses: 22,19,18,18,14 - 18 average
From my previous tests: same units different upgrade levels:
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3
Upgrade 0 looses: 58,45,39,51,48 - 48 average
Upgrade 1 looses: 46,48,36,46,39 - 43 average
Upgrade 2 looses: 34,33,29,35,33 - 33 average
Upgrade 3 looses: 23,22,26,18,25 - 23 average
So to me, it looks that unit resistance is linked together with armour_ug_models somehow. I tried even PB levels 7,8,9,10,11,12 but with similar results.
Re Berengario I
02-22-2007, 00:09
This is because upgrades are considered to be applied in a progressive way, you can't jump from none to plate. This is the obvious outcome of your testing. The game takes the base armor_stat, then applies the number of the upgrades in armour_ug_levels, probably it doesn't even read the values, just the count of them.
This is because upgrades are considered to be applied in a progressive way, you can't jump from none to plate. This is the obvious outcome of your testing. The game takes the base armor_stat, then applies the number of the upgrades in armour_ug_levels, probably it doesn't even read the values, just the count of them.
No Re: My first tests were with vanila upgrade levels 0,1,2,3, after that i changed it to 0,4,5,6 and i had same averages as before
Re Berengario I
02-22-2007, 00:22
It what I said, regardless if you write 0,1,2,3 or 0,4,5,6 or 0,10,20,30 the game reads the base armor_stat and then applies 4 upgrades, discarding the values, it just uses the count of them (4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or none upgrade)
Have I understood the basic result correctly? If so, I am very pleased with the way upgrades work.
That summary seems right on target with my understanding, and the results so far. Just saw one typo:
"in that each upgrade provides the reported type of leather (padded, light mail etc)."
should be:
"in that each upgrade provides the reported type of armour (padded, light mail etc)."
sorry Re but i dont understand how you ment that.
and I don't think that can be it, because pikemen go straight from flesh to light mail
This is because upgrades are considered to be applied in a progressive way, you can't jump from none to plate. This is the obvious outcome of your testing. The game takes the base armor_stat, then applies the number of the upgrades in armour_ug_levels, probably it doesn't even read the values, just the count of them.
It what I said, regardless if you write 0,1,2,3 or 0,4,5,6 or 0,10,20,30 the game reads the base armor_stat and then applies 4 upgrades, discarding the values, it just uses the count of them (4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or none upgrade)
If I'm reading Re correctly, then what he means is that in order for a 2nd 3rd and 4th entry of 4,5,6 to work correctly as upgrades, they must be preceded by the base level 3, and not 0. That is:
armour_ug_levels 3,4,5,6 tells us the unit starts off with level 3 armour. This gives the game its basis for where to begin in the chain of upgrades. From there, it will step forward, granting the next 3 upgrades as buildings 4, 5 and 6 are built.
armour_ug_levels 0,4,5,6 then is speculated to give you armour upgrades progressive up from zero: you'll receive the benefit of armour levels 1 (about +4), 2 (+1'ish) and 3(another +2'ish) as you upgrade the unit, resulting in 7 points of additional armour as it upgrades. The difference is, you'll be requiring the armour upgrade buildings #4, 5, and 6 to get those value of upgrades. Since the first number is the starting armour level, it would make a lot of programming sense to apply the upgrades linearly upward from that amount, and only make the following entries name the buildings to achieve those armour upgrades.
So if we envision the armour types to be a linear series of bonuses in given amounts, something like this:
lvl 1: +4
lvl 2: +1
lvl 3: +2
lvl 4: +2
lvl 5: +1
lvl 6: +1
then Re is saying that the first entry behind armour_ug_levels sets the point in that progression that the unit is assumed to be starting at, and the following (up to 3) entries allow you to set the required building(s), but will always give the next bonus amounts in the sequence, not the ones for whatever building level you've required to get the upgrade.
I'm not saying I agree with that, as I actually have not tested it AT ALL, I just felt that I understood what Re was trying to say, and wanted to explain in more detail for concerned parties who may not have understood. If I'm wrong, Re, let me know.
If he's right in his idea, though, then it's huge for modding, as you can achieve a ridiculous variety of upgrade patterns by starting at different places in the upgrade chain, using varying amounts of ug levels, and using repeated upgrade building levels as the 2-4 entries to trigger multiple bonuses from the same building. You could do armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 1, 1 and Re's explanation would mean this grants +7 to that unit, all from the first armoury building!
Edit--@Econ21: I forgot to mention it as I got tied up trying to explain Re... but yes, your understanding of the various findings appears to be completely correct. Thanks for adding it to the FAQ :smile:
Re Berengario I
02-22-2007, 03:53
and I don't think that can be it, because pikemen go straight from flesh to light mail
With the same behaviour in combat as they'd have light mail in armor_stat (alas a value of 5)?
I'm at a loss then because there's a contradiction with the data Jam showed up.
Foz explained better than me what I intented and I don't know if it's true, I just trying to make sense out of some contradictory data (which doesn't seem false or badly recorded).
I need to run some tests by myself, the weekend isn't very far away :wall:
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 06:41
With the same behaviour in combat as they'd have light mail in armor_stat (alas a value of 5)?
I'm at a loss then because there's a contradiction with the data Jam showed up.
Foz explained better than me what I intented and I don't know if it's true, I just trying to make sense out of some contradictory data (which doesn't seem false or badly recorded).
I need to run some tests by myself, the weekend isn't very far away :wall:
Looking at JaM's tests, I would suspect that when you upgrade pikemen at the blacksmith, since its the first upgrade they would get +4 armor, whereas they should really have 5 since they are wearing light mail.
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 06:46
And here is another thing to consider: how is the shield fix interacting with this system? Its being said that the game somehow uses the armor value internally (eg in the case of advanced plate being 9 or 10, partial plate being 8 or 9). If that is the case, the shield fix is likely altering this since it changes the armor value.
This is post #181 that I later discovered was a poorly conducted test that caused much confusion. As such, I've removed it.
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 08:31
'This program brought to you from the same people who coded the shield bug.'
We are trying to make sense of a system that could also very likely be bugged, so just won't provide logical results no matter what the tests.
I mean, to code a system like this is programming 101. How it could be this obscure is, well...
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 13:03
Hmm, further testing.
Unit A: Dismounted Noble Knight, has upgrade path 4, 5. Has armor level 8 at upgrade 4: average losses vs archers: 22.
Unit B: Dismounted Noble Knight modded to have upgrade path 1, 2, 3, 4. Has armor level 4 at upgrade 1, theoretically armor level 8 at upgrade 4: average losses vs archers: 12.
Unit B with the gold upgrade more resistant than Unit A, though both should be identical in theory, with level 4 armor and armor value 8.
Have tried the same with other units.
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 13:44
My opinion now is that you get 4 from the first upgrade, 1 from the second etc, no matter what your armor level at the start. eg if you have starting armor 4 with upgrade path 1, 2, 3, 4, your first upgrade will raise your armor to 8, then 9, then 11.
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 15:01
Lets see what Patch 1.2 brings...
My opinion now is that you get 4 from the first upgrade, 1 from the second etc, no matter what your armor level at the start. eg if you have starting armor 4 with upgrade path 1, 2, 3, 4, your first upgrade will raise your armor to 8, then 9, then 11.
Nope. My tests above already disproved this idea. If each upgrade was always the same, then my Italian Militia with 3 base armor and gold armor upgrades would have been equal to Italian Militia with no upgrades but 10 base armor. The 10 base armor unit was more missile resistant, which is clear evidence that the upgrade slots are not simply locked in at given values. If they were locked, the third upgrade would've given 7 total armor bonus, which it clearly did not...
My results have my brain twisted up in a knot ATM :help:
Wouldn't it just be simpler and easier on the head if some kind soul pm'd or contacted a CA rep to get an official answer? Ideally someone already in regular contact with CA staff ... hint hint. Or are we all just masochists at heart? :smash:
That way we can finally put this debacle to rest...
Wouldn't it just be simpler and easier on the head if some kind soul pm'd or contacted a CA rep to get an official answer? Ideally someone already in regular contact with CA staff ... hint hint. Or are we all just masochists at heart? :smash:
That way we can finally put this debacle to rest...
Don't forget, that someone has to be given explicit permission to share any given thing that he may know as a result of contact with devs. It's not like even if he knows how things work he can actually come out and tell us. At least, not unless they let his leash out a little :laugh4:
Don't forget, that someone has to be given explicit permission to share any given thing that he may know as a result of contact with devs. It's not like even if he knows how things work he can actually come out and tell us. At least, not unless they let his leash out a little
Tell me about it, at times i just end up screaming at my monitor because of some things i know about but cannot say.
Tell me about it, at times i just end up screaming at my monitor because of some things i know about but cannot say.
I don't doubt it, nor envy your position.
On that subject, is the topic at hand in this thread one that you're screaming about? I won't ask you what you do know, I just want to know IF you know.
If you do know, I might reasonably expect a bit of leading if I manage to throw an idea out here that is actually correct :beam:
No i don't know anything in regards to this topic, haven't really chatted to Jason since this thread was started. It can be difficult communicating with him as he's in Oz and im in the UK. I do intend to discuss this with him.
HoreTore
02-22-2007, 18:26
Been reading this thread from the start, and I've got to tell you, it's getting VERY confusing to find out what the latest research point to. Can't even imagine how hard it must be for new people to read this thread.
So, it would REALLY be nice of those of you who actually have a good understanding of this thread, to post a summary every once in a while. Or, maybe even better, start a new thread where you only post definitve updates(no comments)...
The summary as I understand it(probably wrong), is this:
Armour upgrades work like they should, they add the value for the new armour, not just one point. The implications this has for modding, is not clear.
Is that correct?
Re Berengario I
02-22-2007, 18:37
Been reading this thread from the start, and I've got to tell you, it's getting VERY confusing to find out what the latest research point to. Can't even imagine how hard it must be for new people to read this thread.
So, it would REALLY be nice of those of you who actually have a good understanding of this thread, to post a summary every once in a while. Or, maybe even better, start a new thread where you only post definitve updates(no comments)...
The summary as I understand it(probably wrong), is this:
Armour upgrades work like they should, they add the value for the new armour, not just one point. The implications this has for modding, is not clear.
Is that correct?
Armour upgrades seems to work in some way that can resemble what it was intended and none is sure how armour and armour upgrades could be modded.
This pretty sums up the findings to this point.
Yeah that's about the state of things. I too am honestly a little confused at the system and its apparent aversion to divulging its secrets. That E result I last posted is particularly disturbing...
So from here I intend to noodle around with it some and maybe I'll determine what is really going on. I don't intend to work too hard though, as it's probably both simpler and easier to let Lusted talk about it with people who know, and hopefully be able to relay the information shortly.
Point_Blank
02-22-2007, 19:45
Armour upgrades seems to work in some way that can resemble what it was intended and none is sure how armour and armour upgrades could be modded.
This pretty sums up the findings to this point.
You nailed it exactly!
Well, everyone can breathe a small sigh of relief: my results in post #181 are to be ignored.
I discovered that the archers I was testing against had not been expending their full complement of arrows, but rather were marching forward to get a better shot, at the urging of the AI. I interpreted this to mean they were closing to initiate melee, and thus stopped the test at that point. This makes all those results worthless, as you cannot have a fair test if the amount of ammo fired is not identical.
I'm actually sorta happy it turns out to be the case, as it was horrible trying to wrap my mind around such sick results. So it could still be that the simplest explanation prevails. Finding this out doesn't really put me in a mood to test that though.....
@Foz: The best way to run the test would be to use the various froms of Pikes for the tests as they have a fixed movemnt speed. That way you can control the archers and ensure you get the same number of volleys each time. You can even limit the ammow of the archers to help ensure this if you want.
^wordems - I realized I would have to control the archers, when on my first test, I intended to have my pikemen sit still and allow the archers to expend their full complement of arrows...
However, it appears said archers were led by a frenchman, who after firing two volleys commanded them to charge forward and impale themselves upon my pikes... I suppose in the hopes that the weight of their bodies would hinder the use of the pikes and allow their invisible reinforcements to chase me off.
Edit: I'm told that some people found the previous content of this post offensive. I assure you that was not my intent, and apologize to any who may have been unintentionally offended. As a result, I've removed the material.
You forget yourself Foz...
That only applies to Frenchmen. :beam:
pat the magnificent
02-23-2007, 14:02
well, regardless of how EXACTLY the armor upgrade system works, i think its reasonable to draw this one conclusion.
the current sheild fix system (ie, the foz's) has a good chance of interfering with the armor upgrade system.
HoreTore
02-23-2007, 14:08
well, regardless of how EXACTLY the armor upgrade system works, i think its reasonable to draw this one conclusion.
the current sheild fix system (ie, the foz's) has a good chance of interfering with the armor upgrade system.
Luckily, that's no longer a problem, as it will be fix in the new patch!
me = happy, happy, happy!
pat the magnificent
02-23-2007, 14:15
yeah but... when will THAT be? seems like i've been waiting for months already... oh wait... i have been.
Well it's gone into final testing so it will likely be out next week. They said late feb back after the first one was released, and we are getting it in late feb.
As promised i've been chatting to Palamedes about this(finally remembered). I only caught him briefly today but we'll be chatting more this week.
He gave me this useful info:
none no valid armour 0
Unarmoured Unarmoured 0
Padded Padded or leather 4
Light Mail Chainmail shirt 5
Heavy Mail Heavy Maiil 7
Partial Plate Fully armoured. Mostly Plate 8
Plate Full set of plate armour 9
Gothic Advanced Plate 10
Late Plate Renaisance suit of plate 11
Light Brigandine 6
Heavy Brigandine 8
Half Plate Breastpllate and helmet 7
3Q Plate Three quarters plate 8
Cav Unarmoured 0
Cav
And according to him armour upgrades should work by giving units the armour value of the next level, so billmen going from unarmoured to padded should get plus 4 to their armour. But as they aren't, it indicates it isn't working as planned.
But this does mean that CA did plan for armour upgrades to give the corresponding armour value to the look of the armour.
As promised i've been chatting to Palamedes about this(finally remembered). I only caught him briefly today but we'll be chatting more this week.
He gave me this useful info:
And according to him armour upgrades should work by giving units the armour value of the next level, so billmen going from unarmoured to padded should get plus 4 to their armour. But as they aren't, it indicates it isn't working as planned.
But this does mean that CA did plan for armour upgrades to give the corresponding armour value to the look of the armour.
Test results(number is men remaining):
Billmen:
Flesh(0) 3 8 4 6 4 Average 5
Leather/Padded(4) 22 14 15 18 26 Average 19
Light Mail(5) 34 28 41 38 36 Average 35.4
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5) 40 37 33 30 34 Average 34.8
Heavy Mail(7) 62 60 55 58 59 Average 58.8
Partial Plate(9) 74 81 85 76 79 Average 79
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7) 59 64 63 56 54 Average 59.2
Partial Plate(9) 82 78 82 85 79 Average 81.2
I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1437499&postcount=181
Thats one of your own posts where you show that level 3 armour upgrades come out at less than 7.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1435445&postcount=67
Yet this post by myself clearly shows that Heavy Mail is better than 5.
It's a damm weird situation.
My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?
Other tests by other people. The system is working mostly as expected, but not completely.
My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
You mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.
You mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.
Yeah, sorry, i couldn't be bothered to check an EDU, (i have several :laugh4:), and tried to do it from memory.
LOL Carl. One of my other posts somewhere on this page explains that post #181 was bad, and why. As such I've removed it, since it is not accurate test data at all. IIRC (I'm not about to go back to read) It was something to do with archers closing to start shooting again, when I thought they had expended full ammo and thus stopped the test - which ends up having destroyed the results, as I have no way to know how many shots were fired in any given test before they decided to run forward.
So they are making a distinction between German and Italian Advanced Plate (Italian supposedly being significantly better)?
No they're making a difference between gothic and the very late game renaissance type of armour.
caralampio
04-10-2007, 23:16
I'm very happy to finally see this problem discussed in depth. All have done a great work and I think that the results so far are encouraging. This issue had greatly reduced my enjoyment of the game, and knowing now that armor upgrades probably work as they should or nearly, has restored its appeal for me. I'm sure others felt this way because of shield bug or 2H bug, even to the point of stop playing the game. Armor upgrades was my personal stumbling stone.
:2thumbsup:
Same here, did'nt play since 12/2006.
Furious Mental
04-11-2007, 09:45
I am confused. Can someone in the know tell me- do armour upgrades work properly or not?
I am confused. Can someone in the know tell me- do armour upgrades work properly or not?
Probably. There is this persistent notion that something is slightly off from working correctly, but I myself haven't seen evidence of it. At the very least, things are very close to what they should be - the first upgrade to padded/leather gives +4, the next +1 (5 total), and so on. So basically yes they work in the amounts they're purported to, not the +1s that are always shown on the stat sheets.
TeutonicKnight
04-12-2007, 14:33
So the leather worker upgrade is definitely worth it for every settlement now at the very least. +4 armor to unarmored militia is huge.
>> starts running around altering his build queues... <<
Arkatreides
04-19-2007, 11:49
Does anyone know whether this has been fixed/changed in the latest patch?
FactionHeir
04-19-2007, 11:53
This topic keeps popping up...guess I might just throw another question in then:
If you modify the base armour value a unit has and then upgrade it to the next armour level, do you effectively reduce its armour or will it just add the correct value onto your modified value.
i.e.: Peasants have 0 base armour value and can be upgraded once for 4 armour effectively. What if you set Peasants to 10 base armour by only changing the armour value and then upgrade them? 4 armour or 14 armour?
Does anyone know whether this has been fixed/changed in the latest patch?
It does not appear that it has been touched at all. Not surprising really, IIRC we came upon the bulk of the discussion much closer to the patch release date than most things that did make it in.
This topic keeps popping up...guess I might just throw another question in then:
If you modify the base armour value a unit has and then upgrade it to the next armour level, do you effectively reduce its armour or will it just add the correct value onto your modified value.
i.e.: Peasants have 0 base armour value and can be upgraded once for 4 armour effectively. What if you set Peasants to 10 base armour by only changing the armour value and then upgrade them? 4 armour or 14 armour?
I don't think anyone honestly knows. My guess would be the system is additive rather than using replacement. If you really want to know, setup a test case. Fight unmodified town militia (or some such unit) against a given enemy (maybe spear militia), giving the town militia 3 armor upgrades. Observe. Then mod your EDU so TM have 20 base armor, and fight the same battle, with them getting 3 armor upgrades again. Observe whether they fight better, worse, or the same. That should prove pretty conclusive.
Gaius Terentius Varro
04-24-2007, 14:42
All the units that start with armor level 5 (full plate) have 9 as their armor value not 10
Dalthius
05-02-2007, 02:33
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but...
It still can't be 100% determined that armor works or not, but even if it does, the stats are still incorrect in 1.2. I find this quite disconcerting. One would think this would be a relatively simple item to fix, but then again I am no programmer. Alright, 1.2 is just a "test" patch right now, but it's unlikely it will be addressed in the full patch. I found several improvements in 1.2 but when I came across the fact that that armor STILL does not APPEAR to work, I quit in disgust.
...alright, so I'm going to go back and load up in a minute, I just had to get my temper tantrum out of the way, lol.
Gaius Terentius Varro
05-02-2007, 02:45
Full plate is full plate no matter what stats say.
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but...
It still can't be 100% determined that armor works or not, but even if it does, the stats are still incorrect in 1.2. I find this quite disconcerting. One would think this would be a relatively simple item to fix, but then again I am no programmer. Alright, 1.2 is just a "test" patch right now, but it's unlikely it will be addressed in the full patch. I found several improvements in 1.2 but when I came across the fact that that armor STILL does not APPEAR to work, I quit in disgust.
...alright, so I'm going to go back and load up in a minute, I just had to get my temper tantrum out of the way, lol.
That's exactly why it probably isn't fixed yet: because, even though it may occasionally upset you, in the end you realize it is entirely trivial. I have every confidence that all the time the devs have spent fixing things for 1.2 has been on things that are more noticeable, more important, and more broken than the stats display, so while it would be a nice thing to have fixed, I'd actually cry foul if they had done so, as it would mean something that actually might matter a little had been sacrificed in order to get it done. When we get to the point where things like shield bug, 2h bug, router chasing, passive AI, and ctd bugs are no longer appearing on the patch lists, then it may be time to think about stuff in this category, and not a moment before.
Dalthius
05-02-2007, 04:32
@ Foz:
I agree wholeheartedly, I just needed to complain about it to make myself feel better. :laugh4:
Sorry for the necro post, but I can't seem to find an accurate answer anywhere.
There's a few threads that explain the actual values of each armour upgrade, however the main thing I can't determine is this.
Is the first value of "armour_ug_levels" used for anything other than a reference point?
So we know the armour values are:
1 = +4
2 = +6
3 = +7
4 = +8
5 = +10
6 = +11
So if a unit had
armour_ug_levels 0,1,2,3
It would get +4 on the first upgrade.
Followed by +6(+2) and +7(+1)
However if a unit had
armour_ug_levels 5,6
Would it get +10 to its base instantly?
Or would this just determine that it's first upgrade would be +11?
Essentially, in the case the first value is NOT 0, is it's underlying value actually applied?
It seems somewhat illogical to be yes, as this is an entirely 'hidden' (and extremely significant) armour buff.
If no, then is there any logic to the vanilla EDU having single values for this field?
There are some units with "armour_ug_levels 6". If there is no second value to determine the value of the 'bronze' armour upgrade, what value does the first number provide?
Thanks for your help, and sorry again for the necro.
I'm working on a large mod, and it is an important mechanic to understand for balancing.
Northstar1989
02-17-2021, 01:52
XViper
Sorry to necro, but to both answer your question, and provide further confirmation of how this works...
The armor levels simply replace the armor levels, they DON'T add to the base levels. I.e. a unit that starts with Padded Armor (base 4 armor, like Italian Spear Militia) and then gets an armor upgrade to Light Mail (base 6 armor) will now have 6 armor, NOT 4.
Try taking units starting with padded armor, upgraded to Light Mail, and units starting unarmored, upgraded to Heavy Mail, and you'll see the ones with 3 upgrades be more resistant to arrows, and win melee with units which are otherwise identical: which wouldn't hold true if the base 4 units got +6 to armor instead of it overwriting the 4 with 6.
I.e. Italian Militia with 3 upgrades (Heavy Mail, starts unarmored) beat Italian Spear Militia with 1 upgrade (Light Mail, starts with Padded) more often in melee (as armor levels only differ by 1, and Spear Militia have longer spears but identical attack/mental stats, the contest is very close and a bit random...)
If the bonuses were additive, you would expect the Italian Spear Militia in Light Mail to win by a mile (10 armor vs. 7) instead of barely losing (6 vs. 7).
Similarly, Italian Spear Militia with 1 armor upgrade (6 Armor) are pretty even with un-upgraded Armored Sergeants (Light Mail, should probably 6 Armor though the unit card states 5 Armor), they don't wipe the floor with them like they would if it were 10 armor vs. 5 or 6.
TLDR: Armor upgrades simply REPLACE base armor rating for sure.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.