Balancing in the leaked 1.2

[Husar]

So after trying the leaked 1.2 patch, I was very happy to see the twohander animations and the shieldbug fixed.
Until I discovered that my english armoured swordsmen were almost immune to zweihanders. And my armoured billmen were seemingly useless as well(so were the normal billmen, but I thought that was because they're early units).
Now that got me wondering since twohanders were supposedly fixed, the shield bug obviously was fixed, since my spear and sword units had a lot more survivability. And then I realized that the fixed shield bug simply annihilates the effectiveness of all twohanded units as they were. They simply cannot cope with the high defense of other units anymore, exceptions being those with really high attack ratings like dismounted english knights who have 21 attack and armour piercing. But twohanders for example, who were supposedly veterans back then, have an attack rating of 14, compared to dismounted feudal knights with 13. Now the feudals have 21 defense while the twohanders have IIRC just 11. What that means is that the dismounted feudal knights will inflict a lot of damage to the badly defended twohanders while the twohanders will have problems to get through the big defense of the dismounted knights. In a test I ran, the dismounted knights won and had more than 60 men left, of 120. Now I do understand that they are knights etc, but people who wielded twohanded swords weren't peasants either, they were, from what I read, usually veteran soldiers and pretty good fighters, plus their weapon should do a bit more damge than a sword used with only one hand. I also wouldn't agree that their defense stat is as low as that of twohanded axe units, since deflecting blows with a balanced sword made of steel should be easier than with a wooden shaft and a big weight on one end.

I ended up modding most twohanded units to higher attack values, I gave wohanders 19 attack and 9 defense(plus 7 armour makes 16 defense overall) while giving most axe units above 20 attack(up to 24 for varangian guards) and defense around 3 to 5. Same for halberds and pikes, whose attack I also increased a bit(JHI would lose against dismounted feudal knights as well...).
Now most of them seem to be quite ok, teohanders win against dismounted feudal knights, but still lose a big amount of men themselves, against other twohanders they are a bit even but lose against varangians for example(who I considered elite and who can now also beat feudal foot knights).

Now, I opened this thread for several reasons:
1. I haven't seen anyone mention this before
2. I'm interested in opinions on relative unit strengths etc.
3. I really hope CA did some similar rebalancing in the official patch, it just can't be that noone noticed how useless twohanders are now, even though their animations were fixed(some weren't even useless before, but now they are), or are they all supposed to beat peasants and archers only?

[crpcarrot]

i havent played 1.2 yet but from your good explanantion i think i prefer the new setup. its seems right to me. 2 handers are specialist troops to be used for specific tasks. i wont send a unit with no sheilds on a frontal assault on uits with sheilds and swords/spears. and i'm sure the more high end 2H units do enough damage.

[Lusted]

3. I really hope CA did some similar rebalancing in the official patch

Doubt it, the major rebalance the game needs with the 2 handed and shield bugs fixed would add months to the testing time for the patch.

[Jambo]

I added +2 to the defence and attack of all 2-handed sword units. That pretty much does the trick. At one point I also had them with the "ap" attribute but I think leaving it off gives them more flavour.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Aren't they supposed to be (zweihanders) a flanking unit and why would they defeat a knight with a shield? I mean the whole front row of the unit on the receiving end goes down when the zweihanders (due to high charge bonus) charge into it. Are they meant to be able to be shock infantry and hold the line at the same time? I charge them in then bring in support troops to so they are not standing there getting owned .

[Daveybaby]

Exactly, theyre shock troops - once the charge bonuses is exhausted you would expect them to get cut to pieces by armoured swordsmen.

[Husar]

IT's funny you say that since I saw more zweihanders going down than anyone else in the initial charge, maybe I should just increase their charge bonus to insane levels? In that case I'd still prefer to use cavalry since they're able to flank a lot faster and their charges are more devastating anyway. Historically I think twohanders were often used to penetrate pike formations while a friendly pike unit was engaged with them, but since the AI rarely uses pikes...
Well, my main concern was that IMO there is no real "shock" from a charge left, the dismounted knights kill more in the charge because the defense of the twohanders is a lot lower(21 vs 11, +10 for the DFKs) while both their attack values, even including the charge value are not that different(13+3=16 vs 14+6=20, +4 for the twohanders). The attack value of a twohander is still one point lower than the defense of the dismounted knights while the dismounted knights have 6 more attack than the twohanders have defense. The result should be obvious. Someone also posted some video in another thread of some people who chopped different things with different swords and the twohanders do seem to be quite a bit more powerful than a normal sword. I do think an axe is still deadlier due to the different shape and weight distribution, but why would a professional/veteran soldier use a twohander and thick armour if less armour, a onehanded sword and shield were that much more effective in the long run, why didn't they stick with the smaller swords?

[Shahed]

Download and install Carl's Fixer 1.13 over 1.10. IMO that's the balance you are looking for, Husar. Observe the changes there and then you can apply them to your 1.20. It works perfectly IMO, balance is just great.

I have'nt played enough LTC but I bet it's about the same.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Wasn't the sword used in RL as anti pike/spear formation weapon?

[Foz]

My personal opinion on the balance of 2H units at least is that DEKs largely get it right. Where typical dismounted knights w/ S&S have 13 attack and 21 overall defense, DEKs turn that around with 21 attack and 13 defense (or something close, I'm going from memory as I have unpacked 1.2(L) files ATM). The drawbacks of course are that knights roll through them pretty easily, and missiles kill them considerably more than they do shield units. As compensation, though, the DEKs are granted the AP stat, and a charge bonus in line with that of mounted units. I suggest this as a relative formula for 2H balancing then:

- Their attack is identical to the defense of contemporary S&S units
- Their defense is identical to the attack of contemporary S&S units
- Double the charge value of the contemporary S&S unit to get the 2H charge value
- Give them the AP stat

I'm certain it's not perfect, and unit costs may need to be adjusted, but it at least may give a reasonable battlefield balance.

Also there are bound to be some 2-handers that don't really have contemporary S&S units. In those cases it may suffice to make them mirror other contemporary shield units like spearmen.

To account for flavor, we also may wish to adjust the stats for each unit based on its cost, rather than the other way around. Basically it would be multiplying by the ratio of the unit's cost to that of DEK. If it costs 1.33 times as much as DEK, it should logically have 1.33 times the stats, or at least considerably better stats than DEK. However, this method would not account for the variable price of upkeep: many 2H units are much lower than DEK's upkeep. Should DEKs be more powerful because of their higher upkeep? And if so, how do we combine the upkeep and recruitment cost together to measure the stats a unit should receive based on both combined somehow? I don't think it would come out fair to simply add them together, as the recruitment always far outweighs the upkeep. Maybe using recruitment + 3x upkeep would be fair, or maybe 5x upkeep instead. How much weight should the upkeep have?

[FactionHeir]

Upkeep is quite tough to measure as it depends on how long on average the unit gets to stick around. My units in SP campaigns stick around for basically forever as I don't hire more than I need and rather have a bunch of elites. So in those cases upkeep would outweigh recruitment.

[Zim]

What file do you need to change to change unit stats? I'm playing an HRE game right now and I'm not sure I like the Zweihanders getting slaughtered by every single unit they come across (one would think they could at least take on unarmored spear militia).

[Carl]

My personal opinion on the balance of 2H units at least is that DEKs largely get it right.

I'd strongly disagree here, DEK's cost a fortune and totally outstat DCK/Noble Swordsmen, yet these units, (which are also the specific unit types 2-handers are supposed to counter), can quite soundly beat them.

From a stats, (but not cost), PoV I think JHI are much closer. Whilst not very powerful for their cost, they have excellent power for their stats, in fact it is more or less exactly what you would expect.

Lets look at a stats comparison between JHI and Noble Swordsmen shall we:

JHI:

A: 12
D: 10

Notes: They have a skeleton Comp factor of 1.33 increasing their effective killing power, so they will actually perform above their attack value somewhat.


Noble Swordsmen:

A: 13
D: 15, (includes the effect of the JHI's AP attribute).

Notes: only has a skeleton comp factor of 1.0.


If you look at the stats you'd expect the Noble Swordsmen to pretty much trounce the JHI if you ignore the skeleton comp factor. Indeed I have a rough and ready formula that says if you add the total attack and defense scores of a unit together and compare it to the same value for the opposing unit, whichever unit has a 4, (or more), point advantage will tend to beat the opposing unit by a noticeable margin. With a 6 point difference you'd expect the JHI to get murdered.

However theirs also that Skeleton comp factor and higher charge to take into account. The exact effects of the skeleton comp are unkown, but my own observations, (when i tried removing it from 2-handers once), say it's worth the equivalent of 2-3 points of attack. that cuts the difference down to 3-4 point, and the charge difference drops this to 0-1 point of difference.

By those figures you'd expect a fairly close fought battle with the Noble Swordsmen winning but suffering heavy losses. In reality it's a bit worse than that with both sides pretty much wiping each other out, but I put that down to the good JHI animation.


Here's the same figures for DEK vs. Noble Swordsmen:

DEK:

A: 21
D: 13

Notes: They have a skeleton Comp factor of 1.33 increasing their effective killing power, so they will actually perform above their attack value somewhat.


Noble Swordsmen:

A: 13
D: 15, (includes the effect of the DEK's AP attribute).

Notes: only has a skeleton comp factor of 1.0.


At a quick glance thats a 6 point stats difference in the DEK's favor before skeleton Comp and/or Charge are taken into account, afterwords it is somwhere around 8-12, (depending on weather your including the charge or not). Frankly by those stats the DEK should be winning so convincingly it looks IMBA:laugh4:. In reality the noble Swordsmen beat the DEK more convincingly than they do the JHI!

After seeing these two things I ran a test with the DEK using the JHI animation again and -2 attack. the DEK beat the Noble Swordsmen with just under half their unit left.


It's abundantly clear to me that the animations are still utter garbage ATM. using observed rates and a bit of educated guesswork, the Noble Swordsmen are, (between slower animations, and more animations being interrupted in mid swing), getting about 2-3 times as many attacks in in a given time period, when compared to the DEK.

I honestly don't know if my ProblemFixer Pure is going to be able to get away with using the new animations, simply because at heart don't believe anything I can do in the way of stats altering will make 2-handers work with the new animations without destroying auto-resolve balance, and/or removing some/all of the unique disadvantages of 2-handers.

[Lusted]

Carl, have a look at the unit files me and Palamedes worked on for LTC 2.3, see what you think of them:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=96113

[Foz]

I notice your DEKs have skeleton comp value of 0.4, Lusted. What does that do? We really need to know EXACTLY what the hell that setting does...

Of course the DEKs work well when you give them almost as much frontal defense as S&S units have, and mostly keep their insanely high attack, lol. I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense as a 2h axe or warhammer is not a particularly good defensive weapon, but at least it's a functional solution. They beat S&S units and die to missile fire like they're supposed to, but the higher defense and lowered knight stats probably change their dynamic w/ knights substantially. You'd think knights should be able to roll them pretty easily from the front since they don't have shields, but I'm guessing the 18 defense will dampen that, if not largely prevent it. I can't really check, though, as I already modded Lusted's knights out of that file since I wasn't keen on that aspect of his balance. Perhaps someone else could give an idea of what happens in the matchup, like maybe Carl if he checks out Lusted's files?


I'd strongly disagree here, DEK's cost a fortune and totally outstat DCK/Noble Swordsmen, yet these units, (which are also the specific unit types 2-handers are supposed to counter), can quite soundly beat them.

When did 530/225 become a "fortune?" DFK are 570/225, DCK are 610/225, Noble Swordsmen 610/175. DEKs are actually among the cheapest of the dismounted knight type of units.

As to what 2 handers are "supposed to counter," I don't think it's a written law that a 2-hander must beat S&S units. Just by nature of their offense-favoring stats they gain a tremendous edge in flanking as opposed to defense-favoring shield units in that role. The AP is especially great for it: the armor stat is a much larger percent of the unit's total defense in the sides and rear than in the front, so consequently when flanking it rips away a much bigger percent of the unit's applicable defense. I also don't think it's inherently evil to have 2 styles of units (in this case S&S and 2H) be roughly equal in melee: neither has to be designed to beat the other. Just so you're aware, the DEKs can beat the more expensive DFKs frontally, just not the really elite S&S units it seems. I'm not sure if they do so consistently, but they did on my first try just now, 61 to 49. In any case it seems they should be applied as the hammer to the S&S unit's anvil: a role in which they are really only bested by mounted knights. I actually think they're a steal w/ vanilla stats in 1.2, provided one understands that their low defense and high attack are best suited to tasks other than frontal assault or line-holding duties. Keep them from being exposed to much enemy attack, use them as a hammer, and you're bound to see what I mean.

[Lusted]

I notice your DEKs have skeleton comp value of 0.4, Lusted. What does that do? We really need to know EXACTLY what the hell that setting does...

Nothing according to Jason, he was just testing some of the changes Darth Vader makes in his mod, and like some of Daths changes, apear to have no effect at all.

[Point_Blank]

I agree with Carl. Some of the new animations, particularly using the DEK as a prime example, are horrible.

In general, DEK should beat DCK head to head. Units shifted to 2H AP weapons because 1H weapons such as swords were not doing the job vs the heavier armors coming into more common use. The loss of shield was considered justified, as the opponents' swords were not greatly effective vs plate/platemail anyway. 2H weapons were also better vs cav.

Clearly, sword units should get more attacks than 2H units. They should carve up lesser-armored foes much more efficiently than a 2H unit would. But the DEK animation (as an example) is very slow and easily interrupted.

Zweihanders are now more effective than DEK vs DCK. This is just plain wrong.

What is the answer? Make the DEK use the JHI animation?

[BigTex]

What is the answer? Make the DEK use the JHI animation?

No, Not without massive adjustments to stats. The JHI animation is simply one of the most powerful animations in the game. Been through this many of times. Sadly their's no real fix for them, even after 1.02. They at least attempted to fix them though this round. Sadly with the shield fix there's a whole new slew of balancing problems.

Almost every single unit in the game now needs to be rebalanced with shields working correctly in melee. They were previously adjusted to with the shield bug. Now Chivalric Knights will always beat Lancers.

Though after screwing with the varangian guard post 1.2 they are powerhouses. I've yet to find much that will stop them. Maybe the trick is to give the DEK's/bills/other assorted 2hd's a shield factor of 1 or 2?

[sapi]

At least this is a problem that modders have a chance of fixing...

[dopp]

My personal preference is to increase 2hander/late cavalry armor and defense skill (those with 'advanced plate armor') to give them a total defense equal to or close to that of the shield units (+4 armor, +1/+2 defense skill). The advantage is that only a few units need to be altered. I justify the defense skill boost on the grounds that the added bulk of advanced plate is compensated for by the loss of the shield (in the case of foot units, a full body shield), so there really isn't any call for giving Zweihanders substandard armor AND slowing them down as well 'due to the weight'.

[Point_Blank]

Now Chivalric Knights will always beat Lancers.

The late gothic/renaissance armor of the Lancers is not given enough edge, only 3 points, over the Chivalric platemail. 4-6 points would be more appropriate and would justify ditching the shield, as happened in reality. Well that is of course easy enough to mod in but might not be consistent with other units and upgrades.

edit: dopp man you beat me to it :)

[Foz]

Actually, the Chivalric Knights are not hands down better. You'd think so to consider just the unit stats, as they have 1 extra point of overall defense. However, the breakdown of defense stats matters too:

Lancers have 11/5/0 for armor/skill/shield
CKs have 8/5/4

So the Lancers trade 4 shield points for 3 armor points. This seems unfair until you realize that those 2 types of points are not equal. They both prevent melee and missile attacks, but armor points give better cover from non-front sides than shield points do. Here are the effective armor ratings by quadrant:

Lancers

Front 16
Right 16
Left 16
Rear 11

CKs

Front 17
Right 13
Left 12
Rear 8

So immediately we see that the Chivalric Knights are considerably weaker to flanking attacks. Is this a big deal? It may be. My reasoning is that in melee, you often see knights ride up beside an enemy unit to attack it. Guess what happens if that unit attacks the knight? If you said it's attacking one of the knight's non-front sides, give yourself a cookie. In fact I would speculate that because of this behavior a significant portion of the attacks against knights come from one of its 2 sides, since the knight is usually not engaging a target in front of him unless using his lance. If that assumption is even partially true, is it a good idea to "trade down" 4 shield points into 3 armor points? Since it translates into a 1 point frontal defense loss, but a 3-4 point side and rear defense gain, it well may be a good idea. Also, given +8 charge knights' propensity for ending up in the middle of the enemy unit after breaking the front line, it seems that the survivability of Lancers may be better than that of Chivalric Knights since they can hold up to being surrounded better (the sum of their quadrants is 59, compared to CK's 50 meaning they have 9 more applicable defense points when surrounded), though the stats screen certainly wouldn't lead you to that conclusion. The end result is that Chivalrics are a hair better from the front, but Lancers are much more rugged since they have considerably better defense from all other sides. Given the choice, I take the rugged unit, since combat never goes exactly how you want it to, so it always helps to have a unit with better average facings rather than a slim frontal advantage coupled with more fragile numbers on the sides and rear. I don't like to have to be really really careful with my units - this IS war, after all.

[dopp]

Note however that the Chivalrics are wearing only half plate in the above example. Once they upgrade to full plate they will only be 2 armor points behind the Lancers and 2 points ahead overall.

Also, Lancers are the best protected of all the late period cavalry. Compare to Gothic Knights 10 armor 5 skill, and Gendarmes 11 armor 4 skill. Chivalrics are then a full 3 points better.