View Full Version : Kingdoms balance discussion
We can continiue the balance discussion here.
hi, lupu
I have read your last posts and the discussion about the balance in kingdoms.
I have the same opinion, lupu already said this, the crossbown are too strong.
All in all kingdoms is much better than 1.2.
You say that archers are much better when they fire on an infantry unit, but what is the use of this, if my archers are already dead?:inquisitive:
In my opinion there are two solutions.
At the one hand, you make crossbown more expensive,
or you make them not so good, these two possibilities are meaningfully.
Crossbowns were often milita and i cant imagine that a milita win again a good archer unit, with many experience.
i hope you will think about this, and maybe the next patch, will make crossbowns not so good against archers, but you are also right with your statement, that pavise have a big shild.
But this quality for a so cheap price, ist not meaningfully.
greatings Duffman
My suggestions for balance fixes in the patch for kingdoms:
Downpower pav-crossbowmen in defensive stance(guard mode)
Make some 2h units less resistant to cav charge
Fix run run-through exploit on spearwalls
Fix exploit of 2 units behind eachither- spearwall
Downprice caroccio/great cross in crusades campaign to same price as jerusalem/antioch great cross
Downpower mounted crossbowmen's missile power
Downpower teutonic units and remove the high unit restriction
Janissary archers too expensive, even in crusades(in other campaigns they are way too expensive)
Gunpower units not worth their price
(NOT BALANCE) some units in crusades campaign hwo originally had shields missing them(forgot to add in meshes and textures?) Sabardar Militia, pavise crossbowmen, sword and buckler men, dismounted conquistadores and some more that dont come to mind.
GL with patch
PS: All rebalance requests take point in the crusades balance.(exept teutonic unit power/restrictions)
I agree with most of Lupu's points. The kingdoms balance is already pretty good, at least compared with rome or vanilla m2, but nowhere near perfect.
We have tested it and the guard mode doesnt ake difference.
Pavs are OP and I have a proof, if anyone can give me a link to where i can upload files.
rapidshare is good sharehoster,
http://rapidshare.de
i play with lupu in this match, so i can understand him.
The balance is unacceptable, genua crossbown militia kills the ottomanian infantry so fast and the genua crossbown militia has only some casualties.
A crusades replay that shows Xbow opverpowreing in kindoms:
http://rapidshare.de/files/38020578/OPgxb.rpy.html
And also Crossbowmen have longer lasting ammo, to being overpowered in missile battle they get another unfair advantage.
pike master
12-11-2007, 01:48
guard mode will have an affect.
its all in numbers the defence goes up the attack goes down. its the same computations the total war games have used from shogun.
a block of units in guard mode will hold out longer when charged or attacked than they would otherwise. they will also not chase after a routed enemy which is very important when you are trying to keep your army together and not get them fatigued.
also in guard mode as they keep their formation better it will give them a more reliable morale than if they are mixed up in a melee out of guard mode.
Yes but it will be the same for both units in missile battle.
Forgot to add one thing:
Horse archers being folowed by cav nearly do no damage, shouldnt the most stupid thing you can do be pursing HAs?
(expet theyer mounted crossbowmen :()
I did some tests with turkomans and mouted X-bowmen the 4 units of mounted X-bowmen did more damage with 1 shot than the 4 turkomans did with 3(they were shooting at a unit of hospitaller knights) sure the turkomans are better in mellee but the mounted xbowmen can just skirmish away(if the human does it skirmish mode sucks) and have longer lasting ammo whats also unblancing cause they allready do more damage.
How do I edit?
Continiunig post:
Especially for HA cause much of the limitation of damage they can do is the ammonition.
Mounted crossbowmen can take down knights costing twice as much as themselves cause they have som much ammo.
pike master
12-12-2007, 03:13
now understand
the missile units in a pav battle are different.
guard mode only increases defence skill and decreases melee attack skill.
armor and shields will in no case be increased in guard mode.
missiles will experience no decrease in damage capability.
in this case guard mode makes no difference whatsoever.
it only matters in melee.
I did some tests with turkomans and mouted X-bowmen the 4 units of mounted X-bowmen did more damage with 1 shot than the 4 turkomans did with 3(they were shooting at a unit of hospitaller knights)
Would you not expect and xbow to be more effective than a bow against a heavily armored target?
pike master
12-12-2007, 07:27
pavise crossbowmen were murder historically. the only reason they lost at crecy was because they werent allowed to wait for their pavise shields. genoese crossbowmen mercenaries specialized in a long drawn out skirmish. while the english longbowman relied on heavy volume of firepower to achieve superiority the pavise crossbowman laboriously worked his weapon only exposing himself for the shot then hiding back behind the shield to reload.
eventually the longbowmen would exhaust their ammo while the slower firing pavise crossbowmen would still have extra ammo left. in the end a properly run skirmish would result in heavier losses for the longbowmen than the crossbowmen.
the french were never patient enough throughout the hundred years war to allow pavise crossbowmen to properly execute their method of skirmish.
plus many archers in the game have their own shields but with only a 5 bonus to the pavises 8.
in a single player battle i tried to rush some genoese crossbowmen with heavy cavalry only to have my cavalry decimated before they got to them.
@Puzz3D: Not more than 3x and not from a horse, a crossbow fired from a horse has to be reloaded from a horse so it cant be more powerful than a bow.
Also look at the stats they have 5 damage, AP and slower firing rate, compare them to mounted french archers, they have 7 AP and fast firing rate, but do the same damage?????
Also whats the point of having hore archers if they only work vs cheap cav?
Longbowmen were not the only archers having AP arrows, most composite bowmen were also carrying some more heavy shorter range arrows.
@pike master: In a drawn out missile battle, but they win right at the start too, also they should have slower firing rate and more dafence, that would be realistic as they should win a drawn out missile battle, but loose at the start, it wouldnt be unbalancing as the slow reload time (4-5x a bow) would make it possible to use cav and HA to harass and stop their reloading.
The result:
The pav. crossbow is as it was historically: a weapon that would win the missile battle if it has time and you dont need to micromanage to win with it,
Archers are units loosing if exposed to a long time missile battle but with micromanaging you would win.
L
@Puzz3D: Not more than 3x and not from a horse
In Samurai Wars, we have a gun costing 300 with 7 minutes of ammo that's 3x stronger per volley in 3 rank fire and 9x stronger per full 60 man volley vs heavy armor than a bow firing a 60 man volley at the same range which costs 400 and has 2.5 minutes of ammo, and we were able to playbalance them using the reload time and armor they carry. It's possible that our archer is slightly overpriced. The archer improves by 6x vs low armor targets making 2x better than the gun which remains about the same effectiveness no matter what the target's armor. We don't have cavalry guns because they didn't exist in the timeframe of the game, but if we did they would have to increase in cost because higher mobility is valuable. For instance, we have cavalry archers which use the same bow parameters as the foot archers, but the cavalry archers cost 600.
Also whats the point of having horse archers if they only work vs cheap cav?
That's where we have an advantage in Samurai Wars because there are some high value units that have low armor which are cost effective targets for archers.
Longbowmen were not the only archers having AP arrows, most composite bowmen were also carrying some more heavy shorter range arrows.
I don't think the game mechanics allow for two different ranged weapons for the same unit.
Archers are units loosing if exposed to a long time missile battle but with micromanaging you would win.
Exactly, but I don't see Creative Assembly going through that much effort to playbalance the game.
Samurai wars looks cool in terms of playbalance, but I dont have MTW/VI :)
I have a suggestion for archers vs pavs, its not for realism but for balance.
If the enemy takes pavs you cant take archers, taking archers vs pavs is like loosing, but pavs are weaker vs rushers(if not theyre well armored).
The point is: archers are useless because if you take archers the enemy takes pavs and doesnt rush.
What you could do is: Removing pav "immortallity" because if you do that theyre like all other crossbowmen: equal in price/value to archers in missile battle, (mostly)weaker in mellee, and a better weapon to fight armored opponents, but not as good in price/value against unarmore foes.
How do I edit?
Countiniung next post, I forgot something.
Ansver for 2 different ranged weapons: They could remove flaming arrows because theyre useless an change them with ap arrows.
pike master
12-17-2007, 07:24
flaming arrows are only good once you are deep in a battle and morale reaching crisis points for a lot of units, the flaming arrows may be enough to tip them the rest of the way into a rout.
as far as using them to inflict casualties your wasting your time and ammunition. killing soldiers permanently removes morale. shooting them with fire arrows only temporarily removes morale.
i havent played mp since kingdoms came out. ive spent a lot of time learning how to mod the last several months. so i dont know how overpowered the new shield bonus has made to units in mp.
what i do know is that the shield bonus on spearmen, especially ones like armored spearmen is near on making them invincible. with the balancing like it is with spearmen why would you want anything else. they can beat pikes, halberds, and slug dismounted knights to a standstill or at least long enough for the battle to have been decided elsewhere.
when we are talking about pavs being too powerful and spearmen being too powerful we are actually talking about the same issue.
the shield bonus.
You want to slaughter armoured sergeants: take some really heavy shock infantries or yeniceri(janissaries)
They have really big shield, damn I hvnt tested the pavise spearmen yet!!!
The way spearmen hold cav in kingdoms theyre still good as counter inf.
That doesnt explain mounted crossbowmen OP, can anyone explain the reason to me, I dont understand it(and set down their ammo, i the EDU they have more ammo than other HAs(25-20) plus slower firing rate.) It would be good if anyone would know it, they do same damage as mounted frenchies and have less damage, less firng/minute.
For the flaming arrows: ive found more luck routing units with normal arrows(rapid loss of men does demoralize more then flaming arrows in my experience, plus loos of men sets down morale for a longer time)
I have a suggestion for archers vs pavs, its not for realism but for balance.
If the enemy takes pavs you cant take archers, taking archers vs pavs is like loosing, but pavs are weaker vs rushers(if not theyre well armored).
The point is: archers are useless because if you take archers the enemy takes pavs and doesnt rush.
What you could do is: Removing pav "immortallity" because if you do that theyre like all other crossbowmen: equal in price/value to archers in missile battle, (mostly)weaker in mellee, and a better weapon to fight armored opponents, but not as good in price/value against unarmore foes.
I have not played M2:TW enough to really say about archers vs. pav.arbs in that game. However, if things remain similar, Ottoman Turks faction was a very viable faction in M:TW, despite the lack of pav.arbs. Of course, I am talking about different alternatives than missile-dueling-then-attack tactic.
I am not saying that you are incorrect, Lupu. In M:TW, pav. arbs would kill other archers if other archers are in missile duels with pav.arbs. I am saying that there are players who took up Ottoman Turks army in High-era and not only survive, but won battles with them.
Annie
ps.: what I meant is that be careful of what you wish for. In M:TW, people complained that spears were too cheap, they made it too expensive, render the unit useless.
CeltiberoMordred
12-20-2007, 09:21
Reporting that Ottoman Infantry should be cheaper because pavise crossbowmen beat them in a missile duel is as wise as reporting that dismounted chivaric knights should be cheaper than peasant crossbows because they cannot win a missile duel vs them either. Ottoman Infantry are hand to hand units which also carry a bow. Their purpose is not to deal with enemy missile at all.
To be honest, in general, for both, kingdoms and retrofit, archers are MUCH better than xbows if used properly.
It's just a matter of not purchasing them just for a stupid missile duel that they cannot win.
Same goes for mounted versions of both weapons.
Regards.
To be honest, in general, for both, kingdoms and retrofit, archers are MUCH better than xbows if used properly.
If you can't skirmish against the xbows, you'll have to attack or fall back.
It's just a matter of not purchasing them just for a stupid missile duel that they cannot win.
Then you have come up with a way to position the archers so that they can shoot at units that are cost effective targets. Presumably, this possibility would arise during the attack assuming there are targets that you can shoot at long enough to inflict cost effective casualties.
CeltiberoMordred
12-20-2007, 14:56
Then you have come up with a way to position the archers so that they can shoot at units that are cost effective targets. Presumably, this possibility would arise during the attack assuming there are targets that you can shoot at long enough to inflict cost effective casualties.
That's it. Sometimes an inminent engagement threat is enough to make your enemy deploy their ranged units safe in a second line. Then, aiming at any good bulk of enemy units gives you the chance to get fast kills, from a second line where xbows and arquebusiers perform poorly.
Zone attack, plus a higher shoot angle and fast reload gives an advantage that nor xbows neither gunpowder can give.
Do you remember some good players using those turkish armies in MTW/VI full of archers? Pavise crossbowmen were useless vs them.
It's a matter of perspective. If you have invested a lot of money in expensive crossbows which only skill is ranged attack, you will be interested in avoid any kind of engagement before your units run out of ammo. If your enemy has those units and you haven't, then it's clear what benefits you and what doesn't.
I'm only interested in a missile duel if I can get some profit from it. If not, then it's pointless. And I'm not a rusher.
And please, don't think in the damn grassy flatland. There are thousands of maps out there.
Regards.
Do you remember some good players using those turkish armies in MTW/VI full of archers? Pavise crossbowmen were useless vs them.
That only worked because of the discount on upgrade cost for ranged units that was implimented in the MTW v1.1 patch, and the fact that archers had 4 second reload while xbows had 15 second reload. That discount turned the combo-archer units into powerful melee units equal to the xbow faction's melee units if you had lots of money for upgrading. As a result, the archer faction could move close and shoot the enemy melee units killing them at a faster rate than the rate they were loosing their own melee units to the xbows because essentially all their units had bows so they had a lot more firepower than the xbow faction. With 28 arrows and 4 second reload, they would build up a considerable melee advantage in less than 2 minutes of shooting. If you played at low florins which limited the upgrading, the Turkish and Egyptian armies were at a distinct disadvantage to the armies that had xbows because they were weaker in melee power, so if they moved close to shoot the enemy melee units the xbow faction could charge and win the melee. This shifting balance happened because the upgrade system only increased the melee capability of units.
In Samurai Wars we don't use upgrades and we actually have a skirmish phase that's an essential phase of the battle because neither side can afford to move into the shooting zone before the enemy firepower is reduced. This phase is much shorter than was typical in MTW xbow skirmishing, and we don't have the large disparity in reload time between the archers (4 sec) and guns (21 sec) because the guns can shoot in 3 rotating ranks (7 sec).
pike master
12-20-2007, 20:57
the problem with kingdoms is that body armor is way down while shield protection is way up.
the armor and shield balances in mtw2 grand campaign are much better in balance.
of course the reason behind the massive drop in body armor stats was so that missiles could do more damage but this still does not justify the huge bonuses coming from the shield bonus.
it is just too high period.
if they keep the body armor stats low they should also lower the shield stats as well.
i really dont see how a large wooden or leather shield is going to have more resistance to damage than the comparable in stats full plate and advanced armor.
gothic armor may actually stop a handgun or arq ball on a good day. i dont see how a shield could have any chance of stopping a those projectiles unless it was made of a good piece of steel.
Not make armor more powerful, but make shield vs missile weaker because better armour: longbows/xbows own even more.
Mordred: MTW/VI and MTW II/Kingdoms have different balances, well in kingdoms archers suck in mellee, if you want to rush you dont need bows on the heavy inf, if you loose the missile battle you have to attack, in kingdoms the archers that have much on mellee stats dont get a chance against heavy inf, and because you have to ttack you cant shoot the shots that would give them adavantage to the heavy inf, what you say is that it isnt smart taking archers, as theyre only disadvantaged.
In the no patch for kingdoms thread I worte about tests that would show the mellee advantage of bows: -1 if it lowers missile power, why? becuase if you just charge you will loose enough on advance(running) that you would loose the mellee, if you would stay and shoot out ammo you would loose mor men than the pavs in the missile battle and than loose men on advance(even less efficent)
The ottoman inf is no mellee force with a bow as it was in 1.2, its a good(not vs pavs) archer unit thats sufficent in mellee, the closest thing you come to the "ok mellee force with bow" is the sabardar militia wich is an elite heavy infantry thats only beaten by one other archer unit(dvor) in the game in missile battle, it can hold vs pavs, but if used in any way it wont be worth its price vs pavs(but looses against genoese xbows, I start thinking CAs main office is in genua(or at least the balance designers are from there^^))
What you say about shooting at inf is true, but which jackass would place his archers behind or near the main army to get that shot to pieces too?
Also in M2 crossbows can shoot arcs, and the relaod time is only 2 times as slow :(
Also, if the enemy just stets back the inf you wont get to fire at it, if you advance and adavnce and advance, the enemy pavs will get free shots without ansvers at your archers, and your move will be useles, also crossbows are even more powerful compared to archers at short distances(not unblancing or annoying, an advantage to the normal crossbowmen hwo are too weak in missile battle(same damage as pavs a small bit lower price an extremely weaker in missile duel with archers) but one more unfair advantage to pavs)
These comments are about balance in general grassy plains or not.
One thing i forgot to point out: normal crossbowmen are too weak in missile battle.
For the mounted crossbowmen: if theyre the only HA worth it against units folowing them, have an unfair missile advantage(why? what in the EDU does that? look at the stats...) and are fast theyll if used by player hwo shows good attention always be worth their price more, im not complainting about them winning against turkomans in missile battel, as theyre massacred by them in mellee, Im complainting about them winning against sibyan al-khass in missile, they also win against them in mellee, but for that price and those stats...
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-27-2007, 20:23
Do you remember some good players using those turkish armies in MTW/VI full of archers? Pavise crossbowmen were useless vs them.
It's a matter of perspective. If you have invested a lot of money in expensive crossbows which only skill is ranged attack, you will be interested in avoid any kind of engagement before your units run out of ammo. If your enemy has those units and you haven't, then it's clear what benefits you and what doesn't.
I'm only interested in a missile duel if I can get some profit from it. If not, then it's pointless. And I'm not a rusher.
And please, don't think in the damn grassy flatland. There are thousands of maps out there.
Regards.
Hello Mordred and Yuuki,
With all due respects paid to the best "Turkish player" (probably Kanuni and Mo), I'd like to comment a bit on hybrid archer vs pavese bow "classical" army.
Certainly, pavese were not "useless" against a Turkish player. Pavese would give an edge in missile duel, that Turkish could hope to balance out by some agressive move to get good shot out on melee.
That is not a problem at all in 1v1. In team game, that was more of an issue, since it would also probably commit your team members. In team game, I would buy decoy unit so that my opponent would get some fun shooting them while I would wait for my teammembers to finish their missile duel...
Of course Mordred is correct that everybody shall play to its strenght; the only interest of a missile duel is not shoot the other missile, but to shoot the real expensive melee/ cav troop behind it. To shoot the other missile is an interim step that makes the endgoal doable.Turkish army skips that and go directly for the prize: the archer army does not care about killing pavese at all, it looks for low armour infantry units it can shot before joining the melee. So the question is not about winning a missile duel, but about shooting low armour infantry.
The secondary goal of a missile duel is to get the ennemy to attack; he will to avoid being shot.
Yuuki; are you saying that hybrid were overpowered? Although I liked to play Turks, I had much better results with other factions. Might be playstyle. However, I would not call hybrid archer / melee overpowered at all.
Now, in MTW2, no idea, I am clueless; is anybody playing it all?
Louis,
Wolf_Kyolic
12-28-2007, 15:27
It is not correct to say that hybrids were over powered in mtw1 because their combat points were really low compared to regular inf and to balance that you had to shoot the enemy inf really good. A few volleys before engagement would not be enough. You needed to put hybrids on skirmish and move back and forth and shoot meanwhile and engage them when enemy inf got shot really well and that required skills.
If that was not the case, everyone would get Turks and win. Only Kanuni was able to use them perfectly (he was the inventor of that famous Turkish army). Mo was able to use Turks also but his army was different. Not mostly hybrid dependent like Kanu's. I was able to use Kanu's army and win with it most of the time but was not found of it that much because of the effort needed to spend. You had to micro like a freak. :beam:
When hybrids got engaged you had almost less than a minute before they route. So you had to flank fast and route enemy center. Otherwise hybrids would loose anyway no matter how well the enemy inf was shot. Unless your oponent was a fool who waits there and let you get 8-9 volleys. It was cav and anti-cav units that you could depend on with Turks. Janissary Heavy Inf!!! :beam: They used to eat cav for breakfast! :yes:
Actually Kanu used to get Turks all the time because he was a Turk (so am I) who refused to play with other factions. Not because they were over powered or anything. He used to win with other factions more easily.
In MTW2 Turks are very weak. Noone ever gets them. However in Crusades they are almost over powered this time. :beam:
Turks were well into mtw. I really liked them - especially when someone tried to attack my janissaries:) Hovewer VI standards made them much worse.
We can easy resolve problems with hybrid armies - into patch to retrofit mod we should simply make archer fire stronger - maybe 1,5 maybe 2 times. It should be enough. And of course armour should defend from archers arrows into
for example 75%, not 100% like now (because archers don't have to fire directly on enemies and can shot arrow rain)
Yuuki; are you saying that hybrid were overpowered? Although I liked to play Turks, I had much better results with other factions. Might be playstyle. However, I would not call hybrid archer / melee overpowered at all.
At 15k per player they were because they were the equal of melee only units and still had the bow which was a small fraction of their upgraded cost. Later, most players dropped down to 10k per player and they weren't overpowered, but Kanuni demonstrated that style you mention in a 1v1 game and it was still very effective. In fact, I couldn't beat it with my standard western army, although, I wasn't using the cav/sword army that eventually became the standard for western factions. Kanuni is a better player than I am anyway.
M2TW is different in that upgrades on ranged units improves the range weapon effectiveness which was not the case in MTW.
M2TW is different in that upgrades on ranged units improves the range weapon effectiveness which was not the case in MTW.
No, thats RTW
No, thats RTW
What combat factor(s) does the battlefield upgrade improve in M2TW?
Is there a Turk faction in M2:TW/K?
I agree that Turk army in M:TW/VI at 10k was a tad on the disadvantage compared to the Catholic army. However, it was not a marked disadvantage and the different play style makes it an exciting army to play with or to face.
Annie
It is not correct to say that hybrids were over powered in mtw1 because their combat points were really low compared to regular inf and to balance that you had to shoot the enemy inf really good. A few volleys before engagement would not be enough.
Hybrid combat points were not low compared to melee inf of similar cost.
Valor 4 Janissary Inf cost 1489 have 8 attack and 6 defend = 14 combat points.
Valor 4 Feudal MAA cost 1461 have 7 attack and 8 defend = 15 combat points
Valor 3 Chivalric MAA cost 1228 have 7 attack and 7 defend = 14 combat points.
The melee only inf are only 20% better than the Janissary inf. That means all you have to kill with the bow is 20% of the CMAA or FMAA to be equal in melee. That's 12 men. In practice, the Janissary inf can in fact beat the CMAA in melee if they take down as few as 8 men with the bows. Tests show that can be done with 8 volleys which takes 32 seconds, and the Janissary inf can win the melee with 59 kills and 39 losses. It takes the CMAA 35 seconds to run the 100 meters across no man's land while under fire. So, it's feasible to get those 8 kills even if the CMAA start running at the Janissaries immediately upon coming under fire. With the FMAA test it was even worse for the melee unit despite the supposed 1 combat point advantage the FMAA have over the CMAA. With 7 kills using 8 volleys the Janissaries engaged the FMAA in melee killing 51 and loosing only 17 men. Of course, you have to minimize losses of your Janissary inf to enemy xbows or archers while trying to shoot the enemy melee units, and how you do that is where the micro management and moving around comes in. If you can force the enemy xbows back behind their melee inf then it's not hard at all to win.
If that was not the case, everyone would get Turks and win. Only Kanuni was able to use them perfectly (he was the inventor of that famous Turkish army). Mo was able to use Turks also but his army was different. Not mostly hybrid dependent like Kanu's. I was able to use Kanu's army and win with it most of the time but was not found of it that much because of the effort needed to spend. You had to micro like a freak. :beam:
At 10K it's harder because you don't use something like valor 4 Janissaries because 1461 is too much to spend on a unit in a 10K army. The discount on upgrades for ranged units doesn't benefit the ranged unit as much in that case.
Valor 3 Janissary Inf cost 956 have 7 attack and 5 defend = 12 combat points.
Valor 3 Feudal MAA cost 859 have 6 attack and 7 defend = 13 combat points.
Valor 2 Chivalric MAA cost 722 have 6 attack and 6 defend = 12 combat points.
The difference in combat points is still the same, but the relative cost favors the CMAA and FMAA by a larger factor. You could say they are now more like 30% better than the Janissaries which means you have to kill more like 18 men in the CMAA or FMAA, but we know from the tests that you actually don't have to kill quite that many. More like 12 men will be enough in practice, but you can't get that many on the CMAA or FMAA as it runs the 100 meters under fire, so there's the difference over the 15K game.
When hybrids got engaged you had almost less than a minute before they route. So you had to flank fast and route enemy center. Otherwise hybrids would loose anyway no matter how well the enemy inf was shot. Unless your opponent was a fool who waits there and let you get 8-9 volleys.
It only takes 32 seconds to get 8 volleys. Also, a unit like Janissary inf has high morale or 10 at valor 3 and 12 at valor 4. Both CMAA and FMAA are 2 morale points lower than that at a cost equivalent upgrade level, and 2 points is significant in the combat model.
The turkish hybrid army in MTW was a fun army in every sense of the word. It was fun to play in 1v1s and in team fun games, a good player was able to win with it, it required different tactics and more skill then the standard western army. However, it was not competitive. In all the TWPL and CWC games I played in MTW (and I played a few) I have seen this army used only twice (first by Celtiberos attacking a hill in a CWC final, they used it very well; then by FF again attacking uphill, they were lucky ~;p). It is something like 2 times out of hundred.
Hybrids in vanilla MTW2 are useless, except mongol infantry.
The turkish hybrid army in MTW was a fun army in every sense of the word. It was fun to play in 1v1s and in team fun games, a good player was able to win with it, it required different tactics and more skill then the standard western army. However, it was not competitive. In all the TWPL and CWC games I played in MTW (and I played a few) I have seen this army used only twice (first by Celtiberos attacking a hill in a CWC final, they used it very well; then by FF again attacking uphill, they were lucky ~;p). It is something like 2 times out of hundred.
Ah yes that was me... I believe I used egypt's Nizari in that particular game. :)
I did use ottoman army very regularly in VI under 10K settings. Had great fun and sometimes success taking 4-5 V4 ottoman inf. The main difficulty was indeed overcoming the pavise war. Otoh in early setting, ottomans did rule.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
01-02-2008, 20:10
If it is the hour long game I am thinking about, it has more to do with fatigue management than with hybrid efficiency in competitive game (or luck ~D ), unless you want to make the point that thanks to their low armour (:dizzy2:) hybrid are better when fatigues comes into play...
Well, when it's winter, take light infantry!
Actually, about fatigue, most of the time, it was a problem for hybrid turk style army, mainly because:
- shooting get you tired quite fast
- you're on the offense, you're the one moving -> you're tired.
Louis,
It is the two hour long game, winter, 10k on some silly map ~;p
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
01-02-2008, 20:47
10k early, winter, sicily... And FF was playing offense. March-April 04
It was more 1h30min :dizzy2: - for all newcomers here, yes, hour long battles were doable back in 2004 :inquisitive:
I remember that I did not want to play Turk, but French on that scenario. Ended up with the turks though.
French light early army was truly great, all the more so in winter or desert.
No way I'll forget that game. I was extremly unhappy with the game getting long since I had an appointment later that day. But the slow grinding through wood approach was the one which could get the most successes and tire heavy byz the most.
Louis,
Poor Marco wont forget that game either ...
Crandaeolon
01-03-2008, 14:33
Louis, I think it was me who deprived you of your Frenchies if that's the game I just watched, the long, grueling ordeal which had Lional (Cheetah), Palamedes, Marco and Galahad on RTK side, all playing Byz. FF had Louis (Turk), Tempiic (Turk), Kalle (Byz) and me (French.)
On the topic of hybrids, I agree with the points that Louis, Kyolic and others made. They didn't feel overpowered in MTW VI. In a (relatively high florin) 1vs1 setting they could work with microing, but in team games they were sometimes even a liability because the different playstyle did not mesh well with Catholic factions.
On the topic of hybrids, I agree with the points that Louis, Kyolic and others made. They didn't feel overpowered in MTW VI.
The playbalance of ranged units relative to melee units shifted with upgrades due to the discount on ranged unit upgrades. If you played at a money level that made hybrids balanced, the swords were able to stop cavalry. The discount on ranged units implemented in the MTW v1.1 patch was a bad idea. What the players had asked for was more effective archery so that the RPS was improved. Instead we got the discount on ranged unit upgrades, a price increase on spears, cav pushback on spear, a hidden bonus for swords vs spears and a reduction in cost on cavalry knights all of which damaged the RPS playbalance, and none of which was requested by the MP community. You had to play at 5000 florins in MTW/VI for the RPS playbalance to work properly (It was already broken at 6000 florins), but then the gameplay turned into a rout fest later in the battle where units couldn't even approach one another without routing.
Crandaeolon
01-03-2008, 17:53
MTW gameplay at retail was already badly balanced; swords were practically useless there, as I recall. The 1.1 patch made spears obsolete, but swords took their place as mainstay infantry so the patch merely shifted the imbalance to another unit type.
What I was trying to say is that sword/bow hybrids did not feel overpowered when compared to mainstay infantry (CMAA, FMAA) in team games or reasonably low florin 1vs1 games.
What I was trying to say is that sword/bow hybrids did not feel overpowered when compared to mainstay infantry (CMAA, FMAA) in team games or reasonably low florin 1vs1 games.
Well the discount on upgrades messed up the hybrids because they were never supposed to be as strong in melee as they were after the discount on upgrades was implemented. So, in a sense they are overpowered if they are upgraded at all. It's due to a different screw up that the game ended up being played at much more money than the 5000 florin default which is what allowed the extensive upgrading of the units.
When we suggested 6.5k-7k florins in R:TW, there were few takers... I wonder why? :) People played at 15k.
Another remark: price/unit in MP doesn't represent the value of the unit, like the price of the stock represents all the future value of the stock perceived as of today. TW is not a free market where units ocould be auctioned off :) Thus the idea of giving an army an amount of money which supposed to represent the army's combat power was naive.
Annie
CeltiberoMordred
01-04-2008, 10:47
M2TW is different in that upgrades on ranged units improves the range weapon effectiveness which was not the case in MTW.
In M2TW and Kingdoms, valor upgrades improve range weapon effectiveness (v9 units get aprox. 3 times more kills than v0 units for example), and in some steps hand to hand and defense, as well as morale. Weapon upgrade only improves hand to hand.
Puzz, if you have any question about how M2TW battle engine works, ask me, you already know where I am.
In all the TWPL and CWC games I played in MTW (and I played a few) I have seen this army used only twice (first by Celtiberos attacking a hill in a CWC final, they used it very well;
I was that turk, I will never forget that final either :)
*bows to RTK clan*
I was that turk, I will never forget that final either :)
*bows to RTK clan*
I wont forget that game either. At the end of the game I almost smashed my chair to the wall. ~;p ~;) We defeated TC 2:0 (it was a 3 way final) and we needed only one game to win vs Celtiberos to be the CWC champions, on a hilly map ...
*bows to Celtiberos clan*
I have nothing against this discussion, but post it in MTW/VI forum please :-)
This is the Kingdoms Balance Discussion
Does anyone actually think pavs are OP exept me?
Wolf_Kyolic
01-04-2008, 22:21
I have nothing against this discussion, but post it in MTW/VI forum please :-)
This is the Kingdoms Balance Discussion
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/misc5.jpg
Does anyone actually think pavs are OP exept me?
Why you think so? I have not played retrofit that much, that I could comment your statement.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-05-2008, 12:49
If pavs were weaker then it would not be possible to avoid rushes.
Anyone who believes that there is nothing wrong with rushing should go and play the vanilla. There are many good rush armies to select from.
???
Archers and pavs are good vs rushes, that shouldnt be a problem, are pavs the only missile units in the game?
Whats bugging me is how much shots pavs take, without loosing even 10 men, normal archers have no cance, longbows defeat them, but they are not price-worthy against normal archers, I thought the power of pavs hould be having a good defence to not getting that much damage from missiles, and having longer lasting ammo, so thet they dont fall like other xbows, and still have ammo to shoot at the enemy advancing inf, but they shouldnt kill more than more expensive enemy archers in the actual missile duel, but they should force the enemy to attack and still have sufficent men remaining to do damage.
What i mean is: pavs do just a little less damage than archers, pavs are nearly immortal against no-ap missile(why? the shield is a shield and no armor) , the pavs are weak in mellee, but if the enemy has to attack they are worth more than their price against attacking higher price archers, their ammo lats longer.
CeltiberoMordred
01-05-2008, 13:57
Does anyone actually think pavs are OP exept me?
Pavise crossbowmen look perfect to me as they are now.
Than explain how to beat them in missile battle...
Without inf-shooting as its just to go back when that happens, archer are only goo when being a a second line missile against pavs, in the frontal line you need longbowmen or xbows, as regular archers have no chance against them as I said, what about turks or mongols for example, both (especially mongols) have a high reliance on missile, the more inf based europeans still win the missile battle(all era turks are not than missile based, they still have same missile but a very powerful inf, but still not as infbased as europeans) mongols loose in missile, have a good cav, but without good infbase...
Their inf can hold, but isnt good enough.
Compare them to phalanx/chariots in RTW(badly balanced) not invincible but its a big disadvantage not having them.
Than explain how to beat them in missile battle...
You just don't beat them in missile battle, that's the beauty of it.
Annie
Wolf_Kyolic
01-05-2008, 20:56
You just don't beat them in missile battle, that's the beauty of it.
Annie
Yep. :)
What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.
What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.
High arc fire out of cover and high rate fire to quickly take out light armoured units. So, archers can be useful when rushing or being rushed (the opponent needs to have easy targets though).
Pavise crossbowmen look perfect to me as they are now.
What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect? If Samurai Wars had that kind of playbalance, players would say it was unbalanced.
The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do, the test was with genoese xbows against byz guard archers and ottoman inf, the AI didnt even countercharge.
The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do
That's what I was trying to say. I changed my post to reflect that.
Here is the playbalance chosen in Samurai Wars which is also about the same as in original STW:
Archer unit costs 400. The best gun unit costs 300. These are 60 man units. The archer doesn't have enough morale to charge the gun without first skirmishing. The archer unit skirmishes against the gun unit at long range, with both in loose formation, killing more than they loose because they shoot faster. At the point the archer unit is out of arrows (2.5 minutes) it has killed about 40 men in the gun unit and lost about 10 men. Once they are out of arrows the archer can charge and beat the gun unit. If the archer doesn't charge, the gun will keep shooting them since it has more ammo (7 minutes) and eventually the archer will no longer have enough men to successfully charge.
CeltiberoMordred
01-06-2008, 12:51
What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect?
That statement is false. Archers aren't more expensive than crossbows.
And as I told before, I will gladly explain you how Kingdoms or Retrofit works. Or even better, get Kingdoms and try to understand how it works before relying on opinions of others before posting Kingdoms balance is bad.
Kingdoms is not Shogun and it doesn't use the MTW/VI engine either, so it's pointless comparing eggs with socks. And you are perfectly aware of that.
I understand this kind of thread is perfect to advertise your mod telling how good and balanced is Samurai Wars, but please I beg you to stop going off-topic everytime.
Just overlook the SAMURI WARS every where, just like you overlook, "then you poor "TineMilk(R)" into the bottle and shake" in sponsored cookbooks.
Not all archers but many are more expensive, for example those i tested.
That statement is false. Archers aren't more expensive than crossbows.
Ottoman Infantry are not more expensive than pavise crossbows?
And as I told before, I will gladly explain you how Kingdoms or Retrofit works. Or even better, get Kingdoms and try to understand how it works before relying on opinions of others before posting Kingdoms balance is bad.
If a more expensive unit cannot beat a cheaper unit then it's unbalanced. The only exception to this would be anti-cav infantry which beat more expensive cav. One player posted corroborating Lupu's test result, and no one posted a contrary result for the same test.
Kingdoms is not Shogun and it doesn't use the MTW/VI engine either, so it's pointless comparing eggs with socks. And you are perfectly aware of that.
You're the one who brought up the comparison to MTW/VI in this thread, and I pointed out that since the earlier game had discounts on upgrades of ranged units the comparison was not valid.
I understand this kind of thread is perfect to advertise your mod telling how good and balanced is Samurai Wars, but please I beg you to stop going off-topic everytime.
I'm not advertising the mod except in my signature. All my posts in this thread discuss unit to unit playbalance. All of the Total war games up to now are supposed to have rock, paper, scissors gameplay, so that should be a common element running through all of the games.
The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do, the test was with genoese xbows against byz guard archers and ottoman inf, the AI didnt even countercharge.
Never make tests with the AI! I made the same mistake back in rome, I wanted to make a list of whether unit A beats Unit B with weapon 1 or 2 etc.
The units react weird and unrealistic (why do archers mingle around after they shot all their ammo, if they could help flanking the enemy?)
If you wanna test those things, I suggest you ask a clanmate. When I was in SA I sometimes spent more time doing tests than actually play the game.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-06-2008, 16:45
As far as I understand when making Retrofit, they balanced it in a way that would lead the players to pick armies of varied units instead of the cliche heavy cav, swords and missle army. Have they succseed that? IMO yes.
Me and Mordred did some tests last night. I insisted that he could not beat my cliche western army with a light cav, spear and missle army. He has! :)
He had 4 pavs, 4 strong archers and I had 4 cheap pavs and 2 peasant archers. I routed him quick on the first hand because he did not have enough cavs to block me flanking but while I was routing him, his archers were shooting me like mad and they did manage to thin my army like a piece of paper. When he recovered and engaged back I lost. :dizzy2: :beam:
I do not agree that archers are functionless. You do not get them to fight vs pavs. They have a deeper tactical function. Ever heard of "Pao Push"? :beam:
@denali: yes, becaus the AI normally looses with superior units even in unit vs unit tests, but it actually won there, with cheaper units.
@Cyolic, "cheap pavs" ? cheap xbows? Moorsih peasant xbows? They are uber vs pavs in price/value, but I talk about normal archers with non ap.
Moors can win missile vs pavs, but what about factions that have no AP missiles.
I dont know what "pao push" is but is it shooting at inf or something?
Its just to withdraw or chage...
Wolf_Kyolic
01-06-2008, 21:22
Moors can win missile vs pavs, but what about factions that have no AP missiles.
Zupu you do not get it??????????? They do NOT have to win missle battle vs pavs. That's what everyone is telling to you. Understand it already.
Archers do N O T have to win missle battle vs pavs.
Ok?
[playing stupid]so theyre for loosing missile battle vs pavs?[/playing stupid]
So you claim that all factions without AP missile have to rush vs pavs :/?
I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-06-2008, 22:20
I am claiming this:
...
So you claim that all factions without AP missile have to rush vs pavs :/?
It depends what gamestyle you like.
I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.
Why archers should be able to win against pavis units? What's the point to have pavise units in first place if bows would be able to beat them? Why to have different missile unit types in this case? It's ok as it is. IMO
Archers never had a role (not even logbows - history is full of errors) to win a ''missile duel''. There was no missile battles in history with which I'm familiar with. Archers had similar role as artillery has this days (supporting element and that's it). To soften opponent units before the melee and to to make confusion during the melee and to do colleteral damage at the end of the battle if you had enough troops in reserve and you could afford that.
Wenn did crossbows have that role?
The point of having pavs is using them as missile units, no more, but it is not to beat more expensive units with, ofcource they should beat cheaper archer units, what you say is like saying: whats the point of having infantry if they cant beat tanks(very overdriven example)
if playing historical, archers would be fine, but in retrofit theres actually a missile duel, its no point in having units being superior at a thing you cant use them for.
I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.
Lupu, the missile battle might be indeed unbalanced but (i) it would be boring if all faction would have the same strenght in missile duels; (ii) you do not have to play out the missile duel vs pavs if you do not have them.
However, and this is the source of the confusion, you do not have to do an all out rush if you do not want to play out a missile duel. It is not a black or white situation: missile duel with pavs or an all out rush. The idea is to keep the enemy pavs and cavs busy while you can use your archers to shot expensive enemy troops (which is their main function anway). Of course a good player will not allow you to get away with it and you will be rushed, but then you have options and hopefully you have already weakened some of the enemy troops.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-07-2008, 06:55
Lupu, the missile battle might be indeed unbalanced but (i) it would be boring if all faction would have the same strenght in missile duels; (ii) you do not have to play out the missile duel vs pavs if you do not have them.
However, and this is the source of the confusion, you do not have to do an all out rush if you do not want to play out a missile duel. It is not a black or white situation: missile duel with pavs or an all out rush. The idea is to keep the enemy pavs and cavs busy while you can use your archers to shot expensive enemy troops (which is their main function anway). Of course a good player will not allow you to get away with it and you will be rushed, but then you have options and hopefully you have already weakened some of the enemy troops.
Exactly.
He cannot see it from this perspective and he keeps repeating the same thing over and over.
Lupu read Cheetah's post a couple of times and try to understand what is meant there please. So that we can end this discussion and move on. There are some real issues to discuss about the balance and we are wasting time here for the last 30 posts.
-(I bet, again he is gonna post; "but how about archers being inferior to pavs" or something)-
:laugh4:
Ansver to i: No, because missile units have different prices, and not all factions missiles cost the same.
Ansver to ii: If you shoot at the enemy main army where archers kill more than xbows, its so easy to go back and than everything you get is a volley from the pavs at close range which is very powerful. To advance forward every time to get 1 volley the pavs allready killed much more of your archers, that can be good in mellee too, if not as good as enemy elites.
This stratgy is something I attampted a week ago.
Try 1: I advance shoot one volley and am not able to protect them from enemy cav due to distance to own cav.
Try 2: the enemy goes backwards, each time I advance, an the only thing that happens is that the pavs kill my archers.
Try 3: The same as try 2 but now I try to charge the enemy with my cav, the enemy reacts... and again only my archers die, or the enemy rushes and my army cant protect the archers.
What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.
You may want to take archers and put them behind your rushing infantry. That's something the xbows, pav.xbows and gunners cannot do: archers can fire into the enemy's mass over their own. When you rush, your cav is busy counter other cav, or it is too tight for cav to opperate. Then your archers could rush the pav guys or chase off routing infantry, while you keep your cav and infantry together to continue the fight.
In the case of more expensive archers, the hybrids, they are even more valuable.
Annie
What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect? If Samurai Wars had that kind of playbalance, players would say it was unbalanced.
I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army. Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive. To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it. The analogy is similar to what Lupu claims for M2:TW: that a faction without pav. arb. is forced (by chosing that faction) to be of disadvantage.
Saying that, I didn't say Samwars were less balanced than other games, nor did i say I didn't enjoy the Sunday games. I actually look forward to play those games.
Annie
Xbows can that too, but I think they have a high damage penalty.
They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?) but they do less damage than archers in that time, are weaker in mellee, in that place archers are superior, but other uses...
Xbows can that too, but I think they have a high damage penalty.
Do what Lupu?
They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?)
Yes, I noticed and wondered about that as well. I don't think it is impossible, but it looks pretty odd to me to see crossbows being used in an elevation of more than a few (tens of) degrees. The crossbow is for armour penetration in a flat trajectory at shorter to medium distances. The bow should be better at longer and even very long ranges: higher firerate, probably more accurate at longer range and also more powerful at longer range. This is just guessing though (and highly depends which (x)bows and ammo you compare).
Shooting near straight up in the air to hit a target several hundred yards away (or nearer by but say out of sight because of trees) using a longbow is not all that easy. The archer will get some visual feedback from his arrow during parts of its trajectory and can quickly release a second if necessary. That's even less true for a crossbow (shorter arrows/bolts, longer reload).
but they do less damage than archers in that time
You mean per volley?
but other uses...
Can crossbows in M2TW/Kingdoms fire a target in woods or fire out of the woods?
I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army. Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive. To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it. The analogy is similar to what Lupu claims for M2:TW: that a faction without pav. arb. is forced (by chosing that faction) to be of disadvantage.
Saying that, I didn't say Samwars were less balanced than other games, nor did i say I didn't enjoy the Sunday games. I actually look forward to play those games.
Annie
Hello LadyAnn,
Correct. There are different kinds of balance. You could say this shooter is 10% better while shooting, so it should also be 10% more expensive than the other shooter. But abilities and chances (lottery tickets aren't free) have a price too.
A Kingdoms example: 200 florin peasant archers will cut a 800 florin greekfire thrower unit down to 50% in a range duel. Simply because the archer can shoot long before the thrower gets within their own range. Even if the full archer is blasted away then (something the thrower could still do), the archer has killed twice what it costs. If you look just at missile performance in that duel: totally unbalanced.
The thrower however has the ability to kill many of even the heaviest of units at once (difficult to do, but possible). An archer unit can never hope to do such a thing.
Disclaimer: not stating one is still over/under priced or not.
When it rains, guns either stop firing or get a lot of misfire. Wet bowstrings will have a negative effect too, but much less. Guns can not fire into woods or out of it (stray bullets, thin woods and edges of wood aside), archers can. Archers can take aim beyond obstacles such as forests and small hills, guns can not.
I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army.
The archer (cost 400) beats the gun (cost 300) in Sam Wars. To do this you have to be able to charge into melee once the archers weaken the guns, but you can't do it alone in team games since you'll get double teamed. Is the archer cost effective? Yes if you can inflict some casualties on more expensive melee units, but perhaps no if you only use it to beat the cheaper gun.
Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive.
Of course this will happen if your team waits too long to attack. You can't skirmish with archers for as long as you can with guns.
To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it.
It's easier to play with guns because you can hold your ground and you don't have to mount an attack, but beware if you loose those guns to cav. I take guns because the team play is not up to the highest level yet. Just the same I often take archers, and next Sunday I won't use any guns just to prove that you can play without them.
@ Tosa inu:
I dont know about xbows firing in woods, but maps with tight wodds are normally not used for MP because they restrict what you can see and make battles very chaotic.
Less damage per volley, no ofcource xbows kill more per volley, I mean in the same time.
post 2 :
Yes peasant archers are price/value superior to greekfire, but isnt that meant to be the greekfires big weakness, missile fire?
Thats the challenge with it, but at most situations its nigh impossible to get you archers to fire at the enemy main army and theyll be in a missile duel vs pavs...
@ Tosa inu:
I dont know about xbows firing in woods, but maps with tight wodds are normally not used for MP because they restrict what you can see and make battles very chaotic.
Yes, that's true. But some practice can sort that, the routing difference between MTW and STW made battles in MTW more chaotic for me. Adjusting playstyle a bit fixed that.
I wouldn't claim just trying it a few times will do it for you, but different terrain favours different armies.
Maps with patches of trees and small hills are nice for archers.
Less damage per volley, no ofcource xbows kill more per volley, I mean in the same time.
We're talking about the shooting into the air right?
post 2 :
Yes peasant archers are price/value superior to greekfire, but isnt that meant to be the greekfires big weakness, missile fire?
Seems to me that anything hurts the greek fire throwers. They do have the power to change the tide though, it's hard to get that afaik. A gamble unit.
Thats the challenge with it, but at most situations its nigh impossible to get you archers to fire at the enemy main army and theyll be in a missile duel vs pavs...
I recognise the situation. Try to avoid the range duel with pavs? The right map can help.
With the less damage per volley I meant direct fire, about arcing I dont know.
But when I stand on hills people complain for hill camping and if I go into woods, the battle ends as a huge mess, what isnt fun.
With the less damage per volley I meant direct fire, about arcing I dont know.
Oh, I thought you were talking about arcfire and killing less per volley than archers then (They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?) but they do less damage than archers in that time). Sorry for misunderstanding.
Hunter KIng George
01-09-2008, 02:35
next Sunday I won't use any guns just to prove that you can play without them.
Ill be looking forward to this next Sunday. :beam:
But since I am not a very good player, I doubt my loosing ways will change.
t1master
01-10-2008, 00:09
the discussion about the vi mod in the kingdoms thread is really helping to clarify things guys. thanks a bunch! :balloon2:
CeltiberoMordred
01-10-2008, 10:53
the discussion about the vi mod in the kingdoms thread is really helping to clarify things guys. thanks a bunch! :balloon2:
Indeed. I'm eager to know more about this wonderful and perfectly balanced VI mod: that's why I don't use to post in that VI mod forum because it's easier to get that info posting in Medieval 2 or Kingdoms forums asking for M2TW issues instead.
:book:
The issue of unit balancing for multiplayer is the same in all the Total War games to date. These considerations don't change with Kingdoms because the combat system still uses melee effectiveness, ranged effectiveness, mobility, morale and fatigue to characterize tactical combat which are the same factors used in all the Total War games. Units should be given a cost that accurately reflects their capability, and they should fit into the rock, paper, scissors combat system. Within the infantry types, a more expensive unit should be able to defeat a less expensive unit on flat featureless terrain.
Palamedes
01-11-2008, 16:47
Great to be back on the forums...........
All this MP balance discussion has the smell of some good MP battles (that I win the majoity of) hopefully using Retrofit or Kingdoms. Just to provide a different perspective on missile battle balance:
Overall Function = Cost
Function is a combination of:
- Angle of the arc
- Accuracy
- Accuracy at different arcs
- Reload rate
- Foot speed
- Melee ability
- Morale
- Discipline
- Levels of armour penetration
- Fear effects
- Ammo
- Armour & Shield
- Combat bonuses
- Ability to see in the dark; shoot backwards; holla obscenities; and wet oneself in the face of sure death.
It would be pointless to try and make sense of all of this without first gaining an appreciation of what are the different ways of playing and what type of people like playing a set way. Then we can set a cost/max penalty/unit roster per era that ensures we see lots of different types of players playing different ways.
For the oldies out there:
SA’s speed of hand and viable cavalry rushing
Celtiberos depth of knowledge on use of best (balanced) builds and mistake free well coordinated play.
RTK’s seeking counters rather than sticking to one style.
Kanuni’s Cav/Hybrid occasional JHI that just has you scratching your head until you find that Papacy heavy cav swiss halb combo.
Palamedes missile/cav combo that gets you: chasing first; then splitting forces; and then picked to pieces. That is until faced by that smart #$! that takes the best armoured infantry, heavy cav and just rolls over you without a care in the world.
When you are seeing an emergence of more ways of playing and more types of players playing and using unique trash talk in the lobby you know the balance is improving. Everything else such as unit vs unit comparisons or angle of arc is valid but minor in comparison to the big picture.
As a once upon a time developer I know it’s not a lack of knowledge or caring about the product it’s about priorities and doing the best you can for the majority of people in the time available. Developers do care very much and do know what they are doing (I think, sometimes :juggle2: ) and I am sure MP will have a few hick ups when the core mechanics are changed fundamentally and then improves over time until the next significant change. Developers are doing a good thing as long as every time they produce something new it is significantly better for the majority. Look I have complained just as much as anyone here during my pre-dev years and to be honest I can’t see that at any stage through the entire series of TW this constant improvement for the majority hasn’t occurred. So please keep this is mind when interacting with the devs and I am sure we will all enjoy the TW experience that little bit more.
Orda Khan
01-12-2008, 14:50
Has the trojan been removed from kingdoms?
.......Orda
Wolf_Kyolic
01-12-2008, 15:17
Great to be back on the forums...........
All this MP balance discussion has the smell of some good MP battles (that I win the majoity of) hopefully using Retrofit or Kingdoms. Just to provide a different perspective on missile battle balance:
Overall Function = Cost
Function is a combination of:
- Angle of the arc
- Accuracy
- Accuracy at different arcs
- Reload rate
- Foot speed
- Melee ability
- Morale
- Discipline
- Levels of armour penetration
- Fear effects
- Ammo
- Armour & Shield
- Combat bonuses
- Ability to see in the dark; shoot backwards; holla obscenities; and wet oneself in the face of sure death.
It would be pointless to try and make sense of all of this without first gaining an appreciation of what are the different ways of playing and what type of people like playing a set way. Then we can set a cost/max penalty/unit roster per era that ensures we see lots of different types of players playing different ways.
For the oldies out there:
SA’s speed of hand and viable cavalry rushing
Celtiberos depth of knowledge on use of best (balanced) builds and mistake free well coordinated play.
RTK’s seeking counters rather than sticking to one style.
Kanuni’s Cav/Hybrid occasional JHI that just has you scratching your head until you find that Papacy heavy cav swiss halb combo.
Palamedes missile/cav combo that gets you: chasing first; then splitting forces; and then picked to pieces. That is until faced by that smart #$! that takes the best armoured infantry, heavy cav and just rolls over you without a care in the world.
When you are seeing an emergence of more ways of playing and more types of players playing and using unique trash talk in the lobby you know the balance is improving. Everything else such as unit vs unit comparisons or angle of arc is valid but minor in comparison to the big picture.
As a once upon a time developer I know it’s not a lack of knowledge or caring about the product it’s about priorities and doing the best you can for the majority of people in the time available. Developers do care very much and do know what they are doing (I think, sometimes :juggle2: ) and I am sure MP will have a few hick ups when the core mechanics are changed fundamentally and then improves over time until the next significant change. Developers are doing a good thing as long as every time they produce something new it is significantly better for the majority. Look I have complained just as much as anyone here during my pre-dev years and to be honest I can’t see that at any stage through the entire series of TW this constant improvement for the majority hasn’t occurred. So please keep this is mind when interacting with the devs and I am sure we will all enjoy the TW experience that little bit more.
huh?
Palamedes
01-13-2008, 06:02
:idea2:
What a great smilie
Palamedes
01-13-2008, 06:14
Oops got so caught up with the new smilie :inquisitive:
Anyhow just want to check this is a balance discussion with reference to Kingdoms. If so the previous long post is a differing perspective on balance that places focus on the needs of the many over the life of a series as opposed to a select group within a select group. Hope that makes sense and this is the right place.
:inquisitive:
Nobunaga
01-13-2008, 12:06
CA palamades?? if so y don' u have the CA icon?
Another overpowered unit: Varangian Guard! Im Norwegian, so if I had to go with nationalism, it should be so, but seriously, look at the stats 19 attack, 20 defence, 9 charge, ap, even slow animations dont make up for that, its insane, theyre a shock inf right, look at the 9 charge, but if not charging they should loose to another unit with same price right? but they dont, I just played a battle where my enemy was to late to charge with his varangians, but my dismounted christian guard lost!!! Also they have the mass of spearmen, so theyre frontally nearly invincible to medium/light cav and you have to charge more than 3 times with superheavy cav, and due to the high attack and ap theyre like spearmen in mellee :/
Ummm, Christian Knights is heavily armored and Variangian Guards wield axes... (armor piercing, reducing Christian Knight's high defense number down by as much as 25%).
You should look at this perspective: could the Byz, at 10k, come up with an army which make extensive use of Variangian guards and have an unfair advantage. I suggest you use your enemy's army and play with it against others. If you keep on winning all the time, then it is unbalanced.
Annie
Parmelade: how dare you not mention the Wolves in your tributes?
Wolf_Kyolic
01-14-2008, 10:22
If you keep on winning all the time, then it is unbalanced.
Or you are very skilled! :laugh4:
Parmelade: how dare you not mention the Wolves in your tributes?
:sorry2: ===========> Pala
I have only played 2 games on retrofit yet but the feeling is much better than vanilla. Especially in the teamgame. It was a 2v2 and everybody took lots of archers (or xbows) and the skirmish and the charge-pull-back-flank-feelling was really intense.
If there would be no lag id play the game more.:juggle2:
Great to be back on the forums...........
All this MP balance discussion has the smell of some good MP battles (that I win the majoity of) hopefully using Retrofit or Kingdoms. Just to provide a different perspective on missile battle balance:
Overall Function = Cost
Function is a combination of:
- Angle of the arc
- Accuracy
- Accuracy at different arcs
- Reload rate
- Foot speed
- Melee ability
- Morale
- Discipline
- Levels of armour penetration
- Fear effects
- Ammo
- Armour & Shield
- Combat bonuses
- Ability to see in the dark; shoot backwards; holla obscenities; and wet oneself in the face of sure death.
It would be pointless to try and make sense of all of this without first gaining an appreciation of what are the different ways of playing and what type of people like playing a set way. Then we can set a cost/max penalty/unit roster per era that ensures we see lots of different types of players playing different ways.
For the oldies out there:
SA’s speed of hand and viable cavalry rushing
Celtiberos depth of knowledge on use of best (balanced) builds and mistake free well coordinated play.
RTK’s seeking counters rather than sticking to one style.
Kanuni’s Cav/Hybrid occasional JHI that just has you scratching your head until you find that Papacy heavy cav swiss halb combo.
Palamedes missile/cav combo that gets you: chasing first; then splitting forces; and then picked to pieces. That is until faced by that smart #$! that takes the best armoured infantry, heavy cav and just rolls over you without a care in the world.
When you are seeing an emergence of more ways of playing and more types of players playing and using unique trash talk in the lobby you know the balance is improving. Everything else such as unit vs unit comparisons or angle of arc is valid but minor in comparison to the big picture.
As a once upon a time developer I know it’s not a lack of knowledge or caring about the product it’s about priorities and doing the best you can for the majority of people in the time available. Developers do care very much and do know what they are doing (I think, sometimes :juggle2: ) and I am sure MP will have a few hick ups when the core mechanics are changed fundamentally and then improves over time until the next significant change. Developers are doing a good thing as long as every time they produce something new it is significantly better for the majority. Look I have complained just as much as anyone here during my pre-dev years and to be honest I can’t see that at any stage through the entire series of TW this constant improvement for the majority hasn’t occurred. So please keep this is mind when interacting with the devs and I am sure we will all enjoy the TW experience that little bit more.
I want to remind you about ur blog u had in the very early days of MTW2.
Im sure many can remember ur words, so what exactly u try to tell us now?!?!
No offense, but to read something like
...and to be honest I can’t see that at any stage through the entire series of TW this constant improvement for the majority hasn’t occurred. So please keep this is mind when interacting with the devs and I am sure we will all enjoy the TW experience that little bit more.
Now this made my day! Either u lost contact to earth or u simply has no idea what happend the last years. How u explain the huge step forward with Rome?
How u explain the tons of "information" u provided the community with ur blog? Which are obviuosly was wrong in many cases!?!?
Its amazing how times change, but the best is to see people like u, who act as someone who want to sell a product, but lets be realistic here.
But at least ur polite, since u said "majority", as we all know Mplayer are the minority, so at least u didnt lie here ;) Anyway, alone the fact that u and CA isnt able to get at least once a good game puplished which isnt PRE-BETA say enought.
Mars
Wolf_Kyolic
01-14-2008, 13:00
Well they :daisy: this time too but don't worry Koc. ETW will be good.
:idea2:
Or you are very skilled! :laugh4:
No, if you have skills, you would use my army and win many games :)
Annie
@Ann: christian guard is heavy armored, but its an average armor in TW, Heavy chanmail, not only dimounted christians loose to them.
Wouldnt you suppose even a spanish sword militia would win when a shock inf doesnt charge?
Oops sorry for calling Palamede Parmelade. The error was unintentional.
I saw a dear old friend whom I fought along side with him many battles: Devotio'Almircar. he told me that Retro-mod for Kingdoms is quite good "Very close to M:TW". That remark is a good news, but somehow am sadden by it. Three years has passed since I last played along with Almircar.
Annie
Look I have complained just as much as anyone here during my pre-dev years and to be honest I can’t see that at any stage through the entire series of TW this constant improvement for the majority hasn’t occurred.
How can the removal of tactically significant features or the deterioration of playbalance be seen as improvements for majority? The only way is to take the view that those things are only of interest to hardcore players. My view is that both of those things adversely affect the gameplay for everyone, although, the majority may not realize it.
STW --> MI (deteriorated playbalance)
STW/MI --> MTW (improved battle mechanics)
MTW --> VI (improved playbalance, but still inferior to STW)
MTW/VI --> RTW (deteriorated battle mechanics and playbalance)
RTW --> BI (improved battle mechanics but deteriorated playbalance)
RTW/BI --> M2TW (improved playbalance but deteriorated performance)
M2TW --> Kingdoms (improved playbalance)
It's not clear to me if the battle mechanics improved significantly between RTW and M2TW/Kingdoms.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-14-2008, 19:06
Oops sorry for calling Palamede Parmelade. The error was unintentional.
I saw a dear old friend whom I fought along side with him many battles: Devotio'Almircar. he told me that Retro-mod for Kingdoms is quite good "Very close to M:TW". That remark is a good news, but somehow am sadden by it. Three years has passed since I last played along with Almircar.
Annie
You believe that when Almir says only? :)
With Retrofit balance is no more an issue since it was developed by community veterans under the leadership of Mordred.
It has got some slight issues but that is normal because they had 20 days to create it. Actually there are not any issues with it unless players choose to exploit but that is not done at all although possible to an extend. Retrofit is played in an honorable way because players who install it choose Retro just because they are fed up with stupid vanilla exploit tricks and they want a clean, honorable game play.
If lag was not there, I would be happy with the game (Kingdoms - Retrofit). Battles feel and resolve like the original MTW. Your 2 men cav can change the result in the end and you know what I mean.
But lag ruins it very well.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-14-2008, 19:14
It's not clear to me if the battle mechanics improved significantly between RTW and M2TW/Kingdoms.
They did tbh. Rome is like a joke compared to MTW2 in terms of game mechanics. Where Rome did not make any sense at all, (most of it was random) Kingdoms - Retrofit feel right. Things are under the control of the player like in the original mtw. When you loose it has a reason. You either made bad mistakes or your oponent outskilled you.
Besides game mechanics MTW is slower than Rome (unit movements). So it is no more a stupid click fest. A bit faster than mtw1 which is a good speed. I guess Shogun movement speed was also faster than mtw1. At least it feels so.
Well Rome totally lacked sense of solidness. It never and ever felt like a TW game. Too messy and unstable with unit behaviour. You click and pray while playing it. However in MTW2 when you give an order units obey that and they are under your control with their behaviour.
But still... If we compare both (mtw1 and mtw2), mtw1 feels more solid. That is because of the animations. Especially when it lags, animations start to rape the game. CA has still a lot of way to go to get the animations really working. At some certain intervals feeling gets lost if you are not playing in a very dynamic way and being obliged to play always in a dynamic way is sometimes tiring. I do not mean playing passively. Even if you play passively, your overall micro must have a dynamism otherwise units are out of control and animations are the reason for that. I am not toooo much bothered about it but as I said above at some certain intervals, it becomes boring and disturbing because you feel like such a dynamic play is not actually necessary (in every single second) but it is in fact the engine with its crudeness which is driving you into that. It is like there is an extra uncessary effort being spent occasionally.
On the other hand, one could comment on mtw1 to be clumsy compared to mtw2 and I would not argue with him to the end.
Anyway no worries. We will have a totally new engine from scratch with ETW which will be the total balance of the old and the new engine and that will feel like a tw ecstacy.
:idea2:
You believe that when Almir says only? :)
With Retrofit balance is no more an issue since it was developed by community veterans under the leadership of Mordred.
It has got some slight issues but that is normal because they had 20 days to create it. Actually there are not any issues with it unless players choose to exploit but that is not done at all although possible to an extend. Retrofit is played in an honorable way because players who install it choose Retro just because they are fed up with stupid vanilla exploit tricks and they want a clean, honorable game play.
If lag was not there, I would be happy with the game (Kingdoms - Retrofit). Battles feel and resolve like the original MTW. Your 2 men cav can change the result in the end and you know what I mean.
But lag ruins it very well.
You don't know how to read fables and stories? :p It is an annecdote without appearing to be CA bashing. So, let me spell it out for you.
I used the quote from Almircar to illustrate the point (and I couldn't claim I played along side with you often, can I?).
Three years to come back to the point "It is like M:TW", with a host of other issues like lags, inability of playing 4000 men vs. 4000 men (tied with network lag but also tied with many other issues).
It is not just Multi gameplay. The game regresses in SP as well. Since I play less MP, I did play more SP and despite my effort trying to like it, I can't.
Am I talking like a bitter woman? You bet am bitter.
Annie
Wolf_Kyolic
01-14-2008, 22:01
You bet am bitter.
Annie
No problem. Bring it on! ~:pimp:
No problem. Bring it on! ~:pimp:
Not with you, Kyolic... Am not bitter with you.
Annie
CeltiberoMordred
01-15-2008, 08:46
With Retrofit balance is no more an issue since it was developed by community veterans under the leadership of Mordred.
That's not true. Jason (Palamedes) was the guy who did the new balance for Kingdoms and Retrofit. For that task, he was assisted by members of TW community, being me just one of them. So Jason was the leader and not me. The team was formed by TWC modders and veteran multiplayers, and we did as much as we could with a deadline given. I have to say that many veteran community players refused to help Jason in finding exploits and rebalancing the game, but that's another story.
Of course, this balance is far from being perfect. We hadn't time to test it deeply, but overall, after 9 months of playing it, I think we did it better than I expected. This new balance is difficult to be accepted by the majority, who have never experienced a rock-paper-scissors gameplay because they have been used to play just RTW and vanilla M2TW. Specially this last one, whose balance was terrible: there are out there people who like this kind of balance where cavalry rules the battlefield and missile are pointless.
Anyway, back to the topic about Kingdoms/Retrofit balance, I have to say that the improvements over other TW titles is huge in my opinion. Previous to a slight overview, I have to say, as Palamedes told, that the unit cost is not just a matter of how much points of attack or defense it has. There are a lot of parameters which dictates how much an unit should cost. Some of them have been poster above. I have to say that this engine is far more complex than old STW/MTW engine, and it's also different from RTW. Therefore, there are stuff to consider and to take care for.
Let's start with missile. We have talked in this thread mostly about them. I have to say that there are a great variety of them, from cheap peasant archers to D'vors, from peasant crossbowmen to aventuriers. Even there are horse archers with armor piercing arrows. For Kingdoms we improved missile accuracy because in vanilla it was clear they didn't worth: the only missile unit used was the mounted crossbow, and it's due to be a cavalry unit more than because of the bolts. Enough said, let's start telling how an unit is designed for:
- Archers: they must be used to fire most valuable units, specially cavalry and unshielded units. They can be useful firing from a second line also. They are not suitable to hold a missile duel Vs crossbows. If the enemy use crossbowmen and your faction haven't them, ignore enemy's crossbow. Go ahead and shoot at their more expensive cavalry/2 handed/unarmoured units. Try to aim the bulk of the army, because arrow fire it's like a zone attack, just like artillery, as opposite than crossbows. You can make a lot of "collateral damage" if you aim properly. Even if you lose your archers, you will win in the exchange. They are also useful to disrupt the gunpowder fire by rank skill due to his faster rate of fire, and crossbows cannot do that due to slower rate. Of course, be careful and don't put under enemy fire at first stages of the game battle your most valuable units like ottoman infantry or d'vors, because they are heavy infantry which also bear a bow and not pure missile units. And don't forget the ability to cause fear with fire arrows in melee, which many times dictates who rout first, or stakes ability. Of course your enemy will move his valuable units out of range of your arrows, but the solution shall also be told...
I will continue later. Regards.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-15-2008, 09:10
When I say under the leadership of Mordred I meant Mordred was the one who contributed most as a former respected modder. Well that is what I was told at least.
Anyway archers vs pavs issue was cleared now (Lupu please...please) I guess.
Let us come to axes.
CeltiberoMordred
01-15-2008, 10:06
When I say under the leadership of Mordred I meant Mordred was the one who contributed most as a former respected modder. Well that is what I was told at least.
Oh, I contributed as much as others. No more no less.
A quick reply: Horse archers are underpowered in high and late eras. 2 handed axemen are overpowered in early and high era.
Horse archers need to increase the arrow speed and the accuracy, at least to 0.4. Speed can be increased to 0.68 too. With these changes I consider it's enough to make them valuable.
About 2 handed axemen, being considered elite units most of them, maybe they should be restricted to 2 max cost penalty, as well as a slight cost increase. Maybe they should be more vulnerable to heavy cavalry charges.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-15-2008, 11:32
The problem with the horse archers is that they get decimated too quick under archer attack. Most of the time people bring 6 missles. 4 of them fight vs enemy missles and 2 of them stay spare for ha.
That makes ha almost useless since they are badly volnerable to missles. There is no chance of approaching to enemy army to shoot with that 2 spare archers waiting there to counter them.
Yet an other problem is that their combat points are too low. You cannot even route the pavs when you hit with ha. They do nothing when they flank as well.
So because of those 2 problems described above, people prefer to ditch ha from their armies.
Btw when you put them on Canta volnerablity problem is solved but then people uses them to fight vs pavs (rome lame) and that is not desirable at all.
Speaking of the axes, I agree with the solutions you suggest. That should work.
CeltiberoMordred
01-15-2008, 12:04
The problem with the horse archers is that they get decimated too quick under archer attack. Most of the time people bring 6 missles. 4 of them fight vs enemy missles and 2 of them stay spare for ha.
That makes ha almost useless since they are badly volnerable to missles. There is no chance of approaching to enemy army to shoot with that 2 spare archers waiting there to counter them.
That's how it works. Foot archers are the natural counter for horse archers. Horse archers' cost is higher due to mobility: you can shoot the back or flanks of your enemies, something which is very difficult to do using foot missile units. Mobility is an advantage that shouldn't be understimated. Having said this, I would like to know if people thinks mounted crossbows are underpowered because archers can counter them.
Yet an other problem is that their combat points are too low. You cannot even route the pavs when you hit with ha. They do nothing when they flank as well.
There are many Horse Archers types. You can say this using the cheapest models (kazacs, turk horse archers, cheapest byz horse archers, etc., but think in other HA types like mongols, sipahis, mounted d'vors or vardrarotai (sp). The cheapest horse archers are just peasant archers, but mounted. They are good attacking peasants or chasing routing units for hand to hand, but nothing else. Take in mind that hand to hand light cavalry must have his own role. If you can do that with cheaper horse archers, why should I pick light lance/sword cavalry?
So because of those 2 problems described above, people prefer to ditch ha from their armies.
If horse archers were as accurate as mounted crossbows and in addition could cause casualties faster than them, then they wouldn't be banned at all. With the changes proposed above, this goal can be achieved.
Btw when you put them on Canta volnerablity problem is solved but then people uses them to fight vs pavs (rome lame) and that is not desirable at all.
Cantabrian circle is useles in order to inflict casualties to your enemy. Mounted missile must be standing to have full accuracy. In M2TW/Kingdoms, accuracy lowers drastically when the unit is moving. CC is just to annoy your enemy and not much else, being the best way to expend your ammo and get tired. Foot crossbows or gunpowder are good to deal with.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-15-2008, 14:12
That's how it works. Foot archers are the natural counter for horse archers. Horse archers' cost is higher due to mobility: you can shoot the back or flanks of your enemies, something which is very difficult to do using foot missile units. Mobility is an advantage that shouldn't be understimated. Having said this, I would like to know if people thinks mounted crossbows are underpowered because archers can counter them.
Yes I know. :)
What I am saying is that they are countering a bit to much. :)
There are many Horse Archers types. You can say this using the cheapest models (kazacs, turk horse archers, cheapest byz horse archers, etc., but think in other HA types like mongols, sipahis, mounted d'vors or vardrarotai (sp). The cheapest horse archers are just peasant archers, but mounted. They are good attacking peasants or chasing routing units for hand to hand, but nothing else. Take in mind that hand to hand light cavalry must have his own role. If you can do that with cheaper horse archers, why should I pick light lance/sword cavalry?
Nooone will bring a HA that costs more than 500 florins Mordred. I have never seen that happen. Those expensive horse archers are just fantasy units.
If horse archers were as accurate as mounted crossbows and in addition could cause casualties faster than them, then they wouldn't be banned at all. With the changes proposed above, this goal can be achieved.
Yep. That may solve the problem.
Palamedes
01-15-2008, 15:00
Nobunga no CA badge because no longer working for CA. :embarassed:
LadyAan I know the mistake was unintentional :inquisitive: but Wolves in what tribute?
Kyo you sly bugger :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: nice to be playing the forum game with ya me old buddie.
Mordred thanks for the kind words mate. To get it straight for everyone 75% of the changes 1st seen in Kingdoms had been made internally including a lot of newly exposed variables that allowed for better balance. This was then tweeked by a group of people with Mordred being the face of the competive gamer feedback and Lusted the face of the SP modder feedback. The final balance selections were set by the devs and were typically something in between what each player group wanted unless it was clearly apparent it needed to be a set way.
Just to provide some inside knowledge to the missile chat:
- Cavalry are easier targets for missiles now. So best Cav counters are spears and missiles.
- Shields (front only), body armour and no armour give the correct protection vs missiles. So its guns for shields, ap weapons for body armour and fastest firing rate for non-armoured.
- Accuracy greatly increases with range so take units off skirmish if you want to get that last volley off and cause high casualties.
- Cav Missiles receive an accuracy reduction when moving so cantab is more about self preservation than becoming a wheel of death.
- Cav missiles use different animation set up so they typically shoot faster with more ranks using flat accurate trajectories. So great if you unload on a good target, bad if not and you waste a lot of ammo quick.
Feel free to ask any other questions about Kingdoms balance and I will answer where I can. I have been permanently branded with a CA NDA.
"Nooone will bring a HA that costs more than 500 florins Mordred. I have never seen that happen. Those expensive horse archers are just fantasy units."
Theyre not fantasy units, lol! Just for western european factions, because they didnt use horse archery at all(nearly) fantasy units are battlefield assassins, sherwood archers, 2hp cav and mounted crossbowmen.
The problem is that expensive HAs are not worth their price, not even in kingdoms, play BC!!!
Wolf_Kyolic
01-15-2008, 16:21
The problem is that expensive HAs are not worth their price, not even in kingdoms, play BC!!!
That's what I say peep. And they become fantasy units where noone brings them.
Anyway archers vs pavs issue was cleared now (Lupu please...please) I guess.
No one has posted any test results that clear the issue.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-15-2008, 16:32
No one has posted any test results that clear the issue.
Hmm Mordred posted this:
- Archers: they must be used to fire most valuable units, specially cavalry and unshielded units. They can be useful firing from a second line also. They are not suitable to hold a missile duel Vs crossbows. If the enemy use crossbowmen and your faction haven't them, ignore enemy's crossbow. Go ahead and shoot at their more expensive cavalry/2 handed/unarmoured units. Try to aim the bulk of the army, because arrow fire it's like a zone attack, just like artillery, as opposite than crossbows. You can make a lot of "collateral damage" if you aim properly. Even if you lose your archers, you will win in the exchange. They are also useful to disrupt the gunpowder fire by rank skill due to his faster rate of fire, and crossbows cannot do that due to slower rate. Of course, be careful and don't put under enemy fire at first stages of the game battle your most valuable units like ottoman infantry or d'vors, because they are heavy infantry which also bear a bow and not pure missile units. And don't forget the ability to cause fear with fire arrows in melee, which many times dictates who rout first, or stakes ability. Of course your enemy will move his valuable units out of range of your arrows, but the solution shall also be told...
Now what tests do we need? We need to test if archers are able to beat pavs and crossbows? He already said they won't do that but they have a different function like shooting enemy melee troops (or countering ha) with their higher fire rate which makes perfect sense.
What do we have to test? Lupu's obsession with pav vs archer stuff?
We need to test if archers are able to beat pavs and crossbows?
Yes if you want to refute Lupu's claim that certain archer units using a combination of shooting and melee can't beat xbows that cost less. His claim is that the more expensive unit looses. Since they are both ranged unit types there is no rock, paper, scissors gameplay within the ranged types that you can use to justify the more expensive unit loosing. The more expensive unit should win otherwise those particular units are unbalanced relative to each other. The fact that there are other cost effective targets available for archers doesn't address the issue of balance within unit classification.
Lupu's claim that certain archer units using a combination of shooting and melee can't beat xbows
Is that the claim Lupu? That certain more (?) expensive archers are not able to beat pavise when shooting and having melee together?
The fact that there are other cost effective targets available for archers doesn't address the issue of balance within unit classification.
That is probably right. But, if archers are better in performing that other task than xbows, there is another sort of balance.
What are we talking about? M2TW, Kingdoms or a mod?
Thread name: kingdoms balance discussion, is obvious what its about ;)
Yes thats my claim - 1 thing: the power of the archers mordred mentions is very difficult to make use of, so its in a way like if it would be like this: eles lower morale of units in a version where all but a few units have unbreakable moral, if you understand wht I mean.
Thread name: kingdoms balance discussion, is obvious what its about ;)
It's good when all talk about the same thing: Vanilla Kingdoms balance.
Yes thats my claim
A clear claim, thank you.
- 1 thing: the power of the archers mordred mentions is very difficult to make use of, so its in a way like if it would be like this: eles lower morale of units in a version where all but a few units have unbreakable moral, if you understand wht I mean.
I believe that the mechanism is present in both Kingdoms Vanilla and Kingdoms Retrofit, but differently balanced? Is that correct?
I understand you say that fire has a morale hit, but that it has almost no meaning because units appear to laugh about it? And that it may be better to have the actual killing by xbows instead?
hellenes
01-24-2008, 23:23
I have a question:
Arent pikes supposed to be out of this RPS system rendering it unlogical and useless? I mean pikes can beat anything you throw at front of them (I know that people used to roll under the pikes but still tehy needed pikes on their own to do this...) unless flanked or hit from behind...so its like rock beats paper and sissors...
I have a question:
Arent pikes supposed to be out of this RPS system rendering it unlogical and useless? I mean pikes can beat anything you throw at front of them (I know that people used to roll under the pikes but still tehy needed pikes on their own to do this...) unless flanked or hit from behind...so its like rock beats paper and sissors...
It's not a 100% RPS in that a scissor always beats paper. That's never been so in any title. A pike unit is tough frontally. The long and heavy pike that makes it hard to close in, also makes the unit slower to turn and regroup to counter a flanking.
RPS is a bit of a misguiding name. Weaponclasses have an advantage over the other under certain conditions.
@TosaInu: No, fire arrows suck, i know but the power mordred mentions is shooting at main body of enemy army and kill more, archers do more damage than pavs in that way.
It started for vanilla kingdoms, the balance is nearly same, I taking exaple of retrofit now, because most people play retrof because theyre addicted of high age(anyone give me a GOOD reason for that?)
@TosaInu: No, fire arrows suck, i know but the power mordred mentions is shooting at main body of enemy army and kill more, archers do more damage than pavs in that way.
I do not quite understand that. An arrow is an arrow. A full unit fires X arrows, and they hit or miss, whether they are xbow bolts or longbow shafts. It's true that a longbow arrow is larger, but only good contact with the point has a chance to kill. That's relatively the same for both. Why do archers kill more then?
Is it that the xbows are very accurate but coordinate poorly and aim for the same man twice or more (erasing sprites twice)? Archers don't coordinate either, but are less accurate. Resulting in more stray arrows and thus a higher chance to be destructive in mobs? Is that the idea?
Archers have higer accuracy, xbows have a flat trajectory, making them kill more men behind what their aiming at.
Its just that arcchers fire faster, and have more than half the damage of xbows per volley.
Archers have higer accuracy,
You mean higher trajectory perhaps? I think xbows have a higher accuracy.
xbows have a flat trajectory, making them kill more men behind what their aiming at.
Its just that arcchers fire faster, and have more than half the damage of xbows per volley.
Archers fire faster, have less accuracy than xbows, thus have more stray arrows per minute. Each stray arrow has a big chance to hit something in mobs and has more than half the power of xbow bolts, thus archers kill more in mobs per minute than xbows.
In a range fight, xbows are deployed in 2 or 3 (?) ranks. Now the stray arrows of archers will just hit air at a high rate. The ones that do hit also have to penetrate the pavise first.
The xbows however fire slower, but have more kills per volley due to higher accuracy and power.
It started for vanilla kingdoms, the balance is nearly same, I taking exaple of retrofit now, because most people play retrof because theyre addicted of high age(anyone give me a GOOD reason for that?)
Historical :) M:TW/VI was mostly played at High age and favor heavy infantry. The same people who are playing Retrofit. They balanced the mod mostly for that Era.
Annie
Its more balanced for all, because there turks for example have a viable inf.
@TosaInu: No, i checked descr_projectile, arrows ahve higher accurcy than bolts, but xbows hit better at close range.
@TosaInu: No, i checked descr_projectile, arrows ahve higher accurcy than bolts, but xbows hit better at close range.
An accuracy gradient?
CeltiberoMordred
01-27-2008, 19:39
An accuracy gradient?
The number attached in descr_missile to accuracy doesn't work as Lupu thinks. The lower the better, and not the opposite. And it's also as important as accuracy the values given to angles and missile speeds...
*sigh*
The number attached in descr_missile to accuracy doesn't work as Lupu thinks. The lower the better, and not the opposite. And it's also as important as accuracy the values given to angles and missile speeds...
Hello CeltiberoMordred,
I see, like division by a lower number gives a better result.
There are two values for velocity, does that mean that a projectile is slowing down now? Or is it still a constant (this being the range/'speed' combo a bit like in STW, MTW)?
CeltiberoMordred
01-29-2008, 20:39
Hello CeltiberoMordred,
I see, like division by a lower number gives a better result.
There are two values for velocity, does that mean that a projectile is slowing down now? Or is it still a constant (this being the range/'speed' combo a bit like in STW, MTW)?
No, the two values are related to the 2 types of shoots: normal and high angle shoot if line of sight is locked. There are only 2 values for arrows and bolts. If you remove one of them, then they will only use the normal angle shoot, and if any soldier have locked his line of sight, he simply won't shoot.
Increasing the higher of these values implies a reduction of the shoot angle for normal shots and an increase of missile speed, as well as a more "random radius" - I want to mean with this the radius of a circle where a failed shot can drop, having as center the targeted soldier. Increasing missile speed implies also a better lethality.
Decreasing the lower value implies a reduction of the maximun range of the unit, becoming lower than the default max range value, and shooting with low strength, with a very low chance of get kills.
Ive just got in Idea, why cant you remove the high angle shot velocity from xbow units?
No, the two values are related to the 2 types of shoots: normal and high angle shoot if line of sight is locked. There are only 2 values for arrows and bolts. If you remove one of them, then they will only use the normal angle shoot, and if any soldier have locked his line of sight, he simply won't shoot.
Increasing the higher of these values implies a reduction of the shoot angle for normal shots and an increase of missile speed, as well as a more "random radius" - I want to mean with this the radius of a circle where a failed shot can drop, having as center the targeted soldier. Increasing missile speed implies also a better lethality.
Decreasing the lower value implies a reduction of the maximun range of the unit, becoming lower than the default max range value, and shooting with low strength, with a very low chance of get kills.
Thank you CeltiberoMordred.
About RPS, here's a nice illustration how all should work when the system is balanced. Useful as a checklist for testing balancing.
http://homepage.mac.com/felixungman/weapon-systems.gif
I disagree completely with the diagram. Maybe I don't understand the labels?
Light infantry wins over heavy infantry? Heavy cavalry is only used to chase light infantry?
Annie
Admittedly, this is very abstract.
heavy = melee
light = missile
direction arrow indicates who has the initiative
heavy inf can't attack light inf becase they are faster
so light inf can win by shooting while avoiding melee
heavy cav can't attack light cav because they are faster
heavy cav can't attack heavy inf because it is a better platform (think spears/pikes)
so, yes, in a pure matchup the role of heavy cav is to attack light inf
In reality there are various factors that affect these pure roles. Flanking may cancel the platform advantage of infantry. Terrain may cancel the speed advantage of cavalry. Or the range of light units. And of course, combined arms is very important.
Your diagram is over-simplified. There are many kind of units in M2:TW than that. Even Shogun:TW has more complex relations.
Annie
How do you mean, is there one system that is more complex, or are there several sub-systems within this system (e.g. the Sword-Spear-Cav-system)? I haven't played that much M2:TW, how exactly does it look like there?
Since Shogun:TW (subsequence titles have increasingly more categories), there were at least three kind of cavalry:
- Heavy cavalry: intent to flank and kill infantry, heavy or light (except spear/pike infantry). High armor (thus "heavy"), high defense and attack, high charge, slowest cavalry, but still faster than infantry. Win against anything that let it charge, except spear/pikes (frontally only) and light cavalry. When in melee, they are somewhat at par with heavy infantry. Spear/pikes if retain cohesion will win against any kind of cavalry in melee.
- Light cavalry: intent to kill other kind of cavalry and light infantry. Low armor (thus "light"), lower defense, medium-high attack, low charge, fastest.
- Missile cavalry: intent to harash with range weapons. Fast cavalry but slower than light cavalry.
It is harder to characterize infantry because they have the parameters of armor, attack, defense and range weapons. Heavy/light was not enough to describe them.
- Light pikes/spears infantry. Not much armor, long sticks, kill cavalry, lose against all others. Move fastest.
- Light combat infantry. Has some armor. Loose against heavy infantry and heavy/light cavalry, move fast, win against spears.
- Heavy combat infantry. High armor, high defense, could be low/high attack (thus defensive heavy or offensive heavy). Win against most thing in melee, except heavy cavalry (kinda a draw).
- Missile infantry. Could have low or high armor, but use range missile. Good against missile cavalry. Loose against every one else in melee.
In Medieval:Totalwar, there are "hybrid" units (medium armor cavalry that could shoot missile for example, or sword infantry who could also shoot arrows), "armor piercing" units, units that can hide, "shield" which is effective against arrow or attack from certain direction, etc. In Rome:Totalwar, the Greek phalanx is a hybrid between heavy infantry and pikes, and then there are elephants, chariots, chanting monks, etc.
I believe the question of balance isn't strictly in the stats, but also the costs of the total army. It is OK to have uber units as long as it costs a lot and every other faction has at least a unit to counter the uber unit.
Annie
ps.: There is no battle field geisha yet... but you should fear them.
Callahan9119
03-09-2008, 17:57
i read alot of the xbows vs archers thing, and i played alot of mtw1. i remember pav arbs ruled all.
they always beat archers, but thats what i expected of a "modern" weapon system vs an ancient one
hell, the pope tried to ban xbows from battles
its all jibber jabber anyway, nobody even playes kingdoms and its rare i see a retrofit game up. :creep:
:inquisitive: Say musket vs bow, or xbow vs bow, as I'v said the xbow is like an automatic gearsystem, not like an improved one.
I dont know why I use cars as examples.:idea2:
The reason that xbows(and later muskets) mecame popular was that in europe there were no really skilled native archers(exept in england) so they had to be trained and it was expensive and time consuming, and noone did have the experience to train good archers anyway, so a well trained european archer would get a bit more skilled at standing shooting, (while falling of his horse when horse shooting) than a tribal turkoman huntsman, but everyone that could afford it(or got it) could with little training get good with an xbow, but a lifetime trained xbowman could never stand up to a lifetimetrained archer, but in europe there were no good trainers, or people that grew up with bows(again exept england) so what they did was taking some men, training them to be good marksmen and give them to the army(same with muskets, it was even easier to train a gunman, but the gun was less effective than an xbow)
The crossbow had also the advantage that it could stay loaded, so when the enemies were in range they could fire first.
And the main reason for the invention was to penetrate heavy armors more easily, it required skilled shooters first the thought because they didnt have the time to reload, so first shot was crucial.
The pope(and I suppose the french king) tried to ban xbows because it allowed a nearly untrained militiaman to kill a well trained knight, so it was seen as unhonourus to use xbows(just as the knights later looked at guns)
Nobunaga
03-11-2008, 17:54
when will the new patch get released??!! :furious3:
YellowMelon
03-11-2008, 19:06
Last stage of playtesting (as far as I know)
hammerfall
06-26-2008, 04:05
For next retrofit patch, i think we should have vangragan guards defence up a bit. Right now, they are Max 2 units without penalty with less combat ability than Dis englishknights at a high cost(700 vs 590).
i think remove their shield bonus was good idea, make missile units have a good edge against them. but the price is way too high compare to their combat ablity right now. in 10 k game you can barely field 2 units of vangragan guards. during combat, a good players always intend to shoot off your two-handers. In most of game, I lost 5~15 men per units before my vangragan guards joined the melee. Trust me, i do anything to avoid let them get picked by missle. yet, i still lost considerable men before i can get them a shock on an engaged enemy cavalry. even tried to place 1 peasants unit on top of them to be meat shield when i rush them close to enemy, but it doesn't help much lol( causalty droped from 15 to 10). beside once melee is joined, archers can still shoot them from the second line. And 2 units max plus droping on the shield of them make them melt away quickly in melee plus missle damage way too fast.
IMO, 1st option is replacing that removied 5 shield with 5 defence, and stay max 2 units without penalty. in this case once melee is joined, they can still manage do enough damage to make up the lost vs missile fire.
second option is make them cheaper with a 3 max units on cost. consider byzantine has poor quality spearmen, they do have good long range archers to counter cavalry. but what if weather set to random, and thunder storm pops on map, my bowmen proform crap. using light horse pin down heavy cavalry then rush with vangragan guards will be the best option in this case.
if you think other wise, please gave me some idea how you use/vs them effectively.
any ideas?
hammerfall
06-27-2008, 21:04
I have a question:
Arent pikes supposed to be out of this RPS system rendering it unlogical and useless? I mean pikes can beat anything you throw at front of them (I know that people used to roll under the pikes but still tehy needed pikes on their own to do this...) unless flanked or hit from behind...so its like rock beats paper and sissors...
pikes works just fine right now. in retrofit mod they do beat anything frontal. 3 pike +2~3 of florn hope can take on and win most of infantry melee. due to 75 men per units+ spearwall formation you can proform a good width of spear barrier. it first stops opposing infantry surround your florn hopes, second it also avoid your elite infantry ran over by cavalry. and those 2 hit point 2hand swordsmen will kill anything stand in their way. florn hopes usually only lose 3~6 men and gets 30~50 kills. 75men per units on pike always give you an edge once you rout enemy, you always have enough men to mount another attack.
the reason pikes aren't used so often is players used to host game at high era, since there are a more units selection/combonation. there is only scottland can muster an effective pike army at high. at late game pikes are very useful, especially at rain day while arrows can't cause as much as threat on you 0 armor pikes. pikes faction always have an edge on melee battle.
hammerfall
06-27-2008, 22:25
:inquisitive: Say musket vs bow, or xbow vs bow, as I'v said the xbow is like an automatic gearsystem, not like an improved one.
I dont know why I use cars as examples.:idea2:
The reason that xbows(and later muskets) mecame popular was that in europe there were no really skilled native archers(exept in england) so they had to be trained and it was expensive and time consuming, and noone did have the experience to train good archers anyway, so a well trained european archer would get a bit more skilled at standing shooting, (while falling of his horse when horse shooting) than a tribal turkoman huntsman, but everyone that could afford it(or got it) could with little training get good with an xbow, but a lifetime trained xbowman could never stand up to a lifetimetrained archer, but in europe there were no good trainers, or people that grew up with bows(again exept england) so what they did was taking some men, training them to be good marksmen and give them to the army(same with muskets, it was even easier to train a gunman, but the gun was less effective than an xbow)
The crossbow had also the advantage that it could stay loaded, so when the enemies were in range they could fire first.
And the main reason for the invention was to penetrate heavy armors more easily, it required skilled shooters first the thought because they didnt have the time to reload, so first shot was crucial.
The pope(and I suppose the french king) tried to ban xbows because it allowed a nearly untrained militiaman to kill a well trained knight, so it was seen as unhonourus to use xbows(just as the knights later looked at guns)
excatly. i went to medieval faires, shoot both xbow and longbow for a few hours. i can feel a clear difference between those 2 weapons. bow(both longbow and composition bow) request the extensive strength of your arms and back, it need your hands to hold it to stay loaded. and is pretty hard to aim, while my x bow can use whole body's weight+ strength to reload, and stay loaded for as long as i want. once oppertunity is up, it takes no time to aim, and can deliver a powerful shot without having strong arms of a bodybuilder. the dude who works at faire, a master archer i guess, who has long and strong arms that can pull that combosite bow wide open. he could deliver a shot that as powerful as my xbow with a bow easily.
however i still don't think bow will win against passive xbow on missle exchange. they carry that 10 lbs large shields for reason, your arrow has no way to run through that shield unless its a blank range shot(1 or 2 feet). you have to time your shot perfect to hit the pasive xbowmen while he try to unleash his bolt. passive xbow are specialized for messile exchanges before melee is joined. so there is no supprise to see passive xbow beats archers in missile dule.
hammerfall
06-27-2008, 22:40
anyone else feel the longbow in retrofitMp are overpowered?
their range and accurcy are way too high. my retinue longbowmen just wtfpwnt janissary muskeeters. janissary muskeeters have to run closer to get more accurate shot. and the fast hitting arrow keep intrupt gunner's raloading amination(aka the reforming for gunner to reload). longbows have 180 range now, fire faster, more accurcy in long range, can fire high angel, can place stakes...
is there anyone else think their power is out of the balance roll? or its just me.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.