Has there been or will there be any significant work done on unit mass? From different things I've read here and there, it seems to play a big part in the battles, and doing the right things with them can weild great results.
Printable View
Has there been or will there be any significant work done on unit mass? From different things I've read here and there, it seems to play a big part in the battles, and doing the right things with them can weild great results.
well i think unit mass of hoplites should be upped, a lot.
it would
a: reflect their heavy equipment
b: reflect how teh density of their formation repelled intruders (horses and other)
for teh rest i can't come up with more uses..
Well it also has some role with charges. tought the charge bonus and unti defence play a major role in that too.
Actually, the charge bonus has a quite minor effect on the killing-power of a charge. That is what the whole charge-bug is about. Basically, it seems that the charge bonus is actually determined by the armour bonus (for the most part), while mass determines how far and how fast a charging soldier will drive into an enemy formation (provided he doesn't get killed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
that's weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
i tested it liek this:
i ahd a levy-pikemen and a companion. they a levy pikemen.
phalanx head on to phalanx. and i charged from side and back. at the side i killed aprox 20 people with teh cav. at the back 35 at most.
same scenario, this time is made the charge bonus 30 (export_descr_unit)
and now i killed 30 form teh side, and 50 at teh back..
my guess is that charge-bonus is a bonus to attack-power when charging.
i guess penetration-power of a charge is then measured by mass(or defense..)
no the charge bonus is the chance you hit the target. but if you hit your target it doesn't mean it's killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
didn't I say charge bonus AND units defence AND unit mass?
I reckon all roman heavy infantry should get their masses buffed too...Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
why Roman? there weren't that heavy..
romans counted on flexibilty, and mobility. i think they were rather light...for heavy infantry.
Greeks made it their deal to be the heaviest..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
But the romans charged with their shields which is something the greeks didnt do.
well.. actually they did..Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
greek hoplites (at leats the ancient ones, from the persian wars) could run in formation. and used their momentum (speed+weight) to bowl over their opponents.
charging,and hsieldbashing wasn't copyrighted by teh romans..
ranika might give soem good examples..or any other..
I know. But the romans attached stuff to their shields to make them more weapon-like, therefore their charge would hurt more than one with plain shields. Anyway I thought it was just a thought provided that in vanilla principes charging half naked barbarians was just as effectice as velites charging the same barbarians as far as impact was concerned....Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
ahh, like that..
i think that would be an Upped charge-bonus, since that adds attack power (i think)
unit mass is how resilient you are to charge. how hard it is for your enemy to move you. if you place a unit of hoplites on a bridge. and let them get overrun by many princepes. you se ethem being pushed back. if you double their mass, it gets very hard to push
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
ah, ok. I thought it was how deep a unit would get into the enemy formation when charging.
In any case, I've read from somewhere that the roman's main defense against cavalry charges was to lock thir shields as horses were as afraid of charging a roman shieldwall as they were of charging into a tree... I reckon that reflects some resilience as well, although maybe not in sheer weight...
~;) yet again..the greeks did it as well...
shieldwalls were quite common in those days..
i reckon every reasonably trained 'unit' formed shieldwalls when a cav-charge was spotted.
imo, mass should be used for what it means: weight. no side-effects of anything that teh troops could do. but that's me..
That is essentially how it was intended, but charge bonus is not added properly to the attack value. At extreme values, like in your test, you do see a difference, but in the game the effect of charge is almost negligable. Charging power is determined by the armour value. They discovered it in this thread: I bet you don't believe this: cavalry charge is broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
yeah read that one..weird tests tough..in stead of changing the files..but i take it it's right..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
even so..extreme values are possible..so it's no problem..just make the regular bonus 10..the inetrmediate 20, and highest 30..or soemthign in between..
I assume one could do that, but I think cavalry charge (in general) is already overpowered as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
i have no idea how effective a cav-charge was in history..
so i'll let EB decide for me ~;) as long as the cav-jumping is fixed..