Printable View
I would agree with Ludens that this is not a big deal in MP. If it was an issue, we could always modify the relevant file for a historical battle. We tend to play h. battles with specialised EDUs anyways, so we could certainly do a modified projectile file.
Perhaps I just overread the reasoning but why did gamegeek increase lethality for the the iberian ap-swords but not for the hellenic ones. Were the iberian ones deadlier?
I don't think it'd be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
@Kival
Afaik, the "kopis" used by the hellenic troops was classified as more of a cavalry weapon than an infantry one. The "iberian machiara/falcatta" was an infantry one. Also, presumably the Iberians were more adept at wielding the falcatta since it was a very "standard weapon" for them, whereas the kopis was less commonly used by the hellens?
Also, I guess it might have something to do with game-balancing?
That's really good historical information, but it doesn't say anything about how or why a kopis is less "deadly" (by what standards?) than a falcata.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
EDIT: To elaborate. That a piece of weaponry was used by the cavalry goes to show its scarcity, its not being ubiquitous. How only those who could afford to be cavalry would afford such weaponry. That it was a piece of weaponry wielded only by cavalry would by definition (at least in antiquity) mean its rarity ("less commonly used").
That is certainly a valid interpretation of the facts and may well be true (unfortunately my knowledge is rather limited so i cannot confirm nor deny).
My thoughts were that the kopis was longer than the falcatta, and therefore was useful for cavalry (to help with reach) and because a larger weapon allowed more momentum to be generated. The same could be slightly troublesome/unwiedly in melee, which is why sabres for instance were very popular with cavalry, but no so much with infantry.
I am unable to categorically state why one is statted as "deadlier" than the other, only thing I could put it down to is how ubiquitous it was and possibly to make cartho/iberian units more balanced.
On that note, longswords are longer and heavier than shortswords. Let's make them less deadlier because apparently falcata are deadlier than kopis? Course not. gg2's it's a party in this EDU...
You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.
In other words, what is the EDU going to want?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
type iberian infantry dunaminaca
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.16
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership spain, gauls, scythia, slave
;539
type iberian infantry dunaminaca mercenary
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Mercenary Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.15
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership seleucid, egypt, slave
Fix it.
@GG2
Hmm....in that case should the same not apply to a longsword? Perhaps its because of the animation? (Talking out of total ignorance here). If longsword units have slow animations to reflect how "unweildy" it was, then it would make sense having a higher lethality than shorter swords.
In comparison, if Falcatta and Kopis have equal "delay" animations, it is necessary to differentiate their lethality.
Whats gonna happen to the eagles. I missed the whole discussion
Guys is there anyway we can Remove Guard mode, and can we execute Order 66 on guard mode.
Shouldn't this translate to higher lethality but lower attack, somewhat similarly to the longsword? Harder to successfully connect with a kopis because it is more unwieldly, but if you do, the extra weight would make for more damage to be done to the target.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Attack and Lethality are interchangeable.
Are you sure about that? Its like (1+lethality) ^(attack - defense) or something right?
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
@gamegeek/asm
When are people only thrown to the ground but not killed? Does that have nothing to do with lethality?
Lethality is the percent chance a strike will hit or the person will fall and stand up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
For example lethality 0.15 , thats 15% chance that person will die when he falls down and 85% chance he will get back up.
My understanding is attack is the chance to hit which clauses flinching and knock down, lethality is the chance to kill as opposed to knock down. So high attack + low lethality = knocked down while low attack + high lethality = less knockdown, more dying.
No, that's actually wrong, it's not a 1 to 1 representationQuote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
@asm
Yes, I thought so, too. And my observation agrees with it. But this formula you have does not really agree with it, unless it's the formula for actually killing with no informations about hitting alone.
attack is the value that gets your sword through the armor, lethality is if that sword will kill when it penetrates the armour or just wound (knock down).
So inconclusion, you need high attack value to get your sword to penetrate your enemies armour, you need lethality to make sure that penetration actually kills.
By interchangeable gg2 doesn't mean equivalent. They're tied together hand-in-hand, but they aren't reduplicated stat values.
I don't think lethality has anything to do with knockdown, but I definitely could be wrong.
GG i have to say i love your Panda Phalanxes :DD
Yeah, I've heard that a successful hit but poor luck from the lethality "roll" would lead to a knockdown but this can't be the case. That would mean that approximately 80% of successful attack/defense strikes would lead to knockdowns, meaning that masses of men would be lying on their butts during the battle which is clearly not the case. I think knockdown is just one of the animations that happens when a strike is not totally successful, aka various flinching/dodging animations or even the shield raising ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Though I've heard about stamina (and morale?) effects of knocking down but not killing... and at least in my obsverations there is a difference in the percentage of knockdowns compared to kills for high lethality vs low lethality.
Its to kill chance, I found it in the TWCenter modding wiki or the Ludus Magna.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
That does not make sense, a chance should be a value between 0-1, this formula does not have this range of values. Now I'm confused, I've to look that up more serious.
I call upon GI to give us the Interpretation of this hadeeth.
Please refrain from making religious references.
What Shak said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
very well
That's probably because higher lethality generally means greater kill rate (that may have something to do with knockdown chances).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
You should just set lethality at a standard value and change attack values around like what Medieval 2 does.
Its not like we use knock down for anything and it'll be easier to (re)balance. But that's a 4.0 EDU issue probably.
That would certainly make life a lot easier for us lay people to interpret unit effectiveness!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
I don't like that but that's perhaps just me.
Unless you're going to make certain weapons have more 'impact' as in fewer bigger swinging weapons like hammers, long swords, and axes using high lethality, low attack.
I guess you could also do stuff like lower heavy infantry lethality, increase attack and increase light infantry lethality, decrease attack so Heavy Infantry vs Heavy Infantry take forever and prone to 'pushing' due to knock down and light infantry have better shock and do more damage initially due to charge value allowing for more successful hits instead of flinches on charge.
I really don't know.
Or just take away good stamina on every heavy infantry unit.
I support that. And make a script to remove guard mode.
No need for that, hopefully everyone is familiar with Aradan's excellent EDU guide:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344
Book of Aradan 2:11
I can through long experience of play around with this attribute assure that it is exactly as Aradan states it, reason everyone is not lying on their backs is becuase a failed lethality can also result in a not so visible knock-back.Quote:
[lethality] : Percentile chance of a soldier to kill an enemy (assuming his strike has found its target). The higher the lethality, the more the kills and the less the knock-downs/knock-backs during a battle. Greatly affects the speed at which melee battles are resolved, since higher lethality means less missed hits and greater casualties in short time. It is not used in ranged combat.
The difference between a 0.2 lethality and 0.3 lethality unit is 50% more kills, which is huge and clearly visible in combat.
GI, lethality is not a direct proportion as once thought. See phalanx_man's guide that Aradan links to in the guide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
But not without some compensation for shieldwall/spearwall infantry like hoplitai.
ASM already played around with spacing and mass to create very close order infantry that are effective from the front. I'm not sure how this would affect flanking maneuvers and such though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Pikemen without guardmode are pretty annoying though because they use unit cohesion this way and make crazy side attacks. Other units can be also annoying for micromanaging without guardmode but for pikemen there is as far as I know no way to prevent that without guard mode.
I know from before, that skeleton, unit radius, weapon type etc also affects the lethality, but all factors being equal for two unit then lethality should be quite linear, no? In other way do you have access to a formula for lethality scaling? (Only the pure lethality part, not chance to kill that involves lots of other factors as we all know)Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Again, PLEASE read phalanx_man's guide...Aradan links to it in his guide.
It would have been nice if the curve was linear but it's a power function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galvanized Iron
EDIT: By nice I mean convenient, not realistic.
It's not a power function, it's linear but has a non-1 slope and a y-intercept.
According to the test of phalanx_man, the effect of lethality is not linear (in a strict sense) but follows an affine function (no power function):
f(x)=2.98 *x + 0.54
(where x is the lethality, and f(x) the killing rate; to be more specific it's the percentage of men of the unit killed in a minute)
This is tested for a solid value of all other effects (attack, defense, etc.), but and that's a very, very big but, there's a ton of methodology problems here:
1) he made only 4-8 data points for every lethality, so the statisical failure is pretty high.
2) he said for himself that lethality showed other killing rates for other battle configurations, so the data seems not be very objective but pretty specific for the situation he tested them in.
3) We only know the effect on killing rate this way. We cannot conclude anything if there is a difference in not dying because of non-working attack or the attack beeing only non lethal. It's still possible, lethality is used as a 1to1 probability after the attack effect has been concluded. I don't see a way to really test this.
4) I don't know how he ruled out more complex non-affine functions. R^2 for his model (and I get the same recalculating it) is pretty high though (R^2=0,9992; so at least his linear model has a high quality).) I did not test for linearity further for now, don't have any real statistic software on this pc.
EDIT: My conclusion is, that phalanx men tests (on lethality) are not very conclusive :(
Exactly, I was thinking "wtf?" When I read about his tests, a formula for kills per minute that is even leaving out the attack rating(!). First of all, all tests vs the computer is only approximate at best as it can't be considered an experiment in a fully controlled environment and secondly unless CA actually would share us their formula it is just speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
In English please, do you even know yourself what that means?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
As you may have noticed some units also has the hidden stats critical hit, which was visable in older mods, I think RTR 4, which seem to indicate that hit is done through an attack + die roll vs defense calculation whereas lethality is a seperate after-calculation.
As a further proof of linearity I would make as an example my cavalry charge tests made for RS II MP. Starting out from 0.2 lethality a frontal charge of cataphracts vs marines resulted in about 10-12 casualites each first charge, increasing to 0.4 lethality casualties rose to 20-24 kills per hit, at 0.5 where it was good enough kills landed at a 25-30 kills per first time charge.
(These numbers are higher in the current state of the mod, but due to an increase in cavalry mass outside the EDU)
That's actually fine. When you control other variables you can test for only one without any problem. You just need to take care what it does exactly mean. Phalanx man tests are nice, some results especially regarding other issues than lethality. No need to rage about it. The tests are because of the mentioned things to be taken with caution though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galvanized Iron
Quote:
In English please, do you even know yourself what that means?
He does know what it means and is right as far. He's using pretty general school terms, nothing crazy as afine functions :p.
Kival, you'd be surprised that phalanx_man's data is near-representative. That's why he got close to actual numbers most likely used by CA. Like I was telling gg2 in conversation recently, it's not as if someone at CA sat down and said, "Today I think I'm going to make a linear proportionality model connecting attack, lethality and defensive values such that the first coefficient is 2.98742." No. You start simple and complicate things from there to refine them. That's why they most likely landed on 3 and 0.5, not 2.98 and Heaven knows what other fancy numbers.
GI, I learned what that means when I was about 12 years old. Please don't insult my intelligence.
If you paint things red, they go faster, this is why Saka and Rome are OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
But Rome isn't OP :p
True dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
And I don't think that was cool either GI. Why you be hatin' brah?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
How do you know that? Only according to his test data we can't know that, actually for lethality he said that he got different restults for other battle configurations. I don't know how different though.
Quote:
No. You start simple and complicate things from there to refine them. That's why they most likely landed on 3 and 0.5, not 2.98 and Heaven knows what other fancy numbers.
Agreed. If phalanx-man was conclusive, the real numbers would be 3 and 0.5, but we don't know if they used a linear model at all. As far as I can see without real testing, to use a linear model for this data is okay. What we can be sure of is that f(0)>0, so lethality obviously isn't the chance itself.
Still I'm not sure about the validity of the data itself. If I have the time, I'll try to re-model the system with some hypothesis and see if it fits with the inductional "models" there. Do we know (or at least have a good assumption) if the actual animations are directly relevant? Is one solider attacking another soldiers the real mechanic or ar the real mechanics only unit based?
That's what I've been wondering, too. I want to say that the visuals don't make any difference, and that the two models have only to collide at one spot in their collision detection overlays (very simple, probably elongated spheres) in order for combat calculations to start running. So it's not that the combat is pure numbers, or entirely based on animations, but rather depends on both. The animation itself doesn't contribute, it's the position of the model relative to the enemy model. I wish CA made it so that it was more physical, that the animation represented something real. That it would hit the neck, or the torso, or the legs, with varying chances let's say. But that's more work (I should know!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Please go discuss your maths elsewhere. The numbers have me confused:stars:
Well we do have a (history) research department if you'd like to stay away from maths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
WHICH IS WHY I WANT TO REDUCE UNIT RADIUS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW UNITS SPEND TOO MUCH TIME SPREADING OUT AND THEN SLOWLY WALKING AT EACH OTHER WASTING STAMINA.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
*Ahem*
But seriously lateral spacing divided by 3.
LISTEN TO ASM AND LET HIM DO IT
ahha this is fun
Yes, sounds good.
I Agree, Dont ignore this issue it has been brought up several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
It's possible to coerce unit stances in SP historical battles, but these are a special case. AFAIK it's not possible to do this for custom or campaign battles, let alone MP ones. There would also be no way to check if your MP opponent has the script running.
Its not so much straight guard mode but it is an issue of density since units spread out so much when attacking, you have one guy effectively engaging multiple guys. The stamina issue is also fairly big but its not so bad now that stamina has been largely given to all heavy infantry. You just have to engage better against people with better formation using heavy infantry or knock them out of formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
If there was one thing I would change to formation infantry it would be to make them more vulnerable from the sides and rear but there's no real way of doing that except to make them missile invulnerable from the front....
We could just rule it out (I'M still not sure, If I am happy with getting rid of guard mode). If it's really relevant as in tourney vartan e.g. can tell you by seeing if a unit it in guard mode.
This is video proof of the power of Panda phalanx. You decide should Pandas "levy" cost 1300 phalanx handle that much ?
Watch This
Best Way to Prove your point give a video, oh and i have 2 other replays with the same scenario.
Storm I dont think you have chosen the best example. In that specific instance, there were allied eagle troops around which AFAIK helps boost morale for everyone in the team (if they are around). There might have been druids chanting as well iirc (can't see in the video).
However, I have seen other examples where a seriously flanked panda unit does not rout quickly, and takes some time to do so. Even when there is no eagle/druid support present.
As I've told you, I do not think this is a big issue- yes they do not rout quickly, but they do rout. The question everyone has to answer is: is the amount of time it takes for them to rout acceptable? IMO, yes it is.
allied eagles or generals do not give an effect . If my ally has an eagle or druid chanting next to my men , my men dont get a boost :D
What do u mean amount of time it takes for them to rout ? they didnt even rout. I dont mind time but that was too much time all i want to see is white flags, That is too much time for a 1300 phalanx totally flanked and charged by neitos and cohorts, Watch it again it was even Jav charge from behind. What more do u want
I'm inclined to disagree. At least generals work for allies too.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
That's not entirely impossible but I would not choose the way you'd need to go for that: Increase shield values but decrease armour values drastically.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Yes don't do that unless you enjoy vanilla style skirmish armies to dominate the field...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
how about taking Ap secondaries from Phalanx.
No, if they used axes then they used axes and should use axes.
Do nerf the Evocata though.
They have only 4 (!) attack. Their melee power really in now way is OP. If anything the difference to other phalangitai is perhaps too big.
With panda phalanx its more an issue of the unit being in guard mode (! again an issue) and the men not peeling off from the main formation. This means they don't actively seek their deaths at the hands of flanking infantry by walking towards them. This causes morale to decrease slower. However, rout one panda phalanx and they will all rout. This has proven time and time again.
@Adjusting shield value
Shield values are doubled from the front when standing still. This is why experience players only throw javelins at moving targets if they have to throw from the front. And while this is the easiest way, it makes high missile defense basically impenetrable missile defense
I thought thrown weapons ignore the double value of shield? Where did you get shield is only giving double value when standing still?