Unit Balancing!

Since the undocumented patch I've certainly notices Sloops and Brigs doing a very good job of being annoying in large battles.

I just built the Victory, and a Sloop blew up right next to it. It caught fire and routed off the map. Luckily it didn't explode or sink.

This happened because they have have a great habit of getting in close and sitting between the big 3rd rates I have who are in the line astern formation. They use their superior manoeuvrability to stay out the massive broadside cones and snipe away from very close range.

I had the Victory split off the main line and start cleaning up the situation...clearly it was a very large hammer for a very small peanut.

It's very well done.

I really hope Jack reconsiders the Range and Accuracy issues.

For a while now sloops, brigs, and galleys act as little fire ships, provided you shoot them with round shot.

When they get close then change the ammo. They will rout or strike.

Why is it that Sloops, and frigates are being made more useful, while Militia and other weak land units are being nerfed? I always saw Sloops and Frigates as just early ships that the player, and the AI, would build as they tiered up to the SOL.

If anything needs to be balanced its Native Bowmen, they have 100 range, 40% accuracy, and their reload time allows them to get off 3-4 arrows per man before the Standard line can fire off.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately having seperate stats for MP and SP would require almost double the amount of time spent balancing and testing than is currently spent on them, and that already takes up a large amount of time.

---

To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

I recall that other TW games barely tweaked the unit stats, and that was mainly good apart from MTW2 Shield and 2handed glitch, and RTW's Romans and Phalanxes were super rigged. Can't CA just freeze the SP unit stats and just revise them with the MP stats only when its drastic or extremely needed?

As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.

As for the brig/sloop rebalancing, it seems sort of silly. Still, if a brig or sloop wanders into the range of a SOL then I'm pretty sure it's in big trouble. The AI is most likely incapable of micromanaging that efficiently (and I know that I'm not either)

Quote:

---

If anything needs to be balanced its Native Bowmen, they have 100 range, 40% accuracy, and their reload time allows them to get off 3-4 arrows per man before the Standard line can fire off.

---

I think this is somewhat acceptable. The Native Bowmen are half the size of a standard line infantry unit, and the Native Americans had been using the bow for hundreds of years and therefore had likely had excellent training. The bow also is much faster to reload and is most likely easier to aim accurately without dozens of others next to you shooting off VERY loud muskets/cannons.

EDIT:I was thinking the other day, since it's likely that the forums don't represent all the TW players, why not re-introduce that voting system from M2-kingdoms? There was that little poll that was in the corner every time you booted the game up, and this could probably be an easy way to find out whether players in general appreciate the new changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peacemaker

As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.

As for the brig/sloop rebalancing, it seems sort of silly. Still, if a brig or sloop wanders into the range of a SOL then I'm pretty sure it's in big trouble. The AI is most likely incapable of micromanaging that efficiently (and I know that I'm not either)




I think this is somewhat acceptable. The Native Bowmen are half the size of a standard line infantry unit, and the Native Americans had been using the bow for hundreds of years and therefore had likely had excellent training. The bow also is much faster to reload and is most likely easier to aim accurately without dozens of others next to you shooting off VERY loud muskets/cannons.

EDIT:I was thinking the other day, since it's likely that the forums don't represent all the TW players, why not re-introduce that voting system from M2-kingdoms? There was that little poll that was in the corner every time you booted the game up, and this could probably be an easy way to find out whether players in general appreciate the new changes.

---

Historically I believe when a commander was faced to sail into the wind he did a zig zag motion and used the wind at his side to build up momentum, but you know then again I could be wrong, my knowledge for this time is about as expansive as yours.

I, too, think the native bowmen are accurate. Bows SHOULD have the advantage over muskets. At least until breechloading rifles become common.


For the polls, I don't think that would work with steam. That was what was nice about MTW2 having its own launcher and all...

Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.

I am also wondering what has happened to the Grenzers and why Austria went from a strong rifle faction to one who has no rifle units at all. And buy the way it was the Jaegers who had rifles and not the Grenzers. But all that aside even if they had standard rifles it would be an improvement.

As to the naval changes, I am not overjoyed but if ranges are extended for the light ships then I hope galleys are included, as gunboat, which they most nearly represent, were a threat to the SOLs. With their heavy guns and maneuverability they posed a threat especially in confined waters, where the other small ships also came into play.

As to sailing into the wind; I am willing to take CA‘s explanations for doing it. I seem to recall they even tried auto-tacking (which the AI uses at times) but found it too confusing for casual players.

And yes! Bows were dangerous to musket men. Bowmen retained their advantage until repeating arms became available.:smash:

Galleys DO pose a thread to ships of the line, although admittedly one has to use them right and, since the 'derp derp rotate in place' mechanic is unlikely to go away, it can be a bit frustrating.

Still, I've nearly managed to sink a first rate with four of them.

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

The more I think about it the more the naval balancing move is aimed purely for MP.

That's why a strategic solution in the campaign SP can't be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durallan

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

---

To be good with a bow you need years of training, you can tell a man how to use a musket in a few hours/days, all the other training included, you can raise armies in a few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durallan

if bowmen were so awesome and a bunch of 60 are able to wipe out 60+ men in say 10 exchanges yet the gunmen only take out 20-30 in the same time if they are really lucky, why the heck did nations at this time use guns instead of bows which obviously were far superior in long drawn out battles and had the superior range?

---

When the whites met the redman for the first time everyone was using body armor. Muskets put an end to that.

The amaricans tended to use rifles and light tactics against them. Also as you pointed out numbers helped so the army sent numbers. But in the Redsticks’ war it was mostly other Native Indian tribes that took care of the problem, even while Jackson got most of the credit.

The other secret the army used was buck & ball loads that gave a very high percentage of hits at 200 yards...something the game doesn’t offer.

The Siminole Wars went on for ever and were deadly bloody affairs that cost the US most dearly in blood and money.

The threat was defeated by number and the advent of repeating arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discoman

Why is it that Sloops, and frigates are being made more useful, while Militia and other weak land units are being nerfed? I always saw Sloops and Frigates as just early ships that the player, and the AI, would build as they tiered up to the SOL.

---

Well we don't want frigates and sloops to just be ships you use pre-SOL.

Quote:

---

To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

---

All the nations that had unique stats for their line infantry in 1.0 still do, that hasn't changed.

Quote:

---

I recall that other TW games barely tweaked the unit stats, and that was mainly good apart from MTW2 Shield and 2handed glitch, and RTW's Romans and Phalanxes were super rigged. Can't CA just freeze the SP unit stats and just revise them with the MP stats only when its drastic or extremely needed?

---

Well we felt is was needed as we think the changes that have been made to land battle balancing and the upcoming changes to naval balancing to improve gameplay.

Quote:

---

As to the naval changes, I am not overjoyed but if ranges are extended for the light ships then I hope galleys are included, as gunboat, which they most nearly represent, were a threat to the SOLs. With their heavy guns and maneuverability they posed a threat especially in confined waters, where the other small ships also came into play.

---

Well galleys keep their ability to manouevre well and their high damage guns so they have their uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Galleys DO pose a thread to ships of the line, although admittedly one has to use them right and, since the 'derp derp rotate in place' mechanic is unlikely to go away, it can be a bit frustrating.

Still, I've nearly managed to sink a first rate with four of them.

---

Well turn rate whilst stopped has been dropped a lot for most ships, ships such as galleys being an exception of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The more I think about it the more the naval balancing move is aimed purely for MP.

That's why a strategic solution in the campaign SP can't be considered.

---

No it is aimed at SP as well, but even if changes were made to the campaign stats for the ships we'd still want them to have more of a role on the battlemap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Historically I believe when a commander was faced to sail into the wind he did a zig zag motion and used the wind at his side to build up momentum, but you know then again I could be wrong, my knowledge for this time is about as expansive as yours.

---

Correct. You're supposed to be at a serious disadvantage if the enemy has the weather gage, which means he's upwind from you. Tactical maneuver to achieve the weather gage over an opponent was a big part of the initial maneuvering, before anyone even got within gun range.

The zig-zagging is called tacking, and if you do it right, you can fire broadsides on each tack at an upwind foe as you gradually pull closer. The enemy is still going to have the advantage of faster turning (wind astern) and more control of the battle.

All of this assumes a true dead zone of something like 90 degrees or more (for a square rigger) in the direction of the wind, where you simply can't make any headway at all, and you'd be a sitting duck if you pointed your ship that way. I don't know if mods like this Darthmod being talked about are doing that, or if they're just adjusting the speed to be a lot slower when you sail directly upwind. Has anybody actually modded zero motion in the direction of the wind, and if so, can the AI handle it? Does the AI know how to tack as a combat maneuver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lusted

Well turn rate whilst stopped has been dropped a lot for most ships, ships such as galleys being an exception of course.

---

Right, because we all know that spinning in a circle while stopped in the water, is such a great and historically relevant combat tactic.

(headdesk!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I, too, think the native bowmen are accurate. Bows SHOULD have the advantage over muskets. At least until breechloading rifles become common.

---

The only advantage they should have (IMO) is range. They do seem a little overpowered in combat effectiveness compared to firearms. Getting hit with an arrow shouldn't have the same impact as getting hit with a bullet, especially if the natives are firing at long range to stay outside the range of muskets. The European units weren't armored, but they did have multi-layer jackets, gloves, boots, etc. that would provide at least a little deflection for an arrow. The Eastern unit (horse archer, can't remember the name) might be a little more realistic, if they were using compound bows that hit harder.

Speaking of range.... it's a little annoying how enemy units like bowmen will approach and stop just outside the range of your line infantry muskets. I mean, literally a few feet outside their range. It makes sense that the natives would know, from experience, that they had longer range weapons. But there should be a little more randomness, or slack, in trying to stay outside musket range. Marching right up to the range marker exposes the game mechanics and breaks the illusion. It's like the way enemy ships will instantly reduce sails, the second you switch to chain shot. All the enemy admirals and field commanders must be telepathic.

... bows had advantages to tate of fire, indirect fire, and were probably equally good as muskets if you're going to close and finish off the wounded. The main issue is just ease of use.

i somehow think that primitive bowmen shouldn't have a 50% higher range then musketmen, who would undoubtedly have better range.

however, if the range was reduced to, perhaps, 60, and their rate of fire reduced to 10 shots a minute, and somehow make it take 2 shots to kill any line infantry and above, then i'm sure that the argument would be subsantially reduced.

Quote:

---

The only advantage they should have (IMO) is range. They do seem a little overpowered in combat effectiveness compared to firearms. Getting hit with an arrow shouldn't have the same impact as getting hit with a bullet, especially if the natives are firing at long range to stay outside the range of muskets. The European units weren't armored, but they did have multi-layer jackets, gloves, boots, etc. that would provide at least a little deflection for an arrow. The Eastern unit (horse archer, can't remember the name) might be a little more realistic, if they were using compound bows that hit harder.

---

firearms were (I believe) developed because they could easily shred through the armor of heavy knights, which arrows couldn't. This made bows obselete and muskets became mass produced. The problem with this is that when people started using muskets, armor was removed so many used light armor as opposed to heavy chainmail and such.

If I remember correctly from my history class last year, many troops in the American colonies were low on supplies. In the American revolution, the Americans were often walking barefoot and starving. This may not be the case, but arrows could quite easily penetrate fur or cotton (or whatever material was used) uniforms.

Not necessarily. Bows were made obsolete by the simply use of firearms, namely, the aiming (In the loosest sense of the word, with the horrible accuracy of early firearms) and pulling the trigger. A good bowmen would take a lifetime to train and be of use in a war, while any chump could be trained to hold a musket. Early firearms made armour more or less obsolete, not bows, which were used enough until the pike-and-shot era.

For those that seem to think that arrows should do less damage than a bullet, remember that an arrow is essentially a slower, heavier, and larger bullet. That wedges yourself into you. It hurts. With it's size, nerve and muscle damage is sure to occur, which more or less incapacitates anyone who gets hit. You don't pull out arrows from yourself as if they were minor inconveniences, like in the movies, you fall on the ground in agony from the shock, and the amount of force inflicted by it.

Muskets fired slower-moving projectiles than modern guns. Using non-direct fire, a bowmen would most likely outrange a musketeer, who could theoretically try aiming his gun at a silly angle, but wouldn't do much good. The main thing is accuracy. At far range, the arrow will still fly straight at it's target in an arch, while a musket ball will have begun to fly wildly long ago. Effective range is exactly that. Effective range. Farther than that, you may get one or two stray shots, but the vast majority of bullets end up plowing into the ground, or going nowhere near the intended target.

The main problem with the natives is their huge stockpile of manpower to attack you with. Surprisingly enough, it is their numbers that actually makes it annoying to fight them, not their troops, which are only average.

We need a 'small pox blanket' option or something. Muskets could do more tramatic internal damage that would result in a killing wound especially if it did something stupid like shatter. An arrow would incapacitate/wound or bleed you to death instead. Plus its alot harder to figure out where those arrows are coming from.

I think you guys are thinking too much of massed military archery which N. America lacked because people didn't fight in large man-bricks. Instead they would have used a more shallow arc such as in normal hunting where you aim for a target rather than a general area.

Well, you get the same result. Some poor chump moaning on the ground.

Precisely. They should keep their current distance and accuracy. Just run them down with cavalry.

My main problem with native Americans is their numbers; they come at me in 3-4 full stacks which run down the American protectorates who don't seem to enjoy recruiting troops of any sort. I've never, in any campaign, seen Great Britain obtain the US with anything south of Boston

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.

---

Hmm. Are we playing the same game? I've played (not to the glorious end) 3 campaigns in 1.3 and in all 3 Marathas eliminated Mughals. I guess, results vary and that's good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peacemaker

My main problem with native Americans is their numbers; they come at me in 3-4 full stacks which run down the American protectorates who don't seem to enjoy recruiting troops of any sort. I've never, in any campaign, seen Great Britain obtain the US with anything south of Boston

---

Again, we must be playing different games. The 'berserkness' of North American indians seems to vary widely depending on which faction the player chooses to play. When I played as Britain and France, the natives overran the colonies fast. When I played as UP, Britain, Spain and France (AI) got their protectorates in 1710 intact and healthy. All three games were on VH difficulty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

All of this assumes a true dead zone of something like 90 degrees or more (for a square rigger) in the direction of the wind, where you simply can't make any headway at all, and you'd be a sitting duck if you pointed your ship that way. I don't know if mods like this Darthmod being talked about are doing that, or if they're just adjusting the speed to be a lot slower when you sail directly upwind. Has anybody actually modded zero motion in the direction of the wind, and if so, can the AI handle it? Does the AI know how to tack as a combat maneuver?

(headdesk!).

---

I am not sure exactly what Darth has done, but trying to go against the wind is a dead affair in his mod. Also, I've seen the AI do tacking very diligently in his mod. Not sure how he achieved that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

i somehow think that primitive bowmen shouldn't have a 50% higher range then musketmen, who would undoubtedly have better range.

however, if the range was reduced to, perhaps, 60, and their rate of fire reduced to 10 shots a minute, and somehow make it take 2 shots to kill any line infantry and above, then i'm sure that the argument would be subsantially reduced.

---

I have no problem with the current bowmen balance. I find it realistic that bowmen outrange muskets until the age of rifle. As mentioned before, muskets made the armor obsolete, not bows. However, those 'woolen layers' mentioned here would not have done much to stop an arrow. Even full leather armor did not help much to stop arrows in its (historical) time... So, arrows should be deadly for European troops dressed in plain cloth.

And it's easy to run those bowmen down with cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peacemaker

As almost everybody on the forums seems to hate the whole rebalancing naval units, not to mention the hatred of the ability to sail into the wind, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents:

I have almost no historical background for this time period; apart from the fact that people used muskets and there were some big ships. When I started playing the game, I thought that sailing into the wind was sort of a "whatever" sort of thing, and didn't bug me too much. I downloaded a few mods (darthmod, rights of man, etc.) and after playing them to see which I liked, i started resenting the inability to sail into the wind a bit. For a very casual gamer who isn't up for a major challenge, the wind being a serious factor was really troubling to me. I found it semi-realistic, but very annoying. Once I accidently told a ship to sail away from a demasted enemy ship, and it took me a while in order to get my ship to crawl back and make the pesky enemy vessel surrender. It unleashed broadside after broadside into the mess of my ships which were ganging up on the last enemy vessel, and sunk a total of 3 ships in the time that it took me to capture one of theirs and reach the enemy ship.

I am in favor of the sailing into the wind; but I think that the "arcade-style" gameplay should be reintroduced in order for players to choose their preference.

---

Well, on weather gauge:

"An upwind vessel is able to maneuver at will toward any downwind point, since in doing so the relative wind moves aft. A vessel downwind of another, however, in attempting to attack upwind, is constrained to trim sail as the relative wind moves forward and cannot point too far into the wind for fear of being headed. In sailing warfare, when beating to windward, the vessel experiences heeling under the sideward pressure of the wind. This restricts gunnery, as cannon on the windward side are now elevated, while the leeward gun ports aim into the sea, or in heavy weather may be awash. A ship with the weather gage, turning downwind to attack, may alter course at will in order to bring starboard and port guns to appropriate elevations. Ships seeking to evade capture or attack, however, have the advantage being downwind if they are faster vessels or are close to friendly land."

Pretty neat stuff, isn't it? I find it way more interesting than the current ability of the ETW ships to sail against the wind and spin around while standing still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking
Most of the changes made to the units have not been all that bad.

Some factions however, have taken some big hits.

I have noticed in all my recent campaigns that the Mughals are dominating the Marathas Confederacy every time. Earlier on the Marathas usually managed to win for the most part and sometimes eliminated the Mughals. Now it is a rather quick victory for the Mughals and the expand out into Europe.

I think it could use some looking into.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Hmm. Are we playing the same game? I've played (not to the glorious end) 3 campaigns in 1.3 and in all 3 Marathas eliminated Mughals. I guess, results vary and that's good.

---

In a way it is, but given the unbalanced armies the Mughals use it is still cause for examination. Also three times running, but then again the Marathas started as my trade partners. That is the likely cause.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

In a way it is, but given the unbalanced armies the Mughals use it is still cause for examination. Also three times running, but then again the Marathas started as my trade partners. That is the likely cause.:laugh4:

---

In the games I mentioned (in which Marathas took over) I was trading with both: Mughals and Marathas.

Well, I guess it is just too hard for the AI to kill them both!
:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discoman

To be fair, the SP was pretty balanced from the start. It was refreshing to see each nation had its own stats for its Standard Line Infantry, and I was sad that it was scratched because of MP. It's annoying because it creates balance, but loses the uniqueness of a nation. The main problem with MP and SP is that all the factions have the same units, that have the same roles, which means a change is rather drastic.

---

balance? a couple points difference create balance? i think not!

certain factions infantry shoul annihilate equal infantry of other certain factions. if i pit prussian line inf. versus russian line inf., then they should destroy the russians in a shoot-out. however, in melee, russians would probably win.

conversely, russian light inf. would probably beat just about anyone elses.