Kingdoms balance discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred

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,

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

M2TW is different in that upgrades on ranged units improves the range weapon effectiveness which was not the case in MTW.

---

No, thats RTW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupu

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Kyolic

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Kyolic

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Kyolic

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

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.

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

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 ...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandaeolon

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandaeolon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupu

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupu

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyAnn

You just don't beat them in missile battle, that's the beauty of it.

Annie

---

Yep. :)