V1.11 now up.
It's in the first post along with the updated README.
Link to the first post here
Enjoy.
Carl.
Printable View
V1.11 now up.
It's in the first post along with the updated README.
Link to the first post here
Enjoy.
Carl.
Link just failed for me. Will try again later. Ta!
Fileshack's just gone down Moah. I'll try and mirror it somwhere, (suggestions welcome).
I've mirriored it at Savefile for the moment.
To download, click the link then enter the number (near the bottom of the page), and click Submit. Then wait about 30 seconds for it to begin downloading.
Added a FileFactory Mirrior too.
Something to note is that I didn't really have time to do a proper pass across all units changed, so there may be some oddities that I didn't catch.
One thing to note is that some units might get balanced up or down in cost some too once we have a feel for what looks right balance wise.
Thanks for that, I'm just fairly sure you wouldn't have missed any big ones, thats all. If their are issues leftover they might be small ones.Quote:
Something to note is that I didn't really have time to do a proper pass across all units changed, so there may be some oddities that I didn't catch.
Whilst this will happen in time, I hope to save the price changes for the re-balance version as it's not really bufixing anymore then. This is just finding obvious non-working stuff, fixing it and then altering the few working bits into line with the debugged stuff, (since the working stuff is UP with debugging complete).Quote:
One thing to note is that some units might get balanced up or down in cost some too once we have a feel for what looks right balance wise.
I'll create a seperate thread for the re-balance now so me and stirland and others can comment on more subjective stuff their without derailing the bugfixer.
Overall, what do people make of the Spears, thats my biggest concern, is the Skeletion Comp Factor change too big?
I'm just saying the WAAA DEK/DNK/DPK/VHI are too good cries might be without real solution till then.
I felt like they held better, my only real test was (IIRC)Spear militia VS bill militia, which they lost, but it was basically MAD. Bills killed a ton, only reason the bills lost was loss of general.
The file says it is still in effect:Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Whether it's actually correct or not, though, I do not know.
Possiblly, but I don't think people understand just how vulnrable to missile the 2-Handers are.Quote:
I'm just saying the WAAA DEK/DNK/DPK/VHI are too good cries might be without real solution till then.
I ran a seris of tests last night with a mixture of Crossbows, Gunpowder, Bow, Longbow, and other unit based missile weapons against 2-Hander, (4 highland Nobles, and 4 Galloglaich vs. 8 assorted missile units under my command). Ran all kinds of combinations. The 2-Handers raerly managed, (melee and missile losses added togeter here), better than 1:1 kill rates and went as bad as 3:2 EVEN when WINNING. It went down to between 3:1 and 4:1 when they lost.
NOTE: in the above kill rates the Missile units are listed first, so at worst when losing they lost 4 for every 1 the killed.
Considering even peasent Archers where managing 1:1 kill rates thats pretty big vulnrabilities TBH. I didn't do a cav test but i'll do a DGK vs. Fuedal Knights shortly, then go on my campaign and come back and put the results up about 8.
On the other hand I think we will have detractors till we eithier get charges fixed or re-price slightly.
I've noticed Bill Militia are weak morale and tend to break as soon as they lose a general.Quote:
I felt like they held better, my only real test was (IIRC)Spear militia VS bill militia, which they lost, but it was basically MAD. Bills killed a ton, only reason the bills lost was loss of general.
As soon as anybody gets cav resistance data could you please put it up.
All right. Got some thoughts to share.
First I did some Fudeal Knight tests vs. DGK. The Fuedals where winning with 2:1/3:1 kill rates in their favour, even mailed knights could manage MAD with cycle charging. DGK/DEK/DNK/DPK are the only 2-handers with that kind of defence TBH. SO 2-Handers are proving very vulnrable to enemy cav charges.
Second, the more I play around with Western Halberds, the more concerned I become. The Danish and Papal States ones are effectivlly their main late infantry unit, whilst France, HRE and the other similar nations with this type of unit get it as eithier the last or second to last infantry in their barracks tech tree. hats worrying me even more as it's implying more and more that they are meant to be a big part of late armies. the problem is they are tottally outperformed by Pikes and struggle against S&S infantry. Overall i'm becoming more convinced that Halberds are NOT just a stepping stone between Spears and Pikes and i'm getting worried as they don't really live up to their late era status ATM.
This echoes a lot of what I wsa thinking at first, however, cost wise those do pretty well.
Armor and animation quality go a long ways with halberds it seems.
I'm now a bit confused as to which thread I should be posting in.. lol. Anyway, regarding halberds, what I've done so far is give them a universal +3 to their attack whilst at the same time a -2 to the attack of all pikes. I won't have the fortune of being able to test the changes until tomorrow but suffice to say I agree with the premise that halberds are meant to be good late units. You don't get the Danish ones until quite late in the tech tree.
The rebalance is intended to grow to include more than just fixing issues created by the bug fixes I think
Stlaind hit the nail on the head. Re-balancing units that have been made UP by Bug Fixing falls in this thread. Stuff that fall outside bugfixing or re-balancing units that are UP by bug-fixing falls into the other thread.
The Militia ones are, but the elite ones need to be competitive at least with the 2handers/sword and boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Quote:
The Militia ones are, but the elite ones need to be competitive at least with the 2handers/sword and boards.
The problem is Dopp that furthar play with various factions has made me realise that of those that get Halberds, only France and HRE get Halberds AND Pikes, even at militia level. France gets at least 1 of every unit class, HRE also gets an above average number of unit classes too, and thus I don't think eithier is a fair test case.
In every other amry bar france and HRE the Halberds are a direct REPLACMENT for Pikes, even at the Militia level. They get Halberds INSTEAD of pikes. That worrying me as Halberds are slower than Pikes, yet tottally unable to even challange them. It's that damm bugged switchover code again. If they actually poked with their weapons when they wern't in melee range, (as appossed to all hacking because one or two can hack as they do now). I havn't tried a test in vanillia yet but i'd expect them to beat bugged pikes sensless, and considering the price disparity in most cases this makes plenty of sense really.
p.s. What do people think ov V1.11 then?
Thanks for putting this together. I was only able to play an hour last night after installing the BugFixer. I started a new campaign as Scotland, so I haven't had time to see any effects but after reading through the readme, it looks like I will be very happy for a while.
Carl: Did you consider to remove spearwall formation from all halberds and raise their stats accordingly? This will make a sort of cheap weak AP assault infantry from them, similar to billmen.
They're not supposed to be assault infantry. Halberds were a higher tech development of pikes, they're defensive infantry with a bite.
It's a possibility, but as noted a couple of posts ago by me, a number of factions use Halberds as a replacement for pikes. They really need the Cav defense, and without spear wall they are going to struggle to provide it IMHO. This is a particular issue for the Danes.Quote:
Carl: Did you consider to remove spear wall formation from all halberds and raise their stats accordingly? This will make a sort of cheap weak AP assault infantry from them, similar to billmen.
Also, HRE, France, and Denmark already get 2-handers, I also believe the same is true of the eastern factions that get them, (Although I haven't played those yet so I'm not sure TBH).
The problem is that turning them into AP Pikes risks making them IMBA, yes they cost about double he price of a comparable Pike unit, and are slower. However, they are much more missile resistant in general than most Pikes and the high level Halberds are cheaper on upkeep than the High level Pikes, (although this isn't an issue for custom Battles it is something that has to be remembered as the campaign is the most common form of SP play, for reference low level Halberds are similar or more expensive than the low level pikes on upkeep).
In other words we have an issue in which we can't really make them 2-Handers, but if we turn them into AP pikemen we risk unbalancing them. It's a double edged sword.
Thanks for the opinion.Quote:
Thanks for putting this together. I was only able to play an hour last night after installing the BugFixer. I started a new campaign as Scotland, so I haven't had time to see any effects but after reading through the readme, it looks like I will be very happy for a while.
What about making them 60 man units like pikes? As well as giving them a little attack hike, this is the best solution I've found so far.
And/or increase their skeleton compensation factor to 1.33?
I do not they were higher tech developement of pikes - they were used earlier than pikes (if we take only middle ages) and pikes lasted much longer, various polearms remained only as ceremonial weapons in later times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi
I agree they were more versatile than pikes, though. You can cut, slash, drag and stab with them...
But maybe the best solution will be to leave them as weaker type of "pikes" with AP ability and the faction without pikes will be just more vulnerable to cavalry.
@Jambo: they've got +5 attack and 60 men in V1.11 but they still get beat solidly by pikes and S&S infantry and suffer much higher losses vs. 2-Handers and Cav than Pikes do, although they still win.
This just won't work reverent, with how OTT cav are in M2TW if your weak vs. cav you can't fight a battle on the battlefield at all. Simply put a quarter stack of late Heavy Cav can slaughter a Full stack of Infantry if used correctly. The only infantry melee counters are Spear walls and lots of armored sarges in Schiltrom. Not everyone gets those. Some get Halberds instead and thats the issue here. Denmark, and probably some of the Eastern European factions, (who also get Western Style Halberds), just won't have any effective late tech tree cav counter so even small cav forces will simply roll right over their infantry armies.Quote:
But maybe the best solution will be to leave them as weaker type of "pikes" with AP ability and the faction without pikes will be just more vulnerable to cavalry.
The most important balance consideration in this game ATM is that every faction has an effective late era counter cav unit. If they don't, heavy cav simply dominate the battlefield and those without good heavy cav are UP.
I'm not trying to knock you down reverent, just saying that you can't have a balanced game whilst one faction is weak vs. cav.
Yeah you're right. Tests I've just performed also confirmed that even with 60 men and +3 attack, they're still fairly useless and indeed woeful against highland pikemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
So options:
1. Remove their phalanx ability and make them more like ME_Halberd_Militia and JHI.
2. Remove their secondary attack and then lower their primary stats to prevent them being like uber pikemen?
Any other avenues?
Pikes are one of the oldest weapons in existence, going back to the Greek hoplites. The halberd is much more complicated and difficult to produce, but it is basically a pike, only better. It can be used to push as a spear, but it's vastly better at bringing down cavalry (Or anyone else) who breaks into your formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant
In all seriousness, the halberd should be the strongest defensive infantry in the game, even nastier than pikemen from the front.
The reason they died out is twofold: Again, halberds are more complicated and MUCH more expensive to produce than pikes. You need a swordsmith, basically, and that's a specialized skill. Spearheads on the other hand, any country bumpkin blacksmith who shoes horses can make. Naturally, the swordsmith charges a bit more than your typical blacksmith (And by "a bit", I mean a whole freaking lot).
Also, halberds are for defeating armored opponents. With the downfall of the truly armored knight, there ceased to be a need for them. Against unarmored or very lightly armored enemies, pikes are just as good (Or very nearly at any rate) so there was no point in spending all that money on expensive halberds when a big long pointy stick would do just as well.
@Jambo: I'd say option 2 as most of the armies with this type of alberd, (HRE/France/Papal States aside), tend to need the cav defence abilities of a pike more than they need another 2-hander. However, some (Papal states and HRE), would benefit from a 2-hander, (on reflection a 2-Hander half the price of Zwei-Handers and with no upkeeep would be valubale to them), france just plain has too many units, and the Papal States would benefit far more from a 2-Hander than a Pike unit as Papal Guard are quite good enough to see off even the best cav.
p.s. sorry if i seem a bit short ATM, i'm only actually nipping in for 10 minutes at a time between play sessions on M2TW, i've played more Sp campaign time over the last 3 days than I have to date since I got the game~;p.
Random Question. How's Bazantyinium faring under my BugFixer, their infantry lineup was all Sheild equipped and Vargarian Guard also had bugged animations, so their infantry lineup has recived a BIG boost from these bugfixes. I'm intrested in how they compare...
Carl, I think Option 2 is the only way. So far, I can get good results with the unit in 1v1, but in the hands of the AI it's still a bit disasterous. The AI just seems to continue to walk the unit even when in melee. Maybe that's just what happens in 1v1 though...
Interestingly, I find that on huge unit sizes (Which is naturally my balance target), with their unit sizes upped to 60 halberdiers are devastating. They beat pikemen that are better quality even (Halb Militia can take on Highland Pikemen, and occasionally even Scottish Heavy Pike Militia).
Halberd Militia are recruited from Militia Drill Square (level 4). Pike Militia are recruited from the Militia Barracks (level 5). How can a lower level unit be a replacement for one that is higher level? Granted, many elite halberds should probably beat militia-level pikes, but I think it would be challenging to expect them to beat elite pikemen head-to-head. Otherwise, they become too powerful, since they don't need to maintain formation to be effective and are free to maneuver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
The fundamental problem is that with the 'fix', pikemen become untouchable from the front (literally, because the enemy is unable to close with them in the first place), but without the fix, pikemen are rubbish (because they ALWAYS allow the enemy to close with them). They are the unbalancing element atm, not the halberds themselves. How do the halberds fare against other units? It's no good balancing them against such an extreme case as pikes only to mess them up against everything else.
History part: Feel free to correct me, but I don't think halberds replaced pikes; it was the other way around. The Tercio initially contained halberdiers, but later reduced the number significantly in favor of more pikes. The Swiss switched from halberds to pikes, if I recall correctly. Certainly by the 17th century, pikes had replaced most of the other weapons for infantry melee fighting.
Pikes had the advantage over halberds in terms of reach (and pikes kept increasing in length in order to maintain that advantage over enemy pikes). Halberds were primarily useful at close quarters. A pike is generally unsuitable as a weapon outside of formation fighting. Halberds were used when/if the push of pike became too close, but they needed to be part of a pike formation themselves in order to beat pikes. They were supplementary, not primary weapons. To implement what you seem to be proposing; that pure halberd formations essentially become the nemesis of pikes, is probably taking things a little too far.
Because (to my knowledge), NO ONE but HRE gets that. For everyone else it's either Halberds OR PIKES, NOT BOTH. (p.s. caps are for emphasis). HRE and France are the only armies that get pikes AND halberds. Everyone else gets one or the other. I haven't checked Poland and Hungary yet, but I know that for Papal States and Denmark that Halberds are their last tier unit. I suspect that Halberd Militia are the same place for Poland and Hungary although I'd have to check.Quote:
Halberd Militia are recruited from Militia Drill Square (level 4). Pike Militia are recruited from the Militia Barracks (level 5). How can a lower level unit be a replacement for one that is higher level?
Not really Dopp. If they fixed the switchover code so that only those who where in melee range pulled swords you'd get the exact same situation as now. Right now if someone gets into melee range all the nearby pikes turn toward's him and away from the front, yet the unit remains impenetrable from the front. If those that turn their pikes toward's him pulled swords out at this point as they should, (whilst the rest of the unit keep their pikes), then the only real change would be those that got through would do more damage before dying. They aren't performing much different to how they should Dopp.Quote:
The fundamental problem is that with the 'fix', pikemen become untouchable from the front (literally, because the enemy is unable to close with them in the first place), but without the fix, pikemen are rubbish (because they ALWAYS allow the enemy to close with them). They are the unbalancing element ATM, not the halberds themselves.
2 Problems here.Quote:
Interestingly, I find that on huge unit sizes (Which is naturally my balance target), with their unit sizes upped to 60 halberdiers are devastating. They beat pikemen that are better quality even (Halberd Militia can take on Highland Pikemen, and occasionally even Scottish Heavy Pike Militia).
1. your doing 1v1, that means that means theirs no other unit protecting the flanks of the pikes. try 4v4 so that some pikes can only be engaged head on.
2. Your using default formations, in reality fixed pikes/spears have formations that are far too deep. My Pikes now deploy 4 ranks deep which means that you can't make the Halberd's formation any thinner, (if you try for wider, the center just disintegrates vs. anything and you get worse results, I checked). Thus under my BugFixer you won't see them getting in the flanks for you. I tried even on Huge and it didn't happen. Try controlling the Pikes and widening the formation till your only 4 ranks deep and try that against comp Halberds, or edit your EDU ranks numbers for Pikes.
The fact remains that most (if not all) halberd units are one tier lower than even basic Pike Militia on the building tree, which means a) 12000 less population required to build them, b) 9600 less florins to build them, and c) 5 less turns to build them. Per city. That's got to count for something. And elite French pikemen are even higher on the tech tree, requiring 12000 more florins for an Army Barracks and 6 more turns. It's just like if Musketeers cost 27000 more florins to build per city than other missile troops (which they do), they had better be the best missile troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. Pikemen that draw swords in vanilla lose their advantage of reach and will fight as swordsmen until the combat is concluded. Taking away their swords fixes the problem where they abandon their pikes almost instantly after contact, but this gives them a huge reach advantage all the time, even when their formation has been penetrated and they should be at a disadvantage. That's why I said the 'fixed' pikes are still a little imbalanced to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
To be honest, I'm not sure how you would make halberds competitive with pikes using the tools we have at our disposal, unless you either buff their stats sky-high (especially their defense) or turn them into pikemen as well by removing their secondary 'weapon', leaving them free to poke (no hacking). Their tactic of taking the charge and then switching over to normal melee puts them at a disadvantage, because they are neither as well armed or as well protected as the elite swordsmen that are the only units currently able to survive a head-on confrontation with pikemen.
The problem with that is that it isn't true of Denmark, It isn't true of Poland, it isn't true of the Papal States it isn't true of Hungary. All rely on Halberd equipped unit to provide either their last tier city or castle troops, (I'll hold my hand up and admit I got Papal States wrong, they do have Pike Militia when I double checked). That leaves no doubt in my mind they where meant to be powerful effective troops. In addition, since they occupy a late tech tree position in Poland and Hungary's Tech Tree, (and are much more expensive than Pike Militia), I'm of the opinion that Halberd Militia SHOULD be competitive with last tier melee units from other factions, (within the constraints that Hungary and Poland aren't totally infantry focused, and should have weaker infantry than those factions which are).Quote:
The fact remains that most (if not all) halberd units are one tier lower than even basic Pike Militia on the building tree, which means a) 12000 less population required to build them, b) 9600 less florins to build them, and c) 5 less turns to build them. Per city. That's got to count for something. And elite French pikemen are even higher on the tech tree, requiring 12000 more florins for an Army Barracks and 6 more turns. It's just like if Musketeers cost 27000 more florins to build per city than other missile troops (which they do), they had better be the best missile troops.
Lastly, not everyone sees these as unimportant SP additions. In that enviroment, the only availability difference between Halberds and Pikes is Cost, the Halberds Cost more. Thus all things considered they sure as hell had better be outperforming Pike Militia. Upkeep, Recruitment Pools Size and Replenish Rte and Position in the Tech tree in SP are methods to create differentiation between factions with similar unit rosters in the Campaign, they ARE NOT the primary means of balance for me, (although i do consider them to a degree when balancing as they are still important). They are more a secondary means to help balance out the complexities of campaign play and other campaign specific factors. The primary means of balance however is base Price, Faction Play style, and Custom Battle tech level, (which is simply a broader version of the SP tech levels). They are the bits that matter to me as I know they will be balanced in Custom, and experience playing other games tells me that a balanced custom mode almost always equals balanced campaigns too. The only Campaign specif thing I constantly worry about is Auto-Calc as thats such a big thing and effects battle odds too.
On the flip side, I don't believe that Halberds should beat Pikes head on, I'll go into that in more detail in a moment though.
My point is Dopp that their formation is penetrated when they are unfixed BECAUSE they switch to swords, not IN SPITE of it.Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. Pikemen that draw swords in vanilla lose their advantage of reach and will fight as swordsmen until the combat is concluded. Taking away their swords fixes the problem where they abandon their pikes almost instantly after contact, but this gives them a huge reach advantage all the time, even when their formation has been penetrated and they should be at a disadvantage.
What Do I mean in more detail:
1. What Happens without the Pike Fix: The Swords Charge in, most actually get slowed down by the Pikes. A few swords get through the pikes and make it to melee however. The whole Pike unit then switches to swords and those slowed down are now free to speed up and the pikes get hit en-mass at melee range, resulting in the formation being compromised totally.
2. What Happens with the Pike Fix: The swords hit, most get slowed down, a few make it to melee. Those Pikes engaged in melee now put all their attacks against hose engaging them in melee as do the ranks behind them that arn';t in range of those who where slowed down. Those pikes who are not engaged in melee and who are in range will continue to attack those slowed down and force them out before they make it to melee. The few swords that have made melee then get ripped to pieces and the whole formation now focuses on the other swords who are now held at bay.
3. What Should Happen if the Switchover Code was Working Right: The swords hit, most get slowed down, a few make it to melee. Those Pikes engaged in melee now switch to swords and put all their attacks against those engaging them in melee. The ranks behind them that aren't in range of those who where slowed down attack them with their Pikes too. Those pikes who are not engaged in melee and who are in range will continue to attack those slowed down and force them out before they make it to melee. The few swords that have made melee then get ripped to pieces and the whole formation now focuses on the other swords who are now held at bay.
The difference between 2 and 3? Those swords that do make melee range will do more damage as the Sword attacks are worse than the Pikes by some margin, but they will still have 2 ranks of Pikes prodding them plus 2 or 3 swordsmen pikes attacking them. If they fix the Switchover code the Pikes will still be nearly impossible to compromise on a large scale, but will suffer more losses from small scale compromising of the formation.
I've actually been trying to make them work as a kind of 2-Hander/Spear cross ATM with some success. Basically they have Spear Wall formation removed along with their secondary weapon and the Long_Pike Attribute for the Primary Weapon. They keep the Spear Attribute for their Primary Weapon.Quote:
To be honest, I'm not sure how you would make halberds competitive with pikes using the tools we have at our disposal, unless you either buff their stats sky-high (especially their defense) or turn them into pikemen as well by removing their secondary 'weapon', leaving them free to poke (no hacking). Their tactic of taking the charge and then switching over to normal melee puts them at a disadvantage, because they are neither as well armed or as well protected as the elite swordsmen that are the only units currently able to survive a head-on confrontation with pikemen.
As i said, Limited Success however, so I'll give you the news in 3 Portions, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly:laugh4:.
THE UGLY
Like all Spear units, they need a good basic defense to be able to survive Late era Cav charges, I was thus forced, (to make Halberd Militia useful), to raise their total defense by some 14 points. 10 Armour, 4 Defense Skill
THE GOOD
Removing the Phalanx and Long_Pike Abilities has greatly increased their speed making them much more maneuverable and thus useful on both attack and defense.
The Spear attribute seems to keep their kill rate under control by and large, and thus they ain't Uber, (more in a moment on specifics).
Their Missile resistance is raised, whilst a bit Uber in some cases, (see "THE BAD" in a moment), it's generally a Little less than what working Shields would have but a bit better than what most 2-handers have. A bit of a mix really.
More specific on kills, generally they will beat S&S with a 3:2 or 1:1 kill rate, and the same for Late Cav. They tend to be beaten by 2-handers, with the 2-Handers managing a 3:2/2:1 kill rate against them. Spears I haven't tested, but I'd expect a general massacre s with all other infantry.
In other words they don't tend to beat any non-Cav unit decisively, but they don't tend to get beaten decisively either. Even when they lose they take most of the enemy with them and when they win they lose most of the unit. However they are good all rounders. In effect you don't really expect them to beat anything as well as another unit in your army would, but they won't get beaten by anything as bad as some units i your army would. (i.e. 2-Handers might beat S&S better than Halberds would, but the halberds will do better when faced with missile or cav).
THE BAD
Auto-Calc doesn't take account of animations and they rely somewhat on having worse animations than proper 2-handers to keep the balance between them and proper 2-Handers.
Their missile defense is just a touch too good. They are currently closer to S&S than 2-Handers.
They are a bit too good vs. pikes because they have such a long weapon and such good defense. As a result they are pretty much the only unit that can strike at a Pikeman without having 5 or so attacks directed at him every round of attacks. Voulgiers for example get beaten by Noble Pikes by a 3:2 kill ratio in the Pikes favor, considering the quality of Scottish infantry and the tech levels, (big enough to mater to me here), this IS too low a kill rate, it should be more 2:1/3:1 IMHO.
The REALLY BAD news, Swiss Guard and Obaushear's are to good ATM, I'll deal with each separately:
Swiss Guard aren't too OTT, but they are a bit. 17 Armour is far too good a missile defense and their total of 26 defense all round is so good that all non-AP units struggle to hurt them. They tend to get 1:1 kill rates against 2-Handers and 3:1/4:1 against S&S, they are also impossible for pikes to deal with. Their only real balancing point is that they are Papal States only and that the Papal States don't get many other good melee units (Halberd Militia, Pike Militia and DFK are their best ones besides Swiss Guard). If they where the only problem I'd let them slide as 2 units of any S&S/2-Hander/Pike will beat 1 unit of Swiss Guard.
Obaushear's are the real issue, with an even higher total defense of 31 and an Armour value of 23 they are just are TOO good. No non-AP missile unit could touch them, (thats daft, my HA dislike or not, it's too much), and even some AP units will struggle. Don't get me wrong, with the Danish Infantry typically being poorly defended vs. missile fire, having a Halberdier that is above average wouldn't bother me, but when they are virtually immune it's just not fair. They make Swiss Guard look daft as they can beat any Pike or S&S unit with less than 5 dead. Although strangely DGK can still beat them so it's defiantly Armour related. Cav also don't do much worse for some reason. Whilst I could have accepted Swiss Guard, these are simply too much.
Despite all that doom and gloom I'm generally happy with Halberds, they feel unique from both Pikes and 2-Handers and are worth their money, it's just the high end ones that are proving OTT and much of this problem is stemming from how poor the defense skill of Halberd Militia is at Vanilla settings. We have to raise it s much to make it competitive that it's pushing even Volouge Militia to the limits of balanced and Voulougiers/Swordstaff militia to the limit.
The real problem with balancing Halberds is that they (in vanilla), suffer from the switchover bug, the Animation bug and are fairly underpowered in vanilla for their price on top of everything else. So where not only having to kill the effects of 2 bugs, but where also having to do CA's job and actually balance them properly in the first place.
I'm going to experiment and see if can't fin the point at which Obaushear's become OK balance wise and then see how that effects the rest of the Halberds in compression.
Until something better comes up, I've just settled for removing their secondary weapons, e.g. for Voulgier:
I'm following Carl's idea with intrigue though and if a good balance can be had with it, without disrupting autoresolve, I might consider using it. I've never been very fond of the slow moving phalanxes anyway.Code:soldier Voulgier, 48, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, phalanx, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 7, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, axe, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap, long_pike, spear_bonus_6
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
Uh... yeah. You added 14 friggin defense points, and 10 were ARMOR? Talk about ludicrous. At the very least you have to make them skill points so you don't kill their bad resistance to missile weapons and the usefulness of rear attacks against them. Personally I don't like any solution that will make them have more defense of any sort, because it's not how the unit is supposed to operate. If that means spearwall is the only viable way to make them good against cavalry, then I say don't remove that either. If people insist on running troops into spearwalled halberds head on, they deserve to be slaughtered. I'm still not sure I understand exactly why you're having so many issues making them useful, but I don't think defense is the way to go. Maybe removing the secondary attack would be best and balancing them from there... because the unit should definitely still get shredded if engaged on multiple fronts, and defense of any sort will largely prevent that.
I think i've figured out part of why Obaushear's are so good, I tried knocking 6 armour and 4 defence skill of them and they where STILL beating Noble Swordsmen 4:1, yet they now had 1 less defence than Voulgiers and only 2 better attack and 1 better charge, and the Vopul;giers where managing MUCH worse kill rates, likewise, expiriance with swiss guard leads me to belive that those few points of attack shouldn't make THAT much diffrance (they have an even higher attack yet where performing closer to Voulgiers than the Obaushear's are). I've yet to try a Swiss Guard vs. Obaushear's test, but I think Obaushear's have a better animation somehow which helps explain why they feel so good no matter how I nerf them.
The point is i'm changing them from a slow moving vulnrable to missile unit into a fast moving unit with no real vulnrabilities, but no real strengths eithier, (other than cav resistance).Quote:
At the very least you have to make them skill points so you don't kill their bad resistance to missile weapons and the usefulness of rear attacks against them.
It's also 10 armour and 4 defence skil for a TOTAL of 14 defence.
The problem is if you give them that they HAVE to be able to beat Pikes sensless as they're going to be so expensive by comparision and so much slower that they can't afford to not do that, their speed really impacts their missile defence.Quote:
If that means spearwall is the only viable way to make them good against cavalry, then I say don't remove that either.
As I say, it's down to the fact that without turning them into Uber death machines against everything, their isn't ANY way to make them useful for their price. And as I say my defence related change is MEANT to make them largly immunne to most counters, also remeber that units engaged in the flanks or rear suffer extra penalties on top of the normal ones for engaged head on, so flank and rear attacks will still kill a lot more Foz.Quote:
I'm still not sure I understand exactly why you're having so many issues making them useful, but I don't think defense is the way to go. Maybe removing the secondary attack would be best and balancing them from there... because the unit should definitely still get shredded if engaged on multiple fronts, and defense of any sort will largely prevent that.
Genrally Voulgiers work fine under this system and wit a minor tweak would be perfectly balanced INMHO. it's only Swiss Guard and Obaushear's that are IMBA foz, everyone else is OK if at the limit vs. missiles.
p.s. by UBER death machines I mean 20:1/30:1 kill rates.
I've found the issue and it gives me an easy way of fixing the problem regarding adding lost of defence to the Halberds.
The Obudshaer's are classed as Hardy, removing that from their description TREBLES enemy kill rates against them, so in theroy if I make all Halberds Hardy or Very_Hardy they should need less defence skill to be cav resistant and that will kill the missile defence issue. Since they cost so much and are so late in the tech tree it's not like it would be tottally unbalancing to have them running around fresh for so long IMHO.
To allow moders to try out my Halberds in their current state, here's the Voulgier Entry:
EDIT: scratch that, Hardy/Very Hardy only seems to work in situations where the chance of a kill is low to start with, I guess it's a fixed reduction of -1% or -2% from the chances and dosen't have much of an effect when the defence of a unit is low. Back to the drawing Board.Code:type Voulgier
dictionary Voulgier ; Voulgier
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Voulgier, 60, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 12, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, axe, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr spear, ap, spear_bonus_4
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 13, 7, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 5, 7, 8, 0, 3, 0, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 5, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 10
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 510, 150, 75, 55, 510, 4, 120
armour_ug_levels 2, 3, 4
armour_ug_models Voulgier, Voulgier_ug1, Voulgier_ug2
ownership france
era 2 france
;unit_info 7, 0, 8
p.s. to help people understand how they are working ATM. Halberds are now roughly the equivelent of Papal Guard with S&S level melee/anti-missile capabilities on top., their numbers being the only reason they beat S&S units. They get beat up pretty much as S&S with 60 men would by 2-Handers, and do about right v. spears. It's only pikes they seem out of sync with. (and missile for Swiss Guard/Obudshaer's ).
I've done more testing stil and have found a decent balance for the late teir Halberds, but reconciling the late and early teir Halberds is going to be hard.
In the end the degree of changes necessery to get Halberds working in this diffrent form is so great that it falls outside the realms of a BugFixer, thus I think i'm just going to furthar play with the basic ones from the 1.11 ug Fixer til i'm happy with them in their Spear Wall form and use the alternate Halberd Idea for my Rebalance Mod where I can make changes to individual units more easily.
All furthar discussion on this should therfore move their.
Note: Please ignore any comments I make that are not applicable to the bug fixer, and/or comment on them in the thread about Carl's rebalance mod. Sorry!
No unit in the game fits this description currently, and it should stay that way. Units without any vulnerabilities are inherently IMBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
That's exactly what I said. "14 friggin defense points, and 10 (of them) were armor."Quote:
It's also 10 armour and 4 defence skil for a TOTAL of 14 defence.
They don't have to be anything. You are already modifying costs, so basing stats and performance on unit costs at the expense of throwing game balance out the door is absolutely silly. If they don't do enough to justify their cost, making them cheaper is the least broken thing to do. I'd like them to be effective too, but giving them buttloads of defense just doesn't make sense. Also why are they going to be slower? Pikes have the same general abilities, so just set them to be as fast as the pikes. It's not like carrying a halberd makes you inherently run slower in the game code.Quote:
The problem is if you give them that (spear wall) they HAVE to be able to beat Pikes sensless as they're going to be so expensive by comparision and so much slower that they can't afford to not do that, their speed really impacts their missile defence.
I find myself most attracted to making them more or less like pikes (i.e. removing secondary attack as Jambo suggested) as it's most in line with how they apparently are intended to function. If they don't beat pikes, who cares? Just don't throw them up against enemy pikes. You have plenty of other ways to deal with those enemy pikes, and we've already suggested that melee ground troops in general are not supposed to take on pikes frontally. Their ability to kill cavalry and other ground troops should be our real concern, as that is the role that these factions will be left largely without, failing their halberds being able to accomplish it.
I've just sent a PM to you regarding most of this, but i'll re-anwser some of this. Give me a moment to edit it in.
IMHO the IMBA bit ONLY applies if it also has some unbeatable strongpoint. The reality is they DON'T have any strong points, for their cost theyir performance vs. anything in the game is infirious to somthing. Pikes are far better cav killiers, 2-handers are better S&S killiers, cav/missile are better 2-Hander Killiers. Their strong point and weak point is that nothing in the game is a counter for them, but nothing is paticuarly weak against them, (barring cav which was a necessity for the Danes/Hugarians/Poles).Quote:
No unit in the game fits this description currently, and it should stay that way. Units without any vulnerabilities are inherently IMBA.
They don't actually replace any other unit, (bar spears), as well used S&S + 2-Handers + cav + missiles can easilly outperform them on cost grounds. What they give you is a general purpose unit you can use to reinforce your lines at any point with assurity that they won't fail to do about as much damage as they take. However their price should keep people from spamming them with any luck, preventing them becoming an instant-win button similar to PSM in DoW:WA.
Sorry, the way you put it i thought you thought i'd added 14 defence skil and 10 armour, sorry.Quote:
That's exactly what I said. "14 friggin defense points, and 10 (of them) were armor."
For the re-balance mod I am, but not for the ug Fixer. i think I can re-balance them as AP Spearmen for the Re-Balance version, but I can't for the Bugfixer.Quote:
They don't have to be anything. You are already modifying costs, so basing stats and performance on unit costs at the expense of throwing game balance out the door is absolutely silly.
Because all halberd unit ARE slower moving, (than pikes) in spear wall for some reason. Fortunatlly giving them the Pikemen Soilder Line seems to fix this. So ignore that. My main point with the as AP Pikemen was regards the BugFixer. I'm not willing to start modifying costs, but that means Swiss Guard and Obudshaer's should really be beating Noble Pikemen, which is getting plain silly IMHO. (Sure the Noble Pikemen would match them for cost to performance ratio, but it's still daft if you ask me, as it means that in campaign the player can produce nearly unbeatable single stack armies).Quote:
If they don't do enough to justify their cost, making them cheaper is the least broken thing to do. I'd like them to be effective too, but giving them buttloads of defense just doesn't make sense. Also why are they going to be slower?
If you can tell me what part of the code apart from the Soilder line controls speed i'd be grateful TBH.Quote:
Pikes have the same general abilities, so just set them to be as fast as the pikes. It's not like carrying a halberd makes you inherently run slower in the game code.
Not really possibble foz, even if they have the same speed, they still can't avoid the pikes. When 2 armies with spearwalls meet their are 2 things that determine the outcome in general.Quote:
I find myself most attracted to making them more or less like pikes (i.e. removing secondary attack as Jambo suggested) as it's most in line with how they apparently are intended to function. If they don't beat pikes, who cares? Just don't throw them up against enemy pikes.
1. who has the better/more Spear Wall units.
2. who has the better flank guards.
The danes have pretty good flank guards, but the Papal States and Poland/Hungary don't making it totally ineffective. Thus if they are worse than similar price Pikes their's going to be a problem as it is going to be impossibile for them to beat an enemy force feilding a similar value's worth of Pikes.
My biggest objection to them being AP pikes is that it's quite bland, they where clearly intended to perform as AP pikes with better melee abilities once the enemy got past the pike points. This is somthing rather unique in reality as it would have made them even more flank resistant and scarilly good head to head. It just hasn't worked out that way. The AP Spearmen idea was an attempt to produce a unit with a tottally diffrent feel in general melee to AP Pikes and ordinary 2-Handers.
I thought it was agreed that pikes have unnaturally low recruitment costs to begin with (around the cost of peasants), so the idea that halberds have to beat them simply because they cost more goes out the window. You should just bump the costs of pikemen up to match their abilities, rather than attempt mathematical gymnastics trying to make performance match cost.
The cheaper cost of pikes is offset by a MUCH greater investment to build them in the first place, plus they have an upkeep cost competitive with most other units. It's only the recruitment cost that is anomalous, so I suggest you try and balance that rather than unit stats.
I have no problem with halberds being competitive with pikes, but to make them beat pikes senseless? That's more than a little counter-intuitive. You say it's not fair for Poland and Hungary etc to have their last-tier infantry so weak, but what about all the other factions that have to scrape to get pikes, only to see them defeated by a lower-tier unit with superhuman stats? They are both infantry equipped with long weapons, there's no call for one type to be very hardy, have more armor than DGK and higher defense skill than virtually any other spear-equipped unit in the game, plus having an AP attack comparable to 2handed swordsmen.
The radical changes required to make any unit even survive against fixed pikes from the front just confirms my view that pikes are really unsuitable as a unit type to be balanced against in the first place, always assuming that they are not meant to be the ultimate heavy infantry (with significant drawbacks such as speed and facing to limit their effectiveness). Jacking up a lower-tier, hybrid unit specifically to mash them, just to benefit two factions whose advantage isn't even in infantry to begin with, may be a little too much.
Realistically though, halberds should be pikes +1.
My personal opinion is that they should be at or above pikemen tier.
My preference is entirely the opposite. Pikes are halberds +1 (as a formation, not as a weapon).
I completely disagree... Halberds are equally effective as a spearwall, with the added benefit of being able to hook men and get them on the ground.
There's nothing pikemen can do that halberdiers can't.
Pikes have reach, which seems to have been valued more than the added utility of halberds. In that sense, they were just lengthened halberds, to the point where the blade part was dropped altogether. Historically, pikes just kept getting longer to beat the other fellows and push them back. That doesn't sound like they were too concerned about unwieldy at close quarters.
Well sure, why would they be concerned with being unwieldy at close quarters? The whole POINT is to keep the other guys far enough away that it never becomes close quarters. If you can poke the heck out of some poor bastard 18 feet away from you, then the ability to swing your weapon at a man standing closer than that is irrelevant. Besides, if a few men do get closer, there are rows of pikes right behind you that are then in range.
I'm not sure which (if any) I think should be better though, but I'm beginning not to care. Maybe they should be about the same since they're both weapons with longer than normal reach and pointy things on the end to hurt people with.
@Carl: Hah. I just assumed we somehow could control the speed of the units. Upon further examination, I too cannot find it. I did try changing their weight classification from heavy to light, which seemed to have no discernable effect. What a silly thing to leave out of the unit specifications file! I'm guessing it must be tied to the animations since you said they seem to move like pikes when you change them to using pike animations. I'm thinking the game may actually move the unit across the map at a speed relative to its footfall frequency (i.e. length of its walking animation). If it is tied to the animations, then obviously nothing short of using different ones will make a bit of difference in the unit's speed.
Btw, all this debate about pikes and halberds has me nearly convinced that neither should be better than the other: they should both be made into pony-riding monkeys who fling poop. And laugh at you. Can't forget that. Surely monkeys did that already in medieval times. They would of course need totally uber stats...
@Dopp: Erm, many halbs were just as long as the longest pikes.
If the concern is that Halberds have no real strengths (i.e. there's always a unit that can do it better) but no real weaknesses (i.e they're not as vulnerable to flank and missile as pike, Cav as 2H, 2H as S&S. pile as cav)doesn't that make them unique and useful?
They're your perfect all rounder? Take Halberds as "utility troops" and bulk up the army with the specialists. They may not be as good against armies a, b and C as specially crafted stacks built to fight them but they can fight either A or B or C and still win. Whereas your specialist stacks can slaughter A, but lose to B and C. Or Slaughter B but lost to A and C etc.
So you use Halberds as your base Garrison troops because they'll help against anything, then use your recruitment to add in the unit required for that situation.
That seems to give them a "unique niche" without making them too weak or too uber.
No?
ANDQuote:
thought it was agreed that pikes have unnaturally low recruitment costs to begin with (around the cost of peasants), so the idea that halberds have to beat them simply because they cost more goes out the window. You should just bump the costs of pikemen up to match their abilities, rather than attempt mathematical gymnastics trying to make performance match cost.
ANDQuote:
Realistically though, halberds should be pikes +1.
My personal opinion is that they should be at or above pikemen tier.
ANDQuote:
My preference is entirely the opposite. Pikes are halberds +1 (as a formation, not as a weapon).
ANDQuote:
Pikes have reach, which seems to have been valued more than the added utility of halberds. In that sense, they were just lengthened halberds, to the point where the blade part was dropped altogether. Historically, pikes just kept getting longer to beat the other fellows and push them back. That doesn't sound like they were too concerned about unwieldy at close quarters.
I agree with Foz and Dopp on history. However thats ISN'T how CA have represented them in game. In game they've extended Halberds to the point where they are much longer than they really where. Thus in game they are meant to function as AP armored Pikes until engaged in general melee, at which point they switch over to a 2-Handed Axe attack.Quote:
Well sure, why would they be concerned with being unwieldy at close quarters? The whole POINT is to keep the other guys far enough away that it never becomes close quarters. If you can poke the heck out of some poor bastard 18 feet away from you, then the ability to swing your weapon at a man standing closer than that is irrelevant. Besides, if a few men do get closer, there are rows of pikes right behind you that are then in range.
They have 3 things on pikemen of a similar era generally:
1. Better Armour (Late Scot's Pikes aside).
2. Better Attack.
3. AP weaponry.
To me it's quite clear that CA intended them to be Pikemen with none of the Pikemen's normal weaknesses, (as the 2-Handed attack would eliminate their general melee weakness (and thus Flank/Rear weaknesses)).
Thus whilst I agree pikes are too cheap ATM, I also believe the price difference between Halberds and Pikes as it stands is Representative of where they should be relative to each other.
I'm actually Jacking them up for 2 reasons.Quote:
The radical changes required to make any unit even survive against fixed pikes from the front just confirms my view that pikes are really unsuitable as a unit type to be balanced against in the first place, always assuming that they are not meant to be the ultimate heavy infantry (with significant drawbacks such as speed and facing to limit their effectiveness). Jacking up a lower-tier, hybrid unit specifically to mash them, just to benefit two factions whose advantage isn't even in infantry to begin with, may be a little too much.
1. Everyone needs a Late tier counter late tier heavy Cav infantry unit. Without that no other infantry is useful as late Cav can just sweep it all aside. Thus Poland and Hungary need Halberd Militia to be good against Cav, yet their price indicates they should still be competitive with Pike Militia, the problem is that both units are very under-priced.
2. Papal States and Denmark are both very infantry reliant. Papal States are totally reliant on Halberds, Pike Militia, and DFK for their general Melee Infantry. Likewise, Denmark is reliant on Halberds for it's last tier infantry. Both really need those powerful halberds, (unlike Poland and Hungary).
First I'd note that Halberd Militia WON'T beat pro pikes, I don't even think they'll beat Pike Militia as the Pike problems are related to the Defense and Halberd Militia are at least 7 points lower than EVERY OTHER HALBERD in the game and at least 2 points lower on attack. This difference raises to 11 Points of defense and 7 points of attack compared to papal Guard, and 16 points of defense and 4 points of attack compared to Obudshaer's. Noble Swordsmen will still beat Halberd Militia with a 2:1 kill rate, even with the Halberds having +10 Armour and +4 defense skill.Quote:
I have no problem with halberds being competitive with pikes, but to make them beat pikes senseless? That's more than a little counter-intuitive. You say it's not fair for Poland and Hungary etc to have their last-tier infantry so weak, but what about all the other factions that have to scrape to get pikes, only to see them defeated by a lower-tier unit with superhuman stats?
Second, even as uber AP pikemen you won't see Halberd Militia beating top level Pikes, they will beat the lower end stuff but thats it.
Well the Version with the improved defense stats only has a minor reach advantage now as they only fight in 1 Rank, they also don't have an AP attack anywhere near that of a 2-Hander, (once you take the penalty applied by the Spear attribute into account), and lastly their defense is only 15 points. The problem is that the changes necessary to raise Halberd Militia to a competitive level without using the "turn them into Pikemen fix" totally IMBA the rest of the Halberds. I can get round that in my re-balance mod with individual unit changes, but in my BugFixer I'm trying to limit myself to Class wide changes with no price alterations. That just doesn't work well with Halberds because of the disparity in power between the top and bottom ends of the scale.Quote:
They are both infantry equipped with long weapons, there's no call for one type to be very hardy, have more armor than DGK and higher defense skill than virtually any other spear-equipped unit in the game, plus having an AP attack comparable to 2-Handed swordsmen.
No worries Foz, I thought I couldn't find it, but I thought I'd ask. It is rather daft i agree~:(.Quote:
@Carl: Hah. I just assumed we somehow could control the speed of the units. Upon further examination, I too cannot find it. I did try changing their weight classification from heavy to light, which seemed to have no discernible effect. What a silly thing to leave out of the unit specifications file! I'm guessing it must be tied to the animations since you said they seem to move like pikes when you change them to using pike animations. I'm thinking the game may actually move the unit across the map at a speed relative to its footfall frequency (i.e. length of its walking animation). If it is tied to the animations, then obviously nothing short of using different ones will make a bit of difference in the unit's speed.
Join the Club Foz~:mecry:. It's quite clear to me that halberds where meant to be better than pikemen in game, (despite how stupid that is historically), however doing so is seriously crazy IMHO, (although it's what I'm going to try in V1.12 of my BugFixer, I'll take it from their then), as it makes them totally unbeatable front on by anything, and seriously difficult from the sides.Quote:
I'm not sure which (if any) I think should be better though, but I'm beginning not to care. Maybe they should be about the same since they're both weapons with longer than normal reach and pointy things on the end to hurt people with.
That's why I decided to try something different. Unfortunately, they might work as AP Spears, but it's nearly impossible to get them all balanced properly.
Thats what i was aiming for but with the added point of them being too expensive to mass, and thus impossibbile to use as total replacments for the specelists. Jack-of-All trades, but Master-of-None.Quote:
That If the concern is that Halberds have no real strengths (i.e. there's always a unit that can do it better) but no real weaknesses (i.e they're not as vulnerable to flank and missile as pike, Cav as 2H, 2H as S&S. pile as Cav)doesn't that make them unique and useful?
They're your perfect all rounder? Take Halberds as "utility troops" and bulk up the army with the specialists. They may not be as good against armies a, b and C as specially crafted stacks built to fight them but they can fight either A or B or C and still win. Whereas your specialist stacks can slaughter A, but lose to B and C. Or Slaughter B but lost to A and C etc.
So you use Halberds as your base Garrison troops because they'll help against anything, then use your recruitment to add in the unit required for that situation.
That seems to give them a "unique niche" without making them too weak or too uber.
No?
Anyway, lets move this discussion over to the re-balance thread as thats where this belongs now, (unless you have some other BugFixer suggestions of course).
Sorry, but you simply do not have truth. Halberds were 2m+ , while pikes easily 4m+. You cannot control such long weapon and do other attack moves than stab. And it will be wery difficult to fight with 4m+ long polearm with massive blade on it´s end, because of balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi
As I and Dopp wrote, halberds were used before pikes (I wrote in medieval times, I know pikes were used in ancient times, of course) and halberds ceased to be used while pikes survived to 17. century. The argument that pikes are easier to use for not-so-well trained people is true, but the same applies with halberds. At the end, it was all about reach. So pikes are better in formation because of theirs length. And because they survived much longer than halberds, we simply have truth they were more useful.
I think halberd (or any other polearm) is of course better in individual combat than pike, because of broader scale of combat maneuvers you can do with it, but here we talk about unit vs. unit combat and here the pike prevail.
xxx
Now one more thing:
I read your post somewhere about no fencing style with sword uses it´s blade for blocking. It is nonsence. All european fencing schools have this basic defence move in their repertoire. Italian, French, Spanish, Germans, they all used their blade to block. This moves are illustrated and described in a lot of works from medieval fencing masters.
I do not have much experience with oriental fighting styles other than Serrada Escrima, but even there is the plain basic block with the blade.
It was not used much when the S+S fighting style was dominant because in medieval dark ages the steel was not so high quality and there was danger of broking the blade and shield was much better in blocking. And sword was valuable possesion. But personally, I think that in moment of truth when it is matter of life or death, everybody can use and used basic block when there is no other option because of situation.
xxx
Why I wrote It? Because I think you sometimes post such things that are wrong and misleading. This is not forum about historical fighting, but about computer game, of course, so the post above is probably spam:shame:
Do not take it personally please (I know how far can such discussion on net lead and I do not want flame war of any sort). If you do not agree with me, then, please, check some books and wrote your opinion afterwards. I did it. And If you are interested in such discussion, we can create topic about it somewhere else.
I do not mean this all as insult.
Rev
Carl: sorry for spam, back to the game :laugh4:
Don't worry, i don't mind, i've bumped the Re-Balance discussion and moved the Halberd Issue over their.
if anyone has any idea on how to create balanced working Halberds through just across the board changes to Halberds as a whole then post them here, but honestly I think some individual rebalancing of Halberds will be necessery to get them to work ATM, as anything but AP pikes.
Well Carl, I don't want to come across sounding so negative about all your proposed changes, since you're the one doing all the work in the first place. I do, however, want to clarify that my comment about the surprisingly cheap costs of pikemen is a gameplay observation, rather than a historical one. I also pointed out that pikemen are not as cheap as they appear to be anyway, once you factor in infrastructure costs and upkeep. I don't think the inference that CA intended halberds to be super AP pikemen necessarily follows. In fact, it seems to be a rather puzzling inference to me. The price argument doesn't seem like a good starting point to work from if the prices themselves are suspect.
@Dopp: The price is the final nail in the coffin. not the basis. the basis of the argument is that their primary weapon is an AP pike, and thet their ssecondery weapon is a basic 2-hander weapon. Unlike Pikes they won't really care is somthing does compromise their formation, but they have the advantages of AP and better secondery weapon over pikes (to mention nothing of armour). Their isn't any way they COULD be worse than pikes if they had comparable animations, (which they have to have for Auto-Calc to work), and the same switchover code.
Assumming the same switchover code and the same power animations even Voulgiers should beat Avetours. They have slightly worse attack, but also have AP, same armour, and thus as long as the Pikes keep poking, so will the halberds. With their AP and similar atacks the alberds will win. Add on the fact that if some of the Halbediers make melee they will tottally outperform the Pikemen in general melee it should be a close but definte victory for the Halberds. Same with Pike Militia and Halberds. same defence and attack and animations power, but one has AP and better general melee abilities, it's no real contest as to who will win. The price simply seals it for me. Plus as I say i think ALL spear wall units are too cheap, so if i raised Pike prices i'd also raise Halberd Prices by the same amount.
No you don't sound negetive, TBH it's a good observation, but I belive it's an observation thats true of all Spear Wal units equally.Quote:
Well Carl, I don't want to come across sounding so negative about all your proposed changes, since you're the one doing all the work in the first place. I do, however, want to clarify that my comment about the surprisingly cheap costs of pikemen is a gameplay observation, rather than a historical one.
It's also worth noting that I wasn't very clear about a lot of things last night, mainly because was littrially doing a round of tests, then coming out of the game, editing my EDU file, posting some basic data on whats happening and then going back to testing so many of my statments may seem contradictory, thats because i'm constantly changing the paramaters, somtimes i'm not very clear on this I think. It makes me look a bit mad jumping here their and everywher.
When testing the Halberds I actually tried +4 armour, tehn +6 armour, then +6 armour and +4 defence skill then +10 armour and +4 defence skill. But you got its and peices of the results from each and not the full story on each.
I actually appreciate your comments by and large, no matter how negetive as you can help keep me in check.
Whilst the anwser to this really belongs in the re-balance thread, how much do you think pikes are too cheap by, how much should be added to their price in your opinion? +25%, +50%, +100% or somthing else...
I'm thinking +75% to their price but i'd like extra opinions TBH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Noooooooooooo!!!! :sweatdrop:
You'll ruin my 150 florin (yes, 150 florin) Scottish Pike Militia third tier barracks Soviet Army infantry steamroller!!!!
hang on...+75%... Uber heavy infantry tanks (as long as you guard flanks and slaughter enemy archers) for 275 fl....Hmmm. I could live with that.
Knights. Pah! Expensive shiny battlefield ornaments to my army of can openers....... :laugh4:
(Not even mentioning the Armoured Heavy Pike Militia...)
Yup, I agree with all that. It seems to me that we are approaching this from different viewpoints, so it's time for a long explanatory post again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Both halberds and pikes take the charge at spearpoint and then switch over to melee. Halberds are obviously a whole lot better at melee. But this is where the similarity ends.
I felt that halberds were working as intended animation-wise because they are actually using the same weapon; the switch code just marks the point where they wade in hacking. Pikemen, on the other hand, become swordsmen too easily, which I felt was a mistake, because the sword is only a secondary weapon for them when things get pretty bad (ie the formation is broken). In other words, halberds are MEANT to switch to melee, whereas pikes should not switch unless they get into serious trouble. The animation set and weaponswitch code should NOT be the same for both.
I concluded that since halberds were meant to switch over like that as a matter of course, and since halberds are generally less vulnerable in melee than pikes, and since halberds were lower-ranked than pikes on the build tree, that they represented a hybrid unit that was more flexible than pikes, but less powerful from the front. Trying to make them otherwise seemed unrealistic from both a historical, and a modding perspective.
I thus proposed getting rid of the swords so that the pikemen hold formation better, but left the halberds as they are animation-wise. This allowed the pikes to use their greater reach to keep troops with shorter weapons at bay, which included halberds. This felt more true to history, and kept in with halberds being consistently lower-ranked on the tech tree than pikes.
The cost of pikes caused me some pause, but I realized that they were the only troop line that was undercosted like that, yet they were also the melee infantry line with the highest tech requirements (huge city + militia barracks or military academy), and their upkeep cost is comparable to that of most halberds (and higher for elites). Therefore, Militia Pikes should be increased in price, rather than be rebalanced around their pathetic cost.
Edit: The halberds as depicted in the game are much shorter than the pikes, so I felt that pikes should have reach advantage over them.
That helps explain things nicely. I would like to ask something though:Quote:
In other words, halberds are MEANT to switch to melee, whereas pikes should not switch unless they get into serious trouble. The animation set and weaponswitch code should NOT be the same for both.
Do you honestly think it's sensible for Halberds to stop poking when they are not close enough to the enemy to hack at them?
Because unless you have the switch to Hacking as soon as the enemy stops counting as charging, the nature of Pikes will mean that the Halberds will keep poking, (because they will be kept far enough away by the Pikes that they never enter melee range). Thus the only way your actually going to get pikes to beat halberds is to artificially gimp them by preventing them from poking like a pike except when charged, (so they are Cav resistant). The seems a bit dumb from a common sense point of view.
The real problem is that halberds should never have got Spear Wall or such long reach in the first place. Historically they where (as i understand it), a cross between a medium Spear, a Quarterstaff, an Axe, a Hammer, and most had Spear Points on both ends, plus some had hooks for dragging people off horses. Halberd weren't even as long as long spears in reality as far as I'm aware. Their real advantage was their ability to combined many different weapon into one giving the wielder a multitude of attack options that no melee fighter could equal.
Overall, I agree from a history point of view that Halberds are already illogically in game, but without illogical gimping them in game I can't see how they are going to NOT be able to beat pikes.
Whats needed is a total redesign of how they work IMHO. Spear Wall simply isn't an appropriate thing for them.
My final concern with Pikes beating Spear wall Halberds is that even with their better flanking resistance, you can't put them on the edges of your formation, as a result your going to be forced into a head on confrontation with Pikes anyway, add tot hat their slower speed and it's a serious issue for me as it's going to leave those armies with access to them totally dependent on bating the enemy Pikes Flank Guards if they want to win the fight.
Last but not least, I'm not really treating Upkeep as such a big balance consideration (for my re-balance mod). Let me explain:
Here's my concerns and views on Noble Pikemen vs. Obudshaer's, Voulgeirs, and Swiss Guard.
vs. Voulgeirs: They are the same tech point, (Late), both cost about the same. The Noble Pikemen are part of an army with poor Cav and Missile support, but very good infantry support. The Voulgeirs are part of an army with lots of Cav missile and infantry support and even have other Pikes Backing them up.
Overall the Voulgeirs should lose, but not by a landslide, about 4:3/3:2 kill rates in the Noble Pikemens favor.
Swiss Guard vs. Noble Pikemen:
The swiss guard cost more than half again as much, are the same tech era, and are part of an army with worse swords, no 2-handers, no AP S&S units and their missile are about the same, (better shooting, but slower reload and no fire arrows plus much worse melee). Overall I'd honestly be worried if the Swiss Guard didn't administer a 3:2/2:1 win against the Noble Pikes, the sheer cost difference and Papal States army weaknesses really hurt them.
Noble Pikemen vs. Obudshaer's:
Again the Obudshaer's are a half again as expensive as the Pikes and are part of an army with similar missile. they get better S&S units and about as good 2-handers, but pay for it in having very poor missile defense on these units. they do have semi-decent Cav back-up though too. Overall I'd still expect a win for the Obudshaer's, but not a big one, 4:3/3:2 would be about right, with a longer fight to give the flankers more time to get into position.
Thus the problem thats worrying me is that unless we intend to increase all pikes costs significantly they really shouldn't be able to beat the best halberds on that kind of comparison.
Worse still, the nature of a working Push of pike is that unless the pikes formation is badly compromised they tend to beat their foes with few losses. So unless the Halberds can actually get past all those pike points, they don't really have much of a chance of doing any good. And if they do get back the nature of a disrupted pike formation will probably mean they get annihilated with few losses to the enemy. I'm worried where going to end up with situations where units are beating units they shouldn't just to keep other units in check. If Halberds weren't limited to engaging pikes head on (due to their speed), this wouldn't be an issue TBH.
I have to go out now so I'll finish off and tidy up the spell when I get back.
Like Dopp, I fail to see how you infer that CA have represented halberds as superior to pikes. The fact that people are crying foul that they are not effective enough does not mean that CA intended them to be more effective, nor does their higher cost than pikes - it could as easily be intended to balance factions, to influence the army composition of factions that have halberds instead of pikes, or to represent the actual cost of the crap they require to be kitted out for battle! (more on that in a moment) They DO perform less effectively than pikes, and therefore I think it is an err in judgment to suggest that CA intended them to do anything except underperform pikes - that is to say, short of proving a bug, you can't really suggest that CA intended units to perform in any way other than they actually do. I suggest that the 3 things you point out below are intended to compensate for their otherwise (due to animations likely?) compromised situation regarding pikes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Again judging from how they actually perform, I think they are intended not to have the Pikemen's normal weaknesses, but also not to perform as effectively from the front as pikes (without jacking them up). I think it's more than adequate compensation for halberds to maintain a lot of the pike advantage from the front and then strip away the pikes major weaknesses (like getting cut to ribbons by missile fire).Quote:
They have 3 things on pikemen of a similar era generally:
1. Better Armour (Late Scot's Pikes aside).
2. Better Attack.
3. AP weaponry.
To me it's quite clear that CA intended them to be Pikemen with none of the Pikemen's normal weaknesses, (as the 2-Handed attack would eliminate their general melee weakness (and thus Flank/Rear weaknesses)).
Thus whilst I agree pikes are too cheap ATM, I also believe the price difference between Halberds and Pikes as it stands is Representative of where they should be relative to each other.
As for prices, aren't the pike prices historically correct? (relative to other unit costs, I mean) I seem to recall discussion somewhere that halberds are in fact expensive to make, as they require the expertise of a swordsmith, where the pike has a simple end that even an apprentice blacksmith in some backwater town could easily make. Carl already pointed out that halberds wear a lot more armor too, so it seems entirely justified that men fitted with good armor and high quality weapons should cost a LOT more than men wearing very light armor (most pike units wear none at all) and carrying simple weapons.
Exactly my feelings as well. CA represents them as more rounded pikemen who give up some of their frontal advantage in exchange for removing their various weaknesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
I actually don't think anything should be done about their costs. As I just mentioned above, the field equipment of a pike unit is absolutely cheap to produce, being mostly just the cost of a pike per man as they typically don't wear any armor. Recruitment costs are FAR outweighed by upkeep costs anyway, and so their low cost in no way makes them broken... Especially since a few missile units will easily decimate them before they are near enough to do anything. It's not like they're some kind of unbeatable unit - they die to missiles and to attacks from anywhere that isn't the front.Quote:
The cost of pikes caused me some pause, but I realized that they were the only troop line that was undercosted like that, yet they were also the melee infantry line with the highest tech requirements (huge city + militia barracks or military academy), and their upkeep cost is comparable to that of most halberds (and higher for elites). Therefore, Militia Pikes should be increased in price, rather than be rebalanced around their pathetic cost.
Anwser to Foz here
Hopefully the discussion will now move their where I think it belongs TBH.
a question about launching this mod/fix.
The shortcut launches a DOS command:
medieval2.exe --io.file_first
If i simply alter the original game shortcut to look like the DOS command:-
from
TARGET:
"E:\Medieval II Total War\medieval2.exe"
to
TARGET
"E:\Medieval II Total War\medieval2.exe --io.file_first"
would the fix still work?
I'm not sure TBH, i'm just following the readme that comes with the Unpacker with regards to getting it working.
You'd have to try it and see i'm afraid.
Allthough if it does work i'd be grateful to hear it.
It should work, however you won't be able to play vanilla without changing it back. Letting it continue with the batch file would probably be better from that standpoint.
I can't check right at the moment (about to head to work) but perhaps there might be a way to make pikes viable with out the meatgrinder "fix"?
Undertandably their secondary animations are, uhhhh, welll, basically really poor. What would happen if you gave them halberd anims and reinstituted a secondary weapon (perhaps of a spear variety assuming those get the melee handicaps from RTW)? At the very least you would probably not get the "Wanna be swordsmen" effect I think, as Halberds do seem to do a pretty fair amount of poking anyways IIRC.
I think the problem is that certain "Fixes" out there have made things worse from a balance perspectice really. Taking a unit that was cost balanced down (and perhaps anim balanced as well), hacking out a significant portion of it's code, and taking the resulting abomination as a "fix" smacks of munchkinism to me.
Short answer: it can't be done. Giving pikes a secondary weapon line other than zero enables the sword, regardless of the characteristics assigned to it.
'Fixed' pikes are an abomination. I've acknowledged that many times. But unfixed pikes are, well, lame, which is worse in my book. As I have stated before, the primary aim of the 'fix' was to get the pikes to, well, actually use their pikes. Balancing and all that were purely secondary concerns. Munchkinism? Who cares? Don't like it, don't use it.
You missed the point Dopp. He said to give the pikes other animations via the soldier line (like maybe halberd animations b/c they do a good amount of poking) and THEN set the secondary weapon back to something. If they have halberd animations, they should theoretically display a sword on the character, but use it exactly like the halberds use a halberd (if they have that animation). I'm not sure if the weapon displayed on the unit will in fact matter at all, and it may look quite weird for them to move swords about as if they were halberds, but it SHOULD remove the completely ineffective sword animation which I thought was the real problem. It also may affect their weapon switching, and make them switch like halberds do (which would be totally awesome). At the least it's worth someone giving it a shot (won't be me until 5, I'm at work).Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
I'd be intrested in the results, but as noted elsewhere I think pikes should poke if able to and should activlly avoid getting so close they pulll swords, as well as switching to swords on an individual rather than unit wide basis. That kind of big change would still need re-balancing though.
The real issue is that pikes don't really perform in a sensibile way ATM. They where and should be the equivelent of Phalanx's from Rome. These where powerful formations, but not unbetable and very vulnrable to flank attacks. the M2TW Pikes are very diffrent having a more dispersed formation and switching to swords far more easilly.
I wonder though. Would tightining their formation help at all. i think i'm going to experiment you know.
Nah, I understand what he means, but I hate to see them waving swords around so much. Even if you set their pike attack to 1 and gave them an ultra-fast 30 sword attack with armor-piercing and body-piercing properties, I'd still confiscate their swords until CA teaches them to use their pikes more. The best Medieval 2 Total War experience for me was seeing a line of Tercio pikemen, perfectly placed, push back a massed charge of Dismounted Norman Knights just outside Milan. Imagine the disappointment when immediately afterwards the entire line whipped out swords and started dying. Nobody will EVER convince me that this is the way it should be. I will bend both space and time to my will (ie mod the game files) before I allow such lame nonsense to exist in my campaign.
:laugh4:Quote:
Even if you set their pike attack to 1 and gave them an ultra-fast 30 sword attack with armor-piercing and body-piercing properties, I'd still confiscate their swords until CA teaches them to use their pikes more.
I agree they should use their pikes more than they do, it's really siliy in vanillia, littrially every 5 seconds they draw swords and when they do you've got to flick them into guard mode, flick spear wall off, then flick spear wall back on and then take them out of guard mode. Doing that every 5 seconds to make them work is silly AND it prevents you from doing ANYTHING else whatsoever with your non-pike units.
can this be right.. dismounted conquistadores vs venetian heavy inf. we both charged each other, DC i got 28 kills include there general and the broke and ran.. 1 sec fighting and i won.!?!? next try we both charged each other.. on the charge DC got around 22-26 kills and killed the general after around 4-6 sec and the ran again.. i tryed to just stand still and let VHI charge.. well DC lost 60 out of 61 and killed 40 VHI lost 34 out iof 61 and killed 60.. dunno why it says enemys killed 40 but 34 lost but thats not the point.. it is just that can this be the meaning? seems unbalanced to me..
I'll take a quick look as that second result sounds odd.
(For what it's worth a charge will ushually result in the front ranks of both units being wiped out, thats about 25-33% of the unit, thats a big Morale shock, add a dead general and you'll probably get a rout from one side no matter what, it's one of those annoying things I can't do much about TBH as Morale is allready pretty high to begin with).
Just ran a test and even at 3 times speed they where fighting for a good 10 seconds before eithier side brok and ran and losses where 43VHI to 39DC with the DC winning and beuing under my control, we charged each other.
Bear in mind though that VHI are AP and thus perform much better than their stats suggest. I'm not getting such short combat times though.
Is anyone else getting them?
1v1 tests should always be done playing as both sides, since I regularly find that whichever unit I use has an advantage for some inexplicable reason.
True enough Jambo, but he was controlling the DC in all the tests from what i can tell, so i was just checking their wasn't a specific issue between those two units in that test configuration.
Intresting news, i'm testing some changes that i belive will deal with the issues regarding Parabolic Fire when o walls and help with formation keeping.
Whatch this space~;p.
The Wall thing didn't work out, but the formation keeping seems to have helped somewhat, not perfect, but defintlly better.
I'll be adding it to the next release anyway.
For Modders out their what i'd done is gone into the Descr_Pathfinding file and changed it from
To this:Code:version_info
{
31
}
; This section defines all of the configuration parameters for the pathfinder
multires_pathfinder
{
; Configuration parameters for the scheduler
scheduler_configuration
{
; low load config
load low
{
max_paths 10 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 2000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; medium load config
load medium
{
max_paths 20 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 4000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; high load config
load high
{
max_paths 300 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 8000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; low priority config
priority low
{
budget 0.20 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 10000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 2000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; medium priority config
priority medium
{
budget 0.30 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 30000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 3000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; high priority config
priority high
{
budget 0.50 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 40000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 4000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; real time priority config
priority real_time
{
budget 1.0 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 50000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 5000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; quick test priority config
priority quick_test
{
budget 1.0 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 300 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 20 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
}
; Zone configuration
zone_configuration
{
maximum_slope 45 ; limit is 45 degrees
}
; Heuristic configuration
heuristic_configuration
{
invalid_zone_cost 2.0 ; invalid areas have double cost
}
; Movement configuration
movement_configuration
{
formation_hold_distance 20.0 ; formations update 20m after the last point }
silhouette_configuration
{
silhouette_ratio 0.75 ; Silhouette points are 75% of unit width
enabled no
}
; Defines what content types may be grouped together
content_groupings
{
free free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
obstructed obstructed steep_terrain
tall_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
average_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
short_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
large_rocks free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
small_rocks free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
water water
swamp swamp
platform platform
bridge_platform free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
steep_terrain obstructed steep_terrain
ford free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
}
; defines the priorities (ie. which content is more important than the other)
precedence_mask
{
; content type lower priority types
free all
obstructed free water swamp tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks platform
water free obstructed swamp tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks platform
swamp free obstructed
tall_vegetation free swamp average_vegetation short_vegetation small_rocks water
average_vegetation free swamp short_vegetation small_rocks water
short_vegetation free swamp
large_rocks free swamp short_vegetation small_rocks water
small_rocks free swamp
platform free
bridge_platform all
steep_terrain free average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks
ford free
}
; Determines what parameters are checked for this content when filling in the zones
checking_level
{ ; slope, content or all
free all
obstructed all
water content
swamp all
tall_vegetation all
average_vegetation all
short_vegetation all
large_rocks all
small_rocks all
platform content
bridge_platform content
steep_terrain content
ford content
}
; Configures the per unit behaviour of the pathfinding
unit_type_configuration
{
default
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree ; 1.5 for 40 degrees
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
infantry
{
min_slope 30 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 45 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.01 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
cavalry
{
min_slope 30 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 45 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.01 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
elephant
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.0
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.0
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
siege
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 25 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
ladder
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
ram
{
min_slope 10 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 25 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 6 ;
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
tower
{
min_slope 10 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 15 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 8 ;
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
}
}
Code:version_info
{
31
}
; This section defines all of the configuration parameters for the pathfinder
multires_pathfinder
{
; Configuration parameters for the scheduler
scheduler_configuration
{
; low load config
load low
{
max_paths 10 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 2000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; medium load config
load medium
{
max_paths 20 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 4000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; high load config
load high
{
max_paths 300 ; maximum paths till shifting to the next loading
total_nodes 8000 ; total nodes allocated across all paths
}
; low priority config
priority low
{
budget 0.20 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 10000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 2000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; medium priority config
priority medium
{
budget 0.30 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 30000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 3000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; high priority config
priority high
{
budget 0.50 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 40000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 4000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; real time priority config
priority real_time
{
budget 1.0 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 50000 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 5000 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
; quick test priority config
priority quick_test
{
budget 1.0 ; percentage of budget for these paths
max_nodes 300 ; maximum nodes per path
max_zone_nodes 20 ; maximum zone nodes per path
}
}
; Zone configuration
zone_configuration
{
maximum_slope 45 ; limit is 45 degrees
}
; Heuristic configuration
heuristic_configuration
{
invalid_zone_cost 2.0 ; invalid areas have double cost
}
; Movement configuration
movement_configuration
{
formation_hold_distance 0.2 ; formations update 20m after the last point }
silhouette_configuration
{
silhouette_ratio 0.75 ; Silhouette points are 75% of unit width
enabled no
}
; Defines what content types may be grouped together
content_groupings
{
free free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
obstructed obstructed steep_terrain
tall_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
average_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
short_vegetation free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
large_rocks free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
small_rocks free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
water water
swamp swamp
platform platform
bridge_platform free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
steep_terrain obstructed steep_terrain
ford free forest scrub tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks bridge_platform
}
; defines the priorities (ie. which content is more important than the other)
precedence_mask
{
; content type lower priority types
free all
obstructed free water swamp tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks platform
water free obstructed swamp tall_vegetation average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks platform
swamp free obstructed
tall_vegetation free swamp average_vegetation short_vegetation small_rocks water
average_vegetation free swamp short_vegetation small_rocks water
short_vegetation free swamp
large_rocks free swamp short_vegetation small_rocks water
small_rocks free swamp
platform free
bridge_platform all
steep_terrain free average_vegetation short_vegetation large_rocks small_rocks
ford free
}
; Determines what parameters are checked for this content when filling in the zones
checking_level
{ ; slope, content or all
free all
obstructed all
water content
swamp all
tall_vegetation all
average_vegetation all
short_vegetation all
large_rocks all
small_rocks all
platform content
bridge_platform content
steep_terrain content
ford content
}
; Configures the per unit behaviour of the pathfinding
unit_type_configuration
{
default
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree ; 1.5 for 40 degrees
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
infantry
{
min_slope 30 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 45 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.01 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
cavalry
{
min_slope 30 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 45 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.01 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
elephant
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.0
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.0
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
siege
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 25 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
ladder
{
min_slope 15 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 40 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 0 ; minimum width = 0m
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
ram
{
min_slope 10 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 25 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 6 ;
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
tower
{
min_slope 10 ; minimum slope before penalty applies
max_slope 15 ; maximum slope the unit can handle
penalty 1.02 ; penalty per degree
min_width 8 ;
content_costs
{
free 1.0
obstructed inf
water 1.0
swamp 1.0
tall_vegetation 1.2
average_vegetation 1.0
short_vegetation 1.0
large_rocks 1.2
small_rocks 1.0
platform 1.0
bridge_platform 1.0
steep_terrain inf
ford 1.0
}
}
}
}
So what you're saying is this change forces units to update their formation every 0.2 m they travel?
Does this affect performance?
Not for me, and i run an Athalon 3200XP, not the best processor avalibile.
And yeah thats seems to be what it does, by makeing it update nearly every step they rearange their formation when it becomes broken up much more quickly.
I'm not sure if it's helping with chasing routers, but units ceartinlly don't tend to break up so much when executing simple turns.
The effects arn't MASSIVE, but it does seem to help a bit.
Carl has requested that this thread be locked so that further discussion will be in a new thread he has opened.