apologies JaM & Lusted, I was wrong about the ';' lines - just checked, I was confused on that
Printable View
apologies JaM & Lusted, I was wrong about the ';' lines - just checked, I was confused on that
Do armor upgrades work correctly in conjunction with base armor values though?
All the testing has been armor X vs armor 0 with upgrade Y but nothing like armor X vs armor Z with upgrade Y where X should equal Y+Z.
It could well be that the armour upgrade could override the base armor value given for example instead of adding onto it.
Afterall, in late game battles where units may have same stats but only 1 upgrade difference, the kill difference isn't all that large.
No carl did the tests. A unit has the armour upgrade for each level added onto their base.Quote:
It could well be that the armour upgrade could override the base armor value given for example instead of adding onto it.
Thats exactly what i did in my tests. Billmen with 2 armour upgrades should have an armor rating of 5. Berdiche Axemen unupgraded have a defence of 5. They both get the same results v peasant archers so both must have armor values of 5, despite the billmen unit card showing armor of 2.Quote:
but nothing like armor X vs armor Z with upgrade Y where X should equal Y+Z
Ok, i finished with my tests. What i found? There IS something behind armor upgrades. I can definitelly confirm, that armor upgrades adds a bonus to the upgraded unit. To me, it looks like faulty programing. (why they created two systems for upgrade? to make players more confused?) Results of my tests are clear. There is no armor upgrade table, where upgrade 1 = armor4, leather.
In my tests i used PointBlank EDU, because he uses more armor upgrade levels than vanila (12).
I got exactly same results when i set armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3 and armour_ug_levels 7, 8, 9, 10
jumps in bonus between upgrades were - 20% (average casaulties)
Ah, I didn't see your post on page 2.
About your tests though, how come armor 4 takes significantly more casualties than armor 5 in comparison to a difference of 2 points between say 5 and 7 or 7 and 9?
Also, for some of the tests your variance is quite high....
Its good to see that they also work together with an armour set value though.
My guess is the level 1 armour type upgrade does not provide as big a armour value boost as level 2 armour type upgrade.Quote:
About your tests though, how come armor 4 takes significantly more casualties than armor 5 in comparison to a difference of 2 points between say 5 and 7 or 7 and 9?
To me it looks that armor upgrade 3 = armor upgrade 2 + armor upgrade 1
Armor upgrade 2 = armor upgrade 1 + armor upgrade 1
Here is my table:
Armor upgrade levels 7, 8, 9, 10 - Point Blank - Realcombat mod EDU
armor upgrade 7 kills :49,59,58,48,51 - 53 average
armor upgrade 8 kills: 46,48,36,46,39 - 43 average
armor upgrade 9 kills: 34,33,29,35,33 - 33 average
armor upgrade 10 kills: 23,22,18,26,25 - 23 average
Same results when i used Armor upgrade levels 0, 1, 2, 3
i'm starting to think i bought this game too early... They told us, this game will be much more moddable than RTW. instead of that, wee have a lot of backgroung hard coding that prevents any own modifications...
Well I'll copy and paste my observations from my post at TWC so to maximize the probability that people more expert than me can give some hints.
I presume maybe there's another formula which take in account something that we don't actually know that modifies armor AFTER upgrades are calculated and that new value isn't the one shown.
To be clearer:
int base_armor;
int armor_upgrade_level;
int upgraded_armor;
int unknown_factor;
int definitive_armor;
Formula 1
upgraded_armor = base_armor + armor_upgrade_level; THIS IS THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE UNIT INFO
Formula 2
definitive_armor = upgraded_armor + (or * or / or whatever) unknown_factor;
THIS IS THE VALUE USED FOR COMBAT CALCULATIONS
This "unknown value" can be linked to anything. It could be weather, it could be linked to the era from which the unit comes, making old units less lethal when confronting units of following eras (this because otherway low lethality would lead to looooong and boring battles early in the game). It could be a fixed factor linked to the fact that the unit is player controlled or AI, it could be a mix of everything with maybe also some randomization inside just to give different battle outcomes everytime a battle is played.
And if we really have a fixed 40% chance of survivability to successfull hits, it seems to me that it is a huge value of variance in statistical terms considering that fights are really shorts in time terms. But I'd let this to say to statistical expert as I'm not one.
All considered we really DON'T KNOW which value is used in combat unless some nice CA programmer will reveal us the arcane matter.
Note entirely true, if the "unkown factor" I was talking about is used for every combat then it will be a sort of "fixed variance" while we can play with the rest of the stats to modify the final outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
Of course if the weight of the modificable stats is not the most significative in combat calculations then the game is unmoddable, the armor importance is completely depleted and all that counts is the number of the troops.
Just wanted to point out that this is not the idea we've been representing. We don't primarily think that a unit attaining level 2 upgrade will have its armour value replaced by a 5. What we think (at least I do I know) is that the upgrade will ADD 5 to whatever unit gets it). Thus the values in the EDU do still matter quite a lot - it's just that the armor upgrades give bonuses that aren't always just +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
As for Re Berengario I's recent post, we do not care at all what value is actually used in the combat calculations by the game. Only two things matter for the purposes of this discussion:
1. Units that perform the same in a given situation with only ONE variable changed, must in fact have equal values of that variable, or else that variable is entirely inconsequential (zero effect in the battle calcs). These two cases are the only ways the results can be equal.
2. We've shown in many many cases already that units using upgrades to gain armor consistently perform identically to units having those same armor amounts set in the EDU (armor amounts as understood by the value system, as opposed to the +1 system).
In all our testing, we kept everything the same except for giving the units defense from one of two sources: upgrades, and numbers in the EDU. That we then achieve identical results either way indicates one of the following (from 1 above):
1. armor values and armor upgrades are both ignored in battle calculations.
2. armor values and armor upgrades were causing identical effects in battle calculations.
#1 is clearly seen to be false, as you get varying results by setting different values of armor in the EDU for any given unit. That leaves #2 as the only possible explanation.
So it really makes no difference what the game does with those armour amounts - it is enough that we understand each point of armor has a positive effect on unit defense, and 5 points of armor, not 2, are equal to upgrade level 2. You don't need to understand underlying game mechanics in order to comprehend the relative value of a given armor upgrade level, and how the method in place grants more benefits than a simple +1 upgrade scheme would.
Foz, I'd agree with you if the units info scroll would say:
Armor: base 10 + upgrade 1
But unfortunately for CA it says:
Armor 11
And always very unfortunately 11 is not 15 in decimal notation... or maybe the unit info switch to hexadecimal when armor upgrades are presents and 11 hex becomes then 17 in decimal. Nasty trick, isn't it? ;)
Then I refuse to believe professional programmers like CA ones use two different values for the same thing. If you're right and 11 is 15 in real terms you know that this means something really really wrong is in the code?
You mean like values suddenly inverting depending on the kind of attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
uhm...nothing has to be "really really wrong", as this thread has shown that the battle mechanics work like they should....The only fault is the unit card description... And I would call that a minor visual bug.
That's how it affects non-modders anyway. If you want to go crazy in the files it may be a bigger problem, I wouldn't know about that really, my own tweaking is rather minor...
11 is 10+1. Is it so hard to imagine that the line of code responsible for the display value takes 10 and adds 1*(number of armor upgrades) to it? All that would have to happen is for two different people to write the 2 parts of the code that are in question, and for one of them to not correctly understand that the upgrades had values that weren't simply +1 each. It's also possible that the code came from somewhere else (maybe RTW or ideas considered for it?) and was subsequently overlooked for modification, resulting in this disparity. As multiple programmers are involved in the project, and it runs for so long, I actually would find it a bit remarkable if no such disparities could be found in any given project...Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
ha - I think it's pretty established that there are several really really wrong things in the code, not knocking CA - i still love their game, and I'm sure they did their best with the time they had and we know they're still working hard to make it better - just stating a fact... I don't think oddities should be that surprising... just in doing my own simple tinkers I've found out how easy it is to make mistakes - a project this big with that many ppl working on it... I'm starting to understand why ppl say: be glad it's in working condition
secondly, I'm thinking that the level two upgrade moves the defense on par with a 6 instead of a 5, that would explain Carls results, and in Lusteds tests the 5* Billmen performed slightly better than the 5 Berdiche, and there's one value on the 5*Billmen which falls outside of the grouping... so given that lvl 2 is supposed to be "Light Mail" - I think going from Leather to Chain might actually be a 2 point bonus
That would actually make a lot of sense... the difference between leather armor of the best kind and metal of any kind is dramatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
What killed my day was not just the upgrades, BUT I used archers with arrow damage 1, and they did a damage to a unit with armor 12!
looses were:13,14,11,19..... Thats what is wrong.Arrows are extremly powerfull.
About chain, Chain is not too much stronger than Leather, look at Point Blank formula. Padded armor is able to stop attack with 30J of energy. Hardenned leather 60J and Chail mail 75J.
What if you will wanna create mod with different armor representation? What then? You will have to abadon whole upgrade thing, because you will be not able to upgrade unit and have value 2,3,4... because it is HARDCODED!
That means, only one official way of armor representation is possible (even if it is not right), for me, it is totally mod killing thing. Even more than that shield bug.
and that should really sink home how important it is to refit pikemen, since most of them jump straight to chain with their first upgrade - that'd be 6 extra points of armour... and the misleading descr only says 1
The only powerful thing about arrows is that they allow you to strike the enemy without being struck back...Quote:
Arrows are extremly powerfull.
even eastern peasants with attack of 1 could cause casualties - it's just that in melee you're killing them a lot faster than they can kill you... and then with their crappy morale, they rout - so they prolly only cause 1 or 2.... but with arrows, you get free shots at the enemy - if you give anybody free shots, they will cause casualties - ie: if you flanked with peasants, they would cause casualties before the other unit could respond
ehh... it's a lot harder to slash thru metal links than it is thru boiled leather - poking with enough force works yeah, but that's why most warriors wearing chain wore thick padding underneath, prevents discomfort, and stops poking... so really chainmail clad warrior would be significant better defended than just leather/padding guy, cause chainmail guy will have padding on tooQuote:
Chain is not too much stronger than Leather
I'm ok with that. But why there are only official values possible? why there is no modding possibility for armor upgrades? Why it is Hardcoded? That makes all attempts to balance units totally imposible, because whole system is hardcoded that only official EDU will work. Any changes to that are prohibited and will not work... thats Total Comunism...
Does any brave soul want to summarise the results of this thread, in a non-tester, gameplay oriented way so I can put it into the FAQ?
Specifically, what do we now know about the effect of the various armour upgrades, particularly in terms of equivalent increments in the armour stat?
I'll take a stab at it after work if no one else does, but I'd rather it came from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
well, I imagine that's just being business savy - I mean, it'd be nice if they released the code completely so we could run free with it - but that would make it easy for unscrupolous persons and companies to steal their work...
biggest thing that's bugging me right now is inability to choose faction heir... but i mean, you can't run a company on the honor system, if you put all your merchandise out on the street corner and walk away... it won't be there when you get back - so I think it gets down to, if you want complete freedom over a game, you gotta make it yourself
We're not talking about having the source code under our fingers but just to have some numbers which can make sense.
Take as example d20 system. If your 20 faced dice roll plus your attack value can overcome your opponent armor you scored a hit.
You then can design every armor system which is coherent and consistent using those values. A base armor of 25 cannot be hit by someone who has a attack value of 4. Period.
But those are values where 1 means 1 and not 4... wait maybe 6 if it's from leather to chain... or maybe it's 5?
@ econ - well, iunno if you want to quote this, but to summarize - so far we know...
lvl 0 = flesh = 0 defense (this is sure)
lvl 1 = leather/padded = 4 defense (this is sure)
lvl 2 = light mail/chain = either 5 or 6 defense, and I'm inclined to say 6
lvl 3 = breastplate/scale = 7 defense (this is sure)
lvl 4 = partial plate = 8 defense (this is sure)
lvl 5 = full plate = either 9 or 10 defense, I'm not sure quite yet, most of our tests focused on the lower end where it was easier to see results... will get back to you
lvl 6 = advanced plate = 11 defense (this is sure)
Armour upgrades apparently function as they are described to. There is no cut and dry answer of how much defense the first, second or third upgrade will add, it depends on the unit. If you want to know how much the upgrade will benefit you, you'll need to compare what armour you have now, what type of armour you will be getting, and the above table. For instance, most pikemen are trained with only their bare skin and a tunic, so they come out with 0 defense from armour. However, their first upgrade says they will be refited with Light Mail - and so, after upgrading them once, they will have an additional 6 points of armour. A second upgrade will only improve them by one more point, and the third upgrade by one further point.
This capability can completely change the way you use units. For instance, Viking Raiders start out with only 9 defense, barely better than Town Militia - however after three upgrades they will gain an additional 7 points of defense to end up at 16, and capable of filling in for your Norse Swordsmen.
in fairness however - that's one of the things I actually don't like about d&d - it's just as much of an abstraction as CA's mystical leprauchaun gears - more in some ways... regardless, I doubt it's a case of random numbers - the mistake is simple.. the text is wrong... it's a typo, that's allQuote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
just like the Sherwood Archers are described as being able to "hide anywhere" and in fact they can't... we don't have to run around in circles wondering how we'll ever figure out what the unit is like and is supposed to be like - we know that's a typo
and likewise, now we know the armour upgrade numbers are typos
I think advanced plate is 10 or 11. Gothic Knights are 10, Gendarmes are 11, but both are level 6 for armor upgrades.
the file is full of inconsistent numbers... i don't know if it was meant to be like that or not, but in my own - I standarized the armour numbers and made up the differences in the defense skill numbers
since these armour upgrades aren't modifiable however, we are able to figure out what the numbers are supposed to be for the natural armour scores
No it just means you have to take into account the armour upgrade systemQuote:
That makes all attempts to balance units totally imposible, because whole system is hardcoded that only official EDU will work.
when balancing units.
And im guessing you didn't mod RTW, because the armour upgrades/weapon upgrades weren't modifiable in it either, but a lot of other things hardcoded in RTW have been opened up for us in M2TW.
Im thinking of doing more tests to work out exactly what armour value each armour level gives. If other people want to help me here is what im testing.
All battles done in an unmodified M2TW, map spanish plains, midday, clear weather VH difficulty.
All battles versus Frech peasant archers.
Units to test, testing each one 5 times unpugraded, and 5 times on each of its upgrade levels.:
Billmen: Base armour 0. Armour levels: Flesh, Padded/Leather, Light Mail
Croat Axemen: Base armour 4. Armour levels: Padded/Leather, Light Mail
Berdiche Axemen: Base Armour 5. Armour Levels: Light Mail, Hevy Mail, Partial Plate
Heavy Billmen: Base Armour 7. Armour Levels: Heavy Mail, Partial Plate
Heavy Pike Militia(with spearwall and guard mode OFF): Base Armour 8. Armour Levels: Partial Plate, Full Plate
Dismounted Gothic Knights: Base Armour 10.
I cannot find any units with armour levels 5, 6 without a shield, so i cannot really test that. And i cannot find any units with armour level 5 and without a shield.
That's exactly the problem and the point I was trying to bring to general (and hopefully CA's) attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
I'm not arguing that their combat system is bad or good, I just wanted to know if it is consistent.
If SMZ and Foz are right about their findings then the first armor upgrade counts like 4 armor, the next one 1 or 2, the second 1, the third... etc
All in all it doesn't make any sense and if it works this way balancing units would be a nightmare.
I am starting to suspect that the basic value for armor is hidden from us and it's linked to the "quality" of the armor (none, leather, chain, etc...) and that the armor value in EDU is just needed to fine tuning units inside the same armor category. This would also explain why peasants tested with native 4 armor are a lot less resilient than peasants with 0 native armor and 3 armor upgrade.
Well yes because if armour upgrades work correctly like the tests are showing, then armour upgrade 3 peasants have 7 defense, not 4.Quote:
This would also explain why peasants tested with native 4 armor are a lot less resilient than peasants with 0 native armor and 3 armor upgrade.
But it does make sense, these values help to distinquish between the different armour types, and tie into the new armour upgrade system in M2TW.Quote:
If SMZ and Foz are right about their findings then the first armor upgrade counts like 4 armor, the next one 1 or 2, the second 1, the third... etc
All in all it doesn't make any sense and if it works this way balancing units would be a nightmare.
And i am guessing like you that the variances in basic armour stats allow for variety within the various armour levels.
It's the only possibility for the system to have a logic and that's also explain the unit info bug. Actually they didn't use 2 different formulas, simply put who wrote the unit info code made an addition of two different variables which weren't supposed to be added (and aren't added anywhere else in the combat code).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Or they didn't update the code that linked the unit info to the new armour upgrade system, so it still uses the RTW code that shows +1 for every armour upgrade.Quote:
It's the only possibility for the system to have a logic and that's also explain the unit info bug. Actually they didn't use 2 different formulas, simply put who wrote the unit info code made an addition of two different variables which weren't supposed to be added (and aren't added anywhere else in the combat code).
Well we are a lot better off than yesterday, now we have a clearer picture of how things work and can proceed from there.
Unfortunately I am at work but if anyone can, please do this little test.
Get pesants and while mantaining stat_armor of 0 give them an armour_ug_levels of 4 and test them together with Dismounted Noble Knights (which are shieldless and with a base armour_ug_levels of 4 too but stat_armor of 8).
If the outcome will show little difference than we'll know that the real armor stat is the armour_ug_levels (which defines the different kind of armour) while stat_armor is just a rebalancing inside the same level.
Well didn't Carl or SMZ earlier in this thread do a test of giving pike militia armour 0 upgrade 3, and then armour 7 and got the same results, showing that the armour value is used.
I'm pretty sure, that there is not a table Lusted mentioned. I got exactly the same values, when i changed upgrade levels from 0,1,2,3 to 7,8,9,10
so it looks that we have an secret bonus for Bronze, Silver, Gold upgrade, no mather upgrade level...
Well if you also do the test im going to be doing we can show whether there is a table or not.Quote:
I'm pretty sure, that there is not a table Lusted mentioned. I got exactly the same values, when i changed upgrade levels from 0,1,2,3 to 7,8,9,10
so it looks that we have an secret bonus for Bronze, Silver, Gold upgrade, no mather upgrade level...
So an unit with base armour_ug_levels 4 and stat_armor 0 and one with base armour_ug_levels 5 and stat_armor 0 are identical?
Can you please test it?
I did it yesterday. And got exactly the same numbers, no mather the upgrade level. unit with silver armor had the sme resistance with armor level 2 and armor level 8 (default armor in EDU 0)
I will be able to do more tests later, have to lgo to work....
Do it with both units with stat_armor 1 then.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
No, just do the test i suggested earlier. You have a modified EDU, please do it with an unmodified one.Quote:
I did it yesterday. And got exactly the same numbers, no mather the upgrade level. unit with silver armor had the sme resistance with armor level 2 and armor level 8 (default armor in EDU 0)
Sure thing once i've done the other tests.Quote:
So an unit with base armour_ug_levels 4 and stat_armor 0 and one with base armour_ug_levels 5 and stat_armor 0 are identical?
Can you please test it?
Okay i've only done 1 test buts it's pretty conclusive. I gave Dismounted Italian Men At Arms armor value of 0 but with armour level 4. After 1 test battle they ended up with 6 men left, about the same result i got when testing unupgraded billmen who have armour value of 0 and armour level 0. So armour value does work properly.
Then armour level is not an additive value as it seemed by previous posts, that's why I asked to do a test with an armor value of 1 to check if it's a multiply factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
It must be an additive value and not a multiplier as billmen who start with armor 0, end up hsuffering the same casualties as Berdiche Axemen(armour 5) when upgraded to silver armor. As their is no armor value to multiply it must be an added value.Quote:
Then armour level is not an additive value as it seemed by previous posts, that's why I asked to do a test with an armor value of 1 to check if it's a multiply factor.
And none of the units in the test i did with Dismounted MAA had armour upgrades.
How can be additive if you said that MAA with 0 armour value and 4 armour level behaved similarly to billmen with 0 armour value and 0 armour level? :dizzy2:
Because im referring to the armour levels like this:
Level 0: Flesh
Level 1: Padded/leather
Level 2: Light Mail
Level 3: Heavy Mail
Level 4: Partial Plate
Level 5: Full Plate
Level 6: Advanced Plate
If the armour upgrade wasn't an additive value, then every unit with 0 armor wouldn't see any benefits from armour upgrades if they were a multiplier effect.
The armour values for each level appear to be:
Level 0: Flesh - 0
Level 1: Padded/leather - 3/4
Level 2: Light Mail - 5
Level 3: Heavy Mail - 7
Level 4: Partial Plate - 8/9
Level 5: Full Plate -9/10
Level 6: Advanced Plate - 10/11
Now each level must add a certain amount onto armour to be effective. So a unit which starts armour level 0, and 0 armour, and which then upgrades to level 1 armour must get a value of about 3/4 added onto their armour value. The different armour levels are sued in the edu to create the armour system used in M2Tw.
Then MAA with armour level of 4 and armour stat of 0 should have effective armor of 8/9 while Billmen with 0 armour stat and 0 armour level should have effective armour of 0.
No, becuse all units armour level 4 have an armour value set to 8/9 in the edu. The armour level alone does not set the armour value for a unit, CA have worked out a system of armour values for each armour level, and given those to each unit with each armour level in the edu. Then the upgrades add a certain amount to the armour value to bring the armour value up to that of the next armour level.Quote:
Then MAA with armour level of 4 and armour stat of 0 should have effective armor of 8/9 while Billmen with 0 armour stat and 0 armour level should have effective armour of 0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Lusted, Point IS that when i used levels 7,8,9,10 (Point Blank EDU With added levels) i got same results as with 0,1,2,3. Looses were in the same region for bronze (43 average) Silver (34 average) Gold (22 average) upgrade.
To me it looks, that upgrade to bronze add % bonus from max armor value, so do the silver and Gold. I suggest to use extreme values because with those you can see the difference better
I am using an unmodified edu to see if it works correctly in that, i am not testing with new levels because i want to see what the existing levels provide.Quote:
Lusted, Point IS that when i used levels 7,8,9,10 (Point Blank EDU With added levels) i got same results as with 0,1,2,3. Looses were in the same region for bronze (43 average) Silver (34 average) Gold (22 average) upgrade.
I'm just pointing out, that it looks it is not hardcoded for levels 1,2,3,4,5,6 because during my tests i got exactly same results using levels 7,8,9,10,11,12 which are not in Vanila game!
So if there isnt a table that makes upgrade 1=3or4, upgrade 2 5/6 etc, that means upgrade itself provide a bonus that is counting differently regarding base value.
My theory is: You can have upgrade 5 as a base, then upgrade unit to 6, but if your base armor was 0, you will still got just the same bonus as if your armor upgrade level was 0 upgraded to level 1
If your base armour is 0 you would only get a small armour upgrade bonus. I am not saying each armour level replaces the armour value with the ones i listed, im saying those are the values given for those armour levels based on the units that have them in the edu. So upgrading from level 1 to level 2 armour should only give a bonus of 1. Whilst upgrading from level 0 to level 1 should give a bonus of 4.
New armour levels will probably revert to a default value for armour upgrades.
Ok, then we have a unit with armour state of 8 that because of that 8 in the EDU has also an armour level of 4, then upgrading the unit to armour level 5 the unit info will show 9 armour but the effective armour would range between 9 and 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
And on top of this an unit with armour stat 11 still get damage from archers with 1 attack power.
Nice :dizzy2:
Its reasonable that attack 1 should have a chance of damaging an armor level 11 target, through low-percentage shots like through the visor etc, it should just be a very very low chance.
New armor levels gave me the same results as the old one.
Isnt the leather armor value 4? so with upgrade from level 0 to level 1 you should have protection equal to 4, right?
Point Blank, in my tests peasants with base armor 12 tok looses from missile fire (Arrow damage 1) After 6 salvos looses were 11,14,12,19,13 .... thats quite a lot, not just a small chance... to me it looks that it is possible to kill somebody with full gothic armor by a dart or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
Just imagine: you have 150 Gothic Foot Knights advancing aginst 120 peasants bowmens with weakest arrows possible. they will shoot at you 6x120 (720 arrows, just maybe 1/3 hits anything...) arrows and 14 knights would die? Thats almost 10% effectivity...
In my test i used even original Dismounted Gothic Knights, but they have much wider formation than peasant formation, so they didnt take so many hits peasants did.
From what I understood not.
With stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 0 you just need to upgrade to armour_ug_levels 1 to have something comparable to stat_armor 4.
I know it doesn't make any logical sense but this is what people has tested to be truth and I cannot argue against different trusted witnesses.
And I still think that because of it balancing units is not hard, is completely unuseful in a "system" (I'd call anarchy) like this.
I think that's what is being suggested, but I am through making assumptions about how things work in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
Fun part is, that you will get same bonus if your upgrade will be stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 5 upgrade to armour_ug_levels 6
or
stat_armor 0 and armour_ug_levels 7 upgrade to armour_ug_levels 8 etc...
Well that is clearly too high, but as it all looks quite hard-coded and we only really have 11 armor levels to play with, we are probably stuck with it, unless we can use the values Darth found to give extra resistance to high armor levels - that would be a decent work-around, but I am not yet convinced about what he has found.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
But look at it this way, 120 bowmen fire 10 shots each = 1200 arrows, causing 12-15 casualties - thats casualties, not necessarily kills, which isn't determined until the end of the battle. So 1 arrow in 100 is causing a casualty who is unable to continue the fight, of which maybe 60% will be counted as kills. Maybe not so far off.
Unit upgraded to armor 12 (using Point Blank upgrades, not vanila ones - armour_ug_levels 9, 10, 11, 12) is toughter than unit with base armor 12.
those upgrade levels are not coded by CA, so that formula for upgrades 1,2,3,4,5,6 should not apply to them,right? But It does...
They fired only 6 salvos, i counted it and then ended battle imediatelly. repeated 5 timesQuote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
As I said, according to people in the know the chance of a kill does not drop to 0% unitl the targets defence is 65 or MORE points higher than the enemies attack, (or at least thats how it suposedly was in RTW, things i've seen in the files make me suspect this value has been reduced, but i belive it's still over 40). By the same token, an attack that is 65 point higher than the enemies defence has a 100% kill rate.Quote:
Point Blank, in my tests peasants with base armor 12 tok looses from missile fire (Arrow damage 1) After 6 salvos looses were 11,14,12,19,13 .... thats quite a lot, not just a small chance... to me it looks that it is possible to kill somebody with full gothic armor by a dart or what?
I suspect that this is because the game probably sets things up so that a unit going from level 0 to the max klevel will gain +11 armour. so if you double the number of levels, the amount you get per level is reduced. How it the deals with having each level give a diffrent amount of armour I don't know.Quote:
Unit upgraded to armor 12 (using Point Blank upgrades, not vanila ones - armour_ug_levels 9, 10, 11, 12) is toughter than unit with base armor 12.
those upgrade levels are not coded by CA, so that formula for upgrades 1,2,3,4,5,6 should not apply to them,right? But It does...
Look at the armor levels here in terms of what I was talking about in RC, joules of force etc. We now (semi-apparently) have the following:
Armor Value Joules to Penetrate
Leather 3/4 60
Light Mail 5 100
Heavy Mail 7 140
Partial Plate 8/9 180
Full Plate 9/10 200
Advanced 10/11 220
or about 20J/armor value. This would pre-suppose a thicker jack under the armors than I did previously, and its a bit light on the plate armors, but its not too far off. And if you are basing things on this kind of data then the first upgrade from no armor to leather should bump your armor value to 3/4.
Just an therory: What if armor upgrade adds 25% frm max armor value used(12)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
So upgrade 1 means 25% from 12 - value 3
upgrade 2 means 3+3 = 6
upgrade 3 3+3+3 = 9
I'm not able to test it now (due to work...) Can somebody look into this?
So in this new, uh 'vanilla' system, if I have a unit with stat armor 8 upgrade level 4, and I upgrade it to level 5, then it goes up to armor 9 or 10 right, not 11/12? It doesn't get 3/4 because its the first upgrade for that unit right? The game is smart enough to know that upgrading from upgrade level 4 to upgrade level 5 means just 1 or 2 additional armor?
Let us hope not, because that would lead to horrible results like units that upgrade 0, 1, 2, 3 having 12 armor at upgrade 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
9 actually.
Its still horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM
Its just a theory that needs to be confirmed or not. I'm not able to test it now. I will test it in 6-7 hours...
Actually they would have 7 from my results, as that is what level 3 appears to correspond to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
Let us hope not, because that would lead to horrible results like units that upgrade 0, 1, 2, 3 having 12 armor at upgrade 3.
Been reading back in the thread again, results like the following by Lusted look clear that the vanilla system is working OK:
Billmen:
Flesh(0) 3 8 4 6 4 Average 5
Leather/Padded(4) 22 14 15 18 26 Average 19
Light Mail(5) 34 28 41 38 36 Average 35.4
Berdiche Axemen:
Light Mail(5) 40 37 33 30 34 Average 34.8
Heavy Mail(7) 62 60 55 58 59 Average 58.8
Partial Plate(9) 74 81 85 76 79 Average 79
Heavy Billmen
Heavy Mail(7) 59 64 63 56 54 Average 59.2
Partial Plate(9) 82 78 82 85 79 Average 81.2
Im doing some more testing atm, trying to see if every armour level works correctly.Quote:
Been reading back in the thread again, results like the following by Lusted look clear that the vanilla system is working OK:
Problem is that only vanila system will work, no modding possible to that system... thats not what they told us M2TW will be. (easily modable? dont think so anymore...)
Take M2Tw are compare it to almost every other game that is ou tthere. Most are nowhere near as moddable as M2Tw is. Whilst we cannot mod the source code, we can mod a hell of a lot through text files, and more than with RTW. So yes, M2TW is easily moddable as most of it is done through text files, and most text fiels are not that difficult to understand. We do have limits to what we can do though.Quote:
Problem is that only vanila system will work, no modding possible to that system... thats not what they told us M2TW will be. (easily modable? dont think so anymore...)
I'm not negative biased about the moddability of the game, but I think that some definitive CA words on how combat calculations are handled is necessary for people who want to have a go at different kind of units.
Right now it's all based on raw testing, buts and ifs...
Edit: but a better scripting parser is so much needed... we need variables!
Well vanilla system, if it actually works, isn't so bad. Would have been nice to have a greater range of armor values, but it certainly workable as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaM