Research: Fixes for bugs in the unit file

type spanish scutarii
dictionary scutarii ; Scutarii
category infantry
class light

So you see they are classified as light, just liek Hastati who have mass 1. So that is ok.
The mess-up can be that the Bull Warriors have the same armour as those two, but then Bastarnae should be mass 1 too and be light infantry. It all gets quite confusing if we use armour as a way to do it.
You forgot about the Bastarnae (both factional and corrected mercs) before. They are lighter than the Bull Warriors but get the mass 1.3 as they should.
Btw, I was wrong before. The Spartans are significantly stronger than the Bulls. They can beat them hands down out of phalanx and even with the bulls getting off their pila and even with equal mass. So the near equal cost should really have some basis in the mass at least.

They are the only heavy, non-spear, infantry that don't get 1.3 or 1.5, disregarding Swordsmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

It's really a preference issue, not a bug issue.
Especially considering that they do use their two pilas, before attack.

---

Hardly... I have seen the AI use pila often enough, but with the Cilicians I have been able to march up phalanxes without getting a single pila thrown at me until we were engaged (and then quite a few will kill Cilicians). I have even had Cilicians sit on my flank attempting to throw pila at me. Scared as I was I couldn't do anything about it (was fully engaged), to my great surprise they threw 4-5 pila in all before charging in (and got chopped to pieces). That has to be wrong, I don't mind them getting beaten in melee, but if they can't use their greatest asset because of formation style, then away with it. Of course another fix that might be more to your liking would be to up the range of the pila, but that doesn't seem fair to the normal pilachuckers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

Is it that heavy east infantry keeps anti-cavalry bonus even when fighting with swords?

---

Yes. And they are also the only phalanx-capable unit that has mount effects (meaning that the mount effect also applies on top of what spears usually give as well, unlike the rest of the said units).

Quote:

---

So you see they are classified as light, just liek Hastati who have mass 1. So that is ok.
The mess-up can be that the Bull Warriors have the same armour as those two, but then Bastarnae should be mass 1 too and be light infantry. It all gets quite confusing if we use armour as a way to do it.

---

It intersting that in-game, both Hastati and Scutarii are classified as heavy (for blacksmith and similar upgrades).
What is difference in those in game calssification and one in text files?

And Bull Warrior have less equipment that Scutarii (smaller shield).

Or we could say that units that are supposed to be "barbaric chargers" get good mass, while those more suptile, like throw then charge get average mass. Or more if having heavier armor (like principes, and unlike bull-warriors). There is some logic for 1.0 too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

You forgot about the Bastarnae (both factional and corrected mercs) before. They are lighter than the Bull Warriors but get the mass 1.3 as they should.

---

Actually, they are 1.2, not 1.3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Btw, I was wrong before. The Spartans are significantly stronger than the Bulls. They can beat them hands down out of phalanx and even with the bulls getting off their pila and even with equal mass. So the near equal cost should really have some basis in the mass at least.

---

It's not all about 1 on 1 battles.
It such cases it's really not important is your unit fast moving, or can you recruit it in just few places in the world.
And really do they have mass 1.3, 1.5, or 1 won't really change the outcome of 1:1 battle against spartans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvojej

Yes. And they are also the only phalanx-capable unit that has mount effects (meaning that the mount effect also applies on top of what spears usually give as well, unlike the rest of the said units).

---

So, it's pretty good chance that this is a bug?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Hardly... I have seen the AI use pila often enough, but with the Cilicians I have been able to march up phalanxes without getting a single pila thrown at me until we were engaged (and then quite a few will kill Cilicians). I have even had Cilicians sit on my flank attempting to throw pila at me. Scared as I was I couldn't do anything about it (was fully engaged), to my great surprise they threw 4-5 pila in all before charging in (and got chopped to pieces). That has to be wrong, I don't mind them getting beaten in melee, but if they can't use their greatest asset because of formation style, then away with it. Of course another fix that might be more to your liking would be to up the range of the pila, but that doesn't seem fair to the normal pilachuckers.

---

I've seen them make two volleys against my hoplites before melee.

I had heard the Eastern Heavy Inf were suppsoed to be this way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

It intersting that in-game, both Hastati and Scutarii are classified as heavy (for blacksmith and similar upgrades).
What is difference in those in game calssification and one in text files?

---

One is a weapon upgrade (i.e. what blacksmith etc. you need to upgrade their weapons), the other influences AI recruitment preferences (heavy inf., light inf. etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

I had heard the Eastern Heavy Inf were suppsoed to be this way...

---

Yes, eastern heavy infantry could have been designed as such (they are spearmen not hoplites, are from the east where people relied more on horsemanship, and similar reasoning). I just pointed out the inconsistency of the design for the debate.

Well I think removing mount effect from heavy spearman should be right option considering that no way should unit get anti-horse bonus when fighting with swords (or were they daggers?)

All other spear units with mout effects don't have phalanx formation (like triarii or light east infantry).

I think that at only point CA switched them from basic spear-like unit to phalanx type unit, but forgot to remove mount effects.

Quote:

---

In reference to player1's comments on bull warriors. Look at chosen swordsmen and chosen axemen. Both have 1.5 mass. Yet the chosen swordsman shield is only slightly larger than the caetra--and for some bizarre reason is still given a "5". And the chosen axeman has neither shield nor armour at all. Falxmen also get a 1.5 mass without shield or real armour. Clearly, being elite and heavy melee is enough for a mass upgrade from stock values.

---

I think that CA gave good mass rating to those units that are supposed to be "good chargers". Bull Warriors are a bit more sophiticated with their javelins, like Scutari. So if they should not get same mass as Hatati or Scutarii (1.0), I could agree that 1.3 would be next resonable option .

But, as far as I've heard in this thread, being light or heavy in no way influences the combat value of infantry, only AI recruit preferences.

I see the resoning for higher mass, but I see the reaons of not changing the value too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Back to other units, some quickies that will need reverification:

1. Kraxis Posted about the later Thracian Bodyguards not having updated stats. I agree. The answer looks very simple. Copy ALL relevant stats for them from the other bodyguard units using the "Gothic cav" animation. They are the same units with different color and ownership.

---

While it does border with moding, if all general units with same animation have same stats, and if that's true not only for gothic, but for other general units sharing same animation, I'm for it.

But it needs to be carefully planned. Standard general is not barbarian warlord, so upgraded one should not be called choosen warlord.

So only those fields that govern unit stats, but not desciption should be changed (keep type and dictionary fields unchanged).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

2. Also the Early Thracian Bodyguards are getting a shield bonus, but have no shield. That should be set to zero. This used the greek medium cav as its graphic.

3. The late Pontus Eastern General is getting zero for a shield rating, yet they have a considerable shield, perhaps even larger than the Early Eastern General. At minimum they should get a 2 for the shield. If you look at the others for consistency they would get a 4. They are heavily armoured already...but looking at the region, they will be facing Cataphracts.

---

They are just way too many units with no shield having shiled bonus or similar things.
It's just not something that can be easilty solved exempt with heavy moding.


P.S.
As far as I see early thracian general has stats of chartaginian general with added snow bonus, wedge, removed secondary weapon and greek graphics.

I have long wondered if I should post the Arcani... But here goes.

They get a small shield bonus (+2), yet they carry no shield, but then again they wield two swords and since they only actively use one sword I have taken it that the other sword is defensive. But it is still not perfect as the sword has to be a bad choice compared to a shield when you are faced with archers... But I'm not certain what should be done and I in fact rather like the Arcani, and they are weak as it is so a nerf will hit them hard. Perhaps removing the shield and add 2 points of armour (or 1?).

Also find it interesting why the greek Bastarnae have only got a defensive ability of 2 compared to the 4 of the merc version. In general it is the other way round or equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Alas, Bastarnae, militia hoplites and some other units also fail to get armour credit for helmets and greaves. (Mil hops are treated as if they were nude, while Bastarnae get only a 2...compared to barbarians with pants and no shirt or helmet getting a 3 armour rating.)

---

The Thracian Mercs are identical to the Bastarnae, having greaves and such, so they too should get a point in armour. But that is definately modding the game. That much I can agree with player1 about. I'm just certain that the Bull Warriors are meant to be superior troops and a low mass limit that. If we look at the chargebonus then it becomes obvious that the Bull Warriors are indeed in the same class as the heavier mass units. They get 5 while the Principes get only 2 and Chosen Swordsmen get 6. So I don't think they are more sophisticated, they are meant to deliver a knockout blow in melee.

And no, the upgraded Pontic general isn't too heavily armoured. Especially not if you compare to theor upgraded generals that get 11 points (Greek upgraded) and 18 (eastern upgraded, and essentially a 2HP cataphract unit with a stronger charge).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

They are just way too many units with no shield having shiled bonus or similar things.
It's just not something that can be easilty solved exempt with heavy moding.

---

I wonder if this is simply the fallout (a workaround) for the fact the the defense skill only applies to the front and right of a individual... This would leave an elite unit without a shield completely undefended (other than their armour value) when attacked from their left...

Maybe all those units that are not modeled with a shield but get a shield value are making up for that deficency???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I have long wondered if I should post the Arcani... But here goes.

They get a small shield bonus (+2), yet they carry no shield, but then again they wield two swords and since they only actively use one sword I have taken it that the other sword is defensive. But it is still not perfect as the sword has to be a bad choice compared to a shield when you are faced with archers... But I'm not certain what should be done and I in fact rather like the Arcani, and they are weak as it is so a nerf will hit them hard. Perhaps removing the shield and add 2 points of armour (or 1?).

Also find it interesting why the greek Bastarnae have only got a defensive ability of 2 compared to the 4 of the merc version. In general it is the other way round or equal.

---

lol.. most unusual. I'd match the bastarnae up. Plus the Merc version have a metal sound, when it should clearly be flesh!! ;)

Yes, that can't be right... Flesh it should be.

Bob might have caught onto something, but even if that was the case there are several units that gets the bonus regardles, such as the Beduin Archers.
One problem is that the shields adds armour to the front and left, so not only does it add armour to the side where it doesn't belong but it also adds extra armour and defensive power to the front where it isn't 'needed' either. Such a case smells badly of a last ditch effort to balance the game, but since the game is hardly balanced (and shouldn't really be) then it is not plausible. Also I don't think CA would create a great directional engine only to realize it wasn't good enough.
For the moment I'm not buying it, but later perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Nonsense. If they don't have shields, they shouldn't get a bonus (with the possible exception of the arcani--because their situation is quite a bit out of the norm.) If they do have shields they should get a shield bonus.

Common sense should prevail over the "don't touch anything" view you espouse.

---

There is just too many units with such differences.
Rememeber almost naked desert axemen with huge armor bonus.

If we change all units depending on thier looks, we will get very different rule set, with different balance set.
That won't be amymore bug-fixing, but moding.

Rememer that Principii with just extra 2 poitns of defense cost extra 50gold.
Who know how much balance of the game can be changed by chaning every other unit in the game to fit thier image.

Well, this one could be intentional to be a bug, but is weird neverdless.

Greeks, in cities that can't build Spartans, with highest level barracks only gain +1exp hoplites. It's that kinda useless, since Armored Hoplites are much better unit.

Is it possibile that it should've been Armored Hoplites who get +1exp?



To Red Harvest:
The point is that there are dozen, yes dozen and more units which don't look as their stats. If you change all of them, then their cost to keep balance, you'll get very different rule set, which someone needs to balance out. I would have no problem is just one or two units were like that. But there is dozen of them.

Is it really so bad to make differece between bad design and a real bug? Real bugs have one soultion and bad design one can have many ones.

I agree the Greek tech tree is a bit unusual at the top end. However, armoured hoplites are already a superior unit buildable at a relatively early stage in the tech tree and therefore I wouldn't make them tougher!

I'd be more inclined to give the Greeks (and by that I mean greek_cities only) a bonus to their Greek cav and Greek militia cav at their top horsey building. At the moment all it does it give incendiary pigs... lol. Useless.

Ok, something about thracian general and late pontic general.

First, thracian general costs 770gp (custom battles).
If you remove shield bonus, it would be overpriced compared to greek general (690gp).

Second, pontus general has very similar stats to late scythian general. -1 to attack and charge, +1 to defense. It has cost of 940gp, while scythian 980gp. Giving them extra shield binus would make them overpriced.

So, in conclusion, both of these general units are priced, and thus balanced, on their current stats. So that's my argument of not chaning thier stats (for non-mod patch).


P.S.
And thracian general uses barbarian warlord description, with "barbarian" word removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Also find it interesting why the greek Bastarnae have only got a defensive ability of 2 compared to the 4 of the merc version. In general it is the other way round or equal.

---

It should not be forgotten, that merc version is more expensive too (important for custom battles). Pesonally, I would not change it since it would be nerf to merc version, which is already more expensive. And it could be that just mercs are more focused on defnse then on offense.


By the way, the something about metal or flesh rating of armor. It is used for sound only, right?
While I'm against moding to much for fix-patch, there are some more units with this type of inconsistency (desert axemen with metal sound). Should we fix them all to use proper sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

Ok, something about thracian general and late pontic general.

First, thracian general costs 770gp (custom battles).
If you remove shield bonus, it would be overpriced compared to greek general (690gp).

Second, pontus general has very similar stats to late scythian general. -1 to attack and charge, +1 to defense. It has cost of 940gp, while scythian 980gp. Giving them extra shield binus would make them overpriced.

So, in conclusion, both of these general units are priced, and thus balanced, on their current stats. So that's my argument of not chaning thier stats (for non-mod patch).


P.S.
And thracian general uses barbarian warlord description, with "barbarian" word removed.

---

True, but Generals don't in fact cost anything (at least in SP campaign).

I know that, but full picture is important, including custom battles.

About 4th level greek barracks (another hypothesis):

Maybe it was supposed to be to get 1exp holpites with 3rd level barracks and armoured hoplites with 4th level barracks? (effectively a nerf to greeks, resembles numidian infantry progression)

Anyway, the way it is now, 4th level barracks are useless outside Sparta and Syracuse (at least you get the pigs with stables upgrade).

Ok, Merc Bastarnae and Desert Axeman should change their armor sound from metal to flesh.

Any other bug offender?



P.S.
I think I saw some units that have flesh, but look like having leather armor, but I think it's too minor to bother (and sometimes looks just can be wrong). I think just big offenders need to be chnaged (like metal to flesh).

Let's see...
Iberian Infantry, Scutaii and Spanish Mercenaries all appear wearing same armor (leather + metal plate in the middile, Hastai used similar thing).
Iberian Infantry is labeled as flesh, Spanish Mercenary as leather and Scutarii as metal.

In this case I think it is pretty harmless to be a bug, since units with this type of armor can easily be hit in flesh (arms and legs not protected), leather or metal plate.

But isn't it kinda big move to beef up/or tone down stats and costs of units, for a simple fix-patch that should stick to the core. I mean if are going to do that there are many other inconsistancies then just two general units.

Keep in mind thaty in case those 2 units cost adjustemnt would be around +/-100gp.

Thracian to cost of early greek general (making it almost indentical unit), pontus to cost of late greek general (having good shield instead of armor).

I'm just not keen on making such chnages, for this of patch, since it requires good eye for balance and personal judment, something I would be more inclined to do when moding.

I would rather go hunting just pure bugs that have 100% accurate solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Flesh, leather, metal. General rule is:

Flesh = 0, 1, 2 armour
Leather = 3, 4 armour
Metal = 5 or greater armour

There is a set of exceptions that is noteworthy--many pikemen and hoplites are often getting a "leather" sound despite having 6 armour. Elephants (including cataphract) are getting a flesh sound despite high armour ratings.

---

If we are going to change any I'm only in for fixing the extremes (why bother with many small inconsistencies you won't notice in the game).

Like completly naked units with metal descptor (Desert Axement, Mern Bastarnae).

The reson why I advocate "change the little" aproach too often is that I would like to keep "core rules compatilbity".

For example, it's resonable that Deset Axemen should have no armor and get AP capability, like it's Desert Horsemen equivalent.

But, that would pretty much make most of already written strategies in using Desert Axemen useless, wouldn't it?

Any other opinions on highest level greek barracks problem?

Solutions:
1) small greek boost: +1exp armored hoplites instead oridinary +1exp hoplites
(triarii model)
2) big greek nerf: +1exp hoplites at 3rd level, armored hoplites delayed till 4rd level
(numidian model)
3) the way it is (useless 4th level barracks, exmept in Sparta and Syracuse)
4) something else?

I would really like this one moved from status quo.

I think 1st and 3rd option are the closest in keeping rules compatibility (with 3rd not fixing anything), while it is pretty likely that at one point 2nd option could've been the way that CA planned, but switched 3rd and 4th level barrack benefits (armored hoplites are a bit powerful for 3rd level barracks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I didn't say anything about changing these particular stats, I was merely pointing out the rules that appear to have been used to apply the factor. QUIT PANICKING! The sound is a secondary thing that at one time at least appears to have been tied only to armour level (for primary armour stats.) Did CA originally set many hoplites/phalanx to about 4 armour, then later raise them to 6 for game balancing before 1.0 was released? That is where I would put my money.

There is no "core rules compatibility" as you seem to view it. CA made quite a few changes to the core rules in 1.2 without rebalancing the game. The pri/sec bug removal took away 4 attack from all (or at least) pila units, yet CA did nothing to rebalance the factions. FF fixes made skirmishers useful, hidden morale changes made elephants more manageable. Phalanx effects vs. cav got nerfed. Spear vs. pike effect was changed, and cav charge vs. sword units was reduced from what I can tell.

The "change nothing" approach of digging in your heels to EVERY comment is beyond irritating.

---

Ok, don't panic...