Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Not to me. Even in RTW we were able to change unit armor, to balance it better than in vanila game. Right now it is not possible anymore, because original values are presented as the only right ones... other point of view is not allowed anymore...
We can change unit armour in M2TW as well, there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. People just now need to take into account the new armour upgrade system.Quote:
Not to me. Even in RTW we were able to change unit armor, to balance it better than in vanila game. Right now it is not possible anymore, because original values are presented as the only right ones... other pint of wiev is not allowed
....new armor upgrade system, that works completely diferent that it shows in game... nice
Can I please, with all due respect, request that we keep this discussion to figuring out what is going on IN THE VANILLA GAME.
Anybody who has significant modwork done which changes the nature of their game is just confusing the research being done. How about, AFTER, we figure out how the vanilla system works, THEN we can start babbling about how to modify it and how it works with modified systems. If you just really want to discuss these things, please make your own thread for it - because all you're accomplishing now is confusing the clear transfer of information on this subject to anybody trying to read this thread.
Thank you.
Agreed - discussion of the implications for modding should be in the mod chat forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
This is what I have put in the FAQ to summarise the results of this thread:
Have I understood the basic result correctly? If so, I am very pleased with the way upgrades work.Quote:
Originally Posted by FAQ
That's what I understand from my reading of this thread, econ, but you'll obviously want confirmation from the principals.
Excellent work, all, on getting to the bottom of this mystery. I think I'm going to build leather tanners in every city and castle....
If you will stick to the original files you can came with incorect conclusions. The only possible way how to figure out how system works is to use extreme numbers to find out the changes in behavior in comparation to normal situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
@JaM: We havn't got that far in the testing because qwhere STILL trying to fully understand how the basic system works, without that all those extreme number examples are usl;ess as we don't know how extreme numbers vary from normal behaviour.
My latest tests:
Another bunch ot tests: Same units like yesterday - Peasant archers - arrow damage 1 vs modified peasants
type Peasants
dictionary Peasants ; Peasants
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Peasants, 60, 0, 0.8
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, is_peasant, peasant
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 1, 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, spear, 50, 0.6
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 0, 1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 0, 1, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 1, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay -20000
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 120, 70, 65, 50, 120, 4, 20
armour_ug_levels 0, 4, 5, 6
armour_ug_models Peasants, Peasants_ug1
ownership england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, slave, normans, saxons
era 0 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
era 1 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
era 2 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, normans, saxons
Results:
Upgrade 4 looses: 46,44,43,40,35 - 42 average
Upgrade 5 looses: 35,32,31,28,25 - 30 average
Upgrade 6 looses: 22,19,18,18,14 - 18 average
From my previous tests: same units different upgrade levels:
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2, 3
Upgrade 0 looses: 58,45,39,51,48 - 48 average
Upgrade 1 looses: 46,48,36,46,39 - 43 average
Upgrade 2 looses: 34,33,29,35,33 - 33 average
Upgrade 3 looses: 23,22,26,18,25 - 23 average
So to me, it looks that unit resistance is linked together with armour_ug_models somehow. I tried even PB levels 7,8,9,10,11,12 but with similar results.
This is because upgrades are considered to be applied in a progressive way, you can't jump from none to plate. This is the obvious outcome of your testing. The game takes the base armor_stat, then applies the number of the upgrades in armour_ug_levels, probably it doesn't even read the values, just the count of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
No Re: My first tests were with vanila upgrade levels 0,1,2,3, after that i changed it to 0,4,5,6 and i had same averages as before
It what I said, regardless if you write 0,1,2,3 or 0,4,5,6 or 0,10,20,30 the game reads the base armor_stat and then applies 4 upgrades, discarding the values, it just uses the count of them (4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or none upgrade)
That summary seems right on target with my understanding, and the results so far. Just saw one typo:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
"in that each upgrade provides the reported type of leather (padded, light mail etc)."
should be:
"in that each upgrade provides the reported type of armour (padded, light mail etc)."
sorry Re but i dont understand how you ment that.
and I don't think that can be it, because pikemen go straight from flesh to light mail
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
If I'm reading Re correctly, then what he means is that in order for a 2nd 3rd and 4th entry of 4,5,6 to work correctly as upgrades, they must be preceded by the base level 3, and not 0. That is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
armour_ug_levels 3,4,5,6 tells us the unit starts off with level 3 armour. This gives the game its basis for where to begin in the chain of upgrades. From there, it will step forward, granting the next 3 upgrades as buildings 4, 5 and 6 are built.
armour_ug_levels 0,4,5,6 then is speculated to give you armour upgrades progressive up from zero: you'll receive the benefit of armour levels 1 (about +4), 2 (+1'ish) and 3(another +2'ish) as you upgrade the unit, resulting in 7 points of additional armour as it upgrades. The difference is, you'll be requiring the armour upgrade buildings #4, 5, and 6 to get those value of upgrades. Since the first number is the starting armour level, it would make a lot of programming sense to apply the upgrades linearly upward from that amount, and only make the following entries name the buildings to achieve those armour upgrades.
So if we envision the armour types to be a linear series of bonuses in given amounts, something like this:
lvl 1: +4
lvl 2: +1
lvl 3: +2
lvl 4: +2
lvl 5: +1
lvl 6: +1
then Re is saying that the first entry behind armour_ug_levels sets the point in that progression that the unit is assumed to be starting at, and the following (up to 3) entries allow you to set the required building(s), but will always give the next bonus amounts in the sequence, not the ones for whatever building level you've required to get the upgrade.
I'm not saying I agree with that, as I actually have not tested it AT ALL, I just felt that I understood what Re was trying to say, and wanted to explain in more detail for concerned parties who may not have understood. If I'm wrong, Re, let me know.
If he's right in his idea, though, then it's huge for modding, as you can achieve a ridiculous variety of upgrade patterns by starting at different places in the upgrade chain, using varying amounts of ug levels, and using repeated upgrade building levels as the 2-4 entries to trigger multiple bonuses from the same building. You could do armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 1, 1 and Re's explanation would mean this grants +7 to that unit, all from the first armoury building!
Edit--@Econ21: I forgot to mention it as I got tied up trying to explain Re... but yes, your understanding of the various findings appears to be completely correct. Thanks for adding it to the FAQ :smile:
With the same behaviour in combat as they'd have light mail in armor_stat (alas a value of 5)?Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
I'm at a loss then because there's a contradiction with the data Jam showed up.
Foz explained better than me what I intented and I don't know if it's true, I just trying to make sense out of some contradictory data (which doesn't seem false or badly recorded).
I need to run some tests by myself, the weekend isn't very far away :wall:
Looking at JaM's tests, I would suspect that when you upgrade pikemen at the blacksmith, since its the first upgrade they would get +4 armor, whereas they should really have 5 since they are wearing light mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
And here is another thing to consider: how is the shield fix interacting with this system? Its being said that the game somehow uses the armor value internally (eg in the case of advanced plate being 9 or 10, partial plate being 8 or 9). If that is the case, the shield fix is likely altering this since it changes the armor value.
This is post #181 that I later discovered was a poorly conducted test that caused much confusion. As such, I've removed it.
'This program brought to you from the same people who coded the shield bug.'
We are trying to make sense of a system that could also very likely be bugged, so just won't provide logical results no matter what the tests.
I mean, to code a system like this is programming 101. How it could be this obscure is, well...
Hmm, further testing.
Unit A: Dismounted Noble Knight, has upgrade path 4, 5. Has armor level 8 at upgrade 4: average losses vs archers: 22.
Unit B: Dismounted Noble Knight modded to have upgrade path 1, 2, 3, 4. Has armor level 4 at upgrade 1, theoretically armor level 8 at upgrade 4: average losses vs archers: 12.
Unit B with the gold upgrade more resistant than Unit A, though both should be identical in theory, with level 4 armor and armor value 8.
Have tried the same with other units.
My opinion now is that you get 4 from the first upgrade, 1 from the second etc, no matter what your armor level at the start. eg if you have starting armor 4 with upgrade path 1, 2, 3, 4, your first upgrade will raise your armor to 8, then 9, then 11.
Lets see what Patch 1.2 brings...
Nope. My tests above already disproved this idea. If each upgrade was always the same, then my Italian Militia with 3 base armor and gold armor upgrades would have been equal to Italian Militia with no upgrades but 10 base armor. The 10 base armor unit was more missile resistant, which is clear evidence that the upgrade slots are not simply locked in at given values. If they were locked, the third upgrade would've given 7 total armor bonus, which it clearly did not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Point_Blank
My results have my brain twisted up in a knot ATM :help:
Wouldn't it just be simpler and easier on the head if some kind soul pm'd or contacted a CA rep to get an official answer? Ideally someone already in regular contact with CA staff ... hint hint. Or are we all just masochists at heart? :smash:
That way we can finally put this debacle to rest...
Don't forget, that someone has to be given explicit permission to share any given thing that he may know as a result of contact with devs. It's not like even if he knows how things work he can actually come out and tell us. At least, not unless they let his leash out a little :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Tell me about it, at times i just end up screaming at my monitor because of some things i know about but cannot say.Quote:
Don't forget, that someone has to be given explicit permission to share any given thing that he may know as a result of contact with devs. It's not like even if he knows how things work he can actually come out and tell us. At least, not unless they let his leash out a little
I don't doubt it, nor envy your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
On that subject, is the topic at hand in this thread one that you're screaming about? I won't ask you what you do know, I just want to know IF you know.
If you do know, I might reasonably expect a bit of leading if I manage to throw an idea out here that is actually correct :beam:
No i don't know anything in regards to this topic, haven't really chatted to Jason since this thread was started. It can be difficult communicating with him as he's in Oz and im in the UK. I do intend to discuss this with him.
Been reading this thread from the start, and I've got to tell you, it's getting VERY confusing to find out what the latest research point to. Can't even imagine how hard it must be for new people to read this thread.
So, it would REALLY be nice of those of you who actually have a good understanding of this thread, to post a summary every once in a while. Or, maybe even better, start a new thread where you only post definitve updates(no comments)...
The summary as I understand it(probably wrong), is this:
Armour upgrades work like they should, they add the value for the new armour, not just one point. The implications this has for modding, is not clear.
Is that correct?
Armour upgrades seems to work in some way that can resemble what it was intended and none is sure how armour and armour upgrades could be modded.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This pretty sums up the findings to this point.
Yeah that's about the state of things. I too am honestly a little confused at the system and its apparent aversion to divulging its secrets. That E result I last posted is particularly disturbing...
So from here I intend to noodle around with it some and maybe I'll determine what is really going on. I don't intend to work too hard though, as it's probably both simpler and easier to let Lusted talk about it with people who know, and hopefully be able to relay the information shortly.
You nailed it exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Re Berengario I
Well, everyone can breathe a small sigh of relief: my results in post #181 are to be ignored.
I discovered that the archers I was testing against had not been expending their full complement of arrows, but rather were marching forward to get a better shot, at the urging of the AI. I interpreted this to mean they were closing to initiate melee, and thus stopped the test at that point. This makes all those results worthless, as you cannot have a fair test if the amount of ammo fired is not identical.
I'm actually sorta happy it turns out to be the case, as it was horrible trying to wrap my mind around such sick results. So it could still be that the simplest explanation prevails. Finding this out doesn't really put me in a mood to test that though.....
@Foz: The best way to run the test would be to use the various froms of Pikes for the tests as they have a fixed movemnt speed. That way you can control the archers and ensure you get the same number of volleys each time. You can even limit the ammow of the archers to help ensure this if you want.
^wordems - I realized I would have to control the archers, when on my first test, I intended to have my pikemen sit still and allow the archers to expend their full complement of arrows...
However, it appears said archers were led by a frenchman, who after firing two volleys commanded them to charge forward and impale themselves upon my pikes... I suppose in the hopes that the weight of their bodies would hinder the use of the pikes and allow their invisible reinforcements to chase me off.
Edit: I'm told that some people found the previous content of this post offensive. I assure you that was not my intent, and apologize to any who may have been unintentionally offended. As a result, I've removed the material.
You forget yourself Foz...
That only applies to Frenchmen. :beam:
well, regardless of how EXACTLY the armor upgrade system works, i think its reasonable to draw this one conclusion.
the current sheild fix system (ie, the foz's) has a good chance of interfering with the armor upgrade system.
Luckily, that's no longer a problem, as it will be fix in the new patch!Quote:
Originally Posted by pat the magnificent
me = happy, happy, happy!
yeah but... when will THAT be? seems like i've been waiting for months already... oh wait... i have been.
Well it's gone into final testing so it will likely be out next week. They said late feb back after the first one was released, and we are getting it in late feb.
As promised i've been chatting to Palamedes about this(finally remembered). I only caught him briefly today but we'll be chatting more this week.
He gave me this useful info:
And according to him armour upgrades should work by giving units the armour value of the next level, so billmen going from unarmoured to padded should get plus 4 to their armour. But as they aren't, it indicates it isn't working as planned.Quote:
none no valid armour 0
Unarmoured Unarmoured 0
Padded Padded or leather 4
Light Mail Chainmail shirt 5
Heavy Mail Heavy Maiil 7
Partial Plate Fully armoured. Mostly Plate 8
Plate Full set of plate armour 9
Gothic Advanced Plate 10
Late Plate Renaisance suit of plate 11
Light Brigandine 6
Heavy Brigandine 8
Half Plate Breastpllate and helmet 7
3Q Plate Three quarters plate 8
Cav Unarmoured 0
Cav
But this does mean that CA did plan for armour upgrades to give the corresponding armour value to the look of the armour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=181
Thats one of your own posts where you show that level 3 armour upgrades come out at less than 7.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...5&postcount=67
Yet this post by myself clearly shows that Heavy Mail is better than 5.
It's a damm weird situation.
My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
Other tests by other people. The system is working mostly as expected, but not completely.Quote:
I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?
You mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.Quote:
My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
Yeah, sorry, i couldn't be bothered to check an EDU, (i have several :laugh4:), and tried to do it from memory.Quote:
You mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.
LOL Carl. One of my other posts somewhere on this page explains that post #181 was bad, and why. As such I've removed it, since it is not accurate test data at all. IIRC (I'm not about to go back to read) It was something to do with archers closing to start shooting again, when I thought they had expended full ammo and thus stopped the test - which ends up having destroyed the results, as I have no way to know how many shots were fired in any given test before they decided to run forward.
So they are making a distinction between German and Italian Advanced Plate (Italian supposedly being significantly better)?
No they're making a difference between gothic and the very late game renaissance type of armour.
I'm very happy to finally see this problem discussed in depth. All have done a great work and I think that the results so far are encouraging. This issue had greatly reduced my enjoyment of the game, and knowing now that armor upgrades probably work as they should or nearly, has restored its appeal for me. I'm sure others felt this way because of shield bug or 2H bug, even to the point of stop playing the game. Armor upgrades was my personal stumbling stone.
:2thumbsup:
Same here, did'nt play since 12/2006.
I am confused. Can someone in the know tell me- do armour upgrades work properly or not?
Probably. There is this persistent notion that something is slightly off from working correctly, but I myself haven't seen evidence of it. At the very least, things are very close to what they should be - the first upgrade to padded/leather gives +4, the next +1 (5 total), and so on. So basically yes they work in the amounts they're purported to, not the +1s that are always shown on the stat sheets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
So the leather worker upgrade is definitely worth it for every settlement now at the very least. +4 armor to unarmored militia is huge.
>> starts running around altering his build queues... <<
Does anyone know whether this has been fixed/changed in the latest patch?
This topic keeps popping up...guess I might just throw another question in then:
If you modify the base armour value a unit has and then upgrade it to the next armour level, do you effectively reduce its armour or will it just add the correct value onto your modified value.
i.e.: Peasants have 0 base armour value and can be upgraded once for 4 armour effectively. What if you set Peasants to 10 base armour by only changing the armour value and then upgrade them? 4 armour or 14 armour?
It does not appear that it has been touched at all. Not surprising really, IIRC we came upon the bulk of the discussion much closer to the patch release date than most things that did make it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkatreides
I don't think anyone honestly knows. My guess would be the system is additive rather than using replacement. If you really want to know, setup a test case. Fight unmodified town militia (or some such unit) against a given enemy (maybe spear militia), giving the town militia 3 armor upgrades. Observe. Then mod your EDU so TM have 20 base armor, and fight the same battle, with them getting 3 armor upgrades again. Observe whether they fight better, worse, or the same. That should prove pretty conclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
All the units that start with armor level 5 (full plate) have 9 as their armor value not 10
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but...
It still can't be 100% determined that armor works or not, but even if it does, the stats are still incorrect in 1.2. I find this quite disconcerting. One would think this would be a relatively simple item to fix, but then again I am no programmer. Alright, 1.2 is just a "test" patch right now, but it's unlikely it will be addressed in the full patch. I found several improvements in 1.2 but when I came across the fact that that armor STILL does not APPEAR to work, I quit in disgust.
...alright, so I'm going to go back and load up in a minute, I just had to get my temper tantrum out of the way, lol.
Full plate is full plate no matter what stats say.
That's exactly why it probably isn't fixed yet: because, even though it may occasionally upset you, in the end you realize it is entirely trivial. I have every confidence that all the time the devs have spent fixing things for 1.2 has been on things that are more noticeable, more important, and more broken than the stats display, so while it would be a nice thing to have fixed, I'd actually cry foul if they had done so, as it would mean something that actually might matter a little had been sacrificed in order to get it done. When we get to the point where things like shield bug, 2h bug, router chasing, passive AI, and ctd bugs are no longer appearing on the patch lists, then it may be time to think about stuff in this category, and not a moment before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalthius
@ Foz:
I agree wholeheartedly, I just needed to complain about it to make myself feel better. :laugh4:
Sorry for the necro post, but I can't seem to find an accurate answer anywhere.
There's a few threads that explain the actual values of each armour upgrade, however the main thing I can't determine is this.
Is the first value of "armour_ug_levels" used for anything other than a reference point?
So we know the armour values are:
1 = +4
2 = +6
3 = +7
4 = +8
5 = +10
6 = +11
So if a unit had
armour_ug_levels 0,1,2,3
It would get +4 on the first upgrade.
Followed by +6(+2) and +7(+1)
However if a unit had
armour_ug_levels 5,6
Would it get +10 to its base instantly?
Or would this just determine that it's first upgrade would be +11?
Essentially, in the case the first value is NOT 0, is it's underlying value actually applied?
It seems somewhat illogical to be yes, as this is an entirely 'hidden' (and extremely significant) armour buff.
If no, then is there any logic to the vanilla EDU having single values for this field?
There are some units with "armour_ug_levels 6". If there is no second value to determine the value of the 'bronze' armour upgrade, what value does the first number provide?
Thanks for your help, and sorry again for the necro.
I'm working on a large mod, and it is an important mechanic to understand for balancing.
@XViper
Sorry to necro, but to both answer your question, and provide further confirmation of how this works...
The armor levels simply replace the armor levels, they DON'T add to the base levels. I.e. a unit that starts with Padded Armor (base 4 armor, like Italian Spear Militia) and then gets an armor upgrade to Light Mail (base 6 armor) will now have 6 armor, NOT 4.
Try taking units starting with padded armor, upgraded to Light Mail, and units starting unarmored, upgraded to Heavy Mail, and you'll see the ones with 3 upgrades be more resistant to arrows, and win melee with units which are otherwise identical: which wouldn't hold true if the base 4 units got +6 to armor instead of it overwriting the 4 with 6.
I.e. Italian Militia with 3 upgrades (Heavy Mail, starts unarmored) beat Italian Spear Militia with 1 upgrade (Light Mail, starts with Padded) more often in melee (as armor levels only differ by 1, and Spear Militia have longer spears but identical attack/mental stats, the contest is very close and a bit random...)
If the bonuses were additive, you would expect the Italian Spear Militia in Light Mail to win by a mile (10 armor vs. 7) instead of barely losing (6 vs. 7).
Similarly, Italian Spear Militia with 1 armor upgrade (6 Armor) are pretty even with un-upgraded Armored Sergeants (Light Mail, should probably 6 Armor though the unit card states 5 Armor), they don't wipe the floor with them like they would if it were 10 armor vs. 5 or 6.
TLDR: Armor upgrades simply REPLACE base armor rating for sure.