Well that's pretty depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
Printable View
Well that's pretty depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
Agreed. Are there any mods that focus soley on the AI which we could install on top of LTC Gold?Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Is there a realism mod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
Hey, don't laugh. It's how I took over Europe as Norway. :norway:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
While my comment might be considered moot, since I have only played one battle in LotR and none in KotF, I never use the pause button, except when I have to leave the computer with a battle running. I've been playing like that ever since STW and that's how I'm used to play.
As such, I'm constantly amazed at some the results some of you guys get and sometimes a bit worried. I'm hoping we don't get too big, because in LotR that made owning land much less interesting and much less a factor.
Swords were always weak vs cavalry, but with the mod DFK stats have been nerfed quite a bit. I'm not a great fan of the change as it seems to be for "balance" rather than realism. But it's not that bad for gameplay. DFKs used to be pretty uber. Now they are just offensive infantry roughly equal to armoured spears, who are defensive/anti-cavalry infantry. They will have their role e.g. in sieges, I am sure; just not in receiving a cavalry charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I don't think it's a matter of the AI so much. From Shogun onwards, a good player has always been able to get a lot done with their bodyguard(s) against the AI. (Their bodyguards as part of their army - this solo bodyguard army concept is new to me). It's just we have very good players and the early AI has not built up so much, so the advantage is more noticeable: the AI is not fielding full stacks and their troops are largely lowest tier. I remember in KotR towards the end, the Egyptians started fielding large elite armies that made me blanche (Mameluke horse archers plus those scarey axe wielding dudes).Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilXIX
Given what I have learnt about LotR and from this game, if we were starting again, I would have suggested nerfing bodyguards a little. What the realism mods for RTW gravitated towards, IIRC, is give them one hit point not two and make them smaller, say halve them. That would cut their power statistically to 25% of what it is now.
Raising the base morale of units might also help as I suspect part of what is going on is players engineering a AI morale collapse. There are probably large morale penalties from having cavalry charging your rear, seeing friends rout etc. The RTW realism mods generally give harder battles because the AI clings on, rather than routing early.
I am not sure if we want to make such changes now that the game has started, but it probably would not be hard - just a matter of editing one txt file. Maybe we could consider it as a rules change at the next Conseil?
(a) Reduce bodyguard units to one hitpoint.
(b) Half the unit size of bodyguards.
(c) Add 10 to each unit's morale.
But who knows, maybe attitudes will change when we start seeing player generals die (as they did quite often in KotR and LotR).
That hitpoint thing is a bit over rated.
Those default 2 hit points are not that important actually. Generals do die quite often as we saw in LotR. I myself lost an avatar when I tried to pull off Methodios :clown:
More important are those traits and ancillaries that give extra hitpoints.
I believe that the stats for RBG units are good but not great. What truly sets them apart are the hitpoints and ability to regenerate. Consider that if you half the hitpoints you diminish their strength by more than half.
Reducing hitpoints and unit size may be too much.
I'd support halfing the unit size, but I think reducing the hitpoints is a bit much.
I don't have much to add..... I am fine with whatever happens. I was kind of amazed at some of the things people have been pulling off. I have always been far to timid when it came to bodyguards I guess.....:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I withhold my judgement until I've fought a battle myself. I'm always afraid of loosing my general. While most of us are very capable of handling even weakened bodyguards we don't want it to turn into frustration for those of us who aren't as uber.
This was the screenshot that got me thinking about nerfing bodyguards:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Even though Tristan was outnumbered nearly 10:1, the computer thought the battle was even (1:1) because bodyguards are just so formiddable.
I don't think the general's hitpoints have a big impact on their unit's combat effectiveness (unless things have gone really bad :sweatdrop:) or their BGs hitpoints have a big impact on their general's survivability. But I am sure the BGs hitpoints have a big impact on their unit's combat effectiveness. I suspect it is why you can charge into spears frontally and walk away almost unscathed - you probably are taking some hits in return, but they are just reducing the 2 HPs to 1 HP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn
I can only speak from personal experience, but in most solo campaigns, I have become very cautious in my use of regular (1 HP) heavy cavalry. Yes, it can deal damage. But they also take damage that I find rather painful - I hate to see my elite horsies die. With 2 HP regenerating BGs, you can be more robust. But occasionally, it does bite you in the rear and you lose the main man.
I just talking here - I am ambivalent about changing the stats partway into the game. And nerfing BGs would do nothing to stop the mounted sergeants walking over DFKs that AG and Cecil found depressing. Let's play on and see how it goes when the circle of players fighting battles widens.
Yes, let us remember that I'm the exception and not the rule... Otherwise, my "prowess" would not be so awe-inspiring...
So should we make a rule to take into account an exception ? Most people seem wary of using their BGs the way I do, a fact I can understand but I've played like this for a long time now... Even with Hugo, in KotR, though with Fritz and Erhart to compete with, it wasn't as noticeable...
It's my way of crating a challenge for me, however small it may be, but at least I have the feeling that my avatar is living on the line... Something that helps me getting into the game...
Do we want to see our Generals die in droves ? For die they will, give them time... Or do we want to see our BGs units become useless or in the same category of lighter cavalry ? I don't think it's a solution...
Let's remember that this game is based on the avatars we're playing... I prefer to see them as heroes of the battlefield (if a bit over the top) than simple grunts, achieving little to die small deaths at the hands of peasants...
Just my :2cents:
Truthfully I would like it if we had a R-P-S style counter for our BGs in the AI armies; something the AI could use to force us to bring at least some real troops to a battle. English longbowmen stakes would be perfect... if the AI knew how to use them, because we could counter them, but they create a situation where a charge *cannot* be safely made. Period.
Pikemen could be a similar counter if they worked right and the AI knew how to use them.
Here's what I'd do if I were buffing AI armies: Forget DFKs and assorted infantry of all stripes. Put in high end crossbowmen, archers, a few spearmen, and top off with ample fast cavalry/HA. The kinds of troops that can be countered, but that will cost us casualties even under the best circumstances. Catapults maybe? If the AI would use them to shoot and not hang them out to dry they could force us to engage on unfavorable terms at least.
I dunno, I consider the tactical AI to be rather hopeless. Give them the best of everything and they'll find a way to muck it up. HA is the only surefire way to create mass player casualties, and it's a rather cheap tactic at that.
:egypt:
Err...there is a way to fix rampant cavalry abuse, without needing to nerf anything - however, it would require greater tactical use of cavalry.
The solution I find is to simply give everything a base cavalry defense of 4-6, give spearmen double that, and give pikemen triple. Thus, when braced, cavalry won't plow through a single unit and decimate it utterly (but still inflict substantial casualties), and spear and pike units can hold steadfast - so long as they stay in formation - and usually rebuke the enemy cavalry.
Thus -
Standard Infantry - +6
Spearmen - +12
Pikemen - +18
Remember, these bonuses will only take effect if the unit is braced, meaning pulling the enemy out and then charging them will be the proper tactic, instead of just plowing through them like a medieval bulldozer on roids.
I just had a go as Hermant with a BG against a few spears. It was too small an encounter to draw many conclusions, but I am starting to agree with Cecil and Ramses about the AI. It was very sluggish even in re-orienting itself to face me - which was weird, as with only one of my units on the field, I would have thought facing was obvious. The AI only seemed to sharpen up when just one unit was left - it went into schiltron, which surprised me but proved disappointingly ineffective against a charge. The morale of the armored spears held up surprisingly well up - even with a dead leader etc. I did not micro the withdrawals, but did re-charge and suffered some loses.
I still find it odd to see our King and Prince riding around a war zone with nought but a few mounted sergeants, but I guess that's their (royal) perogative.
Well, in a perfect world...
I don't usually micromanage charges. I've lost generals in charges against foot knights. It's up to each player to determine how he enjoys the game the best. Me, I chose chivalrous characters characters because dread is too easy. I hoped this style of game would prove to be more competitive. The Total War series isn't advanced enough to facilitate this.
I really hate even the idea of civil war. Regular war is bad enough. :shame:
The mounted sergeants spawned in Paris after we completed a mission. Since they spawned in a Royal holding, they belong to the King.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Generally, since we all have avatars, I think we should refuse adoptions so we can at least try to establish a Capet dynasty with biological children.
I must have missed receiving them as a reward.
I understand the adoption concern. But there may *clears throat* be an exceptional suiter which comes around next turn.
Yea, I did it. I also have nothing to gain by hitting the turn button this year.
But then you would have to deal with me. :whip::evilgrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Here's my two cents.
In KotR, we did not have RBG's. Thus, in the early game, General's Bodyguards were scarce. At that stage, there was no rule in place to recruit RBG's, so the loss of an avatar was devastating to the faction, and to you personally.
Consequently, we saw far fewer massacres of the AI. Heavy cavalry was scarce, and so there were far few exploits on the AI.
Another consequence was the slower pace of expansion. So far, in less that one term, we have conquered Caenarvon, Valencia, Zaragoza, Metz, Bruges, Antwerp, and Staufen - a total of 7 provinces!
In KotR, in Kaiser Heinrich's first term of 20 turns, we have conquered Bern, Hamburg, Metz, and Brandenburg - only 4 provinces in twice the time.
Thus you can already see the vast difference between the two games.
Another point is that the King hasn't assigned any provinces except Metz to Lorraine. It means it is very hard for players like myself to get into the game. What's the point in taking initiative if there's no reward. Also, only 6 people will be able to run for Seneschal next term, which means it will be largely uninteresting for the bulk of the player base.
Well, with a handful of candidates, the politics are far more interesting. I hoped politics would limit our expansion but then the war with the Germans popped up. I'm still kinda "meh" about both the ambush and the "abduction."
:shrug:
I hope soon to resolve ANY issues ANYONE has with boredom due to politics, soon. Just waiting on one man to get it rolling :wink:.
Valid points, but many can be addressed IC. If you want the pool of candidates to be expanded for Seneschal, have a friendly Duke propose a CA. If you want some the new lands distributed, gather support for an edict calling for that.
Ignoramus has a good point that the replacable nature of avatars might be contributing to in game aggression compared to KotR.
I agree to a certain extent. We have more avatars in the field, the Order for example, and this allows us to expand more. While some people might be more cavalier with their avatars since there will be a replacement in the wings, I'm as careful with Hugues as I was with Otto and Matthias. More so when I'm shepherding other people's avatars. There is a mandated five turn break between avatars in the rules if one is killed.
But I also think that GH as Heinrich curtailed some expansion at the beginning of KotR to focus on development. I also tried to do the same in LotR. Tristan as King has exerted a more expansionistic influence. Granted, he isn't Seneschal, but he did start the war with the Germans. Like the approach or not, it's allowed within the rules.
In individual battles we are winning, however this has not stopped the AI from having several stacks larger and better equipped than our own. Personally, I have hesitated to face them in the open field. So I don't think it's as overmatched as everyone is claiming. If we keep up this pace, we will be checked at some point. Either by other factions dog piling or by excommunication.
I generally don't blitz as a rule in any of my campaigns. I just followed my usual protocol when I took the first turn as Chancellor in KotR. What's happened here would be considered extremely fast expansion for me.
I'm trying to set up a private social group for Lorraine. The group is up and running, but how do I invite KnightnDay and woad&fangs into it?
Edit: Checked the FAQ, which I should have done in the first place, and got it.
I am pretty happy with the RBGs and the fast expansion so far. We have to strike a balance between challenge and giving people things to do. It would be frustrating not to have an avatar and sit out several months of the game. I think people are more involved with their characters that they would be if they did not have avatars - there are so many good backstories now posted etc. And given that we do have so many avatars, it would be frustrating to have just five provinces at peace and so have most players twiddling their thumbs without the prospect of advancement. The King now has a decent number of provinces so that each Duchy can bid for them and several Knights can hope to become Counts etc.
The only issue is the level of challenge from the AI. Right now, it's kind of tense because we are over-extended. If we autoresolved our battles, we would fold. There might be a case for a GM "event" soon to bring this home - e.g. a German counter-invasion - and balance things up a little. Also, if we can continue restrain ourselves from fighting England or other factions for a while, it would be good. One war - with Germany - gives us something to do. It's if we start steamrollering everyone, then we will become a superpower and it will become less interesting. Lusted's guidelines were to only fight one faction for the first 50 turns or so, giving the rest time to build up. Germany is not a bad choice for that one faction for France to fight - HRE is big enough to take a beating and not fold immediately. With England, we are so intertwined, it will be hard to sustain a prolonged war. However, I'd like to see us try. Personally, I'd rather see this game depict a hard fought 100 year war with England than swiftly create a new Roman Empire - at least for a while. This would no doubt require some GM intervention.
I think in the end we have come to a consensus to leave things as it is and just be mindful of the next Seneschal's time in office and further unrestrained expansion.
Tristan is a bit of a freak and in isolation it is not catastrophic to the balance of power. Although if those players currently on the bench turn out to be as good we will have ourselves a real troubling situation.
As they say in Aussie Rules.
"Fair Bump Play On It's Just A Bit Of Claret!!"
Claret = blood.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do feel challenged. I've got the same back against the wall feeling I had when fighting in the cataclysm. I've been running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to prevent the Germans from crossing over the Rhine in force.
We've inflicted losses at Staufen and Dijon, but they're still going strong. There's no way I'd face them in a "fair" fight, unless I had something close to parity in numbers, which hasn't happened yet. If lose my archers I have nothing to replace them with. My only cavalry are the avatars. My best replacement troops would be town militia or peasants. Mercs are a limited and fickle option.
So, I don't think we need an event, at least on my front.
My thoughts on the game so far almost mirrors yours, Econ...Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The reason why I laucnhed ionto the war against the HRE was :
1/ to provide some of our avatars something to do.
2/ to provide challenge by stretching our resources. We all know that the AI on the battlemaps lacks in a lot of departments but providing challenge on the Campaign map, which I hope Philippe did compensated for that.
My last moves politically also tend towards what Econ has been broaching though the 100-years war will certainly be fought against the HRE rather than against England. And we could certainly do with a "backlash" event should we continue our expansion at such a pace.
I also tried, IC, to throw every possible obstacle in our way (preventing recruitment, encouraging non-military buildings,...) while creating fun battles for myself and others I hope.
And don't you worry about land allotment, Philippe will begin the lottery soon :juggle2:
Maybe it would be time to make your wishlist to Santa Claus :san_cool: