Kingdoms balance discussion

Nobunga no CA badge because no longer working for CA. :embarassed:

LadyAan I know the mistake was unintentional :inquisitive: but Wolves in what tribute?

Kyo you sly bugger :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: nice to be playing the forum game with ya me old buddie.

Mordred thanks for the kind words mate. To get it straight for everyone 75% of the changes 1st seen in Kingdoms had been made internally including a lot of newly exposed variables that allowed for better balance. This was then tweeked by a group of people with Mordred being the face of the competive gamer feedback and Lusted the face of the SP modder feedback. The final balance selections were set by the devs and were typically something in between what each player group wanted unless it was clearly apparent it needed to be a set way.

Just to provide some inside knowledge to the missile chat:

- Cavalry are easier targets for missiles now. So best Cav counters are spears and missiles.
- Shields (front only), body armour and no armour give the correct protection vs missiles. So its guns for shields, ap weapons for body armour and fastest firing rate for non-armoured.
- Accuracy greatly increases with range so take units off skirmish if you want to get that last volley off and cause high casualties.
- Cav Missiles receive an accuracy reduction when moving so cantab is more about self preservation than becoming a wheel of death.
- Cav missiles use different animation set up so they typically shoot faster with more ranks using flat accurate trajectories. So great if you unload on a good target, bad if not and you waste a lot of ammo quick.

Feel free to ask any other questions about Kingdoms balance and I will answer where I can. I have been permanently branded with a CA NDA.

"Nooone will bring a HA that costs more than 500 florins Mordred. I have never seen that happen. Those expensive horse archers are just fantasy units."
Theyre not fantasy units, lol! Just for western european factions, because they didnt use horse archery at all(nearly) fantasy units are battlefield assassins, sherwood archers, 2hp cav and mounted crossbowmen.
The problem is that expensive HAs are not worth their price, not even in kingdoms, play BC!!!

Originally Posted by Lupu:
The problem is that expensive HAs are not worth their price, not even in kingdoms, play BC!!!

That's what I say peep. And they become fantasy units where noone brings them.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Kyolic:
Anyway archers vs pavs issue was cleared now (Lupu please...please) I guess.

No one has posted any test results that clear the issue.

Originally Posted by Puzz3D:
No one has posted any test results that clear the issue.

Hmm Mordred posted this:

Originally Posted by :
- Archers: they must be used to fire most valuable units, specially cavalry and unshielded units. They can be useful firing from a second line also. They are not suitable to hold a missile duel Vs crossbows. If the enemy use crossbowmen and your faction haven't them, ignore enemy's crossbow. Go ahead and shoot at their more expensive cavalry/2 handed/unarmoured units. Try to aim the bulk of the army, because arrow fire it's like a zone attack, just like artillery, as opposite than crossbows. You can make a lot of "collateral damage" if you aim properly. Even if you lose your archers, you will win in the exchange. They are also useful to disrupt the gunpowder fire by rank skill due to his faster rate of fire, and crossbows cannot do that due to slower rate. Of course, be careful and don't put under enemy fire at first stages of the game battle your most valuable units like ottoman infantry or d'vors, because they are heavy infantry which also bear a bow and not pure missile units. And don't forget the ability to cause fear with fire arrows in melee, which many times dictates who rout first, or stakes ability. Of course your enemy will move his valuable units out of range of your arrows, but the solution shall also be told...

Now what tests do we need? We need to test if archers are able to beat pavs and crossbows? He already said they won't do that but they have a different function like shooting enemy melee troops (or countering ha) with their higher fire rate which makes perfect sense.

What do we have to test? Lupu's obsession with pav vs archer stuff?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Kyolic:
We need to test if archers are able to beat pavs and crossbows?

Yes if you want to refute Lupu's claim that certain archer units using a combination of shooting and melee can't beat xbows that cost less. His claim is that the more expensive unit looses. Since they are both ranged unit types there is no rock, paper, scissors gameplay within the ranged types that you can use to justify the more expensive unit loosing. The more expensive unit should win otherwise those particular units are unbalanced relative to each other. The fact that there are other cost effective targets available for archers doesn't address the issue of balance within unit classification.

Originally Posted by Puzz3D:
Lupu's claim that certain archer units using a combination of shooting and melee can't beat xbows

Is that the claim Lupu? That certain more (?) expensive archers are not able to beat pavise when shooting and having melee together?

Originally Posted by Puzz3D:
The fact that there are other cost effective targets available for archers doesn't address the issue of balance within unit classification.

That is probably right. But, if archers are better in performing that other task than xbows, there is another sort of balance.

What are we talking about? M2TW, Kingdoms or a mod?

Thread name: kingdoms balance discussion, is obvious what its about ;)
Yes thats my claim - 1 thing: the power of the archers mordred mentions is very difficult to make use of, so its in a way like if it would be like this: eles lower morale of units in a version where all but a few units have unbreakable moral, if you understand wht I mean.

Originally Posted by Lupu:
Thread name: kingdoms balance discussion, is obvious what its about ;)

It's good when all talk about the same thing: Vanilla Kingdoms balance.

Originally Posted by :
Yes thats my claim

A clear claim, thank you.

Originally Posted by :
- 1 thing: the power of the archers mordred mentions is very difficult to make use of, so its in a way like if it would be like this: eles lower morale of units in a version where all but a few units have unbreakable moral, if you understand wht I mean.

I believe that the mechanism is present in both Kingdoms Vanilla and Kingdoms Retrofit, but differently balanced? Is that correct?

I understand you say that fire has a morale hit, but that it has almost no meaning because units appear to laugh about it? And that it may be better to have the actual killing by xbows instead?

I have a question:
Arent pikes supposed to be out of this RPS system rendering it unlogical and useless? I mean pikes can beat anything you throw at front of them (I know that people used to roll under the pikes but still tehy needed pikes on their own to do this...) unless flanked or hit from behind...so its like rock beats paper and sissors...

Originally Posted by hellenes:
I have a question:
Arent pikes supposed to be out of this RPS system rendering it unlogical and useless? I mean pikes can beat anything you throw at front of them (I know that people used to roll under the pikes but still tehy needed pikes on their own to do this...) unless flanked or hit from behind...so its like rock beats paper and sissors...

It's not a 100% RPS in that a scissor always beats paper. That's never been so in any title. A pike unit is tough frontally. The long and heavy pike that makes it hard to close in, also makes the unit slower to turn and regroup to counter a flanking.

RPS is a bit of a misguiding name. Weaponclasses have an advantage over the other under certain conditions.

@TosaInu: No, fire arrows suck, i know but the power mordred mentions is shooting at main body of enemy army and kill more, archers do more damage than pavs in that way.

It started for vanilla kingdoms, the balance is nearly same, I taking exaple of retrofit now, because most people play retrof because theyre addicted of high age(anyone give me a GOOD reason for that?)

Originally Posted by Lupu:
@TosaInu: No, fire arrows suck, i know but the power mordred mentions is shooting at main body of enemy army and kill more, archers do more damage than pavs in that way.

I do not quite understand that. An arrow is an arrow. A full unit fires X arrows, and they hit or miss, whether they are xbow bolts or longbow shafts. It's true that a longbow arrow is larger, but only good contact with the point has a chance to kill. That's relatively the same for both. Why do archers kill more then?

Is it that the xbows are very accurate but coordinate poorly and aim for the same man twice or more (erasing sprites twice)? Archers don't coordinate either, but are less accurate. Resulting in more stray arrows and thus a higher chance to be destructive in mobs? Is that the idea?

Archers have higer accuracy, xbows have a flat trajectory, making them kill more men behind what their aiming at.
Its just that arcchers fire faster, and have more than half the damage of xbows per volley.

Originally Posted by Lupu:
Archers have higer accuracy,

You mean higher trajectory perhaps? I think xbows have a higher accuracy.

Originally Posted by :
xbows have a flat trajectory, making them kill more men behind what their aiming at.
Its just that arcchers fire faster, and have more than half the damage of xbows per volley.

Archers fire faster, have less accuracy than xbows, thus have more stray arrows per minute. Each stray arrow has a big chance to hit something in mobs and has more than half the power of xbow bolts, thus archers kill more in mobs per minute than xbows.

In a range fight, xbows are deployed in 2 or 3 (?) ranks. Now the stray arrows of archers will just hit air at a high rate. The ones that do hit also have to penetrate the pavise first.

The xbows however fire slower, but have more kills per volley due to higher accuracy and power.

Originally Posted by Lupu:
It started for vanilla kingdoms, the balance is nearly same, I taking exaple of retrofit now, because most people play retrof because theyre addicted of high age(anyone give me a GOOD reason for that?)

Historical :) M:TW/VI was mostly played at High age and favor heavy infantry. The same people who are playing Retrofit. They balanced the mod mostly for that Era.

Annie

Its more balanced for all, because there turks for example have a viable inf.

@TosaInu: No, i checked descr_projectile, arrows ahve higher accurcy than bolts, but xbows hit better at close range.

Originally Posted by Lupu:
@TosaInu: No, i checked descr_projectile, arrows ahve higher accurcy than bolts, but xbows hit better at close range.

An accuracy gradient?

Originally Posted by TosaInu:
An accuracy gradient?

The number attached in descr_missile to accuracy doesn't work as Lupu thinks. The lower the better, and not the opposite. And it's also as important as accuracy the values given to angles and missile speeds...

*sigh*

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred:
The number attached in descr_missile to accuracy doesn't work as Lupu thinks. The lower the better, and not the opposite. And it's also as important as accuracy the values given to angles and missile speeds...

Hello CeltiberoMordred,

I see, like division by a lower number gives a better result.

There are two values for velocity, does that mean that a projectile is slowing down now? Or is it still a constant (this being the range/'speed' combo a bit like in STW, MTW)?

Originally Posted by TosaInu:
Hello CeltiberoMordred,

I see, like division by a lower number gives a better result.

There are two values for velocity, does that mean that a projectile is slowing down now? Or is it still a constant (this being the range/'speed' combo a bit like in STW, MTW)?

No, the two values are related to the 2 types of shoots: normal and high angle shoot if line of sight is locked. There are only 2 values for arrows and bolts. If you remove one of them, then they will only use the normal angle shoot, and if any soldier have locked his line of sight, he simply won't shoot.

Increasing the higher of these values implies a reduction of the shoot angle for normal shots and an increase of missile speed, as well as a more "random radius" - I want to mean with this the radius of a circle where a failed shot can drop, having as center the targeted soldier. Increasing missile speed implies also a better lethality.

Decreasing the lower value implies a reduction of the maximun range of the unit, becoming lower than the default max range value, and shooting with low strength, with a very low chance of get kills.

Ive just got in Idea, why cant you remove the high angle shot velocity from xbow units?

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred:
No, the two values are related to the 2 types of shoots: normal and high angle shoot if line of sight is locked. There are only 2 values for arrows and bolts. If you remove one of them, then they will only use the normal angle shoot, and if any soldier have locked his line of sight, he simply won't shoot.

Increasing the higher of these values implies a reduction of the shoot angle for normal shots and an increase of missile speed, as well as a more "random radius" - I want to mean with this the radius of a circle where a failed shot can drop, having as center the targeted soldier. Increasing missile speed implies also a better lethality.

Decreasing the lower value implies a reduction of the maximun range of the unit, becoming lower than the default max range value, and shooting with low strength, with a very low chance of get kills.

Thank you CeltiberoMordred.

About RPS, here's a nice illustration how all should work when the system is balanced. Useful as a checklist for testing balancing.

http://homepage.mac.com/felixungman/weapon-systems.gif

I disagree completely with the diagram. Maybe I don't understand the labels?

Light infantry wins over heavy infantry? Heavy cavalry is only used to chase light infantry?

Annie

Admittedly, this is very abstract.

heavy = melee
light = missile
direction arrow indicates who has the initiative

heavy inf can't attack light inf becase they are faster
so light inf can win by shooting while avoiding melee

heavy cav can't attack light cav because they are faster
heavy cav can't attack heavy inf because it is a better platform (think spears/pikes)
so, yes, in a pure matchup the role of heavy cav is to attack light inf

In reality there are various factors that affect these pure roles. Flanking may cancel the platform advantage of infantry. Terrain may cancel the speed advantage of cavalry. Or the range of light units. And of course, combined arms is very important.

Your diagram is over-simplified. There are many kind of units in M2:TW than that. Even Shogun:TW has more complex relations.

Annie

How do you mean, is there one system that is more complex, or are there several sub-systems within this system (e.g. the Sword-Spear-Cav-system)? I haven't played that much M2:TW, how exactly does it look like there?

Since Shogun:TW (subsequence titles have increasingly more categories), there were at least three kind of cavalry:

- Heavy cavalry: intent to flank and kill infantry, heavy or light (except spear/pike infantry). High armor (thus "heavy"), high defense and attack, high charge, slowest cavalry, but still faster than infantry. Win against anything that let it charge, except spear/pikes (frontally only) and light cavalry. When in melee, they are somewhat at par with heavy infantry. Spear/pikes if retain cohesion will win against any kind of cavalry in melee.

- Light cavalry: intent to kill other kind of cavalry and light infantry. Low armor (thus "light"), lower defense, medium-high attack, low charge, fastest.

- Missile cavalry: intent to harash with range weapons. Fast cavalry but slower than light cavalry.

It is harder to characterize infantry because they have the parameters of armor, attack, defense and range weapons. Heavy/light was not enough to describe them.

- Light pikes/spears infantry. Not much armor, long sticks, kill cavalry, lose against all others. Move fastest.

- Light combat infantry. Has some armor. Loose against heavy infantry and heavy/light cavalry, move fast, win against spears.

- Heavy combat infantry. High armor, high defense, could be low/high attack (thus defensive heavy or offensive heavy). Win against most thing in melee, except heavy cavalry (kinda a draw).

- Missile infantry. Could have low or high armor, but use range missile. Good against missile cavalry. Loose against every one else in melee.


In Medieval:Totalwar, there are "hybrid" units (medium armor cavalry that could shoot missile for example, or sword infantry who could also shoot arrows), "armor piercing" units, units that can hide, "shield" which is effective against arrow or attack from certain direction, etc. In Rome:Totalwar, the Greek phalanx is a hybrid between heavy infantry and pikes, and then there are elephants, chariots, chanting monks, etc.


I believe the question of balance isn't strictly in the stats, but also the costs of the total army. It is OK to have uber units as long as it costs a lot and every other faction has at least a unit to counter the uber unit.

Annie
ps.: There is no battle field geisha yet... but you should fear them.

i read alot of the xbows vs archers thing, and i played alot of mtw1. i remember pav arbs ruled all.

they always beat archers, but thats what i expected of a "modern" weapon system vs an ancient one

hell, the pope tried to ban xbows from battles


its all jibber jabber anyway, nobody even playes kingdoms and its rare i see a retrofit game up. :creep: