Printable View
(How about muslim-nasrid version of halberdiers? I mean, it LOOKS like a halberdier)Quote:
They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.
It does, but isn't. There were many types of poleaxes but the halberd was quite unique in it's useage and design. It is not really synonymous with muslim spain. I would be all for armour piercing attack, but not anti cavalry bonuses.
I've been thinking upon the Byzantine units and concerns voiced by Omanes. I have used the following stats for Byzantine units with varying successes.
Byzantine Infantry - 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 4 Defense, 3 Armor, 0-2 Morale. This unit ends up surviving very long in fights. It's shield combined with the high defense easily offsets poor morale, and their disciplined and elite status virtually guarantees them not routing unless in absolutely horrid conditions. Large unit sizes means the unit is effectively invulnerable except to Knights and Heavy Cavalry and/or good tactics, where as smaller unit sizes can cause a quick rout despite good defense.
Byzantine Infantry - 4 Charge, 3 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Armor, 4 Morale. This unit quickly loses men but can eat a whole through most defenses. It's shield helps in combat and the good morale combined with their disciplined and elite status keeps them on the field long enough to do their work. Smaller unit sizes allow for better flanking, which can be critical to this unit; larger unit sizes make it less vulnerable to cavalry but very clumsy, which is generally bad for such a unit type.
Varangian Guard - 5 Charge, 3 Attack, 5 Defense, 5 Armor, 6 Morale. This unit is an excellent shock unit, and very capable in a melee. The problem is that it easily outclasses most infantry throughout Early and the beginnings of High. It's shield combined with the high defense, very good morale, and elite and disciplined status means the unit can virtually walk through hell and back. Unit sizes aren't really a factor for this unit variation.
Varangian Guard - 4 Charge, 5 Attack, 4 Defense, 3 Armor, 8 Morale. This unit is bar none in a melee, but has problems with projectiles. Again, the problem is that it easily outclasses most infantry throughout Early and the beginnings of High. It's shield, excellent morale, and elite and disciplined status offsets the lower armor rating. This unit is significantly affected by unit sizes, the larger the better.
Kataphraktoi - 8 Charge, 3 Attack, 6 Defense, 8 Armor, 8 Morale. Truly filling the role of shock cavalry, this unit variation has a bit of a weakness in a melee. A problem is that its defense virtually guarantees immunity to arrows for the most part of the Early era, but artillery works fine ;). The high defensive capabilities has the tendency to create "Jedi" units (yes that right, the only thing worse then a Jedi general is 20-30 of them) that DO NOT DIE! (Ask the 95 Halberdiers that performed flanking maneuvers, were supported by 60 arbalesters, and the 40 Chivalric Knights that went Jedi too, who lay littered across the battlefield during testing; oh well, accidents happen).
Kataphraktoi - 6 Charge, 5 Attack, 5 Defense, 6 Armor, 6 Morale. This unit type fares far better in a melee, but seems to attract missile fire. Conventional weaponry now works against this type, and I suggest you use missile fire because they will outclass most of your units in Early, but are easily killed by High and Late (on another note, you can actually rout this unit). With an emphasis on offense rather then defense, this type creates "Sith" units and generals (Kills everything in sight then proceeds to die from a peasant, and I'm not kidding) that DO DIE, but will take a nice portion of your forces that varies upon your tactics.
Psiloi - 4 Charge, 3 Attack, -2 Defense, 1 Armor, 4 Morale. This unit is an excellent skirmisher and flanker, but does not excel at anything else. Good for starting the initial rout of the enemy. Poor defenses mean this unit’s numbers drop like flies in an inferno, with cavalry tearing them apart with amazing ferocity.
Psiloi - 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Armor, 0-2 Morale. This unit is an excellent skirmisher and can act as back up infantry, but is extremely poor in the shock and flanking department compared to the other type. Decent defense in turn gives staying power, but is still sub par compared to other infantry.
As of right now I am doing work on the other Byzantine units and reworking the entire unit structure of the Catholics to make their rosters a little more unique. I am doing this all from a fresh install on my laptop. I will be working on individual unit rosters for the “possible” factions.
I can't comment on your changes as yet as I'm at work, and need some time to analyse them. From observation I would advise that Psiloi be left as is. All units are supposed to have strengths and weakness. Psiloi are light infantry with bows small shields and swords, if charged down by cavalry they wob't have much of a chance. The Byzantine would have screened these with units of Kontaratoi or Skutatoi to prevent them from being engaged directly by enemy cavalry, the game needs to reflect this. For Kataphraktoi we don't want them to outclass units such as Chivalric Knights.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
If you want to do work on unit stats for this mod, then it might be a good idea for you to have the latest files to work with. I'll see about getting those to you when I have time.
:bow:
Souds good to me, but I would like a free hand in unit testing. What that entials is that I will design basically unit classes and customize that factions units so that each unit has a role, and these roles basically remain intact throughout the game. so certian unit stats may be changed dramatically.
This is up to yourself. I can supply you with the latest files, though that will probably be when 1.0.7 is released to be honest, and you are then free to do as you wish. I cannot guarantee that anything you do will be added to the next version, but I can have a look at it. As I've said before I'm running this in phases and we're no where near the balancing and refining phase yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
:bow:
Any projection dates on 1.0.7b release? I will collect all my data over the next few days on what I have done and send it you, including my unit rosters.
Sorry to interrupt your topic again with my annoying and pesky suggestions which are hopelessly useless and illogical. Yet may I suggest that, when the High Era is entered, that the old units become out-dated, however they are still re-trainable yet they upgrade to the more modern level after the re-train - similar to what occurs to the existing Royal Knights and other similar bodyguards.
I'm not really permitted to comment on this, I'm not really experienced enough in M:TW to understand the AI correctly, yet, I think, that it could resolve the problems which you mentioned regarding the AI building less balanced rosters, while preventing the player from having problems when his/her Feudal units become out-dated.
Hope this idea helps, sorry if I'm being a pestilence to you, cheers!
No idea as yet. I'm not working to a schedule. I advise that if you are going to develop any rosters that you don't dwell too much on dependency buildings as those are going to be overhauled. Also you should not base any of your stats on valour, weapon or armour upgrades as their won't be any of these in the pocket mod except a +1 valour in the highest level barracks. I am going to build a new unit training tech tree based on these key components:
Training Facility: Courts/Estates, Muster field/Barracks, Ribat or Chapter House.
Equipment facilities: Blacksmith, Horse Breeder, Armourer, Spearmaker, Bowyer, Swordsmith, Gunsmith, Siege Engineer.
Equipment facilities will produce a small income in the province. Training facilities may incur a running cost but could also improve loyalty in the province.
Every unit will depend on one training facility and one or more Equipment facilities. I will base the need for training facility on the units stats as follows (not entirely finalised as yet):
Blacksmith for equipping axe and "peasant style" units with rude swords, as well as the shoes for all cavalry (historic data for cavalry horses that didn't use shoes during the period welcome to exempt them from this.)
Horse Breeder for all cavalry, the noble or elite cavalry always requiring either of the two highest levels, lighter cavalry needing only the first level and most medium cavalry needing the second.
Armourer based on unit's armour stats, the better quality armour the better type of armourer it will need. This is the reverse of the old system where the armourer unrealistically gave "extra armour" to the units.
Spearmaker for equipping all spear and polearm units, though polearms may perhaps need the swordsmith or blacksmith also. I'm thinking pole and axe/spear head as separate parts.
Bowyer for bows, crossbows and arbalests, though arbalests made use of a lot of steel, and steel is used for bolts. So I'm thinking that in the case of arbalests, blacksmith and bowyer.
Swordsmith, any unit with a sword, mace, etc would depend on these. The level of dependency perhaps depending on the class of the unit.
Gunsmith and Siege engineer self explanatory, though with only Arquebusiers and Handguns/Mamluk Handguns and some artillery.
Two suggestions:
-The old "increase Jinetes cost" one, to make it impossible to spam them. (sorry for over-repeating, but this time I am testing it playing as Castile, instead of just messing aronud with another faction and keeping an eye on the "Juggernaut vs Getting Wiped in Twenty Turns" balance, and it seems to work just fine)
-Spanish Javelinmen: as they are now, they´re a tad useless, as they're more expensive to keep up&build than the Jobbagy, exactly as poor in HtH combat, and they lack their charge bonus.
HOWEVER, when compared to Urban Militia, they are actually somewhat better, due to having a slightly higher morale, and, while lacking the "against armor" bonus, have javelins as a compensation factor.
So, how about removing Urban Militia from the Castilian/Aragonese rooster, and leaving the javelinmen as their base unit, with the cost reduced from 35 to 30 (Jobbagy cost)? It wouldn't be a-historical either, as guerrilla warfare using javelins was quite widespread (That was what the almugharavs were about anyway)
EDIT: another suggestion. Don't know if it's possible, but it prolly is: About the Nasrid kingdom of Granada: would it be possible to dump them into the "CATHOLIC_CULTURE", yet keep them as muslim-religion, hence giving them a mostly European rooster, and somehow let them keep the Mosque, and forbid building churches?
Changing the music isn't hard: it´s done from the startpos.
Post up the stats and I'll put it in the next release.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
I've already removed UM and MS from all factions. The UM and MS are now the Outremer Militias only recruitable in the crusader states. I like the idea of the javelinmen as the base unit. Reducing the cost seems like a good idea also.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
:bow:
I just increased the upkeep cost, to make building them more limited. The in-game cost is now at 90. I can't post right now the exact change in the Unit_Crusaders_Build.txt because I´m not at my computer, but it was around 12, or so (I got the idea from the PKT price upkeep, btw :thumbsup:)Quote:
Post up the stats and I'll put it in the next release.
On Spanish Javalinmen ( bad name in my opinion, but if one could come up with something better...). What do you think of making them Portuguese and Castile-Leon only? Make the Almughavars Castile-Leon and Aragonese? Also, improve the stats of the SJ so that they can actually fight in HTH, thus better reflecting thier guerilla combat style. Say, 4 Charge, 1-2 Attack, 0 to 1 defense, 1 Armor, and 2 Morale? I also heard that the Javelins used by the spanish were of execellent quality, and could be thrown farther distances then your conventional Javelin.
Almugharavs (from Arab, "bandits", or somesuch, with which muslims referred to all javelin guerrillas in Northern Spain, but for some reason it has stuck to Catalonian/Aragonese -pretty much like the epiteth "byzantine"-) as they are right now in the game are fairly unrealistic, as in truth they would be pretty much what the Spanish Javelinmen are: fast, skirmish units. Certainly not spear/javelin combo anticavalry units. So perhaps the name (and the unit pixel, as javelinmen look like peasants, whereas the almugharav unit has a helmet) could be switched to "Almugharavs", with a mixed description. I'd make them avaiable to all Spanish factions. I'm pretty sure that Castile used them, at the very least when they were just a rebellious duchy of Leon. And I´m pretty certain that Navarre and Aragon used those tactics.Quote:
On Spanish Javalinmen ( bad name in my opinion, but if one could come up with something better...). What do you think of making them Portuguese and Castile-Leon only? Make the Almughavars Castile-Leon and Aragonese?
Well, I suggested leaving them as a base unit for the Spanish factions rooster, replacing the standard "fodder" infantry, and making their upkeep cheaper. Historically Almugharavs went with very light, or no armor at all (to increase mobility).Quote:
Also, improve the stats of the SJ so that they can actually fight in HTH, thus better reflecting thier guerilla combat style. Say, 4 Charge, 1-2 Attack, 0 to 1 defense, 1 Armor, and 2 Morale
Well, this I don´t know. I guess it could be a reference to Roman times, as Roman soldiers used a special, heavy javelin which bent upon impact, making it non-reutilizable, whereas (I guess) iberian and celtiberian tribes might have used regular throwing spears. Maybe someone can clear up this?Quote:
I also heard that the Javelins used by the spanish were of execellent quality, and could be thrown farther distances then your conventional Javelin.
I had a thought pop into my head :idea2:. I was looking over the catholic unit roster had have found that they have a lot of redundant units, especially spearmen. I was think of possibly reducing this redundantcy by shifting the rosters slightly. My idea is as follows...
1) Remove most of the Chivalric unit types from the more eastern catholic factions, such as the HRE, Hungary, Poland, etc. It was Spanish, French, Sicilians, and English who would have used and exemplified the ideals of "chivalry".
2) Make the Halberdier east only (HRE, Poland, Hungary, Italians, and Russians). With CFK avaible, they are essentially a reduntant, weaker version of that unit.
I have other ideas, but I would like to hear from the rest of you first. I have plans to balance out the loss of chivalric units for the other factions, but I would like to know what you think first.
I believe the Almughavars in the game are supposed to represent the Catalan Company, and not just Almughavars in general. The spanish Javelinmen should probably be renamed Almughavars and the original Almughavars given much the same stats, with perhaps higher morale and renamed as Catalan Almughavars and only recruitable in Aragon. I wouldn't restrict them by faction, only by homelands. I would have any of the Spanish factions train both types, but only within their homelands, which makes more sense.
I have been working on the Spearmen units roster already. You should find it covered in this thread. Initially the western factions have only "Sergeants" which are the standard square shield Spearmen with higher morale. In the high era the Sergeants are replaced with an identical unit equivalent to Feudal Sergeants named "Sergeants". In the late era the Chivalric Sergeants replace the Feudals. Throughout, the unit is called simply Sergeants. All catholic factions have these with the following exceptions:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
Danes, Hungarians and Poles: Spearmen (round shield spearmen) in early in place of Sergeants.
The Russians/Kiev and Novgorod have Rus Spearmen in early, and (Armoured) Spearmen in High/Late (for now).
The "Chivalric" naming is flawed as it implies a chivalric era. In reality chivalry can only be applied to the knighthood of western Europe. The Chivalric and Feudal units in the game are so named for lack of any better names, there wasn't a Chivalric era starting in 1204, the change is there really to represent advances in arms and armour but the Chivalric naming is misleading.
I have already removed the Feudal and Chivalric naming from all units. Knights are Knights. When the old early era Knights are done with the High era Knights come into fashion, simple. Lancers will probably be the third level of simply "Knights". This is probably their best role and will give a balanced unit roster. The Gothic units would be the fourth level also only available in late but only to certain factions such as the Italians, German HRE and French. Alternatively the Gothics could be restructured as an alternative third level only for the Italians, German HRE and French. They would then not have the Late era Sergeants or Late era Knights, instead having Gothic Knights and Gothic Sergeants. This is the approach I prefer personally.
I'm not sure I see the need for that, no historical basis. It would also disrupt game balance. CFK are not available as they are only available through dismount. The AI cannot dismount it's troops before battle, so dismounting could count as an AI exploit. I have considered removing dismounts altogether for this reason, I was persuaded some time ago that it was the best policy to have all cavalry dismountable when looking at things from an historical basis. Of course those men could have dismounted when needed so why not? But because the AI cannot do the same in the same situation then IMHO the historical aspect it moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
Of course Halberdiers could be removed from the English as they have Billmen which are the same kind of thing, apart from that though all of the Catholic and Russian factions should have them. The Byzantine are simply a faction apart as with the muslims and have their own strengths and weaknesses and eastern mode of warfare, so Halberdiers would not be right for them and would turn them into a "hammer and anvil" faction like the catholics, which is not what we want.
Another factor is the "SPEAR" classification that Puzz3D mentioned. Spears were nerfed in MTW 1.1 and removing the "SPEAR" classification from all units would increase the overall effectiveness of spears instead of them being units that specialise in dying slowly, and remove the hidden +1 attack vs spears that swords get. This would turn spears into lesser cavalry killers, decent infantry and good defensive units when placed in hold formation. It also better reflects the backbone of an army that spearmen were historically instead of the nests of static "pikes" they have been made into in MTW. I would also give spearmen a higher anti cavalry bonus, perhaps 2 in line with pikemen.
I understood that the "SPEAR" classification was not used in SW but after checking the unit prod files it appears to be in both SP and MP? Maybe I've got it wrong. :shrug:
I seem to have this habit of not explaining myself correctly... oh well, here we go...
I knew about the spearmen, I was simply using them as an example. I also know that Chivalric is just like Gothic (Odd that units should be named after a group of people who are essentialy nonexistent). For instance, CFK CAN be made trainable, and renamed Halberdiers. They would serve as the Spanish, Sicilian (Who I think, along with the Almohads, should have an Islamic Halberdier (Muslim MS); I think Adulasian (sp) Halberdier might work for a name), French, and English Halberdier. More eastern factions could make use of the standard Halberdier (with a slight improvement to keep pace); Catholic (and Russia!)ONLY (Actually, I was wondering if the Nicaeans wouldn't have used Halberdiers...have to look that up.) This way it eliminates clutter and redundancy, and also makes the factions a little more unique (Whenever you played as any catholic faction, didn't matter which, you were essentially playing with different colors and location, that about it.)Quote:
Originally posted by Caravel
I have been working on the Spearmen units roster already. You should find it covered in this thread. Initially the western factions have only "Sergeants" which are the standard square shield Spearmen with higher morale. In the high era the Sergeants are replaced with an identical unit equivalent to Feudal Sergeants named "Sergeants". In the late era the Chivalric Sergeants replace the Feudals. Throughout, the unit is called simply Sergeants. All catholic factions have these with the following exceptions:
Danes, Hungarians and Poles: Spearmen (round shield spearmen) in early in place of Sergeants.
The Russians/Kiev and Novgorod have Rus Spearmen in early, and (Armoured) Spearmen in High/Late (for now).
The "Chivalric" naming is flawed as it implies a chivalric era. In reality chivalry can only be applied to the knighthood of western Europe. The Chivalric and Feudal units in the game are so named for lack of any better names, there wasn't a Chivalric era starting in 1204, the change is there really to represent advances in arms and armour but the Chivalric naming is misleading.
I have already removed the Feudal and Chivalric naming from all units. Knights are Knights. When the old early era Knights are done with the High era Knights come into fashion, simple. Lancers will probably be the third level of simply "Knights". This is probably their best role and will give a balanced unit roster. The Gothic units would be the fourth level also only available in late but only to certain factions such as the Italians, German HRE and French. Alternatively the Gothics could be restructured as an alternative third level only for the Italians, German HRE and French. They would then not have the Late era Sergeants or Late era Knights, instead having Gothic Knights and Gothic Sergeants. This is the approach I prefer personally.
As for the Gothic units, I think the HRE should have them exclusively. They Could be the western version of the Janissaries. Second, they should be renamed more appropriately, say to "Imperial" or another. The Sergeants could be a form of Halberdier, I am working on making a GMAA, Foot Knights to Zweihanders, GK to just Knights.
I also agree on the "No dismount". It would also free up the "Foot Knights", to be renamed and better used elsewhere.
Chivalric is not like Gothic. Gothic was that particular style of armour: http://www.artfund.org/images/artwor...hp?id=1933.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
The "Chivalric" units in the game roughly represent the armour of the 13th to 14th century, wheras the "Feudal" units are representative of earlier 11th and 12th century armour.
The "Gothic" units represents Gothic Armour that started to appear sometime around the 15th century. With CA allowing the Italians to train "Gothic" units there is evidence of some compromise there, to represent the Milanese armours. Both types of armour were also in widespread use in France.
I disagree with renaming CFK as halberdiers. They are foot knights armed with poleaxes and not halberdiers. Their stats would have to be considerably nerfed and all that would be gained would be a duplicate unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
For the Moorish Halberdiers I would give them Halberdiers stats and rename them as "Andalusian Militia". The info pics for Muslim UM and MS are so close that there is no point using both types.
I am against giving Halberdiers to the Byzantine factions as it would turn them into Hammer and Anvil types in line with the Catholics. I'm also against giving random latin auxiliary units to the Byzantine factions, as this would imply that their own rosters were somehow lacking, which in fact they are not.
There was no western version of Janissaries. The HRE was not a real empire, like the Ottomans or Byzantines with "Imperial" units and unique Knights and infantry, it was a federation of Germans. They should have no really unique units, except a few localised ones such as Swabian Swordsmen. The Gothic armoured units should be more widely available and certainly available to the French and Burgundians. The Gothic Sergeants are simply Gothic Armoured Spearmen, the Gothic Men at Arms were never used. Gothic Foot Knights are armed with two handed swords but are not the "Zweihander" equipped units of the 16th century that were used to break up pike formations. The best name for them is probably the current one as it represents their armour type and infantry type.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
The Foot Knights could be made trainable in small units as they are with the same dependencies as their mounted equivalents minus the blacksmith and horse breeder.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
:bow:
Removing the dismount option would remove something which I think is a blatant exploit as it is. Because (for example): in an Almo game I´m toying with right now, I had four camel archers (you get them when you start) and had to face an army of... horse archers, I think. So instead of using the camels, I dismounted and found myself with four LONGBOW DESERT ARCHERS, hence gaining range to kill those pesky HA before they got near. AKA: I had a short-bow unit, and got ex-nihilo longbow-ers. In the Vikings campaign is pretty much the same: you can dismount your light cavalry to get heavy infantry, for pretty much the same price.
Also: Noticed a bug: Ghulam Bodyguards can be built in Cordoba without a horse breeder (The Ghulam Cavalry still needs it, however).
(When reformed I´d suggest improving the infrastructure of Cordoba a bit, so that better troops than "Militia sergeants", or whatever replaces them in the next version, can be built. Not much better, however, as, as it is, you can scare the Castilian AI into retreating wholly from Castile, and slash and burn)
Sidenote about rebelliousness: You were right, a rebelliousness of 5 is just too high. I was, after a fashion, aiming at keeping the "historically independent" rebellious provinces independent, but as it is now I am the only one able to put a foot onto them. Navarre remains "invictus" (I haven´t touched it as the almos), whereas I only hold to Portugal because I made a massive invasion with my militia guards.
On this same topic, otherwise the increased rebelliousness is a great succeess. Where before I mostly got bandits and peasants, now I get full-fledged religious revolts, making it hard to hold onto fast-conçuest fits (which, on the other hand, does grant islamic factions a bonus, as they can Jihad back those provinces)
Well that is a good example. While it could be argued that Berber camels could be given the composite bow along with the horse archer types I'm not sure that the berbers actually used composite bows of the same quality as Turks, Huns and Mongols.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Not a bug, Ghulam Bodyguards need only a Royal Palace and have no homelands restrictons. This is something that will be addressed in the next version when all units will be given more realistic dependencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
That will be decided upon once the province layout has been looked at.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
If you want "independent" rebels then placing a famous leader with good command stars and some decent units and infrastructure should do it. about 3 to 4 rebelliousness is more than enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
:bow:
Well that is a good example. While it could be argued that Berber camels could be given the composite bow along with the horse archer types I'm not sure that the berbers actually used composite bows of the same quality as Turks, Huns and Mongols.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Not a bug, Ghulam Bodyguards need only a Royal Palace and have no homelands restrictons. This is something that will be addressed in the next version when all units will be given more realistic dependencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
That will be decided upon once the province layout has been looked at.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
If you want "independent" rebels then placing a famous leader with good command stars and some decent units and infrastructure should do it. about 3 to 4 rebelliousness is more than enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
:bow:
Almohad and Nasrid Kingdom roosters footnote:
While playing the almohads, I´ve noticed that there's a big lack of heavy infantry by their part. Sure, you get, eventually, Andalusian infantry, which is as good as any other sword infantry in the game, and better than many, but it comes too late into play. This is partially offset by the access to the composite bows of desert archers, and, as it is now, by mass-building of Militia Guards (armored, good defense), as well as the Al-Mwahid spearmen (the sergeantish ones. Not a very good armor, but fast and with good morale. They make a good stance)
If the almos lose the urban militia, they don't necessarily need replacement, but maybe, if they were given enough infrastructure in Africa, it could be offset by mass building of light cavalry. And there are always the almo spearmen.
The nasrids, however, would not get either the bows or the spearmen, and if they got the sahara cavalry, it would be AFTER taking over the Almos. If they ever did. They would have Andalusian infantry, but again, this would be a late-comer.
So they'd need a replacement for Militia Sergeants. Ideally: a cheap, semi-decent infantry unit. Since the muslim militias already show a polearm, they could be made into a spear (maybe even pike?) unit. The standard Militia guards I do not like: in the battlefield they don't look different to christian units, and they wield this ugly hammer-looking thingie (which while nasty looking, is unfitting given that their portrait displays them with a long weapon)
They're all eras and depend, currently, on the Swordsmiths' Workshop and Armourers' Workshop. They're almost equivalent to CMAA so I don't see them as being available too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
The Muslim UM/MS will be looked at. There is the possibility of the Ghazi infantry (Dervish) sprite with a longer, currently unused, axe. I'm not sure how the coordinates for weapons within the sprite files are set, Belisario may know. The other alternative one is the AUM/Varangian Guards/CMAA sprite with simply the axe, this is not ideal though. Personally I think the best option would be the neutral looking Swiss Pikemen/Gallowglass/Woodsmen/Swiss Halberdiers/Almughavars/Jobbagy sprite. It would just need the same script as the Swiss Halberdiers and the halberd weapon looks the part.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
:bow:
My ideas are simply suggestions Caravel, most of which are motivated by the fact that all the Catholic factions play the same, which IS ahistorical. They shared tactics, not units or styles of battle. For instance, the Spanish and English had a penchant for guerilla warfare, but right now the ENGLISH could beat the FRENCH with knights:inquisitive: :dizzy2: ...I'm missing something.
So the basic premise of all my ideas is to give each and every faction at LEAST a semi-unique unit roster to differentiate it from the others. I want to stop being harrased by French archers, English knights, Danish cavalry, Italian artillery and Polish heavy infantry:dizzy2: . Some diversity, please.
I agree with you in principle. My point was focused entirely on Gothic Knights however and it is my opinion that they should be recruitable by the Germans, French, Burgundians and Italians, but definitely not by the English, Spanish or Danes for example. The Lancers are also probably wrong for the rest of the factions, perhaps they would do better as the Milanese Knights for the Italians only?Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
I see your point and agree, as I've said my main point of disagreement was converting the Gothic units into "Imperial" units for the HRE. I prefer these units available as they are, in the late era, but with the addition of the French and Burgundians as some of the factions that can train them.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
I am in effect familiar with unit bifs and its shields/weapons. If you need help I can add shields or weapons from one bif to another or even create different shields. However I am not able to make new soldier sprites, this need a high skill in graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Concerning axes: I'd be wary of making units that have too many bonuses. I post this after some experiences in the Vikings campaign, where 300 Tegnar slaughtered a l500 big pictish army composed by hundreds of spearmen, celtic warriors, the king, and his son (both died in battle).
IMHO as it is now Ghazi infantry and Halberdiers are balanced because Ghazis don't get a humongous defense bonus (and hence reckless use results in their demise) and halberdiers, while having good attack and good armor, have a bad morale (hence reckless use results in a mass rout).
Thanks, I'm looking for Muslim type sprites that have a two handed attack animation and so far I can't see any. Probably the Swiss Halberdiers sprite I mentioned before may be the best compromise. It will certainly look a lot better than the Militia Sergeants and Crossbowmens sprites anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
Axes are given the vs armour bonus in the unit prod file and that's it. Apart from that an axeman is a swordsmen. Polearms differ in that they also have a +3 attack vs cavalry and a +1 defence vs cavalry. What makes huscarles so deadly is the combination of the AP bonus and the very evenly balanced stats that consist of a decent defence and high base morale. They don't really have any weaknesses and can hold their own in sustained melee.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
A thought on the German unit line. Considering thier rather factitious nation, could we give regional units to them? Say from Bavaria, Franconia, Bohemia, Austria, Swabia (duh!) and Saxony?
I am in agreement with this. We'll need to get some data, info pics and suggested stats down. I can add the units both in game and in battle once that's done.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
There is another issue, and one that won't go away. In fact I need to sort this out now as it hampers my testing. Bodyguard units. The AI will still builds these even if I set the influences low, and the price high. But there are other side effects. Too high a training cost actually creates massive six figure ransom notes for prisoners so that is out.
The dilemma is that the though the player can retrain his bodyguards, the AI doesn't, the AI just looks at the stats and thinks, now this is a good unit, and trains one, if I've set a high training cost this basically nukes the treasury in a turn. The support costs are very low, minimal in fact, I've stated my reasons for this before but for those that may have missed it, this is so that AI factions don't get paralysed when an heir suddenly appears on the scene. Also once the heirs have dropped out of succession the faction still has to support those units, and because the AI cannot disband it cannot get rid of them and has to continue paying. This is why you see Aragon and Denmark with many Royal Knight units garrisoned but doing nothing - they are probably tens of thousands of florins in the red. So I have a double edged sword.
The only solution I can come up with is to make the bodyguard units non trainable. That is to say that heirs come of age commanding a bodyguard unit and that's it. There should no retraining, the AI cannot retrain units anyway, so the player is forced to take better care of his royalty. This for me is the best approach to the problem. This won't put Boyars, Kapikulu Sipahi or Kataphraktoi out of the game as regular units as I've already cloned them and made regular and bodyguard versions of each. The only units that will no longer be available at all, except through heirs maturing, will be the Ghulam Bodyguards. The Royal Knights already have equivalents in the regular Knights units.
To me this also better reflects these types of units. They were unique made up of certain individuals, on their death they could not be replaced so easily. It is a pity that heirs units don't regenerate like a kings unit. That was a bad decision by the developer not to include such a feature, even if heirs regenerated their unit much slower it would still have been better than nothing at all.
The player will be able to stockpile the old units of some of those useless ex heirs and use them for merging into their better ex heirs' bodyguard units and heirs' units - which is still more than the AI can do.
The downside will be the loss of that era to era retrain upgrade of Royal Knights and Ghulam Bodyguards, though this is yet another "feature" that the AI cannot take advantage of, and will be lost anyway when building dependencies are changed.
To try and nullify some of the impact of this, it may be an idea to increase the size of bodyguard units further, bringing them up to standard cavalry (40/66/80) size to increase their chances of survival - that is a 40 man and horse scalable unit. The old 20 man units were very easy pickings (and absolutely useless on large and huge unit sizes), with a unit (probably the general) often being routed by barrage of missiles. The increase up to the standard cavalry size would lessen this impact, and help the AI which is not good at keeping it's royalty alive in battle.
:bow: