Printable View
At the behest of Simon Appleton, I'm opening this thread for questions about game mechanics that we might not be able to answer empirically. He has also volunteered to maintain the list based on the submissions in this thread.
PS: The existence of this thread does not mean that we have given up research on these issues!
This post is a compilation of questions drawn from subsequent posts in this thread up to 14th February. It will be periodically updated. I have not included bug/patch type questions - although they are very important, they are probably best put in other threads. Last time I checked, totalwar.com had a very good bug report/patch request thread.
In post #20 of this thread, JeromeGarsdyke of CA kindly took the time to answer almost all questions collected here. So I'll divide the list of questions into those he did not address, either by omission or because they came up later, and those he did.
Unanswered questions
Battle map questions
Mechanics
- How do rank bonuses work in RTW? Is the spear/pike rank bonus the same as in MTW/VI (2 ranks for spears, 4 ranks for pikes, bonus= 1/.5/1)?
- How does the combat equation work (included rank/AP bonuses)?
- How does AP bonus work? Is it the same as MTW/VI?
AI behaviour
- Why do missile units controlled by an attacking AI charge immediately leaving the Ai combat units behind? In M:TW battles it was quite normal to have a "missile war" but this interesting phase is often disregarded by the AI in R:TW.
- Why are some combat units so undecisive in charging?DukeJohn clarifies: I have setup equal battles and when the AI approaches my line it becomes indecisive. Units move up, decide not to charge (perhaps the algorithm for comparing values is flawed?) and move back. It becomes a little dance that is repeated until at one point the unit decides to charge, most of the time unsupported. As a result the player just needs to line up, and take the AI units piecemeal and win without a single click.
Campaign map questions
Mechanics
AI behaviour
- If you are at peace with another faction and one of their armies enters your territory but does not attack you, are there any negative consequences to allowing that army to remain in your territory?
- From the AI's point of view, is it always an act of aggression when the AI sends an army into one of your territories?
Archive of questions addressed by CA in post #20
- What is the new formula for determining the probability to hit in combat? e.g. how exactly do attack, defence etc influence it?
- What is the effect of being heavy or light infantry?
- What bonuses do weapons have against other weapons, eg swords vs spears, long spears vs other spears
- What is the difference between "heavy" and "light" weapons?
- What modifiers or effects do the "special" unit formations have, e.g. phalanx, Cantabrian circle, tetsudo, wedge?
- What exactly makes a unit gain experience? Killing peasants gives less than killing elite units, but what exactly determines this?
- Do units in phalanx get the charge bonuses for their spears/pikes? If they charge, they seem to draw swords (and so lower charge bonus). If in phalanx, they can't run so it does not look like they get a charge bonus.
- What are the effects of capturing another faction's capital or losing your own capital?
- Does the location of your faction leader have any effects? (Is it best to keep your faction leader in the capital? Does it matter?)
- What are the slave and the grain bonuses and how are they caused? Can they be removed?
- Can you give a detailed run-down of the strategic AI settings (caesar, mao, balanced, fortified, etc.)? That would make customizing games easier.
What are the effects of capturing another faction's capital or losing your own capital?
Does the location of your faction leader have any effects? (Is it best to keep your faction leader in the capital? Does it matter?)
If you are at peace with another faction and one of their armies enters your territory but does not attack you, are there any negative consequences to allowing that army to remain in your territory? From the AI's point of view, is it always an act of aggression when the AI sends an army into one of your territories?
In my Seleucid campaign, I was at peace with Armenia (and wanted to stay that way). An Armenian army entered one of my territories but did not attack me (wasn't strong enough to take my city). Instead of attacking, I let them wander around a couple of turns and they eventually wandered off without incident. The whole thing was odd, and I am curious about what was going on behind the scenes here...
When I have reinforcements and there is a general present in that army, why does the general rush into battle, instead of staying behind his lines to add morale and to stay alive?
Is there a future patch to include a user interface for the reinforcements before battle. This user interface can be used to add certain tactics that the ai can follow and also add what sort of actions you want your general to use.
This feature will make the suicidal general AI less frustrating (imo this is the main issue for me, i.e my faction leader and best general did the same charge because I didnt forsee the battle).
Will there be a fix to the city gates bug, i mean when my army goes through sometimes a couple of units dont seem to want to. Other times was that a large force of greeks attacked one of my cities that were defended by Town watch and a general. What happened was, I made my town watch surround the gate and the tower. I killed the men that stormed the walls by waiting at the bottom of the tower and slaughtering as they cam out. The other was that the gate invaders used the Phelanx (sp..) formation and got stuck at the gate, not hurting any of my troops. I won that battle because of the bug...
The one game mechanic question that comes to mind for me, I'd like a detailed run-down of the strategic AI settings (caesar, mao, balanced, fortified, etc.). That would make customizing my game really easier.
What influences probability of hit in fight?
How attack of soldier, armor, e.t.c influences on it?
Can you give us an estimate of when the patch is coming out? 6 months? Maybe less? 3? 3 months? Less than that? Maybe 1? By Christmas, maybe? Eh?
What exactly makes a unit gain experience?
Defeating unit of peasants doesn't give the same experience as some elite hoplite unit or something like it. But what exactly determines this?
During a rather thrilling battle where I managed to eek out a miracluous win over an Egyptian army which was both numerically and qualitively outmatching my units. Then the game crashed just as I was driving the last units of the map. Afterwards I seriously nerfed the Egyptians so I could simulate the battle results without refighting the 2 hour long battle which I doubted I could win that resoundingly again. I noticed I hardy got any XP from it.
So I'm guessing it's from it's battle stats that XP is derived that get's awarded to the unit that kills it, right? If so, which stats influence this and in what quantity? Does charge bonus count? And attributes and weapon? How do primary and secondary weapon stats figure into this?
Thanks for any info!
What is the effect of the general's command rating? In Shogun and Medieval you could see this reflected in the experience-level of your troops, in R:TW however I don't see 2 extra chevrons on my units when my general has four stars... ~:confused:
I was going to direct you to the Forum Index, until I noticed that I forgot to put this link in. So thanks for reminding me of Jerome's post. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Herakleitos
So, see this post. Or you could now go to the Index!
I would like to know (if this isn't anwered already) the effects of armor vs defense skill and shields. Does def. skill affect hit probability only? What are the major effects of armor? Do shields function differently from armour, or are they just separate?
Rurik: I believe to hit rolls in melee are affected by the defender's defence skill, armour and shield which when added up give the overall defence rating.
However, to hit rolls with ranged weapons (e.g. bows) are only influenced by armour and shields.
Shields differ from armour in that they are affected by facing (shoot the trooper from behind and his shield does not protect him) and also cannot be used in melee if wielded by units with two-handed weapons (not sure if such exist in RTW, but in MTW, Varangian Guard & IIRC Swabian Swordsmen were an example)
Is "Provincual campaign" going to be in the patch?
(it appears for some people who have modded the game)
When I am attacking on campaign map the defender withdraws backwards. My general gets a "Doubtful Courage" trait (this has happened more than once). Why? Shouldn't this be the other way around?
Is this thread even alive anymore?
Anyway I have a question:
How does one get the chargebonus of the pikes in a phalanx unit? If you charge them in they will use the weaker swords (and thus the weaker charge), and in phalanx they don't run, so it isn't obvious if the chargebonus is added or not (doesn't seem so).
Campaign map
Growth
* What is the slave bonus and how is it caused?
* What is the grain bonus and how is it caused?
* Can these be removed?
Governors
* Which specific triggers are necessary for the game to make a chance roll for (example) 'Mildly Extravagant', exactly? Where can we find these triggers?
* How does this relate to Threshold (in the txt files), for this particular example?
* How can we mod/change the triggers?
sunsmountain, I have some files I downloaded on governor traits and triggers. One of them says they are by someone called Winnie the Pooh and gives a website www.geraldtan.com/rtw
I'll add the slaves and grain questions to the sticky, thanks.
Ookaaay... that's a lot of questions. I'll have a go at answering some, although I probably won't have time to do them all, and the info probably won't be at hand for some. Here goes:
What is the effect of being heavy or light infantry?
None. This is a tag for the AI production mechanisms which corresponds to unit stats; generally all units with armour ratings above 7 should be considered heavy. The unit category is more important than class.
What bonuses do weapons have against other weapons, eg swords vs spears, long spears vs other spears
The spear bonusses are fed into the stats system in a couple of different ways, via the mounts bonusses (which are direct attack modifiers against units mounted on that particular mount type) and via the 'spear' weapon attribute. Units which are marked with spear gain a +4 combat bonus against cavalry and use the cavalry's charge bonus against them, while cavalry get a -4 attack penalty against them.
What is the difference between "heavy" and "light" weapons?
Again, this is a tag only, used by the sound I believe.
What modifiers or effects do the "special" unit formations have, e.g. phalanx, Cantabrian circle, tetsudo, wedge?
Phalanx formations gain rank bonusses when in formation, while testudo's get large defense bonusses against missile attacks. The Wedge gives an attack bonus based on superior concentration of weight at the point. The Cantabrian circle doesn't give an outright bonus, but gains its benefit from the actual battlefield behaviour.
What exactly makes a unit gain experience? Killing peasants gives less than killing elite units, but what exactly determines this?
Actually, a kill is always considered a kill for xp bonusses, except when the unit is routing (in which case it drops to a 20% chance of counting as a kill). Kills and xp are tracked on a per-soldier basis, and what is displayed is the unit average rounded to the nearest integer. There is a non-linear relationship between kills and xp which resembles a Fibonacci series. Then units which have been engaged in combat in a battle which started with a close to even strength balance may be awarded an extra kill per soldier at the end of combat.
What are the effects of capturing another faction's capital or losing your own capital? Does the location of your faction leader have any effects? (Is it best to keep your faction leader in the capital? Does it matter?)
None (other than what's normal for capturing a city), and no. The movement of the faction leader as used in Medieval caused so many annoyances during play that we decided to drop it.
When I have reinforcements and there is a general present in that army, why does the general rush into battle, instead of staying behind his lines to add morale and to stay alive?
We actually found this to have a whole slew of causes, the most common of which was that often the general's cavalry is the strongest unit in the army (especially early during a campaign). This means he'd generally look at the enemy army and say, "wow, I'm much stronger than any one of these units individually", and hurl himself into combat, expecting the rest of his army to follow... with unfortunate consequences. We've made the general's unit a lot more cautious in the 1.2 patch, but it still occasionally happens.
The one game mechanic question that comes to mind for me, I'd like a detailed run-down of the strategic AI settings (caesar, mao, balanced, fortified, etc.). That would make customizing my game really easier.
This was released onto the forums recently, you should be able to find it if you do a search.
What influences probability of hit in fight?
The most significant factors (in order) are: unit stats, height differential, relative facing, experience, fatigue, scissors-paper-stone, and the general's command bonus. There are a whole slew of special-purpose bonusses, such as ground and mount type, formations and so on as well. Detailing the whole system is well beyond the scope of this post...
I would like to know (if this isn't anwered already) the effects of armor vs defense skill and shields.
Armour is applied as a modifier to attacks from any facing, while defense is a parry-style bonus on the front and right flank, and the shield bonus applies front and left flank. Missile weapons ignore defense.
Is "Provincial campaign" going to be in the patch?
No, as you've probably already seen. It was intended as a mechanism for showing multiple campaigns other than the Imperial Campaign or the Sons of Mars, and I believe it still works as such. Any subfolders in data/world/maps/campaign/custom will get searched for extra campaign maps, and if they contain a valid campaign it will activate the Provincial Campaign menu. From this menu you can pick a campaign, which then leads to the 'pick-a-faction' menu, and so on. Could be quite useful for modders ;)
How does one get the chargebonus of the pikes in a phalanx unit? If you charge them in they will use the weaker swords (and thus the weaker charge), and in phalanx they don't run, so it isn't obvious if the chargebonus is added or not (doesn't seem so).
Pike units cannot charge while using pikes, and so cannot receive a charge bonus.
What is the slave bonus and how is it caused? What is the grain bonus and how is it caused? Can these be removed?
The slave population growth bonus, like the grain one, is caused by resources on the map. If you enslave a city, it generates a slave resource, and any cities connected to that province by completed road links (city-to-city) benefit from one growth pip's bonus. This is cumulative per resource in the road network - 2 cities taken with Enslavement connect to a third city by road, that third city should show *two* pips of slave growth. This is part of what makes Egypt such an economic powerhouse - the Nile delta contains two grain resources, and so as soon as the Egyptians start building roads to connect all their cities, the overall population starts to rise quite quickly... And no, the bonusses cannot be removed.
Well, I hope that's been useful to you guys.
Well, I think I can speak for everyone when I say thanks for taking the time to answer all those questions. Very much appreciated! :medievalcheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
Yes goodness, that must have taken a good long while. Thank you Jerome!Quote:
Originally Posted by therother
I'm sorry for piling on, but I just need to ask this as it's ruining the battles for me:
Why do missile units controlled by an attacking AI charge immediately leaving the Ai combat units behind?
In M:TW battles it was quite normal to have a "missile war" but this interesting phase is often disregarded by the AI in R:TW.
Why are some combat units so undecisive in charging?
I have setup equal battles and when the AI approaches my line it becomes indecisive. Units move up, decide not to charge (perhaps the algorithm for comparing values is flawed?) and move back. It becomes a little dance that is repeated until at one point the unit decides to charge, most of the time unsupported. As a result the player just needs to line up, and take the AI units piecemeal and win without a single click.
The AI would perform better if it would form a line with some reserves and flank guards and just charge without changing course into the players line. Now it seems to be getting too much information and once a decision has been made (move to enemy unit) it gets new information which makes it change its decision (move back).
But still many thanks for already provided answers :wink:
Thanks for the long list of answers, Jerome, it is greatly appreciated. ~:cheers:
Id also VERY VERY very much like to know the answer to Duke John's question.. i think its one of the most important things for modders to know.
however, thanks already for your previous responce jerome !
Thank you for the info, Jerome. ~:)
- Is the spear/pike rank bonus the same as in MTW/VI (2 ranks for spears, 4 ranks for pikes, bonus= 1/.5/1)?
- How does the combat equation work (included rank/AP bonuses)?
- How does AP bonus work? Is it the same as MTW/VI?
The search is offline for the foreseeable future, so here is the list:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
Quote:
These control a set of AI production personalities, which contribute a bias towards building and training (but not retraining or repairing). This bias is fairly small compared to game-generated factors such as "the enemy is attacking me with lots of cavalry, build me some spearmen". Explaining the weighting system which drives the production AI in full is beyond the scope of this document as it would take several days to write.
So in short, the building construction personalities are these: (ranked highest to lowest - therother)
balanced - biases towards growth, taxable income, trade level bonuses (roads), walls and xp bonus buildings
religious - biases towards growth, loyalty, taxable income, farming, walls and law
trader - biases towards growth, trade level, trade base, weapon upgrades, games, races and xp bonus buildings
comfort - biases towards growth, farming, games, races, xp bonus and happiness
bureaucrat - biases towards taxable income, growth, pop health, trade, walls, improved bodyguards and law
craftsman - biases towards walls, races, taxable income, weapon upgrades, xp bonuses, mines, health and growth
sailor - biases towards sea trade, taxable income, walls, growth, trade
fortified - biases towards walls, taxable income, growth, loyalty, defenses, bodyguards and law
These biases are towards building properties, rather than buildings themselves. The game does not know what a "Blacksmith" is, for example, it only knows that it is a building which provides a weapon upgrade, and hence a Craftsman AI would be more likely to build it than another AI personality type.
These are then combined with a troop production personality, as follows:
smith - exactly level
mao - biased towards mass troops, light infantry
genghis - biased towards missile cavalry and light cavalry
stalin - biased towards heavy infantry, mass troops and artillery
napoleon - biased towards a mix of light and heavy infantry, light cavalry
henry - biased towards heavy and light cavalry, missile infantry
Caesar - biased towards heavy infantry, light cavalry, siege artillery
The same system as for the buildings applies. Troop category and class are combined at the time the unit database is loaded to give a unit production type, and the likelihood of the AI choosing to produce a given unit type which can be produced is then modified by the unit type weighting. There is also a random element in the choosing of which building or troop type to produce next, so the effect of the bias is a statistical thing. Another factor that is applied over the top which may obscure the bias is a tendency towards producing troop mixtures (according to what is already in the garrison) and a weighting according to unit strength.
The two sets of types can be freely combined; for example, although Fortified Caesar does not appear in the list of options currently used by the vanilla RTW game, it is a valid combination.
So the strategic AI settings only determine what kind of buildings/unit types are most likely to be produced? In this link http://www.twcenter.net/forums/inde...showtopic=11196 it is suggested that they also determine behaviour of the faction (e.g. Genghis is very aggressive, Ceasar uses lot of enslavements). Is this not true?
Totally nice Jerome. Cool with some direct info. ~:cheers:
Interesting... I seem to notice a lot of penetration of spearformations by cavalry, especially by the better chargers. Light Lancers are good candidates for this as they have weak defense and a strong charge. Yet they do not get wiped out by the anti-charge bonus, which one would expect if they recieved the charge right back. Is it because the charge is only handled in regards of the first line of cavalry? Then after them the other riders can ride down any spear?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
All units are equal... How about the officers in certain units, such as in the Triarii. I think it was mentioned that they had 2 HP (all officers), so it would only be reasonable they gave 2 XP and generals even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
Hmmm... Very good to know. I thought defense was allround defensive ability that just didn't give the protection against missiles. So a very experienced unit that does not carry any shields (Cilician Pirates for instance) should be as bad at protecting itself from the rear or the left as a green one?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
Ok. That was pretty much what I figured, but then I wonder why they get a bonus at all. I mean some poor fellow has been forced to balance or add something that was not to be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
I have the same question about defensive skill...does it only apply to the right side? Or is it only when the soldier also has a shield? My assumption would be that it would only apply to when the unit has a shield. But then again, I would also think that high defensive skill would "stack" with shield defense on the shielded side. If it doesn't add to defense on that side then I need to consider scaling shield to higher values based on skill level of the troops--rather than just shield characteristics.
Second part...does defensive skill matter at all for rear attacks? What I noticed when reducing elephant armour and adding defensive skill (in 1.1) is that they became very vulnerable to melee attack--particularly by cav, even when I nerfed the cav to have a negative mount effect that was as large as their attack and charge combined! I had expected them to become more vulnerable to missiles, but still hold up well in melee. My first guess is that defensive skill falls by 1/2 or more when attacked from the rear.
EDIT: SCRATCH THAT. I've just retested the phalanx charge bonus, and it is not doing anything. Wierd that it did before, arrrgggg. Believe it or not, I tested it more than once and was seeing an impact--must have been unlucky with the random parts of combat. Time to correct my other post on this.
You know I didn't even consider the fact that certain units would be worse at defending their shieded side than their swordside. Units that comes to mind are Urbans, Arcani, Bastarnae, various cavalries (Light Lancers in particular), all pikemen (yes even Levies), Spartans and Armoured Hoplites. That can't be true??? ~:confused:
I refuse to believe that unshielded units are totally screwed from the left and that super elites are in fact easier to attack on their shielded side. That doesn't make sense.
And what about elephants? They have a very high defensive ability and not so high armour, does this mean we should take them on on the left and stay clear of the right?
Yes, the info Jerome posted was very useful, and quite a bit different than I expected in some regards. I hope he has a chance to give us some clarification on the defensive skill/shield thing. It would give us a much better idea of how to properly rate/evaluate units.
I suspect there is more going on, however. One reason is that shield values cap at 31 in unit stats (0-31 range), while defensive skill can reach 63 (0-63.) That might lend itself toward something like the unshielded side getting 1/2 the defensive skill stat added to it on attacks to that side (just a guess.) Direct frontal might get both or the higher of either stat or something else...gives me some idea for testing.
A good way to test it take a unit of Companions (good charge) and mod a unit with no shield to have 63 defensive ability (and preferably a low mass). Then present the Companions with the left side in a very deep formation so that they all hit the side. If the Companions penetrate deep or even just kills a fairly largen number of men, then Jerome is right and we need to revaluate every single unit, if it only kills a few men and is killed itself then we know that defensive ability is applied to both sides (perhaps not equally but at least the left is not screwed over).
Ok I tested it myself...
Modded the Cilicians to have 63 in defensive ability. They are most likely the best since they have low mass, no armour and no shield.
I put them into a deep square formation about two times deeper than wide and presented teh side to the Companions. The charge went very badly for the Companions, they killed only 3 men, but then again I had noticed that the entire line of men on the left flank had turned to face them. So when they pulled back to retry the charge I made my Cilicians (who had lost 8 men to the 27 Companions) march perpendicular to the Companions to force them to present the left flank. This time the Companions killed 56 men in the charge, and my unit routed instantly there after.
Now I have heard that men marching won't recieve a charge as well as those standing still, so that might have impacted the result.
I tried it again and the results were the same, if the Cilicians faced the Companions they were pushed back and the Companions penetrated the unit but killed less than a hand of men. Marching made my Cilicians die like flies.
Obviously the defensive ability doesn't add much to the left. Now I will try marching with the right side presented.
[EDIT]
Hmmm... The test was inconclusive. The Companions could indeed penetrate the right side as well, but were far from as good at it as the left. But if my men were marching they got killed very badly, in one case I lost every single man and the Companions lost 1 single rider. Standing still the Cilicians were a veritable wall, but against the men on the right flank turned to face the enemy. So the results are impossible to understand, only that you should never march with your side to enemy cavalry, your men can't stand up to a charge at all.
I didn't have much luck testing it either. As you say, the men turn to face the threat, and that wrecks the test. I tried 2vs1 unit tests with phalanx and other types, but I would need to seriously reduce the kill rate and increase morale for it to work as a test. The unit routs too easily, or turns to face the threat too easily.
From which we can conclude, presumably, that if there is a difference, it's not important in the scheme of things.
-Simetrical
That is my hope. The problem is that things can be having an impact, but not be easily verified until some definitive test is found (pri/sec bug being an excellent example.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Three questions:
1.Why there's no difference between a Companion with 1 charge bonus and a Companion with 60 charge bonus? They did exactly the same damage on average when charging after many testings.
2.If the spear attritube really did use the cavalry's charge bonus against themself, then why a group of Round Shield Cavalry with 52 charge bonus charged head on a hoplite phalanx suffered the same casualities as Round Shield Cavalry with 2 charge bonus charged head on?
3.Does the Charge Bonus exist and APPLY IN COMBAT or not?
AI:
1. Is it possible to mod the game so the AI keeps their troops more together, and attack as a group?
2. Can i change some of the priorities in descr_formations_ai.txt in order to achieve this? If so, how?
3. What does 'linked' mean?
4. descr_formations_ai.txt and descr_strat.txt allow us to mod the AI to some extent. Are there other *.txt files (perhaps more hidden) that allow similar moddability?
1. How much attack penalty do spears have against foot units?
2. Do swords have attack penalty against mounted units?
1. Explain how the battle difficulty is bugged.
They fight at +4 against mounted, and probably -4 against infantry. A penalty anyway, see export_descr_units.txtQuote:
1. How much attack penalty do spears have against foot units?
No penalty is mentioned in the txt file. Probably none.Quote:
2. Do swords have attack penalty against mounted units?
AFAIK, the +4 bonus to attack for the AI on Hard, the +7 bonus for the AI on Very Hard, and the +4 bonus for the player on Easy, are given to the other party as well.Quote:
1. Explain how the battle difficulty is bugged.
It effectively means that battles last longest on Normal, with the combination of lowest atack/highest morale (for both parties, though that would of course work as intened: The rules for morale are always the same).
A +4 bonus (146% combat effectiveness) against mounted units in RTW is almost insignificant. It's equivalent to +2 points in STW or MTW. STW had an anti-cav differential of 8 points (400% combat effectiveness) for spears vs cav. That would be 16 points in the RTW system. On top of that, cavalry in STW cost at least twice what a the spear unit which could defeat it cost, but that's not the case in RTW. Really STW is the only game in the entire Total War series where CA got the RPS right. It was weakened in MTW and the spears were too expensive.
Weak RPS in a game means that overpowered unbalanced armies have no counter army other than the same army.
Ah, it's optimistic Puzz3D again.. havent seen a 'i love RomeTW' post from you yet :)
Now since we dont know the engine formulas, how can you say that the effect in STW/MTW is more pronounced than in RTW? Also, they DID try to balance RomeTW, and it is pretty balanced stat wise, but game mechanics like cavalry charging proved to have a too large effect on things.
In my opinion, swords and spears are better balanced than in say, MTW. Also the cavalry in RTW behaves a lot more realistically than cavalry in STW, which was basically just treated like a somewhat faster moving infantry unit (ie, units locking together in hand to hand quite boringly, not happening very much after the charge except a drudgematch). Anyone playing STW and MTW can verify this. And you could not really withdraw your men from melee, but in Rome TW, you can.
We do know the basic formula. We know exactly what the formula is in STW and MTW, and I did enough tests to show it's basically the same formula in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Could someone from CA clarify on loyalty and emerging factions system on BI?
There is a LM thread open at https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=66032
Thanks.
Puzz3D (or anyone would would be willing to help), I have been trying to reconstruct parts of the RTW formula.... from scratch. Would you please tell me the MTW formula or point me to it and/or you best guess as to the RTW formula?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I am mostly interested in the exact mathematical effects of sword/shield/experience/terrain/orientation/exhaustion on chance to kill.
Any help you can give would be much appreciated.
Thank you!
EDIT: Acckkk!! Only one post? That means the forum "machine" lost the intro post, that I thought I had posted 2 weeks or so ago, in the welcome thread. Waahhh. Must have been the machine or the moderator getting even for all the whining I did in it about not being able to post!
Anyway; Hi, and mucho admiration to you all for the wonderful array of research material. I've been reading the very informative posts in this forum for months, and have been trying to post for most of that time. Nice to see one finally stuck to the wall instead of fluttering down to the gutter.
In MTW the formula is:
Each man has an attack value and defend value used in calculating the chance to kill his opponent on each "strike" in a combat cycle. Each man who is fighting gets one "strike" within a combat cycle, but can parry many times.
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ df
difference factor df = attack - defend + bonus
attack is the attack value of the striker
defend is the defend value of the opponent
bonus is any combat modifier that applies
charge is added in as a combat modifier
You can see all the combat modifiers in this thread Defensive Bonuses. Most of this comes from the Official MTW Strategy Guide, and some came directly from LongJohn who wrote the chapters on the game mechanics.
In RTW, the formula has become more complicated. We don't know the exact formula, and because it's more complicated, it's hard to determine empirically. Some tests I did indicate that the 1.2 constant has been changed to 1.1. That means the size of the steps in chance to kill has been reduced from 20% to 10%. The cutoff on df is + or - 20 in MTW. This has apparently been increased to 64 in RTW. In addition, there is a lethality factor for the melee weapon in RTW. I think this comes in as a multiplier on the base probability. Also, the shield now directly contributes to the defend value. but is directional as is the parry ability. From post 20 in this thread by Jerome: "Armour is applied as a modifier to attacks from any facing, while defense is a parry-style bonus on the front and right flank, and the shield bonus applies front and left flank. Missile weapons ignore defense." Missle weapons have a separate formula, and it is more straightforward. Tests in STW indicate that doubling armor cuts the kill rate in half from projectiles such as arrows. Height increases the range and accuracy of ranged weapons.
Thank you, Puzz3D !
Just knowing the form of the formula (pardon the play on words) helps a lot. You delivered exactly what I was hoping for.
So the ranged weapon equation (discounting terrain and weather effects) is similar but simpler?
Thanks, again.
preliminary removed
duplicate removed
In STW, accuracy determined if you hit the target, and power determined if you penetrated the armor. My measurments indicated pentration was a simple inverse proportion. Penetration = C * power/armor where C is just a constant to scale the value to a particular range of probability. If the projectile penetrated the armor a hit point was removed from the target. All men had one hitpoint except for general which had 6 in multiplayer and custom battle, but could have more than that in SP campaign.
In MTW, the system was changed. Accuracy still determined if you got a hit, but projectiles had lethality and power and an armor modifier. Penetration = C * lethality/(armor modifier * armor). The power determined how many hitpoints were removed from the target if the projectile penetrated the armor or hit a wall. This was instituted to handle artillery, but other weapons got higher power as well such as guns which got power = 4. This meant a gun could kill a general in MP or custom with 2 hits.
In RTW, I don't really know how it works. I see missles have an attack rating in the unit file and this changes when you upgrade the experience or weapon, and the projectiles file has damage and radius parameters for each weapon type. I don't know where the accuracy parameter is, but there must be one. I would expect it to work something like MTW, but there is no armor modifier that I can see. I suspect attack is equivalent to lethality in MTW, and damage is equivalent to power.
Just wondering what the default video settings for multiplayer are? They do not stay the same as what I have set in options. This is frustrating as it makes it difficult to know what I can comfortably host.
Why are some skeletons better in combat than other skeletons? (all other things being equal)
Probably a related question:
How is a unit's attack speed determined?
I believe it is some combination of animation speed and the min_delay parameter (second to last on the stat_pri) line, but which animation?
fs_dagger has 6 attack animations that are 36,38,28,28,36, and 36 frames long respectively. average=33.6667
fs_2handed has 6 attack animations also that are 24,22,20,20,22, and 18 frames long. average=21
Repeated test battles have shown that I need to set the fs_2handed min_delay to 13 to get the two skeletons approximately even. This seems to support the idea that min_delay is the time between the end of one animation and the beginning of the next in FRAMES, not as the EDU comments say...tenths of seconds.
However, when I do the same test between fs_spearman(average animation time =25 frames) and fs_2handed. I find that the fs_spearman skeleton is actually *faster* than the fs_2handed skeleton and I have to give it a small min_delay to get the two even. I expected to need to give the fs_2handed a 4 frame delay, but it turns out I need to give fs_spearman a 2 frame delay. This destroys the idea supported by the previous test and leaves no theory that I can think of remaining.
So, my point is that I can't figure out how to tell the affect of a given scale 1 skeleton on combat short of doing 100s of test battles with different min_delay values for *every* skeleton in the game. There is no formula that I can find that makes sense.
Please help...