NTW unit layout

i think to be a good mod, you should have balanced battles. and balanced and realistic upkeep and recruitcost. i have a layout but it is unfinished. any suggestions are welcome.

Morale Layout

peasants = 0
very light training = 2
light training = 6
medium training = 9
heavy training = 12
elite training = 14
berserker training = 16
spartan training = 18


Armour layout

no armour = 0
leather armour = 3
light metal armour = 5
linnen armour = 6
chainmail armour = 7
metal armour = 9
heavy metal armour = 10-11
lorica segmenta + armour = 12
total armoured = 18

Shieldtype Layout
no shield = 0
small shield = 2
medium shield = 3 (4)
large shield = 5


Range Layout

pilum = 35
javelin = 50
slinger = 80
normal bows = 120
composite bows = 170

__________________________
Training Bonusses (for defence value)

Defence capability

peasants = 1
light troops = 3
medium troops = 5
heavy troops = 6
elite troops = 7

no training = +0
light training = +1
good training = +2
missile troops = -1

______________________
Weapon Damage

spears = 5-15
daggers = 1-4
gladius = 2-12
javelins = 8-15
bows = 5-15
lances = 6-16
axes = 9-19
6-15

Charge Bonusses

spears = 2-10
daggers = 0-2
gladius = 2-5
lances = 5-15
axes = 5-10
swords = 5-12
____________________
Infantry Maintain Cost, (for 160 per unit)

peasants = 20$
levies = 50$
light infantry = 70$
medium infantry = 100$
heavy infantry = 150$
elite infantry = 200$
Food = +50 (for every unit)$

Infantry Maintain Cost Extra's (dependent on Training Building)

1st building = +0$
2nd building = +30$
3rd building = +50$
4th building = +70$
5th building = +100$
Elite Society units = +50$/+100$ (or units that pay there own weapons, like hoplites) cuz they want land or compensation

Infantry Recruit Cost, (for 160 per unit)

Peasants = 50$
Levies = 100$
light infantry = 120$
medium infantry = 150$
heavy infantry = 210$
very heavy infantry = 250$
elite society units = -50/-100 (or units that pay there own weapons, like hoplites)

no armour = +0$
leather armour = +25$
light metal armour = +35$
linnen armour = +50$
chainmail armour = +65$
metal armour = +80$
heavy metal armour = +90$
lorica segmenta + armour = +105$
total armoured = +150$
_____________________________________

Fatigue Bonus

no armour = 0
leather armour = 1
light metal armour = 2
linnen armour = 2
chainmail armour = 3
metal armour = 4
heavy metal armour = 5
lorica segmenta + armour = 5
total armoured = 6

Bonus vs Cavalry

spears = +1
short phalanx = +2
phalanx = +3
long pike = +4
______________________-

To be done

Upkeep and Recruit cost system
Speed and Stamina system
Attack and Charge bonus system

Recruit Cost

-50-?$ for training a turn
-?$ for compensation
-?$ for equipment

Maintainance Cost

-50$ for food
-?$ for equipment (depends on upgrade cost)
-0-?$ salary
_______________________
done by
QuickDagger
Weapon Types
Class Attack Bonus
Arrow Heavy 8
Arrow Light 6
Axe 1 Handed 8
Axe 2 Handed 12
Axe Trhow 6
Bullet 4
Dagger 4
Dog Bite 4
Falx 10
Hatchet 4
Head 4
Javelin Heavy 8
Javelin Light 6
Mace 6
Quarterstaff 4
Spear Horse Heavy 8
Spear Horse Light 6
Spear Long Heavy 12
Spear Long Light 10
Spear Short Light 8
Spear Short Heavy 10
Sword Broad Long 8
Sword Broad Short 6
Sword Kopesh 8
Sword Rhomphaia 8
Sword Scimitar 8
Sword Sickle 4
Trident 6
Warhammer 6


Shield Size
Class Defence Bonus
None 0
Small 2
Medium 4
Large 6

I don't understand very much of this, but I think reqruitment of weak units should be very cheap and more experienced more expensive - a significant gap between them in cost and training time (0 turns, 1-3 turns). Then in most battles the armies will contain mostly weak units, reflecting reality and if balanced good, giving good gameplay. Besides, we're possibly not having peasants in the mod in the sense they are in vanilla; weak and cheap spearmen will probably have this role. I guess they should have morale 0 and maybe a lot of the peasants-stats, I don't know.

Ok, it sounds good but it's hard for me to syntesize what this will mean in practise for the units.

I hadn't gotten that far in the planning yet, but by running some tests with vanilla units I found out which combinations I thought behaved well when facing each other. For example we want a slower battle speed than vanilla R:TW, and we want to power down the ability of the cavalry to run over infantry.

So I thought infantry such as huscarles should have stats around the same as (or slightly better than) urban cohorts, and elite infantry even better stats. The militia and medium infantry should be between principes and praetorians, and the spearmen should be around german spear warband to the first greek hoplites or slightly better than greek hoplites for the most professional feudal foot sergeants and others. We were planning to use phalanx formation for the better spearmen, such as armored fyrdmen and feudal foot sergeants and so on, and then balance it so they don't beat the good infantry in a long engagement but inflict more casualties than they take in a short engagement with good infantry. They should also be able to rout militia infantry in a frontal engagement. Finally, we will probably power up the anti-cavalry bonus of all spear units to make it impossible for cavalry to win against spearmen in an attack from the front, although the best cavalry may kill many spearmen in an attack they should take very many losses in the process. We should also make sure that a flank attack from infantry on a spear unit should rout it quickly even with lower quality infantry unless the spear unit is very professional and have swords as backup (like the armored fyrdmen). If they have swords as backup, they should be able to hold their own for a while against levies but if simultaneously under attack from the front or any other direction should rout in a matter of say 10 seconds. With these adjustments, the cavalry and missiles could be kept almost as it is.

More detailed planning about combat stats was supposed to be carried out later, but above are the requirements of how the units should behave in certain battle situations that we were going to use as starting point for the balancing.

For cost, we'll make cavalry much more expensive than it is in vanilla R:TW compared to the footmen. All royal army/tagmata etc. troops will be expensive but professional and take some time to train. Professional archers and horse archers will have VERY long training times. All militia/themata/feudal militia etc. will have shorter training time (for the simplest militia 0 turns is good) and be much cheaper to recruit but the upkeep cost won't be too low and will often make it most useful to disband the militia between wars. The extreme difference between professional and militia troops should make so that AI and players tend to create armies consisting of a combination of militia and professionals, where militia will form the bulk. The economy of the player shouldn't allow him to create a very large royal army, and neither should it allow him to keep his militia also in times of peace, but instead force him to disband it and recruit it when needed. Some factions, like the Byzantines, will however be richer and can build up much of their army around mercenaries, but still they need militia to form the base of their armies.

I still haven't translated this to exact R:TW stats, but by checking the descr_units file it'd be possible to create a list like yours by checking the stats of the units I mentioned. However, like I said it's hard for me to visualize what your list will mean in practise, so if you could give examples of vanilla R:TW units that the mod's units will be equivalents or almost equivalents to with the system, then it's easier to follow.

The vanilla R:TW infantry also ranges too much in quality. The cheapest units are too much weaker than the best ones, making it ridiculous with brigands and weaker enemies as soon as you've built up economy somewhat, and the resulting in too easy and too total domination. Historical chronicles like to exaggerate the difference in skills between militia and better troops, but still there is a huge difference. A good enough difference is actually achieved even if you use principes defense, offense and morale stats for the weakest infantry and urban cohorts of better for the elite infantry. Using vanilla warband stats for militia and urban cohort stats for the elite makes the difference too exaggerated and gives the boring "1 second engagement then one unit routs"-system of vanilla R:TW. Therefore, in most cases I recommend having quite good stats even for the weakest troops and have a smaller difference. This isn't possible to do with armor of course, because unarmored troops should obviously have 0 in armor like in your list.

Edit: A quick look in export_descr_units.txt tells me this:
- I think morale should be better for the weaker unit types in your list. Around 6 would be good for the weakest militia and around 10 for the better militia. The best units could have 16-18.
- Obviously I agree that for armor the unarmored should have 0. and the best should have something like 10-15 IMO. I think we should have something like:
* Unarmored: 0
* Leather (and equivalents): around 2
* Chain mail: 6
* Plate mail: 8
* Completely covering cataphract style armor: 10-12
- Shields: It looks good IMO.
- Offensive, defensive and charge stats: It'll take some longer for me to check those.

Will there be taken any actions againts the tendencies of one/two factions ruling the whole map after some years? Like Macedon, egypt and carthage in vanilla... it's quite unrealistic if for instance after 40 years the vikings dominate whole northern europe. I think the Roma mod for RTR 5.41 had a really good solution for this (build buildings for converting the culture etc., and at the same time have huge but weak armies in the rebel provinces)

Yes, by powering up the militia to around principes to praetorian quality while making the elite like urban cohorts and better. This will result in a smaller difference between elite and militia, which will make it challenging even after you've got the best economy in the game. But the elite will also always be so much more expensive than the militia that all factions will need to keep a high percentage of militia in their armies even after becoming more powerful. That'll make it harder to blitz early and conquer much, then take advantage of that economy to become even richer and get an even easier time blitzing more. Blitzing will also be made harder by the fact that we'll try to make troop training buildings incompatible so that if you conquer an enemy settlement you need to tear down their barracks and build own barracks before you can train anything in the settlement.

This is more realistic in many ways - for an offensive war you also can't now bring just one army and count on getting retraining, perhaps one stack and a backup stack of replacements is needed, and you can also count on the enemy calling in his feudal/themata/local militia to fight when attacked, making it much harder to expect a victory by a quick lightning strike.

Finally, many cities will be so poor that the garrison needed to maintain public order will cost as much as the player earns from holding the city. Only the really rich cities will really be well worth holding, but on the other hand the poorer cities can often be needed for a better defense and elimination of a frontline.

This sounds fantastic!
These are not wishes, just some questions:
-Will there be a lot of (if not weak, then expensive) mercenaries?
-It sounds like everybody will be really poor. Will it be possible to upgrade your cities to get larger income, so we don't HAVE to conquer to get a stable economy (expensive and maybe restricted to certain provinces ports, mines etc..). Maybe this would be unrealistic; a poor city in finland would still be a poor city in finland after 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

This sounds fantastic!
These are not wishes, just some questions:
-Will there be a lot of (if not weak, then expensive) mercenaries?
-It sounds like everybody will be really poor. Will it be possible to upgrade your cities to get larger income, so we don't HAVE to conquer to get a stable economy (expensive and maybe restricted to certain provinces ports, mines etc..). Maybe this would be unrealistic; a poor city in finland would still be a poor city in finland after 5 years.

---

Yes, it'll be balanced so that you can have a small standing royal army at all times without getting bankrupt, while at the same time upgrading your cities somewhat. However the militia can only be called in for shorter periods of time unless you conquer and upgrade a lot of things. A country that is at war too much - and thus needs it's militia all the time - will get in trouble. However a conquest of very rich lands such as Flandria and Friesia will be important improvements. The richest cities will be so much richer than the smaller cities that the player will often, when attacking a country, send his army straight for the rich capital instead of progressing by capturing one weak city after another. Often it'll be easier to conquer a country by taking the rich capital first, then sending out smaller troops for mopping up and conquering the smaller cities. However, it's also a risky thing to go deep into enemy territory unless you know much about the enemy's strength. Walls will also be more expensive so many smaller settlements will have weak or no walls, making it possible to use raid tactics in wars. Hopefully all those wishes will be possible to put together and make it work well, even with the AI.

Re mercenaries: yes, there'll be plenty of quite good mercenaries, however they'll be expensive, often even compared to a normally recruited royal army.

i've also ran some test with CAV, and saw that 20 (normal size) was the best.cat's can only beat levy hoplites/pikemen in a frontal charge. they're killer in a back charge. also if they charge the levies they loose about 40-70 of their men (only their moral keeps them in). they're big enough to be a threat but to small to use them recknessly

it's a tie with medium phalanx but most time they loose. they can charge heavy phalanx but will loose, and won't kill more that half a unit in good condition

also i tested this layout and i use it in my game, we were planning to use this in NTW (i thought, didn't got that much replies). it's very stable. the battles last longer. i'm still working on the upkeep and payment, but i will be killer.

i'm thinking of implenting

payment
food
social status
armour and weapon fund
and maybe more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

I don't understand very much of this, but I think reqruitment of weak units should be very cheap and more experienced more expensive - a significant gap between them in cost and training time (0 turns, 1-3 turns). Then in most battles the armies will contain mostly weak units, reflecting reality and if balanced good, giving good gameplay. Besides, we're possibly not having peasants in the mod in the sense they are in vanilla; weak and cheap spearmen will probably have this role. I guess they should have morale 0 and maybe a lot of the peasants-stats, I don't know.

---

what is it that you don't understand tell me, and i'll explain it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

also i tested this layout and i use it in my game, we were planning to use this in NTW (i thought, didn't got that much replies). it's very stable. the battles last longer. i'm still working on the upkeep and payment, but i will be killer.

i'm thinking of implenting

payment
food
social status
armour and weapon fund
and maybe more

---

Ok, but will your system prevent the levies from becoming too much weaker than the elite? You have plenty of zeroes etc. for the least trained troops types, so it would seem like the elite would be like 5 times better than the weakest troops. I was rather thinking that the elite would be only slightly more than twice as good as the weakest troops, which, with the R:TW engine, anyway results in them becoming up to 5 times better due to the morale leading to a quick rout. Any unit with less than 6-8 in morale routs ridiculously easy in vanilla R:TW so I don't agree entirely with your morale suggestions.

well as i know it doesn't. i don't know about you using peasants, but as long they aren't bare chested they'll get leather armour. 0 is the dedault morale. it won't make them run fast but also doesn't make them reliable. if they don't have a shield they get 0. so there only 3 important 0's.

0 for shield
0 for armour
and 0 for morale

Ok, I think armor and shield is ok but I don't think any unit should have less morale than 6.

- For infantry I'd say 8 for levies and 15 for professionals, 18 for true elite.
- For phalanx spear units I'd say morale 5 for levies, 8 for professionals and 10 for true elite. The even smaller difference for spears is because of how the game engine handles phalanx spear units differently.
- For non-phalanx spear units I'd say 7 for levies, 9 for professionals and 12 for elite.
- For non-ranged cavalry I'd say 4 for lowest quality, 6-8 for medium, 10 for professionals and 12 for elite
- For light and ranged cavalry and camels I'd say 4-5 for lowest quality, 6-7 for professionals and 8-10 for true elite
Those are only approximate values so far.

I think morale shouldn't only depend on training, certain troop types are more prone to running when it gets hot - spearmen for example can't do much when flanked and therefore were often more prone to fleeing. Infantry can handle such a situation and therefore needs better morale in order to act realistically. The worst cavalry should have a very low morale because cavalry are expensive and benefit from fleeing if they end up in a too problematic situation. The light cavalry who can escape most problems don't need much morale too do their ranged job well, but should rout much easier in meleé IMO, unless they're professionals and have hit an exposed flank of other cavalry etc. Horse archers are also more prone to "fleeing" because they are more expensive and think it's meaningless to be slaughtered in meleé.

agreed.

So are you guys talking about implamenting some sort of feudal/tribal levy system?
Oh, are you going to have an AOR?

no this is about unit stats. how strong and weak units are going to be

There is a problem with your range; the average sling can outrange a normal bow by a fair distance. One of the reasons Gaels (and Welsh, to a far lesser extent) used slings as long as they did is because they could be used over a longer range, for a lower cost, and a good slinger could be trained faster than an adept bowman (and, in earlier periods, more were readily available, as the sling was the favored weapon for small game hunting for centuries). The bow was adopted for versatility; as time went on, more arrow heads developed, making the bow more capable of various engagements. While various sling bullets existed (clay, lead shot, stone, etc.), they were generally confined to only certain regions; bullets were made with whatever was available. The common sling in this period generally used clay (sometimes with bored holes in them), which could go a great distance longer than any short bow, though they wouldn't be quite as deadly (though a clay bullet can still kill some one rather easily, and heavier bullets were remarked to be able to punch holes in metal armors, though those would be much shorter range, and probably not in wide use by the period). Long and composite bows would outrange them, but definitely not a normal bow.

eh, actually these are the normal ranges as you see them in RTW

Ah, sorry, thought that was the intended lay out. Vanilla RTW is terribly inaccurate about many things; ranges are no exception.

nono, only the ranges arent changed. the rest is carefully balanced and tested

Armoured cavalry that ride around on unarmoured horses i.e some western horses should have no armour or a low armour rating, because if the horse is hit the riders dead.

eh you can also give the horse armour rating.

but it doesnt work...

Yes I knew that because RTR tried to do exactly the same thing and failed so they just gave cavalry with un-armoured horses crape armour or very low ~:)

grrrr, stupid, it can work but a whole new model, sprite and all must be developed. you should get a elephant, work it out to a horse but still be seen as a ele by the machine.

Thats a good idea, I'll PM scion and see what he can do ~D

What exactly are you after? Making a horse of the Elephant won't work without redoing the whole animation, and thats ALOT of work. (Remember the size and 3 diffrent riders. The horses wold allso be huge.)

You can alter the weight/mass if the horses, to change the impact force when charging, but i guess it's bether give the heavy horses armour instead. Thats justst skinning and some moddeling, and i think that does the trick.

It's a shame the game doesn't alow unit's to keap on fighting on foot, but when i play, this is just a minor issue compared to other things like the AI stupidity aso..

-Skel-

i already said it would be alot of work. we shouldnt do it though, its not worth it.

HY,

I´m working on a stats system for my own game too.

Extra Class Colision Old New
Non Combatant 0,7 0.7
Infantry Very Weak 0.7
Siege Fast 0,8 0.8
Skirmish Weak 0.8
Siege Slow 0,9 0.9
Cavalry Very Weak 1 1
Cavalry Weak 1
Cavalry Average 1
Cavalry Strong 1
Cavalry Very Strong 1
Chariot Average 1
Chariot Strong 1
Chariot Missile Average 1
Chariot Missile Strong 1
Camel Weak 1
Camel Average 1
Camel Strong 1
Elephant Weak 1
Elephant Average 1
Elephant Strong 1
Elephant Very Strong 1
Ship 1
Dog Weak 1
Skirmish Average 1
Infantry Weak 1
Spearman Weak 1
Dog Strong 1,2 1.2
Skirmish Strong 1.2
Infantry Average 1.2
Spearman Average 1.2
Infantry Strong 1,3 1.4
Spearman Strong 1.4
Infantry Very Strong 1,5 1.6
Spearman Very Strong 1.6
*As you might have noticed I have created some extra classes, so that it has became easier to assign new values to colision mass. The creation of the new classes has considered many other factors such as morale, training, mount type, etc.

Extra Class Morale
Old New
Morale Poor 0 2
2
Morale Average 4 6
6
Morale Good 8 10
Morale Excellent 12 14
14
Morale Heroic 16 18
*when talking about morale it is important to notice that the game alrealy translates the meaning of the number. Ie: a unit with morale 2 will appear in game as low morale and a unit with morale 12 will appear as excellent

Personal Skills
Class Attack Bonus Defence Bonus
Untrained 1 1
Familiar 3 3
Average 4 4
Professional 5 5
Specialist 6 6
Elite 7 7
Legend 8 8
*It is important to remember that (despite terrain, colision mass and high grounds) attack values (plain personal effects) are a mix of Skill + weapon, as well as defence are a mix of skill + armor + shield + weapon. Skill is based on amount of training and on some special mental effects such as berserker fury.

Weapon Types
Class Attack Bonus
Arrow Heavy 8
Arrow Light 6
Axe 1 Handed 8
Axe 2 Handed 12
Axe Trhow 6
Bullet 4
Dagger 4
Dog Bite 4
Falx 10
Hatchet 4
Head 4
Javelin Heavy 8
Javelin Light 6
Mace 6
Quarterstaff 4
Spear Horse Heavy 8
Spear Horse Light 6
Spear Long Heavy 12
Spear Long Light 10
Spear Short Light 8
Spear Short Heavy 10
Sword Broad Long 8
Sword Broad Short 6
Sword Kopesh 8
Sword Rhomphaia 8
Sword Scimitar 8
Sword Sickle 4
Trident 6
Warhammer 6


Shield Size
Class Defence Bonus
None 0
Small 2
Medium 4
Large 6

Body Armour Class
Armour Type AC Breast AC AC
Pate Arms Legs
Clothes 0 0 0
None 0 0 0
Leather Armor 1 1 0
Padded Armor 1 1 0
Ring Mail 2 1 1
Studded Leather 2 1 1
Brigandine 3 1 1
Scale Mail 3 1 1
Hide 3 1 1
Chain Mail 3 2 1
Splint Mail 4 2 1
Banded Mail 4 2 1
Bronze Plate 4 2 1
Iron Plate 4 2 2
Steel Plate 5 2 2
*Hey, armours have always been piecemental. So it would produce a far richer effect to consider it. I mean there will be much more different armour values for units. It would be very boring to have 240 units with only 10 armour values

Head Armour Class
Armour Type Total Defence Bonus
None 0
Cap 0
Coif Fabric 0
Hat 0
Coif Leather 0
Coif Chain Mail 1
Open Faced Helmet Leather 1
Open Faced Helmet Bronze Plate 2
Open Faced Helmet Iron Plate 3
Open Faced Helmet Steel Plate 3
Close Faced Helmet Leather 2
Close Faced Helmet Chain Mail 2
Close Faced Helmet Bronze Plate 3
Close Faced Helmet Iron Plate 4
Close Faced Helmet Steel Plate 4
*To reach the final armour value just sum the head + piecemental values and ... voila !

I have listed some weapon and armour. There could be more to add.

I have checked the final values and they go a long way. Example:

A Berserker should have a morale of 18 (heroic), with attack 19 (7 elite skill + 12 axe damage) (hey ! 19 is exactly the valilla value !), with defence 7 (piecementalk armour = 0 + 7 defence skill). A little better than vanilla, but, this little difference make it possible to reduce this unit´s overpowered hit points from 3 to 2, wich is more reasonable.

In addition, it is very easy to correct over/underpowered values just by adjusting the skill effects. No need to alter the armour and weapon values because they are already balanced and are already piecemental. Piece of cake !

By the way, all values are on a Excell sheet that should be able to export to txt an automatic working version of export_descr_unit.txt making it easy to edit unit stats. But ... it´s not finished yet.

I´ll be here in case you want to discuss it !

despite some differences our layouts are pretty much the same. though i havent done the attack layout, i am working on it. i think we should combine it.

Hail Emperor,

Nice to meet you.

Sure ! Just let me know if you want to duscuss something.

At this moment I´m working on some skins, but I am also working on the Excell sheet about the RTW V12 vanila stats. I havent finished it yet. I´m still deciding wich types of armour should be considered, and wether how armour material should modify the values.

I undertake those 2 projects because I believe both stats and skins should (must) be all the same thing. I mean, a units armour class AC value should be allways the same for all the units skined, lets say, all units wearing chain mail should have exactly the same AC (hey! I said AC, expertise and experience should affect the FINAL DEFENCE value too). It makes the AC obvious: just take a look at that strange new enemy at the battlefield and wander what his AC should be. Its obvious: just look. But, RTW Vanilla is not that much obvious !

Please, PM me if you want to exchange any thoughts or any XLS files.

Cheers

Remember that armor values also determine how much the unit will push back the unit it engages. The armor rating is combined with charge bonus there, so it's not as logical as it might seem. Also, different chain mail had different quality - larger rings were cheaper, but less sturdy, whereas smaller rings were expensive but very effective against penetration. However, such historical details don't need to be included in the basic stats layout, they can be taken into account when the basic stats have been decided according to the layout. I think the current level of complexity for the layout is good, and we can take those details into account afterwards when we do the beta testing. In order to make those additions in a way that makes sense, we should compare units of the same type to see that we aren't overcompensating for those details.

I agree that skins should hint stats. Nothing more annoying than R:TW desert axemen with invisible armor... There's never any problem, I think, about having units with zero armor - they can have any charge strength, but units with much armor can't have a too weak charge effect, which can be problematic. Has anyone done research on which of the armor ratings it is that determine this charge push-through effect, or if all armor ratings have that effect? An alternative solution to this problem could be to add to defense skill ability for armored units that should have low charge strength, in order to give them the properties the armor gives them without increasing their charge too much... On the other hand, that could mean kataphraktoi would get lower armor rating than others, so perhaps that might force usage of lower armor ratings for most units, then put much of the armor value in the defense skill factor instead. What do you think? Is it necessary, or are the highest armor ratings low enough to allow a weak charge for the slow, heavily armored units?

Nice to meet you too :bow:

yeah i did a bit, horses with heavy armour is a nightmare, they push the line back for 10 meters (ingame). thats not really realistic. i'll do some research.
i'm talking about pushing phalanx back.
are we still using my layout. if so we might add his attack/charge layout i dont have one

Well, I think we're using yours. If QuickDagger's charge stats can be combined with your other stats then I suggest you just combine them right away, if needed with some changes so that it all works together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Well, I think we're using yours. If QuickDagger's charge stats can be combined with your other stats then I suggest you just combine them right away, if needed with some changes so that it all works together.

---

Allright Emperor. PM me and tell me your e-mail adress so that I can send you some of my stats. However, I must admit I haven´t done any reseacrh about armour-charge effects.

What I do know is that charging with a Companion cavalry is much worse on the CLOSE formation than on the LOOSE formation. On close formation the second, third and fourth ranks stop right before the impact while on LOOSE formation all the ranks keep running, thus making the charge more effective.

:charge:

@Legio,

About armour quality, I think we already have the Blacksmiths upgrades. So, I presume that (the chain mail you have talken about) differences of quality are already dealt with.

By the way, I think Blacksmiths should also translate the armour/weapon material evolution (cooper-brass-iron-steel) as well as the manufacturing thecnics such as temper, pin rings on the chain mail and a lot of other processes I have no idea on how to say them in english ! ~D


:charge:

https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/...tree8nq.th.jpg

Or something like that !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickDagger

@Legio,

About armour quality, I think we already have the Blacksmiths upgrades. So, I presume that (the chain mail you have talken about) differences of quality are already dealt with.

By the way, I think Blacksmiths should also translate the armour/weapon material evolution (cooper-brass-iron-steel) as well as the manufacturing thecnics such as temper, pin rings on the chain mail and a lot of other processes I have no idea on how to say them in english ! ~D


:charge:

---

Ok, I meant that different cultures had different techniques, meaning different units would have other differences than the blacksmith upgrades. But like I said, such and similar small details don't need to - and probably can't - be applied until last - i.e., the current type of unit layouts presented is the best starting point. That's what I meant.

my mail is umeu_1@hotmail.com i'm having a RTW gaming crisis wich i have to solve first. i will reinstall it this week.

@Emperor

OK

@Legio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Ok, I meant that different cultures had different techniques, meaning different units would have other differences than the blacksmith upgrades.

---

Sure !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

such and similar small details don't need to - and probably can't - be applied until last

---

Agree !

Did I disagree with anything ?

I also think that different culture effects should be present whenever possible/desirable. And, for sure a lot of work should not be spent on the tiny unoticed !

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickDagger

Did I disagree with anything ?

---

Ok, I must have misunderstood. No harm done ~:cheers:

:medievalcheers: :barrel: :medievalcheers: :barrel:

~:thumb: ~:thumb: :bow: :bow: