Archery range bug

I think, this one's around from the start. I don't think its huge problem with it but there is some way in exploiting it.
Anyway, thing is that if any unit comes into range of shooter unit, they will start shooting at it and every time will get a volley on them even if that unit moves far away from normal range of the shooter. It's most noticeable when some cav gets into range of xbows and then run away from their range. It always takes some time for xbows to shot and by that time cav can be far away from them, still xbows will miraculously shot at them and hit. I think this thing was always present in tw series, but previously if unit was shooting beyond their range, it did kill almost nothing. Now, (particulary xbows) can get quite a lot kills in one extra range volley.
I don't think you can exploit it with foot units, since its always opponent who can give you opportunity for it, but one can use his horse archers so that they get one extra shot and give him an edge over opponents ha.

It's not a bug! arrows have a heat-tracking device :inquisitive:

Hehe, I souldn't call it a bug, I kinda look on it like an option. :)

Yeah its kind of unrealistic. But then so is some of the other things in TW games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

I think this thing was always present in tw series, but previously if unit was shooting beyond their range, it did kill almost nothing. Now, (particulary xbows) can get quite a lot kills in one extra range volley.

---

It was not present in the old battle engine. As soon as the targeting arrow turns red, the unit stops shooting. Also, in the old engine each man aims at an individual enemy man so the chance of hitting him drops off as the target moves further away because accuracy is a small random error introduced on the trajectory of the projectile. There is a chance of hitting a man that was not the primary target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

It was not present in the old battle engine. As soon as the targeting arrow turns red, the unit stops shooting. Also, in the old engine each man aims at an individual enemy man so the chance of hitting him drops off as the target moves further away because accuracy is a small random error introduced on the trajectory of the projectile. There is a chance of hitting a man that was not the primary target.

---

Good to know. :P

But umm.. I think it is wrong.

Puzz, if you wouldn't look at everything so black, you'd notice that new archery system (with its flaws of course) is more advanced, than old one. Hitting other than main primary target is still here. Xbows deployed behind some unit will shoot in weird high arch and do little, arrows have bonus shooting in flanks, and even bonus shooting into right side of units that have shield.
Ranged units are less valued not because they don't kill. Their kill ratio is now much higher than before. There is couple of new problems now. They cost a lot (main reason; no need to upgrade foot and cav!), instead of taking lbows or pavise xbows you can take very effective horses or spears-pikes. Also, previously, it was enough that lbows killed four knights from one group, that was enough for that group to rout faster when engaged with other knights. And finally, in mtw it was main job of archer units to force opponent to attack. Defending player had advantage, now its different its more an advantage for who attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

Puzz, if you wouldn't look at everything so black, you'd notice that new archery system (with its flaws of course) is more advanced, than old one. Hitting other than main primary target is still here. Xbows deployed behind some unit will shoot in weird high arch and do little, arrows have bonus shooting in flanks, and even bonus shooting into right side of units that have shield.
Ranged units are less valued not because they don't kill. Their kill ratio is now much higher than before. There is couple of new problems now. They cost a lot (main reason; no need to upgrade foot and cav!), instead of taking lbows or pavise xbows you can take very effective horses or spears-pikes. Also, previously, it was enough that lbows killed four knights from one group, that was enough for that group to rout faster when engaged with other knights. And finally, in mtw it was main job of archer units to force opponent to attack. Defending player had advantage, now its different its more an advantage for who attacks.

---

The archery system is not more advanced in the new engine. That's a misconception that's being perpetrated. Everything you mentioned and more happens in the old engine except the "weird trajectories". Also, the dynamic balance between attack and defense that existed in the original STW game has deteriorated. You're right that defender had an advantage in MTW, and then it switched around to attacker having the advantage in RTW.

You're own initial post points out a problem in the new engine, and then you claimed it existed in the old engine. Well, it doesn't.

There is a lot of things which needs to be addressed in MTW2, still game engine is not as bad as some people think.

One question Puzz. You have have made a programme for STW engine. How come that if following info is correct no one know more about STW engine then AMP or Kocmoc? They surpased you despite having less theoretical background knowledge. Maybe because they had more practical understanding of the game engine itself? I guess this could be the answer.

Even CA programmers didn't understand STW engine good enough.They made STW but they did not know how game actually works. This sounds paradoxical but not until you find out that they lost vs amp, koc and magyar.

And I do not doubt that AMP or Kocmoc would find exploits in STW mod if they would be playing it. That's for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos

There is a lot of things which needs to be addressed in MTW2, still game engine is not as bad as some people think.

---

It's better than RTW engine. Well isn't that great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos

One question Puzz. You have have made a programme for STW engine. How come that if following info is correct no one know more about STW engine then AMP or Kocmoc? They surpased you despite having less theoretical background knowledge. Maybe because they had more practical understanding of the game engine itself? I guess this could be the answer.

---

They don't know more than I do, but they are better players. Just the same, I do ok. I won a 2v2 tournament back in STW, and Kocmoc and Magyar were a team in that tourney. I beat the team that beat them. Kocmoc was on the STW/MI v1.02 beta team with me, and he didn't display any deep understanding of the engine. He and Magyar were self identified "feel" guys. They called Tosa and I "number" guys. They don't know by how much to change a numerical stat to get a desired effect. Ask them if M2TW is better than original STW.

Amp seems to focus on utilizing exploits. For instance, he didn't want the swipe bug fixed in MTW. He also doesn't publicly reveal exploits when he finds them because then other player can use those exploits against him. That's just the way he chooses to play the game in a competitive fashion, but he's still a great player. I don't like that approach to the game because it's unfair to new players. My feeling is that everyone should be on an even playing field after maybe 25 battles or so as far as understanding the game mechanics. There shouldn't be hidden exploits in the game that they have no way of knowing about that other players are taking advantage of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos

Even CA programmers didn't understand STW engine good enough. They made STW but they did not know how game actually works. This sounds paradoxical but not until you find out that they lost vs amp, koc and magyar.

---

The gameplay in STW was probably better than they ever imagined it would be, but it wasn't an accident. LongJohn made some very good decisions on how to balance the whole system. Having said that, the resultant gameplay in MP probably exceeded even his expectations because he once said that balance to about 25% was good enough, but STW was balanced much better than that. I would say it was balanced to better than 10%, and that's around the level of imbalance of which a multiplayer can take advantage. The warrior monk wasn't out of balance by more than 10%, and yet players could exploit that, and it took an expert player to defeat it. So I agree with you that the reason CA has never been able to repeat the success of that first game in terms of MP gameplay is that they messed around with something that shouldn't have been changed so much. The move to hundreds of units and many factions made the thing impossible to balance anywhere near the balance of the original game.

In Samurai Wars we just used LongJohn's original starting as a starting point, and changed it very little. It models the gameplay of original STW as played at 5000 koku where you could sell off honor on the ranged units. You can't do that in MTW, so the ranged units are priced lower to reflect the value that multiplayers came to find was best by experience. We raied the morale of the units because in STW you bought units at honor 2 which adds +4 morale, but in MTW/VI you buy them at valor 0 so no morale is added except the hidden +2 that was added in VI. After playing Samurai Wars for a year, we found that some of the lower morale units needed another +2 morale to be useful. We also had to adjust charge values because MTW/VI charge works a little differently than did STW charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos

And I do not doubt that AMP or Kocmoc would find exploits in STW mod if they would be playing it. That's for sure.

---

We got AMP to test Samurai Wars. He and Swoosh did find an exploit with cav units, and we fixed it. Magyar also helped test Samurai Wars, and we adjusted cav archers based on his observations. We had about 10 top players testing Samurai Wars.

~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

~:flirt:

.

---

While I confer with staff to decide on the best course of action, I recommend that one place this author on one's ignore list.:bow:

Quote:

---

We got AMP to test Samurai Wars. He and Swoosh did find an exploit with cav units, and we fixed it. Magyar also helped test Samurai Wars, and we adjusted cav archers based on his observations. We had about 10 top players testing Samurai Wars.

---

From what I understand from this post Samurai Wars are best possible version for TW multiplayer! Another question is are you guys still playing it? If CA would be marketing this version of the game we would then have perfect tw mp. Am I correct here? Another thing is that something like this is not going to happen. MTW2 engine is as it is and TW series will never again going to be like STW. This is a fact and a reality.

Quote:

---

It's better than RTW engine. Well isn't that great!

---

In some aspects it is even better then original MTW1. Heretical words were spoken. Game does not feel static but saddly there are too much issues atm so let's hope they are addressed. If they would already be addressed I would rank MTW2 above MTW1 and this is my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

From what I understand from this post Samurai Wars are best possible version for TW multiplayer! Another question is are you guys still playing it? If CA would be marketing this version of the game we would then have perfect tw mp.

---

Hello Aonar,

we think that it's the best version of TW multiplayer for Medieval/VI. Our opinion is of course totally subjective.
As can be seen in this MP subforum there're obviously two groups (or more) of players. The group that agrees with Puzz3D, like me, enjoys a tactical game where the abilities of a unit are clear cut and predictable. In our mod you (generally) know who's going to win when YariSamurai and YariAshigaru fight. There's no need to count valour flags etc, what you see is what you get (we play without updates, morale is balanced for that purpose). If you take out the unpredictability of unit matchups, TW becomes a game where manouevering becomes important. To beat an equal unit of your enemy it's important to be in a better position. The army build doesn't matter as much as your ability to control it wisely.
And yes, we do still play it on Sundays. The number of players fluctuates but we're able to play 3v3 and 4v4 regularly on Sundays and you're invited to join us.
I don't believe CA has any interest in promoting the mod, though.

What we would like to see in M2TW is the inclusion of all functions or features that the previous titles have brought us. Unfortunately some of these functions aren't in the game anymore and some are broken. From looking at the files it becomes obvious pretty quickly that the game is unfinished, even in 1.1. This doesn't only affect MP. BTW, many MP guys often whine about how bugs only will be solved for SP but they don't realise that most of the battle bugs have been discussed in the SP forum prior to MP, iirc: shield bug, pike bug, 2H bug, etc.
Officially fixing the shield bug will already change the gameplay tremendously.

R'as


R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

.:clown:

---

I know about the old engine. I was on four beta teams for the old engine, and I had many conversations with LongJohn the designer of the old battle engine.

I can tell you the old engine doesn't have the archery range bug mentioned in this thread. I don't have to play M2TW to know that. I don't have to play M2TW to know that lots of small problems add up. The accumulation of small advantages is a basic strategy in tactical games. I'm not interested in playing a game where the gameplay is one of exploiting mistakes in the game mechanics, and I can't understand why anyone would want to use their intellect in that way unless they are desperate for the ego boost that winning provides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

From what I understand from this post Samurai Wars are best possible version for TW multiplayer!

---

It's the most balanced Total War game for multiplayer, and you are right that Creative Assembly isn't interested. They have gone off in another direction that precludes adequate playbalance in multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

In some aspects it is even better then original MTW1. Heretical words were spoken. Game does not feel static but saddly there are too much issues atm so let's hope they are addressed. If they would already be addressed I would rank MTW2 above MTW1 and this is my opinion.

---

MTW1 gameplay is static compared to STW. CBR and I just played two test battles last night for Tomi's upcoming all v1 MTW/VI tournament, and the gameplay is much less dynamic than Samurai Wars gameplay. I had forgotten just how stogy MTW1 gameplay is, but I always said the pacing of MTW battles was too slow. Pacing of the battles is another area where Total War MP declined. RTW went the opposite direction and was too fast. Maybe M2TW will get the pacing better, but those long shooting times due to slow reload time and the rediculous "I'll wait until my buddy finishes fighting that guy before I do anything" melee combat doesn't bode well.

Quote:

---

.:dizzy2: :oops:

---

I believe he's talking about a game he pretty much played, that is STW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The archery system is not more advanced in the new engine. That's a misconception that's being perpetrated. Everything you mentioned and more happens in the old engine except the "weird trajectories". Also, the dynamic balance between attack and defense that existed in the original STW game has deteriorated. You're right that defender had an advantage in MTW, and then it switched around to attacker having the advantage in RTW.

You're own initial post points out a problem in the new engine, and then you claimed it existed in the old engine. Well, it doesn't.

---

First, I did not claim it existed, I said I thought it was the same. I haven't played mtw almost for a year, things like that play with peoples mind. Weird thing is, I still remember almost ten of my 1v1 armies. :dizzy2:
Second, you don't get any bonus (could be very small) shooting into flanks in mtw and shogun. And hit ratio was worse then, especially when archers got tired, you could have full pav unit, but if they were tired they killed nothing. It's not so now, step back from realism, but gameplay wise, its better. No slow games where everyone is resting their pavs. Or even games where defending team, even tho they lost pav war, just wait until opponents ran out of ammo, just because defending was easier.
I never considered archery good in total wars, some things were better before and some are better now, but nether is perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

...you could have full pav unit, but if they were tired they killed nothing. It's not so now, step back from realism, but gameplay wise, its better. No slow games where everyone is resting their pavs. Or even games where defending team, even tho they lost pav war, just wait until opponents ran out of ammo, just because defending was easier.

---

I certainly consider that to be improvement over the horrible drawn out pav fights in MTW yes. With VI we lost the powerful arbs in high era and gameplay deterioated because of that. But the slow reload of arbs were still not good for gameplay.

But what bonus does missile units get from shooting into the flank?


CBR

They get some kind of attack bounus, plus they inflict morale Penalties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

But what bonus does missile units get from shooting into the flank?

---

In RTW and M2 the side of a soldier that carries a weapon is supposedly weaker protected against missile fire than the shield carrying side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

First, I did not claim it existed, I said I thought it was the same.

---

I posted to inform people that it isn't the same in the old engine, and people started jumping all over me that I don't have M2TW. I think this is a minor issue compared to other issues I've seen posted by people who have M2TW. There is a snowball's chance in hell that this issue is addressed by CA in a patch unless it's a very easy thing to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

Second, you don't get any bonus (could be very small) shooting into flanks in mtw and shogun.

---

Of course you don't get any bonus in the old engine because you don't need it. It's a physics based model. It you study the trajectory characteristics of an arrow in the old engine, you see overshoots and undershoots. The deeper the formation of the target unit, the more hits you get. Since archers work best in wide, shallow formations, that's how they are usually used, and if you enfilade such a formation, you will get more kills. I've tested this and I'll look for my test results, but I don't know if I can find them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

And hit ratio was worse then, especially when archers got tired, you could have full pav unit, but if they were tired they killed nothing. It's not so now, step back from realism, but gameplay wise, its better. No slow games where everyone is resting their pavs. Or even games where defending team, even tho they lost pav war, just wait until opponents ran out of ammo, just because defending was easier.

---

You point out what is a huge problem in MTW gameplay, and I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I don't use MTW as the standard of comapision for Total War gameplay. LongJohn admitted that the fatigue rates were not changed from STW fatigue rate so they are not optimized for the larger maps of MTW. In addition, the reload rate of xbows is 15 seconds so they take a long time to use their ammo and get very tired which is another non-optimization of fatigue rate. Once they become very tired, they can't hit anything, and they are already weak to start. You are right that it doesn't matter if you loose the xbow shootout because the winner can't do anything effective with his xbows after that. The MTW gameplay has this long meaningless shootout phase, and the Silent Clan showed long ago that you don't have to take any shooters in MTW except maybe a token 2 or 3 units of xbows.

Archers are still the same as in STW with 4 second reload, but they are shooting at units which have, on average, a lot more armor than they did in STW. Again, no optimization was done on archer effectiveness for MTW except that longbows get a 0.5 armor modifier for their arrow. Guns are also extremely weak in MTW, and the really weird thing is that they are the best melee units in the game with the upgrades they can get at the florin levels used in MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lavos

I never considered archery good in total wars, some things were better before and some are better now, but nether is perfect.

---

Archers are pretty good in STW because the overall armor is less, and are very good in Samurai Wars. An archer costing 400 koku can kill 90 warrior monks costing 1000 for a 60 man unit. It gets the same kill rate on no-dachi and yari-ashi and high kills on the lower armored cav units. Even the guns are 50% better than they were in STW.

A problem in the old engine with archery is that kill rate drops as the target looses men. Intuitively you whould expect the kill rate to go up since more arrows are available to target each man. I think this is because the number of ranks decreases, and you are less likely to get secondary kills. Another issue is that archers do not lead their target so they are a lot less effective against moving targets than they should be. However, they are effective against targets that are moving more or less directly away from them which may be the result of the overshoots.

The new engine could work well for archery as long as it is including enough parameters to model the situation. It does do very well when shooting at targets with diminishing men which you would expect from a statistically based model where the probablility of killing a certain number of men per volley remains constant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I certainly consider that to be improvement over the horrible drawn out pav fights in MTW yes. With VI we lost the powerful arbs in high era and gameplay deterioated because of that. But the slow reload of arbs were still not good for gameplay.

---

Yes. The request to CA was to remove the pav from high era, but what they did was to remove arbs from high era. This is a very good example of how a request from the player community to CA gets twisted into something they didn't ask for. NC correctly foresaw that removing the arbs would hurt the gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as

In RTW and M2 the side of a soldier that carries a weapon is supposedly weaker protected against missile fire than the shield carrying side.

---

This is also true in MTW. The shield provides added protection from projectiles to the front and left. We measured this in tests in MTW, and it works. I've learned the hard way that you have to test features to make sure they are working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

In RTW and M2 the side of a soldier that carries a weapon is supposedly weaker protected against missile fire than the shield carrying side.

---

That I know but I want to know what else. Carl says some kind of bonus but where is that stated?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Carl says some kind of bonus but where is that stated?

---

Found it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=362

I have no Idea how exactly it works, I only know from gameplay. I once managed to shoot into pikes back, while they were fighting my foot. Archer kills were huge about 90 kills per each unit, and I only had peasant archers. Its same for ha, if you manage to shoot into back or side of the horses you can do some realy impresive damage.

Quote:

---

Of course you don't get any bonus in the old engine because you don't need it. It's a physics based model. It you study the trajectory characteristics of an arrow in the old engine, you see overshoots and undershoots. The deeper the formation of the target unit, the more hits you get. Since archers work best in wide, shallow formations, that's how they are usually used, and if you enfilade such a formation, you will get more kills. I've tested this and I'll look for my test results, but I don't know if I can find them.

---

And EXACTLY the same is STILL true in M2TW. Based on what I've seen it appears to use a calculated number of hits, but the animations that achieve this are set to play out so that the offset distance (i.e. the distance those that should miss aim off target), is the same at all ranges as it would be at 45 degree. Thus it is small enough that at shorter ranges, (or in enfilade fire situations), the arrows will still hit the target unit. The animation override also ensure that any arrows that DO hit will trigger a kill check.

Now of course I don't know for sure that the above is the case, but if I set out to create an engine that duplicated the effects I've observed, that is how i would do it, and it's the end effect that matters really isn't it?

it also explains why shots at targets out of range hit, the fixed accuracy kicks in and forces a hit.

One interesting point however is that no matter how much you increase range and accuracy, if the arrow doesn't have enough velocity to reach that range then nothing will make it actually reach that range (the unit won't even open fire), so clearly, animations are being taken into account both before and after the firing.

My best guess is it's the STW engine with a fixed accuracy added on so as to remove accuracy variables relating to the movement speed of the enemy unit. this naturally makes it a lot easier to balance and a Little easier to learn the game.

Quote:

---

If you take out the unpredictability of unit matchups, TW becomes a game where manouevering becomes important. To beat an equal unit of your enemy it's important to be in a better position. The army build doesn't matter as much as your ability to control it wisely.

---

I fully support this but I have one question. Let me describe ideal situation. We suppose that both players have 20 units with best possible army setup on both sides for each induvidual playing style. Both understand game mechanics well enough that no one risks or make any 'potential flawes'. When their units get in melee and at same moment their units are countered and there is no chanse to make any penalty bonus what so ever. What should be the factor in such occasion which would decide who is going to win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

it also explains why shots at targets out of range hit, the fixed accuracy kicks in and forces a hit.

---

The chance of hitting should taper off at longer ranges if the archer is shooting at a specific man. This automatically happens in the old engine because accuracy is a small error added to the trajectory of the arrow so the further away the target man the larger the positional error of the arrow when it reaches the target. Now I think you can make an argument that in volley fire beyond a certain distance no one is aiming at a specific man so that the chance of hitting someone wouldn't change all that much at longer ranges. Loss of kinetic energy due to drag isn't modeled, so that makes all projectiles that hit at longer ranges have a greater penetrating power than they should have. The continual reduction in chance to hit at longer ranges in the old engine tends to offset the non-declining penetrating power, but of course they don't exactly offset in such a way to give the same result as a more realistic ballistic model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

One interesting point however is that no matter how much you increase range and accuracy, if the arrow doesn't have enough velocity to reach that range then nothing will make it actually reach that range (the unit won't even open fire), so clearly, animations are being taken into account both before and after the firing.

---

The old model seems better here since the arrow is fired at a 45 degree angle at the open fire range. This means they can't shoot any further than their open fire range on flat ground. That range is described as the weapon's effective range, but it's less than the weapon's true maximum range. LongJohn explained that the effective range was chosen to be less than true maximum range so that the battles would have a larger and more epic feel to them.

Red Harvest did tests on arrow velocity in RTW, and his conclusion, as I remember, was that the arrow velocity was unrealistically high. It's definitely much higher than it was in the old engine. This is why you get those extremely high arc trajectories when the low trajectory is blocked by a structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

My best guess is it's the STW engine with a fixed accuracy added on so as to remove accuracy variables relating to the movement speed of the enemy unit. this naturally makes it a lot easier to balance and a Little easier to learn the game.

---

Each archer aims at a man. If the man moves, he won't be on the spot at which the arrow was fired when it arrives. If the target is far away, the arrow will miss even if the accuracy error was zero. You will get some secondary hits on men that were not the primary target. You can also get secondary hits on stationary targets if the accuracy error on the arrow's trajectory is large enough. MTW introduced the lethality parameter, and it's much easier to control the effectiveness of projectiles with that parameter rather than using the accuracy parameter. Also, LongJohn did say that he made a change in VI that should improve the archers ability to hit moving targets, but he never said what the change was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

I fully support this but I have one question. Let me describe ideal situation. We suppose that both players have 20 units with best possible army setup on both sides for each induvidual playing style. Both understand game mechanics well enough that no one risks or make any 'potential flawes'. When their units get in melee and at same moment their units are countered and there is no chanse to make any penalty bonus what so ever. What should be the factor in such occasion which would decide who is going to win?

---

I have a hard time imagining such a game. You've to count in all the other factors that influence melee outcome, like height of terrain, morale, numerical advantages (how many soldiers in a certain area), weather and so on. There's also a certain random element that prevents stalemates between units. I don't think I've witnessed a melee where both sides rout.
Even on a flat, featureless map and both players bringing mirror armies your situation could only apply if the players bring melee only troops. Any ranged troop added will have a tremendous influence. Also, if both sides bring ranged troops, the one who gets off the first volley can get an advantage that can cummulate over time.
So, let's assume ten units of spearmen in a single line charging straight at each other on flat ground. In that case the clash between the lines would produce casualties that are not equal on both sides. The side with lower casualties on the initial charge would win the melee.
In Samurai Wars it's standard to have a skirmish line of teppos. You can expect that your enemy has at least 4 shooters. To gain an advantage in the skirmish phase you need to raid the teppos with fast cav or bring an extra shooter in to gain an advantage. In this phase you try to kill more teppos than you loose with the goal to have enough of them left to finally score some hits on the infantry, once the teppos ar routed or killed. There's plenty of space for mistakes here, We're only human after all. Imo, the Samurai wars players are all experienced players. The battles are very dynamic and thrilling. Playing mostly teamgames, it never results in a stalemate situation.

Hope that helps to understand my point?

R'as

Quote:

---

Hope that helps to understand my point?

---

I understand you very well your previous post already. It just seems that I was not specific enough.

Quote:

---

To gain an advantage in the skirmish phase you need to raid the teppos with fast cav or bring an extra shooter in to gain an advantage. In this phase you try to kill more teppos than you loose with the goal to have enough of them left to finally score some hits on the infantry, once the teppos ar routed or killed. There's plenty of space for mistakes here, We're only human after all. Imo, the Samurai wars players are all experienced players. The battles are very dynamic and thrilling. Playing mostly teamgames, it never results in a stalemate situation.

---

Of coruse my friend. This is compleately understandable and I'm not asking about this. :)

Of course I agree with all you have mentioned in following post Ras, but let's focus on following sentence:

Quote:

---

In that case the clash between the lines would produce casualties that are not equal on both sides.

---

yes

Quote:

---

The side with lower casualties on the initial charge would win the melee.

---

What should be the factor which would decide this? Once more this is theoreticaly asked question. This is what I'm asking. For example this happens many times in chess where match can result into the draw. I've asked hypothetical question.

What is a factor in all TW games? Randomness. Tactics play a role of course, but it's also a matter of a dice. I know people will jump up in frustration now, 'I'm l33t! It's my skillz(TM)': relax and read.

We've most likely all run into this phenomena: you have a tough unit and it's going to whipe a lesser enemy unit. Several conditions are in your favour, but your tough unit still loses. The frequently used routine is to accuse the other of cheating then. There are exploits in TW games and perhaps also cheats: but there's luck too.

Another very evident situation was RTW 1.0. Both teams saw their army being victorious and you could only find out when chatting with each other about the battle (disable the chat and everyone would feel great :elephant:).
Replays from the totally different battle were 99.99% identical, only one part at the beginning was different: the value of the dice.

Combatcalculations are using stats, tactics (flanked, backstabbed, extra bonusses), but also a seed (dice). When two identical units A and B fight each other under equal conditions, everything can happen. Big victory for A, big victory for B or anything in between. The same is true for any combination of A and B, though it's more likely that the stronger unit will win. And when A is much stronger than B, A will almost always win. That's tested over and over.

I am not sure about completely removing the luck factor -we can see some realism in that, a soldier slipping in mud, a salty sweatdrop dripping into an eye-, but TW is not a tactical game anymore when the luck becomes too important.

When you fail to rout, it's because your tactic wasn't good enough, your unitselection has to be improved or just that the dice was not in your favour. Use CTRL A CTRL O next time.

Quote:

---

When you fail to rout, it's because your tactic wasn't good enough, your unitselection has to be improved or just that the dice was not in your favour. Use CTRL A CTRL O next time.

---

Your wisdom astounds me:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

This is also true in MTW. The shield provides added protection from projectiles to the front and left. We measured this in tests in MTW, and it works. I've learned the hard way that you have to test features to make sure they are working.

---

This isn't correct. CBR and I ran tests last night in MTW/VI v2.01 on a flat map with no rain and no fatigue, and found that shields add protection to the front. For 8 archers (60 men, 28 arrows) shooting at 8 chiv sergeants (100 men in 10x10 blocks, armor 3 + shield 2) at a distance of 80 meters, total kills out of 800 men were:

183 front
466 left side
495 right side
433 rear

Another test suggests that the shield protection covers an arc somewhat less than 180 degrees. CBR found a post by LongJohn that supports these results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longjohn

Troops shot from behind count as having lower armour, if they have shields (as their armour includes the effect of the shield ). The game doesn't look at whether a unit is being shot from the unshielded flank, because of the graphical limitations that mean that the shield can appear on either flank depending on which direction you look from.

Troops who use two handed weapons don't get the benefit of their shields while fighting.

---

We also did a test of 8 archers firing at a unit which doesn't have shields, 8 swiss armored pikemen (96 men, armor 4), 6 ranks deep at a distance of 80 meters which shows no bonus for rear shooting. Total kills out of 768 men were:

389 front
372 back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

What should be the factor which would decide this? Once more this is theoreticaly asked question. This is what I'm asking. For example this happens many times in chess where match can result into the draw. I've asked hypothetical question.

---

If everything is equal, randomness decides which unit wins. This is why you don't want too much randomness in the combat results. The winning unit shouldn't win by a lot if they are both equal and used correctly. You reduce randomness by increasing the number of combat cycles that it takes to resolve the combat. The old engine has a 1 second combat cycle and with 60 man units the randomness is suitably low which allows the tactical use of the unit to better influence the outcome. For instance in the old engine, typically a 20% advantage (1 combat point) in combat power will produce 6 wins out of 10 all other things being equal.

Quote:

---

The chance of hitting should taper off at longer ranges if the archer is shooting at a specific man. This automatically happens in the old engine because accuracy is a small error added to the trajectory of the arrow so the further away the target man the larger the positional error of the arrow when it reaches the target.

---

This is pretty much what I just described the M2TW system as, I just used less technical language, let me answer a few more of your points and I'll come back and re-explain it to you using some of your terminology now that I know it.

Quote:

---

Loss of kinetic energy due to drag isn't modeled, so that makes all projectiles that hit at longer ranges have a greater penetrating power than they should have. The continual reduction in chance to hit at longer ranges in the old engine tends to offset the non-declining penetrating power, but of course they don't exactly offset in such a way to give the same result as a more realistic ballistic model.

---

Actually this feature has been put back in for M2TW, arrows that come in flat have a higher chance of getting a kill than one that comes in from above. The effect isn't that noticeable with arrows, (although it is there), but it's much more noticeable with Crossbows and Muskets.

Quote:

---

The old model seems better here since the arrow is fired at a 45 degree angle at the open fire range. This means they can't shoot any further than their open fire range on flat ground. That range is described as the weapon's effective range, but it's less than the weapon's true maximum range. LongJohn explained that the effective range was chosen to be less than true maximum range so that the battles would have a larger and more epic feel to them.

Red Harvest did tests on arrow velocity in RTW, and his conclusion, as I remember, was that the arrow velocity was unrealistically high. It's definitely much higher than it was in the old engine. This is why you get those extremely high arc trajectories when the low trajectory is blocked by a structure.

---

Well the velocity is much closer to what it that in M2TW, my tests show that arrow velocity is just high enough in M2TW for the arrows to reach 180, (the range of muskets, the best bows are 160 for reference). So they still fire at less than 180 when firing at their maximum listed range, but only just, (you can't tell visually).

Quote:

---

Each archer aims at a man. If the man moves, he won't be on the spot at which the arrow was fired when it arrives. If the target is far away, the arrow will miss even if the accuracy error was zero. You will get some secondary hits on men that were not the primary target. You can also get secondary hits on stationary targets if the accuracy error on the arrow's trajectory is large enough. MTW introduced the lethality parameter, and it's much easier to control the effectiveness of projectiles with that parameter rather than using the accuracy parameter. Also, LongJohn did say that he made a change in VI that should improve the archers ability to hit moving targets, but he never said what the change was.

---

What you've just described is very similar to how things work in M2TW. I'll give you that explanation know to help explain what I mean:

The first thing I need to go into is to mention that their are 2 types of Positional Error.

Type 1: This is used by projectiles that DO NOT have an absolute fixed Accuracy value. Arrows and Crossbows use this kind of offset. What happens here is that the accuracy value for the projectile is consulted and it is then determined from this weather an arrow will hit or miss. If it is determined to be a miss then a positional offset sufficient to cause the arrow to miss both the targeted man and the unit he is part of. However the value used is the one that would be used if the weapon was firing at a 45 degree angle. At shorter ranges where the angle into the air is less, the Positional Offset may not be high enough to cause the arrow to miss the target, at which point you still get a hit and it still counts as a hit, just as it did in the older engine. (Anything without an accuracy value listed in it's Descr_Projectile entry will use this type)

Type 2 Positional Offset: This is identical to Type 1 with the exception that the offset is calculated to match the angle being fired at, so regardless of the range between the target and firer the arrow will miss is the accuracy calculation says it should. All Gunpowder and Art weapons use this. (As does anything else with an accuracy value listed in it's Projectile entry).

Fixed Accuracy: Just to explain this a bit more clearly. Absolute Accuracy is when a projectile has an accuracy value assigned in it's Projectile entry. It is as the name suggests absolute and if it says the projectile will miss then it will. It is simply impossibbile for the projectile to get secondary hits against the target unit. (as detailed under Type 2 Positional Offset).

Non-Absolute Accuracy uses a combination of the accuracy values and (at angles below 45 degree), secondary hits from shots whose positional offset was not sufficient to cause them to miss at the current firing angle.

Position: This is where the real difference between the two systems seems to be. The old system probably used a system similar to what I described for Non-Absolute accuracy and it's attendant type 1 positional offset.

However, in the old engine, (according to you, I can't confirm I'm afraid), the target position was always the point occupied by the man at the time of firing.

In the new engine however, it is the target man's current point, or the positional offset point relative to the CURRENT position of the target man. Thus no matter how the man moves, an offset of zero will always cause a hit and an offset of 5 meters to the east will always cause the arrow to land 5 meters east of the targets current postion.

The purpose of this is pretty clear to me. It ensure that no matter how much someone may move, the absolute minimum number of hits never changes. No matter what at least some will hit the target. They probably did it to stop people wasting someones arrows by running into and out of missile range all the time.

Now that i understand how the old system did it, it looks a lot like it uses the old system, but with positional tracking added on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Position: This is where the real difference between the two systems seems to be. The old system probably used a system similar to what I described for Non-Absolute accuracy and it's attendant type 1 positional offset.

However, in the old engine, (according to you, I can't confirm I'm afraid), the target position was always the point occupied by the man at the time of firing.

In the new engine however, it is the target man's current point, or the positional offset point relative to the CURRENT position of the target man. Thus no matter how the man moves, an offset of zero will always cause a hit and an offset of 5 meters to the east will always cause the arrow to land 5 meters east of the targets current postion.

The purpose of this is pretty clear to me. It ensure that no matter how much someone may move, the absolute minimum number of hits never changes. No matter what at least some will hit the target. They probably did it to stop people wasting someones arrows by running into and out of missile range all the time.

Now that i understand how the old system did it, it looks a lot like it uses the old system, but with positional tracking added on.

---

In the old system, some volleys get no hits. That's because the error due to the accuracy of the weapon is added to the trajectory of each projectile at the time the projectile is fired, but the hit or miss isn't determined until the projectile arrives at the target location. In this system, it's harder to hit a moving target, and that's realistic.

The accuracy parameter is a weighting factor applied to a random number probably linearly distributed in the range of 0 to 1 for every individual projectile. Also, the target has a size. Horses are bigger than men, and therefore the chance of hitting a horse is higher. You can clearly see this effect in tests.

If the archers in M2TW can only shoot an additional 20 meters beyond their open fire range, that isn't much of an issue. However, it could be exploited because a shooted can advance say 5 meters and force a non-shooting enemy unit to retreat 20 meters. This isn't intuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that you could retreat the same distance that the shooter advanced in order to get back out of range.

Quote:

---

If everything is equal, randomness decides which unit wins.

---

This is what I wanted to read. Atm we can't avoid this in RTS games. Thought I'm convinced that even RTS games could be programmed with AI scripting aproache like it was used in 'half-life' for example if there would be will for this. For the start I would be glad if spears and pikes would be able to stop cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

This is what I wanted to read. Atm we can't avoid this in RTS games.

---

Some randomness is better than completely deterministic gameplay, but it makes a difference how much randomness is present. Too much isn't good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

For instance in the old engine, typically a 20% advantage (1 combat point) in combat power will produce 6 wins out of 10 all other things being equal.

---

Puzz3D-sama. :bow:

IMDHO :sweatdrop: this lowly dog :whip: believes that 6:4 is a 50% advantage. :bow:

6 wins out of 11 would be a 20% advantage. :bow:

Puzz3D-sama. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Pariya

Your wisdom astounds me :bow:

---

Dear Mr S-P,

:flowers:

We love you too.

And so do these guys:

:builder: :indian_chief: :helmet: :biker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Pariya

Your wisdom astounds me:thumbsdown:

---

Disagreeing is fine, being disrespectful is not. You got mail.

Quote:

---

Some randomness is better than completely deterministic gameplay, but it makes a difference how much randomness is present. Too much isn't good.

---

I agree with this. Thought I'm wondering how MTW2 would feel like when spear/pike/cav bug is removed.

This archer bug doesn't bother me at all when compared to alan cavalry repeated charge bug.


p.s.

Quote:

---

Disagreeing is fine, being disrespectful is not.

---

Good work Hosakawa Tito. Keep it up. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

[B]IMDHO :sweatdrop: this lowly dog :whip: believes that 6:4 is a 50% advantage. :bow:

---

A 20% advantage in combat power means you will kill 1.2 men for every 1 you loose. After 5 battles the stronger unit will have killed 1 whole unit more than it lost. Statistically, that should result in 1 extra win every 5 battles; i.e. 3 out of 5 which is the same ratio as 6 out of 10. If there was no uncertainty in the fighting, the stronger unit would win every time.

A 40% advantage in combat power (2 combat points) produces 9 wins out of 10. Ganging up of multiple men on single men is more of a factor now, and it shifts the outcome more in favor of the stronger unit. The weaker unit is only able to win 1 out of 10 battles rather than the 2 out of 10 it would get if linearly related to combat power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

For the start I would be glad if spears and pikes would be able to stop cavalry.

---

Hello Aonar,

That could be the result of a few things.

-Either luck is too important now, resulting in more of a 50-50 situation.
-The parameters are not well balanced, i.e.: spears not having enough anti-cav bonus.
-A parameter does not work long enough/at all(i.e. the spear anti-cav bonus) or a parameter does work/too long while it shouldn't (i.e. full frontal cav charge against pikes, while the pikes are supposed to be able to cancel some charge).

Or, as is looking most likely, its the result of the shield bug in the case of spearmen. Pikemen are able to beat cavalry if the pikemen are standing still and the cav charge form the front. If the sshield bug gets fixed it should balance the whole spear v cav dynamic a lot better.

from the list that CA posted, the shield bug will be not fixed in the next patch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

Or, as is looking most likely, its the result of the shield bug in the case of spearmen.

---

-Is a parameter that does not work if that's the case.

Quote:

---

Pikemen are able to beat cavalry if the pikemen are standing still and the cav charge form the front.

---

That's not what is reported. The involved parameter does only work in some cases, it can be dodged. Again a parameter that does not work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

I understand you very well your previous post already. It just seems that I was not specific enough.

---

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, my friend. :bow:
Sometimes I wish we could all meet face to face, communication would be so much easier. However, in the meantime Puzz and Tosa answered your question and I can only agree. There needs to be a small random element. This element must not be too strong, though. Unit matchups still need to be predictable for tactics to work.

On the matter of Spear vs. Cav:
- a major influence on this matchup has the shield bug, as pointed out. However, if you take away the shield factor and put half in defense, half in Armour (as suggested by Jerome and known as the Shield fix) the spears work considerably better, but the Cav is still able to destroy the spearmen with a clean controlled charge. Either the spearmen don't have enough anticav power (they have AC=8 and 12 is max) or the mass of the horses is too high. The masses are actually (close to) realistic and if maintained will always enable a heavy (Inf or Cav) unit to push away a light unit. If one increases the value for AC in Spearmen then I assume that it will only enable them to kill Cav faster, not withstand a charge.

- Pikes actually can withstand a charge (when charged, not when clicked behind). The only difference to spearmen statwise is the entry "long pike" and the "phalanx" formation. I'd guess that the anticav mechanic that works here is in the code for the "phalanx" formation and not connected to the "pike" entry. I'm willing to test that and post my results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

- Pikes actually can withstand a charge (when charged, not when clicked behind).

---

I think the shield bug will almost certainly be fixed in the patch, but the consequence of click behind is probably much harder to address. Unfortunately, you can't stop players from using the click behind once they learn about it.

I would say that cancellation of some of the cav charge is necessary for spears to perform well. In RTW v1.5, phalanx actually reverses the cav's charge bonus and it gets used against the cav itself, but that ability isn't given to spears as far as I can tell.

Be back... just need the stats tables.