Printable View
OK, simple and quick question: I haven't seen anything about this in the forum (but I'm pretty new and don't now every place here!)
Does anyone knows the exact effects of being tired on a unit, regarding attack/defence/speed and such?
Thanks all!
:shakehands:
Very Tired = Morale -3
Exhausted = Morale -6
Totally Exhausted = Morale -8
Quite Tired = Attack -2
Very Tired = Attack -3 and Defence -1
Exhausted = Attack -4 and Defence -2
Totally Exhausted = Attack -6 and Defence -3
Your units can no longer run once Exhausted
Great question. It definitely seems to have a negative effect on attack but I'm not sure just how much. My exhausted troops can usually still finish off enemy reinforcements if they have routed the first waves.
Yes, but an exhausted 4/4 unit is usually bashed by a 2/2 fresh unit!!! and I'd like to be able to consider when a unit can handle a situatio alone, and when it can't. The only things I know for sure:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Esteban
- an exhausted unit cannot run (an exhausted cavalry unit cannot avoid combat against an infantry unit)
- when you go down to less than two bars according to exhaustion, resting on the field will make you go up to two bars, no more.
Generally speaking, an exhausted unit can do little more than hold its ground, preferably in a square or deep-ranked formation, and on both 'Hold formation' and 'Hold position'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
BTW I have seen cavalry go back up from 'Totally Exhausted' to 'Quite Tired' within the span of one battle. Don't know about inf.
Depending on climate and armour, 0 bar units can get back to 2 bars from resting.
Adrian II, For the freshness recovery, I'm 100% sure. My huge battles against the mercians made me test this for cavs and inf (Highlanders can run after a fleing infantry unit! :charge:). It's working for every unit. If it stays put for long enough, it will regain two bars. what are the names in English? Fresh=>A bit tired=> Quite Tired=>Tired=> Totally Exhausted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Awww, the climate has an influence, Cambyses II? Yeah, I guess that a knight in full armor can't recover much in the desert... I have to play out of the viking campaign, but...can't...get...out!
Ooops, hadn't seen that post when writing five minutes ago! Thanks a lot Cambyses II!!! :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
That means that totally exhausted Berserkers are 0 attack, 2 defence, and 4 morale. that explains a LOT.
Ah, and, err, and do you know if this shows up if you press the F1 key?
If you have an exhausted unit on hold formation attacked from behind by a hidden unit, there are a lot of modifiers applied to the unit. Do those modifiers stack and are seen on the help (F1) screen?
:dizzy2:
I really understand that an ongoing battle drains on a unit's reservoir of strength and thus it seems quite logical that it doesn't get over 2 bars again. now there are two things I don't quite get:
1.) even in the most favorable climate, units lose endurance while doing nothing but standing around. not even for exorbitant spans of time. of course, they don't recover this loss again, meaning that some time into the battle (usually 15 minutes) they'll be "quite tired" without having done ANYTHING.
2.) reinforcements arrive on the field with the same max endurance as an inactive unit on the field would have at the time the "fresh" troops enter the field. i.e. bringing in reinforcements midway through a battle will not provide an influx of well-rested reserve units but just some more of those worn-out veterans which you wanted to get off the battlefield since they had used up most of their strength.
this is the main reason why I seldomly rely on reinforcements (except for fresh ammo) and why their implementation seems somewhat miscarried to me.
Eeewww. Eeeeewwww. I gotta see it happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
Eeeew.
On second thought, it does make sense. Standing up clad in armor with a weapon at the ready does tire oneself.
Uuuh. Still refering on this 2h30 battle against mercians I had with my mighty scottish armies, I noticed that the reinforcements were arriving fresh on the corner of the map. As I made them run to the rally point, they were tired (two bars) when ready to act, but I've seen the bars disappear during their run. I don't think that the reserve is tiring itself. It's by walking/running to the rally point that they get tired (I hope. Eeewww.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
I'm not sure if you can see any of this with the F1 key, I would say so. Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Armour in the desert is the killer. Armoured units will tire to total exhaustion, just from standing there, at an alarming rate. They won't recover their strength at all, which is why in this situation you need to get on with it, rather quickly, though without running or marching too far or up too many hills. Even then, the enemy HA's will probably lead you on a merry dance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Units will never recover more than 2 bars. This is to define the difference between fresh troops and those that have been standing around waiting for all day, watching the enemy lines without rest, water or food. Standing to arms is probably very tiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
The reinforcements always arrive at 2 bars IIRC (bad news if you're in the desert as those two will probably vanish from just deploying the units into position). This is probably to reflect the fact that they have also been waiting around (MTW doesn't have the greatest reinforcements system).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
I think this is what I have seen before. Reinforcements come onto the map with 4 bars, but lose them as they go to the rally point. Not being the most observant person while playing, I'm not sure if they always have 2 bars by the time they get to the rally point, regardless of the distance they had to travel to get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Thanks for the suggestions, Cambyses II :book:
When I bring in reinforcements it's usually towards the end of a battle, but I'm quite sure that they always enter with 2 bars (same as my own, inactive units), and that may go down further depending on the climate, their armor and the distance to the rally flag.
I have no idea, though, if reinforcements are fresher if brought in at an earlier stage of the battle....
Alright. I could have sworn to the three bars, but I bow before your persistence :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Fresh => Quite Fresh => Quite Tired => Very Tired => Exhausted => Totallty Exhausted.Quote:
What are the names in English? Fresh=>A bit tired=> Quite Tired=>Tired=> Totally Exhausted?
And yes, climate has a big influence. After five minutes in the Egyptian sun your CS is a medium steak and your Hospitaller a well-done kebab.
Has actually developed desert corps thanks to this. As they lack armour upgrades and are often quite weak, they usually lose the first wave, while easily winning the rest (when the enemies elite troops are exhausted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Blizzards also affects exhaustion (although I'm not sure if it's linked to armour in the same way, every troop on both sides seems to be affected, could be that all units had armour or something).
Not seen by F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
And the reinforcement arrive at 4 bars, but it will go down to 2 in longer battles as soon as you can control the troops IIRC.
And finally, the most useless exhausted troops are ranged units, maybe 10% of the unit will fire at each volley at this stage. Gives mamluk handgunners a useful place BTW, in a sandstorm. Only unit capable of point blank shots on exhausted infantry units during these conditions.
Armoured reinforcements always seem to arrive with two bars in the desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I believe that what determines how exhausted your reinforcements are is the length of time they've been waiting. If you bring them on early (say it starts raining thirty seconds into the battle and you have to send your arquebusiers home) they will still be fresh - at least, as fresh as any troops already on the field who've been idle. The longer you wait to bring them on the more tired they'll be.
As for cold weather, that hits armoured troops same way as deserts do, because metal conducts heat so well (in this case outwards!) So a "desert" army will also be good for those northern winters :2thumbsup: . If you have NTW mod you'll see this effect in trumps, as the artillery has armour levels of 20-30 so they are effectively useless in deserts and blizzards. If you're lucky they'll fire one barrage before being exhausted.
Have to rethink having my troops chasing after those routers, thanx for the reminder guys:juggle2: .
Yeah, I remember my poor cavalery units, which after an hour of battle couldn't even run after roooters for more than 20 seconds... I had to change my attacking technique!Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijinalways
50% of the cav chases on each wave, the other half rest. Long battles of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijinalways
I'm quite certain that you'll see the troops fully rested for a short while before they drop down to the "general tireness" in the battle. You can never control them, when they are in that status though (last to short).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
If my faction is going to have any business being in the desert (e.g. if crusades are a GA goal) I try to develop a few provinces in order to constitute a desert corps. No armour upgrades, but all the weapons and valour and morale upgrades. These are essential in desert battles. Vanilla spears will never resist a Ghulam bodyguard onslaught unless they are valour 1, possess good morale from Church, Monastery etcetera and/or have a weapons upgrade. Your archers too will be much better if they have valour, moraler and weapons upgrades. For cavalry, feudal sergeants will do in the desert -- also no armour, but max upgrades of other types. My Royals and other heavies usually don't fight in the desert, they are just there to provide the bonuses they confer on my troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I usually just spam militia sergeants from my newly aquired provinces that don't have armorers yet. It's not very imaginative, but it works. However, my recent XL expert campaign as the French is an exception. Baisically, my armies that kicked the Almorivids out of the Iberian penninsula made the natural progression down to Morrocco and across Northern Africa. I got my rear end handed to me by a rebel army in Egypt due to this. The army was made up of almost all vanilla Urban Militia with a few Nubian spears and some Faris. They had maybe 20-25 units total. I severely outnumbered them, and I figured I could just come on with a ton of cavalry to simply ride over the UM and a couple swords to handle the Nubians.
I should mention here that I don't build a lot of chapter houses, and the most convenient one I had for this mission was located in Toulouse. That province is stuck on 100% zeal, so I can start a crusade, leave it sitting there for one year, and I'll have an army of 1000 -1200 troops without having to recruit any of them. I was also in the process of teching Toulouse up to build the +1 valor Chivalric Knights there. Since they require the armorer's guild, all of my crusade units were also equipped with silver armor. So, I ended up with a starting army of several knights templar with silver armor, a couple units of Norman knights with bronze armor, some mounted sergeants with various armor upgrades, one unit of Chivilric sergeants, some chivalric and feudal sergeants with armor upgrades, and a couple units of order foot knights with silver armor. Also, since I thought this would be an easy victory, I sent my two star King with his high era royal knights along to hopefully pick up more influence and a command star.
My first suprise came during the deployment phase when I realized that a templar knight unit, and not my king, was the general. Maybe this was because it was a crusade, and the king went directly to Egypt without ever joining the Crusade?
When I started the battle, I took a few minutes to get my army lined up the way I wanted them. (I hate that you can't do this beforehand on offensive battles) I then started toward the enemy. My plan was to jockey for position a bit, tie upthe Nubians with my swords, and then let my cavalry go in one massive charge meant to rout large numbers of UM into the castle, making it fall quicker during the seige. By the time I was able to charge my cav, things were a bit disorganized. I was clicking all over the screen, and my cav units were losing fights to individual units of UM with 0 valor and no upgrades. At some point, my king's unit charged on its own and got routed by a single unit of UM. I rallied him and then ordered a withdrawal, but he still got the "good runner" vice. I think the silver armored knights templar were totally exhausted just from looking at the enemy. All in all, the whole thing was a lot like the scene from Kingdom of Heaven when all of the crusaders drop in the desert before they ever see action. I ended up ordering my three waves of reinforcements to withdraw immediately and coming back with a better general in charge to offset the morale penalties from exhastion.
The following is a post from the Numerology thread over at the official forum. It gives an indication of how the desert heat affects idle units with different armour levels.
"New test results on boiling factor for desert fighting give the following figures:
Cavalry Armour Level 2&3 (depletion 50%/recovery 50%)
Cavalry Armour Level 4&5 (depletion 75%/recovery 25%)
Cavalry Armour Level 6&+ (depletion 100%/recovery 0%)
Infantry Armour Level 1&2 (depletion 50%/recovery 50%)
Infantry Armour Level 3&4 (depletion 75%/recovery 25%)
Infantry Armour Level 5&+ (depletion 100%/recovery 0%)
Cav armour 5 will tire faster than 4, Infantry armour 4 will tire faster than 3. Depletion meaning the amount of energy that will be lost, even when idle, recovery meaning the amount of energy that can be regained when resting the unit.
NB I've used random units to check this, I haven't tested all units in the game, but the factors can be considered as a rule of thumb."
So, an armour spectrum of 1-4 for infantry and 2-5 for cavalry is something you should generally stick within if you want to fight well in the desert---sticking to 1-2 for infantry and 2-3 for cavalry is optimal energy wise but you're left weaker defensively. Armour 3-4 for infantry and 4-5 cavalry will give you stronger units for fighting but you have to use them more carefully and sparingly.
I have to gripe and say that it hacks me off you can't really use knights to 'crusade' in the Holy Land . . . even the Templars---who were founded in Jerusalem, in a hot climate---are too heavy to fight with, which spoils a lot for me. These knights can and did fight in such conditions---yes, they would tire, but this is too exaggerated in the game for me. What also doesn't help is that you cannot train knights without their default armour upgrades! Being able to train knights with less armour would help somewhat, especially in the case of Feudal Knights, and the fact that such units do appear in the game with no armour upgrades sometimes shows that upgrades aren't really essential. It would be much better to be able to train and equip knights with appropriate armour, and this could be done to some extent by not making armourer buildings required to train them---and if you want them with more armour you can build such buildings yourself. That way you could definitely use Feudal Knights to good effect in the desert. Templars should simply have less armour to begin with. (I know I can mod these things, which I probably will someday.)
That said, you can still use knights in the desert as they are, but they get wasted so fast the whole experience just becomes crap. Feudal Knights though, you can just about use them as their armour is 6. You can even use 'high' Royal Knights with no armour upgrades for a short while, as their armour is 7. So, you can still use heavier units in the desert, but only if you deploy them in your first wave and you use them carefully and quickly. If you're slow moving tactically then forget about using heavy units in the desert!
EDIT: Just to add on . . . I train Mounted Sergeants as my desert knights. With extra valour from the Master Horse Breeder (it also hacks me off that knights get no bonus from this!), and at least one weapon upgrade, they are as powerful as standard Feudal Knights. Mounted Sergeants have the same charge bonus as knights, and with 1 valour and a weapon upgrade their attack is 4---the same as FK. I give them bronze armour (giving them 5 total), making them a heavy unit in desert conditions, but not so heavy they become useless. And on top of that they're almost as brave as normal knights, with a valour of 6 (2 default, 2 from extra valour, 2 from Church). So that's what I have to resort to because normal knights are just too heavy . . . and crusading without proper knights is a major thumbs down, which is why I always at least take some FK with me anyway, even if they're only good for one charge and one fight.
I know I'm far from the first to say this, but sheesh, why can't they just leave their armor behind with the supply train before the battle?
Not everyone is as mad as them Fanatics ya know :viking:
Yup, that could've been one improvement in the game. Same stuff as dismount: disarmor!Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
(Striptease, rather)
Augh... Sorry for this one off topic post, but I'm not very much into sweat and hair and muscles! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
What really bothers me is this tacit assumption that 'better' armour meant thicker plate and hence greater weight - and it's the weight - as much as the 'oven' factor - that leads to the exhaustion.
There's a link in Cambyses II's Pocket Mod thread to a video demonstrating the level of agility achievable in full armour. (I have to confess I've not chased this link myself but that's because I don't need to see it, having seen what was probably the same bloke, doing much the same antics on a particular Time Team episode, although his did look to be quite an advanced set).
In modding terms, I would adopt one of two approaches.
i) Assume that Early armour is of makeshift design and gives protection mostly based on its thickness. Late armour has compound curvature and gives the *same* level of protection (if not better) but with thinner, lighter plate (by using steel, instead of iron). Therefore, level out the armour bonuses but make the primitive armour cause high fatigue rates (heavier) and advanced armour cause *lower* fatigue rates (lighter).
ii) Preserve the way in which more advanced armour confers better protection against missiles and adds to the defence stat but, this time, make the fatigue rates similar across the board, on the assumption that the wieght of armour never changed much, through the ages but the protection factor increased, for the reasons stated above.
In both cases:- Retain the armourer training requirements for knights.(*)
It would be tempting to tinker with the base-level armour ratings as well, to offset the fatigue problems, but this would upset the intended differences between un-upgraded units, for example, peasant-types, which cannot afford (or, by tradition, don't bother with) armour and (F)MAA or FS, who have maille or basic armour, that they own.
It certainly is bizarre that, for a game whose working title was "Crusader Total War", the very knightly troops you'd expect to be using for the task turn out to be next to useless, anywhere outside of the temperate climate zone. :wall:
(*) Footnote:
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the construction times do not represent the time it takes to erect a building (except for things like Citadel, Cathedral) but are a combination of the time it takes for a maker to develop their arts to the next highest level and, principally, to reflect the time taken for cultural acceptance of your faction, after you've conquered a territory. Thus, you cannot expect to raise knights, loyal to your cause, straight after invasion and may have to wait a generation (20-25 yrs) or more before they accept that the lands you grant them for service are yours to give in the first place.
IIRC, the later armour was actually better in many ways. It was better designed to deflect weapons and missiles also. This would make it's higher grade of protection feasible. Also it wasn't so much the weight of the armour in the desert that was the problem, moreso the material (steel) used. This would heat up tremendously under the desert sun and cause great discomfort and fatigue.
:yes:Well, I can provide you with an answer about armors, on an historical point of view, then on a gaming point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by EatYerGreens
Historically, at least in France and England, and on a macro point of view, the armors went heavier and heavier with their upgrades, ending with the full plate armors you could see by the end of the hundred year's war. Only those armors couldn't stop a bullet, and swords like rapiers made them ill fitted, because the heavily armoured were slow and taking blows in the eyes and all,thus making those armor disappear.
Such things as new materials development and all were not that effective. Steel is not that different from iron btw (a few % of carbon in it only) and all armors were made of steel. The steel quality did improve during time, improving hardness and stamina (of the steel)
But you have a point though, there must have been some improvement when the guys faced the "turtle on its back" problems. But how significantly? And didn't tose improvements happen after 1453? We should have a look on the late 15th/16th century armors.. anyone?
When the crusaders went to the holy land, they were wearing their overwhelmingly heavy armor and were cooked in it. But the armor did give them a huge advantage, as they were not dying under the skirmishing tactics of the muslim armies (at least at first). So even if in gaming terms we would've appreciated that the knights could get rid of their armors, they didn't do it in the real world. Easier for the gaming programmers, and at the same time more realistic: two birds, one stone!
On gaming terms: puting in place some more realistic "armour design" tech tree, would add a lot to micro management. Might be something very interesting, but probably overwhelming in terms of gameplay. For instance, you could give some "experience points" provided by money and time to your smiths which would learn, in one province either to produce a better steel, or work better on the shapes, or build thicker plates... Each improvement giving specific bonuses. Really such a realistic thing makes me drool, but might drown the players... because if you do it with armours, you have to do it with weapons, farming, units...
Thanks for the informative post, Caerfanan :bow:
I don't know too well from my own studies but (surprise!) there is a mod out there which deals with the time period: PMTW. In Early there (starting at 1480), ultra-heavily armoured units, especially cavalry, were quite common in Europe but as you mentioned they couldn't stand up to the threat of firearms, so they were gradually replaced by much lighter armoured soldiers - lighter horsemen and dragoons in the case of cavalry. Those provided the bulk of armies from there on, even of the cavalry. Although armours were also developed and actually afforded the bearer some anti-firearm protection (cuirassiers come to mind here) they didn't play a major role on the battlefields anymore, mainly due to economic reasons. They were expensive to develop and to construct and didn't fit too well into the general trend of recuiting massive, rather poorly equipped armies. In addition, the ever-increasing use of mercenaries across the period restricted the number of "core" or "home" troops for which sophisticated devices like bullet-proof armour were usually developed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Speaking in terms of the chemical composition, that is correct (technically speaking, steel is an 'alloy') but there's a world of difference in terms of the properties of the material, depending on the % of carbon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caerfanan
Cast Iron: strong in compression (e.g. bridge supports) but brittle (tends to snap, rather than bend).
Wrought Iron : strong in tension (e.g. crane hooks, anchor chains) but malleable and ductile (will eventually bend, instead of snapping)
Steel: Given pieces of similar dimensions (which will be very similar in weight), it is stronger in tension, compression and resistance to bending than iron.
Sidebar:
If I remember rightly, freshly smelted iron ('pig' iron) actually has a higher carbon content than steel but the internal crystal structure is 'wrong' and its properties aren't good. It needs to be refined, by removing the excess carbon, until the composition is right. That was the nature of the 'black art' which took time to develop during that era.
Anyway, because steel is structurally stronger, it is possible to fabricate a piece that is *as strong as* an iron piece but use *less material* to achieve that, making it significantly lighter. That was the nub of my argument.
With regard to my comment about the tech tree, actually I was rationalising the reasons behind the existing tree and the length of time it takes to tech up to CK's, for example, not suggesting that it be made any more complex!