And no, Ballistas and Catapults do not count. Jav or Xbow, or even Naptha will do fine. Mounted if possible, but even a foot unit would be acceptable.
Printable View
And no, Ballistas and Catapults do not count. Jav or Xbow, or even Naptha will do fine. Mounted if possible, but even a foot unit would be acceptable.
I'm less worried about them not having an AP missile unit than I am about their total lack of gunpowder. If the Empire hadn't been on the ropes by the time gunpowder was developed, I'm certain they would have made effective and probably innovative use of it. From the start, the Empire of Rome was the leading western power in military science. Many people wrote things down, but they were the ones who collected it, studied it, and improved it.
Not to mention that Byzantium made extensive and innovative use of incendiary weapons before that. They wouldn't have avoided developing firearms... they probably would have come up with a few improvements over what other nations were using.
You could have seen things like rockets mixed with greek fire. Or perhaps the small naptha grenades fired together in large bundles from a trebuchet... like a medieval cluster bomb.
There might need to be something sort of like a fantasy unit in there, but along with the Moors there probably should be some... if the nations had stayed in the fight til later I doubt they would have just sat around and ignored new developments. That's a bit more unrealistic than giving them something they weren't around long enough to have.
Imagine Greek ire and gunpowder mixed together, it would probably be somthing like Napalm, nasty idea if you ask me. or imagine a cannon filled with a half a dozen small calibre cannon balls filled with thats stuff, exploding flaming grape shot, that would probably be the most scary sea weapon developed prior to rifled, explosive shell lobbing cannon.
I thought about that, but really, the pots would have been too fragile for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
However I think the rocket idea could have been possible. Create a decent size rocket. String greek fire bottles over its surface with fuse to hold them on. Fire it over the enemy army. When it's launched the fuse is lit, as the fuse burns far enough it starts releasing the bottles. It would have been possible and something feels like it would have fit the Byzantine style.
Yes, Byzantium definetely needs some good Late Era units, it's just not fair the way it is now.
I hope that'll be fixed in some mod. Definetely my favorite faction, not for the units roster but for the whole historic flavour.
You can imagine all the fantasical Greek gunpowder weapons you like, but the sad fact is that even cannon were in their infancy when Constantinople fell. Although one might argue that a surviving or andvanced Byzantium would have used gunpowder weapons (as they did in that last siege) the idea of some kind of "wonder weapon" is far fetched. The Empire was broke and broken well before the final assault by the Ottoman armies. By all means let them have the "standard" gunpowder weapons if they survive long enough, but "flaming grape" and "medieval cluster bombs" are rather unlikely!
I couldn't find the link with a short search, but Musashi and a few others did some great work making some mounted gunpowder units for our Eastern Roman friends. I think the thread was in the modding forum. Hopefully he'll see this and can provide a link or some insight.
He gave them the full line of units, I think. I know he made musketeers, arquebusiers and handgunners for them.
Gunpowder would be fine, but any a/p missile will do... it just doesn't make sense that the Byz don't get any at all.
Yes true, but for it to have survived the Ottomann assuallt it would have had to have never become broken in the FIRST place. Thus the entire point dosen't really matter. What they might have done if they'd have got their hands on gunpowder and adopted it and developed it with a healthy empire backing them up we'll never know, but it is likliy they would have come up with many useful and advantagous uses for it that would have been unique to them.Quote:
You can imagine all the fantasical Greek gunpowder weapons you like, but the sad fact is that even cannon were in their infancy when Constantinople fell. Although one might argue that a surviving or andvanced Byzantium would have used gunpowder weapons (as they did in that last siege) the idea of some kind of "wonder weapon" is far fetched. The Empire was broke and broken well before the final assault by the Ottoman armies.
Could you explain that comment please, (sorry i'm not quite understanding you).Quote:
I thought about that, but really, the pots would have been too fragile for that.
The units I've created for Byz in my mod so far are:
Militia Musketeers
Elite Musketeers (Similar to Janissary)
Drakonikon (Mounted riflemen, basically fast pony riders with a carbine musket, meant to be used as harassers as they cannot hold up in melee)
Drakonarioi (Gunpowder shock cavalry. They use a heavier caliber carbine, which means less range due to the characteristics of black powder, but they are absolutely devastating in their ability to charge an enemy, firing on them all the way, and then crash into them in a formed charge).
But it's not ready for release, because I'm not satisfied until I can create proper Byzantine looking models for them.
Additionally, I created a rocketeer unit... basically arquebusiers who fire rockets instead of shot... but, if you've ever actually tried this little mod, you'll know exactly how horrifically devastating that is, so it's on hold until I can tweak them some.
I'm also planning to give them Naffatun of course... It's rather silly that they don't have them in vanilla... They invented them for crying out loud.
Well the problem is the manner in which naphtha bombs worked. They were, almost precisely, a medieval Molotov cocktail. They shattered against their target, allowing the goo to cover the target and thus be lit by the attached flame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Putting several of them together in a cannon barrel and then VERY sharply accelerating them means they would almost all shatter in (or shortly after leaving) the barrel as they bounced off each other. It could be avoided by using thicker containers, but by the time the container gets that thick, it won't contain much naphtha and probably won't shatter against most non-building targets anyway.
Most effective liquid incendiary weapons today are air dropped or rocket delivered instead fired from cannon. Hence rocket delivery becomes a good idea even in a medieval war. My rocket concept was intended for one of two situations; either against large troop concentrations (some bombs fall short or long, no biggie) or to set fired to besieged cities. It wouldn't be very accurate at all, but would have its uses. It could also be used with more fragile and quite light glass bottles... this improves the effectiveness and with glass blowing accelerates production.
@JCoyote: I may be wrong about this as it's been a LONG time since I read up on Greek fire. But it was my understanding that one of it's scarier properties (and what made it unique when compared to other incendiary weapons of the day), was that it would actually ignite on contact with the air. Thus a Cannonball filled with the stuff and some gunpowder would create a self igniting explosive incendiary missile. Sure it wouldn't be much use on a battlefield as it probably wouldn't ignite. but on a ship, (you could even use a Ribualt like setup of several small cannon instead of one filled with lots of these), it would be VERY effective IMHO. Short range volleys into the thick timbers of ships should make more than a few go off, and if one hit a cannon and went of the burst of flame would probably reach the rigging. Your talking a weapon where even a single shot could probably eliminate any enemy vessel due to major fires in the rigging and mid decks. A full Broadside would reduce most ships to Little more than a flame wreathed coffin I would imagine. In addition, since it has gunpowder in it you could just set it off like you would normal exploding shot (how did they do that anyway?).
No there is some confusion about whether it ignited on contact with air. I think it's unlikely, simply because with the technology available it would have been too hard to store. Too dangerous to use.
It could have been more like a reaction of two chemicals that were mixed on the spot. Possible, but I have some doubts.
Most likely it was similar to napalm. It was known to continue burning even if you put water on it. THAT was what made it so devastating in that age.
Anyway, the point was, putting a bunch of easily breakable containers in a gun barrel to shoot out isn't an effective use.
A single shell has some potential because it doesn't have the stress of accelerating with other projectiles.
Exploding shot? That was easy... they just put a fuse in the shell. When the fuse burnt long enough, the shell went off. The mark of a good artillery crew was cutting the fuse to the right length for maximum effect. NOT easy. Exploding shells tended to explode in the ground, this limited their effectiveness over what was possible. Crews tried to time it just right so it exploded in the air. During the US Civil War era, most exploding shells still used timed fuses. In those shells, it was easy because the fuse was in a circle in the base of the shell covered with a lead plate. The plate was marked with time increments; you punched a hole in the plate at the proper time increment, which cut the fuse under it and also allowed the firing of the cannon light the fuse at that point. The trick was to try to get the shell to explode in the enemy ranks BEFORE it touched the ground. In earlier eras it was more complicated, but the principle was the same: cut the fuse to the right burn length so it would explode at the right time.
Which is why, when they have shells in M2TW exploding on impact, it gets to me a bit because that just didn't happen til much, much later.
I've heard it suggessted that they where stored sepratly and only mixed in eithier the bellows itself, or as it came out of 2 seperate barrels. More than that, you couldn't ignite a flamethrower type weapon with a simple flame as the fuel washing over it would quicklly put it out as it starved it of oxogyen. It would practiclly HAVE to be self igniting to work like that IMHO.Quote:
It could have been more like a reaction of two chemicals that were mixed on the spot. Possible, but I have some doubts.
Even if it wasn't self igniting, a mixture of it and Gunpowder in a standered exploding shell would STILL be lethal to ships as you'd have a wepaon that would first fire a shell into the heart of the ship where it would quickly explode ina fountin of exploding fire that canmnot be put out. It would allmost ceartianlly set of any powder stored near the nearby guns and would probably start major fires on whatever deck it hit. if it hit near the waterline it might even blow the main magazine and the entire enemy ship. Not that you'd want to be too close when it did that mind. Not to mention that the flamethrowers would still have been lethal at that kind of short range.
Well, there are many, many accounts of various greek fire storage facilities going up in flames. All the accounts say the Byzantines treated it with very careful precautions, far beyond the precautions that would be used for gunpowder even. So it's not impossible that it really was that volatile... Although ignition on contact with air seems highly unlikely simply due to the fact that they would have had extreme difficulty creating vacuums at the time... But it's not impossible.
I tend to lean more towards the idea that it was something that ignited when it reacted with water. This would be somewhat easier to deal with, and quite simple to use as a trigger as well.
Additionally, the Byzantine Fireships used a bellows type arrangement which sprayed the chemical as a stream of fire... Basically a napalm flamethrower. This tends to indicate, to me at least, that some chemical reaction was used for the ignition, rather than actually starting it with a pilot flame.
Could be musahi, somthing falamable with one of the early elements of the periodic table mised in, (one of the ones in the Potassium/Lithium group, allthough below them obviousslly, Potassium explodes on contact wioth water:laugh4: fun to whatch the videos I must ay~;p).
Intresting that it was so volatile, a bit lke Nitroglycarene (you don't think they made a watered down vershion of it do you, would that have even been possibbile back then?)
I somehow doubt that... It wasn't reported to be explosive, just incendiary. If it was anything like nitro they would have had warehouses taking out whole city blocks instead of going up in flames...
They did basically treat it as though it were radioactive though hehe. Only the people who were specifically assigned to work with it were allowed to be anywhere near it, basically.
The most probable answer in my mind is that it reacted with water. Areas with high humidity would be problematic, and seeing how Constantinople is ... well basically surrounded by water, there you have it. :fishbowl:
Pilot lights aren't hard to do though. Even at sea, it's nothing to have a strong burning torch. But a water reaction does make sense. Though no, it wouldn't have been directly because of a purified low number metal... that stuff's fun to play with but not practical on a large scale weapon basis. More likely... two chemicals that when mixed ignited with water. Even THAT is horrifyingly dangerous under medieval conditions. It doesn't take pure water to set off most water reacting substances... the water in your hands or a very humid day can do it too. Which would also have naturally limited it's spreading as a technology... some places would simply have the wrong weather to make or use it for ANY length of time at all.
But that still leaves a problem... storing it on ships for very long. It wouldn't have been a naval weapon if it destroyed as many ships on your side as the enemy. So keeping it at sea would have been nearly suicidal.
Which is why I lean towards it being ignited. There was very likely a difference between it and gunpowder as well... it could have required heating in its final stage of combination. That alone, especially in that day and age, would have made it set a lot of places on fire. Because it needed flames around it to make it when it was tremendously incendiary.
Also, burning in presence of water is not burning in absence of oxygen. So even with a pilot light it wouldn't have fired back into the pump. I think it was probably very, very much like flamethrowers today.
IIRC, this is correct. I think in some books I've read, they stated that the Byzantines only loaded it onto ships when it was known to be needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
This is also entirely possible. Some of the surviving illustrations clearly depict the mixture as already ignited as it's being sprayed from the delivery mechanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
It would seem that reacting with water is a possible issue, and there's also the strong possibility that when prepared, it had a very low realistic shelf-life, and would become extremely volatile after a certain period of time and prone to chemical reactions and/or combustion. If that's the case I wonder if the Byzantines actually knew that or figured it out, seeing how so few people knew about it and would be in a position to determine this.
The power of wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
JCoyote: The problem isn't keeping a pilot light going... It's, with medieval technology, creating an apparatus to spray it across the pilot light, without having it spark back down into the holding tank and ignite the whole lot of it, which, explosive or not, would cause an explosion due to pressure buildup in the holding tank.
This is not generally a good thing.
Whereas, if the chemical is inert except when combined with water, it's very simple to create a device that sprays water and the chemical at the same time, and they mix outside the nozzles, creating ignition with zero chance of burning back down the tubes.
Yes Hore, and even there, both references to catapult use... including the historical memoir... refer to casks/flasks with something flaming attached to it. This includes nautical catapult use. With a self igniting mixture, there would be no flame visible until it landed. That pretty much indicates something like napalm. In which case, the flamethrowers they used likely had torches held to them to light like a modern flamethrower does. There are some tactical advantages to doing things that way as well.
Burning back through the tubes requires oxygen. As long as the tubes don't have air flowing back down the same pathway (they can't when it's pumping). the substance can't light inside them. In many cases lighting could have been as simple as a guy with a pike length pole that had a torch on the end holding a flame to it. With a proper length, narrow tube, flame burning back down actually snuffs itself.
Actually that's not at all true, there are numerous substances that can burn without oxygen... And accounts from the times say that greek fire would burn UNDER water. As in, it would sink, and you would see flames under the surface of the water. This suggests that greek fire was in fact a chemical which can burn without air. That being the case, burning back down the tube is a HUGE concern if it's something ignited with fire, rather than by mixing chemicals at the point of ignition.
There is a difference between burning under water and burning without oxygen. Many things can burn underwater but can't burn without oxygen. They can still use up the oxygen in surrounding air and snuff themselves.
Also, sources say it would burn when doused with water, submerged wasn't often said and could easily have been an exaggeration.
Well, it could have been, but it's best to assume it's correct imho.
If it burns underwater, the likeliest explanation is that it is self-oxidizing, or that it reacts with water.
Is there an easy way to give Byzantium the Naffatuns? Nevermind the textures.
A Hungarian cannon-maker named Urban offered his services to the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX just before the last siege of Constantinople but was turned away due to lack of funds. He consequentially turned to the Turkish sultan, Mehmet I, who gladly provided him with the monetary power to construct monsterous cannons for his assault on Constantinople. Ironically the very man Constantine turned away was used to construct weapons that blew large chunks out of the Theodosian walls just a few months later. So gunpowder was certainly available to the Byzantines before their fall, although this is reflected ingame by the Byzantines getting the basic 'bombard cannon'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Also the Byzantines themselves also possessed cannons on their walls; we know this through contemporary sources and illustrations of the siege. Handgunners were also present on the defenders' side during the siege, although admittedly most of these were Italian and few of these troops were native Greeks. However this is also reflected through their access to gunpowder mercenaries.
I find little to no problem with the Byzantines having no access to powerful gunpower units; it makes them a more unique faction and forces the Byzantine player to utilise his factions strengths (particularly in horse archers and cavalry) to overcome its weakness in gunpowder.
That's true from a historical perspective, but part of this game is about changing history. In history, a comparatively minor military defeat in 1071 (Manzikert, not many men actually died in the battle and many of the troops were present in the later Byzantine army) resulted in disastrous consequences. The empire lost their largest recruiting base for troops, and even with the recovery of some territory by the Komnenan dynasty, they never regained their former power. If that had not happened, who knows how things might have developed over the following few centuries? I know in my first M2 campaign I played the Byzantines, and by the time gunpowder was developed I'd reconquered the entirety of the empire, the roman empire that is. So, now you have a vibrant, rich and powerful empire that still can't make use of the single most influential military discovery in history. Sure, I can play around it using horse archers to counter musketeers and cannons, and in fact I'd won the campaign before gunpowder was developed but kept playing, but why should I have to?
Just try to think of it in terms of all the factions as a whole. You could make a case that every faction the game should possess all technologies since they could have done in alternate histories, but the truth is the Byzantines fit into a unique faction slot as a powerful cavalry/archer faction with no access to gunpowder. That is their characteristic, and I think the game is the better for it.
What about a Trebuchet launching multiple Naptha pots? The fuse would have to be much longer, but it could be a possibility.
An actual Greek fire unit that did exist was a Greek fire 'flamethrower', where a movable platform was fitted with a hose and bellows and Greek fire was pumped out in a spray of flame that wasn't easily put out. It was used in a sally-out against French crusaders around 1204, it killed many soldiers and destroyed the siege towers they were constructing.
Don't trebuchets already have an explosive projectile? I don't have the game installed nor have I played Byz yet so I am not familiar with their lineup. Perhaps it's possible to make it so a single siege weapon shoots multiple projectiles, but that's more of a question for the modding forums I'd think.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
I agree with all those who requested a buff to the Byzantine units, I do think it is quite unfair the way their units turn out to be in the late era.
Constantinople fell to the Turks and Byzantium ceased to exist due to a variety of geopolitical and religious factors; not because their troops were utterly uselss by the that time as the game makes it seem.
Please give us some decent Byzantine heavy infantry, spearmen, Gunpowder units..
Trebuchets do already have a flaming projectile. They have three, in fact: normal boulder, flaming boulder, and rotting cow (fetchez la vache!). And Guy is right to a point. The game designers take certain historical liberties with reality in order to provide some flavor and differentiation to the game.
Most European powers had pretty much the exact same units with some minor variations, like the English knights preferring to fight on foot or the Spanish cavalry having more commoners included because of the grants of land for resettling the areas where the Moors were expelled. But if every single faction had the same units it would be BORING! Face it, how tired are you playing another faction that has town militia, spear militia, crossbow militia, armored sergeants, et al. It's normally only once you get to tier 4 that you get some variation in units. So, I'm willing to live with a little inaccuracy in order to get that feeling of not playing the same army in a different uniform.
But, I think every other faction in the game gets hand gunners, and nearly all of them get arquebusiers. CA only gave musketeers to those faction that were early adopters or heavy innovators in the gunpowder era. I just think that's an overly strict weakness of the Byzantines that doesn't necessarily reflect the game reality. While I think there are some mercenary gunpowder units, their availability dates are very late in the period.
Actually Quillian... I disagree ever so slightly. When it comes to the base lineups, I like to see some solid consistency across the board so I can make some kind of rudimentary apples to apples comparison about what I'm going to be facing on the campaign map. BUT I do like seeing the faction specific units in good doses, AND I for one actually enjoy some of the more creative (read: fantasy) units that CA comes up with. It still really irks me that they didn't include dismounting, I think that would have added a much greater dimension to unit lineups and would just plain be more fun.
Cheers!
I saw one of those not-so-historical-more-OMG-History Channel documentaries on crazy ancient weapons and they showed a working man-portable naptha-flame-thrower that was from the Byzantine era. Supposedly, it was used by front line troops to terrorize enemy formations.
I would like to see the Naptha Tipped Rockets though.
I really donot understand you all...
the byz have the best all round (pre gunpowder) mix of units...
More than that: if anyone would mod additional units into them it would be too easy...
Really i am sorry i did not play byz before, they rule
from now on, my fav are russia and byz :smash:
zstajerski, they lack some good infantry (not mentioning Varangians, of course), especially spears. no AP units (not that I miss them, though), no Naphtha Throwers (which is just not fair), no Gunpowder (yes, you can win even before the Mongols come, but that's just not fun if you like to turtle).
I definitely would like to see some mod focussing on Byzantium.
Wwll what about dimounted latkion : and of course varangian guard (as u sad)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollon
Not even Dismounted Latkion are that good, yes they match DFK, but theirs a significant performance difference between DFK and Dismounted Chivalric Knights, even if their isn't much of a stats difference. Vargarian guard whilst good are still well behind several other 2-handers and cannot take a Cav charge at all. Add to that no decent spears and the Byzantines have some fairly serious issues with their infantry as many factions can get much better S&S units and a fair few can get better 2-Handers, and almost everyone can get better spears.
The other problem is that even the Byzantines best Cav units aren't actually any better than their western counterparts. Their only real advantages over all factions is their Vardorti, which frankly shouldn't even be in the game as they break every rule of balanced HA design. HA pay for their advantages in Mobility and melee power, (when compared to most foot archers), by being less powerful shooters, whilst they pay for their shooting abilities by being much worse in melee than most light Cav.
Vardorti get medium melee Cav stats plus a missile attack that, (when combined with the ability of all HA to fire off all their ammo 9/10 and the advantages of enfilade fire on kill rates), is better than any non-gunpowder foot units. Take Vardorti away from them and I doubt they'd be half as powerful as they currently are.
And that is the real issue with the Byzantines, they may well be very powerful overall, but they are powerful because of just one unit, a good Byzantine army doesn't really need anything in it except for Vardorti because they are that good at both melee and shooting. Byzantine armies currently have no incentive to use their infantry, and every incentive not to.
^In that regard two points, I noticed that (i think it's the 2-hander fix included with your fixer) there are a couple 2 handers which did not have their attack boosted - It looked like to me, part of the fix was to increase all 2 hands by 10 points, to counter their slow animation, or whatever.... I just saw that from numerous 10 point differences between the left over unaltered unit info line and the actual attack line... the thing being, there were a couple units which already had high attacks, such as varn guard - and those were NOT boosted - so they were lowered by comparison - so in line with their costs, if one raises the attack of the varn guard, just like all the other units, then you find that they are in actuallity the best 2-hander there is, with a close second being the egyptian palace guard, the tabardiyya... if neccessary, raise the unit cost to compensate
2nd - personally I like a meeting place between historical accuracy and game balance... to me, it doesn't seem odd that the high level horse archers rule the battlefield... cause that's what they did - to counter them, you'll need ingenous tactics... some way to pin them for heavy cavalry (which by the way the map borders afford you a much greater chance of that than you'd ever find in history) or a combination of bowmen focusing their fire and spearmen to defend against a charge... If the unit is too powerful, i'd rather see an increase in cost, or a change in their availability, rather than a decrease to their stats... I don't want HA's to be 'just another unit'... I want them to be the super-soldiers that they were and require special tactics to handle
also there are other good HA units, the main Vardorti advantage is that they lose no agility... so maybe, taking away their fast horses would throw them back in the same category with things like the mamluk archers, cossacks, mongol heavy archers, etc...
--------------
and finally, to the point of the thread... giving the Byz Naffatun and some manner of gunpowder unit fills out their roster perfectly... they then still have a few weaknesses, like no strong spears, and some strengths too
Here's a link the source on the center: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=18
Yeah, this is the baby I was talking about:
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/...sifon163uo.jpg
Since I can't find the original source, here's a summary of what the guy at the center said about it. The weapon was called the cheirosyphon and its constructed based on an ancient hand pump. It was fed by a small naptha tank and the range was about eight to twelve meters.
I'd like to see this thing in a mod.
the absolute min range allowed for a unit right now is 20... less than that and the game shows an error message, iunno if somebody will figure a way around that, but the flamethrower looks like a very cool possible idea
Is that something they hard coded in the engine?Quote:
Originally Posted by SMZ
Even so, I'm not sure how well the dynamics of an actual flamethrower could be worked in with the current engine. Even Close Combat had relatively lackluster simulation of an actual flamethrower's effects. In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen one modeled that well in a computer game. It really needs physics for a burning liquid to be modeled. Things like splashing off targets, burning on the ground creating a terrain hazard for a while, etc.
The problem is that Vargarians where one of the bugged units, the only units that had their attack raised where the unbugged ones that where left weak after the bugged unit where fixed. Thus Vargarians are where they should be for their price relative to most other units. They're a very good unit in some respects, (much more missile resistant than most), but not quite as good as JHI/DGK/Zweihanders/DEK/DNK/DPK who are all slightly or significantly better.Quote:
I noticed that (i think it's the 2-hander fix included with your fixer) there are a couple 2 handers which did not have their attack boosted - It looked like to me, part of the fix was to increase all 2 hands by 10 points, to counter their slow animation, or whatever.... I just saw that from numerous 10 point differences between the left over unaltered unit info line and the actual attack line... the thing being, there were a couple units which already had high attacks, such as varn guard - and those were NOT boosted - so they were lowered by comparison - so in line with their costs, if one raises the attack of the varn guard, just like all the other units, then you find that they are in actuality the best 2-hander there is, with a close second being the Egyptian palace guard, the tabardiyya... if necessary, raise the unit cost to compensate
The other problem is that no matter how much you increase their attack, a good formed Cav charge will sweep them aside and the Byzantines don't really have a good defense against this as their spears are too weak. this renders all Byzantine foot infantry redundant as theirs no intrinsic advantage over using them instead of Cav/HA.
The problem with this is 2-fold. First no combination of spears and archers will EVER beat Vardorti, in fact well controlled Vardorti are totally unbeatable on mass. The problem is that when attacking a unit from the rear at short range they have nearly as much firepower as Musketeers and more than any non-gunpowder unit. he other problem is that non non-spear/pike unit will survive a formed change and no Cav fast enough to match their speed can actually beat them. Worse still, even if you manage to pine them with heavy knights, they are still good enough to inflict heavy losses before dying.Quote:
2nd - personally I like a meeting place between historical accuracy and game balance... to me, it doesn't seem odd that the high level horse archers rule the battlefield... cause that's what they did - to counter them, you'll need ingenious tactics... some way to pin them for heavy cavalry (which by the way the map borders afford you a much greater chance of that than you'd ever find in history) or a combination of bowmen focusing their fire and spearmen to defend against a charge... If the unit is too powerful, I'd rather see an increase in cost, or a change in their availability, rather than a decrease to their stats... I don't want HA's to be 'just another unit'... I want them to be the super-soldiers that they were and require special tactics to handle
In effect nothing in the game capable of outshouting them can survive their charge, and nothing in the game capable of actually beating them in melee will last long against their shooting. It doesn't matter how expensive or rare they get, they are so good that you should always have as many as you can as they are so good.
In addition, this is a game, not history, A competent AI should really be able to at least partially match a human player, if it could get even half way their, Byzantine would be unbeatable in the SP mode because the Vardorti would rip apart anything sent against them. The only way to beat properly controlled Vardorti is to overwhelm them with sheer weight of numbers.
Likewise their are a number of people (and I'm one of them), that enjoy Custom battles or quick Battles. Vardorti totally throw the balance out here because they are a unit totally without weaknesses. The only way to beat them is to overwhelm them via sheer weight of numbers, something that is pretty much impossibbile in Custom due to the 20 units per side limit. Cost could be a limiting factor here, but the price would have to be so high that by the time you got them balanced, no one would ever use them because they would be so expensive.
Likewise some people play MP and it would be selfish to ignore them when balancing things, with a human vs. human battle vardorti could easily tip things over the edge, the only reason they don't currently is because every other byzantine unit is so poor by comparison, if they had decent infantry as well the IMBA would be obvious
HA in this game come in two types:
type 1: these are typically no more expensive than most foot archers/light Cav, and are typically worse in melee than most light Cav, and worse shooters than most foot archers, but get their power from being able to shoot better than light Cav and fight better than foot missiles, plus having the advantage of lacking the normal Cav vulnerabilities of foot archers and have a lower vulnerability to pikes than most light Cav (as they Cav shoot the pikes down).
Type 2: these are typically in the 800+ range price wise and are similar to Type 1 HA, except that they do one aspect of their 2 roles as well as either foot archers or light Cav. They are however still weaker either at melee or a shooting than proper foot archers/light Cav. So some are as good at shooting as Foot Archers, but are still worse in melee than most Light Cav. Others are as good in melee as most light/medium Cav, but are worse at shooting than most foot archers.
I might be nice to have them historically accurate as the ultimate super soldiers they really where, but this is a game and you can't have super soldier's in a balanced game.
I'm not sure, all I can report is that when I tried setting a custom Naffatun type unit to range "15" I got a CTD and the log file said no range values below 20 allowedQuote:
Is that something they hard coded in the engine?
gotta disagree, berdiche were at attack 27, german swordsmen were all around 24 or so, scots two hand sword at 22... in short, all the 2handed units had an attack above what the varangian guards is... despite the varangian supposed to be the ultimate 2handers it is possible to get... that's why I say, I think they deserve the boost also... otherwise they end up being the worst non-halberd 2hand unitQuote:
Thus Vargarians are where they should be for their price relative to most other units.
I haven't done MP, but are you sure? I've gotta think that 2/3rds good bowmen + 1/3rd good pikes or halberds = HA doom... ie: say an army of Janissaries... good archers with stakes, good infantry with halberds, maybe even a few muskets.... wouldn't that seem effective to you? the larger unit size means the archers can put the same amount of arrows in the air despite having fewer units, also since they're on foot they can cluster closer together and thus focus their fire on one unit easier.... if the HA's try to swarm them, they've got stakes and halberds to worry about.... they can't just sit back, because the long range arrows and muskets will pick them offQuote:
First no combination of spears and archers will EVER beat Vardorti
French could do the same thing with Dismounted Longbows or Scots Guard or Aventuriers & Pikes or DNKs or Voulgier.... etc, etc, etc... any faction with a long range unit and a pike unit could do that combo, right?
ha, but that's the point... make ppl pay for excellence - what's they're cost - 800? and default max florins is 10,000? so that means you can only afford 12 of them, barely over 1/2 stack - unless ppl are using unlimited florins, that seems fair to me - 1/2 a stack of HA's controlled well should be about even with a full stack of archers/pikes controlled wellQuote:
Cost could be a limiting factor here, but the price would have to be so high that by the time you got them balanced, no one would ever use them because they would be so expensive
if the player's tactic is to try chasing them down with knights... well then he deserves to get shot full of arrows and then his remnants swarmed - if his tactic is to fire back with unprotected foot archers, then he deserves to have them ridden down - if you got em, put some stakes down in a circle, or huddle behind some pikemen... that leaves the battles impetus in the HA commanders hands, but it should be - and if he complains that you're huddled up in a turtle shell, then you complain right back that he fielded a HA heavy force... the turtle shell is the proper response - if he wants an easy victory then he should leave the MP arena and go slaughter the AI
First things first. the 27 attack one is Forlorn hope who are half the size, second, nowhere is it stated that Vargarian Guard are supposed to be the best 2-hander, they weren't in vanilla and I see no reason why they have to be now. Third, they are actually cheaper than all the 2-handers that can beat them, DEK/DNK?DPK don't beat them by much and are only 10 florin more, plus DEK are part of an infantry reliant army and are going to be cheaper in relation to their power anyway. Fourth, their are quite a big number of 2-Handers that are weaker than them. Woodsmen, Croat Axeman, Norse Axeman, Transylvania Peasants, ME_Halberd_Militia, Berdiche Axmen, and I think their might be one or two more besides. Lastly, they have the second highest missile defense of any 2-hander, (DGK are better, DEK/DNK/DPK are equal and only Norse Axemen come close otherwise), and the highest total defense of any 2-hander, with only DGK/DEK/DNK/DPK coming near. For their price they perform extremely well and have some unique advantages, but as should be the case, they are beaten by the more expensive forms of 2-hander.Quote:
gotta disagree, berdiche were at attack 27, German swordsmen were all around 24 or so, Scots two hand sword at 22... in short, all the 2handed units had an attack above what the varangian guards is... despite the varangian supposed to be the ultimate 2handers it is possible to get... that's why I say, I think they deserve the boost also... otherwise they end up being the worst non-halberd 2hand unit
Not really, the problem is that the HA can just focus on one area of your battle line so that any shots at them have to arc high in the air to clear the intervening friendly units. Worse still, the effects of attacking from the sides and rear easily outweigh the benefits of a larger unit size. Lastly, they could easily surround one end of your battle line from both the front and rear and charge you in the rear, which even for pikes will kill 705+ of the units. JHI, (and other 2-handers), wouldn't have a chance in this situation, not only are they very vulnerable to missiles, but a formed charge will take out 70% of the unit even if from the front. Pikes would also be too slow to react if you charged the archers, by the time they've moved in on the Cav thats just charged the archers into oblivion, the Cav could have withdrawn away with most of the archers dead.Quote:
I haven't done MP, but are you sure? I've gotta think that 2/3rds good bowmen + 1/3rd good pikes or halberds = HA doom... ie: say an army of Janissaries... good archers with stakes, good infantry with halberds, maybe even a few muskets.... wouldn't that seem effective to you? the larger unit size means the archers can put the same amount of arrows in the air despite having fewer units, also since they're on foot they can cluster closer together and thus focus their fire on one unit easier.... if the HA's try to swarm them, they've got stakes and halberds to worry about.... they can't just sit back, because the long range arrows and muskets will pick them off
French could do the same thing with Dismounted Longbows or Scots Guard or Aventuriers & Pikes or DNKs or Voulgier.... etc, etc, etc... any faction with a long range unit and a pike unit could do that combo, right?
Well for various reasons you can't actually get 12 units in a 10K stack due to the way the price increases for every unit after the fourth. However, if you could, then yes they WOULD beat an army of Pikes/Archers. For Vardorti to be balanced in SP, (where you can get unlimited numbers of them at the same price once you have enough castles), they would have to be in the 1500-2000 florins range, at which point most people would prefer a unit of light Cav and a unit of foot archers. In many ways thats the point of all HA, for their price they are worse than a unit of light Cav and a unit of foot archers, (when said foot archers and light Cav have the same total price as the HA), but make up for it by taking up less slots in an army and being able t do things that the 2 units alone or in combination could never achieve.Quote:
ha, but that's the point... make ppl pay for excellence - what's they're cost - 800? and default max florins is 10,000? so that means you can only afford 12 of them, barely over 1/2 stack - unless ppl are using unlimited florins, that seems fair to me - 1/2 a stack of HA's controlled well should be about even with a full stack of archers/pikes controlled well
95% of people don't have stakes so you can't use it as a valid tactic, and gunpowder and Crossbows MUST have a clear line of sight to the HA, if they don't they have to arc their shots and their killing power drops to almost nothing then. Archers can fire from behind pikes in theory, but if the HA come in close enough they can still be out of charge range of the pikes whilst being close enough to force the archers to arc their fire high in the air, cutting the killing power. The other problem is that if you bring say 16 units of HA to battle, each only has to kill about 75 guys each between their melee and missile fire to wipe out a full stack army. Go up to 20 units of HA, (a bit difficult to do normally though), and that drops to 60 each. With the weaker forms of HA this isn't possible, but Vardorti and a few others can actually manage it. This means it's quite easy for pure HA armies to win. A large part of the problem is that even with Armour upgrades, most Pikes/foot Archers are still very missile vulnerable.Quote:
if the player's tactic is to try chasing them down with knights... well then he deserves to get shot full of arrows and then his remnants swarmed - if his tactic is to fire back with unprotected foot archers, then he deserves to have them ridden down - if you got em, put some stakes down in a circle, or huddle behind some pikemen... that leaves the battles impetus in the HA commanders hands, but it should be - and if he complains that you're huddled up in a turtle shell, then you complain right back that he fielded a HA heavy force... the turtle shell is the proper response - if he wants an easy victory then he should leave the MP arena and go slaughter the AI
A turtle shell simply doesn't work. A Pure HA army CAN be beaten by multiple units of Schiltrom spears with Armour upgrades, (need to be Armored Sarges or above against Vardorti though), but it's still very messy and incredibly boring to play, I've done it vs. the AI a few times.
Lastly, the most important point here, (and the one you Will NEVER shift me on), is that for the game to be properly balanced, it should be almost impossibbile for an army thats spams just 1 or 2 unit types to beat a balanced army (i.e. one composed of a mix of types), assuming both players are equally skilled. Thus a mostly HA/Heavy Cav army, (and an army of Vardorti has elements of both), shouldn't really be able to beat a balanced army. The only time it's permissible is in the case of those factions that are lacking in other areas and thus just don't have any other way of building an effective army. The only current example of this are Mongols, Tirmurds, and Aztecs. he Mongols and Tirmurds have a very poor selection of foot units, being limited mostly to Foot archers and Spears. They should still have to include some of these units, but a mostly HA/Heavy Cav army would be permissible as a winning army in these cases as they can't really Field anything else. Likewise the Aztecs weak spears and foot missiles plus total lack of mounted units means they should actually be able to get away with a mostly S&S/2-Hander army. Scots are a partial example of this in that they also have weak Cav and missile units, although since they have a big variety of foot melee units, (spear, pikes, 2-handers, AND S&S, plus composite archers on top), they aren't a full example like Aztecs/Mongols/Tirmurds.
Overall, most HA fit the description of HA I gave in my previous post, they all have a vulnerability and all can be beaten, because they are all weak at melee/missile power (in comparison to light Cav/foot archers respectively). As a result 95% of the A out their can be beaten by a balanced force as the Best shooters can't normally finish the units they shoot to bit off in melee, and those that are good at melee can't always shoot their target up enough to guarantee a win in melee. Vardorti can do both and have some to spare besides.
Well, I'm going to disagree here, though it's correct if you limit it strictly to the context of the game battles. In reality, no army exclusively of horse archers can lose to an infantry army except through mistakes on the part of the general. The problem is that the smart general on the other side tries to restrict the circumstances to those that force the horse archers into standing and fighting, which they wouldn't normally do. As long as the horse archers do nothing but shoot and move, they're going to cause lots of casualties without suffering terribly in return, but they cannot hold territory that way. They trade space for time, giving up territory in order to wear down the opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
That's not the way battles work in the TW games, though. Battles are fought in the context of controlling territory, either directly or indirectly. They have edges, and you can pin the HA against the edge. Withdrawing from the battle is treated as a loss, with a bunch of casualties "inflicted" by the computer after all your troops are away, just because you lost, and eventually you have to stand and fight in order to keep the city (and thus the province) from falling to your opponent.
Now, when I played the Byzantines, I didn't base my army around Vardariotai. My typical cav army was 4 Vardariotai, 2 Skythikons, a dozen Byzantine cavalry and a general. I still won my battles handily, without needing to commit to a lot of melee. You don't have to have the elites in order to win with horse archers. I haven't played them, but I'd be willing to bet I could do the same thing with the Egyptians or the Turks or the Russians, though I'm not sure if they all have a good variety of horse archers to use.
In the TW games, what I always use to counter HA armies is a mix of missile infantry (because it outranges the mounted archers) and strong melee infantry to keep the cavalry off the archers. The fact that it doesn't keep the cav off in this game isn't due to Vardariotai being overpowered, rather it's due to cavalry in general being overpowered in the charge. Perhaps matters will change with the upcoming patch; I'll wait until that's out to see.
I agree totally with this from a HISTORICAL perspective. But as you stated, in game it rarely works that way, and this is a game and it's what happens in game that matters.Quote:
In reality, no army exclusively of horse archers can lose to an infantry army except through mistakes on the part of the general. The problem is that the smart general on the other side tries to restrict the circumstances to those that force the horse archers into standing and fighting, which they wouldn't normally do. As long as the horse archers do nothing but shoot and move, they're going to cause lots of casualties without suffering terribly in return, but they cannot hold territory that way. They trade space for time, giving up territory in order to wear down the opponent.
Musashi made an excellent series of posts a while back on this matter, as he pointed out, in SP at least, you can keep attacking the opponent then retreating when he traps you against an edge/you run out of ammo. Accept the losses then go back next turn and finish the weakened army of. Trapping an opponent is also VERY difficult as almost all HA move faster than all but the fastest Light Cav, so it's very difficult to not leave them with a way to simply move around past your units that are trying to trap them. Infantry (a big component of any balanced force), are totally useless for tis too. It's not impossibbile, but you'll only be able to trap a few units at once. Whilst all the time your doing that the rest of the HA are shooting you in the rear and sides. Likewise, in sieges Musashi tends to Sally out repeatedly over several turns and in combination with the towers he shoots the enemy up then retreats inside and accepts a draw. After doing that a few times the enemy army has usually had it.Quote:
That's not the way battles work in the TW games, though. Battles are fought in the context of controlling territory, either directly or indirectly. They have edges, and you can pin the HA against the edge. Withdrawing from the battle is treated as a loss, with a bunch of casualties "inflicted" by the computer after all your troops are away, just because you lost, and eventually you have to stand and fight in order to keep the city (and thus the province) from falling to your opponent.
I never said you HAD to use a pure Vardorti army to win, just that if you did, no 20 stack army could ever beat you even if controlled by a human. Vardorti are actually better in melee than Feudal Knights, and better at shooting than anything except musketeers. Anything they can't out-shoot they can beat in melee, and anything they can't beat in melee they can shoot to death. With normal HA, if they can't shoot them down they can't normally beat them in melee either. Worse still Normal HA that can d well in melee are typically pretty poor shots, their shooting ability is actually a secondary characteristic and not a primary one (they are sort of a composite HA, medium Cav with shooting abilities). Vardorti are Composite HA with a very powerful rather than mediocre shooting attack.Quote:
Now, when I played the Byzantines, I didn't base my army around Vardariotai. My typical Cav army was 4 Vardariotai, 2 Skythikons, a dozen Byzantine cavalry and a general. I still won my battles handily, without needing to commit to a lot of melee. You don't have to have the elites in order to win with horse archers. I haven't played them, but I'd be willing to bet I could do the same thing with the Egyptians or the Turks or the Russians, though I'm not sure if they all have a good variety of horse archers to use.
I'd disagree here, it has NOTHING to do with Cav being overpowered because with working Shields they aren't. Composite HA's, (but not the normal missile ones that should be weak in melee), SHOULD have a formed charge and Cav with a formed charge SHOULD be good vs. archers as thats one of the primary functions of proper melee Cav. With their current melee stats, Vardorti will always justify having a formed charge, and thus will always justify their ability to bypass guarding units to kill the Archers, as thats the point of them, (Cav in general, not just Vardorti), really. The only defense is to retreat your Archers behind your melee screen. With ordinary Heavy Cav this isn't an issue as they can't then charge into your guarding unit due to their vulnerabilities to anti-Cav units and vulnerabilities in general melee.Quote:
In the TW games, what I always use to counter HA armies is a mix of missile infantry (because it out-ranges the mounted archers) and strong melee infantry to keep the cavalry off the archers. The fact that it doesn't keep the Cav off in this game isn't due to Vardariotai being overpowered, rather it's due to cavalry in general being overpowered in the charge. Perhaps matters will change with the upcoming patch; I'll wait until that's out to see.
Composite HA add a new dimension here as they can run around keeping the archers pinned behind their defensive melee screen whilst they Unload some missile into the enemy. You can do the same with 1 unit of missile HA and 1 unit of medium Cav of course, but that takes 2 units and typically costs more as the HA will be more expensive due to it's better missile power when compared to the Composite HA. This is where Vardorti go wrong. they have enough missile power to be more than just a nuisance to the enemy melee defense, (as a composite HA should be), they can actually inflict major losses on you. Vardorti either need their melee reducing (so they are no longer a composite archer and it becomes justifiable to remove their formed charge), thus making them vulnrable to being outshot by foot archers, and being unable to deal with the issue themselves, they need support from proper cav. Or they need their missile power reducing so that they aren't any better at shooting up the enemy than a proper Composite HA should be.
well, they're the byzantine "unique unit"... so they're supposed to kick buttQuote:
nowhere is it stated that Vargarian Guard are supposed to be the best 2-hander
lemme run thru the rest of that list: longbowmen, gendarmes, gothic knights, conquistadors, venetian heavy inf, norse axemen, mamluks, battlefield assassins, familia ducale, camel gunners, hussars, jinetes, cossaks, highland nobles, norman knights, janissary heavy inf....
now when I look at that list, I see the best units in the game - I don't see a list of units which are cost effective, I see a list of units that can layeth the smack down
--------
as to the tactics, I'll have to run some tests I guess - but I really don't think it's impossible to defend against HA's... difficult? of course - but instead of typing pages of tactics back an forth, I think it's reasonable to simply say that whatever an HA controlling player might do, it is possible to present an effective turtle shell face
now the real difficulty comes when attacking... which once again, the engine already affords the normal player an extra bonus against HA armies, namely you don't have to attack the army... you can just sack the cities, and the faction dies
and considering that some of the heavy knights already have costs up around or over 1000, I'd say again that any balancing could be done most simply by just raising the cost of the unit a bit to better reflect their lethality.... I'd imagine outfitting a unit with horses of the quality the Var seem to have, training in both martial abilities, arms and armours - that justifies a higher cost anyway
Actually the entire Byzantine unit lineup is unique, they share their units with no-one else, and Norse axemen, Longbowmen, Highland Nobles, Jinites, Battelfeild Assasins, Familia Ducal, mamaluks, and Gendarmees are all significantly weaker than Vargarians, and almost every unit on your list (VHI, JHI, and Counquistidors being exceptions), are worse than some other unit in the armies they are the unique unit for, and some of these better units are the same type as the unique unit. Unique units are rarely the most powerful unit available to a faction, or the only unique unit, they are just the ones CA has decided to make a fuss over. the other point is that regardless of weather they are a unique unit or not, they have to perform according to their cost or it throws the balance out. SO yes Vargarians could be made more powerful, but they'd have to be made more expensive, for the moment at least I'm not messing with costs, although eventually i may do and then you may see Vargarains (and some other byzantine foot units), get some major changes.Quote:
well, they're the byzantine "unique unit"... so they're supposed to kick butt
As to HA, you CAN beat pure HA armies, to a degree you can even challenge them with balanced forces. My point was that a pure VARDORTI army would be unbeatable. Most HA either lack the missile power to destroy the units capable of countering them in melee. r they have the required missile power, but lack the melee to beat some of the units that are vulnerable to normal heavy Cav charges. S&S units are an excellent example of this, their defense is sufficient to deal with formed charges from light Cav, but heavy Cav just sweep them away. Vardorti however can shoot down all the units able to receive their formed charges, then use their immense melee power to formed charge every remaining unit out of existence. the only answer to this is spears (pikes don't have enough missile defense). They can usually take all the shooting with some men to spare. As a result they can then actually survive the Vardorti Formed charges, but they have to be at least Armored Sargent's level in power, and you need a least 1 unit of them per unit of vardorti. It's the only viable strategy, and will still cost you most of your army at that.
Regarding cost raises, they are about as effective as feudal knights in melee (they are 730 florins), and are as good at shooting as the best foot missiles when used correctly, (said foot missiles are typically about 600-700 florins). The combined price alone from those two is about 1400 florins, but they have the versatility of packing both units in one package and take up less army slots so should be more expensive. Thats why I said 1500-2000 florins each. Would you really buy them at that kind of price?
ehh... I don't agree on several points still, but it's not important, lol - *leaves it alone*
as to the potential unit cost adjustments - I don't get your objection... you're saying the unit is worth 1500-2000 florins each.... and then asking if anybody would spend that much for them... makes no sense - if that's their fair market value, then that's what it is.... cars are expensive items, ppl still buy them because that's how much money they're worth.... homes are very expensive items, ppl still buy them, because the big number isn't the point, the point is what you're getting for the big number... if that's what it's worth, then so be it - that's what ppl will pay
Not everyone buys really expensive cars or really expensive houses.
Surely you don't mean to compare the elite Varangian (not Vargarian or how else did you call it) Emperor's Guard, one of the finest units of its time, to Peasants or Woodsmen. Anyway, I can't see what discussing your ProblemFixer's balancing issues has to do with that topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Well, back to topic then. According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, i know), Byzantine lineup is presented quite adequately in the game. However, we're missing skuotatoi with long (about 2 to 3 m) spears (not the Pikemen, but more or less close to it), axes as secondary weapon to archers, peltastoi (a possible AP unit, though I'm not sure if they were still used in Middle Ages) and Kataphraktoi with composite bows (they are substituted with Vardariotai, I guess). There were also horse slingers (psiloi hippeutes) or lancers and mounted Javelineers (psiloi kataphractes).
BTW, I think it would be just fair to make most mercenaries available in Constantinople (not the most exotic ones, of course, just such common as Crossbowmen, for example). That was the most vibrant city of its time, surely there were plenty of mercenaries from all over the known world willing to sell their services.
Perhaps. But in general I would agree there should be a few "merc centers" on the map where there tends to be a much wider selection than other regions offer. Constantinople could be one. There should be another somewhere in Italy, because it was really continuous wars between cities there... regular work attracts mercs. And another should probably be in the holy land, given all the comings and goings and changeovers, certainly over time there was a plethora of mercenary types available there. Which is also nice; it gives a merc center each for catholics, orthodox, and muslim factions.
My point was that in Custom/MP most people try to get a 20 unit or near 20 unit stack. A 1500-2000 florins unit leaves them with Little chance of that, but any less isn't Representative of it's power. The reality is most people would never take them outside very high florin limits where they have money to burn.Quote:
as to the potential unit cost adjustments - I don't get your objection... you're saying the unit is worth 1500-2000 florins each.... and then asking if anybody would spend that much for them... makes no sense - if that's their fair market value, then that's what it is.... cars are expensive items, ppl still buy them because that's how much money they're worth.... homes are very expensive items, ppl still buy them, because the big number isn't the point, the point is what you're getting for the big number... if that's what it's worth, then so be it - that's what ppl will pay
Let me clarify something. Do I agree that based on history and their unit card description that they SHOULD be better.Yes of course I do. All I'm trying to say is that currently they perform exactly as they should for their price, nothing they beat is more expensive than them and nothing that beats them is cheaper than them. In reality i think they should be much more powerful and expensive. However ATM i don't intend to start messing with units too much. Later on(V1.15 or 1.16) of my problem fixer I probably will and you'll see those kind of Little detail changes along with a hefty amount of re-pricing. But for now I want to get some bugs fixed and get the AI and Campaign in working order. Thats the primary aim of V1.14Quote:
Surely you don't mean to compare the elite Varangian (not Vargarian or how else did you call it) Emperor's Guard, one of the finest units of its time, to Peasants or Woodsmen.
The real issue with the Byzantines isn't so much their Cav, but their foot troops. With no effective spearmen and their best S&S unit being no better than DFK, (who are a long way behind Dismounted Chivalric knights, Noble Swordsmen, Dismounted Christian Guard, Dismounted Conquistadors, e.t.c.), and no foot AP missile unit, they have very limited foot capabilities as none of their foot infantry stands out as being more useful than more HA/Heavy Cav and worse still their spearmen weaknesses leave their infantry so vulnerable to heavy Cav that they are rendered nearly useless against a competent human player.Quote:
Well, back to topic then. According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, i know), Byzantine lineup is presented quite adequately in the game. However, we're missing skuotatoi with long (about 2 to 3 m) spears (not the Pikemen, but more or less close to it), axes as secondary weapon to archers, peltastoi (a possible AP unit, though I'm not sure if they were still used in Middle Ages) and Kataphraktoi with composite bows (they are substituted with Vardariotai, I guess). There were also horse slingers (psiloi hippeutes) or lancers and mounted Javelineers (psiloi kataphractes).
BTW, I think it would be just fair to make most mercenaries available in Constantinople (not the most exotic ones, of course, just such common as Crossbowmen, for example). That was the most vibrant city of its time, surely there were plenty of mercenaries from all over the known world willing to sell their services.
isn't that the whole point of raising the cost? I still don't get your objection - you're arguing both sides of an equation at the same timeQuote:
A 1500-2000 florins unit leaves them with Little chance of that
you can't a enter battle with a full stack of camel gunners either... they're still worth their weight in gold
the point being, cars are more expensive than computer games... this doesn't stop ppl from buying cars - because a car is WORTH more... and likewise a unit of Vardariotai is WORTH more than a unit of Mailed Knights, substantially so - and if they are WORTH they're price, no matter how high it is, then they will still be purchased - as long as the price is fairQuote:
Not everyone buys really expensive cars or really expensive houses.
The point is that in MP if both sides don't have full 20 unit armies, the guy with the most units tends to get a significant advantage. When used right Vardariotai could easily be very powerful, but if used incorrectly or you make a mistake they'd lose you the game on the spot. 95% of MP people simply won't take the risk and will never use the.Quote:
isn't that the whole point of raising the cost? I still don't get your objection - you're arguing both sides of an equation at the same time
You can't enter battle with a stack composed of 20 of ANY unit for 10K florins. But you can get 4 Camel gunners and 16 other useful units in 10K. Vardariotai at 1500-2000 Florins a unit makes it VERY difficult to include 20 or nearly 20 units alongside them, even with just 1 unit of them in your army. So you lose out on a lot of power and give your opponent a big advantage over you. Most MP people wouldn't ake them for that reason.Quote:
you can't a enter battle with a full stack of camel gunners either... they're still worth their weight in gold
However that doesn't change the fact that they are intrinsically capable of performing up to their price overall if they ARE part of a full stack, so you can't really justify a lower price as at higher florin limits or in SP they would then be under-priced.
In truth anything over about 1200 florins is too much for the unit to be of any use in MP. It simply gets too expensive after that.
One last point I'd raise is that most Mp games are played in high era rather than Late or all, so Gunpowder, Pikes, many 2-Handers, and the best S&S units, (Dismounted Chivalric Knights, Noble Swordsmen e.t.c.), are not available to play with. A lot of the best heavy Cav is also missing. This is a significant point regarding the overall power of Vardariotai as they have near Musketeer level missile power, (i.e. better than anything else available in High era), and still have one of the best melee abilities at high era too. Thats worrying in of itself. you could move them to late era to help balance them in MP, but that would just mean they where never used in the majority of games so...
I cannot but agree with that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
And again I fail to see how that is connected with our topic. Not mentioning that SP cost has nothing to do wit MP one — and that we've got a separate forum for discussing MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
I guess Constantinople-Rome-Jerusalem is a good selection. However, I suppose that Rome will have mostly western troops, while Jerusalem can have both eastern and some western (there are also Holy Land specific units like Dismounted Crusaders, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
ALMOST ANYTHING you change in SP units impacts MP, and vice versa, you can't NOT discuss the implications of changes and the power of a unit in SP without douing the same with regards MP at the same time, otherwise your only looking at one half of the picture and will balls somthing up for sure if you suggest/try any changes.Quote:
And again I fail to see how that is connected with our topic. Not mentioning that SP cost has nothing to do wit MP one — and that we've got a separate forum for discussing MP.
MP exits weather you play it or not and not considering how it effects those few who do play it is being extremly im-polite IMHO. A split forum like this is a plain sily idea as it leaves the two halves tottally ignorant of how changes effect the other group.
I actually like this idea, thats a good suggestion for areas too IMHO.Quote:
I guess Constantinople-Rome-Jerusalem is a good selection. However, I suppose that Rome will have mostly western troops, while Jerusalem can have both eastern and some western (there are also Holy Land specific units like Dismounted Crusaders, for example).
EDITED: to reduce the offensivness of some of my statments.
EDIT2: in my fevor to cover other points I forgot one:
Thanks for the agreement. What sort of changes do you think should be made to balance things out then?Quote:
I cannot but agree with that statement.
Well, maybe we're just talking about different things. I was thinking about something like "Personal Fiddlings" (you know that topic, right?) to balance things a bit (for personal use) and to make Byzantium more fun to play. You, as I can now guess, were talking about some global change, in which case it may actually seem somewhat impolite if we don't consider MP. Sounding rude was not my intention.:embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
I can see only two ways ATM (as we cannot actually create new units now): either make existing Spearmen stronger (by increasing their stats and giving them more XP upgrades from top-tier Barracks), which I don't actually like, or give Constantinople a wide variety of mercenaries (including Crossbowmen and Sergeants to compensate for Byzantium's lack of AP and decent spears). It may upset the balance somewhat, of course, but I think it'll make the game more fun as we'll see a wider variety of troops on the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
EDIT: it seems it is possible to make a new unit the way Lusted has suggested in the parallel thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I didn't think you where trying to be rude, TBH it was more aimed at a small number of people in the SP community that tend to treat the MP community as an unimportant extra that dosen't matter and who don't give a damm about what effects changes to units would have on the MP community.Quote:
Well, maybe we're just talking about different things. I was thinking about something like "Personal Fiddlings" (you know that topic, right?) to balance things a bit (for personal use) and to make Byzantium more fun to play. You, as I can now guess, were talking about some global change, in which case it may actually seem somewhat impolite if we don't consider MP. Sounding rude was not my intention.
I tend to suggest changes for personal use, but always taking into account the MP effects as A) they effect Custom battle mode which I use quite a lot, and B) one day we might be able to convince CA to use some of them in a patch, thats will be easier if they are MP compatible.
However, I understand why most don't, (CA isn't likely to listen really, I'm just being optimistic), and a fair few people don't use custom enough to worry about the effects of changes there. So i don't hold it against you at all. As I say I was more expressing frustration at others, you just knocked the lid off by accident:smash:.
Interesting idea. I like the mercenaries Idea full stop, (i.e. regardless of anything else), although you'd have to add them in custom too if you are a fan of that mode. However, i also wouldn't be against other changes, one good one I saw was a suggestion to give Byzantine archers Stakes to fortify the battlefield with. i also tend to be in favor of some buff to Byzantine spearmen just because it makes Little sense the Byzantines best professional spearmen are no better than their militia spears.Quote:
I can see only two ways ATM (as we cannot actually create new units now): either make existing Spearmen stronger (by increasing their stats and giving them more XP upgrades from top-tier Barracks), which I don't actually like, or give Constantinople a wide variety of mercenaries (including Crossbowmen and Sergeants to compensate for Byzantium's lack of AP and decent spears). It may upset the balance somewhat, of course, but I think it'll make the game more fun as we'll see a wider variety of troops on the battlefield.
Not Rome. This forces factions to go to war with the Papacy to get that, and that seems a bad idea. Rome has other things going for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollon
Really, other than Constantinople, I think the other 2 centers should be in places that start out as rebel. This way they aren't really adding or subtracting from any given faction's initial strength. This also could make them hotly contested in the right kind of game, which also makes them fit the criteria of places where mercs gather. :beam: I don't mind Constantinople being the sole exception to that, as it was pretty much the largest and most dynamic city on the map we get at that point in time. Byzantium being what it was, was able to attract people like that from all over that other nations simply couldn't... hell, the Varangian Guard was mercenary.
As for the Holy Land, I don't think Jerusalem so much. Simply because it is THE prime target city of crusades and jihads. The merc center thing could make it too easy to raise a large force quickly there, and thus too easy to defend. I think somewhere north of there around Antioch or Damascus would be better. Places just slightly between Islamic and Orthodox power and in the path of Catholic Crusades... places under constant threat of war in that age.
Yep, I thought about that, but you don't actually have to own Rome to use its mercenary pool:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
And I don't mind making Jerusalem easier to defend, in my campaigns AI just can't hold it. I'd like to see a nice crusader kingdom on my borders.
I've been known to ask one of my generals to step over a friendly border to siphon off its mercs and then step back. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollon
Don't you take a relations hit when you do this?? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
I guess you do. Well, either the Pope is your best friend and ally and that doesn't matter, or it gives you a nice pretext to annex Rome:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
OK, since we all seem to agree that Constantinople deserves more mercs, here's what you have to do to make it happen:
- locate the file descr_mercenaries.txt in \data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign
- find pool Greece and delete Constantinople_Province from that entry
- insert a new pool, example below (sorry could not find the Spoiler tag to hide it)
I've sorted the list as follows (you may delete extra brakes, though it works just fine with them):Quote:
pool Constantinople
regions Constantinople_Province
unit merc galley, exp 0 cost 200 replenish 0.36 - 1.0 max 1 initial 1 religions { catholic } crusading
unit merc galley, exp 0 cost 200 replenish 0.36 - 1.0 max 1 initial 1 religions { islam } crusading
unit merc galley, exp 0 cost 1040 replenish 0.02 - 0.10 max 1 initial 1
unit Balkan Archers exp 0 cost 290 replenish 0.08 - 0.25 max 4 initial 2
unit Armenian Archers exp 0 cost 560 replenish 0.08 - 0.25 max 4 initial 2
unit Bulgarian Brigands Mercs exp 0 cost 660 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 1
unit Mercenary Crossbowmen exp 0 cost 860 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 1
unit Free Company Longbowmen exp 0 cost 930 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1338 end_year 1470
unit Mercenary Arquebusiers exp 0 cost 830 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1400 events { gunpowder_discovered }
unit Catalans exp 0 cost 980 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1300 end_year 1400
unit Mercenary Pavise Crossbowmen exp 0 cost 930 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1250 end_year 1450
unit Slav Mercenaries exp 0 cost 350 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 1 end_year 1300
unit Landschneckt Pikemen exp 0 cost 530 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1470 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Flemish Pikemen Mercs exp 0 cost 470 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 0 start_year 1300
unit Swiss Pikemen Mercs exp 0 cost 690 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1400
unit Mercenary Spearmen exp 0 cost 660 replenish 0.08 - 0.25 max 4 initial 2 end_year 1450
unit Turkopoles exp 0 cost 720 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 1 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Turkomans Mercs exp 0 cost 740 replenish 0.02 - 0.10 max 2 initial 1 religions { islam orthodox }
unit Cuman Horse Archers exp 0 cost 620 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 1
unit Alan Light Cavalry exp 0 cost 830 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 1
unit Serbian Hussars exp 0 cost 1250 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 0 start_year 1440
unit Albanian Cavalry exp 0 cost 900 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1468 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Armenian Cavalry exp 0 cost 1080 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0
unit Kwarizmian Cavalry exp 0 cost 1020 replenish 0.08 - 0.25 max 4 initial 0 end_year 1400 events { mongols_invasion_warn }
unit Mercenary Frankish Knights exp 0 cost 1080 replenish 0.01 - 0.06 max 1 initial 0 end_year 1300 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Mercenary German Knights exp 0 cost 950 replenish 0.01 - 0.06 max 1 initial 0 start_year 1300 end_year 1500 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Mercenary Knights exp 0 cost 870 replenish 0.02 - 0.07 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1300 end_year 1500 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Serbian Knights exp 0 cost 1320 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1350
unit Condottieri exp 0 cost 810 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 0 start_year 1400 religions { catholic orthodox }
unit Free Company Men at Arms exp 0 cost 710 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1338 end_year 1470
unit Dismounted Crusader Knights exp 0 cost 170 replenish 0.07 - 0.17 max 2 initial 0 end_year 1300 religions { catholic }
unit Galloglaich Mercs exp 0 cost 830 replenish 0.04 - 0.13 max 2 initial 0
unit Mercenary Monster Bombard exp 0 cost 1900 replenish 0.03 - 0.06 max 2 initial 0 start_year 1400 events { gunpowder_discovered }
unit Mercenary Ribault exp 0 cost 600 replenish 0.02 - 0.04 max 1 initial 0 events { gunpowder_discovered }
unit Mercenary Rocket Launcher exp 0 cost 1650 replenish 0.03 - 0.06 max 2 initial 0 events { gunpowder_discovered mongols_invasion_warn }
unit Ghazis exp 0 cost 100 replenish 0.18 - 0.5 max 6 initial 1 religions { islam } crusading
unit Mutatawwi'a exp 0 cost 60 replenish 0.08 - 0.25 max 4 initial 1 religions { islam } crusading
unit Akinjis exp 0 cost 620 replenish 0.06 - 0.18 max 3 initial 1 religions { islam }
I've not included local units like the Welsh, Irish, Berbers etc. I also doubt Galloglaich would ever make it to Constantinople, well, you may delete them.
- navy
- regular missile
- AP missile (including javelineers, Catalans are especially good, too bad they appear so late in the game)
- spear&pikes
- HA
- Light Cavalry
- Heavy Cavalry
- melee infantry
- artillery
- Jihad units
Yes, and the last thing: it seems like you'll have to start new campaign to see the changes.
Comments?
I like it, the only issue is it seems to be an awful lot. A little more than I was thinking.
Too bad we can't make it so only perhaps 8 or so units were available at any time, but that they randomly shuffled every other turn or something.
That and we need to pick a place in the northern area of the holy land and somewhere in Italy to do the same thing with.
Well, most of these units have some restricting conditions, so at any given moment of time you will only have some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
And we can always delete some units from that list. I suggest Galloglaich.
You name it:) As for me, Rome and Jerusalem are just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
I'm thinking about fiddling with time conditions and replenishment rates now.
I'd also recommend one in northen europe as denmark, (and to a degree france), as well as england and scotland are well cut off from italy. Antwerp would be near perfect as it puts it within easy reach of the english, danes, french, spanish, portugeese, possibbly moors, and HRE. A nice place in other words. Fairly historical too considering the massive amounts of fighting between england and france down the years.
Maybe but the area just didn't seem to have the "crossroads" quality that make the other candidates seem to fit. In Italy there were a lot of rich cities fighting each other all the time and they hired a LOT of mercenaries and there was a lot of travel in and out. Same with that area north of the holy land... lots of trade and travel, lots of land changing hands, lots of factions, and a history of war changing numbers of mercs hired there.
I might throw in a few extra longbowmen for the french to get to use and maybe a few danish/viking type units, and some celt units, but that's about it. Not guys from far and wide, just a handful from the surrounding area. Besides, in the long game eventually almost everyone has to duke it out somewhere in the holy land.
But really, mercs in that area should be fewer and pretty ragtag next to all the pros going to Constantinople and Italy.