Kingdoms balance discussion

[Lupu]

We can continiue the balance discussion here.

[Duffman]

hi, lupu
I have read your last posts and the discussion about the balance in kingdoms.
I have the same opinion, lupu already said this, the crossbown are too strong.
All in all kingdoms is much better than 1.2.
You say that archers are much better when they fire on an infantry unit, but what is the use of this, if my archers are already dead?

In my opinion there are two solutions.
At the one hand, you make crossbown more expensive,
or you make them not so good, these two possibilities are meaningfully.
Crossbowns were often milita and i cant imagine that a milita win again a good archer unit, with many experience.

i hope you will think about this, and maybe the next patch, will make crossbowns not so good against archers, but you are also right with your statement, that pavise have a big shild.
But this quality for a so cheap price, ist not meaningfully.

greatings Duffman

[Lupu]

My suggestions for balance fixes in the patch for kingdoms:

Downpower pav-crossbowmen in defensive stance(guard mode)
Make some 2h units less resistant to cav charge
Fix run run-through exploit on spearwalls
Fix exploit of 2 units behind eachither- spearwall
Downprice caroccio/great cross in crusades campaign to same price as jerusalem/antioch great cross
Downpower mounted crossbowmen's missile power
Downpower teutonic units and remove the high unit restriction
Janissary archers too expensive, even in crusades(in other campaigns they are way too expensive)
Gunpower units not worth their price
(NOT BALANCE) some units in crusades campaign hwo originally had shields missing them(forgot to add in meshes and textures?) Sabardar Militia, pavise crossbowmen, sword and buckler men, dismounted conquistadores and some more that dont come to mind.

GL with patch
PS: All rebalance requests take point in the crusades balance.(exept teutonic unit power/restrictions)

[Denali]

I agree with most of Lupu's points. The kingdoms balance is already pretty good, at least compared with rome or vanilla m2, but nowhere near perfect.

[Lupu]

We have tested it and the guard mode doesnt ake difference.
Pavs are OP and I have a proof, if anyone can give me a link to where i can upload files.

[Duffman]

rapidshare is good sharehoster,
http://rapidshare.de

i play with lupu in this match, so i can understand him.
The balance is unacceptable, genua crossbown militia kills the ottomanian infantry so fast and the genua crossbown militia has only some casualties.

[Lupu]

A crusades replay that shows Xbow opverpowreing in kindoms:
http://rapidshare.de/files/38020578/OPgxb.rpy.html
And also Crossbowmen have longer lasting ammo, to being overpowered in missile battle they get another unfair advantage.

[pike master]

guard mode will have an affect.

its all in numbers the defence goes up the attack goes down. its the same computations the total war games have used from shogun.

a block of units in guard mode will hold out longer when charged or attacked than they would otherwise. they will also not chase after a routed enemy which is very important when you are trying to keep your army together and not get them fatigued.

also in guard mode as they keep their formation better it will give them a more reliable morale than if they are mixed up in a melee out of guard mode.

[Lupu]

Yes but it will be the same for both units in missile battle.

[Lupu]

Forgot to add one thing:
Horse archers being folowed by cav nearly do no damage, shouldnt the most stupid thing you can do be pursing HAs?
(expet theyer mounted crossbowmen :()

[Lupu]

I did some tests with turkomans and mouted X-bowmen the 4 units of mounted X-bowmen did more damage with 1 shot than the 4 turkomans did with 3(they were shooting at a unit of hospitaller knights) sure the turkomans are better in mellee but the mounted xbowmen can just skirmish away(if the human does it skirmish mode sucks) and have longer lasting ammo whats also unblancing cause they allready do more damage.

[Lupu]

How do I edit?
Continiunig post:
Especially for HA cause much of the limitation of damage they can do is the ammonition.
Mounted crossbowmen can take down knights costing twice as much as themselves cause they have som much ammo.

[pike master]

now understand

the missile units in a pav battle are different.

guard mode only increases defence skill and decreases melee attack skill.

armor and shields will in no case be increased in guard mode.

missiles will experience no decrease in damage capability.

in this case guard mode makes no difference whatsoever.

it only matters in melee.

[Puzz3D]

I did some tests with turkomans and mouted X-bowmen the 4 units of mounted X-bowmen did more damage with 1 shot than the 4 turkomans did with 3(they were shooting at a unit of hospitaller knights)

Would you not expect and xbow to be more effective than a bow against a heavily armored target?

[pike master]

pavise crossbowmen were murder historically. the only reason they lost at crecy was because they werent allowed to wait for their pavise shields. genoese crossbowmen mercenaries specialized in a long drawn out skirmish. while the english longbowman relied on heavy volume of firepower to achieve superiority the pavise crossbowman laboriously worked his weapon only exposing himself for the shot then hiding back behind the shield to reload.

eventually the longbowmen would exhaust their ammo while the slower firing pavise crossbowmen would still have extra ammo left. in the end a properly run skirmish would result in heavier losses for the longbowmen than the crossbowmen.

the french were never patient enough throughout the hundred years war to allow pavise crossbowmen to properly execute their method of skirmish.

plus many archers in the game have their own shields but with only a 5 bonus to the pavises 8.

in a single player battle i tried to rush some genoese crossbowmen with heavy cavalry only to have my cavalry decimated before they got to them.

[Lupu]

@Puzz3D: Not more than 3x and not from a horse, a crossbow fired from a horse has to be reloaded from a horse so it cant be more powerful than a bow.
Also look at the stats they have 5 damage, AP and slower firing rate, compare them to mounted french archers, they have 7 AP and fast firing rate, but do the same damage?????
Also whats the point of having hore archers if they only work vs cheap cav?
Longbowmen were not the only archers having AP arrows, most composite bowmen were also carrying some more heavy shorter range arrows.

@pike master: In a drawn out missile battle, but they win right at the start too, also they should have slower firing rate and more dafence, that would be realistic as they should win a drawn out missile battle, but loose at the start, it wouldnt be unbalancing as the slow reload time (4-5x a bow) would make it possible to use cav and HA to harass and stop their reloading.
The result:
The pav. crossbow is as it was historically: a weapon that would win the missile battle if it has time and you dont need to micromanage to win with it,

Archers are units loosing if exposed to a long time missile battle but with micromanaging you would win.

L

[Puzz3D]

@Puzz3D: Not more than 3x and not from a horse

In Samurai Wars, we have a gun costing 300 with 7 minutes of ammo that's 3x stronger per volley in 3 rank fire and 9x stronger per full 60 man volley vs heavy armor than a bow firing a 60 man volley at the same range which costs 400 and has 2.5 minutes of ammo, and we were able to playbalance them using the reload time and armor they carry. It's possible that our archer is slightly overpriced. The archer improves by 6x vs low armor targets making 2x better than the gun which remains about the same effectiveness no matter what the target's armor. We don't have cavalry guns because they didn't exist in the timeframe of the game, but if we did they would have to increase in cost because higher mobility is valuable. For instance, we have cavalry archers which use the same bow parameters as the foot archers, but the cavalry archers cost 600.

Also whats the point of having horse archers if they only work vs cheap cav?

That's where we have an advantage in Samurai Wars because there are some high value units that have low armor which are cost effective targets for archers.

Longbowmen were not the only archers having AP arrows, most composite bowmen were also carrying some more heavy shorter range arrows.

I don't think the game mechanics allow for two different ranged weapons for the same unit.

Archers are units loosing if exposed to a long time missile battle but with micromanaging you would win.

Exactly, but I don't see Creative Assembly going through that much effort to playbalance the game.

[Lupu]

Samurai wars looks cool in terms of playbalance, but I dont have MTW/VI :)

[Lupu]

I have a suggestion for archers vs pavs, its not for realism but for balance.
If the enemy takes pavs you cant take archers, taking archers vs pavs is like loosing, but pavs are weaker vs rushers(if not theyre well armored).
The point is: archers are useless because if you take archers the enemy takes pavs and doesnt rush.
What you could do is: Removing pav "immortallity" because if you do that theyre like all other crossbowmen: equal in price/value to archers in missile battle, (mostly)weaker in mellee, and a better weapon to fight armored opponents, but not as good in price/value against unarmore foes.

[Lupu]

How do I edit?
Countiniung next post, I forgot something.
Ansver for 2 different ranged weapons: They could remove flaming arrows because theyre useless an change them with ap arrows.

[pike master]

flaming arrows are only good once you are deep in a battle and morale reaching crisis points for a lot of units, the flaming arrows may be enough to tip them the rest of the way into a rout.

as far as using them to inflict casualties your wasting your time and ammunition. killing soldiers permanently removes morale. shooting them with fire arrows only temporarily removes morale.

i havent played mp since kingdoms came out. ive spent a lot of time learning how to mod the last several months. so i dont know how overpowered the new shield bonus has made to units in mp.

what i do know is that the shield bonus on spearmen, especially ones like armored spearmen is near on making them invincible. with the balancing like it is with spearmen why would you want anything else. they can beat pikes, halberds, and slug dismounted knights to a standstill or at least long enough for the battle to have been decided elsewhere.

when we are talking about pavs being too powerful and spearmen being too powerful we are actually talking about the same issue.

the shield bonus.

[Lupu]

You want to slaughter armoured sergeants: take some really heavy shock infantries or yeniceri(janissaries)
They have really big shield, damn I hvnt tested the pavise spearmen yet!!!
The way spearmen hold cav in kingdoms theyre still good as counter inf.
That doesnt explain mounted crossbowmen OP, can anyone explain the reason to me, I dont understand it(and set down their ammo, i the EDU they have more ammo than other HAs(25-20) plus slower firing rate.) It would be good if anyone would know it, they do same damage as mounted frenchies and have less damage, less firng/minute.

[Lupu]

For the flaming arrows: ive found more luck routing units with normal arrows(rapid loss of men does demoralize more then flaming arrows in my experience, plus loos of men sets down morale for a longer time)

[LadyAnn]

I have a suggestion for archers vs pavs, its not for realism but for balance.
If the enemy takes pavs you cant take archers, taking archers vs pavs is like loosing, but pavs are weaker vs rushers(if not theyre well armored).
The point is: archers are useless because if you take archers the enemy takes pavs and doesnt rush.
What you could do is: Removing pav "immortallity" because if you do that theyre like all other crossbowmen: equal in price/value to archers in missile battle, (mostly)weaker in mellee, and a better weapon to fight armored opponents, but not as good in price/value against unarmore foes.

I have not played M2:TW enough to really say about archers vs. pav.arbs in that game. However, if things remain similar, Ottoman Turks faction was a very viable faction in M:TW, despite the lack of pav.arbs. Of course, I am talking about different alternatives than missile-dueling-then-attack tactic.

I am not saying that you are incorrect, Lupu. In M:TW, pav. arbs would kill other archers if other archers are in missile duels with pav.arbs. I am saying that there are players who took up Ottoman Turks army in High-era and not only survive, but won battles with them.

Annie

ps.: what I meant is that be careful of what you wish for. In M:TW, people complained that spears were too cheap, they made it too expensive, render the unit useless.

[CeltiberoMordred]

Reporting that Ottoman Infantry should be cheaper because pavise crossbowmen beat them in a missile duel is as wise as reporting that dismounted chivaric knights should be cheaper than peasant crossbows because they cannot win a missile duel vs them either. Ottoman Infantry are hand to hand units which also carry a bow. Their purpose is not to deal with enemy missile at all.

To be honest, in general, for both, kingdoms and retrofit, archers are MUCH better than xbows if used properly.

It's just a matter of not purchasing them just for a stupid missile duel that they cannot win.

Same goes for mounted versions of both weapons.

Regards.

[Puzz3D]

To be honest, in general, for both, kingdoms and retrofit, archers are MUCH better than xbows if used properly.

If you can't skirmish against the xbows, you'll have to attack or fall back.

It's just a matter of not purchasing them just for a stupid missile duel that they cannot win.

Then you have come up with a way to position the archers so that they can shoot at units that are cost effective targets. Presumably, this possibility would arise during the attack assuming there are targets that you can shoot at long enough to inflict cost effective casualties.

[CeltiberoMordred]

Then you have come up with a way to position the archers so that they can shoot at units that are cost effective targets. Presumably, this possibility would arise during the attack assuming there are targets that you can shoot at long enough to inflict cost effective casualties.

That's it. Sometimes an inminent engagement threat is enough to make your enemy deploy their ranged units safe in a second line. Then, aiming at any good bulk of enemy units gives you the chance to get fast kills, from a second line where xbows and arquebusiers perform poorly.

Zone attack, plus a higher shoot angle and fast reload gives an advantage that nor xbows neither gunpowder can give.

Do you remember some good players using those turkish armies in MTW/VI full of archers? Pavise crossbowmen were useless vs them.

It's a matter of perspective. If you have invested a lot of money in expensive crossbows which only skill is ranged attack, you will be interested in avoid any kind of engagement before your units run out of ammo. If your enemy has those units and you haven't, then it's clear what benefits you and what doesn't.

I'm only interested in a missile duel if I can get some profit from it. If not, then it's pointless. And I'm not a rusher.

And please, don't think in the damn grassy flatland. There are thousands of maps out there.

Regards.

[Puzz3D]

Do you remember some good players using those turkish armies in MTW/VI full of archers? Pavise crossbowmen were useless vs them.

That only worked because of the discount on upgrade cost for ranged units that was implimented in the MTW v1.1 patch, and the fact that archers had 4 second reload while xbows had 15 second reload. That discount turned the combo-archer units into powerful melee units equal to the xbow faction's melee units if you had lots of money for upgrading. As a result, the archer faction could move close and shoot the enemy melee units killing them at a faster rate than the rate they were loosing their own melee units to the xbows because essentially all their units had bows so they had a lot more firepower than the xbow faction. With 28 arrows and 4 second reload, they would build up a considerable melee advantage in less than 2 minutes of shooting. If you played at low florins which limited the upgrading, the Turkish and Egyptian armies were at a distinct disadvantage to the armies that had xbows because they were weaker in melee power, so if they moved close to shoot the enemy melee units the xbow faction could charge and win the melee. This shifting balance happened because the upgrade system only increased the melee capability of units.

In Samurai Wars we don't use upgrades and we actually have a skirmish phase that's an essential phase of the battle because neither side can afford to move into the shooting zone before the enemy firepower is reduced. This phase is much shorter than was typical in MTW xbow skirmishing, and we don't have the large disparity in reload time between the archers (4 sec) and guns (21 sec) because the guns can shoot in 3 rotating ranks (7 sec).

[pike master]

the problem with kingdoms is that body armor is way down while shield protection is way up.

the armor and shield balances in mtw2 grand campaign are much better in balance.

of course the reason behind the massive drop in body armor stats was so that missiles could do more damage but this still does not justify the huge bonuses coming from the shield bonus.

it is just too high period.

if they keep the body armor stats low they should also lower the shield stats as well.

i really dont see how a large wooden or leather shield is going to have more resistance to damage than the comparable in stats full plate and advanced armor.

gothic armor may actually stop a handgun or arq ball on a good day. i dont see how a shield could have any chance of stopping a those projectiles unless it was made of a good piece of steel.

[Lupu]

Not make armor more powerful, but make shield vs missile weaker because better armour: longbows/xbows own even more.

Mordred: MTW/VI and MTW II/Kingdoms have different balances, well in kingdoms archers suck in mellee, if you want to rush you dont need bows on the heavy inf, if you loose the missile battle you have to attack, in kingdoms the archers that have much on mellee stats dont get a chance against heavy inf, and because you have to ttack you cant shoot the shots that would give them adavantage to the heavy inf, what you say is that it isnt smart taking archers, as theyre only disadvantaged.
In the no patch for kingdoms thread I worte about tests that would show the mellee advantage of bows: -1 if it lowers missile power, why? becuase if you just charge you will loose enough on advance(running) that you would loose the mellee, if you would stay and shoot out ammo you would loose mor men than the pavs in the missile battle and than loose men on advance(even less efficent)
The ottoman inf is no mellee force with a bow as it was in 1.2, its a good(not vs pavs) archer unit thats sufficent in mellee, the closest thing you come to the "ok mellee force with bow" is the sabardar militia wich is an elite heavy infantry thats only beaten by one other archer unit(dvor) in the game in missile battle, it can hold vs pavs, but if used in any way it wont be worth its price vs pavs(but looses against genoese xbows, I start thinking CAs main office is in genua(or at least the balance designers are from there^^))

What you say about shooting at inf is true, but which jackass would place his archers behind or near the main army to get that shot to pieces too?
Also in M2 crossbows can shoot arcs, and the relaod time is only 2 times as slow :(

Also, if the enemy just stets back the inf you wont get to fire at it, if you advance and adavnce and advance, the enemy pavs will get free shots without ansvers at your archers, and your move will be useles, also crossbows are even more powerful compared to archers at short distances(not unblancing or annoying, an advantage to the normal crossbowmen hwo are too weak in missile battle(same damage as pavs a small bit lower price an extremely weaker in missile duel with archers) but one more unfair advantage to pavs)
These comments are about balance in general grassy plains or not.
One thing i forgot to point out: normal crossbowmen are too weak in missile battle.
For the mounted crossbowmen: if theyre the only HA worth it against units folowing them, have an unfair missile advantage(why? what in the EDU does that? look at the stats...) and are fast theyll if used by player hwo shows good attention always be worth their price more, im not complainting about them winning against turkomans in missile battel, as theyre massacred by them in mellee, Im complainting about them winning against sibyan al-khass in missile, they also win against them in mellee, but for that price and those stats...