Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 570 of 703

Thread: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

  1. #541
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    I've got a map init error cause there is no low-res version of the map in your mod. Do you know how to force the game to go in high-res?

    Forget it. I've found it. It's all about ddraw.dll.
    Last edited by Stazi; 11-01-2013 at 19:41.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  2. #542
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Redux: Install Emergency!

    Just an idea but maybe you could make two full versions of your mod - one for MTW 1.0/1.1 and one for Gold/VI? And put Gold/VI on top cause probably 90% of people use Gold/VI versions nowadays.

    btw I'm wandering around the map and factions. I've just saw 100 men naptha uniit. My 1st thought was like: "Are you MAD?" I didn't have time to go through all txt files but I'm really looking forward to see this unit in battle. It should be very entertaining to watch them "fighting" .
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  3. #543

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post

    Thanks Cyp, perhaps you could do Spain or the HRE for your AAR? Yup they are somewhat harder to play but what the hell, be adventurous! Obviously, it would also be advantageous if you posted up the AAR(s) this time, eh? Maybe you could do it as a kind of "miniseries" (so you don't have to do all work and writing, all at once)?
    Well, mission accepted, then. (I've played as Spain and HRE in earlier builds, and I like the flavour of both factions; still deciding.)

    Just a quick comment on rebel fleets: I really hope they've not changed too much! I love the way they dominate the seas in early game. It gives the rebels a much realler presence on the map, and challenges any player who wants to form a mercantile empire too early, as opposed to the vanilla cakewalk.

    BTW, would you guys like me to set up dedicated threads for all regular factions here? One for England, Spain, France etc.? One thread each for any discussion on related strategy, problems, possibilities etc.? Umm... It sounds like a good idea to me, but it will be pointless if you people won't use 'em...
    I support this idea.
    Last edited by Cyprian2; 11-02-2013 at 15:38.

  4. #544

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Thanks for posting guys... Staz, I moved your post here as it did not really belong in the Install-emergency. Anyways...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    Just an idea but maybe you could make two full versions of your mod - one for MTW 1.0/1.1 and one for Gold/VI? And put Gold/VI on top cause probably 90% of people use Gold/VI versions nowadays.
    Yeah I could do that. There is nothing wrong with that idea from a strict player/user perspective - but it will still create more problems for me. If people want such versions they are free to create them as much as they like outside the “officially supported” Redux-channels (the TWC, ORG, Com-boards). I know it has been done in the past and so it can be done again, I have no problems with “unofficial” sites/threads supporting/promoting/covering Redux somehow on their own, I welcome it. The more people that get to know about (and try out) Redux, the better.

    Regardless, I could give you a ton of explanations and remarks on that idea, back and forth, but I’ll spare you from all that. The bottom line is that I won’t do it as it creates more problems for me then it solves. I am already unhappy with the fact that I had to abandon all patch-like releases as people (or some people) simply could not handle it (as it apparently was too complicated for ‘em). So, it will be as is instead (unfortunately)…

    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    btw I'm wandering around the map and factions. I've just saw 100 men naptha uniit. My 1st thought was like: "Are you MAD?" I didn't have time to go through all txt files but I'm really looking forward to see this unit in battle. It should be very entertaining to watch them "fighting" .
    Yeah… That’s one of the new units introduced with RXB1004… I think it’s more or less a do or die unit. It will be killed by essentially everything - if left unguarded/supported - while it can also kill everything if allowed to throw one big fat volley of Naptha onto its target. So, it’s a kind of a tactical paradox. I hope it will be an interesting and different element in battle, and that's the reason I included them…

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Well, mission accepted, then. (I've played as Spain and HRE in earlier builds, and I like the flavour of both factions; still deciding.)
    I guess, you got your work cut out for you then…

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Just a quick comment on rebel fleets: I really hope they've not changed too much! I love the way they dominate the seas in early game. It gives the rebels a much realler presence on the map, and challenges any player who wants to form a mercantile empire too early, as opposed to the vanilla cakewalk.
    Well, fleets are extremely hard to balance on general terms (in terms of AI). All I can say is that the rebel-fleets have sometimes been too strong to be truly entertaining in previous versions. That’s not good - the rebel fleet should be around but not totally crush all opposition on the high-seas which has happened on occasion in RXB1003. In short, I have done what I can to avoid all that this time. Hopefully, it won’t, as a result. At any rate, it will never be watered down to something like the raw MTW cakedwake, that much is clear at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    I support this idea.
    Alright, thanks… The more people that do, the more are the chances it will happen.

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 11-04-2013 at 01:30. Reason: Da English...

  5. #545
    Member Member Zarakas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zarax
    Posts
    49

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Hi guys,

    Zarakas, you have not installed enough stuff/modules to enable Redux to run successfully on the version of MTW you are using (as in VI/v.2.01). Download and install the Redux VI-upgrade ontop and you will then be playin Redux within 10 minutes (check downloads, post 1). BTW, please confirm that you got the game running after all that, alright? Just so we all know for sure that the problem is gone...

    ***

    Thanks Cyp, perhaps you could do Spain or the HRE for your AAR? Yup they are somewhat harder to play but what the hell, be adventurous! Obviously, it would also be advantageous if you posted up the AAR(s) this time, eh? Maybe you could do it as a kind of "miniseries" (so you don't have to do all work and writing, all at once)?

    ***

    BTW, would you guys like me to set up dedicated threads for all regular factions here? One for England, Spain, France etc.? One thread each for any discussion on related strategy, problems, possibilities etc.? Umm... It sounds like a good idea to me, but it will be pointless if you people won't use 'em...

    - A
    Thanks Axalon, all download and working. Looking good.

    Dedicated thread would be good and very informative.

  6. #546
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi to all,

    ...back to THE GAME ;-) ...had been lead astray by "Mount and Blade" for quite some time, but it´s shortcomings too big I`m back to REDUX.
    Just saw the new release, but at the moment being involved in an English campaign don´t want to change at once. @Axalon: After the English campaign looking forward to the "new stuff" !! Thanks for still working on this gem...

    Greetings Daigaku

  7. #547

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Dai, you truly are a welcome sight for sore eyes...

    This place sure could use some Dai-posts... It has basically been murder on this place ever since the Org-management forced a change of sections and main-index as to "improve the site" in general, back in Aug 2012. Damn near wiped out the MTW-section and essentially killed this place too. I have yet to see any of that "improvement" kick in around here (or anywhere to be honest).

    Anyways, none of that has anything to do with you. I'm just glad to see you return here and whatever Redux-babble you want to talk about - I'm game. After all, that is what this place is all about. Um, there are some AI performance-issues on RXB1004 running upon the VI/v.2.01-engine so I suggest you stick to v.1.1 until I fixed/patched it somehow (that recommendation goes for all who do have the option). Whenever you come around to it...


    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarakas View Post
    Thanks Axalon, all download and working. Looking good.
    That's excellent man...

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 11-27-2013 at 18:37. Reason: English...

  8. #548
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi Axalon,
    thanks for the warm welcome. Sitting at my English/early campaign and swearing and shouting at you for the incredibly time- and money-consuming building-madness on keep level ;-) taking damned 200 years to build all those petty stability-buildings, offices, and all the other lot belonging to a true daigaku game... You really meant do make it a challenge ;-))
    For the Norse and their recruiting possibilities: Somewhere in northern Africa got bored with taking another and another and another ....region ad nauseam, building it up to find there´s nothing to be recruited of any value. Will take a look at some final notes I had made about (on some HDD momentarily out of use) and post, but iirc, there was not much to mention beyond what I wrote before disappearing for some time...
    Back to the English: Trying to stick strictly to: Saxon Warriors/Heavy Spearmen, Forresters, Longbows, and the Scottish/Irish Special units. Especially to conquer the Norse, with all the regulars and even heavies of the english rooster no chance (I don´t walk in 4:1, never!!!) So thanks to the special units there is a chance at least to get them ;-)) thanks for those!
    Will report about weird and beautiful thingies that turn up,
    Greetings from Blackforest,
    daigaku

    Edith says:
    ...just found out Morale comes with the 3rd level of those churches a.s.o. (had hoped zeal stays low with as little christian buildings as possible) - will have to start anew completely ´cos of "wrong" priorities in building... grumble... gnagnagna...
    Last edited by daigaku; 11-28-2013 at 18:40.

  9. #549

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Will report about weird and beautiful thingies that turn up,
    Alright man, you do that, I'll be right here trying to figure out something worthwhile/"fantastic" to say about it all...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Trying to stick strictly to: Saxon Warriors/Heavy Spearmen, Forresters, Longbows, and the Scottish/Irish Special units. Especially to conquer the Norse,
    It should present a solid enough shot to take on that mighty Norse shieldwall. Use them archers, they are gold in this context...

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 11-29-2013 at 19:43.

  10. #550
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi Axalon (and whoever else looking around here),
    the beautiful: Noone stands a chance against my forces. A third up to the half of my army mixed bows, the rest fierce swordsmen from Scotland breaking rows, saxon warriors to take apart the rest and saxon heavy spears to hold any cavalry. Scottish nobles, flanked by Irish Horsemen crashing into flanks, those swift irish Spears tidying up after them - phantastic warfare! About 900 after restart, every relevant province fully built on Castle-level (all those Master-buildings giving a nice boost), after spending hooorendous treasures for building up, slowly the cash comes flowing ;-)
    Aragonese, the very first "friends", turned on me, now extinguished. Norse hold Denmark and Sweden, anxious to keep peace, having not a single Longboat in the seas(keep them alive for bitterly needed trade)... Moors crashed into Aquitania 4:1, suffered heavily (some 2400 dead, my losses 167!).
    I must admit, this English rooster is a very, very fine one. Had not expected anything could compare with the Norse, but here you go ;-))
    A nice experience: Dismounted Royal Knights are about as nasty as those incredible Norse Bodyguard. A bit more vulnerable to arrows it seems, but they sober any enemy force which has to deal with them, standard outcome is 10:400 losses, sometimes up to 650. Comparable with the Norse, with 20 men up to 1200 kills.

    Weird: Heirs are strangely chosen. A King, aged 55, married late with 35, dies - and not his 17year old son, but a 48year old brother inherits the throne. Hmmmmmm.......
    A Marriage is proposed by another faction, but in the year of the bidding King dies, question about marriage is anwered positively, but new King stays unwed. Hmmmm......

    After all this fussing around with other games, it´s great to be back to the One-And-Only. Again, thanks a lot,

    greetings from wild southwest germany,

    daigaku

  11. #551

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    As ever Dai, it all depends on the circumstances... I bet that one could do similar victories with most factions and their particular unit-rosters. I don't think its the English or the Norse that is the reason for it - its all the other things like terrain, upgrades, troops, generals, tactics, sort of enemies etc. etc. Had it not been like that, then all people would just play the same factions all the time, and use the same units as well - they don't. Still, it sounds like you had a major victory in Aquitaine....

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Weird: Heirs are strangely chosen. A King, aged 55, married late with 35, dies - and not his 17year old son, but a 48year old brother inherits the throne.
    My guess, either an engine-glitch somehow or that the teen really was a younger brother to the king... Its possible...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    A Marriage is proposed by another faction, but in the year of the bidding King dies, question about marriage is anwered positively, but new King stays unwed.
    Hard to tell... Got wed before he dies? The marriage is off due to death? Perhaps another engine-glitch? Anyways, get another wife and its sorted. BTW, are you still playing using RXB1003 - waiting for the patch for RXB1004-VI or have you already upgraded?

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-01-2013 at 19:54. Reason: Its fun!

  12. #552
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    @Axalon:
    Heir: It was definitely a son, had watched his growing-up from moment of birth announcement. Don´t remember if I had similar experiences in Vanilla, but might be so. Maybe really an engine thing, annoying anyway....
    Marriage: Had asked for last daughter of a faction heavily under pressure - hoping to inherit the remaining regions if new and unwed king goes the way of all mortals ;-) ...and, of course, the old king was married already - engine supporting bigamy in year of death?!? ;-)))
    Version: Still playing 1003VI, for on my old machinery it´s running better and more stable than 1.1
    about my getting-rid-of-unwanted-heirs-battles: Haven`t played many factions in redux, so I can only compare with what I experienced. But if a dismounted 2star princeling, standing in the woods, is attacked by some 20-40 5star enemy general unit and slaughters them till rooting - okay, I admit, I love to lure heavy cavalry into forests to get at them really nicely, but it seems those Royal Knights are really "a big bang for the bucks"...

    Meanwhile, except the british islands, from Picardy to Toulouse and all Iberia, as well as Norway and Sweden and the mediterranian islands except Sicily, is mine and being built up, those spanish horse units giving a nice extra "pepper" to my army. Russians, formerly having owned half the world, are facing riots due to bribed-by-me illoyal Generals (yes, I do use heavy cash-flow this way sometimes, having spent about 400.000florins that way ;-)). With only 6 regions producing really decent troops, 3 of them reserved for bow production (a pain in the ass, those 2 and 3 year production cycles!!!), I simply don´t have the masses to conquer some 30 regions from them ...

    That´s it for the moment,
    wish you to have as much fun as me with the game,
    greetings daigaku

    btw: Was it really your intention to allow every single region to build every single office building, even cathedral?
    Last edited by daigaku; 12-02-2013 at 10:00. Reason: forgot to mention

  13. #553
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi,
    year 1100. 1.3 million florins. Remaining factions: Pope (somewhat strong), a few german and french provinces, some russian, saracene and moorish as well. The biggest problem: me preferring all those local-special troops get difficulties retraining, them all being scattered over the map with often only one (completely built-up) province to retrain. I´m not using those feudal/royal stuff except Royal Knights from former heirs and those increadible Feudal Longbows.
    The English rooster, for my taste, is somewhat BIG. So many different types of troops to discover and put to test in battles, so many different needs of buildings for optimal performance of some troops. Sure it´s worth the effort, but really time- , money-, and patience-consuming...
    Once more, I didn´t stick to my "Vanilla-approach" of calmly taking only the direct surroundings and some provinces for special troops, but went (in need of high influence) conquering the map. Experience: Even a rebellious region like Scotland gets tired of rebellion after some time, so the regaining-rebellious-region-exploit doesn´t work forever. Otherwise, I might have been content with the british islands and maybe Flanders, Couronia and some mediterranian islands for ship production.
    Question @Axalon: You know my approach for training men only if all morale/valour buildings are set up from our discussion of the Norse. Do you think it will spoil the game experience if I cut down the building time of some of those badly needed structures? It´s so many I need for my way of gameplay that sometimes I really lose patience ;-))
    Question2: Any news about 1004-VI ?
    Battle-tired greetings,
    daigaku

  14. #554

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Thanks for posting Dai, as ever...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    …it seems those Royal Knights are really "a big bang for the bucks"...
    Royal knights are serious and powerful units – few can match them in close-combat. The same can easily be said about Norse bodyguards and Byzantine cataphracts… And as ever, they have all weaknesses, as all troops do…

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    …bow production (a pain in the ass, those 2 and 3 year production cycles!!!
    Considering how good those units are (especially under player-management), I think its only fair (and good) that it does take time to get them. Same thing goes for the Cataphract regiment with its unrivaled 4 turns

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    I simply don´t have the masses to conquer some 30 regions from them ...
    I guess that is part of the problem/dilemma with armies centred on quality/elite-formations they are seldom available in vast numbers. Enough mass/quantity can eventually “drown” quality – strangely enough that is even more possible in Redux then in raw MTW (units having no negative attack-stats in Redux - if memory serves). Building mass is not really a problem, but the circumstances it creates might very well generate some… I guess the real question here is/was how badly do you want those provinces?

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Was it really your intention to allow every single region to build every single office building, even cathedral?
    Yup, if you want spend the cash on it then that’s your headache, it won’t hurt the game, but restricting such buildings would… The choice is there for those who want to spend the cash it takes on having several cathedrals or whatever – if you are not one of those then just ignore it. As for the AI, building more the one chancellery (or whatever) is generally a good thing, it functions as backup-infrastructure if another was conquered elsewhere etc. etc. Makes powerful and wealthy factions more durable to pressure (external and internal).

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    The English rooster, for my taste, is somewhat BIG.
    Well, the Norse roster is fairly small for Redux-standards and should not function as a reference to evaluate other faction-rosters. One can generally say that most factions have a bigger variety of units available then the Norse. Optional factions have typically less complex unit-rosters, which obviously makes the more easy to handle in general. The Italy/Lombardy’s roster is probably bigger then Englands (Spain about the same) and the HRE have the largest roster of them all. All that stuff is easily checked in solo-battles, its fairly accurate too…

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    So many different types of troops to discover and put to test in battles, so many different needs of buildings for optimal performance of some troops. Sure it´s worth the effort, but really time- , money-, and patience-consuming...
    Well, all that is part of the diversity of Redux… Its part of all things that defines Redux as Redux and not some MTW-clone… In providing that much choice, diversity and possibility, it also brings obvious dilemmas to the player – the “what should I focus on”-question or the “can I wait for such troops at this stage”-question, do I “have time and cash for it?” etc. etc. Personally, I find the complexity in possible circumstances interesting and entertaining as it really does influence the game I am playing, especially so at start up. It does matter what choices I make, as it creates/shapes/influences the circumstances I get as I play the game. Me like… Anyways, had it not been hard somehow to get the advanced and superior troops, then every player would spam such troops ASAP as they really are better then other lower tier troops, and they really do give an edge (as you have proven time and time again). Its all things like that which combined ends up making Redux superior to raw MTW, as the latter can’t keep up or honestly compete with all that, it never could. That circumstance sets Redux apart from raw MTW and makes the experience of the two very different. You know that as much as I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Experience: Even a rebellious region like Scotland gets tired of rebellion after some time, so the regaining-rebellious-region-exploit doesn´t work forever.
    Can you blame them? You can only be vanquished and destroyed so many times… When that happens you should already have a healthy batch of experienced troops – and in the event that you don’t - A) then you are doing something very wrong, and B) seek out new hunting-grounds for rebel-slaughter…

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Do you think it will spoil the game experience if I cut down the building time of some of those badly needed structures? It´s so many I need for my way of gameplay that sometimes I really lose patience ;-))
    If you are asking for my opinion…. I think the building-times are very agreeable/sensible as is and so I would argue against a change/reduction of that (for reference, build-times are with little exception much shorter then raw MTW all over). “Development-time” is just as valid as “development-cash” as a factor, or so I believe… If you cut “time”, you should at least try to compensate that with increased “cash”-levels or you certainly will wreck the challenge in these regards, and ultimately damage the game-experience… That’s what I think… Another alternative is that you lower you maxed standards on troops – imagine that…

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Any news about 1004-VI ?
    See next post… (My advice, get it and install ASAP - because you will get an improved/better game-experience once you do).

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-04-2013 at 02:25. Reason: update...

  15. #555

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    The RXB1004 VI-upgrade patched!

    Alright, the links are up... The VI-upgrade for RXB1004 has been patched (due to previous performance issues) and is available now. As to kill confusion and possible screw-ups, I decided to patch the VI-upgrade/"Module B" for RXB1004 directly. Furthermore, I have recalled the previous VI-upgrade(s) for RXB1004 as they are now obsolete. All Gold/VI/v.2.01-users are recommended to download the new VI-upgrade and re-install Redux all over and then you folks are good to go with the improved game. It is possible to just install the new "Module B" on top on previous installs BUT there might possibly be anomalies s a result - a fresh re-install is therefore recommended as to minimize such problems.

    Overall, the VI-RXB1004e improves AI-performance and fixes some minor previous and detected bugs/errors/typos. It also fixes the strat-map. It’s labelled “RXB1004e” for distinction in the files whenever relevant. Due to various changes in file-structure, this patched/newer version is not save-game compatible with any previous saves. A new game is also required for it to function. Um, some extra links directly here...

    http://www.atomicgamer.com/files/106...x-vi-beta1004e

    http://www.gamefront.com/files/23893...-Beta1004e.rar


    Feel free to post your experiences with and/or comment on the RXB1004e for VI/v.2.01....

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-04-2013 at 19:39. Reason: update

  16. #556
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi @Axalon,

    I guess that is part of the problem/dilemma with armies centred on quality/elite-formations they are seldom available in vast numbers. ..I guess the real question here is/was how badly do you want those provinces?
    You sure remember from our Norse discussion: That was never a problem for me, but is my standard way of playing. I didn´t need nor want those regions, just wanted to weaken the Rus. And it worked the bribing way as good as if I had spent years with battle..

    Yup, if you want spend the cash on it then that’s your headache, it won’t hurt the game,
    Cash as well as time I happily spend for morale and valor - that´s why I go for those somewhat remote factions, giving me the calmness of being out of the main troubles to build, later breaking forth with small but tremendously suped-up armies, showing everyone the place of their own - in my backyard ;-))

    and the HRE have the largest roster of them all
    I never went for those potentially great factions, at least not in Vanilla. HRE, Byzantium, I gave them a try and got bored even on expert setting how easy it was to conquer the greatest part of the map in nearly no time - and not blitzing, thus far you know me... REDUX may be different, sure some time I give it a try just to know what you created there, but for my normal gameplay it´s remote factions like Norse and English, or underdogs like Polish...

    Anyways, had it not been hard somehow to get the advanced and superior troops, then every player would spam such troops ASAP as they really are better then other lower tier troops, and they really do give an edge (as you have proven time and time again)
    Thanks for the kind words, Axalon. One problem/chance I see, especially in Vanilla (REDUX changed that quite a bit): The AI hardly ever takes the "effort" to build and train in such a manner - had it my style of playing I´d sit in the shit, facing enemies really hard to come by. Would be quite a challenge, breaking out of the Norse forests and facing, for example, an army of some completely souped-up HRE superknights with highest armour, weapons, valor and morale... Mymymy, even my beloved Bodyguards would hesitate for a moment - and crash into them with even more enthusiasm, I could imagine ;-))

    AND: Thanks for the links for 1004-VI. Downloaded, and give it a try these days.

    Greetings and best wishes for you,
    daigaku

  17. #557

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hello again Dai...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Cash as well as time I happily spend for morale and valor - that´s why I go for those somewhat remote factions, giving me the calmness of being out of the main troubles to build, later breaking forth with small but tremendously suped-up armies, showing everyone the place of their own - in my backyard ;-))
    That’s all fine and well, as long as you have that kind of luxury… Sometimes you don’t and then you are forced to act and make do with what you got. Spain and HRE are typically good examples of that very circumstance.

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    REDUX may be different, sure some time I give it a try just to know what you created there, but for my normal gameplay it´s remote factions like Norse and English, or underdogs like Polish...
    Obviously, Redux is different as it is clearly much harder, diverse and dynamic then the raw game ever was. Poland on expert/veteran is as tough as it gets, Spain is also typically a hard faction to handle. I think it is very possible to lose with both Spain and Poland in RX-classic on "veteran". You can obviously lose with all factions - depending on the circumstances - but those two strikes me as the most likely out of the 6 regular factions… The Norse and Russia are the toughest among the optional factions...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Would be quite a challenge, breaking out of the Norse forests and facing, for example, an army of some completely souped-up HRE superknights with highest armour, weapons, valor and morale... Mymymy, even my beloved Bodyguards would hesitate for a moment - and crash into them with even more enthusiasm, I could imagine ;-))
    The HRE has everything it ever needed to utterly crush any opposition. No matter the enemy. It is a matter of development, time, cash and oppourtunity. It has a unit-roster that can counter essentially everything, no true weakness. The Norse infantry are exceptional and very powerful in close combat but if caught standing in front of Frankish and heavy crossbows-formations - they will get slaughtered. Royal archers can also be extremely deadly to the Norse infantry. Had it been multiplayer - the Norse would likely be almost destroyed even before the battle had actually started. They need woods to survive such units in prolonged encounters… Moorish, Byzantine and Slavic archers are also deadly if allowed to operate freely. The point is every faction have their strengths and weaknesses somehow, the Norse is no exception to that. The fact that you like the Norse and that they seem to suit your playing style - is a different matter altogether.

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-05-2013 at 21:40. Reason: update...

  18. #558
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Could you explain what was wrong? I've downloaded C version, installed it and the game started as usual. I didn't have time to play so I haven't noticed any bugs.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  19. #559

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    Could you explain what was wrong? I've downloaded C version, installed it and the game started as usual. I didn't have time to play so I haven't noticed any bugs.
    In short, whenever you had a Muslim rebellion (not the nobles/peasants-kind, but the general kind) it was made up by spies (yeah, it looked real weird) – you can’t fight spies, if you tried the game crashed. All you could do was to autoresolve. It was all created by the VI-engine as nowhere in my designs were spies listed or even suggested as potential Muslim rebels. The designs and instructions were ignored by the engine while instead generating a bug that could crash the game. Totally unacceptable - and I found that out after I had already released the C-version. Anyway, I had a hunch on what it might be, and if that was right, one could then bypass the whole damn thing. Turned out I was right. The solution (without getting bogged down in details) is now included in the “RXB1004e”-release, and it no longer appears in the game (and troops you CAN fight, appear instead).

    - A

  20. #560
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi @Axalon,

    ...and Russia are the toughest among the optional factions...
    Interesting you mention them - after my English expedition they were the next ones in my plans ;-)) The Boyars still have their bows, I hope?!? I love multifunctional cavalry...

    btw, only the Norse I played on "hard", and this only after the first few trial-campaigns. New factions I always give a start with "casual" - just to get to know their specific mechanics a.s.o.

    The point is every faction have their strengths and weaknesses somehow, the Norse is no exception to that. The fact that you like the Norse and that they seem to suit your playing style - is a different matter altogether.
    The only thing they are missing, for my taste, are enough (armour piercing)bows. Therefor in Vanilla, I bought always a few mercenary longbows to get that sorted out. In REDUX, till now I never used mercs, for the warning in their description about not fighting to the end. Better to have less bowmen, but some you can trust never ever to run (like pathfinders), than some nice looking bastards with good weapons but no guts to stand and take a fight....did you give the mercenaries a morale penalty or how does this "not fighting to the end" thingy work?!?

    In this English campaign I am playing, as written before, a third of every army is longbows and foresters - with horrible effect on every enemy army trying to get at me. Even standing in a forest, some feudal footknights learned, in one of my recent battles, the hard way of dying by projectiles in the belly. Next to the forest was a small hill....you guess the rest ;-)) Good luck , when I played the Norse and took the British Islands, they hadn´t produced longbows in the amount I do. Would possibly have been a quite different result...

    A compliment to you is here at place; you crafted those two factions I tried till now in a way they fit me like an old leather glove - no pains, no biting, but welcoming comfortable. Where Vanilla always was some compromise, here everything is straightforward, even monolithic in it´s appearence. And after my experiments with other games during my time-off this is as well challenging as relaxing.

    1004-VI: Hadn´t installed yet, so no problem at all. Will download the "e"-version before the Russians are to be tested...

    Fleet spamming: Not only the Saracenes, with just 2 or 3 regions of their own, are throwing out tens of fully stacked fleets - they even don´t keep some at their coasts, castrating their trading potential to a mere joke. Painfully stupid behavior, that. Did you find any solution for that in 1004-VI?

    Retraining: For the first time, now in my actual campaign, I see a faction, the Norse, retraining their units. If they do after every relevant building or only after Armourer/Weaponsmith upgrade I´m not sure, but after those two they do for sure (their numbers hardly increase, they do not fight anybody those last years, but everytime I take a look some units are improved). So I stand corrected with my idea
    The AI hardly ever takes the "effort" to build and train in such a manner
    .

    Had it been multiplayer - the Norse would likely be almost destroyed even before the battle had actually started
    ..are there no forests in multiplayer?!?

    greetings, and have a good time,

    daigaku
    Last edited by daigaku; 12-05-2013 at 23:30. Reason: spelling

  21. #561

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    btw, only the Norse I played on "hard", and this only after the first few trial-campaigns. New factions I always give a start with "casual" - just to get to know their specific mechanics a.s.o.
    You mean “standard”-difficulty - as in what is considered as the normal-setting for Redux… Redux don’t have “hard”… It got “veteran”, “standard”, “casual”, “cakewalk/easy” – it always was intended to be played on "standard" (or higher) for a full game-experience. On the other hand, Redux assumes that you do know the game before you play it. The only way to get there is to do test-runs.…

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    In this English campaign I am playing, as written before, a third of every army is longbows and foresters - with horrible effect on every enemy army trying to get at me. Even standing in a forest, some feudal footknights learned, in one of my recent battles, the hard way of dying by projectiles in the belly. Next to the forest was a small hill....you guess the rest ;-)) Good luck , when I played the Norse and took the British Islands, they hadn´t produced longbows in the amount I do. Would possibly have been a quite different result...
    It’s your game, but it sounds like you are "overusing" the longbow-units. There is not much the AI can do about that, it does not have what it takes to successfully challenge that and so it takes little talent to mow down units from a hill with that kind of range and firepower. If you actually want some adventure, then limit yourself to max 3-4 units in total per army and you will get a more exiting game as a result. Of course, its your call...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    A compliment to you is here at place; you crafted those two factions I tried till now in a way they fit me like an old leather glove - no pains, no biting, but welcoming comfortable. Where Vanilla always was some compromise, here everything is straightforward, even monolithic in it´s appearence. And after my experiments with other games during my time-off this is as well challenging as relaxing.
    Many thanks, I appreciate the remark. I certainly try to make the best and most solid game I can. It’s a lot harder then it looks....

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Fleet spamming: Not only the Saracenes, with just 2 or 3 regions of their own, are throwing out tens of fully stacked fleets - they even don´t keep some at their coasts, castrating their trading potential to a mere joke. Painfully stupid behavior, that. Did you find any solution for that in 1004-VI?
    As I said elsewhere, it is extremely hard to make the AI handle fleets and ships somehow sensibly, or even project the illusion of that - usually we will have to settle for much less. I certainly tried. There are no parameters that somehow control this aspect of the game properly, and both engines are extremely unreliable when it comes to ships. The Saracens and Byzantines often fall apart due to building too many ships somehow, and to few troops. In short, the 1004e does not spam fleets as much as any version before it and it never was a real problem on the v.1.1-version of RXB1004 to begin with. Basically, less faction-ships = better and healthier game overall. RXB1004(e) has typically less faction-ships and probably is a better and healthier game because of it...

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-07-2013 at 06:14.

  22. #562
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi @Axalon,

    but it sounds like you are "overusing" the longbow-units
    Now, I try to adapt to the possibilitiey and strengths of every faction. As Norse, the increadible infantry was the way to go for winning every single battle(and worked for some 95%), with the English it´s the mix of Longbow/Forester, Claymore and mainly Saxon/Irish units to break the foe. Starting Russia, it will be the multipurpose Cavalry to "make my day" (hopefully there is a "fast moving" unit with bow and sword, with some melee ability)....And, for my taste, it "pulls even" if having Foresters with those few men, peppering units of 60-100 men, and if necessary taking up the melee with the reminding foes. Due to this, my army is always some 200-400 men less than the enemy. btw, it seems you gave the Foresters the same range as the Longbows. Did I see that right?

    It’s a lot harder then it looks....
    I do not even dare to try to imagine what work is necessary to create "REDUX". Having fuddled around with a few things myself (for example, changing the danish to pagans in vanilla), remembering the work it was to stop the game giving me already at startup some nasty messages.... well, herefor the compliment ;-)

    Fleet: Had the same stuff in Vanilla. Sometimes it was necessary to have full-stack fleets from the Strait of Gibraltar up to Finland just to keep my trade going. So from the experience, I know the problem and can handle it. It was just surprising that they didn´t even keep some ship at their coast for trade. Would have made some difference, those regions along the Eastern Mediterranean giving quite some income.

    so far for now,
    greetings daigaku

  23. #563

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Now, I try to adapt to the possibilitiey and strengths of every faction. As Norse, the increadible infantry was the way to go for winning every single battle(and worked for some 95%), with the English it´s the mix of Longbow/Forester, Claymore and mainly Saxon/Irish units to break the foe. Starting Russia, it will be the multipurpose Cavalry to "make my day" (hopefully there is a "fast moving" unit with bow and sword, with some melee ability)....And, for my taste, it "pulls even" if having Foresters with those few men, peppering units of 60-100 men, and if necessary taking up the melee with the reminding foes. Due to this, my army is always some 200-400 men less than the enemy.
    Ok, fair enough, its a valid argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    btw, it seems you gave the Foresters the same range as the Longbows. Did I see that right?
    Yup, you did...

    Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
    Fleet: Had the same stuff in Vanilla. Sometimes it was necessary to have full-stack fleets from the Strait of Gibraltar up to Finland just to keep my trade going. So from the experience, I know the problem and can handle it. It was just surprising that they didn´t even keep some ship at their coast for trade. Would have made some difference, those regions along the Eastern Mediterranean giving quite some income.
    The problem is not if the player can handle it or not - but the AI - and how it screws up with ships. Building too many (when it should not), placing and using them all wrong etc. etc. That stuff is the problem and I as a designer have almost zero means/parameters to fix that. That circumstance is the real problem here. Anyway, the RXB1004e makes trade a bit tougher in general. Ships cost more, even to support, overall making it somewhat harder to set up and maintain trade-routs. All that stuff will probably eventually find its way to the v.1.1-version as well, somehow I would imagine. As I typically strive sync both versions as much as possible.

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-15-2013 at 04:22.

  24. #564
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi @Axalon,

    but if caught standing in front of Frankish and heavy crossbows-formations - they will get slaughtered
    .....gave those HeavyCrossbows a try - in my eyes, they are completely useless. They got off some 3 - 5 volleys before the Inf was on them and they got slaughtered. I was horribly outnumbered (about 4:1), seas blocked due to one of those usual surprise-attacks from a "friend", didn´t have enough heavy spears to cover them well. With those 40men units of FeudalLongbows or the "ordinary" 60Longbows the outcome would have been surely completely different (had already comparable circumstances, but with bows - and won!). Okay, defending a castle may be different, but in open field, and not real NUMBERS to cover them, I won´t use them again. Got to stick to what works ;-))

    greetings, daigaku

  25. #565
    Member Member Zarakas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zarax
    Posts
    49

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi Daigaku

    In my opinion;

    I find crossbows more effective when defending, and also when defending from higher ground. The higher the better. I concentrate all their fire on the strongest units. I wipe them out individually before reaching my position. In addition to this, i back up the crossbows with appropriate cover in the form of heavy calvary and heavy infantry. I rarely use crossbows as melee units, unless i can charge them into enemy lines while at the same time charging my calvary directly behind the same enemy unit. Each battle varies, this is why MTW is best the game, and redux has made it so much better.

    Cheers
    Zarakas

  26. #566
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Crossbows useless!? Crossbows with proper tactic and support are devastating. Each of my armies contain 3-4 units of them. Those units regularly score 30-40% of all kills in a battle. Just take a look (2900 French vs 1000 HRE):
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	00000012.jpg 
Views:	134 
Size:	302.9 KB 
ID:	11450

    This is the basic composition of my HRE defending garrisons. Heavy crossbows and Tyrolian cavalry (armed with xbows too) scored 3/4 of all kills and they still have about half of ammo left (compare the archers). Of course, Longobows are far better than even Royal archers. That's why I don't play England and don't use them. Very long range combined with unrealistic damage and armor piercing capabilities make them totally overpowered. They are like xbows but with ridiculous range and higher rate of fire. I've tried them once and it feels like playing on easy. No fun at all.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  27. #567

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi guys and thanks for posting...

    Heavy Crossbows, "completely useless"? ...The unit obviously can harm other enemy units in battle and thus utterly proves you wrong by definition and that beyond question (as Stazis post/pic clearly illustrates. As for tactics, see both Zarakas and Stazis posts). Maybe you don't like the unit or it don't fit your fighting-style or they are not as effective as you would like or something else - but all that is a very different matter from being "completely useless", is it not? In truth, I can't think of any unit in Redux or even raw MTW that is completely useless. A few units can be argued to be fairly close to the concept but never totally without uses and/or functions all the same.

    Anyways Dai, if you don't like them, then don't use them. And, are you really surprised that Heavy Crossbows could not match the English Longbows in performance? The possibly best ranged unit in the whole game?

    ***

    Longbows "unrealistic damage"? As compared to what, Staz? Raw MTW archer-stats? I'll turn the tables on that claim (and in doing so explaining why I disagree with it)...

    Now, I would argue that the archer-damage of raw MTW can easily be described as unreasonably low and thus too insignificant in effect to be believable/credible. Because of that circumstance it reduces ranged units/archers to little else then (redundant) curiosities in battle as their inability to actually do any serious impact or significant damage in combat (using arrows) is virtually constant. Resulting in that archers can be successfully ignored as any serious factor in battle - and this at all times. Now, that strikes me as unrealistic if anything and the circumstance is due to the assigned damage (of raw MTW)...

    In Redux the circumstance is very different, as archers/ranged units can not be ignored as their impact and damage in battle is too high to allow it as a viable/sensible practice. A circumstance that certainly strikes me as far more convincing and reasonable then the raw MTW circumstances (as outlined above). In effect, Redux is actively forcing every commander to consider all such units in as a factor - this due to assigned damage - as the impact and damage made by such units - if unchecked - is simply too great to be ignored. It typically forces a commander consider such units, and adapt accordingly - this regardless if he likes it or not. Failing to do so will typically result in excessive losses (potentially even losing the entire battle as a result). Again, that circumstance sounds far more realistic and credible to me...


    EDIT:
    --------------------
    • I'm considering to change bows on the "English Forester"-unit. Applying the same bow for 'em as the Norse Pathfinders has... Thoughts?
    • I'm toying with the idea to change (decrease) the longbow armor piercing capacity to 66% - instead of the current 50%. Armour would then be cut to 2/3's efficiency instead of half - as is. In effect making crossbows unrivaled in that aspect. Any thoughts?


    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 12-15-2013 at 05:00. Reason: update...

  28. #568
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Longbows "unrealistic damage"? As compared to what, Staz? Raw MTW archer-stats?
    I mean some modern tests of longbow. They clearly show that plate armor was generally impenetrable for the english longbow (barely penetrable at range of <10m). Even mail armor with good, thick linen jacket was hardly penetrable. AFAIK in MTW there is no dependency of armor penetration and distance. Longbow is the same as deadly at its max range as at point blank range. That's why I think longbow damage is so unrealistic. It does the same damage no matter of distance and makes people think that the xbow with its short range, flat trajectory and low rate of fire is useless. The xbows are not generally useless but when you have access to longbows, using xbows is pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post

    • I'm considering to change bows on the "English Forester"-unit. Applying the same bow for 'em as the Norse Pathfinders has... Thoughts?
    • I'm toying with the idea to change (decrease) the longbow armor piercing capacity to 66% - instead of the current 50%. Armour would then be cut to 2/3's efficiency instead of half - as is. In effect making crossbows unrivaled in that aspect. Any thoughts?
    IMHO xbow should has much higher armor penetration (compared to longbow) and longbow should have a little lower range to compensate the lack of range<->armor penetration mechanic. Of course, it has to be still better than any other bows. Maybe reducing armor penetration (even more than to 66%) and slightly increasing lethality will help to better balance the longbow?
    Last edited by Stazi; 12-16-2013 at 10:54. Reason: grammar
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  29. #569
    Member Member Zarakas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zarax
    Posts
    49

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    I agree with change to longbows to 66%

    In my opinion, against an advanced well armoured enemy, archer units would be used to pin down advancing enemy units and slowing them down with some bonus damage/killing when conditions are favorable. Crossbows would be used to do maximum damage against highly armoured enemy units.

    In my opinion, against a light armoured, non armoured or ranged enemy, archer units are more effective and deadly at long range. Should be able to create maximum damage if used correctly and supported by calvary etc.

    IMO, Foot archers are a defensive unit. However, horsed archers and forester/pth finder units can also be used as offensive units due mobility etc. They can be used to set the stage for the onslaught by your more powerful units, by positioning or/and seperating the enemy formations. (And of course killing the enemy commander early)

    Not sure about bow change to offer opinion. What is the difference to forrester bow with pathfinder bow?

  30. #570
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!

    Hi, Friends of THE GAME,

    thanks for looking by and comment.
    @Zarakas:

    I find crossbows more effective when defending, and also when defending from higher ground. The higher the better. I concentrate all their fire on the strongest units
    Higher ground, I didn´t have - I use it when there is some. Besides that, I tried to get at those strongest units, but the range of the crossbow in plains isn´t that far, and as written I was outnumbered 4:1, getting attacked by a faction I was friends with for over 150 years. Didn´t expect them to attack, because they had easier aims around them.

    In addition to this, i back up the crossbows with appropriate cover in the form of heavy calvary and heavy infantry. I rarely use crossbows as melee units
    Simply hadn´t enough men to cover them properly (as written above), and if the enemy is on you, hardly any space to retreat, projectile units got to do some melee work....

    Each battle varies, this is why MTW is best the game, and redux has made it so much better.
    +1 here I agree completely ;-))
    @Stazi:

    Crossbows with proper tactic and support are devastating.
    With neither the terrain nor the support they need to be that, they simply are at loss. I can imagine, in mountain regions or a castle defend situation, with appropriate Spearmen (like SaxonHeavy) and some flanking force (Claymores), they can be horrible. But under the described circumstances there was hardly any chance (pity I didn´t make some screenies, I was so upset about the attack I didn´t even think about).

    That's why I don't play England and don't use them
    Being an expert on the Danish in vanilla, till now I only had played the Norse to get a feel for Redux (having startet with Redux only last year). Now being back to it, I wanted to play a faction I quite liked in Vanilla as well: The English, with their Longbows and (in Vanilla) those nice Billmen. Besides that, I prefer factions giving me the time to build up in my style, heavily discussed with Axalon about the Norse. That the Longbows were that powerful in Redux I learned in my first few battles, and since, like "overusing" the increadible Norse Bodyguards, I do so with those Bows, with a slight preferrence for the Foresters because of their hiding abilities. Nevertheless, I want to try out every unit in the game, and built up for example one region only to produce those units coming from Feudal/Royal buildings. You see, still experimenting around with this new-to-me faction, and sure I still have to learn the proper use of some units I hardly even used in Vanilla. To relativate the "completely useless" some: Under the given circumstances, with the given terrain and the lack of proper support, they were useless.

    I've tried them once and it feels like playing on easy. No fun at all.
    My usual ratio in battles is 1:2 upwards. Sitting in a province with about 750men, cut off from reinforcements, getting invaded by some 2300 foes, I´m quite happy about the "overpowering" strength of those bow units. What I need besides them is SaxonHeavySpears, a few SaxonWarriors, some Claymores, the general mainly being RoyalKnight, and 1 or 2 IrishHorsemen to chase down routers. With this mix, till now I got along quite good. Hadn´t to face the HRE till now, them most times being (at beginning) neutral or friends, later on crumbling down to a mere nothing, me still protecting them some to keep them alive. Axalon told me (see above), that the HRE has the ability to get some of the strongest all-over units in the game, but luckily I never had to face them till now.
    @Axalon:

    ...but all that is a very different matter from being "completely useless", is it not?
    Sorry for that one, I corrected above. Was due to me being upset about the whole situation this assault put me in....

    And, are you really surprised that Heavy Crossbows could not match the English Longbows in performance? The possibly best ranged unit in the whole game?
    I never expected that, but by their values I thought they would do more damage, even under not-so-optimal circumstances for their abilities. The slowness of reloading, compared with any bow, is crucial in situations as they were in, and so I lost a battle. No real damage done, but something more learned. Will try to get a situation I can use them in a castle defending battle - sure they will work out there!

    Anyways Dai, if you don't like them, then don't use them
    As said, still experimenting around, not a question of like or not, but one of experience ;-))

    I'm considering to change bows on the "English Forester"-unit. Applying the same bow for 'em as the Norse Pathfinders has... Thoughts?
    Never had compared them, only found out in battles about the range of the forester to be the same as longbow. The Pathfinders, I used always as an assault-and-jump-into-melee unit, because due to their morale they put up a fight against really evil odds (like those few men with bows cutting down some 35 spears (of a 100men unit), and flankin in giving them hell till some remaining 12men rout for their lifes;-)) real fun to see them doing the dirty work....How do these bow stats compare? Range? AP?

    I'm toying with the idea to change (decrease) the longbow armor piercing capacity to 66% - instead of the current 50%
    That would cut out some of the overpowering abilities they have; if range would stay as it is, I see no reason why not doing it. The melee will have to work some more this way ;-) which I like, as you know (set hte melee is a GOOD one;-)) getting some action for Claymores to cut up those tin cans ;-))
    @Stazi:

    I mean some modern tests of longbow
    it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf)
    Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers
    If we go for the somewhat higher values (which are not unrealistic at all), and take into consideration the skeleton deformations, NO modern "longbow" gets near the strength of those in the past. Same with crossbows - who, except maybe some realism-crazed reenactor, would build a crossbow with 400pounds upwards? I saw some of those "documentations" about longbow abilities and had to laugh quite a bit. If a nowadays sports archer (20-50pound, including "hunting bows" for field target aso) is able to bend a so-called longbow (what took 10-15years of training in their days, bows adapted to the growing strength) with quite some ease, I tend to shake my head and cannot take the results of such experimentation seriously. Not wanting to go too deep into historical research, but the outcome of quite some battles in the 100years war telling their story of efficiency.

    Thankful greetings to all,
    daigaku

Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920212223 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO