hitpoints

[jerby]

a lot of stats are obvious. attack to reflext weapon-quality and weapon skill and physical strength.
defence for armor quality, yada yada yada bla bla bla

but what about hitpoints?frankly hitpoints are gamish. why can a man take a lethal injury twice?
only thing i can think of are the gaesatae, or any other "berserkers"(dont stone me)

RTR uses 2-hitpoints a littly too frequent if you ask me. hypasistai are supermen,,suddenly. but also the creativly named "hoplitai" has 2 hitpoints...

so, will EB even use multiple hitpoints?if so, in what cases?(dont need sepcific names, just the "skill" or "atribute" to "justify" it)

[khelvan]

We generally only give 2 hitpoints if a unit has some incredibly strong reason for it, such as the units that take a PCP-like chemical which induces them to shrug off grevious wounds as though they were bee stings.

[jerby]

We generally only give 2 hitpoints if a unit has some incredibly strong reason for it, such as the units that take a PCP-like chemical which induces them to shrug off grevious wounds as though they were bee stings.

ok..but "elite" units dont get it? good to hear.
and CA's berserker having 3 Hitpoints, is something like that featured, or will 2 be teh limit?

[khelvan]

No, "elite" units don't get another hitpoint by virtue of being "elite," hitpoints are determined separately. The only "class" of unit that currently has 2 hitpoints are the general's bodyguards, and we're considering removing that as well, as there seems to be no reason to have it.

[jerby]

well. there's sense there..there's no reason those riders would be better than any other 'elite' cavalry.

but it would certainly increase the "killability" of a general. maybe not versus the ai, but I'd definatly sacrifice a unit of companions/hetairoi to kill a general(read=run aroudn teh line's for a quick kill in MP)if a generals bodyguard is weakened, it will definatly be easier to kill teh general..but than, the general unit is not meant for flanking...except your Alexandros..

[Danest]

What about elephants? I'd guess they'd have more of a chance than any other unit to take a man-killing bow and survive, especially armored, huge ones.

[jerby]

good question, indeed.

and what about Scorpions insta-killing ellies?in RTW you needed to hit 1 elephant 3 times to kill it..8 scorpions(8 machines, not units) barely killed 2 out of 5

[Danest]

Considering what seige engines do to stone walls, I'd think an elephant would be in serious trouble being riddled by such weapons. But really, I can't see anything other than berserker-types and elephants being more damage resistant than any other man outside of armor concerns.

[Ab Urbe Condita]

Considering what seige engines do to stone walls, I'd think an elephant would be in serious trouble being riddled by such weapons. But really, I can't see anything other than berserker-types and elephants being more damage resistant than any other man outside of armor concerns.

He's talking about scorpions, scorpions don't even damage walls AFAIK. Onagers however, kill elephants in one hit.

[Mr Jones]

i think that, in a realistic game, which EB will be, if you allow your enemy to get troops to your general you deserve to lose him. if a generals bodyguard is weaker, it means that you will have to make a greater effort to protecting him from enemy forces, which, in reality, you should be doing.

[SaFe]

i think that, in a realistic game, which EB will be, if you allow your enemy to get troops to your general you deserve to lose him. if a generals bodyguard is weaker, it means that you will have to make a greater effort to protecting him from enemy forces, which, in reality, you should be doing.

Well-not exactly - as example early germanic warriors would have refused to fight if their chieftain/genreral wouldn't have lead the charge from the first position in the wedge. We can't punish them for their historical tactics.

[Danest]

Didn't Caesar claim to also have personally engaged in at least one battle?

[Spongly]

Caesar was well known for leading his troops from the front, and fighting alongside them. As was Alexander the Great. It's really quite a modern idea that the general sits at the back and directs things - in the ancient world it was much more common for generals to lead from the front.

[econ21]

I'd vote to keep the 2 HP for generals, for gameplay reasons. Yes, may seem ahistorical. But it does give the AI generals a little protection and so keeps them fighting longer. It does not bother me if the general unit is a little harder to kill - you can rationalise it as the enemy army making desperate efforts to protect their king etc. (It does not seem so far fetched - think about what the secret service will do to protect a US President.)

If EB balances cavalry right (e.g. comparable to that in RTR 6.0), I don't think human players will abuse it. Even with 2 HPs, you probably don't want to be reckless with your generals if cavalry lose in frontal engagements with heavy infantry. In RTR I have learnt to be very conservative with my general - only committing him if it is desperate or fairly safe to do so.

If EB balances cavalry like vanilla RTW (v. unlikely, I know), then, it probably would be abused. A general's cavalry unit is very lethal in vanilla RTW. (That might be ok if this were MTW, but feels wrong if you are talking about Romans.)

All this is assuming "medium" battles which is what I would hope EB is being playtested and balanced for - I suspect as games get harder, it is more important to use gamey tactics to win. This seemed to be true of the Roma mod, where you have to play with nerfed Romans, abusing your general (and triari) becomes almost essential - it seems to me that you can't win without lots of gamey tactics - such as using your general to repeatedly smash enemy units in the flank.

[SwordsMaster]

Actually, I think vanilla RTW over-effectiveness of general's bodyguards was to simulate the moral effect on the enemy as they see the king charge into their lines....

[econ21]

Actually, I think vanilla RTW over-effectiveness of general's bodyguards was to simulate the moral effect on the enemy as they see the king charge into their lines....

OK, but the over-effectiveness I object to applies to heavy cavalry in general rather than the 2HP bonus for general's bodyguards in particular.

I played Carthage in a PBM and my cavalry was generally pretty poor (long shields at best), but I managed to use it to smash up massed armies of Roman heavy infantry with little loss (yes, from the flank etc, but still...).

I don't think you can do that in RTR due to the rebalancing of cav. vs inf. With some finesse, flanking with cavalry may still be a winning tactic (fair enough - it should be). But you'll lose a lot of expensive cavalry men if you try it unsupported and will probably have to use your infantry as a pinning force in order to succeed.

I would not really mind the vanilla RTW model of cavalry vs infantry if it were in MTW (the era of heavy cavalry - knights are ok in MTW, but perhaps a little tame), but it just feels wrong in an ancient setting.

Sort out the cavalry/infantry interactions and I think the 2HP for generals will seem rather a small thing.

[SwordsMaster]

Oh, I agree about heavy cav in general, I too used to smash through 2 lines of principes with longshields, and I even think that hoplite effectiveness should be increased or those horse-in-the-middle-of-formation jums made very very rare.

As you said, flanking with cavalry should still be a winning tactic, and some superheavies (read cataphracts, companions and the like) should be able to win head on against average heavy infantry as it occurred. After all thats what they were designed for.

[Es Arkajae]

I'm all for historical realism but not at the expense of good gameplay. One should aim for realism (unlike vanilla RTW) until it detracts from good gameplay and then one should compromise always in favour of the latter.


I don't see War elephants having multiple hit points as a problem, nor for gameplay sake do I see General units having two, which in the end is not going to save them from a well placed attack but will ensure that everyones generals aren't just kicking the bucket from trivial stuff that would more annoy than amaze.

[The Stranger]

i think only eles,chariots, berserkers and spartans deserve xtra hitpoints...while eles and chariots must have them...the berserkers and spartans dont nessecary (sp?)

[Danest]

How many battles did Caesar fight in personally? If we tried to re-enact all of them in RTW with only 1 HP, he'd almost certainly die. So, either the real Caesar was really good at surviving battles, or just plain lucky. I'd rather the generals be survivors. Especially since the AI generals are really, really easy to kill, at least in vanilla. In fact, not killing the AI general (or not letting him kill himself on your phalanx), now that's a challenge.

[GoreBag]

Spartans don't deserve two HP, and I don't think generals do either. Unless the general is also on PCP, of course.

[jerby]

well..the general himslef(1 puppet) shoudl ahve 2/3 hp's for gameplay, but teh bodyguards shoudn't, me thinks.

as for RTR's balancing of cav vs inf. i think it's rather good, actually. no longer that overpower, but i do have a problem with rtr's cav vs cav balancing...it's imaginationless. All cav get a charge bonus of 20 (cat's 30) and pretty mcuh 80% has a defence of 20 (mercenary "italian cavalry", hate the name, is equal to companions of Macedon..)it's all very bland.

but i cna clearly see EB has some balancing issues to do, not faction-wise. but more the effectiveness of units, and difference between units.

[Geoffrey S]

Spaced-out generals could make for some interesting pre battle speeches...
Anyway, I'd go for hitpoints for a general purely on the basis that it allows the player or AI time to remove a general from a bad situation, essentially giving a player the chance to remedy a bad move at least once. Just not as powerful as generals became in RTW.

[khelvan]

but i cna clearly see EB has some balancing issues to do, not faction-wise. but more the effectiveness of units, and difference between units.

Not at all, our unit stat system is the best, in our opinion.

[jerby]

Not at all, our unit stat system is the best, in our opinion.

no shit sherlock...of course you think yours is the best

seriously, i trust you gusy to do it right. i was trying to state that there are many things to look to.

[Divinus Arma]

Generals with more than 1 HP?

Let me put it from this perspective:

You guys, EB, are investing major into the trait system. Would kind of suck if all of that was for nothing.

I say give 'em 2hp. But give 'em the ability to earn more. As for the bodyguard... whatever.


Along the same vein: Many great generals had officers by their side. Old Alex had Seluecus (sic), Ptolemy, et al. So to should this be reflected in-game.

If I go to war with 2, 3 or 4 extra generals, I would like to see them gain something more than experience for their troubles. Being with a great commander should give them a few traits of their own. Good or bad!

How about "right-hand man, giving a general extra HPs when not in command? Hell, there is a whole bunch of cool thing that could be done!

Or are we cursed... and this is hard coded?

Thanks,

[khelvan]

Generals automatically have +4 hit points above what their bodyguard gets. This is hard-coded to represent bodyguard behavior.

No one said we would reduce general's hitpoints. We can't. However, we are considering lowering the bodyguard's hitpoints to 1.

[kayapó]

I think there's a little misunderstanding going on...

khelvan said that the only units, other than elephants and chariots, that get more than 1 hp are general BODYGUARDS. And he said we might be thinking about reducing the BODYGUARDS hit points to 1. With what I totally agree.

The general himself normally has more than that and even more with some traits.
Of course there are traits that increase the generals hp. Heck even vanilla had that.

You guys, EB, are investing major into the trait system. Would kind of suck if all of that was for nothing.

Don't worry. It won't be for nothing. Unless nothing fit's into 27 thousand lines of code.

Edit: Well, khelvan was faster than me...

[Divinus Arma]

Wow!

Thanks for the quick response!

I completely understand now. And I am delighted to hear it all.


27 thousand lines of code?

I wish I knew what that meant?

[khelvan]

It means that our scripts and traits literally have 27,000 lines of code. I think vanilla's has a few hundred.