Congrats and comments

[Macroi]

Superb work guys! I'm extremely impressed with what you've done, as well as the amount of research and time you must have put into all of this. Truly remarkable stuff, and well worth the wait!

I was involved with the RTW community many, many moons ago, but eventually lost interest in the whole affair and dropped out. I must say, your mod has re-kindled my enthusiasm for this game!

After downloading and playing the beta, I have a few thoughts and suggestions for your consideration.

When RTW first came out, there was much grumbling about archery and javelins. Some said they were overpowered - some underpowered. What everyone pretty much agreed on was that something didn't seem quite right about the way it was modelled in RTW. In response to this, I developed a little mod for RTR called the "shield mod" (which later evolved into the "total combat" mod). It was well-received and eventually adapted and combined into RTR. Here's the theory behind it:

As I'm sure you know, RTW rates a unit's defense characteristics on three variables: X/Y/Z, where X=body armor, Y=defensive skill, and Z=shield. The difference between these three variables has everything to do with ranged attack. "X" is always factored into a ranged attack, "Y" never is, and "Z" is only factored in when the unit is attacked from either the front or left flank.

With this in mind, a casual perusal of the "EXPORT_DESCR_UNIT" file will quickly reveal that shields are consistently rated as less valuable than body armor. This, in my opinion, is a terrible mistake.

The shield was the primary piece of protection that a soldier in the classical period could possess. Body armor was always a secondary perk. Note that when the Spartan hoplites realized they needed to be quicker on the field - it was body armor they decided they could live without - not their hoplons.

In fact, the only hand-to-hand units to fight without shields did so because they required two hands to operate their weapon. These units were willing to trade defensive protection for the added offensive impact that the heavier weapon provided, but they were usually considered "crazy" (e.g.: berserkers) by most "sane" troops.

Why is a shield better than body armor? Here are five good reasons:

1) It is maneuverable. You can adjust the protection to meet the threat as needed.

2) In the case of a ranged attack, you can crouch behind the shield protecting most, if not all, of your body (depending on the size of the shield, naturally).

3) It provides a buffer zone. If the shield is pierced, or shattered, the torso remains intact. Not so with body armor. Also, if a shield is seriously damaged, it can be quickly replaced (assuming another is close at hand).

4) In the unfortunate event that you may have to flee or swim, a shield can be easily discarded.

5) It's less expensive and more easily constructed than most body armor.

All of these facts may seem pretty obvious, but unfortunately, none of them seems to be taken into account in the "EXPORT_DESCR_UNIT" file.

The current defensive ratings seem to be somewhat arbitrary. Most units seem to receive an “armor bonus” that falls somewhere between 1 and 14, a “defensive skill” bonus between 5 and 12, and a “shield bonus” of between 1 and 5. In other words, the biggest and best shield that money can buy will only add five points to your defense, whereas the little square piece of armor on the front of an early Roman Hastati adds 7 points!

My recommendation, is that these values should be more standardized, and slanted more in favor of the shield. For instance:

Shields:

3-4 points for a small shield (slingers), 6-8 for medium (hoplons, round barbarian), and 9-10 for large (scutum, full length barbarian shields).

Armor:

2 points for a small helmet. 3 points for a helmet that protects the sides of the head.

2 points for greaves.

2 points for the little square piece of metal that Hastati wear. 4 points for leather, 6 for chain, and 8 for plate/banded.

Defensive Rating:

Base rating should be 2 points across the board. This is as per the original RTW. Bonuses as follows:

6 points if the unit is unarmored. This takes into consideration the unit’s added maneuverability and speed in avoiding blows. Note that this number will not be factored in a ranged attack.

2 point bonus if the unit is highly trained. 4 point bonus if they are elite.

With this system, an early Hastati would have a rating of 5/2/10 (possibly 5/4/10 if you argue they were highly trained), giving a total defensive rating of 17 from the front (15 vs missiles) and only 7 from the rear (5 vs. missiles).

Currently, early Hastati are rated 7/9/3. The overall defense remains basically the same, except that the Hastati benefit from all round armor protection (from the front and rear), and all round protection from missiles, which in reality they don’t possess. I am just using Hastati as an example here, this holds true for any unit.

On the other end of the spectrum, many barbarian units have only a shield for protection. Since the most they can currently hope to derive from this is a measly 5 points, they extremely vulnerable to missile attack - especially considering that many seem to possess some of the largest shields in the game. Upping shield values gives them the protection they deserve from the front, while still leaving them realistically vulnerable from the left flank and rear.

One last point and I’ll bring this ridiculously long post to an end:

I notice that the attack values for javelins and arrows have been reduced. After much play testing with the above armor values, I found that it seemed to work best if archer attack values fell between 5 and 7 (depending on skill of the unit). Javelins and pilum should be higher, (maybe 8-11) and should all have the AP (armor piercing). I noticed this trait was removed from these units (presumable because you felt they were overpowered – they won’t be if you up the shield ratings). The great advantage of javelins and pilum over slings and arrows was their AP ability. If you remove this, then you will render skirmishers obsolete, since archers will be more effective in every respect.

If you made it this far, then thanks for your patience! Whether you adopt these ideas or not, I look forward to your mod with great anticipation!

Best regards,

Macroi

[Reenk Roink]

Wow, what a post.

And welcome to the ORG .

[QwertyMIDX]

It's not a terrible mistake because shields are uneffected by AP, and giving units high shield values makes AP useless against them, which is completely ahistorical.

[Zalmoxis]

Damn it, as soon as I fix my comp I need this mod... badly.

[Macroi]

It's not a terrible mistake because shields are uneffected by AP, and giving units high shield values makes AP useless against them, which is completely ahistorical.

Could you elaborate on this a bit, please? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here.

Are you saying that upping the value for shields is not a good idea, or including AP for javelins and pilums is not a good idea - or both?

Also, what do you think is ahistorical about it?

[Cybvep]

AP just ignore half of the armour value and do nothing else, so if shield value is high, unit will have very good protection against AP-weapons, which is ahistorical.

[QwertyMIDX]

AP weapons should be effective against sheilds. Ever seen what a Falx does to a sheild? In RTW they're not as AP only effects the armor stat, so making sheild values high is problematic.

[jebes]

So tell me if this sums it up. The EB team decided to sacrifice the historical aspect of arrows to the rear of a unit in order to be more historically/realistically accurate in regards to armor crushing weapons. You had to choose between the high armor value that could be crushed by AP against a high shield value that could be flanked and is especially vulnerable to arrows.

[khelvan]

I'm not sure of the exact reasoning, but given that units will not automatically position their shields to defend against arrow fire, as they would tend to do in real life depending on the situation, I would prefer being able to model melee weapons better. I'm not sure we have had to compromise, though.

[Kull]

For what it's worth, QM uses an unbelievably complex spreadsheet to test out the various defense and offense "adders". He can play around with, for example, 6 different kinds of torso armor and 4 types of shields (and much, much, more). So when he tells you that EB units have been balanced and tested? Ummmm, well, yeah!

(I kid you not, it took me a full day - 8 hours in a chair - just to figure out the macro and formula flow from sheet to sheet to sheet to sheet....)

[QwertyMIDX]

So tell me if this sums it up. The EB team decided to sacrifice the historical aspect of arrows to the rear of a unit in order to be more historically/realistically accurate in regards to armor crushing weapons. You had to choose between the high armor value that could be crushed by AP against a high shield value that could be flanked and is especially vulnerable to arrows.

No, because after realizing that high shield values caused problems with AP I rebalanced all other values to take that into account.

Instead of looking at the numbers and getting into a tizzy, I ask, does it feel right? If something plays in an odd manner tell me, and I will try to address it, but the numbers I use have generally given me the results I want and I'd much rather address issues where the results are problematic than issues where the number appear problematic.

[Macroi]

AP weapons should be effective against sheilds. Ever seen what a Falx does to a sheild? In RTW they're not as AP only effects the armor stat, so making sheild values high is problematic.

AP weapons would be effective against shields if you up the attack value of the AP weapons. At the moment your pilums all have values of 4 and 5. If you raise them to 8 or 10 and it will be a non-issue.

Haha - no, I can't say that I have ever seen what a falx does to a shield, but if you want it to be effective against shields, then why give it an AP bonus at all? Why not just raise the overall attack value of the falx?

Doesn't that make more sense than lowering the values of all shields?

[QwertyMIDX]

No, because then it will chew through lightly armored units. AP weapons were good for smashing men that were heavily incumbered by large shields and heavy armor, men with only small shields and light armor would be better able to deal with them. Raising the attack value of AP weapons would lose that element completely.

[Macroi]

No, because then it will chew through lightly armored units. AP weapons were good for smashing men that were heavily incumbered by large shields and heavy armor, men with only small shields and light armor would be better able to deal with them. Raising the attack value of AP weapons would lose that element completely.

No, it won't chew through lightly armored units, because the defensive skill rating of lightly armored troops should be higher than that of armored troops. This takes into account their added maneuverability in hand to hand combat. See my original post for details.

[Reverend Joe]

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

[Macroi]

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

I understand your concern here, but this won't be an issue if you just follow the formula that I lay out in my first post up top. Troops without armor, or with light armor, should get a bonus to their defensive skill rating (the middle number). Armored troops should have their defensive skill rating lowered to 2 across the board, then they can receive bonuses depending on whether or not they are elite. Tweak the numbers as you like, but to me this is a far more accurate way to model the situation.

[Macroi]

AP just ignore half of the armour value and do nothing else, so if shield value is high, unit will have very good protection against AP-weapons, which is ahistorical.

Whoa...what makes you think that is that ahistorical?

Body armor is pressed right up against the body. Obviously, piercing body armor, more often than not, should result in a casualty. That's why the RTW team modelled it the way they did. Given the limited constraints of their model, I think they were right to do so.

But a shield is held out in front of the body. There's a buffer zone between the shield and the man. Just because a shield is pierced (or even destroyed) doesn't mean the man dies. But you're saying that it's more historically accurate if he does die - every single time (these guys only have one hit point, so one hit equals death).

The current system is tremendously unfair towards units that have no armor, and rely solely on a shield for protection. In reality, the large shields that barbarians carried would have afforded excellent protection against missile attacks - but the way it's currently modelled, they're not getting it.

Check this out:

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

[khelvan]

Check this out:

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

Sorry, you're looking at this completely wrong. First, shield and armor are handled differently by the system, they can't be equated in terms of pure "points." Second, the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

No discussion about the historical accuracy of numbers will be considered valid. The stats system is put in place to get historical RESULTS, not through the use of "historical numbers."

If the RESULTS on the battlefield are as they should be, that is the important factor. Numbers are only a tool to get there. And if that means we do things completely counter-intuitively so that the battle results come out right, so be it.

[Macroi]

Sorry, you're looking at this completely wrong. First, shield and armor are handled differently by the system, they can't be equated in terms of pure "points." Second, the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

No discussion about the historical accuracy of numbers will be considered valid. The stats system is put in place to get historical RESULTS, not through the use of "historical numbers."

If the RESULTS on the battlefield are as they should be, that is the important factor. Numbers are only a tool to get there. And if that means we do things completely counter-intuitively so that the battle results come out right, so be it.

Ok, I just ran the tests. Here are the results:

I put 50 hayasdan ayrndzi netadzik against 81 hastati. I kept the archers in front of the hastati the whole time. Only 7 hastati died before I ran out of arrows.

Then I put the same 50 horse archers against 100 clyddabre. 91 clyddabre died before the remaining 9 turned and fled. I didn't even need to use all my arrows.

Look, don't get me wrong here; I'm not whining, and I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time. On the contrary, I appreciate all the work you guys have put into this mod, and that's why I'm taking the time to try and help you make it better. It's a great mod - I'm just trying to point out some ways in which I think it can be improved. No offense intended.

[QwertyMIDX]

As I mentioned before:

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description).

[Macroi]

[QUOTE=khelvan]...the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

Fair enough, QM. But this is the point I'm addressing by running the test.

Khelvan seems to think that I'm "looking at this all wrong" - but I'm not. He doubts that the Clyddabre would suffer five times the casualties that Hastati would suffer - when in fact they do (far more than that actually, since there is no direct corrolation between having 5x protection and suffereing 5x less casualties as Khelvan proposed).

The hastati suffered less than 10% casualties, while the Clyddabre suffered over 90% (it would easily have been 100% had I chosen to pursue them).

That is a striking disparity since the only real difference between these units is that Hastati have a helmet and a 10" metal protector on their chests, don't you think?

[QwertyMIDX]

The current system is tremendously unfair towards units that have no armor, and rely solely on a shield for protection. In reality, the large shields that barbarians carried would have afforded excellent protection against missile attacks - but the way it's currently modelled, they're not getting it.

This isn't quite true, light armored troops get bonuses, and barbarians get special bonuses as well to make up for the fact they don't wear much armor but should be rather tougher than the system implies.

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

He gets most of his armor from his greaves and helmet, not this pectoral.

4 from the helmet, 2 from the greaves, 1 from the pectoral.

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description), looks like I did a good job eh? They do seem to have a sheild value lower than what is dictated by the system, I will have to check and see if they were tweaked intentionally.

[Macroi]

This isn't quite true, light armored troops get bonuses, and barbarians get special bonuses as well to make up for the fact they don't wear much armor but should be rather tougher than the system implies.

Yes, I noticed that you are giving several unarmored troops an armor rating. We are both trying to get to the same destination, but we are taking different routes. I really don't think giving unarmored troops a rating for armor is the way to go. You're making a fairly simple situation overly complex IMHO. Now these lightly armored, or unarmored units are going to have what little defense you've awarded them cut in half vs. ap units (including your falxmen).

He gets most of his armor from his greaves and helmet, not this pectoral.

4 from the helmet, 2 from the greaves, 1 from the pectoral.

I like the fact that your assigning armor values based on the equipment, but it seems a bit off to me to award 4 points for a helmet and only 3 for a large shield. If you had to face an archer at fifty paces, which piece of equipment would you rather have: An open faced helm or a full-body shield?

Also, I don't believe hastati wore greaves. The reason they wore that square plate on their chests is because they had to make it themselves. Fashioning greaves was expensive and a bit beyond them, if I'm not mistaken.

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description), looks like I did a good job eh? They do seem to have a sheild value lower than what is dictated by the system, I will have to check and see if they were tweaked intentionally.

Understood. I had a feeling they might have "slipped through the cracks" a bit and that you probably intended to give them a 3 instead of the 1. But I still say a 3 (or even a 5) isn't nearly enough.

[QwertyMIDX]

No, it won't chew through lightly armored units, because the defensive skill rating of lightly armored troops should be higher than that of armored troops. This takes into account their added maneuverability in hand to hand combat. See my original post for details.

To make that work they'd have to end up with better defense in melee than armored troops. So either way you have a problem. As a side not, light troops already get a small DS bonus and light troops that were noted for being particularly tough in melee get a larger one, but like I say, there is a limit as to how far this can be taken without drastic problems in balancing.

Yes, I noticed that you are giving several unarmored troops an armor rating. We are both trying to get to the same destination, but we are taking different routes. I really don't think giving unarmored troops a rating for armor is the way to go. You're making a fairly simple situation overly complex IMHO. Now these lightly armored, or unarmored units are going to have what little defense you've awarded them cut in half vs. ap units (including your falxmen).

Those bonuses are less about melee and more about making them a bit more survivable against ranged weapons. So once again your soultion misses the issue that is being addressed.

I like the fact that your assigning armor values based on the equipment, but it seems a bit off to me to award 4 points for a helmet and only 3 for a large shield. If you had to face an archer at fifty paces, which piece of equipment would you rather have: An open faced helm or a full-body shield?

Point for point a sheild is more defense against missile (frontal ones) than armor. Just try hitting units with large shields and decent armor in the back with arrows, javs, sling stones. It's not a simple point for point relationship.

Also, I don't believe hastati wore greaves. The reason they wore that square plate on their chests is because they had to make it themselves. Fashioning greaves was expensive and a bit beyond them, if I'm not mistaken.

He has a greave here, ask the historian who equiped him.

Understood. I had a feeling they might have "slipped through the cracks" a bit and that you probably intended to give them a 3 instead of the 1. But I still say a 3 (or even a 5) isn't nearly enough.

And you still miss the entire point about the way shields function, high levels of shield armor cause major problems when it comes to balancing both AP weapons and missiles, your system only exacerbates them.

[Ludens]

Macroi, it is off course very good to know that you enjoy the EB mod and want to make it better, but I think you should watch your tone.

I actually agree with you that, as a general rule, a shield was more use than armour, but R:TW soldiers do not optimally use it (e.g. turn to face threats) so increasing their shield bonus at the cost of armour would make them more vulnerable from the right or rear. One of the things I like about EB is that they removed this exaggareted vulnerability: real soldiers would not keep looking forward when the soldier behind them was being cut down.

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

My two pence.

[Macroi]

Macroi, it is off course very good to know that you enjoy the EB mod and want to make it better, but I think you should watch your tone.

I actually agree with you that, as a general rule, a shield was more use than armour, but R:TW soldiers do not optimally use it (e.g. turn to face threats) so increasing their shield bonus at the cost of armour would make them more vulnerable from the right or rear. One of the things I like about EB is that they removed this exaggareted vulnerability: real soldiers would not keep looking forward when the soldier behind them was being cut down.

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

My two pence.

Well, hello to a fellow Brit!*

As far as the soldiers "turning to meet the threat", I'm surprised to hear you don't think R:TW handles it well, since I actually thought that was one of the few things the engine handled properly! I'll take a closer look at it later tonight.

I'm sure the troops are less flexible about turning to face attacks when they are in rigid formations (such as phalanx) - perhaps that might play into the issue?

*Your spelling of "armour" and the "two pence" comment gave you away.