The Shield Problem(s)

[Foz]

Is this 'Fix' working with armor upgrades? Having tried a number of battles with upgraded and non-upgraded units vs the same opponents, the upgraded units seem to do worse.

Maybe when a unit is upgraded it will not retain the higher armor value generated by the Fix?

TBH, I'm not actually sure. I wasn't thinking about armor upgrades when I did it. If the upgrades add armour points to the unit, then for sure it should work. If they replace the unit's base armour amount with that of the given piece of armour (which I rather expect), then for sure they will mess up the fix. Anyone know for sure what happens? And what we might be able to do (if anything) to work around it if it's the latter case?

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

Understood, and appreciated. It even took me a while to spot this one, and I was running fairly large numbers of custom battles and playing with unit variables at the time. It's so much harder when you have to worry about the whole project at once, especially when the problem is something that only causes unintended behavior instead of compiler errors or game crashes.

If the fix is as easy as I believe it to be in the code, I think there's a very good chance we can expect them to get to it for the second patch. Data inversions, which is what I speculate to be the cause, are among the easiest fixes, often just requiring changing an incorrect minus to a plus, or vice versa. Yeah, amazing that it could be so simple, yet leave us no perfect way to mod a fix. Ahh, the power of real actual code...

[Ulstan]

The opening shot at member who posted a completely valid point was totally unnecessary.

I disagree, Kragennmor. Zhukov told us that everything was working as intended, tried to back up the counter-intuitive results with some rather absurd reasoning, and repeatedly denigrated the sterling bug testing efforts of Carl, Revenant, Foz, Musashi, etc. That was not a valid point at all. Example below:

I did read it Carl. I have read many of your posts. They all move to this beat: bug, fix, bug bug fix, fix, fix, fix fix bug. Which plays into a larger phenomenon I've noticed about the boards: somebody finds something they question in the game, and make a "fix" for it! Meanwhile, it's by no means clear that the vanilla version of what they're changing was bugged in any way.

From another thread, Zhukov dismissing out of hand another players concerns about a possible bug

Seeing more and more of these threads pop up, and contrasting their complaints with the experiences of various experienced players on the boards, and my experiences, it has gradually become clear that the Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

To Zhukov: If your 'bug sense' ability isn't as finely developed as these guys, fine, just let it pass. There's no need to accuse them of crying wolf and finding bugs where none exist. It is and was clear that we have a serious issue on our hands, and the members testing it and bringing it to our attention are doing invaluable work, for which we should be thanking them, not poo-poohing their efforts.

And now, thanks to their efforts, CA is made aware of the problem. Hearty thanks to everyone who's spent time testing, not only the shield bug, but also the 2h bug as well.

[Ulstan]

If they replace the unit's base armour amount with that of the given piece of armour (which I rather expect), then for sure they will mess up the fix.

In theory this could be determined by boosting a units base armor values sky high, so that if what we face is a replacement, the difference will be immediately apparent in a combat test.

However, as you say, we don't have any real way to fix this with mods, unless we have some way to go in and modify the level each armor upgrade applies to each unit.

Still, it should be something CA can fix up for us pretty quickly

[Carl]

I've used armour upgrades on fixed units in custom battles with it increasing their actual power, so no worries there.

[Foz]

Thanks Carl. I just ran the usual 13/21 knight mirror match with one of them having an armor upgrade, and the battle shifted in their favor. If anyone has specific examples that aren't working, let us know. Note, though, that this would probably be clearly indicated on the unit stat sheet: i.e. if the armor upgrade nerfed its stats, you'd see the bad stats when you checked them for the unit. From what I can see though, it appears to work correctly.

@Ulstan: Thanks for the props, it's nice to hear that the work is appreciated. That goes for all of you who've been expressing similar sentiments, too.

As for being poo-poohed, I'm used to being questioned at every turn, and frankly it's good: it gives me a chance to further explain the reasons for drawing the conclusions I have, not to mention giving me countless chances to pin people under inescapable mountains of concrete evidence and sound logic

Seriously though I try not to do that (at least in a harsh or disrespectful way), and typically only will when someone comes in with guns blazing, spouting information that is obviously poorly conceived and quite incorrect... because at that point I feel they've earned being put in their place.

Additionally, all the backlash is really good for me too. I've become quite dauntless and unflappable as a result of being hammered on so much, which in turn has made it infinitely easier to push through the work I've been doing. So in a roundabout way, I'm also thankful for the nay-sayers who've tried to drop the hammer on me: you've forced out my very best work.

[Kraggenmor]

I disagree, Kragennmor.

As the boards don't need to be cluttered with off topic bickering, you have a PM.

[Ulstan]

Good explanation Foz! I'll try to adopt a similarly relaxed attitude towards the nay-sayers.

All your rigorous testing is much appreciated.

[Jambo]

the foz, it's not that it would nerf stats (as seen by the unit scroll). The question was really based on the current two hotly debated hypotheses that 1) armour upgrade adds +1 as the increase to stats suggest or 2) armour upgrades actually mirror what the vanilla armour grades equal in the EDU file, i.e. padded = 4, mail = 5, heavy mail = 7, etc, all the way up to the Gothic armour (advanced plate) at 10.

For example, Italian spear militia start with padded armour and have an armour rating of 4. There next upgrade is mail. Spear militia have 0 armour and their next upgrade is padded. The increase according to the stats is only +1, however, some have shown with tests that the upgraded Spear militia perform very similar to the Italian militia; possibly indicating that the upgrade is really based on the "padded" and battle map appearance rather than the "incorrect" +1 on the stats would imply.

I just wondered how this fitted in with giving units with shields an ungeneric boost to their armour stats which distorts them from the +4, +5, +7, etc associated with the various armour levels?

I know I probably haven't explained it very well, but I hope you understand.

[General Zhukov]

[which] was essentially Zhukov's point to start with: That just because you're seeing something you don't think is working as it should, doesn't necessarily mean its a bug.

Of course that is true Kragg, and nice of you to point it out. But, really, one can understand the compulsion that drives our hosts in this thread to improve the world, based on the evidence as they see it. Is not progress always driven by the unreasonable man? Nay, better to observe quietly as Carl and Foz4 work their mad schemes in Mod Manor, with Ulstan, ready, with ears perked, guarding the gate. When they have figured out exactly how shields should work, and exactly what balance the game should have, we will be able to eat the sweet fruits of their toil. And if they err in eradicating error? Then at least they have brought the issue to the attention of the TW gods, and for that we should be grateful at least.

[Ulstan]

I'm not sure how much of your post is sarcasm and such Zhukov, but I would like to remind you, if you don't like the mod they make and think it goes overboard, you are always free not to download it. You are quite protected from overzealous modders

And once CA patches the game to fix the problem, but you want your old hurting you in melee shields back, you can still choose not to install the patch.

You have a lot of options to wind up playing the exact same kind of game you want.

Granted, if you do install the patch I don't think it would be possible to mod back in the 'harmful in melee' shields, the same way we can't really mod them out without a patch.

[Blademun]

Alright, I'll accept Foz's explanation.

However, this..

...Then you get smashed. As you should...

Seems way out of line to me. I don't know what your thinking Carl, but alot of us don't want balance We want Historical Accuracy. Thats why we're playing this game, for the historical effect. Of all the medieval units that ever existed, only two survived well into the age of gunpowder..do you know what those two are? Light Cavalry and Horse Archers. Muslim and Native American cultures used horse archers effectively long after the age of bows and swords had died off. This is purely due to the fact that a good horse archer is an extremely versatile and effective weapon. Why is it that they can take on mixed-arms armies? Because, unlike in the 20th century, mixed arms were not nearly as effective in the 14th century. It creates weak and strong spots, and a general has to constantly cover for one while striking with the other. Remembering the most of his troops are on foot, and can't move from point a to b quickly. The general has to reconfigure his army to take into account his enemy every single time he engages them. Whereas the leader of a HA horde knows what they have to do, they've done it a million times before, and they're going to do it again. You think europe was the only country fielding mixed arms? China did too, and they got stomped by Mongolia. Rome was reknowned for their mixed armies. The Huns made them look like fools. Little Bighorn was suppose to be the battle to break the back of indian power...and we know that isn't exactly what happened..

I'd say of all of europes armys, the only one that could effectively counter a powerful HA army at its prime is that of Englands. Not because they fielded mixed arms, but because their longrange longbows and bodkin arrows would make short work of the shorter ranged, light armored cav archers. (Indeed, in a battle between spain and England, Longbowmen made a superior army of jinettes into a shooting gallery.)

Anyway, I feel that the current dominance that a strong army of Mixed HA(heavy/light) is justified. They rightfully are one of the most fearsome, and expensive, armies to be used on the battlefield. The Byzantines, Mongols and Turks rely on their horse archers almost exclusively for cavalry.

This is not to say cav archers are a noob-tube weapon that makes any noob a good player. It takes alot of skill and finnesse to use HA.

Nope, the only time I’ve ever fought against HA on the battlefield was those tests furthar up the thread.

Perhaps your lack of experience with them is the primary reason you don't know this. In fact, Carl, until you've actually played a campaign as one of the HA heavy nations, I really think you ought not be denouncing HA as unbalanced. You've never dealt with the cost, and micromanaging, that it takes to field a effective HA army. I kinda wish Orda Khan would get involved in this post. He's having his beloved mongol HA neutered even moreso then they already are..


P.S. sorry for going sort of off topic. I know this thread is suppose to be about a bug, not discussing the finer points of medieval warfare. To bring it in line with this topic; I would just like to reiterate that game balance is not what all of us want. If you reallllly feel that HA and other units are overpowered in multiplayer, increase their price. Don't neuter their abilities, as for the first time they've been realisticly modeled.

[Foz]

the foz, it's not that it would nerf stats (as seen by the unit scroll). The question was really based on the current two hotly debated hypotheses that 1) armour upgrade adds +1 as the increase to stats suggest or 2) armour upgrades actually mirror what the vanilla armour grades equal in the EDU file, i.e. padded = 4, mail = 5, heavy mail = 7, etc, all the way up to the Gothic armour (advanced plate) at 10.

For example, Italian spear militia start with padded armour and have an armour rating of 4. There next upgrade is mail. Spear militia have 0 armour and their next upgrade is padded. The increase according to the stats is only +1, however, some have shown with tests that the upgraded Spear militia perform very similar to the Italian militia; possibly indicating that the upgrade is really based on the "padded" and battle map appearance rather than the "incorrect" +1 on the stats would imply.

I just wondered how this fitted in with giving units with shields an ungeneric boost to their armour stats which distorts them from the +4, +5, +7, etc associated with the various armour levels?

I know I probably haven't explained it very well, but I hope you understand.

On the contrary, I understand the point in contention very well from your explanation. From my recent test I just mentioned with the 13/21 knights (13/8/0 def stats with fix applied), I can clearly tell that the armor-upgraded knights got some manner of positive change (call it a bonus) to their armor, since they fared a bit better than they typically did with no upgrade. This means that the upgrades do not replace the old armor stat with the one for the appropriate upgrade level (i.e. the knights' upgrade is to half-plate, which I think is 8 point armor - replacement of the old armor stat would've made the unit have 8/8/0 def stats for a loss of 5 defense overall, and they'd get wrecked by their 13/8/0 unupgraded mirror unit).

Another possibility would be that the upgrades applied the correct difference in armor levels, as a bonus. This would probably be accomplished by assigning an armor value to each armor upgrade level, and then simply assuming the unit without any upgrades is at the level directly below its first listed upgrade. Then the upgrade would take its value, subtract it from the value directly below (2 below if it is the second upgrade for the unit) and bonus the unit that amount of armor. This makes sense, because the upgrades seem to progress in order in all cases, never skipping over a level.

Yet another possibility is that each upgrade level has been assigned an armor bonus equal to the difference between it and the level below it. That is to say padded level may be 4 - 0 = +4, mail would be 5 - 4 = +1, heavy mail would be 7 - 5 = +2, etc. As the unit info in the EDU explicitly lists the upgrade levels each unit is given (the line "armour_ug_levels), it would just be a matter of summing the bonus for any upgrade(s) the unit currently has, and applying it to armor.

Note that I'm not saying in the last case that padded level DOES give a +4 bonus in the game, I was just demonstrating the possible math. In reality they could have put any value they wanted (including +1 for all levels) in for any given upgrade level, and that bonus would be conferred to the unit when it got the given upgrade level. Some sort of serious testing would be required to determine what that number is for each upgrade level, though I'm inclined to believe what the in-game unit stat sheet tells me has happened in this case as I haven't noticed myself that any upgrades have had an unusually higher than claimed effect on any units. By the same token it would not surprise me at all if padded upgrade DOES give the +4 bonus, for two reasons:

- It makes sense that if you put on padded armor, which for other units that have it from the start is worth 4 points, it is worth 4 points for you as well.
- the commented out stat_armour_ex line for town militia for instance lists ;stat_armour_ex 0, 4, 5, 0, 1, 6, 6, flesh. The first number is base armor, while the next 3 are for upgrades. Notice the first upgrade has value 4, not 1, which seems to indicate they intended the padded upgrade to have value 4. This is unimplemented and so it really says nothing about what the game is doing, but it does show thinking in the 4-point direction, and so IMO lends credence to that suggestion.

[Carl]

This is off topic.

However.

This is basically a case of preferring different game types.

or me I love historical accuracy, but it HAS to take a backseat to a fun game, a game is only fun for me when it is balanced. A balanced game means taking any too armies, (say a pure infantry and pure HA army), putting them in equally skilled hands, and expecting, (on average), an equal number if wins and losses over the course of a number of games.

Everybody admits that won't happen, and that means to me the game isn't balanced. At heart it seemingly boils down to, (if you have good HA), build economy, spam HA, use well, decimate everyone.

If I want that type of game play I’ll go back to playing DoW:WA, it's pretty much the same play style and requires even less brainpower as it doesn’t require the micro-management of HA, (which I find boring anyway).

I got RTW and M2TW because I liked how they played out in the demos, it felt like the kind of game I’d been looking for, for years. It seemed ok on balance, (cav was a bit OTT in both mind), with good combined arms and a general feel of balance and strategic depth that’s been lacking in any other RTS I’ve played. It's the challenge of wits I love so much.

On the flip side my point about combined arms was meant to apply to those armies capable of it. Just as Scots lack effective heavy archers and cav, the Mongols lack effective Infantry and Heavy cav.

In these kinds of cases, it's OK for a 90% HA army to do great. They don't really have much else to rely on, and thus need HA that can do well if they are to have a chance of winning. The same Logic Applies to Scotland, they don't have much beyond Melee infantry, so they need really good melee infantry. They still have to use combined arms to a degree. But nowhere near as well as anyone else. The comment was really aimed at factions like Byzantine and the Turks who according top most people can get away with littlie besides HA in their armies 90% of the time. They have other very good units and they are their to be used, the game shouldn't be set up so that a competent HA player has no need for them, and nerfing the HA stats any more would only increase the Auto-Calc discrepancy.

As I said, it's different styles, I want a game that’s fun for me, I don't find it fun when all I have to do is build one unit all the time and use it well to win. I like the challenge of using combined arms and making it work.

So no offence meant by anything, we just have different views on what’s fun, and now that’s cleared up we can go back on topic.

[Musashi]

Not to nitpick, but both the Byzantines and Turks have really terrible spearmen and other infantry until the middle to late period.

[Ulstan]

Don't worry Bladenum, I'm pretty sure most Guild members are happy to descend into discussions of historical accuracy and such

For my part, I believe horse archers in the total war series tend to be overpowered, if anything. Note that all cavalry in RTW was massively overpowered, so I'm not singling horse archers out for special ire.

Seems way out of line to me. I don't know what your thinking Carl, but alot of us don't want balance We want Historical Accuracy.

As this is a game, not a history replicator, we must be willing to make some small sacrifices for the name of balance. Now, one of the strongest selling points of the TW series is that there is a pretty historically accurate balance between the different military types, so I agree we shouldn't just chuck all that overpowered.

I do not think any army of the period was composed exclusively of light horse archers, and such a thing is very easy to do in the TW series. Granted, a player can beat the AI with almost any kind of 'all one type' army, just some armies are easier than others. Are horse archers too effective? I tend to think so.

Of all the medieval units that ever existed, only two survived well into the age of gunpowder..do you know what those two are? Light Cavalry and Horse Archers.

And heavy cavalry. There were lancers still in Napoleonic times, and most cavalry were still armed with sabers and such. And of course, you had heavy and light infantry, just they were armed with different weapons. Then you get to rifled weapons and suddenly cavalry vs infantry is a doomed matchup.

Muslim and Native American cultures used horse archers effectively long after the age of bows and swords had died off.

They could have done this, not because a horse archer was intrinsically so awesome, but because they were technologically at a disadvantage to their rivals. Anyway in the native American case, there *were* no native american horse archers during the medieval period. That came later, and they fought Americans armed with revolvers and such, also on horseback. Off hand, I can't think of a single instance of Native American 'horse archers' fighting massed regular heavy infantry.

When US Cavalry killed Indians, they did not take their bows and use them. When the Indians killed US soldiers, they very eagerly and very happily took their guns.

At any rate, considering the Americans got brutally crushed and the Muslims remained a quiet backwater, this hardly speaks to the military prowess of Horse archers :D I think the better examples come earlier on.

This is purely due to the fact that a good horse archer is an extremely versatile and effective weapon.

I agree, it's just that they do have weaknesses and can't fill all roles on a battlefield.

Rome was reknowned for their mixed armies. The Huns made them look like fools.

Chalons? :D Anyway, the Huns had more than horse archers, I think. And I wouldn't really characterize the Romans as a renowned combined arms amy: at least not the western roman empire. Strong infantry, weak cavalry, weak archers seems to be the consensus.

I'm perfectly fine with a heavy cavalry force with lots of horse archers annhilating a pure infantry army, as happened to Crassus: I just don't think they should be able to do it vs any army with zero losses :D

Little Bighorn was suppose to be the battle to break the back of indian power...and we know that isn't exactly what happened..

Little Bighorn was far from a victory of bow armed horse archers over some other troop type. Poor leadership decisions on the Americans part and dash and overwhelming numbers on the Indians part allowed them to surround and cut down the cavalry.

Anyway, it doesn't mean it's a triumph of horse and bow anymore than the British disaster at Isandlwana was a triumph for spear and shield. In both cases the natives won a victory over vastly outnumbered and arrogant invading forces, and then were subsequently crushed by reinforcements who were better commanded. Their victories however, did not change the course of the war, and were the exceptions, rather than the rule. Also, the invaders could replace their losses far better than the natives.

Not because they fielded mixed arms, but because their longrange longbows and bodkin arrows would make short work of the shorter ranged, light armored cav archers.

I think any foot archers would be able to drive off horse archers. And I don't think horse archers should be able to dash away formed spearmen in a charge either :D As long as we don't have a situation where the answer to every problem is 'More horse archers!' then I'm satisfied :)

[Carl]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arn't Turkish/Bazantyine spearmen roughly equivelent to English Spear Milita?

The reason I ask is that with Silver armour they, (Spear Milita), CAN take Fuedal Knights, (weird I know, as they get massacred without them), and can badly hurt Hospittelter's. Thus i'm pretty sure any units coming out of a large town are going to be decent spearmen in effect.

Of course if i've missed somthing...?

Likewise, when do all those Bazantyine Sword and Sheild units show up then, I thought they where quite early? (Maybe i'm wrong). Remeber, he Sheild Bug wreacks their power tottally. Most HA vs. Militia spearmen is instant death in melee to the HA. Especially with Shilstrom.

EDIT: Ignore some of the above, i've just gone looking at the Bazantyine guide and found most of them don't turn up till 3/4h barracks, (allthough the expiriance bonuses from 4th barracks would be mean TBH, as combined with silver armour you get some serious defence/offence power).

[Musashi]

The reason horse archers generally win isn't that they can smash spears with a frontal charge, it's that greater mobility plus range means the spears have to either endure their entire arrow supply from flanks and rear directions before the engagement, or have to break formation, and end up getting caught out where the HAs can smash them with 3 units to their one, and under flanking attack any unit will beat any other, more or less.

Carl: In my experience the Byz spear are equivalent to spear militia in other factions (Nothing they have really compare to say, armored sergeants... and I'm certain english spear militia don't win without the a zero shield fix, which I'm not willing to apply). Their sword and shield guys, which are actually quite nice, don't come until about the middle period. You need a level 4 barracks, which actually takes quite a while to get out there.

The turks infantry absolutely SUCKS. Muslim spear units are worse than European militia units, imho.

Granted, in the late period you get the various awesome Janissary units. But to get there you basically have jack other than your horse archers.

[Carl]

and under flanking attack any unit will beat any other, more or less.

Well of course, that’s what I love about the TW games, even though these are my first ones.

The reason horse archers generally win isn't that they can smash spears with a frontal charge, it's that greater mobility plus range means the spears have to either endure their entire arrow supply from flanks and rear directions before the engagement, or have to break formation, and end up getting caught out where the HAs can smash them with 3 units to their one,

Well HA seemed to be able to smash them with a frontal charge before. I was just trying to point out that this has changed and if you don't REALLY whittle them down, your going to get beaten. i.e. it's going to put a stop to half stack HA armies beating Full Stack enemy armies as you claim to have done.

Shilstrom seemed to be the Western European answer to HA too. By the time the HA are close enough to be in effective firing range, (they brace sooner in Shilstrom), they are braced, and that means their are 5 guys with shield pointing at you between you and the guy with his back to you. Don't get me wrong, you will get some enfidle effects and I don't expect shistrom to be as resistant under those circumstances.

Overall, It was more a case of me saying that pure HA armies seem to have been reduced to an even keel and I liked that. Sorry if it game across as overly aggressive. it was too aggressively worded I admit.

[Zenicetus]

Not to nitpick, but both the Byzantines and Turks have really terrible spearmen and other infantry until the middle to late period.

Exactly... which is why the alarm bell went off for me, with the comment up-thread about a shield fix that has a side effect of nerfing HA's. That's about all you have to work with, for the first part of a Turks campaign. And it's one of the challenges of playing that faction. It's not some kind of "easy mode" that beats everything else in the game. It becomes more of an interesting option in the later game, when mixed armies are viable for the Turks. But that option should still be there, for those who enjoy running HA-based armies. Otherwise, why have Eastern factions in the game at all? And of course Mongols aren't Mongols unless they're a strong HA-based faction; something to be feared and respected.

I'm sure CA will be taking this into account, when they address whatever is going on with shields in the next patch. I would assume they won't be nerfing HA's in the process, since they're such an important part of the game... at least on the Eastern side of the map.

Meanwhile, nobody is twisting our arms to use the shield fix ideas here, so those of us who are in the "cautious" camp can just wait for the official patch. Or use the mods that have a lighter touch on the stats.

[Musashi]

Actually, my victories have not been due to relying on charge bonus... In fact I never chain charge (I think it's lame and exploitish). I've found that flanking fire is SO effective, that I can easily rout or annihilate twice my number in infantry troops without needing to do much melee.

What melee I do do with them is always flanking and rear work. Because of their mobility it's dead simple to do.

The only frontal charging I do with them is against foot archers (Which the AI always foolishly stick out in front of the other troops.

[Carl]

Exactly... which is why the alarm bell went off for me, with the comment up-thread about a shield fix that has a side effect of nerfing HA's. That's about all you have to work with, for the first part of a Turks campaign.

Perhaps, but remeber that the sheild fix will also DRASTICLY up-power all infantry that have a sheild.

Hashashim are terrifying now, (I know they arn't an early unit BTW).

Actually, my victories have not been due to relying on charge bonus... In fact I never chain charge (I think it's lame and exploitish). I've found that flanking fire is SO effective, that I can easily rout or annihilate twice my number in infantry troops without needing to do much melee.

What melee I do do with them is always flanking and rear work. Because of their mobility it's dead simple to do.

The only frontal charging I do with them is against foot archers (Which the AI always foolishly stick out in front of the other troops.

Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you where doing what everyone else does and frontal charging all non-pike units. How do you stop the enemy turning to favce anyway. No matter waht I do Ican't force rear charges if I don't have at least the same number of units as my opponnent, and you seem to be doing it when outnumbered a lot. Or have routing units usually given you Numerical Advantage at this point. As I mentioned though. Whatch out for opponnents that go Shistrom on you. they'll be unshiftable if your out of arrows.

[Musashi]

Well, generally even if I haven't achieved numerical superiority (Which would mean I was up against something truly nasty and uber armored... and probably would have brought the rest of my army hehe) I find I can use my cav's speed to tempt the AI into breaking up formation and pursuing in multiple directions, then swing my horses around and focus on one unit while the others scramble to get there, and just disengage when it gets dangerous.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If he has schiltrom capable troops I just focus my arrow fire on them and wipe them out early. Otherwise I focus on the general and wipe his unit out/rout him. That makes the rest easier.

[Carl]

Geuss I have to remeber the AI isn't as smart as a Human.

[DukeKent]

As to Little Big Horn. Not only did the native Americans have numerical superiority. But my understanding is that many of the Native Americans were armed with better rifles (and thus more fire power) than what the U.S. government provided the cavalry at the time. Of course that type of fubar rarely makes it into mainstream public history books. The victors write the History books, not the losers. As mentioned above, the biggest problem was the leadership anyway. Custer was rash in the Civil War, why would we he change against what he considered an inferior foe.

Most importantly, great work on the bug identification, and fix guys

[Musashi]

To be fair, if he has significant numbers of schiltrom capable troops left at the end, I'll likely just withdraw, and plan to finish them later.

[Carl]

Not a bad idea really when you think about it. YourHA get their bows reloaded if you do that.

[Musashi]

Exactly. And that's a historical HA strategy (As opposed to tactic)... you attack and fade away to rearm and resupply.

[pike master]

correct me if im wrong and i very well may be but an early medieval unit who might have used quilted or light to heavy mail probably used a shield not just to stop arrows but to help protect them in combat. daah

ok later when plate was developed the armor was more resilient to damage and since it was able to resist missiles and wepon blows better the soldiers opted for two handed weapons to multiply their attack depending on their armor and quicker combat speed to give them an advantage in battle.

so should a shield bearing warrior in heavy mail with a one handed sword be able to take on a plate armored soldier with a more advantageous two handed weapon . the protection is there but the one handed sword would have difficulty penetrating the armor plate. so is there a shield bug or is what is being seen is a relatively weak attack by shield using infantry versus a stronger attack by a two handed unit.

of course im not trying to argue so if im wrong no problem.

[antisocialmunky]

Against armour with a sword, you don't try and cut the enemy. You try and whack them and disorient them so you can disarm them or force them into a position where you can dagger them through a soft spot.

[Blademun]

I do not think any army of the period was composed exclusively of light horse archers

Well, I tried to note when I say "HA" I mean of varying types, both light and heavy.

Your right about the heavy cavalry, however, when I look at 'heavy cavalry' from the 1600's..I have a hard tiem calling it 'heavy' often the only armour they're wearing is a cuirass, shin guards and a steel helmet. A far cry from the Mailed, Plated and Barded tanks of medieval times.

Also, I know that little bighorn involved just as many guns as it did bows. I also know that Native Americans didn't start out using HA. In a sense though that should be strong argument for HA. Look at the situation..your facing a disciplined, well equiped army with far superior technology. So what do the Natives of the plains do? They start fielding HA, even though they have no history of doing that prior. Of course they upgraded to guns to stay competitive, but they still had large contingents of bow armed HA. They managed to hold off America for a very long time..

Just going to logical sense..if you have an army of peasants armed with sticks(spears), some archers whose bow is little use for hunting, much less warfare, and maybe a handfull of armoured knights whom are dismonted because the mounted variety are to expensive...would you really expect a HA army to have trouble with this? This is the average army fielded by the AI for most of the game afterall....

In my Byzantine campaign, I fought a hard war against the venetians. The Venetians field lots of spearmen, and they are good too. I was forced to use all the tactics mentioned above to win, because I just had NOTHING to attack them head on with. While Spear milita may suck, Italian Milita has a bit of bite to them, especially against Byzantine Cavalry, which is quite a bit weaker then their bigger Vardariotai brothers. I didn't have the Econ to field a full stack of Vard's that early.

HA do fill out alot of roles, but you have to use them creativly. They lack the 'shock' factor that other troops have, like HC. You can't hold a solid line with HA, and you can't fight in the woods. HA have alot of strategic weaknesses that may not crop up in MP, but do in Campaign games. Its that reason that makes me feel Hungary actually has the superior army to Byzantine. While their HA are weaker, they have Heavy Cav all the way up to Chiv's to back them up, and later on, Arquebusiers and Serpentines. Hungarian Nobles are only a point shy of Vards in every stat. I feel this gives them alot more flexibility. Even I will admit that a army of HA can't win all battles. I feel however that on a open grassy field, against a army thats mostly melee infantry...they should decimate them or at least greatly reduce their numbers.


Lastly, I really don't like this fix mainly because it strengthens units that -should- be weak, namely spear milita and town milita. Spear milita should die like flys from Enfilade/rear fire, because Spear Milita are just peasants with spears. Thats it. THey should cause MAD on head-on light cavalry charges and be able to go toe to toe with other cheap 'peasant/milita' units and thats it. Armoured Seargents and Italian Milita should be able to cause MAD on FK's and the like, and beat all types of lesser milita, thats it.