Well it's gone into final testing so it will likely be out next week. They said late feb back after the first one was released, and we are getting it in late feb.
Well it's gone into final testing so it will likely be out next week. They said late feb back after the first one was released, and we are getting it in late feb.
Creator of:
Lands to Conquer Gold for Medieval II: Kingdoms
As promised i've been chatting to Palamedes about this(finally remembered). I only caught him briefly today but we'll be chatting more this week.
He gave me this useful info:
And according to him armour upgrades should work by giving units the armour value of the next level, so billmen going from unarmoured to padded should get plus 4 to their armour. But as they aren't, it indicates it isn't working as planned.none no valid armour 0
Unarmoured Unarmoured 0
Padded Padded or leather 4
Light Mail Chainmail shirt 5
Heavy Mail Heavy Maiil 7
Partial Plate Fully armoured. Mostly Plate 8
Plate Full set of plate armour 9
Gothic Advanced Plate 10
Late Plate Renaisance suit of plate 11
Light Brigandine 6
Heavy Brigandine 8
Half Plate Breastpllate and helmet 7
3Q Plate Three quarters plate 8
Cav Unarmoured 0
Cav
But this does mean that CA did plan for armour upgrades to give the corresponding armour value to the look of the armour.
Creator of:
Lands to Conquer Gold for Medieval II: Kingdoms
Originally Posted by Lusted
I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?Originally Posted by Lusted
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=181
Thats one of your own posts where you show that level 3 armour upgrades come out at less than 7.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...5&postcount=67
Yet this post by myself clearly shows that Heavy Mail is better than 5.
It's a damm weird situation.
My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
Other tests by other people. The system is working mostly as expected, but not completely.I thought these results were illustrative that the system was working entirely as intended. Now you don't think so? Why?
You mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.My geuss is that the "Stat_Sec_Armour" line that is commented out was meant to be a text file way of editing an allready implimented peice of hardcode. Might explain the diffrances...
Creator of:
Lands to Conquer Gold for Medieval II: Kingdoms
Yeah, sorry, i couldn't be bothered to check an EDU, (i have severalYou mean stat_armour_ex line. It does seem to indicate what armour the unit has for each armour level even though its commented out. I wonder if any of this stuff is contained in the battle_model.modeldb file.), and tried to do it from memory.
LOL Carl. One of my other posts somewhere on this page explains that post #181 was bad, and why. As such I've removed it, since it is not accurate test data at all. IIRC (I'm not about to go back to read) It was something to do with archers closing to start shooting again, when I thought they had expended full ammo and thus stopped the test - which ends up having destroyed the results, as I have no way to know how many shots were fired in any given test before they decided to run forward.
Bookmarks