Balancing in the leaked 1.2

[Lusted]

Carl, have a look at the unit files me and Palamedes worked on for LTC 2.3, see what you think of them:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=96113

[Foz]

I notice your DEKs have skeleton comp value of 0.4, Lusted. What does that do? We really need to know EXACTLY what the hell that setting does...

Of course the DEKs work well when you give them almost as much frontal defense as S&S units have, and mostly keep their insanely high attack, lol. I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense as a 2h axe or warhammer is not a particularly good defensive weapon, but at least it's a functional solution. They beat S&S units and die to missile fire like they're supposed to, but the higher defense and lowered knight stats probably change their dynamic w/ knights substantially. You'd think knights should be able to roll them pretty easily from the front since they don't have shields, but I'm guessing the 18 defense will dampen that, if not largely prevent it. I can't really check, though, as I already modded Lusted's knights out of that file since I wasn't keen on that aspect of his balance. Perhaps someone else could give an idea of what happens in the matchup, like maybe Carl if he checks out Lusted's files?

I'd strongly disagree here, DEK's cost a fortune and totally outstat DCK/Noble Swordsmen, yet these units, (which are also the specific unit types 2-handers are supposed to counter), can quite soundly beat them.

When did 530/225 become a "fortune?" DFK are 570/225, DCK are 610/225, Noble Swordsmen 610/175. DEKs are actually among the cheapest of the dismounted knight type of units.

As to what 2 handers are "supposed to counter," I don't think it's a written law that a 2-hander must beat S&S units. Just by nature of their offense-favoring stats they gain a tremendous edge in flanking as opposed to defense-favoring shield units in that role. The AP is especially great for it: the armor stat is a much larger percent of the unit's total defense in the sides and rear than in the front, so consequently when flanking it rips away a much bigger percent of the unit's applicable defense. I also don't think it's inherently evil to have 2 styles of units (in this case S&S and 2H) be roughly equal in melee: neither has to be designed to beat the other. Just so you're aware, the DEKs can beat the more expensive DFKs frontally, just not the really elite S&S units it seems. I'm not sure if they do so consistently, but they did on my first try just now, 61 to 49. In any case it seems they should be applied as the hammer to the S&S unit's anvil: a role in which they are really only bested by mounted knights. I actually think they're a steal w/ vanilla stats in 1.2, provided one understands that their low defense and high attack are best suited to tasks other than frontal assault or line-holding duties. Keep them from being exposed to much enemy attack, use them as a hammer, and you're bound to see what I mean.

[Lusted]

I notice your DEKs have skeleton comp value of 0.4, Lusted. What does that do? We really need to know EXACTLY what the hell that setting does...

Nothing according to Jason, he was just testing some of the changes Darth Vader makes in his mod, and like some of Daths changes, apear to have no effect at all.

[Point_Blank]

I agree with Carl. Some of the new animations, particularly using the DEK as a prime example, are horrible.

In general, DEK should beat DCK head to head. Units shifted to 2H AP weapons because 1H weapons such as swords were not doing the job vs the heavier armors coming into more common use. The loss of shield was considered justified, as the opponents' swords were not greatly effective vs plate/platemail anyway. 2H weapons were also better vs cav.

Clearly, sword units should get more attacks than 2H units. They should carve up lesser-armored foes much more efficiently than a 2H unit would. But the DEK animation (as an example) is very slow and easily interrupted.

Zweihanders are now more effective than DEK vs DCK. This is just plain wrong.

What is the answer? Make the DEK use the JHI animation?

[BigTex]

What is the answer? Make the DEK use the JHI animation?

No, Not without massive adjustments to stats. The JHI animation is simply one of the most powerful animations in the game. Been through this many of times. Sadly their's no real fix for them, even after 1.02. They at least attempted to fix them though this round. Sadly with the shield fix there's a whole new slew of balancing problems.

Almost every single unit in the game now needs to be rebalanced with shields working correctly in melee. They were previously adjusted to with the shield bug. Now Chivalric Knights will always beat Lancers.

Though after screwing with the varangian guard post 1.2 they are powerhouses. I've yet to find much that will stop them. Maybe the trick is to give the DEK's/bills/other assorted 2hd's a shield factor of 1 or 2?

[sapi]

At least this is a problem that modders have a chance of fixing...

[dopp]

My personal preference is to increase 2hander/late cavalry armor and defense skill (those with 'advanced plate armor') to give them a total defense equal to or close to that of the shield units (+4 armor, +1/+2 defense skill). The advantage is that only a few units need to be altered. I justify the defense skill boost on the grounds that the added bulk of advanced plate is compensated for by the loss of the shield (in the case of foot units, a full body shield), so there really isn't any call for giving Zweihanders substandard armor AND slowing them down as well 'due to the weight'.

[Point_Blank]

Now Chivalric Knights will always beat Lancers.

The late gothic/renaissance armor of the Lancers is not given enough edge, only 3 points, over the Chivalric platemail. 4-6 points would be more appropriate and would justify ditching the shield, as happened in reality. Well that is of course easy enough to mod in but might not be consistent with other units and upgrades.

edit: dopp man you beat me to it :)

[Foz]

Actually, the Chivalric Knights are not hands down better. You'd think so to consider just the unit stats, as they have 1 extra point of overall defense. However, the breakdown of defense stats matters too:

Lancers have 11/5/0 for armor/skill/shield
CKs have 8/5/4

So the Lancers trade 4 shield points for 3 armor points. This seems unfair until you realize that those 2 types of points are not equal. They both prevent melee and missile attacks, but armor points give better cover from non-front sides than shield points do. Here are the effective armor ratings by quadrant:

Lancers

Front 16
Right 16
Left 16
Rear 11

CKs

Front 17
Right 13
Left 12
Rear 8

So immediately we see that the Chivalric Knights are considerably weaker to flanking attacks. Is this a big deal? It may be. My reasoning is that in melee, you often see knights ride up beside an enemy unit to attack it. Guess what happens if that unit attacks the knight? If you said it's attacking one of the knight's non-front sides, give yourself a cookie. In fact I would speculate that because of this behavior a significant portion of the attacks against knights come from one of its 2 sides, since the knight is usually not engaging a target in front of him unless using his lance. If that assumption is even partially true, is it a good idea to "trade down" 4 shield points into 3 armor points? Since it translates into a 1 point frontal defense loss, but a 3-4 point side and rear defense gain, it well may be a good idea. Also, given +8 charge knights' propensity for ending up in the middle of the enemy unit after breaking the front line, it seems that the survivability of Lancers may be better than that of Chivalric Knights since they can hold up to being surrounded better (the sum of their quadrants is 59, compared to CK's 50 meaning they have 9 more applicable defense points when surrounded), though the stats screen certainly wouldn't lead you to that conclusion. The end result is that Chivalrics are a hair better from the front, but Lancers are much more rugged since they have considerably better defense from all other sides. Given the choice, I take the rugged unit, since combat never goes exactly how you want it to, so it always helps to have a unit with better average facings rather than a slim frontal advantage coupled with more fragile numbers on the sides and rear. I don't like to have to be really really careful with my units - this IS war, after all.