So, is 1.2 actually good enough?

[FactionHeir]

      <inquisitor_target_crusades bool="false"/>
      <inquisitor_target_leaders bool="false"/>
      <inquisitor_target_heirs bool="false"/>

Yeah, but I turned the leader and heir thing back on personally. Inqs have been toned down generally by lowering their base chance and their per skill chance. Makes them almost never target witches and heretics either because their chance of winning is too low.

[dopp]

It's great to see that now you cannot build large armies of high tech units, it seems that the number of them available in the recruit queue are tunned down.

Really? The recruitment pools seem to be the same.

[FactionHeir]

They are the same according to the buildings file.

[Lusted]

Yeah, but I turned the leader and heir thing back on personally. Inqs have been toned down generally by lowering their base chance and their per skill chance. Makes them almost never target witches and heretics either because their chance of winning is too low.

I just increased their max chance float to make up for it.

[Foz]

A bit of speculation on the seemingly "random" happening of the training bug when you build a bonus-granting building. Let's assume that this experience problem occurs when the game tries to retroactively apply an XP bonus to a unit that's already in a queue. In the main case, that would mean when you load a saved game that has units in the queue, the game likely sets up the queue before it applies the XP bonus. Then when it tries to do so, the glitch happens.

Now how about the building problem? Well, let's say the game pumps out the upgrade building before it deals with any units that are currently in the queue. Then, if you have a unit that should come out with higher XP in the queue the turn when that building completes, the game would again try to retroactively change that unit to receive the upgrade, but it instead would cause the glitch. So basically I'm guessing that if you are training a unit that should receive the upgrade on the turn when the new building will complete, then you get the bug.

This would likely hold true for faction bonuses as well, meaning you have to be careful about your queue if you're accepting a guild building upgrade, as some include unit bonuses. If you normally queue cautiously, though, then your unit queues should typically be empty when the guild upgrades are offered at the beginning of the turn, so it is an easily avoided problem at least where guilds are concerned.

Note that I haven't tested this, it's just a thought from reading the thread. Perhaps FactionHeir would want to? I'm at work for a while, so cannot do any testing ATM, but I know some people at least are really motivated to pin this one down so it can be avoided since it's annoying to clear the status once it triggers, so I wanted to get the thought out there.

[FactionHeir]

Probably won't be till the weekend. Practicing M2TW abstinence to get my work up to schedule. Although being on the forum doesn't really help with that now.

[Miracle]

Just did some testing and found that crossbows work better now.

There's a noticeable difference between 12 and 14 missile attack, in contrast to 1.1 where the effective xbow missile attack was capped at 10 (according to Carl).

Aventuriers and Genoese Xbows can now do more damage per volley at medium range than even Musketeers.

On a side note naphtha bombs get a new exploding animation upon impact. Sure makes using them a lot more satisfying.

I wonder what other neat improvements 1.2 has up its sleeves.

[dopp]

Since the whole crossbow unit fires each volley rather than just 33% of a musket unit (in fire-by-rank mode), it's no wonder that crossbows do quite a bit more damage.

[Miracle]

Since the whole crossbow unit fires each volley rather than just 33% of a musket unit (in fire-by-rank mode), it's no wonder that crossbows do quite a bit more damage.

I always deploy gunpowder troops in a two line dense formation. Each volley kills about 8 men/7 horses regardless of range. The overall rate of fire is slightly slower than crossbows.

I tested a two line dense formation of Aventuriers vs. DFK's. The initial volley killed only about 4 men. As the DFK's drew near one volley managed to kill 11 men. The DFK's were down to about 30 men before they reached melee range and were slaughtered.

Next I tested Arquebusiers vs. DFK's in a similar fashion. The DFK's were whittled down to about 35 men before they reached melee. Realistically they would have routed but since they were the general's unit they did not. The Arquebusiers took massive casualties before (barely) managing to beat them off due to the enemy general's death. If he didn't die so quickly I would have lost the battle.

So it appears that Aventuriers are slightly more effective than Arquebusiers in physical missile damage against advancing armored infantry. They may lack gunpowder's fear factor but they make up for it in melee prowess.

In pure ranged duels gunpowder troops are still superior. Their accuracy does not diminish with range and they will promptly slaughter longbowmen and pavise xbows alike.

[SpencerH]

Hmmmm, I thought I'd drop in and see whether M2TW was worth buying yet (given the bugs etc of RTW and what appeared to be a focus on form rather than substance in the pre-release hype I was determined to wait). So I guess I made the right choice?

Maybe I'll wait for Kingdoms to go 'gold' and drop in price. Pity really, I bought a PC with a decent VC s I could play M2TW.

[Lusted]

Kingdoms is the expansion which will be out in the Autumn sometime, i heard a September release date posted on gamespot or something.