Kingdoms Battle Map Balance - Latest Blog entry

[icek]

I'm sure it will still be possible to play Poland, France, Hungary, Byz or any other horse-reliant nation. Maybe the days of steamrolling frontal charges are over, but that is a good thing imho. If you wan't those days back just mod the game and give all polish units 3 hp and 20/20 attack/defence. You'll win easy... Remember cav is more than the visible stats. It's mass (that has been increased) and it's mobility.

france, hungary , biz have ha - end of story. The frontal charges should be in medieval games, in fact polish husars beat sweden forces and turks long after medieval with such tactics. But i understand its the way to balance the game. And please mister Mangraev, stop writing such things like moding every units to max. stats because you simply embarass yourself.

[NagatsukaShumi]

There's a fair bit of information on the subject in the last few pages of this thread; just do a quick search through for Caliban's posts and you should find some information on the modability of the expansion.

Cheers sapi

[phoenixrsng06]

It still doesn't sound like we have a direct answer as to whether the changes affect the main grand campaign. I read in another of Lusted's threads on the main total war site and he said the changes will be apparent in custom battles, but again didn't mention the GC. I think Lusted may be running for office with such fine political tap-dancing

[icek]

It still doesn't sound like we have a direct answer as to whether the changes affect the main grand campaign. I read in another of Lusted's threads on the main total war site and he said the changes will be apparent in custom battles, but again didn't mention the GC. I think Lusted may be running for office with such fine political tap-dancing

no offence but do you know a meaning of word "global" ?

[Zenicetus]

Cavalry units might be smaller but they are still powerful, and factions like Jerusalem in the Crusades are reliant on their heavy cav thanks to the extra mobility and punch they bring. And yes i suppose cavalry has been nerfed in it's frontal charge steamroller mode, but they are still hugely useful in battle thanks tot heir powerful rear andf flanking charges and mobility.

Could you address the question I raised earlier about HA's? If the units are now 30 soldiers instead of 40 on normal size, then a HA faction like the Turks will suddenly be fielding 25% fewer archers. That seems like a pretty big change that would affect both tactics and army composition. You'll have fewer pinning forces like infantry if you need more HA units to make up the difference, or if you keep the same pinning force, you'll have to work a lot harder to do the same job with 25% fewer archers. Seems a little wacky to me, but I guess ya'll know what you're doing.

At first I thought maybe increased missile accuracy would make up for it, but you couldn't have taken that too far without making foot archers and crossbowmen overpowered (since they're not getting the same reduction in unit size). I'm just wondering how this will balance out.

[Jack Lusted]

Well the increased accuracy does make up for it a bit, plus foot archers and crossbowmen get a drop in their melee attack as well. Plus the smaller cav unit sizes are more useable as with the smaller size they are less likely to get stuck on things, or be too unwieldy.

[icek]

it makes snese , its too easy to cath up with jinetes and mamluks now bcoz they dont how formation too well.

[Zenicetus]

Hmmm.... I don't have much trouble getting stuck on things with HA's except inside settlements, or the occasional forest, and even that's manageable. But then I play with "normal" size armies... partly to keep the frame rate high, and partly because it's just easier to manage. I hope CA isn't making design and balance decisions based on people using only huge armies. We're not all doing that.

Anyway, I guess we'll see how it works when it comes out. If someone is beta-testing a HA-heavy faction like the Turks or Hungarians in the vanilla campaign, to see if this reduction in number of archers isn't a major problem for the realistic use of HA's, then it should be okay.

[icek]

i also play on normal sizes and, as i wrote above, its to easy to catch ha. They always leave some horse as tail and when you catch it the whole unit start a melee fight.

[anders]

sorry to start nagging about pikes again, I read in the blog that pikes would still be anti-cav with limited usefullness against infantry, however "wrong" that may be I understand why you keep it that way, but are pikes stil going to be unable to keep heir pikes lowered when advancing?

[Orda Khan]

I mirror the worries highlighted by Zenicetus.
More accuracy for archer units.....25% loss in unit size for HA??

Melee stats drop for archers.....Turkish??

This is beginning to sound a bit bad for eastern factions.

Why not apply those changes to melee cav and archer units and leave the HA and hybrid units as they were?

With increased accuracy for archers and a 25% drop in size for HA, why would anyone use HA? Ordinary peasant archers would easily be able to deal with them on a 2 to 1 basis

.......Orda

[Shahed]

Hi Lusted. Excellent post. Thanks for the effort !

Question: Will the "Egyptians" get new HAs, and stronger cavalry than 1.02 ?

Also just wanted to point out (as you probably know): Broken Crescent. They're doing very well and have a massive amount of info which relates to the Crusades campaign in Kingdoms. They have a great variety of new HAs and cavalry, I'm wondering if Kingdoms will be able to compete ?.

Here's a few shots, I have'nt kept up with Kingdoms so not really sure what the roster is like. I've only noticed one Egyptian/Ayyubid unit: the Khassaki.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Miracle]

Hi Lusted I have some questions:

1. Have any of the combat animations changed at all?
2. Has the effects of discipline, training or stamina received any changes?
3. Will melee weapon upgrades still give +6 attack?
4. Does the mass of the riders factor into cavalry charging power?
5. What effects do back-mounted shields (used by Varangian Guards, Dvor Cavalry, etc.) now have?
6. Will patch 1.03 be released concurrently with Kingdoms?

[Jack Lusted]

This is beginning to sound a bit bad for eastern factions.

I thin i forgot to mention this in the blog but units with composite bows have their own projectile type now, with better accuracy than normal arrows. Whilstit may look like the eastern factions are now weaker, they are not. Especially in the Crusades campaign where both the Turks and Egypt get quite a few new units.

Have any of the combat animations changed at all?

No.

Has the effects of discipline, training or stamina received any changes?

No, but the effect of terrain on some units has been changed.

Will melee weapon upgrades still give +6 attack?

I'll have to check with the Oz guys.

Does the mass of the riders factor into cavalry charging power?

Yes, but the mass of the mount is more important.

What effects do back-mounted shields (used by Varangian Guards, Dvor Cavalry, etc.) now have?

Same as before.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Hi Lusted I have some questions:

1. Have any of the combat animations changed at all?
2. Has the effects of discipline, training or stamina received any changes?
3. Will melee weapon upgrades still give +6 attack?
4. Does the mass of the riders factor into cavalry charging power?
5. What effects do back-mounted shields (used by Varangian Guards, Dvor Cavalry, etc.) now have?
6. Will patch 1.03 be released concurrently with Kingdoms?

Melee upgrade gave +6 to attack in Vanilla?

[Miracle]

Lusted:
According to this thread, pike units do seem to be getting better animations:

You will be happy to know that the pike units in kingdoms have been overhauled, their speed has been increased and they now wield their weapons correctly and we have also re-balanced their stats.

So are you absolutely sure no other units get improved animations? The 2H Axe animation in particular seems to still need some work.

Melee upgrade gave +6 to attack in Vanilla?

According to Lusted himself, yes. [Reference]

[Jack Lusted]

According to this thread, pike units do seem to be getting better animations:

No their animations haven't been changed, other things have that result in a better speed.

[Zenicetus]

I thin i forgot to mention this in the blog but units with composite bows have their own projectile type now, with better accuracy than normal arrows. Whilstit may look like the eastern factions are now weaker, they are not. Especially in the Crusades campaign where both the Turks and Egypt get quite a few new units.

I still don't get this. There are foot archers that use composite bows, but they're not getting the 25% unit size reduction like HA's will. What happens when HA's go up against foot archers using composite bows? The increased accuracy from the new projectile type is the same on both sides, but the reduced numbers are still a major nerf for the HA's.

Instead of fixing something by making smaller HA units "easier to manage," it might actually increase the micromanagement of running a HA-heavy army, because you'll need more HA units in a stack to accomplish the same thing you did before this change.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Will the anti blobbing thingy be toned down? I am so sick andtired of my units starting off in a square formation only to end up in the horde formation (like the peasants in RTW) after a minute of fighting and creeping backwards at that.

[anders]

about archers/misile infantrys melee stats being reduced, will this affect the "dual" archers too(norse archers, venetian archers, scos guard etc,) so their dual role is lost, or is it just the "pure" archers that are reduced.

for those who worry about their HAs going up against foot archers, cant you just run the foot archers down?

[icek]

they need to be reduced so new cavalry can always beat them.

[Orda Khan]

about archers/misile infantrys melee stats being reduced, will this affect the "dual" archers too(norse archers, venetian archers, scos guard etc,) so their dual role is lost, or is it just the "pure" archers that are reduced.

for those who worry about their HAs going up against foot archers, cant you just run the foot archers down?

If the archers are taken off skirmish mode, they will reduce the HA to half its size in no time. Even if a charge by the HA is successful, they will lose some in the unit. Do you see 18 - 25 HA causing much of a stir among 75 spearmen with shields?

I still don't get this. There are foot archers that use composite bows, but they're not getting the 25% unit size reduction like HA's will. What happens when HA's go up against foot archers using composite bows? The increased accuracy from the new projectile type is the same on both sides, but the reduced numbers are still a major nerf for the HA's.

Precisely!
Even against ordinary archers they will suffer too many losses to then be effective, because of the 2-1 ratio. Regardless of accuracy, the HA unit is still half the size of the archers

....Orda

[John_Longarrow]

Orda,

If you are shooting at enemy archers with your horse archers, you may wish to try a different tactic. Set the cav to loose formation and charge the enemy archers.

If they are in front of enemy spears, they should fall back before your horse archers. Your horse archers can then go back to skirmishing (where they are much quicker) and open up on the spears.

If they are out in the open, 60 archers who have had their melee ability reduced should get chopped to bits by 30 HAs that charge them.

I've a feeling that once we start playing with Kingdoms more of this will be easily seen. I've tried out LTC and I've found Cav to be just as useful as before, but you can't just charge everything head on anymore. It does take some getting use to, but the changes are not so massive that you have to relearn how to use your armies.

[FactionHeir]

In my own private rebalance of units, I found that although having lowered cav attack values but increased mount mass as well as increasing projectile accuracy (the composite and bodkin ones for archers and the steel crossbow for xbows), cavalry are very vulnerable to missiles, so their normal units size would still allow them to deal a good deal of damage.
Decreasing the cav unit size may make them move more easily on larger unit sizes, but on small and medium, they will be cut down by any army that has several decent missile troops.

I would imagine that a unit of longbows having a high range and hiding behind an infantry (not necessarily spear) formation will stop the cavalry charge before they could deal any large amount of damage while having to ride around the flanks or rear. Archers may be weaker in melee, but that doesn't help the cavalry.

Also, the other trouble with weaking cavalry stats, although making their charges slightly more powerful, is that they will be very weak in melee (along with their now smaller unit size), meaning all they are good for is charging and chasing routers. Considering that with each charge the unit they are charging can just ignore their current opponent and turn towards the cavalry (double click run disengage quick turn+attack) to cut them down (again, smaller unit size so faster to kill).

On a side note, have cav charges against cav been fixed in Kingdoms? In M2TW it is quite dishearting to see cav charge each other with damage only being done with the swords. Same if cavalry charge another cavalry that is static but in formation.

[Zenicetus]

Orda,

If you are shooting at enemy archers with your horse archers, you may wish to try a different tactic. Set the cav to loose formation and charge the enemy archers.

This isn't about tactics, it's about numbers. HA's are suddenly losing 25% of their numbers before the battle even starts.

I'm having trouble seeing how anything can balance that, including changed tactics. And for that matter, why should I have to change HA tactics that worked perfectly well in the vanilla game, and that are more-or-less historically accurate? We'll just have to be shuffling more HA units around the battlefield to make up the numbers of archers we had before, which means more micro-management hassles, and we'll have a smaller pinning/distraction force of infantry (or whatever) to work with. Every additional HA unit I have to put in the stack to make up the 25% force reduction, has to come from somewhere else.

I sure hope they're testing this change with factions like Turks and Hungarians, to make sure it doesn't throw the whole HA dynamic out of whack, and that it doesn't add more micro to an already micro-heavy battle tactic.

[John_Longarrow]

Zenicetus

If their accuracy increases, their numbers can be reduced while maintaining the same offensive firepower.

If it normally takes 10 HA's to inflict one kill per volley, you can kill on average 4 enemy soldiers per volley with the old unit size. If you increase their accuracy so that it only takes 5 HA's to inflict one kill, a unit of 30 HA's will inflict 6 kills per volley. That would be a 50% increase in offensive power.

As such, if missile accuracy is increased proportionately to their reduction in numbers, HA's will still be just as useful as they are now even with fewer troops. It is possible that their accuracy was increased enough that they will inflict more casualties per volley with a 30 man unit than they did before the rebalance with a 40 man unit.

If this is how they are balanced, it would make a lot of sence. It would also keep them in line with other cav units (ie, not stronger than the reduced number of light cav in opposing forces) without giving up their offensive power.

They would not be able to match other missile units one on one, but they can't do that now. They will still have to do exactly what they do now when confronted by superior enemy missile units.

Until we see how they play out, I don't think it makes any sence to argue over it. Post Kingdoms we may discover that the increase in accuracy is too much and needs to be toned down to keep 30 man HA units from dominating other units.

[Zenicetus]

Zenicetus
If their accuracy increases, their numbers can be reduced while maintaining the same offensive firepower.

It's not only about offense, but defense as well... or actually, survivability of unit cohesion over time. A HA unit with 30 archers simply doesn't last as long on the battlefield as one with 40 archers, regardless of how much damage it's inflicting (because, obviously, it can be taking fire from more units than the one it's shooting at).

In a tough battle where the HA unit is taking incoming fire and sustaining losses, it's going to lose morale and rout 25% faster if the numbers are cut by that amount... unless there's some morale boost to make up for it, which I haven't heard about. Even if the morale WAS boosted to prevent early routing, the unit still won't last as long in combat as an effective fighting force, as it does now. So I'll have to be more cautious in the use of HA's... and for no other reason than an arbitrary (as far as I can see) reduction in numbers.

Add that on top of a potential increase in micro, if the increase in accuracy isn't a perfect 1:1 balance and I have to use more HA units on the field... and it just doesn't sound good to me.

If it normally takes 10 HA's to inflict one kill per volley, you can kill on average 4 enemy soldiers per volley with the old unit size. If you increase their accuracy so that it only takes 5 HA's to inflict one kill, a unit of 30 HA's will inflict 6 kills per volley. That would be a 50% increase in offensive power.

Well, we don't know the accuracy boost will mean anything like that much increase in offensive power. Since foot archers aren't being reduced in number, that would be a massive boost in offense for Eastern foot archers compared to Western units. I don't see that happening. Even if the boost was that big, it doesn't mean that much, if I don't have enough soldiers to absorb incoming fire and last through the battle.

Until we see how they play out, I don't think it makes any sence to argue over it. Post Kingdoms we may discover that the increase in accuracy is too much and needs to be toned down to keep 30 man HA units from dominating other units.

I'm not trying to argue about it, I'm just wondering how they're possibly going to balance this out... especially at normal army size. I can see where this reduction in unit size might make sense for melee cav with all the other balancing adjustments, but for HA's? I'm not seeing the light, so far. They don't have the punch from a charge that you get with melee cav... that's not how they operate. They depend on lasting long enough on the battlefield to do their harassment and wearing-down thing, and they're relatively lightly armored too (most of them).

I'm also interested because it might affect whether I actually buy Kingdoms or not. I enjoy using HA-based Eastern factions... not exclusively, and I'm not that good at it, but I'm trying to get better. It's a fun break from the Western army build and tactics. But the one real hassle of running a HA army is the micro, and if this new balancing means I have to use more HA units than I do now in a stack, or if they rout faster because the units are smaller, I just might pass on Kingdoms. I don't think CA would make that mistake, unless they're only beta testing with huge army sizes, but I haven't heard anything from Lusted that really alleviates my concerns here.

[Durallan]

he did say that in the crusades campaign the eastern factions get new units. Is it really that important to write several hundred words about it? I seriously doubt that reducing the numbers from 40-30 will affect them, they've always been hard to fight catch and kill from a western empire side of view now it sounds like itll be even harder, so I don't see that you ahve that much to complain about.

[Jack Lusted]

he did say that in the crusades campaign the eastern factions get new units.

Indeed they do, the Turks get 6 and Egypt 8 in the Crusades campaign.

But the one real hassle of running a HA army is the micro, and if this new balancing means I have to use more HA units than I do now in a stack, or if they rout faster because the units are smaller, I just might pass on Kingdoms.

You won't, even with the reduced numbers horse archers are still powerful and you won't need to use more army slots on them to make up for the reduced numbers. The smaller number of troops actually makes them harder to hit when in loose formation as there are fewer of them.

[John_Longarrow]

Lusted,

If the change is comparable to playing LTC, then what most players will notice is they actually take casualties on their cav. I've been playing a Scots campaing and I found I do need to reinforce my border horses after a fight because, unlike vanilla, I do loose horsemen.

For some people this will be a major change. For me, it mean I actually have to treat cav the same as other units, a change I like. I've already done all of the mini-campaigns and I was amazed at how deadly the Hungarians are in the Italian campaign. If Kingdoms has about the same balance as LTC does, I don't think HAs will be weak.