1) make super heavy cav slower and at the same time less expensive. I like the new balance between weapons systems a lot actually, and super heavy cav is important to that... but perhaps this adjustment would help to clarify the new dynamic and help super heavy cav fulfill their role. btw, i don't mean as slow as cataphracts.
2) i like the swords in their, please leave them
3) add *cheap*, fast, skirmishing cav. Give them negligible hand-to-hand stats but give missile troops a negative cavalry combat bonus. *: 200 florins
Currently it seems too costly to participate in skirmishing unless direly necessary, so this takes away some of the 'game' from the game... and consider that skirmishing takes up the bulk of the time.
4) I've had second thoughts about increasing the speed...
5) keep the ms generally as they are... at most a change of one combat point. lessening attack would probably do more to devalue them than defense.
Edited by: Faust8 at: 10/30/05 23:25
Actually we 've thought of some of those suggestions, but I think most didn't change due to a desire not to too radically (if at all) VI stats. But there are still some issues we can't easily comment upon.
1) Questions on speed are very serious matters as they change a whole load of things. For example, imagine that we will have to see if missile troops now get a good change to have 1 or 2 more shots at those "slow" guys. I also don't think it will make a great difference in the way they will be actually used tho. Currently you won't have a ck chasing mountsergs who try to skirmish, or generally no one would have them do lots of moving and killing before the main battle.
2)Swords got to be used more coservatively by all players who start learning the new "dux"tm gameplay style. Even the "tanks" of that category, aka as crusader ones, which usually get a total of defense and attack over 9, will be impeded by their size when facing cavalry. Wedges will be also somethign that will help people rout a spear unit asap, and mess their formation furthermore.
3)There are fast and cheap cav, but they are restricted to aragonese,russians, byz, cumans,turks,mongls,the ilkhanate,almos, egyptians,bulgarians, novgorod. By cheap I mean 400 (maybe there is one near 300 but that is too low) florins. A 0 attack 0 defense cav with a charge of 4 , can still be more useful than a pav which would cost more, therefore it can promote rushing and and make people think about it twice before spending 400 florins on a purely missile unit. Remember that the prices are different from VI, pavs cost almost double, so do fk and so do most cav. Plus light cav for such missions already got a +1 to charging which may seem as negligible but can make a world of difference. About a -1 to def vs cav for missiles, we 're still thinking of it, more games need to be played. In VI if you charged fresh pavs head on, they wouldn't flinch at all. You just got to get a full charge on them after they ve started shooting for a while. Remember that now they got greater mrl than in VI, and when you skirmish cav, you have to remember that pavs get mrl bonuses for having a whole army behind and next to them, so they can fight longer. If they go on 2 bars and have say 20% losses, then they can rout quite easily. Still, if you manage to get a pav with a mount serg, you actually gain a lot, as a depleted pav,10-20 men, we 'll be wavering all the time and will not worry you a lot, considering you ll keep your mount sergs, even if they just 20-25 , they can still get a flank collapse (provided its not elite spears they charge heh).
More games are needed ofc. Flat,unflat,bumpy and such, 2v2s , 3v3s, 4v4s all are good , all are needed.
It will not greatly change the way they are used but will enhance their ability as shock troops vs infantry by reducing their cost justifiably due to reduced speed and the reduced number of opportunities that will come with that. I suppose, it will change the way they are used against other cavalry actually.
This is the idea I am most behind, it really seems to have the potential to add a lot of depth.
Re: input
I would like to see more variations in the speed of units, perhaps according to the armour rating of the unit.
But we have to consider how these minor changes in speed would effect the current balance of prices. Although i like ther current balance atm I am of the opinion (and would like a third one here, faust) that we are currently being hampered by having to keep all the prices in brackets of 100. I feel every time a minor change to a unit is made, we are being forced to amply the changes to that unit or counter them in other areas in order to keep the difference in value worth 100 florrins.
As you rightly pointed out alex, we are trying not to deviate too much from the original balance of vi , however this is made far more difficult when u conside that in vi the units were often much less than 100 florrins in value apart from one another, even when upgraded, and so currently irrational changes must be made in order to differentiate and make them fit into the 100 fl brackets. We also have a LOT more units to deal with now
Imagine for example we give mounted serg a +1 to movement speed (which would be great). An immediate problem occurs in that a +1 to movement does not justify adding 100 florrins to thier price but neither is it so little an advantage that it can be ignored. Two unfavourable choices present them selves - either make further changes to the unit to boost them to the next bracket. Or alter many other units in order to even out the balance. It would clearly be simpler to add 50 florrins to price. keeping them balanced without having to modify other (possibly very large) portions of the stats.
Re: input
Regarding speed changes:
Well, it seems that you are still thinking in vi terms, we don't want super heavy cav being used extensively, 4 units of heavy cav wil force you to make concessions on other parts of your army, and this is quite fine.
You could make 10s of speed combinations with the existing units, but to what purpose really? As we 've seen in the LaReconquista mod which had 10 different speeds overall, in they end they aren't worth the effort behind their creation. People just didn't care at all, only with very slow cavalry and infantry did they make a mental note not to get them from now on. There can be infinite amount of variations to the mod. I can outline a few just after 5 seconds of thought: 5 different bow types with diff ranges,AP, speeds etc, different anticav bonuses for spear and halberd categories (eg light spear, spear for units that form phalanx like formations, bill, halberd ,guisarme etc),sword/axe/missile negative modifiers vs cav, anti-cav cavalry units, different unit sizes to choose from -damn i can't stop writing such stuff.
The first rule I think should apply to such situations tho is as simple as KISS.
And no, 50 florin brackets are a bad idea. They exist in VI because the game wasn't made to be played in a certain MP florin level, plus they are suited for SP, where among other reasons,an average province initially can generate around 500-700 florins, which need to be spend on buidlings, recruitment and wages.
Furthermore 50 florins are inconsequential in a 10k game. If it was 5k, yes there is a logic but now it's lunacy trying to get a cost equivalent for say a +1 movement(which isn't that necessary in the case mentioned; Mounted sergs can fare pretty well in the form they 're currently in, not many low cost cavalry have a a charge rating of8 ).Prices are determined differently for high and low cost units.
100 fl brackets are proven through experience to be the most appropriate way of balancing a 10k no upgrade mod. No faction can have too many similar units, and so far there isn't a great problem creating some logical differentiation between units. As long as they serve different functions, or can be more suitable for specific situations, then they will find their place in the list, no need to start boosting them. Plus not all factions have multiple units for the same job, so you could have slight changes which won't be the reason for the placement of a unit in a higher bracket, but rather the faction's fighting style and overall army list.
I'll just say again that more games need to played to get more input and talk with more facts in our hands. Ofcourse there are always perceived realities that are different among people
Re: input
You say 100 florrin brackets is proven through experience ?
Our mod cirtainly is not proven yet as you pointed out, and i cant think out of hand of another mod using 100 florrin brackets. Com mod was in 50s and that cirtainly worked out all right.
What im saying is that you are forced to make changes you otherwise wouldnt make because of the large brackets. Agreed that all units should serve different purposes but one unit should not be changed a the cost of having to modify another.
Re: input
Posting just to remidn that community mod was with 100 brackets
Sam wars as well.
We dont have to change units, just differentiate some new ones that are similar to the basic.
Look above again
Re: input
As for 100 or 50 florin brackets I would say that 100's are more than ok. 50's would create a monster scale and a need for a greatly intensive valuation process for medium and high-priced units as I don't think you'll be able to limit 50's increments to 'just exceptional cases of differentiation'. It will automatically and incrementally spread right after you make the first such differentiation. Sry Buu m8 . As for the cav, I'm now unsure, although the templars still seem outrageously high... I mean, maybe make them 1400 florins since they are so faction-specific and require a major commitment to certain strategies... like gothic knights.
One thing I thought of just now that may add some character and interesting scenarios is to have special 'elite guard' units whereby if one is chosen to be the gen's unit it receives a total of +4 morale. I don't know if this is at all possible though. Not sure if you guys can do 'If-then' statements or anything.
Edited by: Faust8 at: 11/1/05 1:25
Re: input
The case with the Templars is just as you describe it. They are a crusader states specific unit, with a cost of 1400. Crusaders wont have all kind of knights anyway.
Heh you think just like CA developers. The unit you designate as a general has a morale bonus anyway (its +2 or maybe a bit higher hmm). Didnt you notice that in VI already
Re: input
yeah i actually knew about the plus 2, I have a danish army with general morale 12, but I was thinking another plus two for 'special' guard units that are typically underused and do not have widespread application... Royal Knights, 40 man infantry etc. I'm thinking it could create some interesting scenarios and add some character.
I thought the Templars were 1500... 1400's fine thenEdited by: Faust8 at: 11/1/05 14:50
Re: input
Those units have usually much better stats and higher morale, for a lower cost. The tradeoff is ofcourse their size. The question of making them normal sized units wasn't an easy one, but in the end they are a different unit type, with their advantages and disadvantages as outlined above. I have to add that sometimes a RK general can save a game, as they can surprisingly slip through the smallest of gaps in enemy lines heh..just dont get yourself shot
Id like to raise for decussion, and hopefully resolve a few balance issues which i think are currently present in the mod. Some of these you may not even feel exist, and others im sure we can agree need work in some way or another. I would like us to brainstorm some solutions
If issues cannot be dicided on unanimously we should work on a majority vote basis provided the aguments given for and against each suggestion are.. reasonable. Doing this will hopefully help get some things decided on and moved along. Now that the mod is growing in popularity, i think its important that we continue deveopment asap. I think weve had enough test games now (although no 4v4s) to identify the immediate things we need to look at.
Spears vs swords :
I think we can agree here that spears beat swords in terms of general value for money in the current stats set. Alex has pointed out that swords are a much more versitile unit type, as they can opperate better in mixed terrain. However , because spears are actually require less management than swords to use that advantage i feel is somewhat negated
The most recent solution i can think of to this problem is to give all swords a +1 attack and then -1 attack vs cav, and keeping all units prices the same. This would mean swords are a lot more effective vs spears but would not change thier current fairing at all vs cavalry. It would also mean sword vs sword battles will be quicker, the winning sword unit then has more time to move around influence the battle through flanking ect. The only drawback to this option which i can think of immediately is the battles between sword and other non-spear infantry units such as polarms or axes. But as swords are typically an anti infantry unit i think this might not effect the balance too badly.
Other suggested solutions include giving all spears -1 morale, or -1 defence. Making heavy spears slower and so less adapdive to changing battle situations. Making swords less expensive might also be an option. All have thier pros and cons which im sure you can work out on your own. Id like to here which solution you each think is best.
I'm the pooest face around!
Edited by: VDM Alexandros at: 11/2/05 21:47
Re: spears vs swords
Yes these are good solutions, but as I say constantly, we might start fixing a perceived problem that didn't actually exist to that extend from the beginning.So more tests and more versatile ones heh
Then we 'll see what would a spear vs sword prob cause to the balance with axes and polearms. You take axes after all to defeat mainly heavy armour infantry. But let's wait.
im a poo face !
Edited by: buukenshin at: 11/2/05 16:05
Swords (currently) have a lot of situational versatility... this is presumably part of their price. Swords are also necessary for certain offensive strategies because of their relatively high killing rate.
I don't think swords should be able to decisively beat good spears in an isolated fight. Perhaps make swords (cmaa) be able to, given some time, beat fs but not cs or ofs. Swords I think should be able to beat polearms given moderate time. My thoughts on axes are that they are heavy cavalry killers who can perform slightly less than par vs swords (though with reduced numbers of heavy cav, i'm not sure where this will go unless you increase the armor on medium cav to 5$1)... basically a less extreme version of polearms.
However after writing all of this I do see your point . But I would suggest +1 defense and a corresponding -1 (or 2) defense vs cavalry. This is crucial because it would allow them to perform generally better but would not shorten by a great amount a fight vs polearms or axes, who still need to be able to 'hold' swords for at least a moderate amount of time. +1 attack would make them far better flankers and chargers; especially so given their high morale... and that has the potential to drastically change the balance. +1 defense is a little more conservative as it only makes them more resistant to chargers and flankers (except cav, which is how it should be). In other words, right now they are situationally versatile... capable in many situations. But +1 attack would make them 'super'... excellent in too many situations. +1 defense is a conservative option... it does not make them 'super'. Here's why (I will try to make a model here which will inevitably be shoddy):
Imagine an engagement between two armies. Suppose that during this engagement each army has initiated a single flanking attack vs the enemy. So far everything's even. Let each army be composed of 1/2 'cmaa'... however army 1 has cmaa with +1 attack while army 2 has cmaa with +1 defense. Let us also suppose that a successful flank is as damaging to the flanked army as a suspended (unsuccessful) flank is damaging to the flanking army. This is a slightly inaccurate assumption, but the model will be a conservative one in order to illuminate the crucial aspect. The trick is that the flanking army will have a greater chance of choosing the appropriate unit to flank (+1 attack) than the flanked army will have of choosing the 'appropriate' unit to receive the flank (+1 defense). Thus, the +1 attack in practice (in this example) is more valuable than the +1 defense. [Probability1*bonus1=value1 > Probability2*bonus2=value2, although bonus1=bonus2] This example accounts for multiple 'situations' that I spoke of earlier. The example may be clearer if you think in terms of +10 attack vs +10 defense cmaa. Thus +1 defense will not make them 'super'.
And in general, I think I would make the argument that attack points, for some of the reasons highlighted above as well as others, are MORE VALUABLE in practice (ie, in whole army engagements) than defense points (imagine an Egypt with infantry with combat point totals equal to fmaa for the same price!). I would say attack points are equivalent to defense points ONLY in single unit, isolated, engagements.
So I am really for +1 defense to the maa .
Edited by: Faust8 at: 11/2/05 21:43
Re: spears vs swords
Shocking as it may sound, I can sum up the at/def issue in one sentence heh
AT is needed when you have a better unit, DEF when you got a weaker one.
I think you understand whyEdited by: VDM Alexandros at: 11/2/05 22:52
Re: spears vs swords
Its important that whatever we decide upon has as little Impact upon the the rest to the unit balance as is possible.
We need to isolate the issue and avoid having to alter large portions of the stats. for this reason i think testing somthing like -1 morale for all spears , or slow movement for speed for just heavy spears would be a better idea to start with. If this is successful then thats great, and it will have little influence on the thing as a whole compared to some of our other options.
I would like to see spears still as an effective front line unit, its somthing i feel vi was desperately lacking. -1 morale would not effect thier combat ability, only the care which needs to be taken in order to preserve them during combat. eccpecially the lower grade ones.
. As for the cav, I'm now unsure, although the templars still seem outrageously high... I mean, maybe make them 1400 florins since they are so faction-specific and require a major commitment to certain strategies... like gothic knights.
Edited by: 
. But I would suggest +1 defense and a corresponding -1 (or 2) defense vs cavalry. This is crucial because it would allow them to perform generally better but would not shorten by a great amount a fight vs polearms or axes, who still need to be able to 'hold' swords for at least a moderate amount of time. +1 attack would make them far better flankers and chargers; especially so given their high morale... and that has the potential to drastically change the balance. +1 defense is a little more conservative as it only makes them more resistant to chargers and flankers (except cav, which is how it should be). In other words, right now they are situationally versatile... capable in many situations. But +1 attack would make them 'super'... excellent in too many situations. +1 defense is a conservative option... it does not make them 'super'. Here's why (I will try to make a model here which will inevitably be shoddy):
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies