How to become a Buddha in 5 weeks... or: THE EDU THREAD

**Hister** · March 26, 2009, 04:17 PM

Excellent then!

**Hister** · March 27, 2009, 05:21 PM

Aper, this is my EDU so far. I fixed the old one. I haven't yet applied the new values for small aspis you suggested.

**DaVinci** · April 13, 2009, 03:28 PM

Although i'm very tensed on the resulting edu-Aper-work: If this edu project won't succeed, means won't be finished, then perhaps one day in future Athenogoras will have time for a PI edu overhaule ... but first he has to finish the combat overhaule project for ChivTW ... anyway, i can assure that he is making an awesome job.

**Hister** · April 14, 2009, 03:52 PM

Very good DaVinci! I can never know what can happen but not much is left to be done now. It shall be finished.

**DaVinci** · April 14, 2009, 10:36 PM

Good to hear. Can't wait to re-install the final result.

**Hister** · April 15, 2009, 11:41 AM

Exactly!

**Hister** · April 17, 2009, 04:36 PM

I've reached and finished Lucani from the bottom up...

**Aper** · April 20, 2009, 02:30 AM

I've reached Lucani too... seems like IT'S DONE!!!

Sorry if I couldn't post my file earlier, as I said I have some connection problems

Please post your file so that I can merge them and do some optimization because I've done some minor change to the model... It's my curse: everytime I mod, I see something I don't like in my previous work, and I have to update it!

Here the latest version of the model too

**Aper** · April 20, 2009, 02:59 AM

WHAT'S LEFT TO DO: we need an economic model for the EDU, since I don't know anything of the general economic model I can't do it by myself
What I can do is to manage recruitment time to make the most powerful units/rare units less common on the battlefield: I'll do it when I'll finish to merge Hister work and mine, and after a fierce bug hunt (I fear I'll find many "preys"

)

IMPORTANT: I haven't tested much the units in a real campaign, so something may be unbalanced; due to lack of manpower/time, I propose an open beta testing, so that we can use the feedbacks of all players to refine the EDU.
What it's good of a model like mine is that refinement is easy, you just need to add or subtract some points to the morale value, and here you go, all stats are adjusted accordingly.

And now... Easter present! Yesterday I gone mad

and I made a new model that instead of lethalithy (1 by default) mod HPs to balance units: the result is somewhat odd but interesting and promising IMO, I like it a lot and I'll try in the future to further improve it: the motivation of this insanity is that I want a model that can be applied to M2TW too, so that I can mess with the EDUs of the incoming, very appealing mods I see in the Kingdoms section...

THIS IS NOT TO BE APPLIED TO RTW PI!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to restart all the work again

... I post this file only as food for thought, and to know your opinions, if you like to take a look at it and comment

**Athenogoras** · April 20, 2009, 06:50 AM

Interesting. As far as I know HP have no effect on AI behaviour. Therefore if you want to keep the behaviour of a 1 hp-system you have to give them same stats. That is you can not give 3 hp lower EDU-stats to compensate for many hp because if you do AI will view them as weak.

I like you idea on giving phalanx scary attribute. This is something I have thought about myself(for mods of this period).

**Aper** · April 20, 2009, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Athenogoras

Interesting. As far as I know HP have no effect on AI behaviour. Therefore if you want to keep the behaviour of a 1 hp-system you have to give them same stats. That is you can not give 3 hp lower EDU-stats to compensate for many hp because if you do AI will view them as weak.

Good to know, thanks!

Originally Posted by Athenogoras

I like you idea on giving phalanx scary attribute. This is something I have thought about myself(for mods of this period).

It makes sense IMO... just try to think you have to march toward a wall of pikes, without any possibility to stop or retreat (because you fight in formation with your comrades)... I'm just glad I haven't to!

**Hister** · April 20, 2009, 08:44 AM

Heyya Aper!

Great news, means our tunnel we started to dug from different sides is complete. Now we need to carve it the way that both ends will be adjusted to one another. Looks like you want to do this part of the job. I thought I'll do it but please be my guest

Looks like we did some double work here - I sent you PM saying I reached Etrusci. Heh, better this then no job done

In a way it's good since you will have a reference point for comparising what we have done differently. I've done this and saw there is gonna be a lot of work for adjusting things between our two ways of doing the edu. This is normal since you've changed your model during the digging and there are always subjective interpretations of the model. I've added the model I referred to for applying the stats.

Let me begin analyzing the differences between our two approaches to the edu so that you will know from the start what you have to be looking for:
I will compare Pedites Falisci that we have both done.

- First difference is number of soldiers. Since they are spear wielding units I gave them 60. You gave them 40. Why?

- mount_effect, I gave them also chariot +2 since that would be normal wouldn't it be? I mean spears do have effect against any horse units and chariots do belong there. I gave them +2 since I consider chariot units to be harder to stop (due to their sheer mass) then normal horse riders. Please apply this to all spear wielding units.
Note that I haven't given "mount_effect horse +6" to units that have dory (namely hoplite units) because I forgot to do so. Please apply +6 to all corresponding units and also add chariot +3 for them (instead of chariot +2 that I have now).

- The element that majorly changes all units stats is moral level. Our models have different classification of moral levels. This might be a little drawback for you since you will have a lot of work to do to apply your new moral model to my units. Means you will have to recalculate all stats that are affected by moral! I for example considered pedites falisci to belong amongs lanceari moral level class. I gave them slightly more moral (11 in this unit's case) due to their quality. You gave them 13 moral, that is like ensiferi or gaesati according to my model. Since I agree this type of unit should have more go ahead with your new model for moral classes since it appears to be better on first sight.
Regarding this matter - I gave hastati 13, principes 15 and triarii 17 moral to make differences between the 3 unit types more pronounced! Please have this in mind 'cos I think player won't see noticeble differences between them when playing if we are to have only one moral difference between the two units. According to your new moral model I would give hastati 14, leave principes at 16 and leave triarii at 17.

- Attributes. I see you haven't put much attention to attributes - for example you gave certain units to be able to hide in long grass but beeing unable to hide in forest. That is inconsistency so I would suggest you leave mine as they are and also apply more logical/faction specific/unit specific attributes to your units. By this I mean that you give the best hiding abbilities (like hide_improved_forest, hide_long_grass) to units that belong to Ligurians, samnites, etc - the one that were historically renowned for ambushes, etc. Don't give any hiding attributes to the units that belong to factions that weren't prone to doing ambushes - by this I have Graeci, Etrusci, Romani, etc. in my mind. By my opinion horse units can't hide in forests but feel free to apply whatever you see suitable. Then there are units like hoplites that I wouldn't give the attribute to be able to hide in forests no matter what faction they belong to. I gave all equites that have a lance frighten_foot and power_charge. Remove them if you think that is excessive.

- Formations. I see that I was giving 4 lines per formation while you were giving 5 (last number). Revise this so that there won't be any major inconsistencies. In M2TW PI (PI II) I gave more loose formation spacing to units belonging to factions who were renown for their distinctive (looser) style of fighting and tighter to the ones who were renowned for more disciplinar/cohesive approach on the battlefield. To enhance this I gave "untrained" to them so that they visually look the way they should regardless of their "real/supposed" level of training. For now leave them as they are (or if you want to do it by yourself - check the M2TW PI EDU that I gave you for reference) - if I'll have time I'll give addittional character to the formations so that there will be visible difference between different styles of fighting namely more looser formations versus tighter formations. By doing so not all hoplites will look the same for example - some lesser italic hoplites should have less tight formation then Etruscan hoplites. If you feel like it go ahead - otherwise let me do it.

- stat_pri. Values of ranged weapons differ amongst us slightly. My lowest attack for light javelin is 4 while your's is 5. My highest attack for heavy pilum is 17 whilst yours is 18. Fix the values if you see it necessary. Your throwing ranges are much shorter (realistic) then mine but if I'm not mistaken higher values cope better with the game (gameplay reasons). Adopt yours or mine - whichever you see better. Slings and bows are the major difference between us. Since I've done extensive testing on the matter I will have to ask you to adopt your values according to my model:
- WEAPON ATTACK, RANGE
- Wooden Bow : (Morale/2) + 2, 100+(2xMorale)
- Composite Bow : (Morale/2) + 3, 100+(4xMorale)
- Sling : (Morale/2) + 2, 100+(5xMorale), AP

stat_pri 14, 8, pilum, 28, 2, thrown, archery, piercing, spear, 0 ,1
Javelin/pilum projectiles should not have "archery" but "blade". Archery if I'm not mistaken shows a bow when you hoover ower enemy unit instead of proper sign.
Weapon values are the same in our models so you only need to recalculate units attack values and such since different moral classes have been applied. Humh, I would rather see that you hadn't changed the model since I now feel almost I did all the work for nothing...'cos you will have to calculate many (most) values anew!

Defences. Why have you decided for "+1 to cavalry shield (if present)"? What is the reasoning behind it?
Armor values are the same, different are shield values. Can you please explain why have you changed shield values? What is the reasoning behind it? I see why you decided to give smaller value for shieldwall aspis - that should indeed prove much better!

You will see that I set all ground values to be at 0 for testing purposes. Since in M2TW PI (PI II) EDU I not only gave ground values according to unit type but also according to factional background I will have to ask you to use those ground type values for this EDU. If you don't have the time for that then I will do it.

Please do adjust the recruitment time for rare units. I'll do the cost and upkeep for all units. Existent is pretty fine though so I expect no major changes there.

When you will finish combining mine and your part of the EDU I will do some testing to see how it plays out. I do not intend to imidiatelly release an open beta because I have a lot of other things in the work that I would like to include it in. For this reason this EDU will be made available on the first mod download page as a recomended hotfix. If certain changes will needed to be done on the EDU it wil be done and included as a major new release along with all the other work I did (and am doing) on PI.

**Hister** · April 20, 2009, 09:15 AM

Regarding the application of the EDU for M2TW Kingdoms mods - I will wormy invite you over to internal PI II forum (after you deliver EDU for PI I that is) so that you will be able to continue your EDU career on M2TW Kingdoms engine. You will have plenty of maneuvering space there when applying your newest model.

P.S. Aper, I gave you another +REP

**Hister** · April 20, 2009, 11:06 AM

P.S. Do not remove mercenary_unit attribute since this is needed for the proper unit UI icons to appear!

**Hister** · April 20, 2009, 11:19 AM

Aper, this has been noted by our fans regarding the chariots problem:

The General units composed of chariots do not seem to be observing the usual combat reductions when they are routing. My pursuit units have been repeatedly shredded while attacking them as they fled.

This is probably a combination of their area damage and animation.
Just check out if this gets a change if you alternate (decrease or remove) the special weapon attributes of the chariots, is my recommendation for now, but they will of course suffer from such a change also in the normal battle mode, while i anyway think that the animation and radius codes have a quite big impact.

If you have time test the chariots out.

**DaVinci** · April 21, 2009, 07:02 AM

Little short notes:

- Morale value above 10 means "Excellent Morale", while i think this is okay for the Romani disciplined line units Hastati, Principes, Triarii, yes (according to your example above, and your special model). Whereas i think i would give Hastati 11, Principes 14, Triarii 17, and break all other down to this base. A value of 17 or 18 should be the max value in the PI game, exclusive for high elites, imo.
- Power charge is very questionable for all horse in this classical period. Physically (realistically) something like that wouldn't be possible in this timeframe. I wouldn't apply that for units in this period at all. But frighten foot, of course, for elite horse, those should be rather rare and expensive. Horse has anyway a hardcoded affect on foot.

**Hister** · April 21, 2009, 08:15 AM

DaVinci, what makes you think that 18 should be the highest value? Well, we use 20 as the highest moral value that only Spartans have. 18, 19 and 20 are anyways reserved for very rare units and for me it doesn't seem they would be unbalancely overpowered. Now it's to late to debat about new moral values since none of us is interested to do a total redo again - I mean it took us so long to apply all the stats to the units according to the model that this is out of question. You should have made comments much earlier DaVinci

Aper gave Power charge attibute only to chariots - it was me giving it to the horse units having lance so I'm totally fine if this is ommited as long as in gameplay terms this is fine. Haven'ttested the diffrence out so I can'tcommen further

thanx Davinci for your comments though

**DaVinci** · April 21, 2009, 03:40 PM

DaVinci, what makes you think that 18 should be the highest value? Well, we use 20 as the highest moral value that only Spartans have. 18, 19 and 20 are anyways reserved for very rare units and for me it doesn't seem they would be unbalancely overpowered. Now it's to late to debat about new moral values since none of us is interested to do a total redo again - I mean it took us so long to apply all the stats to the units according to the model that this is out of question.

No problem for me if Spartans have 20. Calm down Hister ...lol

You should have made comments much earlier DaVinci

Hehe ... sounds as i wouldn't have discussed a lot on the edu design. I think it was me who initiated/provoked (not created) the change from your older/original edu approaches (perhaps check the older posts in the original edu debate, how it all began

).

Anyway, no matter, of course there is no need to change your now done approaches due the thing that i said 18 would be a max value in my book. 18 or 20: there is no significant difference for the gameplay, respectively unit behaviour related to morale, in the whole. And if Triarii have 18 then 20 is complete correct for Spartans.

**Hister** · April 21, 2009, 04:02 PM

No no, didn't wanted to come out that way. I know about your comments on the edu it's just that now is a bit to late. I should have said:

You should have made these comments much earlier DaVinci.

Would sound better I suppose

**Aper** · April 22, 2009, 09:01 AM