Battle System (2hp)

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

On this site
http://homepage.mac.com/abradbury/XGM/

There is a nice readout of past XGM versions and their changelists, but there doesn't seem to be any way to download certain versions. On the download section, there is only 5.8.19 available, as well as MUCH older ones like 5.7 and before. Where did the links go for ones like 5.8.15?

RedFox, I agree with you in general about the archer units in particular. Personally I found them underpowered even in the 1 HP system XGM version 5.8.14 had, to the point that I never bothered with them at all because skirmishers were much, much cheaper and far more effective.

[DimeBagHo]

RedFox: Under the current XGM system missile units are effective. If you leave your cavalry (or anything else) standing around under missile fire then they will suffer for it.

For ranged units the main difference between 2hp (current XGM) and half ammo (current DTW) is that damage will be done more slowly with 2hp. The total damage will be about the same either way.

I like the 2hp way better because the effect is the same for melee and missile attacks - both are slowed down to the same degree. With high defense and low ammo (as in DTW) missile attacks kill at a much higher rate than melee attacks, but for a much shorter time.

I think one of the real disadvantages of the DTW system is that it encourages the type of tactic you alluded to earlier - targeting enemy cavalry and elite units at the start of the battle so you only have to face lesser units in melee. It's quite unrealistic, and seldom happened in historical battles, because massed archery couldn't be directed with the required precision.

*edit* Of course, in that respect, reduced accuracy was better than either 2hp or reduced ammo. Unfortunately reduced accuracy was annoying in other ways.

[RedFox]

Well, after reading your reply, DimeBagHo, it appears that the most perfect solution would be the DTW style system with reduced missile accuracy. I'll try and find a reasonable (probably not as much as in older XGM) medium for accuracy in DTW. Thanks

Still, it seems to make cavalry a tad bit overpowered against missile units. I wasn't even thinking about letting your cavalry stand still under missile fire - that's plain suicide; big and easy targets. The idea before was that a cavalry unit bold enough to approach javelin skirmishers, should loose quite a few horses, while now, the only volley they have time to throw has practically no effect, making skirmishers useless. In that effect, there is no more a reason to have any missile units, since they don't really do much. The deal with arrows historically was more probably their cost and upkeep. Arrows cost money and you're pretty much showering the enemy with wasted money. Too bad RTW can't simulate this.

[DimeBagHo]

Reduced accuracy definitely has some advantages. It allows fine tuning (which is more convenient for modding), it makes it harder to target specific units (which is more realistic in my view), and it makes ranged attacks much less effective at long ranges (also more realistic). The most serious downside is friendly fire, which a lot of players find irritating.

[CaesarVincens]

The most serious downside is friendly fire, which a lot of players find irritating.

So you don't put your men directly in front of your archers...

[Suppanut]

If you read chinese history chinese history you will know that their general often die by arrows as chinese and steppe people usually use arrow spam. Indian also do it to lesser extent but later books are painted with heroic theme propaganda.

I really like accuracy tweak+increase defense skill more than 2hp.

[DimeBagHo]

So you don't put your men directly in front of your archers...

That helps, but depending on circumstances you can still get significant friendly fire within your ranged units. This tends to be worse for missile cavalry than missile infantry.

It's also unrealistic. Skirmishing archers, of the type used by the Greeks before the hellenistic period, operated in front of the infantry line. Massed archers, of the type used in the east and by Greeks and Romans alike in the game period, typically operated behind the infantry line.

In practice the player will often micro-manage ranged units. Moving them forward to shoot, and back behind the line when the enemy attacks. That's both annoying for the player and unrealistic.

I don't want to exaggerate the problems with reduced accuracy. Obviously I thought it was an improvement on the over-powered ranged attacks of vanilla RTW. But reduced accuracy is not a perfect solution, and I'm inclined to think that 2hp is a better solution.

[Dog Fart]

If you read chinese history chinese history you will know that their general often die by arrows as chinese and steppe people usually use arrow spam. Indian also do it to lesser extent but later books are painted with heroic theme propaganda.

I really like accuracy tweak+increase defense skill more than 2hp.

You would also know that the majority of Chinese and far east soldiers wore light to no armour. And fought in formations that were not so cohesive, based slightly on an indiviual prowess.

Had they wore heavier armour, and fought with cohesive tactics long ranged weapons would have become less effective and gradualy become secondary.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Personally, I'd guess that massed archers weren't exactly employed against elite infantry or cavalry, but rather simply massed behind the front lines and fired indiscriminately at the main body of the enemy army. The basic idea would be that by firing enough arrows at such a large target, you ought to inflict a decent number of casualties eventually. When I've done that in XGM, with 1 HP or 2 HP, they inflict very few casualties. Few enough that it was pointless to recruit them because for the recruit and upkeep costs you could have a unit that could actually kill the enemy instead. (skirmishers were useful though)

Is friendly fire hard coded in the RTW engine?

[Anakarsis]

Well scythians and parthians are indeed my favourite factions, and i possitively find friendly fire irritating, I usually have more cassualties due to my own arrows than by the enemy.

[Suppanut]

You would also know that the majority of Chinese and far east soldiers wore light to no armour. And fought in formations that were not so cohesive, based slightly on an indiviual prowess.

Had they wore heavier armour, and fought with cohesive tactics long ranged weapons would have become less effective and gradualy become secondary.

Don't just speak from what you learn form Europe only. Chinese wore light as heavier infantry armours are obsolete and they fight mainly in loose formation so made many observer think they relied on individual prowness, in fact later era melee infantry fight in combined arm squad but could turn to sole arm regiment if tactically in need. At first, chinese also fight in tight formation and prefer heavier infantry like all western civilized people until 3 things happen during warring state peroid.

- Enlarged of battle scale.
- strategic level development
- mass-produced crossbow.

This made made heavy armour obsolete for infantry and made them turn to fight with light infantry with loose formation(while they still retain heavy armour for cavalry) instead as they truly face the swarm the crossbow bolts that shade the sun which could penetrate heavy armour and kill every target in tight formation, so they go for manuveuring, loose formation and combined arm team instead.

The things that made armour not obsolete in europe are the effort of elites to prevent their exploited social structure to crumble by arm control and some kind of religious law of war as well as mode of production which lesser than other area until dawn of modern age.

The same also go for other cultures as mode of battle are truly connected with social structure. The things that made elites are elite in agarian society are horse and protection gear. An they will take every effort to retain their upper hand, all things those will be crumble social structure will be tightly regulated.(Same for my home, Thailand, which during monarchy era, state once regulated on idea spread and monopolized the right to contact with foriegner as well as firearms.) For Chinese, due to their nature of pragmaticism, they usually looking for bigger sticks without hold-off or regulation at all(this is true before situation in China become "Neo-Confucianism gone mad" 600 years ago), that while heavy armour is obsolete earlier in China than everywhere else(about 1,500 year before europe).

[Anakarsis]

Totally agree, you left nothing to be said Suppanut.

[Stilgar CG]

... I think one of the real disadvantages of the DTW system is that it encourages the type of tactic you alluded to earlier - targeting enemy cavalry and elite units at the start of the battle so you only have to face lesser units in melee. It's quite unrealistic, and seldom happened in historical battles, because massed archery couldn't be directed with the required precision. ...

Dime, targeting cavalry and elite units with your own missile units (archers, slingers, light skirmishers) was always a sound strategy in RTW, whatever the choice of the battle system. For this isn't particularly realistic, slowly-killing missile units with extended ammo reserve seem like a better alternative to faster-killing missile units with limited ammo, perhaps. Btw, given the accuracy penalty is turned off in 2HP system, the range of missile units become a tool to fine tune their impact on the battlefield now.
Medium and heavy peltasts is a different story! Impact of their missiles should be "fast and furious". So, reduced accuracy was working against the realism of their representation, I think. So, 2HP system might prove more appropriate from that pov.

When judging the performance of missile units it should also be taken into consideration that AI missile units (as well as human player's missile units) get experienced pretty fast. I would say after first 20-30 turns, you rarely see a foot archer unit without a couple of chevrons, let alone HAs.

Finally, I must admit that I haven't tested 2HP system extensively yet (had no time) and it might have some weak points, but intuitively this is a step forward. Voted accordingly.

[Stilgar CG]

I did some testing yesterday (on hard, large unit size; fatigue off), mostly to see how missile units are doing in 2HP system. I had a Bosporan campaign running for about 20 turns. So, to combine "business" with pleasure I loaded that one on 2HP stats and a couple of suitable battles emerged.
---
Unfortunately AA was turned on, so all screen shots (taken RTW way) "went" black

Anyway, a few general observations:

- missile units (archers, slingers, skirmishers) seem too weak. For instance I was happy about performance of my HAs, but those had three chevrons each and a weapon upgrade! Intuitively, a slightly increased range (10-20%), slightly better attack stats, and perhaps a bit more ammo should improve the impact of missile units.

- battles lasted significantly longer and were much more suited for more strategic gameplay on the battlefield. So, thumb up! Battles did not seem too long (but this might be the case when playing on huge), but they certainly seemed less dynamic: there wasn't an engaging flow of events. For example, flanking and cavalry charges did not seem to have the effect they should have. Therefore, an overall boost of the unit's charging bonuses, and cavalry in particular, seem necessary. I wonder if it would be wise to give (elite) heavy cavalry 3HP and decrease their unit size at least for general's bodyguards.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Equitum, I don't think giving cavalry 3 HP will solve the problem of their flanking attacks being ineffective: it will just make them last longer in standing combat, which is kind of counterproductive anyway. Cavalry should be most effective when smashing into enemy ranks from the back or side, hopefully routing them.

They shouldn't charge into the back of a phalanx only to sit there for 5 more minutes chopping away at the enemy who absolutely refuses to rout when charged by cavalry from the flank or back. This is one of the problems that the 2HP change has only made worse in my opinion.

Hoplites and phalanxes in general are too reluctant to fold in my opinion. I always flank and surround phalangites, yet they almost ALWAYS fight on to the death, which of course isn't even close to historical accuracy. When flanked and surrounded, phalangites would break very quickly, once the phalanx is compromised their advantage is gone.

I can understand Sacred Band and other elite units fighting to the death while surrounded, but average phalangites? I doubt it.

The side effect of this is to make me just recruit a bunch of velites who can slaughter these phalangites and hoplites without ever touching their phalanxes or taking a single casualty. Not very historical at all.

[gingerbill]

I havent tried the 2hp system , do i just download the latest XGM ? or there a seperate one for 2hp test?

DBH , what was your goal when deciding to switch to a 2hp system ? Was it to make fighting in battles last longer?

I would love the battles to last a bit longer , that's what got me looking for a mod in the first place . Obviously XGM is better than vanilla for that but lasting longer would be great. Never seem to get time to watch men fighting. Now and then i find the odd battle does last longer and i really enjoy those battles.

without trying it my main worries are-

1) archers being a waste of time . I'm not a great fan of archers but i like having the option as it gives you alternative's . Would be boring just all melee combat . Really hope archers are not completely ruined.

2) cavalry charges . Worry that charges wouldnt really have an impact like they should , dont want to see cavalry in melee for long peroids of time . They should always be at there best with in and out tactics , There initial charge should always be there main use.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Gingerbill, I believe that melee battles aren't intended to last much longer with 2 HP than with the 1 HP system because the lethality statistics were turned up to near vanilla levels, so units will kill each other in melee at roughly the same rate despite having 2 HP each. (at least in theory)

It basically nerfs archers and cavalry. Which is a problem for me, as I think they were both already underpowered in the 1 HP system.

Unfortunately, under the 2 HP system, the most effective tactics are really just to not bother with cavalry or archers at all (both very expensive to recruit and upkeep) and instead just recruit the maximum number of infantry and always flank and surround enemy units. Makes for less varied and more boring battles, in my opinion.

[_Lacedaemonian_]

Some feedback from current 2 HP system:

1) Battles do last longer especially between elite armies-nice job DimeBagHo!(in 240bc-onwards most factions have elite armies)
2)Cavalry charges have lost much of their value---> this is somewhat irritating if u can't afford to have elite cavalry like cataphracts (originally designed for prolonged battles) but it's not neccesarily a bad thing cuz light cavalry should be used for chasing down enemies when they're routing (already in their description)
3)there is an issue with archers though. In order to maximize their attack u should have fatigue on along with slow movement points in order to have more time to fire at enemy units. It would be great if Dime increased their rate.

[DimeBagHo]

Gingerbill, I believe that melee battles aren't intended to last much longer with 2 HP than with the 1 HP system because the lethality statistics were turned up to near vanilla levels, so units will kill each other in melee at roughly the same rate despite having 2 HP each. (at least in theory)

The lethality values in the old XGM battle system had been reduced by about 20-25%. So the change to 2hp has made battles significantly longer.

It basically nerfs archers and cavalry. Which is a problem for me, as I think they were both already underpowered in the 1 HP system.

This is not true at all. Archers and other ranged units have been returned to something close to vanilla stats. The main change for ranged units is that they run out of ammo faster, relative to the length of the battle, because they have to fire two shots for every one shot under the old system. But this is true for all unit types - it takes twice as many hits to get a kill because everyone has twice as many hitpoints.

It may seem like ranged units are not doing much damage at the start of a battle because the enemy does not instantly start falling in droves the way they do in vanilla, but they are doing damage, and that damage will make a big difference to the outcome of a battle.

Likewise cavalry work just fine. The biggest difference here is that it takes longer to inflict kills so the "charging" modifier wears off sooner (again relative to the length of the battle). That just means you have to withdraw and charge more often.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the ranged units. I think that 2 HP nerfs the skirmishers, who were actually well balanced under the 1 HP system. When you have a unit of 160 velites throw 160 javelins at a charging enemy, and not one of them falls....the effectiveness of the skirmisher goes way down. It's not as if they can just fire away all game and eventually have enemies fall.

But c'mon, it's not even remotely historically accurate to have every enemy take two pila or two arrows to kill. Either the projectile hits you in a lethal area and you're incapacitated for the fight, or it is deflected by armor or hits shield instead, etc.

But then I doubt we'd agree on this issue, because I never thought archers and cavalry were overpowered to begin with.