BROKEN CRESCENT 3.0 PREVIEW - EDU and Battle System Preview and Release

[gamegeek2]

Notice how those are simply comments; they aren't even in game.

On charging into enemies' backs with cavalry - are you doing it with Lance cavalry? One lancer charge to the back will rout pretty much any unit. I will give screenies...

Also, their secondary weapon IS NOT WEAKER!!! The attack stat is lower but the animation is faster, so it stays roughly the same.

[Babygod22]

Notice how those are simply comments; they aren't even in game.

What's that mean?

I use elite cavalry ( khwarezm ) unit to charge at elite infantry from the back and there's a 50/50 percent that 1 unit will rout at first try (80% if it has frighten infantry attribute), I have to do it multiple time to get them running. If I use all my cavalry and charge them from the back at the same time then most of them will run, but some will still stay, this have happened many time, and it's not a problem, I like it. And that is for big battle

In small battles with only 1 enemy infantry units against your infantry and cavalry, only 1 charge from the back will rout them, I think that's what you mean when you said nearly any unit will rout with lancers charge from the back.

About secondary weapon switching, ok let say they're about the same strength, so isn't it a little useless to switch back and forth and still have the same benefits? I think it's a disadvantage because when they switch weapon during a charge they have to stop to do it, while their enemy is still running straight at them.

By the way the AI in campaign doesn't seem to have any problem with money because of the new EDU.

[gamegeek2]

Awesome, things are working quite well. Of course some units will stay after cavalry hits their back...

-Lancers will decimate any unit with a charge to the rear (good)
-Campaign finance is challenging (good)
-Battles are longer (good)
-AI doesn't have major problems with the EDU (good)

What's that mean?

If it's preceded by semicolons in the EDU, it's only a comment and has no effect on the game.

[Goofy]

Gamegeek2: Did you read my post in this thread? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...53#post7992953
I'd like to hear your comments.

And I have something to add to my previous post: IMO you should greatly increase crossbow's range. ~270-340 m is good, the heaviest medieval crossbows (arbalests) had a range of even 350 m. This change would make people (at least me) use crossbows more willingly; as far as their range is just ~150-200 m, I prefer even light bows to them.

And of course increase the range of bows, 140-200 m is a correct value I think.

Thanks,
~Da Goofy

[Prince of Judah]

I just want to remind you of the cost issue for religious order units. dismounted templar axemen cost far to much for their numbers and stats plus they would have almost no salary historically beyond room board and a little bit for recreation (little bit i must emphasize.)

[wudang_clown]

I just want to remind you of the cost issue for religious order units. dismounted templar axemen cost far to much for their numbers and stats plus they would have almost no salary historically beyond room board and a little bit for recreation (little bit i must emphasize.)

I'm not so sure.

First of all, they needed to upkeep their horses, which - on the contrary to those warrior monks - didn't care about idealistic and religious approach to war against infidels. Ascetic and undernourished horse = animal useless on the battlefield (the same concerns men, btw). Also, horses cost a fortune then, and they were being killed very often during fight.

Second of all - armament and armour cost a fortune, too. And from time to time there was a need of replacing broken elements.

It may be that they didn't got payed for their contribution, but certainly they had to pay for all necessary preparations before a battle.

[Prince of Judah]

I'm not so sure.

First of all, they needed to upkeep their horses, which - on the contrary to those warrior monks - didn't care about idealistic and religious approach to war against infidels. Ascetic and undernourished horse = animal useless on the battlefield (the same concerns men, btw). Also, horses cost a fortune then, and they were being killed very often during fight.

Second of all - armament and armour cost a fortune, too. And from time to time there was a need of replacing broken elements.

It may be that they didn't got payed for their contribution, but certainly they had to pay for all necessary preparations before a battle.

I'm referring to dismounted religious units which do not use horses. i thought that food and water costs were seperate from an actual salary. other units would be paid while religious order units would not. khwarzem axemen have twice as many many men with about a 500 florin price increase. I'm trying to say that this is not proportional.

[wudang_clown]

I'm referring to dismounted religious units which do not use horses. i thought that food and water costs were seperate from an actual salary. other units would be paid while religious order units would not. khwarzem axemen have twice as many many men with about a 500 florin price increase. I'm trying to say that this is not proportional.

You are referring to Dismounted Templar Knights. They are a dismounted, not horseless. Also, upkeep isn't a salary. It's upkeep - it simulates all costs linked to having a company of Templars with two-handed axes.

Keep in mind that they needed to eat a lot of high quality food, etc. Otherwise they wouldn't have strength to wield those axes. Everyone who has ever tried to swing with 180 cm long oak staff knows how hard it is, not to mention war axe.

[gamegeek2]

I'm referring to dismounted religious units which do not use horses. i thought that food and water costs were seperate from an actual salary. other units would be paid while religious order units would not. khwarzem axemen have twice as many many men with about a 500 florin price increase. I'm trying to say that this is not proportional.

Sughdian axemen recently got cut to 90 men and had prices increased.

[gamegeek2]

Gamegeek2: Did you read my post in this thread? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...53#post7992953
I'd like to hear your comments.

And I have something to add to my previous post: IMO you should greatly increase crossbow's range. ~270-340 m is good, the heaviest medieval crossbows (arbalests) had a range of even 350 m. This change would make people (at least me) use crossbows more willingly; as far as their range is just ~150-200 m, I prefer even light bows to them.

And of course increase the range of bows, 140-200 m is a correct value I think.

Thanks,
~Da Goofy

Crossbows are already powerful enough...

I can't increase speed via the EDU. It's via skeleton and mount that it's done.

[metsikhovne]

is it possible that if army is in desert for a long time for example units in it will have less morale
(sorry for my english :|)

[Borgoroth]

Guys - I would like to hear some campaign reports. Can you post screenies, etc. of your current campaigns, and compare AI behavior to 2.02 AI expansion, obviously include difficulty and everything.

Also, overall feedback on the difficulty of the battles would be nice.

Thanks,

gg2

I've played a campaign with this new unit_descr so I can give a report I guess.
Campaign difficulty: Very hard
Battle difficutly: Very hard
Version: 2.02 (no kingdoms)
Faction: Eastern Roman Empire
Year: 1236



Tbh this was my first time that I seriously played ERE, I've played them, but never tried my best with them before.

At the start of the campaign, I noticed some changes right away, unit abilities were changed greatly, unit upkeep and unit stats. After reading the new info about my factions troops, upkeep, stats etc I started the warmachine. I preffer to blitz krieg always at start of any campaign, a few turns in and I had taken the rebels and 2 turkish cities, and for sure the battles was different then before.. The first battles against rebels was.. Well hard to explain exactly, but good, definatly more challanging and fun then with old unit_descr. The increased morale made it more difficult to fight and thats great. But when I started fighting the turks, I noticed one thing that eventually made me quit the campaign: The generals are way WAY WAY to good. Haven't got a screenshot of it, but almost every battle where the enemy has a general, at some point, their general is alone (no trooops in his unit alive) and completely surrounded by my own troops and they simply don't die! It can take several minutes before he dies. Once I had a general (no troops alive only him) surrounded by those emperors spearmen, poly~ axemen (dunno names sorry ) and my own general, it still took 3-4 minutes to kill him. But I played on, gotta give it a real chance so I could get a proper view of it all, else I can't form an oppinion. I enjoyed the campaign at the start, because the turks and armenia both came storming at me after I had taken the first 5 cities (3 rebel 2 turk) and gave me a real challange, I even lost a few cities (I've never lost more then 2 cities within 5 turns before, even as Khwarezm) but I managed to regroup and fight back before they pushed to far. One thing that would have turned the tables a lot faster with the old unit_descr was when I managed to pull off an ambush with an army (6-8 cavalry units(mainly heavy cav), 2 infantry(poly~ axemen) against the turks which had a rather large infantry army (mainly apz javelin and frontier men, unsure how many but almost full stack, 3 cavarly units, general and 2 regular bow) and I got the surprise so the had no time to prepare. Battle starts and the map is perfect, I have almost exactly the distance required for charging with my cavarly and the turks doesnt have time enough to do anything to improve their situtation. The cavalry goes charging in, every unit charged, I aimed for their weakest armored troops only, I think I targetted 5 enemy units, also I think 4 of them got charged from both sides, atleast 3 was. None routed, eventhough the charges decimated them like crazy, battle went on and I ended up loosing all my units except the general, he had 4 units in the end and due to him being close to immortal I won because I killed their general before I lost my army, and when my general was alone and enemy had no cavalry, I charged over and over at those that got to separated from main army and I won. That made me wanna quit but I kept on playing, and nothing worth mentioning happened.. Maybe the mongols have been improved? First time ever they didn't take a capitol right away (or even after a while) their still at large and made their way down to georgia, thats great. In general I didn't like the morale, it's to high, but not by much, it just doesn't make sense that crappy archers with basically no armor or training doesn't route after a charge from cavalry (tried with all types) and I read somewhere that a charge from behind will route almost any unit, simply not true, charging from angles the enemy aren't facing in general is all I focus on doing, and I don't think they ever routed from 1 charge regardless where it hit them, possibly it could have happened if their general was dead, otherwise no. As I wrote, I played untill 1236, that's where I decided to end the campaign due to the boost in morale and generals being to good.

Some wierd things I noticed though, most infantry units got warcry and other wierd stuff, theres an ss of one wierd.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[gamegeek2]

I know about the warcry thing, but it doesn't seem to cause errors. Still, I'll remove it later.

There isn't any new faction descriptions, but...

[Borgoroth]

I know about the warcry thing, but it doesn't seem to cause errors. Still, I'll remove it later.

There isn't any new faction descriptions, but...

I meant the new abilities and upkeep, comes in handy to check that

[Skullheadhq]

Hoo... I see... Gamegeek2 invading everywhere...

[gamegeek2]

Hoo... I see... Gamegeek2 invading everywhere...

You never noticed?

[Goofy]

Well, if it's done via other files, how do you think this is possible...

type             Slav Mercenaries
dictionary       Slav_Mercenaries      ; Slav Mercenaries
category         infantry
class            light
voice_type       Light
accent         East_European
banner faction   main_infantry
banner holy      crusade
soldier          Slav_Mercenaries, 76, 0, 0.8
attributes       sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, mercenary_unit
move_speed_mod   1.02
formation        1.2, 0, 2.4, 2.4, 5, square
stat_health      1, 0
stat_pri         3, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
stat_pri_attr    light_spear, spear_bonus_4
stat_sec         0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 0, 1
stat_sec_attr    no
stat_pri_armour  0, 2, 6, flesh
stat_sec_armour  0, 0, flesh
stat_heat        4
stat_ground      1, -1, 2, 1
stat_mental      6, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 15
stat_fire_delay  0
stat_food        60, 300
stat_cost        1, 170, 135, 65, 50, 170, 4, 50
armour_ug_levels 0
armour_ug_models Slav_Mercenaries
ownership        slave, poland
era 0            poland
era 1            poland
recruit_priority_offset    0

...the red line makes them move 2 % faster than normally. And I guess I don't have to tell you this is EDU.

I think there should be 5 speed classes for units as I've stated earlier in this thread...

Fast units - movement speed multiplier 1.014
Quite fast units - movement speed multiplier 1.007
Normal units - movement speed multiplier 1 (no move_speed_mod entry at all)
Quite slow units - movement speed multiplier 0.993
Slow units - movement speed multiplier 0.986

So, the difference between successive speed classes would be 0.7 %, that's pretty good value I believe, and I have a reason to state this opinion upon - my own tests when making my own mod for SS 6.1: Very huge unit sizes & Unique unit speeds mod (plus increased crossbow ranges!)

I can't see why crossbows should have a range of ~200 m while they really have a range of more than 300 m!

Da Goofy thanks and escapes for now.

[Babygod22]

isn't that line is for kingdoms game only?

[wudang_clown]

isn't that line is for kingdoms game only?

Yeah, it seems to work only with kingdoms.exe...

[Babygod22]

Ok, I do a battle between Mongol and Chauhan Rajput to test out elephants power

I have 2 nomad HA units, 10 dismounted elite guard units, 2 regular cavalry units and bodyguard. "No exp"

I give them 6 elephant javelin units "no exp" and 10 noble swordmen units with gold exp. And 1 light cavalry unit.

First I try the "logical, text book way" to deal with elephants: unload arrows on them and hope they run amok, but it doesn't work, it's a waste of arrows actually, only 3 dies (which is very diffrent from what happened in a book I read about the Mongol's battle with my country's elephant units)

It seem hopeless so I decided to give up as the infantry and elephants charge up hill into my foot archers. But then I decided to try to charge my cavalry units behind the elephants, guess what?

ALL of them die!! They either die or run amok right away, even faster than the infantry, I find it strange and funny that a bunch of elephants would be slaughtered by a cavalry charge to the ass but not from a rain of arrows (This fact has been proven, they completly negated my country's elephants charge in the first battle by shooting arrows at the elephant's eye, causing them to turn back, killking our own soldiers)