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

[gamegeek2]

Neige hits it on the head - the starting elites will need to be used well or disbanded. Elite are expensive and for people with good economies, small armies, or both.

[fightermedic]

I love large units, believe me. But the reasons are twofold - one, many BC models are high quality, and could cause massive lag for inferior computers.

first of all:
looks very good !
second:
i dont really get that quote... what is that option in the main menu for if not to turn down unit size if your pc cant handle the large ones?
in my humble opinion the unit with the most men should on "huge" setting be exactly 250 men so that people with good pcs can have the maximum out of it .. people with lower pcs still can turn down unit sizes
just a thought

[wudang_clown]

The size of 250 men per unit is one of Kingdoms' features. BC 2.02 is for bare M2TW.

[Babygod22]

Yea, but what about BC 3.0? it's for Kingdoms isn't it?

[gamegeek2]

I have uploaded a version onto the OP with the fixed EDU, which does two things:

1. Reduces upkeep costs for Indian BGs
2. Fixes the texture problem with norman knights and crusader sergeants

It is also attached to this post for convenience

[Legio]

Amazing, amazing, amazingggggggggggggg@!!!!!!!!

[dome]

Cool!

nice work folks!

+rep

d.

[gamegeek2]

Updated with a fix for a pair of Indian units.

[paradamed]

Great preview! I believe all mods should stick to this kind of system cause it is more realistic based upon equipment and training. I hate when a soldier with a buckler has more shield defense than another one with a pavise. Believe me, it happens in some mods and it is kind of annoying.

[gamegeek2]

Yes, though the soldier with the pavise would have inferior defense skill, the shield bonus would be much higher.

[Babygod22]

I got a questions, is there any chance that the Khwarezm's Sugdian assault infantry's "2 handed axe, shield on the back" style be change to "1 hand axe, 1 hand shield" style in BC 3.0?
because they look like giant ladybugs when you look at them from the back.

[cocobongoclub-DJ]

Great work, but does the IA manage to use it in the way you designed it ?
However, i'm eager to see it in action...

[gamegeek2]

My campaigns are going fine...no factions are really being destroyed very quickly...

[Spike]

I understood Gamegeek's intent and this was pretty balanced statistics... except for the cost-upkeep ratio

But the upkeep cost is now unrealistically high... better keep the previous cost-upkeep value.

Plus Elephants in this Timeframe, especially India, are pretty abundant and cheap, raising their cost and upkeep up to "hellenistic elephant price" is completely ridiculous.

I did understand that this meant for human player challange, but that cost and upkeep value are essentially still unrealistically expensive

[Sir Althfons]

I´m watching this video -very good, by the way-, and I still find the two drawbacks I´ve ever found at medieval II´s cavalry: it´s a bit too slow, and the way men fall when struck down is too unrealistid; besides they always fall the same way whether they are hit by an arrow or by another charging cavalryman.
Couldn´t u do something about that ?

[Araz]

Very nice. What about the faction and unit preview?

[gamegeek2]

Keeping an army was never cheap, and in comparison to EB, it's pretty easy to build a city with massive income in BC (no, I'm not confused by the fact that upkeep, etc. is factored into the income of each city in RTW and BI) - especially via trade; as such buildings take a lot less time to build, as do barracks, etc. In balance with this, units cost more; if there were more turns per year, and buildings took longer to build, units would cost less.

Not that making income easier to generate is a bad thing - I like it - but it has to be balanced.

What I want is something like 1 fullstack per 3-4 settlements, or something along those lines.

[wudang_clown]

Plus Elephants in this Timeframe, especially India, are pretty abundant and cheap, raising their cost and upkeep up to "hellenistic elephant price" is completely ridiculous.

I did understand that this meant for human player challange, but that cost and upkeep value are essentially still unrealistically expensive

This is what I've found some time ago:

in india, elephants are found only waay to the east in states assam or west bengal (both bordering bangladesh) or waay south in Kerala (west coast). The rajputs used to bring elephants from the far east to the far western edges to combat invaders. so they were fairly costly for the rajputs (though not as pricey as the horses, i agree).

Given that GG made cavalry more expensive, the price of elephants is relatively lower right now and it is definitely a change in comparison to the difference between these two prices in BC 2.02. Also, further lowering of elephants price could result in players' capability of fielding elephants-exclusive armies - and that wouldn't be correct, because I believe elephants were never available in such quantities as horses were and are.

Another thing is "realism" regarding M2TW currency. I don't think anyone has made any comparison between a circulating medium of M2TW and real money (um, which should it be, exactly?). It would be good to know how much an elephant unit actually cost in medieval times and then adjust our BC currency accordingly (or not, that depends ). Otherwise using "realistic/not realistic" arguments is rather a kind of metaphor.

And even if we agree that elephants were cheaper then, than they are in BC - there's another perspective, most important, I'd say - that of EDU-stats creator, who is working for few moths over a conception of balancing BC units. This is consistent conception and it's not fantastic or ridiculous at all.

I got a questions, is there any chance that the Khwarezm's Sugdian assault infantry's "2 handed axe, shield on the back" style be change to "1 hand axe, 1 hand shield" style in BC 3.0?
because they look like giant ladybugs when you look at them from the back.

It's hard to decide about changing of unit on the basis of one's subjective impression. Also, that's a bit beyond the topic of this thread.

[gamegeek2]

Updated the OP with a slightly edited file, adding some armour to eastern turkoman units (missed that several of their helmets had backplates, among other things) and rajput swordsmen (missed that they had helmets at all).


EDIT: And if elephants were so cheap - why were they a symbol of richness and might?

[Spike]

I did knew that BC had more west India than east India, and Elephants is indeed expensive...
But having their upkeep roughly the same with their recruitment costs made them ahistorically inefficient....
Perhaps you should consider cutting their upkeep to half or less