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

[gamegeek2]

Most, if not all, armoured horses feature greater mass, higher cost, higher armour, some terrain penalties, and less stamina.

If you want me to make the lances of the kataphractoi AP, then their melee attack value will have to be cut significantly. It's reasonable, though - I'll do it. Conveniently, this will also simulate them having a mace - so I'll stat them as if they had a mace, but a higher charge value for the spear.

For unarmoured horses, I may cut the armour value by 1, and perhaps increase defense skill by 1 if I see a lack of balance.

I'll run some tests with Latin knights vs. Spathatoi swordsmen to get them where I want them.

[Babygod22]

doesn't have to be ap, you could just increase the charge value.

a question:
If you had a base lance attack of 4 with ap attribute and 10 as additional charge attribute. That mean when charging their attack value are 14 with ap attribute right?

[Simoes]

great!!!
When i mean that unarmoured horses shoul have less armour its only to gave a chance to missile units as in the battle of agincourt , and the english didnt have the superior composite bows.

as a example playing KOJ , you have the templars knight on horse and on foot:
on foot they have a greater atack value ,of course is much more simple to make a direct attack on foot than on a ride in a horse, but when concerns about the armour on the horse unit we have to understand that since the horse was no armour is would be much more weaker against missile units.

The big problem is mt2w engine doesnt give us the possibility to give armour bonus to the horse and the rider separated (or does??) so taking in a acount the mass of the horse and the rider the armour should be drasticaly ( my bad english) reduced and defence skill improved a lot!!
In this way unarmoured horses they could fall agaisnt archers and javelins a little easier but with defence skill improved they will not suffer too much against in melee combat.

[gamegeek2]

Cavalry with armour of 13 or more on unarmoured horses have had their armour cut by 2 and defense skill raised by 2 - this should increase missile effectiveness against them by roughly 20% - medium cavalry, around 8-12 armour, have lost 1 armour and gained 1 defense skill - it also helps with the AP problem that I was having earlier.

Spearmen have had their defense skill lowered by 1 (khorasani heavies by 2) - this will increase effectiveness of all melee attacks and charges against them by a small amount.

In consideration - raising twohander cost and upkeep by 100 and 25-50, respectively. These historically were very specialized troops.

And, about someone saying twohanders were so much better - I ran a Kat Lancer charge against Vestiaritai and Pelekyphoroi - vestiaritai lost around 10 men, Pelekys lost a third of their strength.

The reason I want it AP for the kataphractoi is twofold:

-It does the same as their old mace in melee, in addition to the sheer smashing strength of the charge
-It will reduce effectiveness of the charge against light units (it was overly effective against them IIRC, since it was a greater combined charge-attack value against units with 6 armour or less) while making them more effective against troops with 10 or more armour (since the attack was cut by 4, but given AP, a small delay, and a defense penalty of 1 - normal maces are generally better than swords against troops

So, you have essentially your old kataphractoi back, plus a quality charge (though not as strong as dedicated lancers)

[Simoes]

Thanks gg!!!

[gamegeek2]

doesn't have to be ap, you could just increase the charge value.

a question:
If you had a base lance attack of 4 with ap attribute and 10 as additional charge attribute. That mean when charging their attack value are 14 with ap attribute right?

Simply ramping up the charge value will not really do much more against those heavy knights of St. John.

Remember, the formula estimating the relative effectiveness of an attack is:

const1 * leth (always 1 in M2TW) * 1.1 ^ (ATK-DEF)

Not sure about the value of const1 in this case, and mass has some effect on the charge as well (not sure of the value) - but this is fine for running some calculations - all you need to know in this case is that, the higher the number you get out, the more effective the attack

So, the Knights of St John have a combined defense of 32, 22 of which is armour (IIRC). So, here's the old kataphractoi stats for their spear:

7 attack, 10 charge; that gives us 17 attack when charging

1.1 ^ (17-32) = .239

Now, as you suggest, we could ramp up the charge; let's say, by 4

1.1 ^ (21-32) = .351

Instead, I gave it AP, which cuts the effective armour stat in half, and an attack of 3; so 3+10=13, 22/2=11, 11+10 = 21

1.1 ^ (13-21) = .467; so we can estimate that the charge will be nearly twice as effective against the Knights of St. John as it was before.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit.

[gamegeek2]

Also, the new update is now on the front page.

Note that cutting the armour may also decrease the effectiveness of cav-on-cav charges.

[Azrael de silva]

fml.
you guyys.
I have examss.
Stop distracting me with your awesomeness

[Lupu]

I repeat, missile cavalry is useless against elephants in close combat! OR have you fixed that?

[Iguanaonastick]

Great to see the work being done here. BC really needed a better cavalry balance, I think. I hope sword-infantry will be more viable in the new system as well, in the old they were pretty much fodder because of their very low attack rates.

As for the upkeep debate though... I haven't been playing with the new EDU much, but the values look to me like they will encourage a-historical all-elite armies.

Militia-type units have increased upkeep to reflect the cost of keeping them in the field long-term. Fair enough. But Broken Crescent doesn't use the "free upkeep" mechanism to compensate. Instead it had very cheap levy troops, so you could field large armies of levies at a fraction of the cost of elite forces. Perhaps it was unrealistic how long you could keep them in the field, but in principle I liked that Broken Crescent was one of the few mods where you had to really pay for your powerful heavy cavalry and could raise large levy armies when you had to.

Before, a unit of light spearmen or archers would cost somewhere in the region of 60-100 upkeep. Now, a unit of Akolouthoi light spear costs over 328 instead of 61. Before, a unit of 75 Stratatoi medium lancers would cost 437 upkeep and a unit 50 of royal Kataphractoi a hefty 798. Now, it is 705 and 876 respectively and the Stratatoi have 80 to boot.

The new upkeep prices are much higher in general, but it's the low-end troops that really end up taking it on the chin in comparison to the old version. It seems to me that with the current system it is much, much more viable to field elites than to field levies. For the price of two units of Roman light levies you can field a unit of elite Varangian axemen. The most heavily armoured elite kataphracts are only marginally more expensive than the run-of-the-mill medium horse.

In the old system, I had to think hard about investing in more cavalry or whether to just stick with levies for border defence. In the new system, upkeep costs are so universally high that they start to look "samish" to me. Why field a unit of lousy light spear when an elite unit is only twice as expensive? Why are Kavallaroi more expensive than Kataphractoi?

Of course the EDU isn't balanced for 2.02 yet. Perhaps BC 3.0 intends to introduce the free upkeep mechanism to realistically simulate levies working the fields until they are raised to defend the land. No doubt elites will be difficult to recruit because of small unit pools. But I don't like the cost difference between "tiers" of troops disappearing. It just feels wrong to have to pay more for a unit of fairly ordinary lancers than for an elite royal guard cataphract unit.

[Reverend Scott]

Well done, and great video- +1 rep. I will play BC 3.

[gamegeek2]

Akolouthoi are comparatively strong compared to most levies. Most are around 220 upkeep, IIRC.

You seem to not look at unit size when making these judgements about cost. Kavallarioi have 20 more men; while their armour is certainly less impressive, they're basically high-quality knights, as said in the description. On account of their unit size, Kavallarioi can take down many elite units with 50 men; same can be said of Ghulam cavalrymen, with 80 units, can do the same thing, thanks to their maces.

Elite units cost significantly more recruitment, and have slightly toned down upkeep to balance; if you think this is bad, tell me and I'll change it. I would think that, primarily, one would be restricted enough in their recruitment, that elite units would NOT be the backbone of any army, regardless of what you tried to build. You wouldn't be able to keep up with other nations' recruiting at that point, were you to do that.

Furthermore, it is quite possible to take out elites with good, cost-effective strategies. 1 unit of Turkoman light HA cav will put a massive melee hurt on many elite cavalry, simply due to AP maces, especially if the elites don't have swords; 150 of these guys can reliably take out a bodyguard, sometimes less. Same thing applies with low-tier AP troops vs elite infantry.

In fact, this is so pervasive that I was afraid AP weapons were too good, and lowered their strength.

[Iguanaonastick]

I did consider unit sizes. But those differences also existed in 2.02. Yes, the Stratatoi now have 80 men instead of 75 which justifies some increase in cost. But it still is the case that it used to be that elite cavalry like Kataphractoi and Proniarioi cost almost twice as much as a regular cavalry unit, and now it's only 1.2 times as much.

Maybe a bigger unit of non-elites can beat a smaller unit of elites through weight of numbers. But I do not think this is a good thing, gameplay wise. I think the game is more fun if you have only a few elite units that have a significant impact on the battle, are significantly better than regulars even after accounting for their lesser numbers-per-unit.

There's also the garrison issue. Sure, maybe the Byzantine light spears are better than their counterparts in other nations, but it still means that garrisoning your cities becomes an immense drain on the economy even though realistically these part-time soldiers wouldn't be paid wages and would be working the land whilst not called to war. I'm all for being able to afford fewer field armies, but a city should be able to get a garrison to keep order and deal with rebels and raiders without soaking up the income by 328 coins per turn per unit. (I didn't see any cheaper units in the Roman roster.)

I find that in most cases recruitment cost is a minor issue for elite units that tend to suffer few casualties if used carefully (as they should be) and upkeep is by far the most significant impact on the economy for any unit. I think that in general high upkeep cost encourages the player to use units in battle (otherwise that upkeep is going to waste) while high recruitment costs make this less attractive because re-training becomes more expensive.

I wonder if levies would not actually be better simulated by giving them wildly inflated one-time recruitment costs but very low upkeep. That way, it becomes attractive to recruit them and then keep them at home to keep order for a low upkeep but not use them in battle where, being levies, they suffer a lot of casualties and need expensive retraining. I think this would have the side benefit of discouraging the AI (who doesn't pay attention to upkeep) from recruiting a lot of levies. Instead they could be added to cities by a mild garrison script to represent that AI factions actually do have some levy spearmen staying at home and guarding the walls. But I suppose that's better left for if I ever learn about making my own sub-mods.

On battle balance, I do get the impression that your earlier statement about spears being too effective might be true. Even levy spearmen can hold a line against frontal charges of elite lancers. I tested this with Jerusalem Kingdom militia against Proniarioi lancers. The lancers won with few casualties, but only after a very long time, and even then mostly because at one time the militia unit accidentally turned their backs during a charge. On the one hand this may make for better game-balance, but on the other hand it doesn't really feel like medieval warfare where peasant levies generally were more famous for running away quickly. My tastes would run to having levies that are pretty much worthless in pitched battle.

Sorry for all the criticism. I do like the idea of better balance and less overpowered cavalry a lot. And bear in mind that these are mostly my first impressions, I haven't done any extensive testing with this yet.

Either way I'm looking forward to the new release.

(PS: I think you were right on AP weapons. In 2.02 those were definitely very powerful and even incredibly cheap units like Militia Axemen could inflict heavy damage with their AP weapons. This contributed to the uselessness of sword infantry. Lowering AP weapon attack seems like a step in the right direction, though it does make for a more strongly rock/paper/scissors based gameplay which I only like to some extent. It's a pity the AP attribute in total war is all-or-nothing, and that there's no way to give weapons a small or big AP boost)

Edit: Correction, there are at least some cheaper units on the Roman roster like Peltastai. But unless their recruitment pools replenish much faster than they used to, these won't be enough for garrison duties.
At the fringes of the empire they can use regional troops like Levy Spearmen, but while you could ship these back to your heartlands I do not think that is at all realistic. Militias and levies would be local troops, not garrisons from other regions.

[wudang_clown]

As for the upkeep debate though... I haven't been playing with the new EDU much, but the values look to me like they will encourage a-historical all-elite armies.

Keep in mind that you are building your argumentation on an assumption.

I don't think anyone will be able to muster all-elite armies, because to their costs.

Another thing is that in medieval times you wouldn't see large armies consisting levies in Middle East, because levies weren't reliable as soldiers at all. Armies consisted mainly of professionals - whether they were ghulams and knightly orders - nobles and semi-professionals (mercenaries). Levies of that time operated mainly in vicinity of their homes (towns) and certainly didn't hold the first line in any battle.

If it comes to levy force keeping order in settlements, I don't think it's realistic either. It should be governor and extended administrative structures (with a kind of police) to keep the order, not militia called in times of emergency...

[Iguanaonastick]

I agree with most of that. And I am aware that I am basing my argument on what is just one part of the greater whole. If BC3.0 won't need more than token garrisons to keep order, great. They're needed in TW games because of game-mechanics rather than reasons of realism, in general. (Squalor, all those pesky randomly spawning bandits.)

For the rest, one of my issues in fact is that spear levies -do- seem to be able to hold a line even against cavalry charges, at least from my preliminary testing. Not forever, but for a good long time.

I'm assuming that people won't be able to recruit all-elite armies because of limited recruitment pools, but from the EDU it doesn't really look like money is that much of a limiting factor. Sure, kataphraktoi cost 1000 more than stratatoi, but that's only 1.5 turn worth of upkeep. In my games I find that recruitment costs matter only when I'm actively at war, and at least in BC2.02 there are long stretches of peace where such costs can easily be soaked up. And the upkeep difference is only 170 gold per turn, about half the price of a unit of Roman light spear.
Of course, it may well be that it's simply intended that -all- heavy cavalry be very expensive and that people won't be able to afford large amounts of it. If so, fair enough. But my personal preference would still be to see a bigger price gap between elite and normal cavalry.

[Prince of Judah]

gamegeek, I think that dismounted knights (particularly religious order based units) need to have their recruitment cost and upkeep cut significantly, maybe even by half. 50 templar dismounted axemen are very slightly better than khzarzem axemen (but with a lower attack score) but they get slaughtered since they are half the size in terms of units and their recruitment cost is not much less. this in my view creates a balance problem. i still think that units sizes should be standardized like in most mods because it makes balancing a lot simpler. ex 60 Infantry 75 spearmen whatever for cavalry.

[Chivalry]

What a ridiculous! i have entered the battle with 2 group turcoman mercenaries + 1 group turkoman tribal horse regular bow. Against me byzantine army with couple of weak spearmen + 1 group royal catapractioi (20 horse). i select my all horse archers and attacked catas, and catas remain 3 man and i was have nearly 120 horsa archer. than switched to melee and attacked 3 cataphractioi, 2 of them died, and just captain was remain, THEN HE KILLED MY 50 HORSE by himself and i defeated battle! 1 captain against 50 horse archer what the hell is this? Sorry for my style but i'm very angry and sad now

[wudang_clown]

i still think that units sizes should be standardized like in most mods because it makes balancing a lot simpler. ex 60 Infantry 75 spearmen whatever for cavalry.

Well, it wouldn't be a good idea, in my opinion, given that number of Templars in the Holy Land was always relatively low. "Franks" always had problems with manpower, which was supplemented by various auxiliaries from among local communities (Syrians, Armenians, etc.).

Reportedly, Templar foot companies consisted of 50 men each - that was a standard. Also, the number of Templars in various engagements and battles didn't exceed a couple of hundreds...

[Babygod22]

I repeat, missile cavalry is useless against elephants in close combat! OR have you fixed that?

The reason for that is because missle cavalry IS useless against elephants in close combat....

[gamegeek2]

What a ridiculous! i have entered the battle with 2 group turcoman mercenaries + 1 group turkoman tribal horse regular bow. Against me byzantine army with couple of weak spearmen + 1 group royal catapractioi (20 horse). i select my all horse archers and attacked catas, and catas remain 3 man and i was have nearly 120 horsa archer. than switched to melee and attacked 3 cataphractioi, 2 of them died, and just captain was remain, THEN HE KILLED MY 50 HORSE by himself and i defeated battle! 1 captain against 50 horse archer what the hell is this? Sorry for my style but i'm very angry and sad now

There are no definitions for the stats of generals in the EDU, so I don't know how that happened - though I've had similar experiences.