Broken Crescent 3.0 Battle System for 2.02 - Tips, Tricks, and Reports

[gamegeek2]

Exactly what general George described. Historically, a small front meant a small number of men could hold off large numbers for hours, even days, on end. Look at the battle of Thermopylae.

Cook, read, or do homework in the background

[briny_norman]

Hm. I guess you two could be right about seeing the possibilities in this effect instead of the limits.
I've started a new campaign with the old EDU - I don't suppose it's possible to change back to the new one mid-campaign?

[General George Monck]

I have swapped several times between EDU's (2.02 to 3.0 and back to 2.02) in one campaign, simply to reveal missing unit data, 3.0 came out clean. One thing to be wary of is the dramatic change in cost, if you start off with 2.02 armies and swap to the 3.0 EDU you need to disband allot of units or else face bankruptcy. Also you will need to adapt your fighting style to a more cautious approach as it will be much harder to rout the enemy by a sudden rush of numbers; I haven’t routed the enemy using this method at all when using 3.0.

[gamegeek2]

It's really a bad idea to swap the EDUs midcampaign. Play a full campaign on one EDU and another on another. They are mutually compatible, but it's ill-advised to use them both for different campaigns.

I'd also like to hear some custom battle results - what factions are "the best" or what are the main strengths of each faction, as you see, under the new system? Which ones got weaker and which got stronger?

[General George Monck]

Off the top of my head the following is what I have noticed;

• Cost; no faction seems to gain a particular advantage beyond those already understood in version 2.02. So for example it is still possible to produce enough Rajput elephant units and crush most armies. The direct link between cost (initial and upkeep) to general effectiveness (excluding the paper-scissors-stone effect) of a unit allows the player to easily evaluate the potential effectiveness of the enemy forces and match that cost with his own to stand a reasonable chance on the battle field.
• Variety; no faction seems to lack from a range to troops allowing for armies to be created for every circumstance. It may be true that some factions have better heavy shock infantry than others but all factions can make do with the next best thing (not-so-better heavy shock infantry). In most my campaigns I tend to settle for low to mid range units and use my ability (as a non-scripted human being) to outwit the computer AI and thus overcome superior units.
• Durability; superior endurance, lower casualty rates and the resulting length of battles allows me to use weak units to tie up strong units long enough to make my manoeuvres. In addition the increased durability of General’s Bodyguard units has given the BAI incentives to throw the general forward to the front of the battle line. This, in turn, allows me to slay the enemy general allot earlier in the battle (providing, of course, I have an armour piercing unit nearby). However generals with traits that confer even the slightest hit point bonus are extremely hard to kill. So for example while playing as Makuria I encountered an Ayyubid general at the head of a large army. He had a trait that conferred an additional 4 hit points. During the battle he was in combat for about forty minutes without a break against, at one point, nearly all my remaining units. He fled the battle and was the only survivor.

None of the above constitutes an objection on my part; this is merely a series of observations of a particular kind of gaming experience, which in my humble opinion enhance the game.

[gamegeek2]

The general thing is a sad consequence, and I really don't like it. Though, the general being hard to kill makes up for him being sent into battle early.

[Iguanaonastick]

Perhaps it can be evened out by removing the big hitpoint traits and making sure all generals have a moderately high amount? Say by giving all of them a "general" trait that adds one or two? Then they'd all be hard to kill but you might avoid having an invulnerably one every once in a while.

Anyway, general observations on crossbows:

Crossbowmen are very effective. Admittedly, I never really used a good crossbow faction before this EDU so I don't know how it compares, but Jerusalem's crossbowmen seem to win a lot of missile duels. Piles of dead Quara Gulam archers in return for a handful of casualties. Their armour probably helps, as does positioning, but in custom battles on a grassy plain they even get the better of heavy archers like Ghanzavid Gulams or Mamluk heavy archers. (And that is with equal numbers, not on a unit-per-unit basis.) All in all I'd say it is the crossbows and not the knights that lend Jerusalem a unique playing style.

I do note just about all crossbowmen now have the armour piercing trait, so for example Constantinople's Italian Mercenary Crossbows look like they would now give the ERE a big advantage, whereas before they were fodder worse than Toxotai. In fact, going by stats alone the Italians seem to have more firepower than even Latin Crossbowmen... 7 attack instead of 5 seems to make a huge difference. It is on par with most archers, and that's before adding in AP. Perhaps their lesser range compensates.

However, it seems Constantinople cannot actually recruit these anymore... they are listed as recruitable in the description of their shipyards, but even when I build the shipyards they do not appear on the recruitment screen.

Other than that things feel well balanced enough to me so far.

Edit with more info:

I also get the distinct impression that for infantry quantity tends to beat out quality. The Roman Emperor's Guard spearmen used to be an excellent spearmen unit for the faction, but in custom battles they now hardly seem to make an impact with their lesser numbers. Likewise I cannot imagine ever wanting to field units of just 31 heavy Mamluk archers when I can have 62 less armoured archers or crossbowmen, or 45 medium horse-archers for less money. (or the same in the case of the horse archers.) 30 just don't have the firepower to influence the battle, I find.

This does not apply to cavalry. There 25 elite lancers can still make a bigger impact than 45 light lancers, and most regulars come in units of 35-40 only. So comparatively elite cavalry units don't feel so small compared to regulars.

Likewise, the very best elite units like Pelekyphoroi axemen or mamluk Tabardanyah still seem useful to me, because they are highly offensive units that can still swing a crucial fight with a well-timed axe-charge.

From a gameplay perspective, I think it'd be better to have the less impressive elite infantry units at 50 men. Maybe I'd also consider artificially lowering their cost a bit, because with their lesser mobility and far lesser offensive capability they're never going to make anywhere near the difference elite cavalry does, especially if they don't have armour piercing weapons.

[gamegeek2]

Oh wow, they weren't supposed to have 7 attack.

I wasn't sure crossbows would be balanced at 5. I think they need a greater delay factor.

But yes, crossbows should be a defining part of european armies.

I disagree on the elites making a low impact. In the siege of Constantinople in an ERE campaign, they held out their side of the city for well over 45 minutes of time (the path to the city center was mostly blocked by spears and pikes, eventually i was able to crack them with reinforcing varangoi and others), and emerged with well over 70% of their numbers.

Having elite archers in small units is more a question of realism. Perhaps i need to crank up their attack stat.

[General George Monck]

Having elite archers in small units is more a question of realism. Perhaps i need to crank up their attack stat.

This is something I very much want to see in BC3.0, what I call the “Spartan Effect”. It can be summarised as a small band of men having an effect in battle entirely disproportionate to their numbers. I hope you go further with this theme and adjust one unit for each faction that would constitute a “Spartan Unit” (though obviously not called that). This adjustment, I suggest, ought to follow these principles;

• The unit should be the same unit mentioned in the “Choose Your Faction” screen (this is the one you see before you start a new campaign). Or the exiting unit for that faction mentioned in that screen ought to be replaced for the new one. This would be that faction’s “Spartan Unit” and one of the main reasons for choosing that faction.

• The unit should never rout.

• The unit should be in tiny numbers.

• The unit should have both an inspirational and fearful effect.

• The unit should have astonishingly high stats.

• The unit should be the hardest to reach in the building tree.

• The unit should cost twice the value its stats produce in recruitment cost and upkeep. This is to make players and the CAI think long and hard before building more than one of them. Or is there a way of limiting their number (from what I know this is not so easy so just make them eye-wateringly expensive).

• On an open plain it ought to be a risky proposition for a normal unit to take on a “Spartan Unit”, i.e. even if this “Spartan Unit” were an archer unit, attacking it with heavy cavalry ought to be risky for the heavy cavalry.

Some of what is stated above is implemented to some degree already, what I am here advocating is a sharper distinction between units than is already apparent in your current EDU.

[gamegeek2]

The Jihad Ghulams are kind of like that...the rest of the factions don't have a unit that really fits that quota, except maybe the Varangians.

[General George Monck]

I understand that the BC3.0 team intend to reduce the number of units each faction gets (excluding of course those units recruitable by region). Are you part of this process and will there be some demanding restrictions on the types of units available to some factions? Could these changes in some way be reflected in your upcoming BC3.0 EDU update?

I love the idea of being forced to compete with other factions without certain crucial elements, say no horse archers or no heavy infantry or no spearmen or no missile troops.

[gamegeek2]

3.0 EDU updates for now can and will only reflect the 2.02 roster.

[Dago Red]

As for the effect you describe it seems to me to be realistic, frustrating, and for that rather more fun than before.

He said he put it on 6x speed for FIVE real, minutes...
That's not right.

[gamegeek2]

It's kind of sad, but 2-3 guys fighting at a time, with 10x that many in line, in full armour, waiting to fight each other...

Sadly those guys behind suffer the fatigue effects which cut the attack of the unit.

[Iguanaonastick]

Bigger delays on crossbows would be realistic I think, and more balanced. I like my crossbow units a lot, but I feel a bit guilty about seeing my Franks beat the Muslim factions in archery duels...

As for elite infantry, siege defences would indeed really play to their strengths. However, those only make up a very small fraction of the battles I play. Even siege assaults are rare, and in those I generally send fodder units up the ladders first. I can't imagine any emperor or sultan squandering his royal guard on enemy rocks and arrows like that. And even then, on walls the low kill rates mean even elite infantry won't be all that impressive. My dismounted knights defeat levy spearmen on walls, of course, but they suffer considerable casualties and become quite exhausted. And that was with my knights attacking from two sides at once.

Another important factor may be the unit size you play on. At huge unit sizes a block of 75 men can hold a section of the battlefield or easily block a city street.

At normal unit sizes, which I play on now so I can have multiple-stack battles without lag, a unit of 37 is really too small to hold a position and they easily get outflanked and killed. High defence doesn't seem to matter much when someone hits you over the head with an axe from behind. (It's even worse for dismounted knights with units 30 strong, but then those aren't supposed to be much use in the field.)

In field battles, the problem becomes worse. I expect even the small units can be used to hold a part of the centre of the infantry line effectively, but a cheap unit of kontaroi or a unit of good quality slightly cheaper armoured spearmen can do that quite well enough, and cover a larger area to boot. For the investment in gold and resources an elite unit costs I want more returns than them not dying for a long while.

Of course unit size issues are hard to avoid in MTW2, but it's something to consider. If only to add a note to the release saying "Balanced for unit size X"

I do think morale boosting/frightening effects are a great idea for elite infantry. It would encourage using them in a fairly realistic sense, I think. I notice Varangians lost their frighten-infantry ability in the new EDU... Spathathoi still have their morale boosting ability, which right now would be my main reason for putting a unit of them somewhere in the centre of my battle-line. (In 2.02 I'd place them on one of my flanks where they could hold position due to superior fighting skills even if enemies threatened to outflank them, but with the smaller units that doesn't seem to work like it did.)

More killing power for elite archers would make them a viable choice, I should think. I do agree the small units make sense conceptually, I just think it would be a shame if elite units became something people included a few of in their armies more out of a sense of realism than because they're actually good.

(On the up side, small elite units probably discourage the AI and players from elite-stack spamming... hmm. I should start paying more attention to AI stack composition.)

[gamegeek2]

Newest EDU update slashed crossbow attack by 2 for each crossbow unit, 4 for the italians (which had 7)

[Iguanaonastick]

Further observations:

The unkillable generals are a big pain on small unit settings, where they can single-handedly maul cavalry units in particular. Infantry with AP weapons fares better, they suffer fewer casualties and eventually bring generals down.

Cavalry in melee seems to suffer heavy casualties when fighting other cavalry, sometimes seemingly at random intervals. Cavalry-versus-infantry melees seem to go as they should, there aren't too many casualties on either side unless the cavalry attempts a withdrawal and gets piled on at the wrong moment. With cavalry-versus-cavalry it seems heavy knights often suffer casualties quickly against even medium/light horsearchers. Part of this may be that a lot of light horsearchers carry spears or AP weapons, whereas most knights carry swords. A bigger part may be the chaotic nature of cavalry melees, without ordered lines, and the slow turning speed of horsemen meaning the outnumbered heavy lancers get attacked from behind a lot, and all their skill and equipment counts for little. This does make fighting horsearchers a bit frustrating. Missile fire doesn't work against cantabrian circles, cavalry can only defeat them at a heavy cost and with multiple charges from different directions. Only infantry can reliably defeat them, but infantry won't catch them.

On the kingdom of Jerusalem roster, all units seem to perform more or less as one would expect and there are no real duds among them except the non-Templar foot knights which just seem fairly useless. An absolute favourite so far is the Crusader Sergeant. These are exceptionally versatile infantrymen, capable of holding any cavalry charge and still going toe-to-toe with enemy melee infantry with their axes. They do seem a little underpriced though compared to the armoured sergeants, who cost 100 florins a turn more but lack the axe and good stamina and only get a slightly smaller shield. Maybe they have better mass or morale or other hidden stats, but I much prefer my crusader sergeants. It also helps that the latter are great-looking units.

[gamegeek2]

I have no idea how to fix the unkillable generals.

I'll run some cav on cav fights for you.

[Iguanaonastick]

I've run a number of tests myself and the results were... mixed.

All my tests featured 3 units of Knights (Outremer, Latin, Hospitaller) against 3 units of light HA without any upgrades on any side. Battlefield grassy plain. I tried to vary which side I controlled. If I controlled the horse archers I let them get caught after skirmishing a bit so they didn't take the full force of a charge. In all cases, once melee was initiated it continued until one side was defeated, so no weird flanking manoeuvres or 2-on-1 fights. Difficulty both Medium and Very Hard were tested. I ran tests against Kypchak Tribal Horse archers, Turkoman Regular Bow Horsearchers, Quara Gulams, and once against Gulam Horsearchers.

The knights won all fights bar 1, (Player controlled knights, VH difficulty against hippotoxotai) but also suffered heavy casualties in all fights. Difficulty made a big difference. On medium difficulty, the knights usually suffered 30% casualties whichever side I controlled. On VH player controlled knights suffered 40% whereas AI controlled ones suffered around 20-25%. In either scenario the knights didn't suffer more than 1-2 casualties from arrows before battle was joined.

I'm not sure how much difference the armament of the HA makes. Results were pretty similar regardless of which HA I used. (Turkomans were used in most tests.) Numbers probably are a bigger factor, as is positioning. Actual casualty rates could vary pretty dramatically from battle to battle, depending on how and when the horse-archers were caught I think.

I also noted that some HA are much better at skirmishing than others. Kypchaks and Hippotoxotai got away from the knights without trouble most of the time, but Turkoman horse archers often got caught almost immediately. I wonder why this is.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I do feel heavy lancers should more easily crush horse archers, but then it seems that good melee infantry can also suffer considerable casualties if you just let them fight light foot archers in an extended melee. Perhaps I'm too used to EB where such troops had poor lethality knives and generally were crushed by more professional troops. Or perhaps the issue is that with infantry it is much easier to surround and crush/rout the enemy, whereas with the horse archers there are few options to counter them except to fight them with lancers, and the enemy can generally field many more horse-archers than a player can field lancers. (And as mentioned above, missile duels with horse-archers are far less conclusive than missile duels with foot archers. Also, I get the impression the AI in Broken Crescent doesn't run out of ammunition...)

[gamegeek2]

Yeah, in BC most foot archers also get a sword, and a sword is nothing to scoff at.

The best way to take out HA, I find, is to field something like Mounted Sergeants or Slavic Cavalry - fast, lighter, cheaper horsemen, with enough armour to resist arrows decently, but cheap enough to counter them efficiently. These guys often lack the staying power to slug it out in melee with infantry, but definitely have the strength to take out horse archers.

Your lancers shouldn't be focused on HA, they should be used to take out the enemy's best units, with their AP lances crushing any enemy from the flanks or rear, or mowing down low to mid tier non-spear infantry from the front. They shouldn't waste their time pursuing horse archers - it's an inefficient use of perhaps your most valuable resource.