Update

[Polycarpe]

PB, I'm currently working on an alternate version of your RC for my mod, I'll send you my draft once's finished but do you have a further updated/recent guideline?

[Point Blank]

Glad you're interested in my suggestions
I used (and still use) Soulsons AI along with BGR II and had absolutely no problems. It may have compatibility problems with BGR IV though, I've never tried that :/

Soulson CAI is the best IMHO.

@PB
How many hours? My most hours on a game in steam is CSS. About 800 hours!

824 so far and that's just since I installed Steam...considering I bought the game in 2006...

P.S. You wouldn't have a cost generation formula would you? Or an upkeep % formula from the main cost? I don't think you do but that would be awesome if ya did.

The initial cost for TATW units was assessed purely on combat effectiveness, modified by race, so there isn't a general formula. I can attempt to put one together.

For SS, the cost was worked out from authentic medieval costs and multiplied by the number of men in the unit. I have since lost the spreadsheet unfortunately but will attempt to devise a formula that works for both SS and TATW, considering:

Armor cost
Weapon Cost
Shield Cost
Quality Level
Mount Cost
Second Mount Cost (at least a simple riding horse)
Mount Armor Cost
Type (eg Bodyguard, Early Pro, Noble, Warrior) and degree to which that affects costs to the faction.
Training time and cost
Opportunity cost to faction's economy of time taken for training/campaigning
Upkeeep/Free_Upkeep status, modified by Type
Missile Ammunition
Cost of retainers
Race (for TATW)
Mental stats etc...

I don't have openoffice(use excel) so I have no idea. But I can tell you that the exporting of the data would be extremely messy, you just wouldn't be able to make it look exactly like the edu format by doing that. The edu has tabs in it along with certain spaces, commas also which could actually render the exported data unusuable because the game wouldn't run the unit because of invalid info. Although I can't make mine perfect either because I can't say for certain what the unitname is in the .modeldb, the soldier animation, the officer(i could try but i don't think its worth it and still wouldn't be 100%), maybe a sound difference. My spreadsheet will stop the edu generation at the armour_ug_levels. The stat cost will be up to the user, I will not calculate that as there is no formula for it. Which brings me to my next question for PB. Eh I'll just write it above.

Well, instead of working on something similar to RC, I would simply adapt the names for my needs but will follow your unit stats and animations, eager to see the open source pack.

See attached file for anims/guide etc.

As for the recruitment, I aim something more "hardcore" for my mod and I have a different setting for it.

Fair enough, I designed RR 3-4 years ago and would change aspects now for sure if I could do it over, but it had to be something that would apply reasonably well to 500+ years of history. Also your setting is more specific, you should be able to come up with some interesting stuff, look forward to it

Does the animation had a radical change on the unit fighting ability? I was wondering if you have succeed to do a new animation for two-handed spear?

In general, yes animations are highly significant in determining combat outcomes. I need to do more testing on this, but it definitely adds to the visual aspect with the new anims to see eastern cavalry in melee almost exclusively slashing and swinging for example. There are stat implications to the new weapon categories (eg cutting vs cut-and-thrust), but since the animations are very roughly lifelike in speed, then if that gives an advantage to a certain type of weapon in some circumstances, then I think we should just go with that. The effect is more pronounced with foot weapons than mounted weapons.

PB I would send you this in a PM but I can't attach pictures in a PM so I'm going the lazy route. I got a question for you regarding the unit size table.

What if there is an elven unit that has a class of professional or higher and is missile/skirmisher? Their unit size is not listed and represented by a "-". And this usually is the case with elven units, I don't think their size is on this table. Just a little something I noticed whilst revamping my spreadsheet which is taking longer then I thought(getting nightmares about too many arguments in formulas ) lol.

Yes you are correct, those tables almost need to be done for each race, but remember are just a guide. Best I can do at this point is attach the 1.4.1 EDU to this post, and you can see the dramatic differences to unit sizes there (eg High Elf mounted BG has base size 6), which in practice worked very well and were mostly hand-crafted. If I can work out a sensible and systematic cost structure for TATW that calculates cost per man, then multiplying by unit size should give good balance.

Please excuse the almost perfect circles sorrounding the areas in question, they are the limit of my artistic ability XD

Circles are fine

*File Size as of last edits is ~ 274kB

EDIT: Do not install attached files over your present game, they are not ready for that and rely on other not-included files.

[Point Blank]

PB, I'm currently working on an alternate version of your RC for my mod, I'll send you my draft once's finished but do you have a further updated/recent guideline?

See attached file RC2.0 in post above.

[Polycarpe]

See attached file RC2.0 in post above.

Thank you, I have only a question that I don't understand, what is the x-radius? What the values represent and where I can tweak it? Not in the EDU I believe.

[Ichon]

Good stuff

RC does have 3 versions of Arquebus, first used by quite heavily armored shooters at close range. It has similar penetration to a large crossbow. Next version follows with the introduction of 'corned' powder, with greater range, slightly better accuracy and a faster reload anim which also simulates better reliability. Heavy Spanish-pattern musket appears in early 16th century, very slow to load animation but good tactical range and relatively good accuracy. A lighter, handier third arquebus 'musket' version finally appears much later in the century, once again wth better range, accuracy and a faster reload anim. Also have calivers and the turkish arquebuses and muskets, still packing a good punch but lighter than the Spanish model:

handgonne 15 55 -3 area attack, 12 bullets MTW2_Handgun
pavise handgonne 15 55 -3 area attack, 12 bullets MTW2_Handgun_Pavise
early arquebus 19 80 -2 area attack, 12 bullets, slowest arquebus reload MTW2_Arquebus_3 MTW2_Fast_Arquebus_3
arquebus 25 100 -2 area attack, 12 bullets MTW2_Arquebus_2 MTW2_Fast_Arquebus_2
late arquebus 30 120 -1 area attack, 12 bullets, quickest arquebus reload MTW2_Arquebus MTW2_Fast_Arquebus
turkish musket / caliver 36 130 area attack, 12 bullets MTW2_Musket_3 MTW2_Fast_Musket_3
heavy musket 44 140 +1 area attack, 12 bullets MTW2_Musket

We are working pretty close in parallel here. The main differences are I used 1 less arquebus as early musket/late arquebus are the same in mine and for the heavy arquebus I have a higher attack as they tended to use much heavier guns and balls which even with lower quality powder hit harder than anything until later muskets around 1575 earliest. The tradeoff is much slower reload and movement, they are expensive and small unit numbers as they are specialists while accuracy is better than later arquebus, its not as good as later muskets so effective range remains low.

The first 2 generations of guns are not substantially better than crossbows (handgonnes definitely not- heavy arquebus better only against armored, while lighter arquebus main advantage is cost and a tiny bit better against armored than pro crossbows which however outrange them significantly).

I have the muskets appearing a bit later in 16th century than what you have there but no movement penalty as the main advantages of musket was lighter weapon for only slightly less power than heavy arquebus. Calivers were cheaper, lighter, less powerful and less accurate, but slightly faster to load.

The distinction between muskets and arquebuses is not totally clear at the time- later definitions it is easier to separate them but its clear arquebuses and muskets continued to be used at the same time for nearly a century- at least until muskets which were much lighter than heavy arquebuses but had the same power and with short or long barrel the same or even greater effective range. When these lighter but powerful muskets appeared most gunners also shed majority of their armor to move more quickly and run behind pikes.

I'm going to have to look at what you did more closely though because I think I might like the progression a bit more than what I've done- although I would still make a heavier more powerful arquebus in there somewhere before late muskets which surpass the heavy arquebus power, fire more rapidly, and have greater range. The 3-3.5 ounce balls are the main ones which should see the greatest effects of the energy transfer even to a non-penetrating shot.

Also I varied the ammo a bit more- handgonnes start at 10 while heavy arquebus have only 8 shots, then arquebus goes up to 12 then with better quality powder the ammo increases to 14 and 16 as the amount of powder was the limiting factor and better quality powder was able to fire more balls using less amount and with less misfires.

I have the heavy arqubusiers at 26 size I think (52 on large units I tested at) with movement_mod at .85(the slowest of any infantry). The longest range I have is 220 for late muskets- the arquebus should be at 160 which I see I wrote as 220. Nothing that long effective range should be available until 1600s.

One point I am still debating... assigning stakes to the heavy arquebusiers- since tactically they were nearly always assigned to wagons or with pavise shield bearers who were also reloaders or behind some fortification due to the slow reload speeds. With Germanicus AI cavalry never charge deployed stakes frontally though its not much impediment to infantry either it does break their formation a bit.

I just hate to make the reload speeds really slow then expose them to open charges which will reduce their effectiveness much more than historically where they fought from some type of cover and numerous armies after 1400 and Hussites success began to use mobile fortifications for their infantry or early versions of pike and shot tactics which became more dangerous after late 1400s and the battles in Italy due to the ability to advance offensively while still protecting the gunners and eventually much of the mobile fortifications were dropped from common usage by mid 1500s (though many armies continued such tactics if the situation warranted). This is why I have new versions of guns appearing only at royal armories as this will limit numbers at first and then a few years later appearing in barracks as even Spanish armies took about 30-40 years to fully integrate pike and shot tactics and make them the basis of their armies.

EDIT- also I originally had the heavy arquebus having higher range but in testing I thought that made them a bit too powerful and also as specialists these guys were more often taking aimed shot- so despite slightly longer range possible due to increased accuracy from barrel length, training, and more powder, I kept their effective range lower than anything except handgonnes. The more massed arquebusiers despite having less accuracy fired en masse at targets further away, harassing fire just like crossbow/arrows compared to aimed fire at armored targets.

[Ichon]

Thank you, I have only a question that I don't understand, what is the x-radius? What the values represent and where I can tweak it? Not in the EDU I believe.

x-radius is how close each model can get- so if you lower the radius they tend to pile up and its a very powerful result as larger radius means in a 3 deep formation only the first 1 or 2 lines engage, with a lower radius 3 or sometimes even 4 lines can engage which means enemies are exposed to 2 or 3x the attacks.

At least I believe that is what you are asking about. I recommend make only small changes with it in most cases as it also can make the battles look weird. I've seen mods altering it heavily for pike formations and while it works to some degree its difficult to balance.

BTW- 850 hours over 5 years is less than 20 minutes per week so its not as bad as it might seem.

[Germanicu5]

Low radius for one unit and standard for other means the first one will be able to run through the latter without being engaged into combat and other complications, it's only good if you purposedly want to make some units "infiltrate" enemy lines. Ofc the "piling up soldiers" effect is also nasty.

Agree it would be a great feature. And hey G5, would there be any way to reduce unit move rates when very tired / exhausted, for example to prevent exhausted cavalry still being able to keep charging over and over?

I can only do something like that: if the whole army is tired, units could randomly refuse to attack, but I wouldn't be able to check which of them are exhausted.

I need some more time for impetuous units script.

Regards

[Polycarpe]

Thank you gentlemen but where I can change those values, it is inside the EDU, I never saw this entry anywhere else

[Ichon]

Its in EDU only if you put it in- I think a couple other places as well. I fooled with it awhile ago but decided its better to leave it alone- I might try to use it a bit for sword and buckler men as they always seem to suck but its very hard to balance. Germanicus or PB probably know exactly which file.

[Germanicu5]

The radius I'm talking about is in EDU... or actually isn't if you don't put it there.

Varangian_Guard, 100, 0, 1, 0.4 (radius - 0.4 is, according to available knowledge, default value), 1.7 (unit height - 1.7 should be default).

It needs to be applied as a system for the whole EDU, otherwise you'll experience issues I presented in previous post and other, like piling up multiple soldiers in one spot, performance decrease, rare CTDs. Increasing height will result in unit being hit more (I don't know if this wouldn't cause some settlement issues too).

Regards

P.S. Some info here, although I'm not the biggest fan: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=519849

[Point Blank]

Its also used in descr_mount, and is comprehensively implemented into RC2.0 for both foot and mounted units. Off to bed now, 5:15am, will reply to above posts later today

[Ichon]

Its also used in descr_mount, and is comprehensively implemented into RC2.0 for both foot and mounted units. Off to bed now, 5:15am, will reply to above posts later today

I was reading some interesting studies talking about how lead and round balls deliver a much higher proportion of their energy than modern rounds but knock down effect is still limited by newtons laws... however getting hit by 2-3 balls even if not penetrating the armor is like taking very hard punches and is likely to even leave a bruise. Although this study also said that people tend to fall down only when they realize they have been shot. Its a psychological effect very difficult to overcome with training where people want to investigate how bad the wound is. On the other hand people getting hit with high speed projectiles that pass through major organs and are 100% lethal often do not realize they have been hit and continue attacking, if they don't take a shot to the heart or spine they might even be able to attack for 20-40 seconds after receiving a lethal hit. Even a direct shot through the heart a man could still attack for 10-15 seconds, about how long organs/brain can store oxygen to remain consciously functional.

So the reports of cavalry charges faltering in medieval era due to missile hits might be due to psychological reasons where even if the horse or men aren't receiving lethal hits its very hard to keep charge forward when feeling yourself get hit multiple times. The instinct is to stop and examine yourself. The energy an arrow delivered is way more easily ignored than a round 3.5 ounce ball.

Whereas in WW1 cavalrymen would often take a lethal hit but the bullet would pass through and they wouldn't feel it until 10-20 seconds after completing the charge where a few men that had been hit would fall dead or pass out due to blood loss if taken a non lethal hit. However to the people waiting to take the charge it would appear their bullets were having no effect as the charge momentum kept coming. If the distance was more than 100 yards riflemen could fire more than a few times and lethal hits had time to register on the cavalry, only ,50 caliber and larger machine guns or artillery could reliably stop a cavalry charge at lower distances.

So later muskets firing lower weight, smaller balls might have greater range and penetration but less area? Difference between a 3.5 ounce ball and 1-2 ounce that become more common is pretty high. Of course the advantages in increased firing speed, lower cost, and much greater range made up for most deficiencies compared to higher weight ball but the higher weight balls were instrumental in beginning to make even good armor obsolete and as ball sizes and accuracy from switch to shorter barreled, less weight muskets, armor did make a slight comeback(cavalry of English civil wars and some other places were issued chest and leg armor proof at ranges over 100 yards against that eras musket balls). Which might go well with the reports from WW1 that at distances under 100 yards even lethal hits might not stop a cavalry charge. So if the cavalry were mostly protected over 100 yard from musketfire, then there is only a 100 yard window they are vulnerable which only lasts 8-10 seconds or 1 shot from a muzzle loaded musket. Hence the anecdote you always hear, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." It wouldn't make sense against charging infantry, but against charging cavalry it makes alot of sense. 1. You are only going to get 1 effective shot 2. muskets are still inaccurate and judging the distance of an oncoming charge between 50-100 yards is very difficult 3. 5-15 yards out a nearly point blank discharge can still disrupt a charge and it also preserves the morale of your men who if they fired at 50 yards to seemingly no effect might lose their nerve in the following 5 seconds watching the charge come on helplessly.

[Polycarpe]

The radius I'm talking about is in EDU... or actually isn't if you don't put it there.

Varangian_Guard, 100, 0, 1, 0.4 (radius - 0.4 is, according to available knowledge, default value), 1.7 (unit height - 1.7 should be default).

It needs to be applied as a system for the whole EDU, otherwise you'll experience issues I presented in previous post and other, like piling up multiple soldiers in one spot, performance decrease, rare CTDs. Increasing height will result in unit being hit more (I don't know if this wouldn't cause some settlement issues too).

Regards

P.S. Some info here, although I'm not the biggest fan: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=519849

Ok, so if I understand correctly, it's an additional number I need to add. Here's a quote from the EDU tutorial guide:

The fourth and final value (Swiss_Pikemen, 60, 0, 1) tells the mass of the soldiers. 1 is normal. Note that this does not affect cavalry, as their mass is determined by their mount. More on that later. What this means is the higher the number, the more your troops weigh. Troops with a higher mass may blast people back on the charge like cavalry do. While funny and good for supermen, you may want to leave your mass at 1.

So, as you said, in order to make everything functional, I need to proper add those two extra values otherwise bugs will happen, just to confirm me that I'm on the right track.

Also, as a question, it is not proper to add AP to gunpowder weapons? Bows and crossbow of course it will be unbalanced but what about guns?

A suggestion regarding Unit Class, I would suggest instead to link a base morale to a unit quality, I would tend to link it to a Unit Class instead. Unless I miss something, as an example, let's say you have a Exceptional Local unit, his base morale is 15, then will be modified accordingly to the modifiers while a Superior Feudal unit would have a base morale of 12 which imo should be inversed and that's one one my change I'm currently applying, here's my current setting (using my new specific names instead)

Retainers (Bodyguard): Base Morale 15
Household Nobles (Feudal): Base Morale 13
Men-at-Arms (Household Retinues): Base Morale 11
Standing Army (Late Professional): Base Morale 10
Regulars (Early Professional): Base Morale 9
Urban Militia: Base Morale 7
Warrior Levies (Local): Base Morale 6
Rural Levies (Peasant Levies): Base Morale 5

Then, the base morale would be affected by his discipline and training in addition to his origin and behaviors.

[Germanicu5]

@Polycarpe

I meant not only adding them properly after mass (so after "4th value"), I meant that if you can't radically change these settings without affecting units' battle capabilities or some unit-related data processing\application.
So what I meant was that if you change some unit's radius to 0.2 or 0.1 it'll get incompatible with other units in terms of battle characteristics and may break the whole planned combat system (melee and how it gets hit by missiles will be affected), so if you want some adjustments there, you'll need to be systematic and change all other units as well.

@PB

How about I do the "hardcore" feature this way, that whenever unit is engaged\charging it gets instant "lock" for 30 secs? This'd solve the impetuous unit case and prevent some exploits (player units under AI control weren't getting a lock in previous versions).

Regards

[RollingWave]

Hmmm, I didn't actually do new animations for my 2H spear, I used the plain pike animation found in SS and tweaked the value slightly in descr_skeleton IIRC, but not really NEW animation so to speak. there are still some issue with it, mainly that it's kinda awkward while charging (my tweaks were mainly to address this, it looks... better now but still noticablly awkard, since the old pike animation seem to have a code where the men will slow down big time whenever they lower their pike, but with spear and normal value this means they'll lower at a really far distance and then just walk the rest of the way, I changed the charge distance so they only do that lower and slow thing at the very last moment. but it would be far more ideal if they can lower and also run.) and sometimes they kinda just spread out in a weird way (like only the first 1-2 role of men moved while the rest stay in place) in melee when you change targets at close range. someone more familiar with animations making a more serious adjustment to it would be far more ideal IMHO.

[Ichon]

How about I do the "hardcore" feature this way, that whenever unit is engaged\charging it gets instant "lock" for 30 secs? This'd solve the impetuous unit case and prevent some exploits (player units under AI control weren't getting a lock in previous versions).

Regards

How adjustable is the lock? Blocs of 30 seconds only or any amount?

[k/t]

For cavalry 30 seconds is too long. It needs to get out of melee as soon as possible. I have to read up on this "hardcore" script.

[Ichon]

20-40 seconds would be about right. Too bad it can't be varied by training level but some lock amount would be good as its quite difficult to get a large formation of men to about face and break in an ordered way after a charge.

[Point Blank]

We are working pretty close in parallel here.

Yes I think the main difference is just one of terminology. I am using the following, in the game at least:

Arquebus: general-purpose infantry firearm with moderate firepower and range
Musket: Initially very heavy (maybe with forked support) firearm. Typically assigned to crack troops
Caliver: a heavy weapon somewhere between an arquebus and Musket

and as weapons in-game:

Early Arquebus, absolute earliest introduction mid C15th
Arquebus, early C16th, corned powder, more power, refined etc
Musket: early C16th, originally Spanish design, very heavy and powerful yet cumbersome
Caliver: a heavy weapon somewhere between an arquebus and Musket
Late Arquebus: late C16th, further refinements, possible taking over of the term 'Musket' onward into the C17th etc

Turkish Muskets were typically in the same ballpark as Calivers.

Dates of availability vary on a per-faction basis.

All above have different attack, range (which we defined somewhere between the accurate and maximum effective range) ie what we might term the tactical range where the weapon was commonly employed. Animations are pretty close to historical reload times.

The main differences are I used 1 less arquebus as early musket/late arquebus are the same in mine and for the heavy arquebus I have a higher attack as they tended to use much heavier guns and balls which even with lower quality powder hit harder than anything until later muskets around 1575 earliest. The tradeoff is much slower reload and movement, they are expensive and small unit numbers as they are specialists while accuracy is better than later arquebus, its not as good as later muskets so effective range remains low.

The first 2 generations of guns are not substantially better than crossbows (handgonnes definitely not- heavy arquebus better only against armored, while lighter arquebus main advantage is cost and a tiny bit better against armored than pro crossbows which however outrange them significantly).

And as we discussed before a substantial advantage in energy dumped into the target.

I have the muskets appearing a bit later in 16th century than what you have there but no movement penalty as the main advantages of musket was lighter weapon for only slightly less power than heavy arquebus. Calivers were cheaper, lighter, less powerful and less accurate, but slightly faster to load.

The distinction between muskets and arquebuses is not totally clear at the time- later definitions it is easier to separate them but its clear arquebuses and muskets continued to be used at the same time for nearly a century- at least until muskets which were much lighter than heavy arquebuses but had the same power and with short or long barrel the same or even greater effective range. When these lighter but powerful muskets appeared most gunners also shed majority of their armor to move more quickly and run behind pikes.

I'm going to have to look at what you did more closely though because I think I might like the progression a bit more than what I've done- although I would still make a heavier more powerful arquebus in there somewhere before late muskets which surpass the heavy arquebus power, fire more rapidly, and have greater range. The 3-3.5 ounce balls are the main ones which should see the greatest effects of the energy transfer even to a non-penetrating shot.

Also I varied the ammo a bit more- handgonnes start at 10 while heavy arquebus have only 8 shots, then arquebus goes up to 12 then with better quality powder the ammo increases to 14 and 16 as the amount of powder was the limiting factor and better quality powder was able to fire more balls using less amount and with less misfires.

Fair enough.

I have the heavy arqubusiers at 26 size I think (52 on large units I tested at) with movement_mod at .85(the slowest of any infantry). The longest range I have is 220 for late muskets- the arquebus should be at 160 which I see I wrote as 220. Nothing that long effective range should be available until 1600s.

Absolutely.

One point I am still debating... assigning stakes to the heavy arquebusiers- since tactically they were nearly always assigned to wagons or with pavise shield bearers who were also reloaders or behind some fortification due to the slow reload speeds. With Germanicus AI cavalry never charge deployed stakes frontally though its not much impediment to infantry either it does break their formation a bit.

Yes the lack of defensive emplacements severely limits the effects of firearm units, maybe stakes is a good solution! Is there any way the stake pic can be modded??

I just hate to make the reload speeds really slow then expose them to open charges which will reduce their effectiveness much more than historically where they fought from some type of cover and numerous armies after 1400 and Hussites success began to use mobile fortifications for their infantry or early versions of pike and shot tactics which became more dangerous after late 1400s and the battles in Italy due to the ability to advance offensively while still protecting the gunners and eventually much of the mobile fortifications were dropped from common usage by mid 1500s (though many armies continued such tactics if the situation warranted). This is why I have new versions of guns appearing only at royal armories as this will limit numbers at first and then a few years later appearing in barracks as even Spanish armies took about 30-40 years to fully integrate pike and shot tactics and make them the basis of their armies.

EDIT- also I originally had the heavy arquebus having higher range but in testing I thought that made them a bit too powerful and also as specialists these guys were more often taking aimed shot- so despite slightly longer range possible due to increased accuracy from barrel length, training, and more powder, I kept their effective range lower than anything except handgonnes. The more massed arquebusiers despite having less accuracy fired en masse at targets further away, harassing fire just like crossbow/arrows compared to aimed fire at armored targets.

Interesting approach

I was reading some interesting studies talking about how lead and round balls deliver a much higher proportion of their energy than modern rounds

Yeah same as dum-dums etc, all energy dumped into the target.

but knock down effect is still limited by newtons laws... however getting hit by 2-3 balls even if not penetrating the armor is like taking very hard punches and is likely to even leave a bruise. Although this study also said that people tend to fall down only when they realize they have been shot.

I guess that does explain why in gangster movies they wear sunglasses in gunfights so theycan't see how badly they've been hit

Its a psychological effect very difficult to overcome with training where people want to investigate how bad the wound is. On the other hand people getting hit with high speed projectiles that pass through major organs and are 100% lethal often do not realize they have been hit and continue attacking, if they don't take a shot to the heart or spine they might even be able to attack for 20-40 seconds after receiving a lethal hit. Even a direct shot through the heart a man could still attack for 10-15 seconds, about how long organs/brain can store oxygen to remain consciously functional.

So the reports of cavalry charges faltering in medieval era due to missile hits might be due to psychological reasons where even if the horse or men aren't receiving lethal hits its very hard to keep charge forward when feeling yourself get hit multiple times. The instinct is to stop and examine yourself. The energy an arrow delivered is way more easily ignored than a round 3.5 ounce ball.

I had some good playtest results after significantly increasing firearm projectile impact mass values in descr_projectile, charges much more effectively disrupted.

Whereas in WW1 cavalrymen would often take a lethal hit but the bullet would pass through and they wouldn't feel it until 10-20 seconds after completing the charge where a few men that had been hit would fall dead or pass out due to blood loss if taken a non lethal hit. However to the people waiting to take the charge it would appear their bullets were having no effect as the charge momentum kept coming. If the distance was more than 100 yards riflemen could fire more than a few times and lethal hits had time to register on the cavalry, only ,50 caliber and larger machine guns or artillery could reliably stop a cavalry charge at lower distances.

So later muskets firing lower weight, smaller balls might have greater range and penetration but less area? Difference between a 3.5 ounce ball and 1-2 ounce that become more common is pretty high.

Depends what you mean by 'later muskets' - Napoleonic era Brown Bess was about a 0.75" bore but with considerable windage to facilitate fast loading - Renaissance firearms were more accurate but slower to load.

Of course the advantages in increased firing speed, lower cost, and much greater range made up for most deficiencies compared to higher weight ball but the higher weight balls were instrumental in beginning to make even good armor obsolete and as ball sizes and accuracy from switch to shorter barreled, less weight muskets, armor did make a slight comeback(cavalry of English civil wars and some other places were issued chest and leg armor proof at ranges over 100 yards against that eras musket balls). Which might go well with the reports from WW1 that at distances under 100 yards even lethal hits might not stop a cavalry charge. So if the cavalry were mostly protected over 100 yard from musketfire, then there is only a 100 yard window they are vulnerable which only lasts 8-10 seconds or 1 shot from a muzzle loaded musket. Hence the anecdote you always hear, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." It wouldn't make sense against charging infantry, but against charging cavalry it makes alot of sense. 1. You are only going to get 1 effective shot 2. muskets are still inaccurate and judging the distance of an oncoming charge between 50-100 yards is very difficult 3. 5-15 yards out a nearly point blank discharge can still disrupt a charge and it also preserves the morale of your men who if they fired at 50 yards to seemingly no effect might lose their nerve in the following 5 seconds watching the charge come on helplessly.

Interesting stuff thanks

Ok, so if I understand correctly, it's an additional number I need to add. Here's a quote from the EDU tutorial guide:

Have a look at latest RC2.0 for suggested x-radius values for all weapons/mounts.

So, as you said, in order to make everything functional, I need to proper add those two extra values otherwise bugs will happen, just to confirm me that I'm on the right track.

Also, as a question, it is not proper to add AP to gunpowder weapons? Bows and crossbow of course it will be unbalanced but what about guns?

This has been discussed before. AP makes strong projectiles too ineffective vs un/low-armored targets, and weak projectiles too effective vs heavily-armored targets.

A suggestion regarding Unit Class, I would suggest instead to link a base morale to a unit quality, I would tend to link it to a Unit Class instead. Unless I miss something, as an example, let's say you have a Exceptional Local unit, his base morale is 15, then will be modified accordingly to the modifiers while a Superior Feudal unit would have a base morale of 12 which imo should be inversed and that's one one my change I'm currently applying, here's my current setting (using my new specific names instead)

So the Exceptional Local (Genghis Khan) should have less morale than the (likely) part-time Feudal Sergeant? Not sure about that. IMHO there are other mental stats that handle those aspects very well such as untrained/trained/highly trained, impetuous, low discipline, etc

Note current RC2.0 Morale model does give bonus to Feudal units etc:

MORALE
Quality Base Morale
-------------------------------
Peasant 4
Peasant Militia 5
Militia 7
Average 9
Superior 12
Elite 14
Exceptional 16

Modifiers (cumulative) Discipline Guide
-----------------------------------------------------
untrained -1 More likely to be Low
highly_trained +1 More likely to be Disciplined

Feudal +2 Low or Impetuous
Local -1 Any but usually Low
Rural -1 Low or Impetuous
Urban Militia -1 Low or Normal
Religious +2 Any
Early Professional -1 Low but usually Normal
Late Professional 0 Normal or Disciplined

Skirmish -1
Missile -2

Italian Mercenary -3 Low
Catalan Mercenary -3 Low
Flemish Mercenary -1 Normal
Irish, Welsh, Scots Merc-1 Low or Normal
Viking Mercenary -1 Normal
Early German Mercenary -1 Low or Normal
Late German Mercenary 0 Disciplined
Serbian Mercenary 0 Normal or Impetuous
Varangian Mercenary +1 Disciplined
Swiss Mercenary +1 Disciplined or Impetuous
Other Mercenary -2 Low
Crusading/Jihad +2 Low or Impetuous

All Mounted +1
Charger +1
Brawler +2

Reckless +1 Impetuous
Bodyguard +1 Normal or Disciplined
Desperate -2 Any
Fanatic +1 Disciplined or more likely Impetuous

Retainers (Bodyguard): Base Morale 15
Household Nobles (Feudal): Base Morale 13
Men-at-Arms (Household Retinues): Base Morale 11
Standing Army (Late Professional): Base Morale 10
Regulars (Early Professional): Base Morale 9
Urban Militia: Base Morale 7
Warrior Levies (Local): Base Morale 6
Rural Levies (Peasant Levies): Base Morale 5

Then, the base morale would be affected by his discipline and training in addition to his origin and behaviors.

I appreciate WotW has a specific setting so that approach might indeed make more sense in that case.

Hmmm, I didn't actually do new animations for my 2H spear, I used the plain pike animation found in SS and tweaked the value slightly in descr_skeleton IIRC, but not really NEW animation so to speak. there are still some issue with it, mainly that it's kinda awkward while charging (my tweaks were mainly to address this, it looks... better now but still noticablly awkard, since the old pike animation seem to have a code where the men will slow down big time whenever they lower their pike, but with spear and normal value this means they'll lower at a really far distance and then just walk the rest of the way, I changed the charge distance so they only do that lower and slow thing at the very last moment. but it would be far more ideal if they can lower and also run.) and sometimes they kinda just spread out in a weird way (like only the first 1-2 role of men moved while the rest stay in place) in melee when you change targets at close range. someone more familiar with animations making a more serious adjustment to it would be far more ideal IMHO.

I'll check how mine look, think I took a similar approach to you.

20-40 seconds would be about right. Too bad it can't be varied by training level but some lock amount would be good as its quite difficult to get a large formation of men to about face and break in an ordered way after a charge.

That would be great

[k/t]

How come the pistols of Reiters and Early Reiters have AP then?