Real Battle, Buildings, Recruitment (RBBR) for BC 2.3

[rusnmat]

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't expereince that personally. I'll keep an eye on it

[AWombat]

Really good mod, wasn't too much of a fan of the hectic battles in vanilla BC, this brings a lot more cohesion back.

One little tidbit though, not sure if any other units experience this but I was playing with the romans and noticed that the royal cataphracts are pretty inconsistent with their job. They're very heavily armored, that's for sure, but they still die like flies when charging any unit, then when it comes to slugging it with other units they just hit for what it seems to be too little damage. I'm not sure on how to use them now but in vanilla BC they were practically tanks, not so much now. They don't charge for much and they don't hit for much either, can't really see what they do better than pronoiarii for their price.

Anyway, keep up the good work with the mod, thanks for releasing this. (:

[smitty]

I viewed EDU file listed for BC 3.0 . On one hand it has some nice units structure , same as RC with all different unit hierarchy
On the other hand it gives units tons of armour, then gives many weapons AP attribute. Even many spears are AP ( to half the thickness of armour :? Personally, I think that the BC 2.02 EDU requires less overall adjustments and the better place to start with.

To say the 3.0 edu follows the RC format is a severely gross overstatement. As a long-time supporter and die-hard fan of RR/RC I was terribly disappointed with the direction the 3.0 edu team has taken. The only similarity I really found is that they are classifying units into categories like militia, professional, rural levy, feudal, etc. As far as unit stats (the most important and impacting element of the mod) they've butchered what RC accomplishes. PB has put an insane amount of hours into how battle dynamics work and has crafted a stat-structure that seriously reflects how real combat probably took place. There are still further edits which he's making for his next Stainles Steel 6.4 update, but for the most part it's the most stable, sensible and accurate unit-modifying mod I've ever played with.

Like you said, spears getting AP and other silly adjustments just have no place if 'real combat' is truly the pursuit. I think you're right in starting off with the 2.02 edu and making adjustments from there.

Also, would it be fair to say you are attempting to eliminate entirely the 2.02's reliance on the ridiculous defence values? Those are far better balanced in RC as well.

Hey rusnmat, whatever you did screwd up the ability of cavalry to pursue routing units, they just stop the moment they reach them. As soon as I switched the export_units_descr.txt back to vanilla 2.3 the problem disappeared... what about the rest of you, haven't you experienced the same problem?

I've encountered this problem as well.

[Babygod22]

Really good mod, wasn't too much of a fan of the hectic battles in vanilla BC, this brings a lot more cohesion back.

One little tidbit though, not sure if any other units experience this but I was playing with the romans and noticed that the royal cataphracts are pretty inconsistent with their job. They're very heavily armored, that's for sure, but they still die like flies when charging any unit, then when it comes to slugging it with other units they just hit for what it seems to be too little damage. I'm not sure on how to use them now but in vanilla BC they were practically tanks, not so much now. They don't charge for much and they don't hit for much either, can't really see what they do better than pronoiarii for their price.

Anyway, keep up the good work with the mod, thanks for releasing this. (:

That's true, they cannot deal any serious damage to any infantry units of the same or somewhat lower level in a charge as well as melee.

And I would like to point out that armoured troops died too easily from missle damage, Khwarezimian and Roman Kataphract doesn't feel like "the tank" as they suppose to be at all.

[karaislam]

Charge also looks weak they are right.

[rusnmat]

Thanks for the feedback. There are many things to be adjusted still. I implemented different attack delays for different weapons and proficienties. Prior, a knight lance or spear had the same atack delay as one handed swords, now delays increased and in line with RC and common sence. Simultaniously I adjusted attack/defence values, so units will be more balanced. But it is a rough draft, since there are other parametors that are inconsistent from unit to unit. That is why there will be different feeling for mounted melee. I changed missile accuracies and damage to similar to RC values. Now I am working on other staff as stamina and heat penalties. Prior, knights of Jerusalem had the same heat penalty as Kupchaks or Turks. The idea is to bring most of the values in line with RC staff, and then just adjust units atack, defence value. So the final process will be lowered just for adjusting a few parametors for each unit.
I just discovered inconsintecies with javelins, a third of them had elephant bonus, and many didn't.
I just fixed that. I am considering lowering defence value a bit later on. There is a bigger amount of works on EDU than I originally estimated. So this mode is work in progress..

[rusnmat]

Hey guys, which mounted units have problem with pursuing units? It would help me to fix that problem..

[wudang_clown]

Also, would it be fair to say you are attempting to eliminate entirely the 2.02's reliance on the ridiculous defence values? Those are far better balanced in RC as well.

This would be a valid statement if BC 2.02 EDU were meant to be utterly realistic representation of possible statistics. It weren't, and this is not Point Blank's RC praise thread.

I understand perfectly that Pont Blank's work have many fans, me among them (I've been playing his modification of stats and all for TATW), but this doesn't mean that all mods should follow his path. Lads who made BC2 had their own vision of how to present things, BC2.02 EDU is well balanced anyway, despite few errors, but not in comparison to PB's work. There's nothing to assess now.

[rummtata]

Hey guys, which mounted units have problem with pursuing units? It would help me to fix that problem..

I was playing Georgia at the time and the issue seemed to apply to all mounted units exept, IIRC, the light horse archers. Start with the bodyguard or the monaspa lancers if you want to figure out the source of the problem...

[MagyarVida]

Just saying I really love the idea of having to build the barrack building AND the Smith building required for a certain unit to be built Makes the whole game a lot more realistic

[smitty]

This would be a valid statement if BC 2.02 EDU were meant to be utterly realistic representation of possible statistics. It weren't, and this is not Point Blank's RC praise thread.

I understand perfectly that Pont Blank's work have many fans, me among them (I've been playing his modification of stats and all for TATW), but this doesn't mean that all mods should follow his path. Lads who made BC2 had their own vision of how to present things, BC2.02 EDU is well balanced anyway, despite few errors, but not in comparison to PB's work.

Whoa whoa, this is a submod thread, not your stickied 2.02 edu thread. If I were in there trying to praise PB then I'd understand the severity of your response. Since this submod is attempting to overhaul said edu however, I thought some input from someone who respects PB's approach is entirely appropriate. What isn't appropriate is you taking such offense as to discourage praise of quality work, especially in a thread where such praise is entirely relevant. That's fine if you don't think all mods should follow his path, but where's the offense in praising a submod effort to implement PB's work? I'm simply trying to encourage rusnmat to keep up his excellent efforts.

There's nothing to assess now.

This isn't your thread, nor your submod. There's plenty to assess, like recreating an edu that presents realistic statistics as you just stated. I value all the work you are contributing to BC at the moment but I felt it within my rights to support PB's research and hard work in a submod thread aimed at incorporating that work. I am in no way out of my bounds with twcenter rules and common courtesy.

[wudang_clown]

This isn't your thread, nor your submod. There's plenty to assess, like recreating an edu that presents realistic statistics as you just stated. I value all the work you are contributing to BC at the moment but I felt it within my rights to support PB's research and hard work in a submod thread aimed at incorporating that work. I am in no way out of my bounds with twcenter rules and common courtesy.

I think you have grossly overreacted, lad.

Firstly, if you are encouraging anything here, that's PB's work. This is not a thread about PB's modification. This is a thread where rusnmat posted his submod, inspired by PB's stats. So, this is a place to give feedback to rusnmat's work, not PB's, and I haven't seen you providing such feedback. All you have posted about was PB's utterly realistic, praiseworthy stats, and ridiculous stats of BC2, butchering PB's work (like there would be only one true path of coding EDU, geez). And this is whole your feedback. You are posting off-topic comments.

This is not my thread, but I'm local moderator here. And I will delete any new off-topic comments from now on. If you don't like it, report it to TWC stuff. If you want to comment, then comment rusnmat's work. If you want to criticize BC2, do it in the main BC forum. Simple.

[rusnmat]

Hi guys, I decided to switch from implementing one change at the time to all the units aproach to multiple changes for each unit aproach.
I 've been changing stamina, terrain & heat bonuses, decreasing defence skills, some units as bodyguards, Cataphracts got increased armour, units sizes, atack values, costs and recruitments made more consistant. It's a very slow process...
So far I finished with BODYGUARD, GHULAMS , Levies, MONGOLS, ABBASIDS, Seljuks, Turks, KHWAREZM, Oman,Sindh and JERUSALEM units.
Depending on my free time, I should finish it in 3-6 days.
I am attaching the new file.. Try new rebalanced units, your feedback is important..

[Babygod22]

I'm not sure if this is a typo you've made when using the edumatic or intentional ( I hope It's a mistake ) but all Khwarezmian's armoured cavalry have a lance attack of 5

[rusnmat]

Yes, That is intentional. Please remember that is just for spear atack value, their sword atack value is at 10-11 (which is invisible on unit cards)
After increasing their armour to the apropriate level, their atack would slightly suffer. Being very heavily armoured will decrease atack speed and agility. Their charge bonus atack is very high. After charge they switch to swords. Overall, I decreased their atack to about 8-10% if they would have normall amount of armour. In RC Roman generals, heaviest armoured cavalry, had an atack value of just 3. Giving them any more atack would make these units just unrealistic. In my custom battle I used one cataract unit and one half- cataract unit agains Jerusalems top 3 heavy spearmen units, and 2 armour piersing units (knights with maces). Their cost were almost the same, slightly more for Jerusalem. Being so against the odds since facing the anticavalry oriented infantry I expected defeat. At the end, thosed2 Khwarezmian cavalry units prevailed, but barrely. Very likely if AI would control the cavalry, I would defeat it , but with very heavy casualties. Frontal charge on armoured Jerusalem spearmen kill like 60% of unit. Overall I am happy with that balance.

[Neige]

Frontal charge on armoured Jerusalem spearmen kill like 60% of unit.

I think that's unrealistic. That would be acceptable against a light to medium unit but not the heaviest spear unit. 30% at best would be more like it imo.

[Babygod22]

I think that's unrealistic. That would be acceptable against a light to medium unit but not the heaviest spear unit. 30% at best would be more like it imo.

I must agree with this.

And thanks for the detailed explaination rusnmat. Though it seems weird that Askari Noble's charge against Roman heavy swordmen would kill most of them in one charge while the Khwarezmian kataphracts with more mass and equal or maybe better lance equipment can only kill about half of the swordmen.

[rusnmat]

Askari Noble's hasn't been fully adjusted yet. They belong to local recruitment wich is at the bottom of file.
Up to 60% spearmen casualties happends only because AI is stupid and moves spearmen while I was charging. When spearmen were braced ( as I was playing them), casualites were at 23 -25%. Kataphracts are trully devastating vise militia units. They just eliminate units of militia. Swords or spear doesn't hurt them much due to high armour. Just Axe wielding infantry is affective againts them.

[rusnmat]

Since I increased armour for many top-tier units and decreased defence skills, units with AP weapons had to have atack value decreased. I finish this that. All units if following faction/categories are fully adjusted and balanced
( BODYGUARD, GHULAMS , Levies, MONGOLS, ABBASIDS, Seljuks, Turks, KHWAREZM, Oman,Sindh and JERUSALEM).
Updated file is on the first page..
Now I am starting with Roman units..

[ninja51]

Im not really sure but I think I see a number of inconsistancies with the units in my Abbasid campaign. Did you change every unit to fit this more real combat style or just some and are working your way there? Some units seem to still have 3.0's stats or they dont seem to mesh with some other's.