Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 111

Thread: Latest RC2.0 files

  1. #1

    Default Latest RC2.0 files

    Download latest RC2.0 files here:

    http://www.gamefront.com/files/21365037/RC2.0.rar

    Includes all RC2.0 files, purely for developer purposes at this stage.

    Please note Animation files 100% usable.

    Do not install over SS6.4, these will likely be included in SS7.0.

    Auto stat-gen spreadsheet underway.

  2. #2
    Mihajlo's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Serbia, Nis
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Downloaded. A lot of work there PP, a lot!

    Love command ability among troops, especially infantry. I usually mod that myself in every mod, so no more instant rout.

    I do have some questions (not complains). Any particular reason why some HC units from same era have different stats? Aiming on stuff like this: English knight have 13 charge, Chivalric knight have 17 charge. I assume they have same training, arms, horses. Only difference is their melee weapon.

    Next question is in that direction, wouldnt all late HC take AP weapons for melee fight since everyone are in heavy armor? Same goes for infantry too. System like it is greatly benefits AP units. Sure, sword have def.bonus(small), but it is nothing when you compare unit with 16 armor+sword and 16armor+axe. In outcome first have only 8 armor, so even lancers with 28 armor are downgraded on a lvl of a knight 200 years before. OR different animations do something about this? Did you try perhaps system with no AP ability for 1-Hand weapons, rising damage output instead giving AP for mace/axe? (no reason why axe do less damage to unarmored unit, such blow would break bone more easily).

    Shouldnt multilayer armored guys suffer some defense penalty? iirc they suffer fatigue/heat penalty only. Or it is enough from your testing?

    Overall, everything a saw looks really great! Looking forward

  3. #3

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihajlo View Post
    Downloaded. A lot of work there PP, a lot!

    Love command ability among troops, especially infantry. I usually mod that myself in every mod, so no more instant rout.

    I do have some questions (not complains). Any particular reason why some HC units from same era have different stats? Aiming on stuff like this: English knight have 13 charge, Chivalric knight have 17 charge. I assume they have same training, arms, horses. Only difference is their melee weapon.

    Chivalric Knight is Lancer, English Knight is Charger, see following table in the guide:

    MOUNT CATEGORIES
    Category Anim Applied for Melee Charge Weapons Defense move_speed_mod mass heat morale mount
    shuffle_backward Attack Charge x-radius
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All ponies shuffle_backward 0 0 0 0 0 0
    HA/Javelin shuffle_backward 0 n/a 0 +0.1 -0.5 -2 -0.05
    Lancer shuffle_backward -1 +4 0 +0.05 +0.25 -1
    Charger idle 0 0 +1 0 0 0 +1
    Brawler shuffle_forward +1 -2 +2 -0.1 -0.25 +2 +2

    type English Knights
    dictionary English_Knights ; English Knights, f
    category cavalry ; elite mounted melee, lance/axe
    class heavy
    voice_type Heavy
    banner faction main_cavalry
    banner holy crusade_cavalry
    soldier English_Knights, 20, 0, 1
    officer English_Knights
    officer northern_captain_early_flag
    mount barded horse brawler charger


    type Chivalric Knights
    dictionary Chivalric_Knights ; Chivalric Knights, f
    category cavalry ; elite mounted melee, lance/longsword
    class heavy
    voice_type Heavy
    banner faction main_cavalry
    banner holy crusade_cavalry
    soldier Chivalric_Knights, 20, 0, 1
    officer Chivalric_Knights
    officer northern_captain_early_flag
    mount barded horse brawler lancer

    Next question is in that direction, wouldnt all late HC take AP weapons for melee fight since everyone are in heavy armor? Same goes for infantry too. System like it is greatly benefits AP units. Sure, sword have def.bonus(small), but it is nothing when you compare unit with 16 armor+sword and 16armor+axe.

    In this specific case, obviously an opponent with 16 armor is much better handled by an AP weapon, such as an estoc, but it breaks down as:

    Axeman:
    Armor 16, Defense 2 (ignoring other factors), Attack 3AP, Attack Delay 60, x-radius 0.45, +1 heat

    Swordsman:
    Arrmor 16 (effectively 8 because of Axe AP), Defense 5, Attack 5, Attack Delay 45, x-radius 0.4, 0 heat, generally faster animation set

    So:
    Axeman attack 3 vs armor 8 + defense 5 = 8 vs 13
    Swordsman attack 5 vs armor 16 + defense 2 = 5 vs 18, though faster animation, smaller x-radius (ie can fight in closer proximity - this is actually quite a significant factor) and lower heat penalty.

    However, yes in this case the 1H sword is the inferior weapon, and so it should be - with 16 armor we are really talking about someone wearing something like Gothic Plate. Most contemporary artwork would depict combatants at this level using polearms or estoc/tuck-type swords rather than 1H swords/axes.

    There has been some discussion of altering animation speeds of various weapons (though the longsword does already have an advantage) but the task overall would be massive. Attack delay increases for axes etc are not sufficient because that stat is really not a large factor anyway.

    Note that mounted AP weapons have -1 attack compared to their foot counterparts.

    It would be possible to further reduce 1H AP weapon defense values by 1, I have been considering it.

    In outcome first have only 8 armor, so even lancers with 28 armor are downgraded on a lvl of a knight 200 years before. OR different animations do something about this? Did you try perhaps system with no AP ability for 1-Hand weapons, rising damage output instead giving AP for mace/axe? (no reason why axe do less damage to unarmored unit, such blow would break bone more easily).

    Shouldnt multilayer armored guys suffer some defense penalty? iirc they suffer fatigue/heat penalty only. Or it is enough from your testing?

    Kata/Multi-Layer armor -1 attack, -1 defense per extra layer, +15 attack delay, +2 additional heat for first extra layer, +1 additional heat for second extra layer.

    Really the main issue is that any fighting man of that era would carry a brace of weapons for different circumstances and we cannot really depict that in the M2TW engine, I am open to suggestions.

    I am also continuing to consider the balance between AP/non-AP weapons, I am not yet entirely satisfied by it, and the somewhat simplistic AP 'halving armor' mechanism is one reason why RC is pushing its limits in the 16th century.


    Overall, everything a saw looks really great! Looking forward
    Thanks, WIP as always

    Last edited by Point Blank; February 25, 2012 at 01:10 PM.

  4. #4
    Ichon's Avatar Praeses
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,224

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    I didn't think AP 2h weapons had enough of a malus so with 2h AP I gave -4 defense kill. Not even sure that is enough but -1 or -2 is not enough I'm pretty sure. The harder part is deciding for 1h AP which is really only maces. I am not sure how many dedicated mace units there are- very few I think, and really the only way is to lower attack value along with some lower defense skill. I did -2 and -2 to each so if a mace held by elite is usually 5 attack and the elite has 8 defense skill it would be 3 and 6 with more attack delay but not as much as 2h.

    Off hand I can only think of 5 mace armed units(1390 has only 3) but I'm probably forgetting something.

  5. #5
    Mihajlo's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Serbia, Nis
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Huh, too much to quote, so will only type what I have

    I only made glance or few, so I didnt notice that english knight isnt a lancer cos I thought since they are same tier unit, elite HC, they would have same entries, but I was wrong. That explains why difference in value.

    Reducing defense for a AP weapons would be steep in a right direction, IMO. For example I took 16 armor only, but really same goes with troops with let say 6 armor, in a combat against AP weapon, unit will have 3 armor, too much penalty. On the other hand I have no idea >>> though faster animation, smaller x-radius (ie can fight in closer proximity - this is actually quite a significant factor) and lower heat penalty. <<< so animations will do fine-tuning , great to see this!

    As for multilayer troops, I failed to notice penalty on a attack delay I only notice that kath's have 5 defense, same as some other HC'c with huge armor, hence that question....

    >>Really the main issue is that any fighting man of that era would carry a brace of weapons for different circumstances and we cannot really depict that in the M2TW engine, I am open to suggestions.<< yes, kinda make me sad. This is why I asked you did you tried with no AP bonuses for 1-hand units (since atm almost all 2H comes late game). But if animations, formations n atack delay can balance this (as much as possible anyway, there is no way to implement RL in game lol), then this will be gigantic leap in battle balance!

    Yeah, WIP never ends with efforts to squeeze game mechanism




  6. #6

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    When I have the time I will provide a simple mathematical analysis of AP vs non AP, 1H vs 2H etc, vs various armor levels and opponents. Suffice it to say that the values used in RC are not just ad hoc but are there for specific reasons - take some time and work up a spreadsheet showing the benefit of a sword and shield compared to a mace and shield vs different armor levels, and then do the same with 1H vs 2H weapons versus various types of opponents and armors, quantifying whether the extra power of a 2H weapon is worth it for the loss of defense by discarding the shield, considering the shield is 100% effective from the front quarter and 50% effective from the left/right quarters, and how often opponents are likely to be attacking from those directions, and also the extra space required for the 2H weapon, its slower attack and animations etc, its greater heat penalty, the bonus vs mounted, the greater reach as defined by the descr_skeleton etc. There are multiple factors that figured into why combatants chose certain weapons over others, and it is to our benefit to attempt to model and understand these factors.
    Last edited by Point Blank; February 25, 2012 at 07:09 PM.

  7. #7
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,349

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Thank you PB, another great resource for the modding community, +rep.

    Also, as promised, take a look to my variant of RC, more specific made for my needs. I didn't add all the new animations for weapons, will add the same and it saves me space and time. Since WotW units have varied weapon sets within a unit, I've tried to make an alternate for 1-Handed weapons.

  8. #8
    Ichon's Avatar Praeses
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,224

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Nice to see the progress there Poly. I thought you were gone for awhile and haven't followed Wotw.

  9. #9
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,349

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
    Nice to see the progress there Poly. I thought you were gone for awhile and haven't followed Wotw.
    Well, things were fixed on my side, then I get back modding once again.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Quote Originally Posted by Polycarpe View Post
    Thank you PB, another great resource for the modding community, +rep.

    Also, as promised, take a look to my variant of RC, more specific made for my needs. I didn't add all the new animations for weapons, will add the same and it saves me space and time. Since WotW units have varied weapon sets within a unit, I've tried to make an alternate for 1-Handed weapons.
    Really good Like the increased formation spacing for the 2H non-polearm, been considering that as well, but I think it would need to be balanced with further increased stats for these weapons. I'd suggest using that increased spacing for any 2H slashing weapon (or club), which includes for example halberds in non-phalanx mode such as used by Janissary Heavy Inf.

    Suggest reducing Large Round Shield to 4 instead of due to lack of leg coverage.

    Really like the mount types, and how you can apply various barding and how that changes the mount stats, great idea. Breed origin, very nice too.

    Great stuff mate!

  11. #11
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,349

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Really good Like the increased formation spacing for the 2H non-polearm, been considering that as well, but I think it would need to be balanced with further increased stats for these weapons. I'd suggest using that increased spacing for any 2H slashing weapon (or club), which includes for example halberds in non-phalanx mode such as used by Janissary Heavy Inf.

    Suggest reducing Large Round Shield to 4 instead of due to lack of leg coverage.

    Really like the mount types, and how you can apply various barding and how that changes the mount stats, great idea. Breed origin, very nice too.

    Great stuff mate!
    Thank you mate, suggestions will be taken into consideration, perhaps just adding a +1 attack for all the 2-handed slashing weapons should be fair?

    For the mounts, I've tried a new approach where the type of bard wore would affect the stamina, trying to fix the abused cavalry charge if there's too high level of stamina. Why a reduced stamina? Here's my points

    • Reducing the number a cavalry unit can charge.
    • Representing the tiredness of the mount as the well cavalier (adrenaline rush during the charge)
    • Difficult aim toward the stamina mechanics.
    • More balance and decrease relative overpowered effectiveness of a cavalry charge (I believe I did).
    • Different types of mounts and breeds would affect the stamina and speed (Iberian breed for example were among the best a Western knight could have as a destrier mount).

  12. #12

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Quote Originally Posted by Polycarpe View Post
    Thank you mate, suggestions will be taken into consideration, perhaps just adding a +1 attack for all the 2-handed slashing weapons should be fair?

    +1 or maybe +2 if an additional 0.2 spacing.

    For the mounts, I've tried a new approach where the type of bard wore would affect the stamina, trying to fix the abused cavalry charge if there's too high level of stamina. Why a reduced stamina? Here's my points

    • Reducing the number a cavalry unit can charge.
    • Representing the tiredness of the mount as the well cavalier (adrenaline rush during the charge)
    • Difficult aim toward the stamina mechanics.
    Agreed, the interaction between Heat and Stamina stats is problematic. Kataphracts have Heat 23 in RC2.0!
    • More balance and decrease relative overpowered effectiveness of a cavalry charge (I believe I did).
    Yes agree, also a goal of RC2.0, hence different cav categories, Brawler, Lancer etc. Also, the melee_hit_rate directly affects cav charge results, 1.50 is a good value IMHO.
    • Different types of mounts and breeds would affect the stamina and speed (Iberian breed for example were among the best a Western knight could have as a destrier mount).
    A very nice touch I never even considered, would you mind if I use it?
    Did you see G5 has made some alteration to charges in his latest RBAI 5.6?

  13. #13
    Ichon's Avatar Praeses
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,224

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    melee_hit_rate directly affects cav charge results,

    First time I have seen that- is the correlation more strong than to mass and charge stat? That is very interesting...


  14. #14

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    There is a definite correlation.

  15. #15
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,349

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Of course PB, you can use the base, eager to see the final result with the breeds

    I'll integrate his latest BAI, right now, the current version I use is 5.3, dang G5, you update too quickly .

    Good to know the effect of that correlation, definitively improve the balance.

  16. #16
    Judeman266's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    964

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Hey PB, I just did a custom battle with Janissary Heavy Infantry vs Banderium Knights(E Chivalric Knights) (24 [60] unit size), VH, with SS6.4 stats and animations. The Janissary Heavy Infantry inflicted 45 casualties on the Banderium Knights. So when I looked at the EDU I noticed that the JHI have "mount_effect horse +6, camel +6". I looked in RC 2.0 EDU and Halberd MAA(Men-At-Arms), ME Halberd Militia are the only units with a bonus of horse +6; all other halberd units have a lower horse bonus. With the lowering of cavalry size to 50, would a "mount_effect horse +4" be more appropriate or are there other factors that I don't know of.
    Last edited by Judeman266; March 04, 2012 at 12:31 PM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    I think only Feudal cavalry units will be lowered to 50.

  18. #18
    Judeman266's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    964

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Yea I know that, I was just trying to figure out why those 3 units were the only ones with the +6 bonus.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Probably a mistake...why would only ME Militia have such a bonus and not those of other cultures? Well, PB will enlighten us.

  20. #20
    Gnostiko's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Leeds, England
    Posts
    1,985

    Default Re: Latest RC2.0 files

    Been a while, PB!

    I was going to wait for this to be integrated into 7.0, but given Ferdiad's...estimate....of the release date, would I be able to use these files with 6.4 without too many CTD's?

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •