[Fans' Opinion] Custom Battle Demo Unit Balance

[Polycarpe]

Good day fans, I've been away for some time but I was still wandering around the forum to see what's going on. With the release of the Britannia Custom Battle Demo (In case you didn't see or downloaded it yet, please take a look here), we wanted to give you something concrete as well a proof that we are working hard on the project and also a tease to chew while the big thing is on the way.

I want to say again most of the credits goes to the whole team, as a whole, we've build and made this demo for the pleasure of the fans and I hope you enjoy it as we do! Now onto the topic, in the team, I was the man behind the unit stats and balance, trying to perfect and balance it as much as possible as well being close to historical accuracy and realism (within the limit of the game's engine). You could ask any member in the team how much I've tried to balance the whole beast but nothing's perfect however I wanted to do this poll about it and that you, the fans, express how the unit balance is? We are good at taking criticize as long as they are constructive, so please express the good points, the flaws and suggestions to improve the game.

Regards.

Polycarpe

[Wiskers]

I think the balancing system is well implemented, especially the foot units. I like how most foot units can withstand a reasonably prolonged melee without being absolutely slaughtered. The cavalry do seem a bit overpowered however I think I may have to play a few more battles to be sure. The cavalry unit cost however seems to balance out the power that they have and I've found that given the right units and tactics they can be easily defeated.

All in all it's an excellent effort and I look forward to more!

Also, is it my imagination or are the heavy cavalry units slower?

[Wareg]

I have 2 questions:
-which English unit, ''archers'' or ''yeoman archers'' was majority of English armies during Hundred Years War?
-which Scottish unit, ''geldons the schiltrom'' or ''telderons de brameam'' was majority of Scottish army in battle of Bannockburn?

I also like statistics of most foot soldier with the exception of Scottish guisarme militia-they are very vulnerable to cavalry charges and arrows and even in melee against infantry or heavy cavalry they aren't more usefull than spearmen with geldons.

Cavalry charge is overpowered. In my tests unit of 40 knights easily massacred 500 of schiltrom spearmen (anticavalry units!)-with few frontal charges. Even sergeants can inflict casualties over 40% in formed schiltrom with one charge.
With such statistics of charge, battle of Falkirk would be much quicker and easier than It was in fact.

Best solution will be making charge much more dangerous also for charging cavalry. Player still will be able to choose frontal charge against pikemen and even win but which much highier own casualties, which will be unprofitable so he/she will look for another tactics-flanking, rear attack or weaken enemy with archers. Unfortunately I have no idea how to do It without making another values unbalanced.

I think schiltrom pikemen should also have tighter formation and ability: ''deploy stakes''-they used them in battle of Falkirk, stakes and tighter formation will reflect their typically defensive function.

PS: In my tests telderons de brameam are very usefull against cavalry, maybe you can add ''phalanx'' ability also to geldons de schiltrom and English infantry with 2 handed spears. I mean phalanx animation with shorter than pike weapon, like halberdiers' in MTWII.
I'm waiting for response what do you think about It

And PS II : maybe you avoid phalanx for geldons de schiltrom cause you can't use both ''schiltrom'' and ''phalanx'' abilities, so you choose ''schiltrom''. Although ''schiltrom'' for 2 handed speamren is a big suprise and I haven't seen such formation in any of another mods It isn't ''true'' schiltrom.
In battle of Falkirk all Scottish melee infantry (so probably not pure pikemen but also guisarme militia and others) was grouped in only 4 schiltroms but with at least 1500 man each. In images I've found schiltroms are rings, not circles.
Now compare It with scene from game: over a dozen of small schiltroms and helpless another infantry units outside them.
I think phalanx is better choice and If player necessarily need to reflect schiltrom, he/she can deploy units in for ex. few pentagons, enhenced by deployed stakes.

[Wareg]

Now about resistance of mounted and dismounted sergeants/knights to arrows.
Despite +2 attack for archers against horses, dismounted versions of sergeants/knights still suffer larger casualties than mounted (cause they are slower) against archers. I think It isn't correct, man with chainmail should be much more resistance to arrows than unarmoured horse or even horse in padded armour (except we assume that elite horsemen like English bodyguard all have horses covered by chainmail, sometimes beneath padding-in this case such horse-horsemen complex should be even harder to kill than dismounted). This was the reason why after Crecy French knights/sergeants fight dismounted.
Maybe armour value of mounted versions should be a bit lower (or higher in case of dismounted)-now mounted and dismounted sergeants have same value, despite fact that greater part of horse+horseman surface is unarmoured horse's skin.
To compensate lower armour of mounted knights/sergeants they may have for ex. higher attack than dismounted (stronger blows cause of highier position of rider)

I'm still waiting for responsem and discussion

[Polycarpe]

I have 2 questions:
-which English unit, ''archers'' or ''yeoman archers'' was majority of English armies during Hundred Years War?

Archers obviously but with the rise of a more centralized system in England combined with several military laws (especially Archery's Law), Yeoman Archers number rise considerably. But still, the archers were made of commoners while Yeomen were still some sort of commoners but from a more prosperous background.

-which Scottish unit, ''geldons the schiltrom'' or ''telderons de brameam'' was majority of Scottish army in battle of Bannockburn?

It's kinda complicated to say because at Bannockburn, the Scottish armies were made of commoners but Robert the Bruce was the man behind the formation of a more trained and disciplined troops of pikemen, making a sort of core of professional men, I would say the Geldons primary.

I also like statistics of most foot soldier with the exception of Scottish guisarme militia-they are very vulnerable to cavalry charges and arrows and even in melee against infantry or heavy cavalry they aren't more usefull than spearmen with geldons.

It's quite normal regarding against cavalry; two-handed weapons of that type wasn't made to receive a cavalry charge, the lochaber axe and guisarme were more used to counter armored foes and to flank cavalry, not to receiving it.

Cavalry charge is overpowered. In my tests unit of 40 knights easily massacred 500 of schiltrom spearmen (anticavalry units!)-with few frontal charges. Even sergeants can inflict casualties over 40% in formed schiltrom with one charge.
With such statistics of charge, battle of Falkirk would be much quicker and easier than It was in fact.

The problem is not due to the stats but rather to the animation process because it's not possible to add the attribute of "long_pike" with the schiltrom formation, hence the reason why they are weaker however the Telderons are extremely good at receiving a cavalry charge, which you might have tried out.

Best solution will be making charge much more dangerous also for charging cavalry. Player still will be able to choose frontal charge against pikemen and even win but which much highier own casualties, which will be unprofitable so he/she will look for another tactics-flanking, rear attack or weaken enemy with archers. Unfortunately I have no idea how to do It without making another values unbalanced.

That's the thing but also to note, in the 13th century, they were few things that could counter a charge from armored knights with padded and mailed horses, it is more at the HYW the cavalry starts to be less deployed and more infantry were present in any armies.

I think schiltrom pikemen should also have tighter formation and ability: ''deploy stakes''-they used them in battle of Falkirk, stakes and tighter formation will reflect their typically defensive function.

It will be too unbalanced and not accurately represented; in game, the stakes kills in one shot any cavalry and stakes weren't deployed by the Scots afaik but were using the schiltrom pike.

PS: In my tests telderons de brameam are very usefull against cavalry, maybe you can add ''phalanx'' ability also to geldons de schiltrom and English infantry with 2 handed spears. I mean phalanx animation with shorter than pike weapon, like halberdiers' in MTWII.

I'm hesitating on this matter because the phalanx formation was indeed quite a success vs cavalry but it wasn't used until the Renaissance (except by the Swiss, Flemish (variant) and professional Scots pikemen).

I'm waiting for response what do you think about It

(That's one part, now onto the other one.

And PS II : maybe you avoid phalanx for geldons de schiltrom cause you can't use both ''schiltrom'' and ''phalanx'' abilities, so you choose ''schiltrom''. Although ''schiltrom'' for 2 handed speamren is a big suprise and I haven't seen such formation in any of another mods It isn't ''true'' schiltrom.

You are correct, it's either schiltrom or phalanx formation the animation is atm (unless an animator could create another animation for it which for now it's not the case). One thing that I didn't understand was in vanilla they put the schiltrom formation to almost all spearmen units while historically, it was in that timeframe and culture, only the Scots spearmen using that formation, that is why I didn't add this formation to the others.

In battle of Falkirk all Scottish melee infantry (so probably not pure pikemen but also guisarme militia and others) was grouped in only 4 schiltroms but with at least 1500 man each. In images I've found schiltroms are rings, not circles.
Now compare It with scene from game: over a dozen of small schiltroms and helpless another infantry units outside them.
I think phalanx is better choice and If player necessarily need to reflect schiltrom, he/she can deploy units in for ex. few pentagons, enhenced by deployed stakes.

It's answered by the above.

Now about resistance of mounted and dismounted sergeants/knights to arrows.
Despite +2 attack for archers against horses, dismounted versions of sergeants/knights still suffer larger casualties than mounted (cause they are slower) against archers. I think It isn't correct, man with chainmail should be much more resistance to arrows than unarmoured horse or even horse in padded armour (except we assume that elite horsemen like English bodyguard all have horses covered by chainmail, sometimes beneath padding-in this case such horse-horsemen complex should be even harder to kill than dismounted). This was the reason why after Crecy French knights/sergeants fight dismounted.
Maybe armour value of mounted versions should be a bit lower (or higher in case of dismounted)-now mounted and dismounted sergeants have same value, despite fact that greater part of horse+horseman surface is unarmoured horse's skin.

I have to stop you there my friend, one important thing about chainmail was the protection against piercing weapons (such as spears, guisarme-type weapons and ranged projectiles) was awas poor which is the reason gambeson and coat of plates was added under to counter at least those weapons.

Second, I may agreed I could give a penalty on armour for unbarded horses to compensate and reflect more the weakness by receiving a projectile at the mount, making it to fall and project the horseman, which in most case could kill or wound severely the man.

To compensate lower armour of mounted knights/sergeants they may have for ex. higher attack than dismounted (stronger blows cause of highier position of rider)

Already made, just compare the values between a footmen unit and a mounted unit for one-handed weapons, you will see a large difference.

I'm still waiting for responsem and discussion

All answered, please go on.

[Wareg]

Archers obviously but with the rise of a more centralized system in England combined with several military laws (especially Archery's Law), Yeoman Archers number rise considerably. But still, the archers were made of commoners while Yeomen were still some sort of commoners but from a more prosperous background.

If so I think archers are fine (not overpowered).

It's kinda complicated to say because at Bannockburn, the Scottish armies were made of commoners but Robert the Bruce was the man behind the formation of a more trained and disciplined troops of pikemen, making a sort of core of professional men, I would say the Geldons primary.

But was there only one elite unit of pike bodyguard or ''telderons'' formed fronts of each squeres?

It's quite normal regarding against cavalry; two-handed weapons of that type wasn't made to receive a cavalry charge, the lochaber axe and guisarme were more used to counter armored foes and to flank cavalry, not to receiving it.

Flanking mobile cavalry isn't simple so If they do It they should be a bit more effective than now. You are right that repulsing charges isn't their task but if geldons are much better against charges guisarme infantry should be significantly better in melee (against infantry and especially heavy cavalry) but It isn't. Now they are useless and If I have a choice, without any hesitation I will choose geldons.

The problem is not due to the stats but rather to the animation process because it's not possible to add the attribute of "long_pike" with the schiltrom formation, hence the reason why they are weaker however the Telderons are extremely good at receiving a cavalry charge, which you might have tried out.

But there were no Telderons before Bruce, schiltrom spearmen should be able to repulse cherges on their own. Hence my suggestion -choose phalanx, not ineffective and historically inaccurate schiltrom.

That's the thing but also to note, in the 13th century, they were few things that could counter a charge from armored knights with padded and mailed horses, it is more at the HYW the cavalry starts to be less deployed and more infantry were present in any armies.

Even in XVI century, when plate horse armours were common, cavalry was discouraged from frontal charges against pike squeres. Sergeants on unarmoured horses definitely shouldn't charge frontal against even peasant pikemen, and If they are stupid enough they should suffer huge casualties. And I think only phalanx can help to reflect It (unless you have any idea).

It will be too unbalanced and not accurately represented; in game, the stakes kills in one shot any cavalry and stakes weren't deployed by the Scots afaik but were using the schiltrom pike.

But English archers have stakes, isn't It unbalanced? Maybe It is possible to ''program'' AI cavalry to avoid stakes (ask Germanicu5 about It). Scots used stakes chained together in Falkirk battle.

I'm hesitating on this matter because the phalanx formation was indeed quite a success vs cavalry but it wasn't used until the Renaissance (except by the Swiss, Flemish (variant) and professional Scots pikemen).

So how do you name tactic of pike squeres in Stirling or Bannockburn battle If not ,,phalanx''?

You are correct, it's either schiltrom or phalanx formation the animation is atm (unless an animator could create another animation for it which for now it's not the case). One thing that I didn't understand was in vanilla they put the schiltrom formation to almost all spearmen units while historically, it was in that timeframe and culture, only the Scots spearmen using that formation, that is why I didn't add this formation to the others.

I also didn't understand It, but as I've written even in case of Scots, schiltrom ability don't reflect well real schiltrom.

I have to stop you there my friend, one important thing about chainmail was the protection against piercing weapons (such as spears, guisarme-type weapons and ranged projectiles) was awas poor which is the reason gambeson and coat of plates was added under to counter at least those weapons.

Good quality mail+gambeson provided very goot protecion against bow arrows, probably only above-avarage longbows could, in some situation and very close range, pierce It. There was also something like double-chainmail which provided total protection against arrows from bows.
But this disscussion is rather off-topic. You agree with me that unarmoured horse, or even horse with padded armour is more vulnerable to arrows than man in chainmail+gambeson, don't you?

Second, I may agreed I could give a penalty on armour for unbarded horses to compensate and reflect more the weakness by receiving a projectile at the mount, making it to fall and project the horseman, which in most case could kill or wound severely the man.

Good news, thanks.

Already made, just compare the values between a footmen unit and a mounted unit for one-handed weapons, you will see a large difference.

Really? What I see: 11 (early)and 10 (late) attack for mounted English Knights and 12 and 12 for dismounted...

All answered, please go on.

Now you turn

[David93]

Even in XVI century, when plate horse armours were common, cavalry was discouraged from frontal charges against pike squeres. Sergeants on unarmoured horses definitely shouldn't charge frontal against even peasant pikemen, and If they are stupid enough they should suffer huge casualties. And I think only phalanx can help to reflect It (unless you have any idea).
Well the schitrom reflects well the formation of the scots, i do think they could use a buff though poly, we could increase their defense skill so that when in the formation they are more protected and also increase their mass so they recieve a charge better, maybe a small attack boost


So how do you name tactic of pike squeres in Stirling or Bannockburn battle If not ,,phalanx''?
Well as poly said scots professional pikemen did use phalanx and we have that represented.
I also didn't understand It, but as I've written even in case of Scots, schiltrom ability don't reflect well real schiltrom.
Its as close as the game can really get
Good quality mail+gambeson provided very goot protecion against bow arrows, probably only above-avarage longbows could, in some situation and very close range, pierce It. There was also something like double-chainmail which provided total protection against arrows from bows.
But this disscussion is rather off-topic. You agree with me that unarmoured horse, or even horse with padded armour is more vulnerable to arrows than man in chainmail+gambeson, don't you?
Ive herd endless arguments and seen many examples of longbows piercing and not piercing armour, most are inaccurate, a longbow with 150 pounds of draw strength is insanely powerful and might have done it, esspescially if you look at the tip.
Your right about an unarmoured horse being less protected in a general sense, but wrong overall. Your aiming at a target that is moving fast, therefore can close the gap in a volley or 2, compared to infantry which will take many volleys. Your also aiming at a fast moving target, harder to hit. Your aiming at less people with more space between them, therefore also harder to hit. Everything levels off.
Good news, thanks.

Now you turn

[Polycarpe]

If so I think archers are fine (not overpowered).

That's one thing I've tried to remove with the typical says about the longbow being the ultimate bow, at least they are no more armour piercing (which was exaggerated in term of balance) but still can deal a good amount of damages with several units of archers.

But was there only one elite unit of pike bodyguard or ''telderons'' formed fronts of each squeres?

Not a bodyguard but rather a more disciplined force, taking the veterans from the militia and forming more feudal-like professional units. They were a professional core, but the main composition was the levied Scots, untrained and poorly armoured.

Flanking mobile cavalry isn't simple so If they do It they should be a bit more effective than now. You are right that repulsing charges isn't their task but if geldons are much better against charges guisarme infantry should be significantly better in melee (against infantry and especially heavy cavalry) but It isn't. Now they are useless and If I have a choice, without any hesitation I will choose geldons.

Will need to check this out but you may seen those men nearly useless however during the campaign, the better and heavier troops will be quite rare; my plan is to represent a more hardcore approach on the recruitment and army composition, the guisarme militia may be weak, however, the number will be their strength as the other levies, especially for Scotland.

But there were no Telderons before Bruce, schiltrom spearmen should be able to repulse cherges on their own. Hence my suggestion -choose phalanx, not ineffective and historically inaccurate schiltrom.

I have to deal with the resources I have, I would gladly love to have a real schiltrom formation which neither the vanilla schiltrom or the phalanx represents correctly. I will revise the stats of the schiltrom spearmen, which may be excluded, in a sense, from my guideline to balance and represent them more.

Even in XVI century, when plate horse armours were common, cavalry was discouraged from frontal charges against pike squeres. Sergeants on unarmoured horses definitely shouldn't charge frontal against even peasant pikemen, and If they are stupid enough they should suffer huge casualties. And I think only phalanx can help to reflect It (unless you have any idea).

Many factors would interfere with the effectiveness of the charge; the terrain, the stamina of the mounts, the discipline of the cavaliers, the bracing of the pikemen. The Gendarmes, I agreed they were discouraged to do a frontal charge, however they were able to crush pikemen (levied for sure due to the lack of good equipment and discipline) but against for example the Swiss, yes, a cavalry unit would receive large amounts of casualties.

But English archers have stakes, isn't It unbalanced? Maybe It is possible to ''program'' AI cavalry to avoid stakes (ask Germanicu5 about It). Scots used stakes chained together in Falkirk battle.

I've added the stakes to the English archers because they were mainly the ones to use this defensive tactic. Will need to check this out for stakes in Falkirk, may you provide me the source(s) they say this?.

So how do you name tactic of pike squeres in Stirling or Bannockburn battle If not ,,phalanx''?

Stirling was Schiltrom (which was mainly the only battle the schiltrom proved to be effective because England didn't deploy their archers properly in which case, the battle would have changed drastically), Bannockburn was a combination of both Phalanx (trained) and schiltrom (levies) spearmen.

I also didn't understand It, but as I've written even in case of Scots, schiltrom ability don't reflect well real schiltrom.

Agreed but I'm limited to what I have in hand.

Good quality mail+gambeson provided very goot protecion against bow arrows, probably only above-avarage longbows could, in some situation and very close range, pierce It. There was also something like double-chainmail which provided total protection against arrows from bows.

Well, I wouldn't not start a debate on the effectiveness of the longbow or bows vs mail, or it may comes with 6 pages .

But this disscussion is rather off-topic. You agree with me that unarmoured horse, or even horse with padded armour is more vulnerable to arrows than man in chainmail+gambeson, don't you?

Yes I agreed, that is why I will provide some sort of penalties to unarmored horses.

Really? What I see: 11 (early)and 10 (late) attack for mounted English Knights and 12 and 12 for dismounted...

Will need to recheck this but usually, the stats are higher for mounted than dismounted.

Now you turn

And here you go.

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

I would just like to say hands down the best system I've seen. I think though that archers could probably use a boost of some kind, I would suggest greater rate of fire. Also battles can be a bit fast for my tastes but other than that everything else is fine.

[stevehoos]

I think the balance is done very well. The only thing is the length of the battles is short compared to what I like. That shortness may be more the historical truth though.

[Dearg Doom]

I think the balance is done very well. The only thing is the length of the battles is short compared to what I like. That shortness may be more the historical truth though.

No, in reality battles could take hours and even days but this is a game afterall

[stevehoos]

No, in reality battles could take hours and even days but this is a game afterall

Could you imagine waiting out a siege in real time, go to work come back home. See who has died etc...long weeks of video gaming.

[mAIOR]

Could you imagine waiting out a siege in real time, go to work come back home. See who has died etc...long weeks of video gaming.

Well, due to the way the game works, sieges last at least a season :p plus, with the 20 unit limit you can never really field a lot of troops...
That's actually something I've been thinking about. Giving the same treatment to a mod than Kaunitz or to a smaller extent the NTW III team did on NTW to re-enact realistic combat. That intails giving a low lethality to the weapons so that casualties are lower and properly scale the game. Say a 4:1 ground and unit scale and a neat 2:1 time scale. This way one could represent roughly 8,000~10,000 men and battles should take anywhere from half an hour to hours on end and in a 4vs4, 40K armies which were as big as anything that actually went to battle during the period.
That's the thing I can't adjust to all MTW2 mods no matter how good they are, Combat is too fast and too deadly and units move too fast making it hard to "play the field" and impossible to enact more advanced manoeuvres.

I've yet to try this mod mind you, still hadn't the time to properly do so will probably check it out tomorrow but from what I read this mod seems to be in the right direction. I especially like the fact that units have a mix of weapons and so no real distinction is made for example between a sword, an axe and a mace the difference being the class of soldier which is pretty realistic to me as the difference of a sword or an axe wouldn't be that great in a battlefield. It all comes down to the proficiency of the user.


By the way, Is this mod scaled like the way I portrayed?



Cheers...

[Wareg]

David93:
1) changing their attack or defence value will cause them unbalanced comparing to another, simillary amoured infantry. I'm not sure what mean ''buff though poly'' cause English isn't my primary language...
2) From description of Teldons there is info that they were created by Bruce so there were no professional pikemen in Stirling battle. So how can you name their formation if not ''phalanx'' (or squere schiltrom)?
3) About 150 lbs bow I will agree with you but such bows were above avarage. I'm not claiming that It was impoosible but I think It was rare.
4) You are also aiming to larger target, object which can't protect himself by shield and If you hit and kill horse It will inflict larger confusion in enemy's ranks cause of speed.
After Crecy French started do fight dismounted, they lost speed and power of cavalry charge so logically they should have also adventage of being dismounted - protection. Even 9 volleys against dismounted knights/sergeants should inflict less casualties than 3 volleys against mounted.

That's one thing I've tried to remove with the typical says about the longbow being the ultimate bow, at least they are no more armour piercing (which was exaggerated in term of balance) but still can deal a good amount of damages with several units of archers.

What do you think about adding something like frighten_x for best shooting archers? I mean something like ''flame arrows'' which decrease enemy's morale. It will reflect big adventage of most powerul bows- blunt trauma. Is It possile to do?

Will need to check this out but you may seen those men nearly useless however during the campaign, the better and heavier troops will be quite rare; my plan is to represent a more hardcore approach on the recruitment and army composition, the guisarme militia may be weak, however, the number will be their strength as the other levies, especially for Scotland.

I like idea of very effective elite and masses of poorly equipment infantry but I mean that guisarme infantry is much more useless than geldon infantry (also poorly equipment militia).

I've added the stakes to the English archers because they were mainly the ones to use this defensive tactic. Will need to check this out for stakes in Falkirk, may you provide me the source(s) they say this?.

If I'm not wrong first deployment of stakes in front of archers in XIV century Europe was battle of Nicopolis in 1396 and English archers firstly used stakes in Azincourt battle, not earlier. However, for ex. during Crecy archers used caltrops and I don't think ''caltrops'' ability is possible to add so stakes seems to be quite good substitute.
About Falkirk and stakes-there are info about It in Polish and English wiki and I've found also painting with them, I will try to send It and finish response in the tomorrow morning
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/schiltron/Falkirk.htm

Stirling was Schiltrom (which was mainly the only battle the schiltrom proved to be effective because England didn't deploy their archers properly in which case, the battle would have changed drastically), Bannockburn was a combination of both Phalanx (trained) and schiltrom (levies) spearmen.

In Stirling and Bannockburn (without 1st day of battle when ''ring'' schiltrom was used) there were squere schiltroms, useful for both attack and defence, I think ''phalanx'' formation is most similar to squere schiltrom.

I've done some tests: I've changed schiltrom spearmen to use phalanx instead of schiltrom. Casualties of charging cavalry were higher but spearmen were overpowered in melee (after cavalry's charge) so I've reduced attack value and some other values. Unfortunately, It decreased significantly cavalry's casualties during charge against pikes... it is vicious circle, I have no idea how to change It but with no doubt schiltrom spearmen should stand a bit better against cavalry charge than now.

Well, I wouldn't not start a debate on the effectiveness of the longbow or bows vs mail, or it may comes with 6 pages .

I agree

Yes I agreed, that is why I will provide some sort of penalties to unarmored horses.

Good news

[Mathieu Of Belgium]

hey, first I would like to say that you did a fantastic job on the demo!
But is it possible for me to change to battlemodel of the Captain/General of the Lordship of the Isle to the model of Aonghas Og MacDomhnaill?

[Wareg]

I've got a question: are you sure that mount_effect works over 3 value? Somewhere I've found that It works only till 3. Maybe spear_bonus_x is better idea for spearmen?

About lenght of battles-archers have probably many arrows.
I know that even 60-70 arrows were not unusual but even with very slow rate (2 arrows per minute) It took about 30 minutes to loose them all, while battle often took many hours. This is why after loosig all arrows archers frequently started fight in melee (Poitiers, Azincourt).
In my tests I often end battle with only 30-40% of arrows lost, even against armoured enemy so my archers are not needed to fight in melee. 20 arrows seems to be very small amount but maybe It fit better to high dynamism of battles?

About schiltrom spearmen-phalanx indeed make them overpowered (against infantry).
With ''stakes'' ability they will be really hard nut to cruck from front and It will force enemy cavalry to outflank/rear attack or to use archers. In attack, when they leave strong, fortified popsitions and schiltrom formation they will be much more vulnerable to cavalry charge, so as It was in reality.
I'm only not sure if and how AI will use stakes and schiltrom ability (although I've read that some mods modified AI to use these abilities in defence).
Some info and pictures about schiltroms+stakes:
http://www.bfdc.co.uk/2004/crimean_war/the_battle_of_falkirk.html
http://skyelander.orgfree.com/falkirk1.html
And screenshots:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/21062817.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/155/beztytuuppa.jpg/

[PrestigeX]

First off, I love this mod's representation of the units in this period.

I think it's great that the cavalry is so strong =), I always prefer that in mods. So long as they are suitably expensive / limited in the campaign. It would be bad if cavalry units were very easy to recruit en-masse and just pump them out the same (more or less) as in Vanilla... it'd be good if they had slower refresh rates, limited max.availability per region etc. That way, an army with tons of mounted knights would be a sight to behold (repositioning troops from around the kingdom, many turns to do so & planning to make so devasting of a force).

I wonder about the Lordship of the Isles because they have no horses at all. In campaign, will they be able to get mercenary horsemen ?
I'm sorta under the impression that they might not be able to get any cavalry mercenaries while at home in britain, but if they merc-hunt in the european continent perhaps they could get some kind of heavy-cav ?
Tactically they can ambush, fight in mountains, fight in forests, depend on sieges etc- all battles where infantry assault or defence will win the day... but in open field against foes like England with their Cav and Archers =S , it's utter defeat!

[Heathen Storm]

First off, I love this mod's representation of the units in this period.

I think it's great that the cavalry is so strong =), I always prefer that in mods. So long as they are suitably expensive / limited in the campaign. It would be bad if cavalry units were very easy to recruit en-masse and just pump them out the same (more or less) as in Vanilla... it'd be good if they had slower refresh rates, limited max.availability per region etc. That way, an army with tons of mounted knights would be a sight to behold (repositioning troops from around the kingdom, many turns to do so & planning to make so devasting of a force).

I wonder about the Lordship of the Isles because they have no horses at all. In campaign, will they be able to get mercenary horsemen ?
I'm sorta under the impression that they might not be able to get any cavalry mercenaries while at home in britain, but if they merc-hunt in the european continent perhaps they could get some kind of heavy-cav ?
Tactically they can ambush, fight in mountains, fight in forests, depend on sieges etc- all battles where infantry assault or defence will win the day... but in open field against foes like England with their Cav and Archers =S , it's utter defeat!

You don't necessarily need cavalry if you know how to use anti-cav formations

Which makes me think - will the Lordship of the Isles and/or the Earldom of Orkney have units that utilize the shield-wall technique? Since this was a battle formation of the Vikings and the British Isles for many centuries. The nobles and the spearmen unit of the Lordship would be excellent candidates for it. I've found the shield-wall formation is quite good in-game against cavalry charges, so it may help them out in open field battles

[Wareg]

Heathen Storm, from my tests shield wall looks really good but unit in such formation (unfortunatley) isn't better against cavalry charge than in normal formation. What's more their front is shorter and easier to outflank so with the exception of appearance It isn't useful
Maybe speamren form Isles should have simply tighter normal formation (and a bit higher statistics) instead of shield_wall ability?
Schiltrom is also originally Viking formation.

About armies from Isles- javelinmen are VERY effective against cavalry, 2 handed axemen also. Speamen to stop cavalry charge and javelinmen+axemen to outflank cavalry and kill them all...

[lolIsuck]

The men in the shieldwall formation are closer to eachother making it easier to stop an enemy charge, this is historical too as horses do not like charging in on tight formations and would often abort the charge a few metres before the enemy formation.

In game I've found it very usefull, I was playing SS and I was besieged, my garisson was almost half their force and they had a general and 2 other cav units. I was desperate so I attacked their ram first with my general, after which the archers from the ram and the 3 cav units stormed after my general. I caught them up with a huscarl and viking merc unit in shieldwall and they where totally crushed, 180 cav (it was their king) and 100 archers against 240 vikings and 40 generals bodyguard, I lost less then half of them and all the enemies where destroyed.

Sorry for the off-topic story but stories of heroism have to be told