[Fans' Opinion] Custom Battle Demo Unit Balance

[Wareg]

Now we have no primary sources to resolve this issue so all we can do is logical support of each theory.
I hope that you will contact author, I'm waiting for any news.

I see that we can reach a compromis, ''my'' and ''your'' theory is in fact very similar - you agree with me that before impact and pushing strugle spear was useful couse of range. I agree with you that after clash first line of warriors was changing weapon to swords very quickly (with deeper ranks supporting them with spears).
I said that spear was primary weapon of first line and we can agree that I'm right - cause It was used initialy (as we can said that lance was primary weapon of mounted knight).
You said that sword(seax/axe) was primary weapon of first rank and we can agree that you are also right - cause It was used during most of battle (or to swordsmen death).
It is all matter of what we called ''primary'' or ''secondary'', theory is rather the same.

Question is how we can reflect this mechanism in game.

You can deploy 2 ranks deep formation of swordsmen in front of unit of spearmen. However such solution has some cons:
-2 ranks is too deep formation and spearmen will not be able to support swordsmen formation
-swordsmen in front rank will not have spear against cavalry
-I think most imprortant disadventage - such deployment is quite complicated, AI will not use It properly

Another solution is arming all shieldwall units with spears - AI will not have any problems with them, they will be better agaist cavalry and front ranks will be supported by deeper.
Note that after clash only first line fought with swords, shield wall was often 5-10 ranks deep so 80-90% had spears (although most of them were too deep to fight).

Regarding Franks- in book from your link there is information (95 page) that Franks used swords cause of need of homogenous equipment during whole battle, which, according to author, is better than confusion with spears as primary and swords as secondary weapons. Franks used swordsmen also against cavalry (some of Arabs fought mounted in Tours battle). This is also way which acient Romans chose.

In case of Viking/Anglo-Saxon we know that they fought against cavalry with spears, so we shouldn't compare them with sword based armies of Franks and Romans. That tactic seems to be more similar to acient Greek phalanx, and all ranks of Greek phalanx (also cited ''famous Spartan phalanx'') used spear as primary weapon-before It got broken.

And about Viking's breath - they used sauna, they washed and combed hair frequently so maybe they didn't neglected also their teeth?

PS: here is article about Greek phalanx: http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html
I think shieldwall could fight similar way, with phase of spear fancing and then pushing and short weapon phase (+ additional initial phase of throwing javelins).
Proportion of each phase depended of few factors, mainly lenght of weapon-Romans and Franks tried to begin short weapon phase (they were masters of sword cause It was their primary weapon) without spear fancing phase. Greek phalanx fought with both phases, doubtless they tried to prolong fancing phase against enemies with shorter weapon, and strived to close combat If their enemy was for ex. Maxedonian phalanx. Sarissa phalanx soldiers avoided short weapon phase cause they weren't very skilled swordsmen.
I think that Viking type of shieldwall was most similar to Greek phalanx, with spears as primary and short weapon as secondary but with variable length of each phase depending on type of enemy unit.

[Kjertesvein]

Just back from potato vacation.

Question is how we can reflect this mechanism in game.

I think that is an ambitious question. Like charging cavalry discussed earlier in this thread, we cant mimic real medieval life, but we can give an accurate representation as far as M2TW allow it. How do we want this to be in the end? I will have to get back to you on this, but a couple of tags while we whait,

Wedgeformation for norse infantry who charge (primarily for 2 handed axemen).
Test lose/spread-out "formation", as well as manually shift the basic stats to make a sturdy, cohesive wall. Ive not seen any mod perfect the physics jet.

Other then that, I will have to suspend judgement.

Btw nice article. Read the whole thing.

~Wille

[Kjertesvein]

I must note we have come to agreement about the historical aspect, but I have to ask: Can formations even be implemented in game (regarding A.I.) to represent with what has been concluded?

The alternative method is preferable, arming all shieldwall units with spears, as it requires nothing that ought to change from what currently is the case.

In that case, a couple of factors we have to take into account.

Shield wall push?
By doing the alternative method, we negate this aspect. Spearmen are static; yes, they don't let anyone pass, but they don't engange in any way like sword/axe.

Sword > Spear
If the enemy deploy a wall of spears, my first instinct is to promptly send forth my swordsmen for a hacking job; I will most certinly take home the enemy banner.



Secondly, I want to look into what it's like for the player. A suggestion.
What if the player is LOI, not the A.I..

Range, Infantry and Cav... Ops, they don't have mounts. Is there something we can do with their stats to better represent their armies?

A sturdy shieldwall. Preferable a support role.
Mitigate the stats of potential of merc. cavalry.



Exception to the standard spearmen:
What if the spearmen hold their weapons like the Byzantine heavy spearmen (pikemen)? Would that might give them some advantage?



In veneration of the CBUR, what I'm thinking of when it comes to an ideal support unit is close to what is described as the Contarati unit,:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That last picture emulate well what is the point.

The Pros:
They suppor whoever is right infront of them (Tuathanachs, Uachdaran or Gaisgeach).
They are able to advance forward like a scottish pikeformation (vanilla pikes, they are deadly).

The Cons:
"Those 3 m. spears are way too long. "
Counter-cons: 2/3 or 1/2 of the spear length of the Contarati will be better the shieldwall.
"Those spearmen stand too loose."
Counter-cons: I agree, perhaps make them even tigther in formations. Tighter formation means better conistency AND further spearlenght.



These spears already are pretty long compared to Vanilla, and should act better for the player if he chooses to make them a supporter unit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If variables (campaign/battle stats) make some formations favorable to the LOI player, then the player himself might choose to fight differently, I think.



~Wille

[Wareg]

Due to my english, I'm not sure If I understand you correctly: is your idea to create Sleaghadair unit based on Contarati animation (but with much shorter spears and tighter fomration), with pike wall ability?
If I'm not wrong Contarati is unit with two weapons-pike as primary and sword as secondary. Tight formation will help them to prolong pike phase. I haven't seen them in action, but If switching weapons in this case work better than normally in MTWII, they will be ideal schiltrom unit- inflexible but unbeatable from front, able to change weapons to shorter after initial spear fencing.
Unfortunately I'm not sure if in case of Contarati or any another melee infantry unit with 2 weapons(primary, secondary) works properly, such units was often problematic.

[Kjertesvein]

Due to my english, I'm not sure If I understand you correctly: is your idea to create Sleaghadair unit based on Contarati animation (but with much shorter spears and tighter formation), with pike wall ability?

That is the idea.

If I'm not wrong Contarati is unit with two weapons-pike as primary and sword as secondary. Tight formation will help them to prolong pike phase. I haven't seen them in action, but If switching weapons in this case work better than normally in MTWII, they will be ideal schiltrom unit- inflexible but unbeatable from front, able to change weapons to shorter after initial spear fencing.
Unfortunately I'm not sure if in case of Contarati or any another melee infantry unit with 2 weapons(primary, secondary) works properly, such units was often problematic.

They are excellent as Schiltrom units, at least from my own experience with them.

One thing is that I won't give them a secondary weapon (sword), because it doesn't work that well. DLV (Deus lo Vult) used LAca's earlier version of this unit ( Byzantine Heavy Spearmen: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111360, read it ), but Repman ( DLV creator ) disabled the secondary weapon. Ergo, I think that is the best scenario as well, I think.

~Wille

[Wareg]

I have to admit that I also think about such solution.
I know earlier version from SS, of course Contarati is much better couse they have their shields on arms, not backs.
I'm worried about ''death zone'' in front of shield wall spearmen. I'm not sure but It is probably generated by ''pike wall'' ability. In SS enemies are dying before Byzantine spearmen even reach them with their (shorter than normal) pikes. It isn't very conspicuous but in case of WOTW schiltrom spearmen, with even shorter spears, It will be. Maybe solution is shorter ''death zone'' used by halberd in pike wall formation, although I haven't played ''normal'' MTW II for a years and I don't remember how It worked.
Another, maybe even more importan problem is connected to Scotish pikemen with geldons. They have schiltrom formation so they can't have pike wall formation. They will be massacred by shieldwall in pike wall formation.
Regarding secondary weapon - TGC team will probably use Contarati with both spears and swords, so maybe this animation is improved comparing to earlier ''pike and sword'' units?

[Polycarpe]

From the comments, here's the following things I'll tackle the unit balance for the next patch:

• In order to reflect a more accurate number of men per formation, I'll make a test and base the game on Huge Setting so I could reflect better the unit organization (common troops vs noblemen for example).
• Adding the Shield Wall formation to the Orkneyan and Hebridean spearmen.
• Revising the bonuses given for units with equipment and such (notably Defense Skill).
• Revising the number of men per unit (as pointed out by the first change).
• Revising the range, damage and accuracy of throwing weapons (notably javelins).
• Complete revision on weapon stats.
• Complete revision on armour stats.
• Revision on categories for units as well making them more distinct.
• Slight revision on morale and charges.
• Adding a cookie monster in game (errghh..Not the good game )
• Tweak more the schiltrom spearmen to be more consistent and dangerous vs cavalry.

[Wareg]

New portion of suggestions, I hope some of them will overlap with your plans:

Regarding units size huge settings (250 men) of for ex. schiltrom spearmen seems to be good idea (larger, more realistic schiltrom) but knights and sergeants unit size is better in normal settings (38-53), they are more mobile and agile than in larger units.

I suggest similar damage of strongest bows and composite crossbows, only late XIV-XV c steel crossbow should be distincly stronger (and slower, If It will be possible to change rate of fire).

And regarding armours- 2 value for aketon is rather too low value, in my tests archers inflict similar casualties against english peseants with no armour and geldons with aketons, in fact padded armour was probably quite effective against arrows.

[Polycarpe]

New portion of suggestions, I hope some of them will overlap with your plans:

Regarding units size huge settings (250 men) of for ex. schiltrom spearmen seems to be good idea (larger, more realistic schiltrom) but knights and sergeants unit size is better in normal settings (38-53), they are more mobile and agile than in larger units.

Don't worry mate, I've already took this into consideration.

I suggest similar damage of strongest bows and composite crossbows, only late XIV-XV c steel crossbow should be distincly stronger (and slower, If It will be possible to change rate of fire).

I may raise the attack of bows (slightly) but following the revision about armour.

And regarding armours- 2 value for aketon is rather too low value, in my tests archers inflict similar casualties against english peseants with no armour and geldons with aketons, in fact padded armour was probably quite effective against arrows.

Thanks, will take into consideration. (after all your comments and such, a rep is definitively deserved )

[Wareg]

Thanks . When are you planning next patch or changed guide?
I've noticed also bug in Scotish light cavalry - they don't fight in melee. I think that It will be quite easy to repair cause their English counterparts work fine (they change spear to sword and fight in melee).

[Polycarpe]

Thanks . When are you planning next patch or changed guide?
I've noticed also bug in Scotish light cavalry - they don't fight in melee. I think that It will be quite easy to repair cause their English counterparts work fine (they change spear to sword and fight in melee).

I am working on it, I believe the changes will really improve the gameplay.
As for the Scottish cavalry, we will check this out and fix the issue thank you.

[that_one_guy]

The balance was good: heavily armored knights and sergeants could handle a beating while dishing it out nicely. The peasants made up for it by wearing down the foe with numbers...

Realistic medieval warfare in regards to morale, because it was common for the actual melee to be short, and end with one side fleeing to be cut down by cavalry etc.

The only flaw, and in my opinion, very BIG FLAW, was the cavalry charge. Cavalry do not plow through the enemy like hot knives through butter. Horses do not run head on into a wall. Watch Olympic horse jumping and you'll see, even without spiky weapons the horses don't like to run towards wall like objects (aka people in formation, fences, etc. ). The reason horsemen carried lances was 1.) to kill other knights in a joust-like scenario, and 2.) skewer enemies like kebabs from a distance upon charging to keep their horses and themselves out of danger. Then they'd draw swords and push in past the disorganized front rank which they'd just shoved their lances through. Of course, as always, the real danger of cavalry was mobility, and the fear factor. Even the heaviest armored horses wouldn't run headlong into something because it's just against instinct.

I find the best way to reflect cavalry realism is to reduce the mass of the mount to less than 3, preferably around 2 for a heavy horse, decrease the charge bonus of the spear (the higher the charge bonus the further they penetrate, the less realistic), and increase the regular damage of the lance to over ten. Make it armor piercing, and give it a spear bonus for affect against other cavalry, which, I see has already been done.

That's my long, and humble opinion. Thanks if you read it, and feel free to share your thoughts.

Edit: Sorry, couldn't help it, but aketons, or padded cloth, are generally quite ineffective against bodkins and broadheads fired from a longbow at any distance. Would you like to take an arrow in the gut, while wearing only weak wool stuffed with fluffy cotton? A man could rip that apart with his bare hands! Aketons were used mainly to absorb slashing blows by dulling the impact over a large surface. Piercing weapons will poke clean through them. Sources: I've been an archer for 5 years, participated in JO's, and have pierced harder armors with a 50 lb draw recurve. A 100 lb warbow would destroy padded cloth.

[Polycarpe]

The balance was good: heavily armored knights and sergeants could handle a beating while dishing it out nicely. The peasants made up for it by wearing down the foe with numbers...

Realistic medieval warfare in regards to morale, because it was common for the actual melee to be short, and end with one side fleeing to be cut down by cavalry etc.

The only flaw, and in my opinion, very BIG FLAW, was the cavalry charge. Cavalry do not plow through the enemy like hot knives through butter. Horses do not run head on into a wall. Watch Olympic horse jumping and you'll see, even without spiky weapons the horses don't like to run towards wall like objects (aka people in formation, fences, etc. ). The reason horsemen carried lances was 1.) to kill other knights in a joust-like scenario, and 2.) skewer enemies like kebabs from a distance upon charging to keep their horses and themselves out of danger. Then they'd draw swords and push in past the disorganized front rank which they'd just shoved their lances through. Of course, as always, the real danger of cavalry was mobility, and the fear factor. Even the heaviest armored horses wouldn't run headlong into something because it's just against instinct.

I find the best way to reflect cavalry realism is to reduce the mass of the mount to less than 3, preferably around 2 for a heavy horse, decrease the charge bonus of the spear (the higher the charge bonus the further they penetrate, the less realistic), and increase the regular damage of the lance to over ten. Make it armor piercing, and give it a spear bonus for affect against other cavalry, which, I see has already been done.

That's my long, and humble opinion. Thanks if you read it, and feel free to share your thoughts.

Edit: Sorry, couldn't help it, but aketons, or padded cloth, are generally quite ineffective against bodkins and broadheads fired from a longbow at any distance. Would you like to take an arrow in the gut, while wearing only weak wool stuffed with fluffy cotton? A man could rip that apart with his bare hands! Aketons were used mainly to absorb slashing blows by dulling the impact over a large surface. Piercing weapons will poke clean through them. Sources: I've been an archer for 5 years, participated in JO's, and have pierced harder armors with a 50 lb draw recurve. A 100 lb warbow would destroy padded cloth.

I'll take those suggestions into consideration (as most of the others). Really, it's balancing the cavalry charge that I have the most trouble but still I need to make tests over and over again prior releasing the patch.

[Wareg]

Cavalry do not plow through the enemy like hot knives through butter. Horses do not run head on into a wall. Watch Olympic horse jumping and you'll see, even without spiky weapons the horses don't like to run towards wall like objects (aka people in formation, fences, etc. ).

What about police horses charging into masses of people in street riots? I think It is rather matter of training. Olympic horse is trained to jump over objects, vicous medieval stallion was trained to fight.
however, I agree with you that full speed frontal charges against tightly packed formations were rare, cause they were associated with huge casualties, both in charged infantry but also in charging (very valuable!) cavalry. Charging against disorganized (by missile fire, prior fight or broken morale) infantry was better idea.

2.) skewer enemies like kebabs from a distance upon charging to keep their horses and themselves out of danger

I agree that in some cases cavalry could use lances in more static way, like spears, but lack of speed = much weaker attack. To make such kebab charge was necessary.
Your conception is to decrease effectiveness of cavalry charge against infantry, It is quite good solution. However, I think that best idea will be to make frontal charge against infantry in tight formation very effective but also very risky, with huge casualties also in cavalry. Such risky and uneconomical (expensive knights) to avoid It - by both player and AI.
Regarding padded armours - what kind of armours did you pierce with your bow, how deeply, what arrowheads did you use and in which range?

[that_one_guy]

I'll take those suggestions into consideration (as most of the others). Really, it's balancing the cavalry charge that I have the most trouble but still I need to make tests over and over again prior releasing the patch.

Holy crap I know, the cavalry is seemingly impossible to balance in a realistic fashion. I once found a mod with perfect cavalry: weaker, more realistic charge, but hard to kill in melee. I'll tell you if I remember which it was, and maybe you can download it and give the stats a looksie, but I doubt I will recall it.

I've had a couple years experience with modding, especially in terms of text editing like edu, mount, strat, model_db, etc. It's very time consuming stuff, and I fully understand the frustration of endless tweaks and tests. Good luck as always.

[that_one_guy]

What about police horses charging into masses of people in street riots? I think It is rather matter of training. Olympic horse is trained to jump over objects, vicous medieval stallion was trained to fight.
however, I agree with you that full speed frontal charges against tightly packed formations were rare, cause they were associated with huge casualties, both in charged infantry but also in charging (very valuable!) cavalry. Charging against disorganized (by missile fire, prior fight or broken morale) infantry was better idea.

I agree that in some cases cavalry could use lances in more static way, like spears, but lack of speed = much weaker attack. To make such kebab charge was necessary.
Your conception is to decrease effectiveness of cavalry charge against infantry, It is quite good solution. However, I think that best idea will be to make frontal charge against infantry in tight formation very effective but also very risky, with huge casualties also in cavalry. Such risky and uneconomical (expensive knights) to avoid It - by both player and AI.
Regarding padded armours - what kind of armours did you pierce with your bow, how deeply, what arrowheads did you use and in which range?

I agree with your statements about the cavalry charge. Yes, horses were valuable, and yes, training helps. I think yours is a good idea, but I just want to avoid the cavalry plowing through entire armies on the charge.

In regards to the archery... I used simple target arrows... they have a half inch tip, tapered to a fine point like an armor piercing bullet almost. I think broadheads or bodkins would do even greater damage. The cloth armor was something a friend of mine made, and was rough wool, maybe an eighth of an inch thick, stuffed with fluffy cotton, and then compressed by sewing it into rectangular segments, like so:

Here's a pic of the arrows I used:

I fired them from a range of 80 yds. They're very light, lack punch, but they can pierce very deeply at close range. I'd imagine an English/Welsh warbow doing significantly higher damage.

Anyway, sorry for the insanely long post, I'll try not to do this again... Regards.

EDIT: here are the links to the pics respectively in case the pic doesn't show, maybe that's just me.
1. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=gambe...9,r:4,s:0,i:95

2. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=easto...r:58,s:0,i:261

[Wareg]

Soft armour from your picture is aketon intended to be worn under mail, such armours were considerably thiner than padded jacks, intended to be independent armour. I'm also not sure if padded armours (with cotton) were as effective as those made of layers of linen.
My theory about high effectiveness of thick soft armours, also against arrows, is based on modern test (unfortunately I can't find It now), also I've found post in forum http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24220, where Rogerius of Apulia is mentioned, and his theory of effectiveness of double gambesons against Mongol's arrows.
With no doubt aketon under armour or gambeson over significaly increase protective properities of mail.
In decription of Halidon Hill battle there is also info that Scots were blinded and mainly wounded to unprotected faces by arrows, so probably torsos protected mainly by soft armours were at least a bit less vulnerable.
If you find some modern tests longbow vs soft armours (preferably thick, independent jacks) or connected primary sources, write

[that_one_guy]

Ah, yes, of course we used the wrong armor. That would mess things up. As for modern tests: There are several videos which you can see on youtube of high poundage longbows being fired at plate armor, mail, and leather. The mail and leather, even at great range, are pierced more than an inch through. The plate never suffers more than a small hole not even big enough for a man's pinky to fit in. So, while the combo of composite linen aketon over/under mail would be significantly advantageous for the wearer, at close range (40-80 yds) the arrows (bodkins in particular) would be highly effective en masse. As for the battle of Halidon Hill: As I recall, the Scots were slaughtered beneath a hail of arrows as they broke schiltrom formation in a desperate attack on the English, resulting in their annihilation. However, they used long spears, and these would help deflect the arrows, much like those of a phalanx. In the end, I'd say the arrows would mostly glance off or get stuck harmlessly in the fabric as the fell disorganized in a hail, while some hit their mark. At closer range, when the archers picked their marks, they were deadly. The main strength of the longbow was speed and range. The sheer amount of missiles would disorient, wound, and often kill even plate clad knights from a distance due to the sheer quantity and chance.

[Polycarpe]

Just wanted to say this week, I should finally have time to work on the unit balance and release a patch; consider it as Christmas gift.

[Emperor Hantscher]

Just wanted to say this week, I should finally have time to work on the unit balance and release a patch; consider it as Christmas gift.

Excellent news Polycarpe! Best of luck to you and the team. Merry Christmas aswell!