Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

Thread: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

  1. #1

    Default Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Okay, I finished reading (studying!) your unit statistics scheme/system on http://www.stainless-steel-mod.com/RR_RC_Guide_2.html and had a few questions.

    First, and foremost though, I am absolutely amazed at how - unlike the devs - you actually thought through and rationally schematized unit statistics. As such, it is a coherent and generally persuasive scheme that deserves much credit and emulation.

    Now to the questions (and I will go sequentially, from top to down as issues appear on that page, for ease of location):

    1. What does "HA" stand for when it is used, for example,"Skirmish HA are usually deployed on the wings"?

    2. Why do unit sizes differ according to eras?

    I suspect it may be because armies were smaller in earlier eras. If this is correct, is there not a better way to depict this (e.g. perhaps make it that it takes longer to recruit in those eras). I feel that changing unit sizes according to eras is inherently clunky and makes balancing more difficult needlessly.

    3. Why is 2H multiplier so "low"?

    Generally, most game systems I am familiar with gives 2H weapons greater than 25 percent damage bonus; common-sensically it appears that I can certainly apply greater than a mere 25 percent when I am striking a two-handed implement than one-handed.

    Is there an added factor particular to MTW2 combat resolution that I am missing?

    4. Why is horse(s) "mass" so "low"?

    Perhaps I misunderstand what "mass" means in this context, but I assume it is similar to "weight," and generally infantry units hover around 1.0. So assuming a normal male of middle ages weighed around 140-170 pounds (I am guessing, but it's a reasonable guess), could the largest destriers really only top at around 700 pounds?

    Again, I suspect that I am missing a crucial consideration, so please enlighten me.

    5. Here I am not so confident, as my knowledge of medieval/Renaissance gunpowder weapon is more or less limited to their Asian manifestations, but upon first glance, it looks like gunpowder weapon range relative to non-gunpowder (except javelin) range is too high.

    But I am not going to argue this vigorously, given both 1) my own ignorance of the subject, and 2) the complexity of determining "effective" range, among others. Still, I'd be interested to know what sources you've looked at for the range of European early gunpowder weapons.

    6. I am not so clear what the "Master Armor Table" means at all.

    Since this is a more or less a open-ended question, it may be best to simply refer me to a pre-existing guide or explanation, if it exists. In particular, given that there are more categories of armor here (27?!) than vanilla, I am unclear on whether a theoretically "naked" unit can actually go through all these armor levels, or whether the armor table merely depicts what a given unit is wearing and what armor level that unit is given in its un-upgraded state.

    7. Finally, while this is not an RC specific question, I have hitherto been unable to find any explanation of how combat is calculated/resolved in Total War games. That is, what exactly happens when a unit attacks another, and how do their stats interact?

    I thought I would ask here, since if anyone knows, people on this forum ought!

    Thanks much in advance.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Some good questions, I will reply shortly as there are quite a few.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    1. Horsearcher.

    2. But then you won't have larger armies later on as happened historically. The Byzantine units should probably be made smaller, though.

    3. 1H sword = 4 or 5. 2H sword = 8. What's the problem?

    4. The numbers don't matter. The results do. The engine isn't perfect, so you can't go only by what the numbers should be. You have to run cavalry into infantry and change the masses until you get an accurate replica of what happened historically.

    5. Some of the firearms in the game become available only in the 16th and 17th centuries, by which point they had improved substantially from hand-gonnes. Also, everything has to be balanced in the end.

    6. A unit can only have three armour upgrades (gold shield). That table is just to let you know how the stats of each unit are determined.

    7. I don't think anyone fully knows that.

  4. #4
    Mihajlo's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Serbia, Nis
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    k/t answers all

    As for combat, what I have seen so far is that attack value gives chance for kill blow. Even attack 1 have a chance to kill armor 20. That is something it cant be changed. As you see levy archer with att 1 can kill knight in a full plate (small chance, but will still kill few units). Nothing we can do there.

    On the other side what I have found so far is that defense value is very important to melee fight, +morale. PB you should consider to give 20% more on defense value to units: it will prolong battles thus making morale more important and will balance ap units further more as ap will be "countered" with more defense. I will test this soon enough I hope...

    as for ERE, well I love to have close to history as possible, but game play and balance go first. Their units are very OP, also high in numbers. Their generals and scholarii have 22 armor in 1100 meaning that in next 200+years there is nothing to even try to counter them. Im suggesting you give them -1 penalty on attack duo multi layer (same goes to other double/triple armor layer units, ie the ones that have full value of 2 or more armors). In current state their heat penalty and speed do very little, they are still almost impossible to kill until mass production of halberds... same goes to their foot units-high in numbers, awesome in stats.

    On a side note, how come so many units have terrain penalty in negative values, ie -2-1-3-4, so it means no matter where this unit fights it will have less attack. Would every unit have at least one positive value or 0?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Some good questions, I will reply shortly as there are quite a few.
    Great; looking forward to it.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    2. But then you won't have larger armies later on as happened historically. The Byzantine units should probably be made smaller, though.
    But my point is that you can have larger armies later on simply because your economy is larger anyways; and as I said, you can increase it even further by reducing the number of turns between unit availability. I don't see the need to make individual units within stacks larger as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post


    3. 1H sword = 4 or 5. 2H sword = 8. What's the problem?
    I hadn't compared individual unit stats, so I thought you'd have (if) 1 H sword = 4 (then) 2H sword 5? Or something else other than the 25 percent increase occurs?

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    1. Horsearcher.

    4. The numbers don't matter. The results do. The engine isn't perfect, so you can't go only by what the numbers should be. You have to run cavalry into infantry and change the masses until you get an accurate replica of what happened historically.

    7. I don't think anyone fully knows that.
    Fair enough; I accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post

    5. Some of the firearms in the game become available only in the 16th and 17th centuries, by which point they had improved substantially from hand-gonnes. Also, everything has to be balanced in the end.
    17th century? When does this game end? I expected it to be around 1492 - when America is discovered?

    At any rate, I've read a lot about Portuguese arquebuses that the Japanese used during the Imjin War (1592-1599, I think), and they were fairly up-to-date and yet pretty pathetic in range and easily out-distanced by the weakest bows by several folds. The numbers I see here no way reflects that (albeit there are variable claims on "effective range").

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post

    6. A unit can only have three armour upgrades (gold shield). That table is just to let you know how the stats of each unit are determined.
    Ah, ok. I thought SS modders somehow figured out how to activate armor upgrades an infinite number of times. (I am senile and barely remember things from yesterday, but I thought recalled one thread where someone talked about how armor upgrades can be granted more than the 3 times permitted in the vanilla campaign.)


    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post

    7. I don't think anyone fully knows that.
    Okay, then a partial version - pretty, please?

    Among other things, I mainly want to know how much I can fiddle with attack/defense stats without completely breaking balance. For instance, I plan on giving a slight "horse rider survival boost" - something like 3 armor across the board. Now, this gives Lancers 34. Would this then only make Lancers marginally more survivable since their armor is already very high? Or will hit put them above a certain threshhold after which they cannot be damaged at all?

    Thanks so much for your responses.
    Last edited by lampros69; January 14, 2015 at 07:25 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihajlo View Post

    As for combat, what I have seen so far is that attack value gives chance for kill blow. Even attack 1 have a chance to kill armor 20. That is something it cant be changed. As you see levy archer with att 1 can kill knight in a full plate (small chance, but will still kill few units). Nothing we can do there.
    I suppose it is realistic; a levy archer may accidentally hit the knight in the face, when the knight takes off his helmet to scratch his lice-infested hair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihajlo View Post
    as for ERE, well I love to have close to history as possible, but game play and balance go first. Their units are very OP, also high in numbers. Their generals and scholarii have 22 armor in 1100 meaning that in next 200+years there is nothing to even try to counter them. Im suggesting you give them -1 penalty on attack duo multi layer (same goes to other double/triple armor layer units, ie the ones that have full value of 2 or more armors). In current state their heat penalty and speed do very little, they are still almost impossible to kill until mass production of halberds... same goes to their foot units-high in numbers, awesome in stats.
    Huh? What's ERE?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Oh, I left out arguably the most important question of all:

    How was unit cost determined? I'd like to have a rough idea, since I am planning on making some modifications to your default stats (e.g. cavalry get +2 or 3 across-the-board armor increase but lose about half of their manpower).

  9. #9

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    1. Horsearcher.

    2. But then you won't have larger armies later on as happened historically. The Byzantine units should probably be made smaller, though.

    Right. Also, the unit sizes do not explicitly depend on the era. They depend on the unit type. The distribution of unit types varies by both time, location and faction.

    3. 1H sword = 4 or 5. 2H sword = 8. What's the problem?

    And as usual the stats are tweaked to reflect the anims. Some further changes to both in 2.0. As for the '+25%', are you referring to the 2H footmen mass value multiplier?

    4. The numbers don't matter. The results do. The engine isn't perfect, so you can't go only by what the numbers should be. You have to run cavalry into infantry and change the masses until you get an accurate replica of what happened historically.

    Right, giving mounts a mass value linearly related to their greater weight in real life does not work at all. Same applies to missile impact mass.

    5. Some of the firearms in the game become available only in the 16th and 17th centuries, by which point they had improved substantially from hand-gonnes. Also, everything has to be balanced in the end.

    Also most people are not aware that, in contrast on later eras when rate of fire gained prominence, earlier firearms often had a much tighter fit between ball and barrel so longer range and better accuracy at the cost of reload time. Powder composition also evolved a great deal, corned powder etc. There were very very long discussions to arrive at present values. Range is approximately between effective and maximum range etc. Attack values needed to be increased to account for shock effect of high velocity hits, animation changes etc.

    6. A unit can only have three armour upgrades (gold shield). That table is just to let you know how the stats of each unit are determined.

    7. I don't think anyone fully knows that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihajlo View Post
    k/t answers all

    As for combat, what I have seen so far is that attack value gives chance for kill blow. Even attack 1 have a chance to kill armor 20. That is something it cant be changed. As you see levy archer with att 1 can kill knight in a full plate (small chance, but will still kill few units). Nothing we can do there.

    Right, the attack vs armor curve is too flat, it should be a lot steeper but is hardcoded.

    I think the attack steps are (1) Does it hit? (2) Does it penetrate? (3) Does it kill?
    These steps are most likely combined in many cases to conserve processor resources.

    Also, when an attack hits and does not penetrate armor (even armor 0) then the target is 'knocked back' by the impact. If the attack penetrates armor but does not kill (by observation kill chance is pretty much 40% or so after penetration or however that is represented) the target gets bloodstains.


    On the other side what I have found so far is that defense value is very important to melee fight, +morale. PB you should consider to give 20% more on defense value to units: it will prolong battles thus making morale more important and will balance ap units further more as ap will be "countered" with more defense. I will test this soon enough I hope...

    Done in RC2.0

    as for ERE, well I love to have close to history as possible, but game play and balance go first. Their units are very OP, also high in numbers. Their generals and scholarii have 22 armor in 1100 meaning that in next 200+years there is nothing to even try to counter them. Im suggesting you give them -1 penalty on attack duo multi layer (same goes to other double/triple armor layer units, ie the ones that have full value of 2 or more armors). In current state their heat penalty and speed do very little, they are still almost impossible to kill until mass production of halberds... same goes to their foot units-high in numbers, awesome in stats.

    RC2.0 for the generals I agree the foot units are too dominant, will take a look.

    On a side note, how come so many units have terrain penalty in negative values, ie -2-1-3-4, so it means no matter where this unit fights it will have less attack. Would every unit have at least one positive value or 0?
    The terrain modifiers refer to scrub, sand, forest, snow so not 'flat' terrain etc.
    Last edited by Point Blank; January 14, 2015 at 08:08 AM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by lampros69 View Post
    Oh, I left out arguably the most important question of all:

    How was unit cost determined? I'd like to have a rough idea, since I am planning on making some modifications to your default stats (e.g. cavalry get +2 or 3 across-the-board armor increase but lose about half of their manpower).
    I'll hunt around and see if I can find the cost algorithm.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by lampros69 View Post
    But my point is that you can have larger armies later on simply because your economy is larger anyways; and as I said, you can increase it even further by reducing the number of turns between unit availability. I don't see the need to make individual units within stacks larger as well.

    Remember the 20 unit army size limit And also unit frontage/depth.

    I hadn't compared individual unit stats, so I thought you'd have (if) 1 H sword = 4 (then) 2H sword 5? Or something else other than the 25 percent increase occurs?

    Have a look at the guide.

    Fair enough; I accept.


    17th century? When does this game end? I expected it to be around 1492 - when America is discovered?

    Late 16th century. Also maybe have a look at the 'For King Or Country' mod, English Civil War. Very very good and has RC.

    At any rate, I've read a lot about Portuguese arquebuses that the Japanese used during the Imjin War (1592-1599, I think), and they were fairly up-to-date and yet pretty pathetic in range and easily out-distanced by the weakest bows by several folds. The numbers I see here no way reflects that (albeit there are variable claims on "effective range").

    Early Arquebus has range in-game of 70-80m I think it is (shorter than any foot bow, often *far* shorter), poor accuracy and a slow reload. Have a look at firearm unit costs vs archer costs too.

    Ah, ok. I thought SS modders somehow figured out how to activate armor upgrades an infinite number of times. (I am senile and barely remember things from yesterday, but I thought recalled one thread where someone talked about how armor upgrades can be granted more than the 3 times permitted in the vanilla campaign.)


    Okay, then a partial version - pretty, please?

    Among other things, I mainly want to know how much I can fiddle with attack/defense stats without completely breaking balance. For instance, I plan on giving a slight "horse rider survival boost" - something like 3 armor across the board. Now, this gives Lancers 34. Would this then only make Lancers marginally more survivable since their armor is already very high? Or will hit put them above a certain threshhold after which they cannot be damaged at all?

    It will be an incremental change due to hardcoded too-flat attack vs armor curve.

    Thanks so much for your responses.
    Last edited by Point Blank; January 14, 2015 at 08:41 AM.

  12. #12
    Mihajlo's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Serbia, Nis
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by lampros69 View Post
    Huh? What's ERE?
    It is East Roman Empire, aka Byzantine Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    I'll hunt around and see if I can find the cost algorithm.
    well you can look here, k/t put some great ideas on this matter:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post11486208

    also this might be also point of your interest, Im also agree on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    In the current iteration of RC, Superior units get +1 Attack and +2 Defense, Elite units get +3 Attack and +3 Defense, Exceptional units get +4 Attack and +4 Defense. What if Elite units got +2 Attack and +4 Defense while Exceptional units got +3 Attack and +5 Defense? This would mean their casualties would be lower, which would be expected from high quality units, and their attack will be increased by experience chevrons anyway, an increase which this stat reassignment better accounts for. Too bad CA decided to be stupid and remove the Defense increase from experience in Kingdoms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    On the other side what I have found so far is that defense value is very important to melee fight, +morale. PB you should consider to give 20% more on defense value to units: it will prolong battles thus making morale more important and will balance ap units further more as ap will be "countered" with more defense. I will test this soon enough I hope...

    Done in RC2.0
    hmm I was looking into RC2.0 (last file you posted) and last EDU from RC as well, Im thinking to rise defense more, however I dont know, yet, how big impact animations have, so we will have to wait for your release, and that leads me to -> what a hell are you doing here?? go and finish RC 2.0!!

  13. #13

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Great I'll check out that thread thanks

    'In the current iteration of RC, Superior units get +1 Attack and +2 Defense, Elite units get +3 Attack and +3 Defense, Exceptional units get +4 Attack and +4 Defense. What if Elite units got +2 Attack and +4 Defense while Exceptional units got +3 Attack and +5 Defense? This would mean their casualties would be lower, which would be expected from high quality units, and their attack will be increased by experience chevrons anyway, an increase which this stat reassignment better accounts for. Too bad CA decided to be stupid and remove the Defense increase from experience in Kingdoms.'

    A quick explanation: the reason that there is a +2 attack and +1 defense increment between Superior and Elite units comes down to combat psychology. 'Elite' units can be shown in many cases to differ from lower (though still 'professional' perhaps) quality troops very much in their aggressive mindset and attitude to combat. Consider also that +1 attack is actually a more useful bonus than +1 defense because attack value is applied from all angles but defense is facing-dependent.

    Note that in RC2.0 Elite units also get additional bonuses over Superior units in armor and weapons.

    Increasing the defense of such units more would also have implications for heat/stamina.

    I am reluctant to increase defense values beyond this to a point where it strongly overshadows the armor stat. 'Defense' would be limited in a close-packed formation. It also has a too-large effect vs cavalry charges.

    Yeah I should be modding I know

  14. #14

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    I'll hunt around and see if I can find the cost algorithm.
    Thanks; my unit modding will be at the margins with the exception of changing manpower in the unit though - and that can be calculated rather easily. So if you are busy with getting version 2 out ASAP, then prioritize your things first!

    As for your glosses on k/t's responses, I can accept most of your explanations except on item #2 regarding manpower. You do have a point about army space constraints, but then you are not limited to a single stack. More stacks, and not just more units within individual stacks, can reflect armies being bigger in later eras.

    In essence, just think trying to get individual (at least non-cavalry) units as large as possible in general is a better way for multiple reasons, both aesthetic and game-play. To begin with, obviously it looks aesthetically much better to have, say, 254 men infantry units than 122 men units. Further, it would make balancing a bit easier if the default infantry manpower is max. For instance, it makes easier to balance heavy cavalry v. infantry without having to reduce Lancers to 12 men per unit or something outrageous; likewise, it also makes it easier to balance elite units v. rabble units without having to make elite units essentially a few heroic dudes rather than a proper military unit. Finally, though this is just a personal preference, larger unit size makes for longer battles, which is both realistic and enjoyable.

    But again, the whole point of modding is to individually tailor stuff at the user-end; I doubt even great modders like you expect everyone to take your mods "as is" and not put personal touches on things. And in this respect, your base mod is an amazingly wrought canvass on which I can put my own finishing touches. For this - I am eternally thankful.

    P.S. I thought about the manpower issue more, and I think my final solution will be primarily centered upon your unit tier designation: That is, anything below "average" gets max manpower; then perhaps manpower is reduced according to tier level incrementally. But there will be deviations: Pike/spear will likely be "max" regardless since they require numbers; and cavalry will have dramatically reduced numbers regardless of tier (in addition to balance, they become more maneuverable and thus usable in smaller numbers).
    Last edited by lampros69; January 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    That is indeed a very thoughtful scheme; thank you for referring me to it.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

    Note that in RC2.0 Elite units also get additional bonuses over Superior units in armor and weapons.


    Wonderful - I love more steep discrimination between unit tiers. Any chance I can download the new numbers right now?

  17. #17

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    You make a good point with the aggressive mindset and attitude towards combat, but even after skewing the quality bonuses towards defense like I have done in my sub-mods, Elite and Exceptional soldiers still have a higher bonus to attack than Superior troops, and, more importantly, they lose fewer men when fighting lower quality troops.

    I also changed the bonuses for spearmen from 1,1 ; 2,2 ; 3,3 to 0,2 ; 1,3 ; 2,4.

    Overall, I am very happy with the changes. Battles last longer this way too.

    Perhaps the more aggressive tactics of Elite and Exceptional soldiers could be depicted through the use of Aggressive animations.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by lampros69 View Post
    Wonderful - I love more steep discrimination between unit tiers. Any chance I can download the new numbers right now?
    Yes the steeper discrimination was the intention. I'll post the EDU(s) from my other PC today, they are not quite done though. There are still unit slots available too. Have a unit or 2 I'll add.

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    You make a good point with the aggressive mindset and attitude towards combat, but even after skewing the quality bonuses towards defense like I have done in my sub-mods, Elite and Exceptional soldiers still have a higher bonus to attack than Superior troops, and, more importantly, they lose fewer men when fighting lower quality troops.

    I also changed the bonuses for spearmen from 1,1 ; 2,2 ; 3,3 to 0,2 ; 1,3 ; 2,4.

    Overall, I am very happy with the changes. Battles last longer this way too.

    Perhaps the more aggressive tactics of Elite and Exceptional soldiers could be depicted through the use of Aggressive animations.
    Fair enough. There is no 'right' way

    I tested more aggressive anims for unit types that don't have them and they don't give a good result at times - pushing into enemy formations, especially when outnumbered, can result in being swarmed.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Latest EDU. Note WIP, especially after Lamtuna Spearmen, axes AP, and some non-compliance with 2.0 Guide for 2H weapons.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  20. #20

    Default Re: Questions regarding the RC unit statistics scheme/system

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Latest EDU. Note WIP, especially after Lamtuna Spearmen, axes AP, and some non-compliance with 2.0 Guide for 2H weapons.
    Awesome - will take a look.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •