Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: RC 2.0 Update

  1. #41

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    Been reading 'Lionheart and Lackland: King Richard, King John and the Wars of Conquest'. It spends a lot of time on the 4th Crusade, and most usefully for our purposes on the movement from Acre to Jaffa. The Crusader column was continually harassed by archers, and though the horses were vulnerable, armored targets (mostly wearing heavy mail plus padding) are discussed in multiple examples as being largely immune to arrows, with many looking like porcupines from non-penetrating hits.

    Nothing new about that, and horse archer shots are obviously not as powerful as foot longbows, but it is a simple inductive exercise to think of those versus plate as being similarly ineffective.

    Regarding Agincourt, several names does not a theory make. There are plenty of vulnerable points in such early plate (plate + mail really), which says little about it's general vulnerability. There are always outliers on the S-curve.

    Impact energies from arrows max out at 70-80J AT CLOSE RANGE, and plate will typically withstand that, not to mention angle of impact considerations, underpadding, and the fact that arrow penetrations would often still enable a man to fight for the duration of a battle unless in the head or torso. An amusing example from the book is where one French noble at a parlay insults one of Richard's Welsh archers for his 'weird accent and manner of dress', whereupon the man promptly drew an arrow and shot him in the head at point blank range. Relatively unhurt, the Frenchman ran off to King Philip with the arrow sticking out of his skull, causing negotiations to break down with perhaps incalculable results for European and Middle Eastern history from that point onward
    Last edited by Point Blank; September 29, 2017 at 12:01 PM.

  2. #42

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    Regarding RC, generally for projectile impacts 14J roughly equates to one attack point, with armor following a similar model for defense value. RC2.0 comprehensively updates this for armors of better quality, such as that worn by Feudals and good-quality Late Professionals for example, as well as better metallurgy. Such improvements are available 10-20 years for those units prior to more widespread adoption, hence the 43 event-driven armor upgrades even though there are only 27 armor types. Possession of different areas, such as Northern Italy ('White Armor')' further modifies this. Later arrowheads and those of better quality receive +1 attack as well.

    This is also why some shooters such as Superior or better receive +1 or more attack, to represent their increased draw poundages as well as their ability to aim better, though that is handled somewhat by their increased accuracy value in descr_projectile. Bows are less accurate than crossbows for lower quality shooters, and more for higher quality ones. All projectile weapons have their own individual accuracy curves.

    I will post the completed RC2.0 Guide tonight. It wrings every last drop of tactical possibility from the M2TW engine. I tried some other TWs such as the Medieval TW mod for Atilla and, although they look very nice, the Warscape engine is far from ideal for representing medieval combat, though I do not know much about it.

    Will try to put together a change list, but it would be so extensive it might not be worth the time. There are also multiple updates to the strategic map overlayer, including some which directly affect the battlefield, notably traits
    Last edited by Point Blank; September 29, 2017 at 07:39 AM.

  3. #43

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    70 to 80 Joules at close range is a bit low.

    For this to happen arrows of different weights must leave the bow with velocities listed below:
    54 gram = between 50.92 and 54.44 m/s
    64 gram = between 46.77 and 50 m/s
    74 gram = between 43.50 and 46.5 m/s
    84 gram = between 40.82 and 43.64 m/s
    94 gram = between 38.59 and 41.26 m/s
    104 gram = between 36.69 and 39.22 m/s
    114 gram = between 35.04 and 37.46 m/s

    The numbers above are wrong, because we know the approximate velocity of these arrow-weights when shot out of a 150 lbs bow.

    54 gram = 64 m/s = 110.59 Joules
    64 gram = 60.4 m/s = 116.74 Joules
    74 gram = 58 m/s = 124.46 Joules
    84 gram = 55.4 m/s = 128.90 Joules
    94 gram = 53.2 m/s = 133.02 Joules
    104 gram = 52.3 m/s = 142.23 Joules
    114 gram = 51.6 m/s = 151.76 Joules

    80 Joules with a 64 gram arrow at close range is what you'd get with a good 90 lb bow, an average 100 lb bow or a poor 110 lb bow.

    An average 120 lb bow will give you approximately 54 m/s with a 64 gram arrow and 93.31 Joules.
    A good 120 lb bow will give you approximately 56 m/s with a 64 gram arrow and 100.35 Joules.
    But the important part, as demonstrated above, is that you can increase the weight of the arrow every time you increase the draw weight of the bow and you will have a projectile with more kinetic energy behind it. And this really starts to take off at around 140 lb. I'd wish I had a graph to show you with arrow weighs on the Y-axis and meters pr. second on the x-axis and all the different draw weights from 90 to 180 lb with increments of 10 in different colors and a corresponding chart of kinetic energies they generate. You'd be surprised at the difference once you get past 140 lb and start to look at arrows getting closer to a quarter-pound. It's not linear at all.

    At around 40 meters a 64 gram arrow leaving the bow at 56 m/s (100 joules) will drop down to approximately 80 Joules. This will defeat a 1.5 mm plate of wrought iron with a fracture toughness of 150 kJ/m2. It's an easy calculation.
    Mild steel have a fracture toughness of 235 kJ/m2 and 1 mm requires 55 Joules for penetration, according to Alan Williams, and he's one of the leading expert on armour in the world.
    150/235 = 0.64 <- this is the coefficient
    55*1.5^1.6*0.64 = 67.34 Joules
    Now you have 12.66 Joules left. That's not much, but it will hamper you. The arrow still moves at: square root ((12.66*2)/0.064) = 19.89 m/s
    A 150 lb bow on the other hand, will strike with around 96.74 Joules with this particular 64 gram arrow at 40 meters. This will leave 29.4 Joules after plate penetration and the arrow will still travel at 30.31 m/s.
    This is the usual explanation when you read in the chronologies that people died after being shot in the side of the head from the flanks while maintaining a tight formation, and otherwise, when struck elsewhere, they ended up being hampered and wounded. Now, imagine someone shooting a 114 gram plate cutter arrow with 150 Joules of energy point blank, and 130 joules of energy 40 meter out. 130 - 67.34 = 62.66 Joules left. That is a considerable strike anywhere on the body apart from the center of a thick breastplate. That's the kinetic energy you get with a one-handed 1.13 kg sledge-hammer at 10.6 m/s. And this is after plate penetration.

    Any normal person shooting once a week will be able to shoot a 120 lb bow within a year with the right technique. This is a well known fact longbow-archers have demonstrated numerous times over the years. In England men had to practice from an early age, and most of them would develop the muscles needed to shoot bows of considerable heavier weight than 120 lb. 150 lb to 160 lb was probably the norm.

    Arrows from bows in use by the Seljuks are usually around 35 grams. If you want to reach 62.34 Joules with a bow like this, the arrow has to travel at 59.68 m/s. That is a lot for a bow like this, taking into consideration the range and velocity of the arrow when it leaves the bow. If we take a look at the momentum when the kinetic energy is 62.34 Joules, it's 59.68 * 0.035 = 2.0888 N*s
    In comparison, the 114 gram arrow with 62.34 Joules left after plate penetration have a speed of 33.07 m/s. This will give you a momentum of 33.07 * 0.114 = 3.76998 N*s. That is considerably higher.
    The explanation is the arrow weight and the resulting momentum in combination with a gambeson with many more layers of linen in comparison to an arming doublet. I do not doubt the knights looked like porcupines and still continued to fight like nothing ever happened. Most of these arrows struck with 50 to 70 Joules and a momentum of 1.87 to 2.21 N*s. Longbow arrows in comparison struck with anything from 80, 100 and 150 Joules and a momentum of 3.2, 3.57 and 5.84 N*s, depending on arrow weigh (64 gram to 114 gram).

    Take a look at this.

    It's a 30 gram arrow from a 180 lb tartar bow. 258.3 ft/sec (78.29 m/s). Despite being the top bow it could only reach 92.95 Joules with this arrow. A bow for use on horseback would not usually exceed 120 lb in the majority of cases. The norm was probably around 90 lbs. A 120 lb bow would probably manage around 64 m/s with a 30 gram arrow and 61.44 Joules. A 90 lb bow probably no more than 60 m/s and 54 Joules, point blank.
    Last edited by Strategos Autokrator; September 29, 2017 at 05:46 PM.
    "Alea iacta est"

  4. #44

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    Real Combat 2.0 (RC Ultimate) attached.

    I will run through what the changes and updates mean in another post soon.

    EDIT: all mounts from destrier horse upward should be an additional +1 Heat Penalty.
    EDIT: wondering if a unit can be both Impetuous and Disciplined, since the latter is mostly utilised to determine response to morale shocks.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Point Blank; September 30, 2017 at 10:21 PM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    I will reply to SA's post above shortly

  6. #46

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    If a general's bodyguard unit have 8 men, that is 20 with huge units. Is it possible to make it so that this number will increased to, say, 30-40 if they receive titles such as, Chancellor or Duke of whatever?

    In what way are you planing to distribute special abilities such as spear wall? Any guide on this? The Voulgiers and Swiss mercenaries have spear wall but regular Halberd MAA does not, something I find to be odd.

    I always wanted to make the "pool of men" something several units share. For instance, if you can recruit one group of Dismounted Chivalric Knights, the group of Dismounted Noble Foot Knights disappears as eligible. I hate it when I have to play with my own "house rules." This way I can "choose" how to train them.
    "Alea iacta est"

  7. #47

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    The number of men in a Bodyguard will increase for titled nobles yes, the game does that automatically.

    Units such as Voulgier and Swiss Mercs are in a Phalanx, in game terms. Halberd MAA are not a Phalanx unit. Different weapon stats, spacing and animations. I am working on the EDU but updating 600 units with the new data takes a little time. Maybe a few units with Large Round Shields or bigger will have Shield Wall, but the updated x-radius and formation spacing values make it somewhat redundant.

    At the moment when new units, such as Noble Knights, that supercede old ones such as Chivalrics, become available the old ones do not receive any pool refills, though I think if there are still some in the pool they still show? I will have to check. It would be possible to more gradually phase out the old ones and phase in the new ones but logically that would then have to be done for all new-tech units. However, I can see a case for perhaps doing so with Feudals, agreed, that does make some sense (from the perspective of keeping accumulated armor upgrades and experience) though that would reduce new unit availability.
    Last edited by Point Blank; September 30, 2017 at 10:28 PM.

  8. #48

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    Latest export_descr_buildings file attached showing huge amount of changes, especially to armor upgrade system. Only a couple more minor changes to make to it, mostly regarding reducing replacement rate of some Late Professionals such as Famiglia Ducale and Tabardarriya to prevent spamming; these units are meant to be specially raised.

    I sent a message to Lusted at CA yesterday to see if he is still working for them. I have a couple of proposals.

    One thing I am sure everyone will enjoy, is that there are many, many new unit model and reskins. There is also a free faction slot. Any suggestions? It might be sensible to vary it based on era, because I very much want to do a 1370 campaign (my favorite period being Late). Maybe Early or High is Georgia, Late is Burgundy? I am a bit hesitant only because RC and RR are now so complex that adding a new faction is a lot of work.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 02, 2017 at 01:38 AM.

  9. #49

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    Pleased to see you're still plugging away at this

  10. #50

    Default Re: RC 2.0 Update

    I think you misunderstood me. I have no problems with, say feudal knights existing at the same time as chivalric knights. I always saw this as the upper nobility, i.e rich barons, bannerets, knights and esquires who could afford the new plate armour, whereas the feudal knights represent the landed gentry, such as poor esquires and gentlemen. When you have chivalric knights with the 1st armour upgrade this represent low carbon steel plate armour. From the samples we have from this time period (1395-1415) it is only 13 % medium carbon steel armour, 33 % low carbon steel armour and 54 % wrought iron armour. Earlier it's even worse so this has to be depicted somehow, and this is a good way to do it. General's bodyguard represent knights with medium carbon steel armour, chivalric knights represents low carbon steel armour and feudal knights represent 54 % wrought Iron plate armour with partial plate upgrade along with some of the chivalric knights without an upgrade. And these numbers are not something I am pulling out of my ass. This is from a peer reviewed academic article by Clifford Rogers on the battle of Agincourt.

    What I actually meant was that if you have dismounted chivalric knights and dismounted noble knights, they kind of represent the same pool of men. So if you have 1 unit available of both, pushing "train" on one of them should result in the fade-out of the other. Not permanently, just until the pool has been replenished and you are able to recruit a new unit. This way you are able to choose whether to train them with sword and shield or pollaxe. They kind of share the "pool" of men so to speak, so if you have one unit of 120 chivalric knights and 120 foot knights, you actually have only 120, not 240 men together.

    I suggest visible units with sword and shield, sword and mace, pike, halberd, pollaxe, and 2 units of mounted chivalric knights or 1 unite of feudal knights and 1 unit of chivalric knights, to share the same pool of men.

    Voulgiers should share pool with Seargent spearmen.

    In England the pool of Seargent spearmen should disappear in favor of Yeoman archers, and Spearmen and militia Spearmen should share pool with Longbowmen and disapear. Levy archers should disappear and Archers should increase.
    "Alea iacta est"

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

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