Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Some feedback

  1. #1

    Default Some feedback

    Hello everyone!

    I'm playing this mod probably from the first release but I must say that 2.4 has the worst balance since the first release. I registered to the forum just give some feedback. Hope you listen

    First, units are historically totally unbalanced, some factions can make no money at all etc. etc.

    For example;

    the best Rum foot soldier is Ghazi Swordsmen have 9 normal attack yet, a 2nd tier crusader infantry have 10 AP attack.

    Zengid generals are all ready to revolt against you. They have no loyalty. I lost couple really good armies because of lack of loyatly of generals. I started a new game as Zengids and decided to use Emir Zengi (heir) I sent him to Mosul but in the very first turn he left the castle he rebelled. Also making money as Zengids is almost impossible. Historically they have really rich cities.

    All crusaders have ridicilous attack and defense. It's IMPOSSIBLE to kill dismounted crusader knights from front in a melee fight. Also it's really hard to understand why templar knights have bonus vs cav. I think Bonus vs Cav must be only for lance cavs like Faris, Ghaznavid Cav etc.

    All christian factions' general's bodyguards -without exception- have very good stamina yet Rums, Ayyubids, Azeris/Zengids etc. have just good stamina and that effects their armies seriously.

    Uyunid -and afaik, Yemeni- general's bg and some units have ridiculous armor stats.

    Another thing is crusaders have chain mail armor and you give them 9 armor yet -let's say- Tawashi (there are more examples actually) have mail + scale but have same 9 armor. That just doesn't make any sense. A chain mail armor must be max 7 not 9.

    Since you guys removed most effective units of Rums, they became really weak. They need some buff, IMHO.

    Also, about AI, georgia and armenia literally spreading like virus. Their neighbors have no chance at all. I tried Azeri Atabeg to face georgians and they sending 6 ranked full stack armies each turn. like dismounted monaspa swords, dismounted monaspa horse archers etc.

    Volga Bulgars are extremely weak. Rus' are totally OP. their elite knights more than OP actually. best armor, best charge, best melee attack + 65 men. It's not possible for any cav to defeat russian knights which is historically incorrect, in this time frame, russians weren't that powerful.

    Also, no javelin cav have AP shoot except armenian aspet. Why? what makes them different? Either give AP to all javelin units or remove ap from aspet as well.

    There are some "only sword" cavs like Agulani, Zengid Fursan and Shirvani cav. I think their melee attack must be really high and Agulani's armor must be better.

    Tbh, it's really sad to play this mod with this balance.

    I hope my post helps at least a little bit to improve balance.

    Best regards.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Some feedback

    There should be an upcoming patch. But that said Byzantine Boy is a newly wed and he's also the only guy working on it.

    Anyway, are you playing with any submods? Their is a balance mod that is posted in the submod forum, which had some buffs and nerfs, although I couldn't tell you which. Anyway, pass these suggestions on to Prince of Judah and he'll think about putting them in the balance mod.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Thx for your feedback.

    It is very important to have it and help us to improve the balance for the coming patch.
    Most of the unit you mentions had their stats from previous BC 2.3 unmodified (bodyguards, Agulani, etc...)
    Stat map balance between new factions (Volga Bulgar, Yemen, etc...) is now mostly fixed.

    Prince of Judah is currently working on balance, try his submod. Do not hesitate to give us feedback on his version or to directly help us by providing your own "balanced" EDU. We could either integrate one or another in the next patch.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Glad to see you guys open for help

    I can try to make a balance but if you really care to use it. Because it's going to take really much time to build new 'descr unit' or maybe we can work together with PoJ? or whoever making unit balance.

    Best regards.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Some feedback

    I am very serious!

    Of course, any intergrated modification in the coming patch will need to stay in the "new spirit" of the current BC 2.4, so most changes should stay minor and focuses on balance, respecting previous choices concerning unit prices and soldier numbers.
    It is also important to understand that everybody has his subjective viewpoint on the question, and what you would find balanced isn't for somebody else. This is the reason why it is necessary a collective/concertative task.

    If you want:

    1/ Try and make repeated tests with PoJ version, and give feedback.
    2/ You can continue to make feedback on the main 2.4, and send me by pm detailed modifications propositions and with explanations.
    3/ If PoJ agreed you can join him in his submod.
    4/ You can either try to work on you own submod.

    Whatever your choice, any feedback and submodding work is interesting toward BC future.

  6. #6
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: Some feedback

    I've made a lot of unpublished changes to TBM which addresses these problems. They are unpublished because they are for the next patch.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Speaking of the Zengids I noticed some of their bodyguard units (who act are generals/governors) have "Unit description to be added later". There was some other unit that was a spearman but had a description as cavalry. I can take a look at these very small details if you wish?

    As Grey Falcon mentioned are the Zengid generals all supposed to have such low loyalty stats? (Incidentally all of the starting generals bar maybe the leader had ratings of 2/10 or less in command, piety, etc). Also is the faction built to have a tough starting economic position?


    Enjoying a refreshingly different campaign with them, on a bit of loot and expand to earn the dhinars ;P Great musical score for them too.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Some feedback

    We started working with PoJ and I believe it's going to be really good balanced. Hope everyone enjoys it

  9. #9

  10. #10

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Thank you BB!

  11. #11

    Default Re: Some feedback

    While we are on the subject of the edu, Karluk archers (ckara archers) cost 900 to recruit and are in almost every respect superior to dismounted Iranian archers (levy_pe_archers) who cost 1000. Iranian archers have a mass of 0.6 compared to 0.75 for the Karluk, lower stat_mental by 1 point, low training as opposed to normal, less defense, lower range, worse type of arrow, the only thing that is better is a slightly better sword (6 vs 4) which they may never need to use. Is there a reason?

  12. #12

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey of Villehardouin View Post
    While we are on the subject of the edu, Karluk archers (ckara archers) cost 900 to recruit and are in almost every respect superior to dismounted Iranian archers (levy_pe_archers) who cost 1000. Iranian archers have a mass of 0.6 compared to 0.75 for the Karluk, lower stat_mental by 1 point, low training as opposed to normal, less defense, lower range, worse type of arrow, the only thing that is better is a slightly better sword (6 vs 4) which they may never need to use. Is there a reason?
    1/ Yes. Karluk archers were not expected to be AOR units (which costs something like 10% more). I planned them to be KK roster. But, then I change my mind but forgot to change the price.

    2/ In general, price is not always directly tied to stats. In history, some armies were sometimes very expansive but not much effective than another.
    The new cost calculation is mostly based on equipment (archers? mounted? armours?) and kind of troups (elite? militia? tribal?) which affect the price.

  13. #13
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Recruitment prices will probably be the last thing Grey Falcon and I finish. Upkeep is better now and more manageable.

    EDIT:
    Recruitment prices will reflect several factors. But I'm not looking for realistic prices (like finding a historical text which says a chainmail shirt costs X), so much as good balance. I'll see what happens with TBM. Unit stats aren't strictly based on what a unit's graphical appearance (I don't have the skill to change it.) Barded horses are considered unarmored, and armored horses are considered to be lightly armored, unless the unit was historically a cataphract type unit.
    Last edited by Prince of Judah; February 23, 2016 at 12:34 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Some feedback

    See this: http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

    Calculation of costs is not straightforward because armies were not professional in the modern sense. Byzantines, for example, had a system of Pronoia: land grants to soldiers, who then used the income from the land to equip and support themselves while on duty. One might argue they should cost nothing except some expensive land purchase by the state to allow more units of these types to recruited. Among the soldiers of Islamic armies were (a) mercenaries, (b) those from tribes or nations bound by treaty, (c) true soldiers of fortune who made a living from selling booty and captives, more like merchants and (d) Mamluk/Janissary-type slaves who were raised from children to fight for their lords. Every faction would have had its peculiarities and it could be an enormous and confusing task to try to model all the various systems to be historically correct. I understand Byzantineboy made the tribal units 10% more expensive and probably the mercenary units, too, but the costs of the units for custom battles should be independent of these 10% modifiers.

    Now, as a simple basic historically kosher way of costing units, there are records on the New Model Army from around 1648 where an infantryman was paid a few shillings per month. A cavalryman was paid about one and a half pounds per month and an additional 1 pound for his horse (per month). In addition, the soldiers were given helmets, muskets or pikes, a basic sword and clothing, which costed a total of a couple of pounds per infantryman. These were one-time upfront costs but there were additional recurrent costs for lead shot (bows for archers in our case) depending on how much action the men saw. I had the exact costs somewhere in an old computer but they are not too important as we are dealing with an earlier period here. A pound (20 shillings) in 1630 was worth about 10 florins.

    Medieval records are scarce. An English knight’s horse would have costed about 3-5 pounds in the 14th C, his armour several times that and there were recurrent costs for cleaning the armour from rust.

    Another question is how much buildings (barracks, markets, etc) costed by comparison. In England a very basic craftsman’s workshop costed about 10-15 pounds. Houses costed in the tens of pounds. How much could a merchant make? A swordsmith could make about 24 shillings (12 florins or so) in a month. Of course there were not just a few merchants per faction. In the end what matters is balance. The current balance for the economy works well. The inflated resource incomes are a bit unusual, but the overall balance is fine. I have no upkeep issues myself. If you are re-costing the units, please ensure costs match the worth of units. That is an art in itself.

    Low stats for the human's player's generals are good by the way. Two stars for a starting general is plenty. The only actual general is the human player. No need to change anything in that direction.

  15. #15
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Stack spam in general was one of this mods greatest weaknesses. It's disconcerting to see that it's still a game breaker after waiting almost 2 years to play again. I had a frankenstein of submods to deal with it (RBBR comes to mind). Please for the love of [insert deity] impose strict recruiting methods and limits to produce realistic army numbers. High quality mods of BC's caliber, with intelligent dev teams should strive for decisive battles, not constant spam wars. Kids who like fighting 3 battles every turn don't play BC.

  16. #16
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Yes the stack spam is bad. But small factions get easily crushed without low upkeep costs. There are no CK II styled mechanics which can address this. I can't arbitrarily keep lower costs only for small factions either since it would be unfair and would exponentially make the game easier for the player who captures enough territory.

    I'll have to research how RR put on recruitment limits, which is by far the best option.
    Last edited by Prince of Judah; February 24, 2016 at 01:24 PM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Some feedback

    Quote Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
    Stack spam in general was one of this mods greatest weaknesses. It's disconcerting to see that it's still a game breaker after waiting almost 2 years to play again. I had a frankenstein of submods to deal with it (RBBR comes to mind). Please for the love of [insert deity] impose strict recruiting methods and limits to produce realistic army numbers. High quality mods of BC's caliber, with intelligent dev teams should strive for decisive battles, not constant spam wars. Kids who like fighting 3 battles every turn don't play BC.
    The stack spam was worse in BC2.3 and the mod was overall harder. The best way to reduce stack spam is by playing on easy difficulty, which I believe should now reflect the fact that easy means easy.

    The only essential difference between difficulty levels is the money the AI gets and the difficulty only increases if the AI uses that money to make armies to attack the human player. Perhaps there is an illusion that at higher difficulty there are many things that become difficult like availability of units or buildings or something like that but no. Simply the AI gets more money. In addition, diplomacy can sometimes be more difficult (depending on how it has been coded) and the AI can have a lower threshold at attacking the human player, so aggressiveness can be coded. But stack spam, if you want to call it that, is the main thing that can change between difficulty levels.

    Edit: Grey Falcon, at what level did you play your Zengid campaign? Was it on normal or what? I would like to have a look at it.
    Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; February 26, 2016 at 09:34 AM.

Posting Permissions

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