Official Unit Gameplay Balance Thread

[lion8000]

Yes melee cav needs some buffs, but it will be ridiculous if they make heavy damage to knights.

[Bobi_TWR]

well if you remember shogun 2,Yari cav was rly good vs cav and Katana cav was rly good vs inf,maybe same could happen in this mod.

[Blak]

well if you remember shogun 2,Yari cav was rly good vs cav and Katana cav was rly good vs inf,maybe same could happen in this mod.

That sounds like a good idea, it would deffinately add some more strategic feeling to the mod. But I hope they keep it more realistic than arcady

[Kjertesvein]

1. 10/01/17


2. The unit(s) that is to be changed, and it's faction(s). All units which have either Coats of Plate, Brigantine and Full Plate.


3. What is the proposed change to the unit(s)? Add Missile Block Chance.


4. Explain why the change of the unit will benefit and improve gameplay. Plate armour replaced the need for shields as a primary protection in pitched battles against light projectiles. At around 1340s, we begin to see knightly effigies drop their knightly shield in favor of two handed weapons, which is reflected in Medieval armouries. This is because their body armour consists of domed sheets of steel which deflect arrows. When you have sheets of steel over your body, the need for a shield is no longer a must-have at all occasions, but instead become situational (pavises in sieges, shields on horseback, etc.).


Click image for sources.

Since this is a new change, I propose that the units receive similar Missile Block Chance stats to normal shields. One idea is to have Early Coats of plate may have similar value to a standard heater shield, while late 15th century full plate is closer to 'Pavise' rating. I'm flexible and open to suggestions on what numbers to use. Hopefully nothing fancy or out-of-this-world.

To compensate for the added Missile Block Chance, slightly lower health or armour rating of the unit.

Conclusion. Men-at-Arms should be able to operate as a front line unit, which they historically were, without being more concerned with arrows than any other front line unit. With a given % of Missile Block Chance, the armoured units should hopefully be better at deflecting light missiles from the front. The unit will be more vulnerable from the back, which is consistent with how most plate armour functioned.

5. Describe the situation. Describe the environment settings if possible. How can somebody else besides you recreate the scenario that resulted in your appeal to change the unit(s)? If you use a Full plate Men-at-Arms with pollarms, one of the most elite units in the game, you're actually susceptible to arrows from a peasant. That's not appropriate.

~Wille

[You_Guess_Who]

I want to adress some of the reports:

1. Javelins

Yes, it'll be harder-hitting, the normal damage doubled, and AP damage multiplied by factor of 6 (it was previously miniscule, mind you). Seems it was previously based on the wrong type of vanilla projectile stats.
These strengthened javelins are already in the dev testing version pack.

2. Plate Armour Missile Block Chance.

There's debate on how to apply it - whether we apply all-around stat overhaul or practical adaptation of shield missile block chance. If it only applies to missile attack from the front, would that be satisfactory enough?

3. Melee Cav effectivity

Yes, would be increased. It was found out that the spears used by melee cav did not have bonus vs. cav, and now have been adressed. The bonus amount are about 3/4-1/2 of the normal spear damage, depending on the spear type. Already in dev testing version pack.

Shock cav actually used swords as their melee weapon from the start, its only on their unit's charge stat they have tremendous bonus.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also would add in more unit stat info that was previously hidden; like missile block percentage, bonus vs. cav, reload skill, accuracy skill, etc. The problem is the info box can only contain so much (about 10, 12 if forced to go out of the box a bit), so we have to think on which stats should be shown for a particular type of unit.

This may helps to identify balance problems in the future for the regular users, without needing for users to be modding-savvy (opening the database using PFM)

BTW, Ayyubids would get several new units - wait till warman announces them.

[KAM 2150]

As for the plate armour missile block you can just give bonus vs missiles in armour tables.

Also the mod does not contain kv_rules or kv_morale so those are loaded from vanilla which can make stuff not as you want them to be as they are not set to rather "authentic" standards.

[You_Guess_Who]

As for the plate armour missile block you can just give bonus vs missiles in armour tables.

Curious, because in DaVE, the bonus vs. missile is just a boolean "true" or "false", which we already set as "true" - but when opened in PFM it doesn't look like its boolean?

Yeah, we need to utilize the _kv tables. Our battle system is still rather rudimentary compared to other more developed battle system mods.

[KAM 2150]

At least in Rome 2 it was working as intended. When I open armour tables with PFM they look exactly like in Rome 2 so it might still work.

[You_Guess_Who]

At least in Rome 2 it was working as intended. When I open armour tables with PFM they look exactly like in Rome 2 so it might still work.

But you only used 1 and 0? Hmmm, seems an experiment is needed to quantify that vs missile bonus effectiveness compared to shield's missile block chance.

[KAM 2150]

I use mutltiple values. For example 100 bonus meant they were fully protected from ranged fire. Not sure how that is handled in Attila though. Missile block chance is only value for front and left.

Of course if you have properly balanced health values with armours bonus vs ranged damage then even that is not needed as high enough armour rating will make lower damage bows nearly useless against them while same bow will perform well vs unarmoured or light troops. Then of course you need proper scale of said armour value so you won't end up with messed up melee casualties.

[Kjertesvein]

I want to adress some of the reports:

2. Plate Armour Missile Block Chance.

There's debate on how to apply it - whether we apply all-around stat overhaul or practical adaptation of shield missile block chance. If it only applies to missile attack from the front, would that be satisfactory enough?

If it only applies to the Front, then that's an improvement. Ideally, it could follow a somewhat gradation of effectiveness, with slightly better stat on the left side.

A distribution of Missile Block Chance on an average soldier with plated defenses.



Reasoning

Ideally, it would be a gradual variation, from front to back. If that's not within range of possibility, then resistance only from the front is still better than the current model.

The front would always have the resilience and would allow the plate to resist a lance strike with the force of a car crash. The left side was often slightly better protected than the right side. The degree to the difference between left and right side can be argued, ranging from minimal to noticeable. If an armour needed a weak point (welding seem, visor perforation, leather buckles and straps, etc.), it was generally placed on the back side or right side of the soldier. The weakest point of a plate armour was generally on the back side of a soldier. At times, the plated soldier had no significant back protection, relying on mail and padding. Not until the early 15th century do we see a gradual shift to a one-piece back-plate for the average Man-at-Arms. Due to how the back of a human is larger and flexible (compared to the front), the back plate was often constructed in minor plates joined together. This made the plate structurally weaker. Coats of Plates/Brigandine on the other hand generally did have plated back protection. Based on these aspects, the image above give suggestion on how to distribute the stats in an ideal manner.

~Wille

[KAM 2150]

Missile block chance does not apply to the right or back, it is always zero there. Block chance for front and left use same value.

[You_Guess_Who]

For example 100 bonus meant they were fully protected from ranged fire.

No, I was talking specifically about bonus v. missile of unit_armour rather than missile block chance of shields. That's why I talking about boolean, because in both in R2 and Attila shield missile block chance are always percentage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armour scaling is promising, but rather need complete overhaul than what can be done until this month's release time schedule. Maybe next release. That's also need rescaling of melee and missile AP damage as well.

[KAM 2150]

No, that is what I was exactly talking about in that post, armour bonus, not shield block chance. With my scale of armour and ranged damage, when I set that bonus in armour values at 100, it was high enough to make units impervious to ranged damage.

[You_Guess_Who]

Whoops, you talked about the base armour value rescaling all this time, and I thought you're talking about the bonuses. Oh well.

[Slytacular]

Here is my idea so far in terms of armour value. I was thinking of reducing projectile damage for arrows and javelins to a pitiful level, but increase their ammunition and fire rate. Still, do you think this is a good start, or should I exaggerate the armour levels more? I don't want to exaggerate the difference of tiers in armies and keep it realistic, but I don't want a fast and arcade-like play style.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Base unit stat: 20 melee attack, 20 melee defense, 20 morale, and 10 charge, 50 currency

If cavalry, add +15 to charge, +100 currency
If shock unit, add +10 to charge

If regularly trained, add +3 melee attack, +3 melee defense, +5 morale, +100 currency ----- The individuals regularly train themselves in military activity yearly. A good difference between militia versus drafted levy.
If aristocratic, add +2 melee attack, +2 melee defense, +100 currency ----- rich folk including merchants, nobility, consumers with the ability to purchase most things, and people generally powerful in society
If professional and has a career in being a soldier, add +3 melee attack, +3 melee defense, +5 morale, +100 currency ----- regular hired soldiers capable of holding in a fight, and has made a career in war.
If Famous/Legendary/Well known in history/Renowned, add +2 melee attack, +2 melee defense, +2 morale ----- The unit is well known in texts and is specified in history as an existing force.
If Tier 2, +250 currency
If Tier 3, +350 currency

Tier 1 Light: 7 armor value - The entire mixture of units are wearing clothing designed for not exposing their body to the weather and society.

Tier 1 Light-Medium: 14 armor value - The units are mixed between clothing and some protective equipment including helmets, and tougher materials.

Tier 1 Medium: 21 armor value - The units are either mixed with equipment from heavy and light, or are wearing equipment such as gambesons, padding, simple designed helmets, one layer of chainmail.
This also applies for units that have exposed limbs and body parts, but well protected in some areas of the body.

Tier 1 Medium-Heavy: 28 armor value - The entire mixture of units either have layers of armour such as one layer of chainmail over padding, but the entire unit is not totally covered in armour from head to toe in effective body armour.

Tier 1 Heavy: 35 armor value - The entire mixture of units are wearing total coverage of armour. This could mean the unit is wearing multiple layers of chainmail, has effective armour protecting limbs,
wears metal lamellar in combination with other materials, wearing helmets that protect the entire head such as great helmets or helmets with aventails that drape the entire neck and face.

Tier 2 Light: 14 armor value - The entire mixture of units are wearing clothing designed for not exposing their body to the weather and society.

Tier 2 Light-Medium: 21 armor value - The units are mixed between clothing and some protective equipment including helmets, and tougher materials.

Tier 2 Medium: 28 armor value - The units are either mixed with equipment from heavy and light, or are wearing equipment such as gambesons, padding, simple designed helmets, chainmail, mixture of older and newer equipment.
This also applies for units that have exposed limbs and body parts, but well protected in some areas of the body.

Tier 2 Medium-Heavy: 35 armor value - The units have variations of materials and are layered. This could also mean having up-to-date armor that does not entirely cover the body in total effective quality.
This unit is considered heavy in it's own right.

Tier 2 Heavy: 42 armor value - The units are up to date in armour technology and resemble the Transitional Era of bascinets, borseplate, and early breastplates.

Tier 3 Light : 21 armor value - The entire mixture of units are wearing clothing designed for not exposing their body to the weather and society.
Uses of padding and hoses for example.

Tier 3 Light-Medium: 28 armor value - The units are mixed between clothing and some protective equipment including helmets, and tougher materials.
typically units dressed in padding with maybe a helmet.

Tier 3 Medium: 35 armor value - The units are a combination of light and heavy, or a cross in between to where the unit is not entirely covered in quality effective armour,
uses out of date equipment, or is for example wearing a helmet and breastplate only for armour and exposes limbs.

Tier 3 Medium-Heavy: 42 armor value - Units have variations of armour, layered, and are effectively covered in most areas of the body. This unit is considered heavy and well armoured.
combinations of brigandines with plackarts and other pieces. May have borse plate, bascinets, and breastplates from the transitional era.

Tier 3 Heavy: 49 armor value - Units are not exposing any limbs or body parts and are totally encased in armour. These may be considered up to date armour of the 15th century.

Tier 3 Western Plate: 56 armor value - Units are wearing the exoskeletons of the Early Medieval European Renaissance. The majority of the body has exposing plate designed to deflect blows and glance off most projectiles.

[KAM 2150]

If you will reduce that damage to pitiful levels and increase ammo it will most likely mean that AI ranged units will not be able to do you any harm as AI will rush you into melee so their ranged units will stop being useful for them after 3-4 volleys and AI will never flank with them while player with increased ammo count will move ranged units around the enemy and use that extra ammo to score huge casualties. Sadly in Attila I don't think you can make AI to engage you in multi staged battles like I did for DeI 1.2, where AI starts with manouvering, then there is a skirmish phase, followed either by another manouvering or attack, while AI will keep formation and hold units in reserves. With that AI, idea with increased ammo and lowered damage could work but with AI rushing, it will just make AI ranged units useless for it. Unless there will be a way to improve BAI enough to force it into multistaged battles.

In DeI 1.0 we had that idea with ranged units but it meant that AI archers would score around 2-10 kills as AI was unable to change a target and if said target was in melee, then the archers would not fire until their line of fire got cleared. Obiously at the same time, player was able to score huge amounts of kills due to changing targets and flanking with ranged units.

[Slytacular]

Then for the sake of an interesting multiplayer gameplay, I'll resume with my idea of archers. If the AI is already that dumb with ranged units to begin with, I don't feel the need to change my direction. I'll just hope that somebody will eventually reverse engineer, or create new scripts that make AI decisions more intricate.

[KAM 2150]

You can also make bows and other ranged units slow down attacking enemy so it might prolong the time before AI line clashes with yours.

[You_Guess_Who]

Sly, you can't simply "reducing projectile damage for arrows and javelins to a pitiful level". What we should do instead, is rescaling. For Armor, make the armour value between armours more pronounced, or in your own words, more exaggerated.

Its also not just a simple projectile damage reduction - but also rescaling to proper effectiveness against different kind of targets. On how you talk about projectile damage its as if you're not aware that missiles have 2 damage values: normal and AP. Normal damage should be rather unchanged assuming we do not change battle entity HP as well with the armour value, but the AP value should be recalibrated against which kind of armour its effective against, and what its not.

Making Javelins weak but having a lot of ammunition doesn't make any sense either. Javelin are slow compared to arrows and bolts, but they are big and heavy, means it still packs quite a kinetic punch. Also because they're big, an entity would only carry 3-5 tops. Making javelins weak means rendering an entire class of units useless.