Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

  1. #1

    Default Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Not sure whether this should go here or in the main section. As it is, here's some feedback regarding two units and their main weapon, respectively.


    Rohan


    Rohan Riders – improve anti-creature bonus of javelins to be on par with other mounted skirmishers, or at least actually effective. At least in 3.0, they didn't do anything against trolls (couldn't test 3.2 because of troll crashes) or oliphaunts, not even when thrown down a hill. That change would also make the unit more viable as a major element of the Rohirrim forces, as at the moment they're kind of superfluous between militia cav (better charge), horse archers (longer range, more ammo), RotM (much better in melee, better charge too), and Riddermark Spears (much better against armour, etc.).

    Apologies if this has already been implemented (I think I've addressed the issue before), couldn't find it in the change logs though.


    Dorwinion

    I'd recommend removing the AP attribute from Dorwinion Watch. Now please bear with me, as I'm trying to lay out a proper argument, not just make an ill-tempered cynical throwaway comment as usual.

    I see no reason why a spear wielded with one hand, in underhand fashion on top of that, should be particularly good at piercing armour or better suited for exploiting gaps than other spears, irrespective of extra spikes. This attribute might be excused in the Guard of the Citadel unit, since its partisans are somewhat more barbed, and it's such an elite unit. It also wouldn't be a biggie in a mod that is more liberal with the attribute, such as Europa Barbarorum I, where it just applies to every axe, club, and “hacking sword”, regardless of how puny it might be. But FATW is much more conservative with the attribute, which isn't a bad thing.

    Moreover, from a gameplay perspective, the current set-up kind of renders halberdiers superfluous, given how the DW shares almost all of their advantages while still retaining shields for better missile defence.
    Instead, the spikes of their weapon type (one-handed partisan/yari) could be reflected by a slightly increased defence skill, to better translate its stopping power and capacity for hooking and tripping. Or if that's not possible for some technical reason, just change the weapon class of DW to a "regular" spear.

    In real life, the point (ha ha. sorry) of “anti-armour weapons” (or rather, weapons suited for fighting heavily armoured foes) is that they either have a rigid and strong blade, sometimes even without sharp edges, leading to a sharp and narrow point, such as in a rondel dagger or in certain types of pikes or lances (or even a bodkin arrow), or that they are blunt and strong (but not too clunky), like the business end of a mace or a warhammer, or, if they're less specialized (and/or from earlier periods), they might be like axe blades.
    Now a spear, if it were to be used against armour specifically, should be of the really pointy type. But regardless of whether it had a cross-guard (like a yari or a boar spear, for hacking at enemies, or tripping them, or preventing the weapon from running all the way through) or not, it would also be wielded with two hands for maximum force (to push through armour, if need be) and accuracy (to actually hit those gaps), like the stabby end of a halberd.


    TL; DR: I think that, especially given the way FATW handles the AP attribute in general, among the spear/polearm categories, only the two-handed ones should receive it, with the possible exception of the GotC and the Elven bodyguards because of their leetness.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    I will second this.

  3. #3
    20ninescene's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    East-Flanders, Belgium
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Bonuses vs mount only work for melee weapons IIRC.
    Also what bonus to defend skill would you give the Dorwinion watch?

  4. #4

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Quote Originally Posted by xXxXxRazor.GodxXxXx View Post
    Bonuses vs mount only work for melee weapons IIRC.
    I'm referring to anti-camel and anti-elephant bonuses. There is a marked difference in effectiveness vs. not only cavalry, but also large creatures, between different archer and skirmisher types in FATW, due to varying bonuses between units (and that's not counting the brutal way via AP attribute ŕ la Swerting Skirmishers).


    Also what bonus to defend skill would you give the Dorwinion watch?
    +1, should be big enough. But there's the FATW-specific stat engine to consider, what with weapon classes and soldier categories and all that. We might have to wait for the resident stat authority on the team to show up and decide.

  5. #5
    Beorn's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    5,327

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Ι also belive that the AP attribute to the Watch isn't especially justified.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Is this a problem with concept, or gameplay? I understand where you're coming from in concept - AP seems more fitting for halbs than for the DW. But does this also negatively impact gameplay?

    I've noticed there are differences in gameplay between the halbs and the DW. Not talking about the stat numbers, but how they behave in actual battle. The DW take more losses in certain situations, but of course they're more readily available than halbs, being trainable a tier sooner. So I train both.

    Does having AP Dorwinion Watch make the Dorwinion faction overpowered? I'd argue it doesn't. Early to mid game you're not fighting many heavily armored units, apart from some bodyguards and clearing out Narag-zigil. Later game, if the RK becomes a problem, you'll have a tough time even with AP DW.

    Removing AP from the DW would leave little reason for it to remain for RK's Company of the Guard and GotC (it doesn't seem to me that the extra barbs on the GotC's weapons would make them better against armor. And if we're looking to realism as a guide, we should probably also remove it from all the Elven arrows, as has also been suggested in the past - another move I wouldn't favor!). As for underhand vs overhand animation, I think that's just one of the limitations of RTW (or lack of animators on the team).

    I don't recall the exact design decisions involved in giving AP to the DW, but I like it. It's a nice callback to the supposed RK influence (the DW & halbs can be thought of as an imitation/echo of GotC), and it gives Dorwinion the feel of a small but elite faction surrounded by barbarians or Wildermen.

    As I see it, the larger problem is the apparently small difference between the halbs & DW. Webba would be better able to discuss how (and whether) a greater distinction between the units could be made (or indeed if it is needed, since stats don't tell the entire story of a unit).
    One of the most sophisticated Total War modders ever developed...

  7. #7

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Speaking of AP bonuses, I think the Mariners' main weapon has a somewhat weird shape. From a technical PoV, I think it should be more similar to a rondel dagger (currently, it resembles a toy sword to some extent). Don't know what the lore says, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by CountMRVHS View Post
    Is this a problem with concept, or gameplay? I understand where you're coming from in concept - AP seems more fitting for halbs than for the DW. But does this also negatively impact gameplay?
    Primarily, it's realism and internal consistency. Regarding gameplay, I have little experience playing Dorwinion, but I don't think they need an AP specialist unit other than, or before, Halberdiers (especially with Rhovanion Rangers and Variag Warriors being available as mercs now).


    Does having AP Dorwinion Watch make the Dorwinion faction overpowered? I'd argue it doesn't.
    Of course it doesn't (wouldn't compensate for their weak cavalry, anyway), but that's not the point. If we were to go down that road, Beornings and Dwarves would be OP because of their abundance of heavy axemen.


    Removing AP from the DW would leave little reason for it to remain for RK's Company of the Guard and GotC (it doesn't seem to me that the extra barbs on the GotC's weapons would make them better against armor.
    Well, the main anti-armour unit of the RK are Lossarnach Axemen, anyway. Though it's a real pity they don't get macemen...


    And if we're looking to realism as a guide, we should probably also remove it from all the Elven arrows, as has also been suggested in the past
    I wonder who suggested that


    another move I wouldn't favor!).
    But a realistic one.


    As I see it, the larger problem is the apparently small difference between the halbs & DW.
    You may see it that way, but that was not the point I was making. For me, it's more of an afterthought.

  8. #8
    20ninescene's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    East-Flanders, Belgium
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    I'm referring to anti-camel and anti-elephant bonuses. There is a marked difference in effectiveness vs. not only cavalry, but also large creatures, between different archer and skirmisher types in FATW, due to varying bonuses between units (and that's not counting the brutal way via AP attribute ŕ la Swerting Skirmishers).
    I've done testing with missile weapons and I didn't noticed any difference with and without the bonus with the same attack value. Also it's stated in the complete EDU guide that mount bonuses have no effect on missile attack:
    Unit's bonuses against mounted units (if any). There can be bonuses against horses, elephants, chariots and camels.The bonus may be against an entire class of mounts (eg elephants) in which case it's applied versus all of the types of the class or against only a specific type (eg 4amount mumak), but type-bonus stacks with class-bonus. They are applied directly and stack with any other bonuses, like ones derived from spear attributes. Note that these are modifiers to the unit's attack and that they will be applied to a secondary weapon too if one exists, but they do not affect missile weapons at all. Max number of valid mount effects is 3, extra will be ignored.
    but they do not affect missile weapons at all
    http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...DU-Guide-(WIP)
    Last edited by 20ninescene; January 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Quote Originally Posted by xXxXxRazor.GodxXxXx View Post
    I've done testing with missile weapons and I didn't noticed any difference with and without the bonus with the same attack value. Also it's stated in the complete EDU guide that mount bonuses have no effect on missile attack:


    http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...DU-Guide-(WIP)
    Curious. If that's really the case, can anyone from the team tell us why missile units, specifically those armed with swords, knives, or small/one-handed axes, have these bonuses, then?
    And how does that explain the discrepancy in the effectiveness of various javelineers against large creatures? e.g. Plainsmen Mounted Skirnishers = super effective; Rohan Riders = ineffective (only counting missile weapons here, obviously).

  10. #10

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Curious. If that's really the case, can anyone from the team tell us why missile units, specifically those armed with swords, knives, or small/one-handed axes, have these bonuses, then?
    And how does that explain the discrepancy in the effectiveness of various javelineers against large creatures? e.g. Plainsmen Mounted Skirnishers = super effective; Rohan Riders = ineffective (only counting missile weapons here, obviously).
    The attribute(s) make the units much more resistant to cavalry assault. You have probably noticed that you cannot simply run over most archers in DoM with light cavalry the way you can in vanilla, and most mods. Cavalry is still a good bet for taking out exposed missile troops, but you will tend to pay for it more than you would in other mods/vanilla.


    I thought the "vs. large creatures" did apply to thrown weapons. If the Rohan Riders do not have that attribute it could explain much of the difference, but also remember that infantry units will generally have significantly more men than mounted units, which means more projectiles, so that would contribute to the difference as well.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Speaking of AP bonuses, I think the Mariners' main weapon has a somewhat weird shape. From a technical PoV, I think it should be more similar to a rondel dagger (currently, it resembles a toy sword to some extent). Don't know what the lore says, though.
    IIRC the Mariners' sword is an 'eket', which isn't described in much detail by Tolkien apart from being a short, stabbing sword.

    Of course it doesn't (wouldn't compensate for their weak cavalry, anyway), but that's not the point. If we were to go down that road, Beornings and Dwarves would be OP because of their abundance of heavy axemen.
    OK - that's why I asked the question. So it's not gameplay considerations, but a desire for consistency. Fair enough.

    You may see it that way, but that was not the point I was making. For me, it's more of an afterthought.
    Well, yes, I may see it that way ... I'm not sure what your point is here. You're suggesting a change to a unit, I'm trying to get a handle on what the issue is and offering my own thoughts.

    For me (and if Webba sees things differently I'd obviously defer to him, as he's the one who would be making any potential changes), at this stage in the mod's development, gameplay considerations trump consistency. If a unit was under- or over-performing considerably, that certainly deserves some adjustment - like you saw with the nerfing of Khand's tier-1 horse archers and the Easterling sling units. I'm less concerned about units fitting into categories that seem correct or even realistic for that matter.

    The AP attribute in RTW is itself arguably unrealistic; it doesn't necessarily translate into "unit is capable of piercing heavy plate". It is a simplified, one-size-fits-all attribute that allows the unit to ignore half the armor of an enemy unit, no matter what type of armor the enemy is wearing. Not only does this "ignore half" setup lead to some unusual possibilities (if I understand that right (and correct me if I don't), an AP unit could, in the right circumstances, do more damage against a more heavily armored unit than against a less heavily armored unit), but it is a crude simulation at best.

    So in the mod, my understanding is that the AP attribute is partly used to represent shock troops, as you would expect (heavy axe troops, macemen), and partly used to reflect a unit's high quality, either due to some unearthly accuracy (Elven archery) or other elite training (GotC).

    My counter-argument for the Dorwinion Watch keeping their AP is that they fall into that last category, maintaining from their distant Gondorian ancestry a tradition of very effective polearm troops.
    One of the most sophisticated Total War modders ever developed...

  12. #12
    webba84's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Staddle
    Posts
    6,923

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    I'm late to this discussion so I'll just address the topics without reference to any particular post or point of view. Apologies if I miss the nuance or detail of anything, feel free to bring it up again if you feel it valuable.

    Rohan Riders
    I'm not aware that the anti-creature bonuses of this unit are any different to any other light-javelin armed cavalry in the mod, but I can easily look into it. That aside, I don't agree that this unit is not currently viable, and find them to be a very cost-effective and versatile element in my armies, being much better in melee than the Spears (but still with a decent charge) or the Scouts (but still with a ranged ability), and much cheaper and more available than RotM or Riddermark Spears (especially the latter).

    Perhaps some people find them underwhelming because they expect all javelin armed units to be 'anti-creature' specialists. Personally, I don't see low tier javelin units in DoM (mounted or not) in this capacity (tier 1 and 2 units should not be effective against the likes of trolls or oliphants). I would say the Rohan Riders main role is to very cost-effectively, and with little risk, counter melee infantry and heavy cavalry (through either kiting or flanking), and in that role I see no problems with their stats as they are now.

    I will double check to make sure there isn't any inconsistency with them compared to other light javelin cavalry, though.

    Dorwinion Watch
    I feel like the arguments both for and against change have some merit, but after some consideration, I am broadly in agreement with the idea that they probably shouldn't have the AP characteristic. Looking at the weapon model, I would think that for it to pierce armour as well as, say, the axes or maces of other AP units in game it would have to be either thrust or swung two handed, or be wielded with great strength and skill.

    And while I agree that in the case of the Elves or the GotC (being Dunedain, and a unique unit, T6 essentially), the required skill and strength to use the full capabilities of this weapon one handed can be justified, I have trouble translating that same skill to the Dorwinion Watch. Not only because they are just average, well trained, northmen, but mostly because it is a T3 unit. T3 (for factions that have 4 or more tiers of MD, anyway) I see as containing the well trained 'regulars', the backbone of the faction's army, but not it's elites. However much the DW might be patterned after the GotC, I can't imagine they share the same skill and strength (or quality of equipment, for that matter).

    Furthermore, I think there is a balance consideration too. Not necessarily in the relative (cost)effectiveness of the unit but in the role it plays in the roster. Right now, while the DW aren't OP, they do very much tread on the shoes of both of the T4 Dorwinion units, especially given increased availability. This isn't just the fault of the DW, both Dorwinion MaA and Halberdiers (especially the 2 province AOR Halberdiers) could possibly do with something to make them a bit more desirable and worth the cost and difficulty of hiring them.

    So losing AP (and maybe a little attack too) in return for improved defence on the DW, while looking to slightly improve the capabilities of the two T4 units, would not be undesirable. This shouldn't be too hard to arrange now that I'm becoming familiar with the FATW stat generator.


    Misc
    The Eket is described as, "a short stabbing sword with a broad blade, pointed and two-edged, from a foot to one and a half feet long."; general consensus seems to be that it's basically a gladius. Looking at the model in game, we can easily improve the proportions a bit to reflect this.
    Last edited by webba84; January 16, 2017 at 10:52 PM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    It's interesting you mention the DW stepping on the toes of the Dorwinion Men-at-Arms - I hadn't thought of that, probably because I so rarely train MaAs. The Halberdiers are quite desirable (& will be even more so if DW lose AP), so I tend to train just Halbs and DW from my Dorwinion provinces.

    The MaA would seem to offer some basic medium infantry versatility, with the shieldwall ability giving them some advantage in static defense situations. But as Dorwinion, by the time I can train MaAs I tend to be fighting large field battles against factions with large numbers (Rhun) or excellent troops (Adunabar, RK), and I don't recall the MaA performing too well in those scenarios. How do other players find the MaA?
    One of the most sophisticated Total War modders ever developed...

  14. #14

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    I can't report on the effectiveness of Dorwinion Watch/MaA, because I haven't played the faction since the beta version (have used the Framsburg Guard - which is basically the same unit as the MaA - a bit, but not enough to really pass judgment). However ideally, given the faction's roster, the setup should be:
    DW - defence, centre of the battle line
    MaA - best option for flanking and siege assault (manning siege towers and storming walls is where they should really shine, especially against factions with poor or average armour)
    Halberdiers - bit of a compromise between the two, but more importantly main force against factions with lots of heavy infantry and few javelineers (i.e. Dúnedain factions, Dwarves), and aggressive anti-cavalry/chariot/creature unit


    Regarding the Rohan Riders, I'm not sure either what makes them ineffective against those creatures. I don't think it's the unit size, as that's not particularly small. They seem fine otherwise, at least against Adunabar (although pretty useless against Dunland, because they can't trade cost-efficiently against other javelin units). The main issue I see is that the faction has difficulty countering large creatures. Currently, the only way of doing so is to use the bodyguard (which is effective, but retarded because your general will inevitably die from a random elephant falling on his head) or Riddermark Spears (which aren't widely available, and they'll suffer big losses in doing so). Theoretically, Shields of the Mark are also good, but they're usually too slow and immobile for this task, being heavy infantry and all.

  15. #15
    webba84's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Staddle
    Posts
    6,923

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Quote Originally Posted by CountMRVHS View Post
    It's interesting you mention the DW stepping on the toes of the Dorwinion Men-at-Arms - I hadn't thought of that, probably because I so rarely train MaAs. The Halberdiers are quite desirable (& will be even more so if DW lose AP), so I tend to train just Halbs and DW from my Dorwinion provinces.
    Exactly what my experience was as well, mostly, when I had the option of all 3 units (which was really only in Belegant since I made Rathwine a financial province), the priority was DW first, Hal a close second, and MaA a distant 3rd.

    Quote Originally Posted by CountMRVHS View Post
    The MaA would seem to offer some basic medium infantry versatility, with the shieldwall ability giving them some advantage in static defense situations. But as Dorwinion, by the time I can train MaAs I tend to be fighting large field battles against factions with large numbers (Rhun) or excellent troops (Adunabar, RK), and I don't recall the MaA performing too well in those scenarios. How do other players find the MaA?
    As a player, I found them cool, but underwhelming. I would expect them to be excellent all round against other infantry, and capable in most battlefield situations, but in practice they don't seem to perform as you'd expect a T4 unit would. Might do a bit of testing on them, and would welcome other's opinions also.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I can't report on the effectiveness of Dorwinion Watch/MaA, because I haven't played the faction since the beta version (have used the Framsburg Guard - which is basically the same unit as the MaA - a bit, but not enough to really pass judgment). However ideally, given the faction's roster, the setup should be:
    DW - defence, centre of the battle line
    MaA - best option for flanking and siege assault (manning siege towers and storming walls is where they should really shine, especially against factions with poor or average armour)
    Halberdiers - bit of a compromise between the two, but more importantly main force against factions with lots of heavy infantry and few javelineers (i.e. Dúnedain factions, Dwarves), and aggressive anti-cavalry/chariot/creature unit.
    Pretty much agree with this, and I think a few stat adjustments can get the units more well defined in their roles. Halberdiers probably don't need much of a change if DW lose the AP, DW can lose ap and gain some defence skill, and I'd like to see the MaA with slightly improved attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Regarding the Rohan Riders, I'm not sure either what makes them ineffective against those creatures. I don't think it's the unit size, as that's not particularly small. They seem fine otherwise, at least against Adunabar (although pretty useless against Dunland, because they can't trade cost-efficiently against other javelin units). The main issue I see is that the faction has difficulty countering large creatures. Currently, the only way of doing so is to use the bodyguard (which is effective, but retarded because your general will inevitably die from a random elephant falling on his head) or Riddermark Spears (which aren't widely available, and they'll suffer big losses in doing so). Theoretically, Shields of the Mark are also good, but they're usually too slow and immobile for this task, being heavy infantry and all.
    Yeah, tonight I'll have a look into the Riders specifically, and the roster anti-creature ability as a whole. What I'd quite like to see is something like the higher tier horse archers be effective anti-creature (right now they aren't really cost effective compared to the T2 Scouts), but I'm not exactly sure how that can be brought about.
    Last edited by webba84; January 17, 2017 at 11:28 PM.

  16. #16
    webba84's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Staddle
    Posts
    6,923

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Well, I had a look at the Rohan Riders stats and I suspect what you're seeing is the result of differences in unit size and ammo count, rather than any sort of anti-creature bonuses (especially if, as is almost certain, they have no effect on ranged weapons).

    Compared to the Plainsmen Mounted Skirmishers:

    9+6+1 bonus=16 against elephant vs 7+6+2 bonus=15 against elephant (assuming 6xp)

    9 attack at 52 range, 6*44 soldiers=264 shots vs 7 attack at 57 range, 8 shots*52 soldiers=416 shots

    So, assuming full unit sizes, the Harad unit is getting 150 odd extra attacks compared to the Rohan one, at almost the same damage. I'll look at ways to address this, as I suspect that some of our weapon attack and ammo calculations don't take into account the value of larger unit sizes and additional ammo quite as much as they should.
    Last edited by webba84; January 21, 2017 at 05:11 AM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Regarding the first issue, I wonder if I've found the culprit - inspired by the recent proposal by Razor God and the submod of Athenogoras, maybe the "thrown" attribute in the attribute line (below the weapon description) makes a difference? I've noticed that a lot of skirmishers in FATW don't have it (including most mounted ones), perhaps that's intentional, but still might be worth revisiting.

  18. #18
    webba84's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Staddle
    Posts
    6,923

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    I can tell from looking at the way edu-matic is set up that the assignment of the thrown attribute is definitely intentional, but I can check with MoN on the specifics reasons for it, he would know much better than I.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Here's a new video specifically dealing with the Dorwinion Watch weapon set (and other variations). Well worth watching in its entire length.

    Kind of disappointing that he didn't mention FATW, though

  20. #20

    Default Re: Minor balance/realism suggestions regarding two units

    Very interesting; thanks for posting!

    So the Dorwinion Watch weapon set would be used for thrusting, not for cutting - and it'd be rare. Makes sense.

    In 3.3, we have ditched the Dorwinion Watch's AP ability, and in my experience with them the faction has a better sense of progression now. The DW are still a strong unit, but they're no longer the answer to every problem; you have a real need for a few Halberdiers in your armies.

    As for the visuals of the DW, we haven't changed that (and I don't think it's likely, though can't speak for Webba). So we'll have to just assume the 'winged spear' is being wielded pretty much exactly as shown - as an exclusively thrusting weapon.
    One of the most sophisticated Total War modders ever developed...

Posting Permissions

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