RC 2.0 Ultimate Updates and Changes

[Point Blank]

JActually I’ve never played with BGRV, though I hear great things about it and would like to, but at the moment it’s not implemented in the first version of the release. Maybe in future, especially for the mini-campaigns, that would be great.Perhaps somebody could assist.

[copitodelefa]

I'm glad to hear that
Btw have you ever considered changing unit stats according to their in-battle morale? I mean reduced hit chance, defense skill and attack value. They could be decreased by 10-15% when shaken and up to 30% when wavering or smth like that, as well as an increase of those stats when 'fighting to the death'. I've seen it on another thread and thought it'd be an awesome idea since atm those traits don't matter at all afaik.

[Point Blank]

I'm not aware that that is actually possible? Would be nice though.

[copitodelefa]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...W-ARCADE-SSHIP

There you have it, I don't really know how he did it, tho you'll prolly understand it better than me

[Point Blank]

Some interesting stuff but some of the other things look a bit unusual, at least at first glance.

FYI in the upcoming RC2.0 release I have included an optional sub-mod that can be selected at game start-up called 'Extended Combat'. It reduces the melee, missile weapon and cavalry charge kill rates, as well as reducing the climate heat factor so units don't become prematurely exhausted by the longer combats.

I have also included another optional sub-mod called 'Reduced Cavalry Charge Effect' which lowers the mass of all mounts, but be advised that this will stack with 'Extended Combat' if you have them both checked.

FYI the complete list of optional sub-mods is:
2 Turns Per Year (WiP)
Campaign AI: one of Lusted AI, Gracul AI, Savage AI (if anyone has any suggestions for new campaign AIs I am happy to consider them)
Byg's Grim Reality II or IV
KER (Kingdoms, Empires and Republics) or Next Heir Ancilliary
DEYY Real Rebellion
Rebel Generals Enhanced
Twinbird's Nobility Mod
Extended Combat
Garrison Script
Limited Activities
Longer Assimilation
Permanent Arrows
G5 ReallyBadAI Hardcore Edition
Reduced Cavalry Charge Effect
Son of X

The SS Launcher contains a full explanation of the effects of each.

Plus, of course, about a billion other included sub-mods which I would have to search waaay back to find.

Campaigns:
Early Era 1100
High Era 1220
Late Era 1370 (WiP)

Mini-campaigns, each with it's own custom map, events etc (still awaiting final debug, should be this week hopefully):
The Reconquista 1146
Italian City States 1280
The Hundred Years War 1337
The Italian Wars 1494

[ivanpera]

Have you ever took a look at KER (kingdoms, empires and republics) submod for SS?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Beta2-7-9-3-14

[Point Blank]

Actually that is very interesting because implementing something very much like that was on my to-do list for a future update. I wonder how easy it would be to include or if there might be conflicts with other mods? If its mostly traits and ancillaries etc it could be fine.

Thanks, I will investigate and see if I can get it into this release!

edit: OK I think it's done, will include the developer in the release credits

[Jurand of Cracow]

Hi PB,
have you implemented also the Bug fix compilation?
JoC

[Point Blank]

OMG! No I haven’t. But I am a bit wary of bug fixes, sometimes they create more bugs. Do the fixes alter specific lines in the target files, or just replace the entire file with the ‘fixed’ version? There have been so many changes I would be a bit concerned about the latter case.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I don't know, but Meloo and his compilation had a very good reputation - I've read people writing that it was fundamental to implement it. I think his changes replace entire files thus it's too late for you to implement it wholesale. Furthermore, there're many fixes to the units that I imagine you've changed in your mod. Maybe you can go through the list of changes and see what you're missing, I don't know.
A bit more general thought: I wonder how the many minimods you're listed below will work together in practice. My experience is rather negative. Eg. I've tried to play Titanium that made it possible to have many minimods, but then it has proved to be impossible to play it - very frequent CTDs. This is also the experience of some other players.
I keep my fingers crossed your mod will prove something different.

[Point Blank]

So far the sub-mods seem to combine ok, but we will have to see how things work out yes.

[ToniCogin]

Hello, just wanna share my insights from this mod after playing it for hundreds of hours (including hours and hours of repeated unit vs unit and situational combats with movement tests in custom battles)


1) I 'fixed' the issue of heavy cavalry charging through spearmen as if they're cheese (being Novgorod Home Guards with "very long spears" and +6 against cavalry don't make a difference) by replacing all schiltrom ability with the shield_wall ability. I also added shield_wall for 'decent' spearment units that don't have schiltrom, like the Lithuanian Regular Spearmen and Scoutatoi. It's funny how Scoutatoi Swordsmen can defend against cavalry charge by doing shield_wall while the variant with SPEARS cannot. For those who are not aware, shield_wall seems to increase unit mass, defense, or both, making them much more resistant to cavalry charges. With this, militia spearmen still cant stop heavy cavalry especially 'elite' ones like Gendarmes and Lancers, while Novgorod Home Guards gets only about 30 casualties from a veteran Lancer charge on Ultra unit size.
To be fair, by editing descr_formations_ai, I also made the AI able to utilize shield_wall by making non-skirmish infantry units start with shield_wall by default when possible. This worked perfectly with no CTD's whatsover. For those who want to test this, you may ask for my descr_formations_ai file, but be sure that the spear unit in question is not the general unit and that it's a field battle, not a siege one. Otherwise, the AI spearmen unit in your test will NEVER be in shield_wall.
I would love to hear opinions from legit historians/history nerds about this. Can braced heavy spearmen (not pikemen) really hold against a heavy cavalry charge?


2) Pistoliers and Siphonatores have too short of a range for their use. Their range is too short (55) that the Siphonatores can't ever shoot flames towards charging cavalry on time before being trampled, while Pistoliers can't effectively skirmish against enemy cavalry (even slow heavy ones) unless you micromanage intensely. I think a range of 70 is enough. I tested it against a charging light cavalry. The Siphonatores were able to shoot flames just a moment before being charged, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides, while the Pistoliers seem to be able to skirmish properly against cavs on their own.


3) Here's an idea of mine on how to make crossbowmen fire first before reloading - We can perhaps try to virtually remove the reloading (ready) animations by making the corresponding animation and sound files very short, and then make the fire (release) animation start with the current release animation and end with the reload animation (together with the sound file).
This will effectively be one very long release animation which includes the reload. This, unfortunately, still won't allow firing of the crossbow and then immediately running away. If anyone has a cleverer idea for this, please share.


4) I think, historically (please feel free to debunk), firing rank by rank didn't exist during M2TW's campaign period. So I think a long shooting and then reloading animation (similar with the crossbow suggestion) for gunners is more appropriate, with ranks shooting all at once (by removing the gunpowder_unit). Otherwise, we should make the default rank of guns units be 3 or 4 in export_descr_unit and increase the max width of missiles/skirmishers so the AI can use them effectively.
Also, just a little detail with gun units, the general won't recognize your gunners during speeches ('we lack gunpowder for our heavily armoured foes') because gunners aren't missile units in SS. I don't understand exaclty why they made them skirmishers (AFAIR, it's something about AI formations). Can somebody enlighten me?


5) A very long charge distance will make the unintended feature of cavalry charges against skirmishing units worse (in the current state, charging against units that are running away will result in the cavalry stopping the moment before the fatal impact, raising their lances, and drawing their swords instead of driving their lances through the backs of their foes).
I used to abuse this when playing multiplayer with friends by making all my units vulnerable to cavalry charges run away when about to be charged by cavalry.
I somewhat fixed this by making stat_charge_dist 10 (instead of the usual 45 for cavalries with lance). This makes the cavalry charge only before impact and thus, still maintaining an effective charge even against units that are running away.
This range of 10 however is visually too short for cav vs cav engagement. When you charge two cavalries with lances against each other, they will collide first before pointing their lances forward.
I tried a stat_charge_dist of 15 and this fixed the issue, but then, the issue with charging skirmishing units is back. I tried 11, 12, 13, and 14, and they all have the issue of pointing the lance forward too late (it's just a visual thing, but it looks too silly for me).
I think a possible workaround here is to increase the movement speed of all cavalry and decrease those of foot units, but perhaps this will mess with the balance.

[Point Blank]

Hi ToniCogin, I will reply to this, bit unwell right now cheers

[M.A.E]

download link ?

Edit: anyone out there y\n ?

[ToniCogin]

So I realized just now after reading tons of topics in twcenter...apparently all these years I've been playing with the non-updated SS export_descr_unit with the AP axes.
Reading the new .txt you uploaded... Here are some questions and suggestions:


Why do Scoutatoi (spears) still have no shield_wall while Scoutatoi swordsmen do? With this, as I said, Scoutatoi swordsmen hold cavalry charges better than the spear variant do.


Regarding infantry battles and formations, I think stumbling backward (for weaker infantry who don't hold line well) and pushing forward (breakthrough/anti-pike units) animations when getting hit or attacking would be awesome. Hopefully some day we can see battle lines and holding it starting to matter and be able to try to replicate the Battle of Cannae (the relatively weaker infantry of Hannibal at the center against the Roman legions being pushed back while the heavier infantries at the sides holding their ground, allowing the famous encirclement).


what do you think about the problem of cavalry not being able to charge through units running away due to the "Pursuing" mode? this really annoys me when I'm about to mow down peasant archers with lancers and then they would run away and my lancers would stop to draw their swords to start "Pursuing", failing to destroy the non-braced peasants and giving them time to run away. Simulation of mercy? lol. Very abusable in multiplayer, too.
Is it possible to make the lance the weapon of choice when pursuing and if so, will this allow the charge to continue? If not... any other ideas?


Why do spearmen in the new export_descr_unit have +4 against cavalry but pikemen don't? Cavs with lightly armored or naked horses charging against braced Late tercio Pikemen would be massacred, wouldn't they?


And what I don't understand is why heavy cavalries have even more armor in the update. In the old one, I was wondering why a "Barded Horse" as a mount for steel-plated knights would give an extra "protection" of +2 armour. Wouldn't the lightly-armoured horse be a VULNERABILITY and not extra protection? Shouldn't this be an armour penalty for the mount-to-rider armor discrepancy?
I understand that M2TW doesn't allow dismounting which makes the simulation of the longevity of cavalry with armoured riders with naked horses really difficult... What's the best compromise for this? Averaging the armour of the mount and the rider, perhaps, and adding some bonus to simulate the advantage of height and still being able to fight after losing mount?


Lastly, have gunners in Ultra unit size been fixed? Do they fire with fluidity by ranks now or do they still often stand steady while waiting for the rest to aim?
I'm asking this because the default unit rank of 4 makes some musketeers within the unit to NEVER fire at all (at least in Ultra unit size). A rank of 3 performs much better (2 even more so), but it makes the unit occupy too much lateral space. I think the best compromise here is to just remove the fire by rank mechanic and make them fire all at once (but with longer reload animation since they don't sit and wait anymore) especially since firing by rank wasn't famous during 1400s to 1500s, anyway (or so I've read).


So...enough with the complaints and demanding suggestions now from me.


Great work and efforts so far.
I'm excited to see jav throwers finally becoming useful with the faster "aiming" animations and of course, the completeness of this precious mod in development

[Point Blank]

The Scoutatoi swordsmen shouln’t have shield wall, will check. One problem with it is that, from memory, it seems to reduce unit x-radius so the men all appear to be jammed up close, and they already have a value of only 0.3, ie less than everything else except a rapier (which doesn’t appear in M2TW). Yes it seems to increase mass and defense but it also reduces attack significantly. Does it also reduce movement rate? There is also the issue of the AI not handling it properly, as you say.

[Point Blank]

More to follow...

[Point Blank]

Light_spear gives a bonus vs cav of around +4, long spears and pike +8. Most of the spear units in RC are light, which reduces their penalty in melee. Most have an additional+2 bonus vs cav as well. The CA EDU notes light spear and spear provide ‘various protective mechanisms vs a cavalry charge’. It would be worth experimenting more on the differences.

Shields for spear units get +2 value and defense gets -2 to depict their more common tactical employment but I might alter this by adding to defense (which also works vs charges), +1 or 2 to attack and an additional +2 mount_effect. Cavalry also get another -1 to defense so compared to infantry of the same quality level they are now +2 attack and -3 defense. Note that infantry with lighter armor types already get a defense bonus too.

There are also two new optional sub-mods, firstly Extended Combat which slows the kill rates from all weapons, which also applies to cav charges, and secondly Reduced Cavalry Charge Effect which reduces all mount mass values. Pikes currently get frighten_mounted and that will be extended to spears. Updated AI reduces desirability of it charging spears with its cavalry.

The new categories for cav will also have an effect, ie Pony, Skirmish/Missile, Lancer, Charger and Brawler. The first three, by animation, tend to pull back out of melee, whereas Brawlers tend to push forward. All categories also have additional modifications to some stats. In practice it works well. It is interesting what you say about lower-quality foot units being pushed back in melee because that is indeed a glaring deficiency in all TW games. I *Might* be able to alter their animations to induce some kind of similar effect in a manner similar to how cavalry does it with its different categories, for units of Militia quality or less.

The idea of dividing mounted unit armor value between horse and rider is worth looking at; I considered it initially a long time back at something like a 40/60 ratio but didnt adopt it for some reason. Note that RC2.0 missile effectiveness vs mounted has been slightly increased globally via the value in battle_config.xml.

I think the sum total of these changes will go a long way to bring cavalry lethality into line, and they can always be further adjusted.

As I mentioned about spears there can be addional defense and +1 or +2 attack; this will also help them vs infantry (bearing in mind they do get a hard-coded penalty vs swords from the CA rock-paper-scissors thing). The x-radius values and formations for infantry have been tuned to be more strongly dependent on weapon type - for example two spearmen will now occupy the about same frontage as a single polearm user and three spearmen that of two sword wielders. Cavalry have also been updated such that larger mounts and those wearing armor have larger x-radii.

Siphonatore animations have already been altered to have absolutely minimal aim time in the same way as javelins, that should help them a lot. For Pistoliers, part of the problem is their formation tends to spread out on their approach to the target, meaning only the closest ones will shoot; when they skirmish back its not just them but the entire formation and they spread out even more and the problem is futher exacerbated. This also happens with muounted javelins. There might be some kind of solution via animation, at least partially, and I will look at that first.

As far as gun units using fire_by_rank, you are correct in that its first appearance was pretty late, around 1575 I think. I will look at removing it and see how it goes. In fact it was common to use revolving ranks where the front rank fired and then moved to the rear to reload. That was how it was done with RC as implemented in the For King or Country (English Civil War) mod and it works pretty well, if a little cumbersome. All gun units in fact have the highly_trained attribute and only 0.3 x-radius so they can move past each other to the rear in a less obstructed way to help facilitate this, so will re-examine.

Will look at the crossbows again. As far as increasing reload animation time for those and guns, they can’t really be increased any more because the animations start glitching for some reason, but as it is right now they are pretty historical.

I would prefer not to alter cav charge distances and speeds just to facilitate improved pursuit behavior, though once again it is slightly possible there might be an animation assist we could try.

Non-AP axes are only now implemented in RC2.0.

Unfortunately my graphics card just blew so I can’t test the above changes that require it right now, but will get a new one shortly when I can put the money together.

[Dekhatres]

There are also two new optional sub-mods, firstly Extended Combat which slows the kill rates from all weapons, which also applies to cav charges, and secondly Reduced Cavalry Charge Effect which reduces all mount mass values. Pikes currently get frighten_mounted and that will be extended to spears. Updated AI reduces desirability of it charging spears with its cavalry.

from my experience and what i tested some time ago mass doesnt increase charge effectiveness against units that have enouth defence to resist that cav unit's attack and charge values, it does increase it against units with lower defence or flank/rear attacks, i've increased the mass of mounts and when charging high defence upgraded spearman they dont seem to cause any more casualties however when charging in the rear they absolutely pulverize that entire unit

another reason why i like cavalry with huge mass is because cavalry feel and look more realistic, they charge for a longer time and they dont stop running in place as much, instead they push soldiers away as they slowly come to a halt, well in the case of militias soldiers dont get just pushed arround, they get stomped, i guess the fact that the charge goes on for a longer time is what makes it so incredibly powerfull against low defence units

curenlty in my settings barded horses have a mass of 7, i dont remember exactly by how much i increased it but it think i doubled it

funny thing, some units with very low mass get thrown up in the air as cavalry only passes through them, noticed it once in a battle where my cavalry decided to pass through a unit of my own archers, the archers were being thrown up as if elephants were passing through, they didnt suffer casualties though, dunno maybe because they were a friendly unit

[Point Blank]

Yes the air launched thing can happen sometimes but those men do not necessarily become casualties, a bit oddly they can regain their footing and continue to fight.

Interesting about the increased mount mass thing, as you say it does result in them pushing more into the target foot formation but I thought it also increased their casualties - if that is not the case it could be re-examined. The sort of mount masses you are talking about are in reality about right for depicting the differences between cavalry and infantry yes. A large stallion bred for something like this can weigh a lot more than a mare (which was more often used for HA etc, being more temperamentally suited) and be way way stronger, plus having a really bad attitude

Spears will have increased defense; its ok vs infantry because of the hard-coded melee penalty they have so there is quite a lot of leeway to get it ‘right’ vs cavalry.