Public Beta Test - 1.2.3f - Battle Stat Overhaul, CAI Overhaul and New Traits System (Updated Dec 18)

[nikossaiz]

Dont you think i am greedy, is just that I am sure that the mod as far as it goes for the battle system will follow the best possible turn, so I would like to ask something different. According to jake mention, are you planning a politic overhaul system In the near / distant future? One With 32 or I can't remember how many indtriges that will actually make sense and have real impact maybe? Or with opposite political parties that you have to take serious ?

And as for more feedback according the beta, I saw heavy cavalry do the same damage to light cavalry as experimental pack, ( royal companions vs mob ) around 23 casualties within 1-2 seconds , BUT there was no feeling of impact at all. Like the horses had no weight and stop on infantry formation, disturbing theirs instead of the infantry one.

[Jake Armitage]

Dont you think i am greedy, is just that I am sure that the mod as far as it goes for the battle system will follow the best possible turn, so I would like to ask something different. According to jake mention, are you planning a politic overhaul system In the near / distant future? One With 32 or I can't remember how many indtriges that will actually make sense and have real impact maybe? Or with opposite political parties that you have to take serious ?

sure thing.
This political "overhaul" will start as a community project (in a proper thread) and will talk/mod about Political power / Intrigues/ familly / civil war/ events / government Systems. So it will be called PI...GS
I'm preparing some how to mod guides and i'll probably release a light pack with some things already modded. But after a more solid version of 123f, or it will be too risky to test.
Then there will be space to understand what kind of direction it is better to take and obviously test it.
About intrigues, there are a lot of basic things that are easily moddable. Anyway I'm trying to overhaul those intrigues but i wasn't capable yet. Still have to try one possibility more, hoping that it will work. Not sure if it is simply hardcoded or not.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Jake is gonna be the new Thatcher of politics.

[Jake Armitage]

i could, but only if i can have Jason Williamson from sleaford mods as chief of the cabinet

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nehcDX3XqDs

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

i could, but only if i can have Jason Williamson from sleaford mods as chief of the cabinet

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nehcDX3XqDs

That video is more British than Big Ben.
On-topic now, can't wait for your politics suggestions.

[KAM 2150]

In case of cavalry charges, I will still be working on them after this patch but changes already made should provide some improvements in upcoming update

For example, Lonchophoroi when charging on braced Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou will only kill 3-5 enemies while losing ~15 horsemen on point of charge and much more in prolonged melee while Cataphracts charging same unit will kill around 10 but also lose around 10.

[Fluke]

I think the effectiveness of ranged troops, especially slingers at long range, before the combat overhaul, was too strong. I favor this system more, and I believe unit experience should play a much bigger role with the lethality of archers and slingers since they required a high level of skill.

To be honest, I was weary of a new combat system that is quite young KAM, but I think this version is much closer to and better emulates your long term vision of battle mechanics, more so than the previous. Obviously some things to be balanced & such, but it seems to be a great foundation on which to expand from. Great job, and great to see this side of DEI getting some much needed attention!

I agree with that, they were too op. But problem is that armor is so high now, that even from behind or from the sides, it will barely do any serious dmg either.
I think it could use some balancing on that part

I agree with both statements. I would like to see more differentiation between slingers and archers and their projectiles. Slingers should be weak on armored units from the front, and not very effective from the rear. Archers, especially elite archers, should be much more capable from both front and rear on armored units than slingers.

In this scenario slingers would be an effective unit against lightly armored archers and used to counter them. If the archers are heavily armored then one would have to send in the cavalry to counter them.

[Caius Martius Coriolanus]

Personally, I think it should be the opposite. Historically speaking, slingers were much more common than archers in this time period (at least in the Mediterranean, with some exceptions) and should actually be more effective versus armored units than most archers of this period would be. Most of the archers in this period were untrained peasants, using small bows that were more effective for hunting than use in war, as they had a comparatively short effective range and probably had limited effectiveness against armor and shields. Slingers on the other hand, easily outranged most archers of the period and were able to deal blunt force trauma through armor, and also had the added bonus of being far more accurate. Rhodian and Balaeric slingers were probably the deadliest ranged units you could encounter on the battlefield. The exceptions to these are obviously the Cretan archers (who used heavy, armor-piercing arrows), eastern archers who used recurved composite bows, and Indian longbowmen, who also fired large, heavy arrows.

I agree that slingers and archers should clearly be differentiated in their roles. Slingers should be somewhat akin to snipers - long-range units with a (comparatively) lower rate of fire, but with high accuracy and the ability to wear down armored units, with their limitation being that they are only useful in direct-fire scenarios. Archers, on the other hand, would be more akin to machine guns - able to put out large volumes of fire to act as a counter to other ranged and lightly armored units, with exceptions being made to Cretans and other elite and/or eastern archers having more armor piercing capability. Archers would also be more all-around effective due to their indirect fire capability.

[KAM 2150]

Keep in mind that ancient slingers were not just using rocks but lead "bullets" that had to be surgically removed from the body and they had good piercing capabilities. Now in terms of rocks used, they were not small either, I think Balearic slingers were using rather heavy rocks (up to 0.5kg) that could easily cause blunt trauma even if you had your helmet on.

[quachandy99]

Personally, I think it should be the opposite. Historically speaking, slingers were much more common than archers in this time period (at least in the Mediterranean, with some exceptions) and should actually be more effective versus armored units than most archers of this period would be. Most of the archers in this period were untrained peasants, using small bows that were more effective for hunting than use in war, as they had a comparatively short effective range and probably had limited effectiveness against armor and shields. Slingers on the other hand, easily outranged most archers of the period and were able to deal blunt force trauma through armor, and also had the added bonus of being far more accurate. Rhodian and Balaeric slingers were probably the deadliest ranged units you could encounter on the battlefield. The exceptions to these are obviously the Cretan archers (who used heavy, armor-piercing arrows), eastern archers who used recurved composite bows, and Indian longbowmen, who also fired large, heavy arrows.

I agree that slingers and archers should clearly be differentiated in their roles. Slingers should be somewhat akin to snipers - long-range units with a (comparatively) lower rate of fire, but with high accuracy and the ability to wear down armored units, with their limitation being that they are only useful in direct-fire scenarios. Archers, on the other hand, would be more akin to machine guns - able to put out large volumes of fire to act as a counter to other ranged and lightly armored units, with exceptions being made to Cretans and other elite and/or eastern archers having more armor piercing capability. Archers would also be more all-around effective due to their indirect fire capability.

not being sarcastic here should we introduce if unit get hit by range all unit get slow down?

[KAM 2150]

Units already get slowed down when under ranged fire.

[Hadhod]

Will the new patch be save game compatible with the current beta?

[quachandy99]

Units already get slowed down when under ranged fire.

Hi Kam just test and yes I see some slow down... my bad I didn’t pay attention even thou I spend 1k hours on your mods since 2016

[Dresden]

Update Oct 7

Battle Fixes
- Fixed HP of armoured Indian Elephants
- Fixed stats of Iphicratean Peltasts
- Slight buff to ranged damage
- Small decrease to higher armour values
- Improved spacing of Romans when using special formations
- Improved Disciplined Formation stat bonuses
- Slight increase to fatigue from charging and reloading
- Cavalry charges slightly nerfed, mostly for lighter cavalry
- Buffed spear unit defence from cavalry charges
- Small tweaks to pike/hoplite units


Other Fixes
- Slightly turned down fertility rates, removed some fertility bonuses previously added to a few personality traits.
- Reverted change to general costs since they increase exponentially and were way too expensive.
- Fixed Medewi missing navies and artillery in custom battles.

[KAM 2150]

Also small note on the matter of ranged units.

This update contains few changes to them but for now I still tried to buff them only a bit in order not to go the other way and make them OP. Once we get more reports, we will be able to reach sweet spot.

[jonifrc]

Why do Elephant charges deal such minimal casualties :/ ? It's quite lackluster

[LobstahJohnson]

Update Oct 7

Battle Fixes
- Fixed HP of armoured Indian Elephants
- Fixed stats of Iphicratean Peltasts
- Slight buff to ranged damage
- Small decrease to higher armour values
- Improved spacing of Romans when using special formations
- Improved Disciplined Formation stat bonuses
- Slight increase to fatigue from charging and reloading
- Cavalry charges slightly nerfed, mostly for lighter cavalry
- Buffed spear unit defence from cavalry charges
- Small tweaks to pike/hoplite units


Other Fixes
- Slightly turned down fertility rates, removed some fertility bonuses previously added to a few personality traits.
- Reverted change to general costs since they increase exponentially and were way too expensive.
- Fixed Medewi missing navies and artillery in custom battles.

dumb question but do we need to redownload the pack since the update from today or will the mod manager update it automatically?

[KAM 2150]

Why do Elephant charges deal such minimal casualties :/ ? It's quite lackluster

Sadly elephant charges work that weird way in this game. Basically for some reason elephant damage is hardcoded so if you set unit HP to be low, elephants will do crazy damage on charge and do even more damage in melee. I will be working on it later on but even changing elephant charge damage to 1000 or their melee damage to 1000 will probably have no effect on their actual performance.

Lobstah, this is manually downloaded file, it has to be downloaded manually each time since it is not posted on steam.

[LobstahJohnson]

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks!

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Will the new patch be save game compatible with the current beta?

Yes.