Byzantium Infantry vs. Dis. Byz Lancers

[strife1013]

So these two cheap units have decent stats and one can be created in the city and the other in castles. Now which one is better? Both of their stats are the same and the upkeep is the same. Both with bonus in woods and whatever.... so I guess the only thing that can set them apart would be their armor upgrades, anyone know how many each get or do they both get one upgrade only?

Which one do you use the most of if you use this faction?

[delra]

The one that gets three armour upgrades instead of two.

[strife1013]

Which one gets three armor upgrades?

[delra]

The one from castles. Lancers.

I would check and tell you exact bonuses they get but i don't have the game installed currently. Broke it while moving to another HDD.

[burninglegionx]

i usually train more byzantium infantry (those recruited from cities) b/c they cost no upkeep if you put them in 'recruitable' cities during peace, and take them out during war. (5 byz infantry / city, 3 cities = almost one stack of heavy infantry kept upkeep free)

I think dismounted lancers should have 1 more 'defensive skill' point, b/c they are trained for real combat, and byz. infantries are sorta like a urban militia unit.

[Sosobra]

The Byzantium unit roster really needs a reworking , not intended as a knock on king kong just wished the unit roster was like BC then SS would be perfect.

[Point Blank]

Maybe one should be a higher quality to distinguish the 2 units better

[Echad]

Maybe one should be a higher quality to distinguish the 2 units better

Well, I won't like it... There are numerous ways of distinguishing between units, than just changing their levels. What if to make them more unique, for example giving one better attack and second - defense; or it would be probably more realistic if some of them got some bonus perks (like traits for units - like bonus in woods, ect.), probably something like better trained stuff, and the second - something like better quality, with better attack and defense, etc.

Maybe just raise the quality of Lancers and the Morale of Infantry units? Or vice-versa. Just for the sake of diversity... Raising just Dismounted Lancers would lead players to almost always use them instead, while the Byzatine Infantry really should be a little more widespread.

P.S. BTW, What RC categories are they?

[Ahiga]

A suggestion could be to have stats and unit size differ. Dismounted Lancers would be men typically lancers, meaning they wouldn't have a whole lot of numbers, so a unit size of 80-120 on Huge works. They could get higher quality armor, higher quality swordsmanship and so on, but numbers aren't on their side.

Byzantine Infantry meanwhile would be dedicated infantry, deserving larger sizes but lowered stats to compensate for it. They might perform better in forests and such as Echad mentions.

Essentially try and make the two be used for different roles. Latinikon can be the Elite 1h Swordsmen, while Lancers are the High class, and Infantry the medium/low class. Ideally, Byz Infantry would be used as 'line infantry', whereas Latinikons or Dismounted Lancers would be behind the line or on the flanks.

[Echad]

Well, it would be both realistic and interesting, giving them the corresponding roles in battle... Are Dismounted Lancers Feudal of Professional troops? AFAIK, Feudals should get not the best discipline and morale. What can be done for the Infantry to show that they are more disciplined?

[Ahiga]

A tighter formation, a neater formation, greater shield or defensive skill ratings (perhaps less armor due to them being poorer than the Feudals).

[Echad]

A tighter formation, a neater formation, greater shield or defensive skill ratings (perhaps less armor due to them being poorer than the Feudals).

Yes! Feudals should get in a quite freeform formation, while the trained units should stand tight and close, somehow reminding legionaires on march.

Point Blank:

So, what about reformating the units in RC with issuing the pros with a neater formation than the feudals? As you've done a similar reform with making the spearmen and lancers (mounted ones) tighter, so this should not be a problem.

Also, I think that any paid unit should get more discipline than the obliged ones, probably the only thing in game except raising the morale could be the

P.S. AFAIK, dismounted units should not get any bonuses in woods, since they are used to avoiding the forests, while they are mounted (and the description of DISmounted units means that they are usually mounted), while the regular infantry (not noble) should be good for ambushes.

[Inhuman One]

well the infantry would be more used to fighting on foot.

[Echad]

well the infantry would be more used to fighting on foot.

Yes, exactly - Byzantine Infantry should have better cohesion of foot, than the Dismounted Lancers.

[Point Blank]

Yes, exactly - Byzantine Infantry should have better cohesion of foot, than the Dismounted Lancers.

They do, they have the highly_trained attribute, which partially determines how tidy a unit's formation is. The Dismounted Lancers have the disciplined attribute. Both are Average RC quality. Tightening up the formation (eg reducing spacing between men) appears to have rather less benefit for swordsmen than spearmen though.

But I note that the mounted Byzantine Lancers are in fact Superior quality, while the dismounted are Average. As far as I can remember the logic there was that they would generally be less experienced in the dismounted role so were bumped down a notch in quality. Of course that was a somewhat arbitrary decision so may have been an incorrect one. Certainly its good hearing from those who have greater expertise in specific units

In the case of bumping the dismounted Byzantine Lancers up a level, then, as Ahiga suggests that should also result in the dismounted Latinkon going up to Elite quality. At the moment they are Superior.

Ahiga, would you say that the Latinkon should be better quality than the Kataphractoi? The Katas are currently elite, but maybe the Latinkon would be better at that level, with the Katas at Superior and the Archontos at Elite too. Actually that would make for a more consistent and interesting EDB too. While you are around we will hijack you and get some info

Echad, Ahiga and the guys at BC have come up with a very good system for calculating terrain bonuses/penalties and heat penalties and kindly given permission for it to be used (if that's still OK Ahiga), but I haven't done anything with it yet, as it would be a lot of work to implement, but if you have time I will forward the details and you can do some. I hopefully will have time later.

[Ahiga]

[quote=Point Blank;2742395]
Ahiga, would you say that the Latinkon should be better quality than the Kataphractoi? The Katas are currently elite, but maybe the Latinkon would be better at that level, with the Katas at Superior and the Archontos at Elite too. Actually that would make for a more consistent and interesting EDB too. While you are around we will hijack you and get some info [/qupte]

Help help, I'm being Hijacked! I'm not an expert on the Roman Military at this time but I know a little bit. In a dismounted role (I know you agree, just stating it for effect) I think it's no question the Latinkon's are elite - Normans were pretty famous for dismounting, and Latinkon's would also feature Germans who were also well known to the Romans for fighting as Infantry. But that's already recognized, while Mounted is a bit more complex.

What I tried to do with BC 1.05 was depict a difference in "Old School" Heavy cavalry and "Couched Lance" Heavy Cavalry. I spoke to you about it, but the results aren't quite as great as I hoped. I believe XP may cause an unbalance in favor of the Old Schoolers, however. I'm going to re-look and retest it for BC 1.1 once we finish the stat_ground stuff.

I think what you suggest is ideal. Kataphractoi would be kind of a generic superheavy cavalry, while Latinkon's are the elite of the Frankish-style cavalry (Regular Latin soldiers being mercenaries), and Archontos being Elite too. If you can differ Couched vs Uncouched Cavalry, then you can do basically the same thing. Latinkons would be Elite Couched Lance, Kataphracts could be superior uncouched, and Archontos could be Elite uncouched.

Echad, Ahiga and the guys at BC have come up with a very good system for calculating terrain bonuses/penalties and heat penalties and kindly given permission for it to be used (if that's still OK Ahiga), but I haven't done anything with it yet, as it would be a lot of work to implement, but if you have time I will forward the details and you can do some. I hopefully will have time later.

Yup, still ok. If I didn't mention it in the text, I would suggest you adjust the Mounted variable to be based on the Mount's familiarity to the Terrain - There's no reason an Arab steed would do poorly in the sand, while there's much reason a Crusader steed would. We're currently updating ours and I'll try and pass along the finalized version whenever it's done.

[delra]

You know what. I'd dump lancers. Made byz. inf. trainable in both cities and castles and add them some more elite feeling like better morale and the third armour upgrade.

This way we would free up a unit slot...

[King Yngvar]

I usually recruit alot of db lancers in the beginning, seing as you have no cities able to produce byz infantry. Then change over the course of time, using cities to produce byz inf while castles can produce varangians, archers, cavalry, etc.

[Echad]

You know what. I'd dump lancers. Made byz. inf. trainable in both cities and castles and add them some more elite feeling like better morale and the third armour upgrade.

This way we would free up a unit slot...

Unit slots should ONLY be taking into concern after 6.0 (final, not beta) will came out... Major reformat here, due to omission of Aztecs, 2 new factions and some mercs.

[Ahiga]

Ahiga: Cool, will do as you suggest. In SS the Katas/Archonto models still have that light wooden jousting lance that the Mailed Knights, Normans etc have, so I gave them a light couched lance. So it should really be the uncouched? Wonder what other units that applies to? Would love to see BC-style lances.

Hope there is time to implement your terrain effects system, its really good.

On Couched/Uncouched:

• It really depends on visual preference. In BC we have more the nature of the unit determine the stats than the status of the lance, because sometimes couched lances look a whole lot more impressive and befitting of a unit than uncouching it. We basically give couched lances to most medium or heavy cavalry, and give uncouched to some of the lighter cavalry, as well as medium cavalry of lesser quality. One big issue with Vanilla Spears/Lances is that the uncouched spear looks really short.
• So what I suggest would be to utilize a visual couched lance for all three of those cavalry (maybe take it away for Kataphracts), but not limit all three cavalry to couched lance stats. Visually Kats or other cavalry could couch their lances, but technically they could be treated as uncouched.

If I could suggest something for SS's modeling/texturing field, I would highly suggest making an effort to replace the vanilla spears, lances, and other weaponry - It wouldn't take too long to build, it would take long to implement (having to double back for so many units), but the effects are really dramatic. Compare some Rajput Ghandara with vanilla Spears to the Ghandara with AD's Spears:
Before: http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6...spear1ank6.jpg
After: http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3672/ghandaramk1.jpg

Glow is due to me being an idiot with alphachannels. It's only really lances and spears that need this. Swords and maces are fine, but the spears in Vanilla are really ugly. Replacing them I think would have a really noticeable effect, since the old vanilla meshes when updated with Burrek and other's textures are not too bad. And honestly, when I see the tall sturdy spears as the unit marches along, it looks so badass - it's like the Phalangites of old.

Only a suggestion, of course.

Unit slots should ONLY be taking into concern after 6.0 (final, not beta) will came out... Major reformat here, due to omission of Aztecs, 2 new factions and some mercs.

Well, here's a thought but - after 6.0, why not consider changing the nature of the Dis. Lancers? You could arm them with 1h maces or 1h axes (Though I worry about the balance of that - the ERE would be coming close to a 'have it all' faction. Though, they do suffer the Seleucid syndrome so that's a bit reasonable, especially if costs/recruitment rates are tweaked accordingly). Another option being what's already been discussed, basically:

• Start Byz Infantry off in leather, cap perhaps at mail armor upgrade. Large Unit Size, poorer attack rates, regular mass, less moral.
• Start Dis. Lancers off in mail, cap at mail and lamellar upgrade. Smaller Unit Size, higher attack rates, lower mass, higher moral.
• Dis. Latinkons would be the best at defense, offense, ect.

The view that I myself would aim for is Byzantine Infantry are used in the battle line, alongside of spearmen almost like the legionaries of antiquity, but far from having their fighting prowess. You need numbers to fill up the battle line, and these guys fulfill that. Dis. Lancers are like the Thuerophoroi of RTR or EB, taking to the flanks - You need less men to guard the flanks, but men of higher quality. Latinkons just raepraepraep everything so they go wherever they want.