Real Recruitment **UPDATE May 29**

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Tripple post but I m not sorry. We have now knowlege.I m afraid that balance that JaM is aiming will be done only with higher accuracy and atack for gunpowder and x-bows.
There is not any chance to do that in any another way.

I m SO SORRY THAT I GIVE YOU HOPE OF BETTER BALLANCE. I was wrong . But I know now how mehanics of M2TW is working. ONE THING IS SHURE THIS ENGINE IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID. IT IS FAR MORE SIMPLIER. I

[Point Blank]

You need to do some tests to prove your theory. It is far from proven at this point. Show some test results.

Try same test as I did. Set archers to 400m max range and give them target at 100m (should be 25% range zone right?). Record Casualties.
Then set archers to 200m max range and give them target at 100m (should be 50% range zone right?). Record Casualties.

If you are right, casualties in first case should be double those in second case.

[Space Voyager]

In average. Meaning that more than one test is necessary.

[JaM]

PB:IF warload of crossbows had only 55-60m/s, then there is no way that it will outrange Musket or even Arquebuse... Bullet with muzzle speed 300-350m/s will definitly go much,much far.

this i found about gunpowder weapon accuracy:

A Note on Accuracy

Accuracy is variable. If you use a loose-fitting ball (commonly called a rolling-fit) you will get very poor results. If a tight-fitting ball is used or the ball is patched, surprisingly good results can be achieved with all weapons. The best result is achieved by a very tight fit with a cloth patch, forced down the barrel and tapped in with a mallet (hence the term 'to hammer it home').

A ball that is a loose fit in a barrel will, when fired, act like the clapper in a bell, and will bounce from side to side as it travels down the barrel. If the ball is loose-fitting it can leave the muzzle at very odd angles. So the tighter the ball fits and the longer the barrel, the more accurate the shot.

In expert hands, a smooth-bore flint-lock musket properly loaded can hit a person at 150 yards or more, so the 'unable to hit a barn door' idea is doing the weapon a huge injustice. If shooting a moving target, you can't beat a flint lock. A good one will even be fast and accurate enough to take down clay pigeons.

So the modern myth that these guns have poor accuracy is wrong and can only be down to the poor individual accuracy of men firing in haste and in massed ranks. Hollywood can help here: the results from the films The Patriot, The Last of the Mohicans and Waterloo give a good picture of the ability of these weapons in skilled hands. It is likely that those who cast doubt upon the quality may not have used the wepons over a long period or lack the skill to get the best from them. As weapons they are easy to use but hard to master.

and as found before, in reneisance they mostly used tight fitting balls, therefore had lower load speed...

whole article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12737487

[JaM]

Ok, so, i just throwed long range - low acc out of window - Arquebusiers and Musketeers did just minor damage even relativly close.


So i'm back to my previous idea with short range, but high accuracy.Instead of max range, i'm using maximum effective range. Arquebusiers can do some serious damage, but if not protected by pikemens, almost any unit will overrun them. Works perfect, battles looks quite realistic, with all those short range salvos... I'm thinking about modifying crossbows too, to behave somewhat similar, but with higher range, lower (slightly) accuracy.

before, i had 180 for Arquebuse, 220 for Musket. Now i have 90 for arquebuse, 100 for Caliver and 110 for Musket. Accuracy numbers reduced in half. (0.0295 for best and 0.0385 for worst.) Salvo makes relativly lots of damage, but most of time there is a time only for 1-2 salvos before contact.

edit:

so, for crossbows same system would mean: 65 for light crossbow, 85 for heavy crossbow and around 100-120 for arbalests/steel crossbows. All crossbows with lowered accuracy values in half . So crossbows will be one shot weapons, but with deadly close range fire, able to deal a lot of casualties before withdrawal behind first line units.
Practically it will mean, that old crossbows (light and heavy wooden crossbows) would be outdated and outgunned by "modern" Arquebuses after they are available, steel crossbows will be still slightly better. Musket will come close to it, but will not be better. only dissadvantage steel crossbow will have is its rate of fire (until its rate of fire is lowered by animation, unit cost will represent a servant and another crossbow available for every crossbowmen, but that i think is already implemented in RR/RC)

Bows at the other side would have more range(almost same as now, only slightly lowered), BUT reduced accuracy and area damage. (peasant bow around 0.09, elite longbow 0.0675, elite composite bow 0.0625 etc...) Therefore Archers would be indirect fire weapons. At short range they will be able to deal lot of damage, but only to weakly protected units.


with that, crossbows in front line set for skirmish will make a lot of damage at short range, and then immediatly move behind stronger units. If salvo is properly executed, it can break a charge of cavalry (if the projectile makes enough damage to them)

[JaM]

I just had a battle against Sicilly - they had standard Medieval army composition, but all their units were silver to gold experienced.Together around 2500men I had Tercios+Musketeers+Arquebusiers+artilery and cavalry. (2800men) My units got damaged badly, but i won. Musketeers had around 150 kills, my best unit was a battery of Serpentines (250kills). Anyway i lost 1500men and killed 1500 captured 800.
50:50 is kinda good score if you kill the elite of their army with your seasoned troops... I was able replace them very quickly. They were not able to replace them for long time. Plus it is a big difference fighting against dismounted knight with exp 8 and dismounted knight with exp 0...


Sonny: nice thing about reducing the range is, that once pavise crossbowmens close in to effective range against Longbows, they are able to wipe out them easilly... with light lower accuracy and smaller attack value (-1) it means that longbows are not able to do significant damage to them due to Pavises... exactly as it should be...

Practically it makes bows a long range indirect weapon making area damage and crossbows (relativly) short range antiarmor direct fire weapons. gunpowder once introduced might be a interesting suplement (handguns have rng 40, but may route enemy + they are relativly ok as melee infantry), steel crossbow rules until it is matched by later gunpowder weapons (still with slight advantage over any) but more costly, plus units equiped by them with pavises are too slow to run from cavalry or help fight enemy infantry if needed.

I will post files when i come home.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

I know now that only attack value and accuracy count. >All other things are just cosmetics. If you want better ballance you will need to change attack and accuracy. Range is predetermined you will have same accuracy at 100 m as 100000 ly (light years). If you give 1000000 ly range to peasent archers they will shoot same amount of units as they will on range of 100m. This is hardcoded and we do not have any chance to change it. Ranged attack use as variable 100% range 1% chance of hitting, 90% range 2% chance of hitting 80% range 4%, 70% - 8%,60 -16, 50 - 32 , 25 - 50. or something similar to this.

There is no chance to achiving ballance due to hardcoded (they said that this is variable) effectivnes of ranged units.
They are just SAME for any range.

And I will not play this arcade any more.

[JaM]

but anyway, range is important for one thing - number of salvos your unit will have. If range is too short, then you will fire only 1-2 salvos. If it is long enough, you can fire 5-6 salvos or more

[Sonny WiFiHr]

but anyway, range is important for one thing - number of salvos your unit will have. If range is too short, then you will fire only 1-2 salvos. If it is long enough, you can fire 5-6 salvos or more

With same resoult as I said before. Range do not have any impact against non ranged units. Only ranged units have inpact on each other. For example. Super trooper with range of 72 cm will be outshoot against James Bond with range of 73 cm (same atack value). Why ? James Bond have 1 cm greather range and he will hit more.Because range do not have any impact. With only one cm higher range James Bond put himselve in better place (Super Trooper have only one cm lesser range but it make difference). So he will shoot more. SALVOS DO NOT IMPACT ANYTHING. You will have same resoult with 23498767758949273746 salvos as only wit 1-3 (i did not tested only one salvo).

Please . Do my test. You will see what is broken / strange /unnatural/simplistic/I want my money back.
And you wiil find what is broken (unrepaible)

To POINT BLANK

Just give some accuracy to crossbows and gunpowder. We will test this. As you see we have very limited options. And historical accuracy can not be done. I m sorry but this is the only way. Let the force be with you. Ha ha ha i think that i had drinking day and I m d... as archer at range of one million mile with same acurracy. Do not ask me how many vollleys I had. Too many is for shure but this is not important. Few shoots of 100 % alchohol is same as few shoots od 100% of ( I do not have idea. If you want to be drunk you will need some alcohol).

I m kidding

[Point Blank]

For example. Super trooper with range of 72 cm will be outshoot against James Bond with range of 73 cm (same atack value). Why ? James Bond have 1 cm greather range and he will hit more.Because range do not have any impact.

OK, this can be balanced with giving Super Trooper a slightly better accuracy, so they will hit same amount.

So crossbows and guns, which are shorter ranged, can be given a higher accuracy to compensate.

I tend to think that, as you guys were saying, we are better sticking to effective ranges as that minimises the effects of long ranges messing up accuracy, also its better for the AI.

Haven't looked at any values in detail or looked at your results yet JaM, been on a plane for the last 12 hours.

I don't see any real problems with all this at all.

[JaM]

i have no problem at all use a little higher accuracy for crossbows and gunpowder. especially gunpowder is available after 200+ turns, so it must be somehow beneficial to have it... Try my files, they are not perfect, still need a lot of tests,but atleast crossbows and gunpowder have some use, even with shorter range.
Right now i'm thinking making all cavalry bows a direct fire weapons. They were hardly used for long range fire... A horsearcher in full speed would be not able to aim at long range anyway...



Most probably range is ment as maximum effective range and not maximum range.

[JaM]

Try those files:



stil need to fine tuning them,but with this, pavise crossbows will beat longbowmens, even they will have some looses.


Bows have higher range, but lower acc. also they have area effect (indirect fire more effective,but not too much)

xbows, lower range, but high accuracy in direct fire - lots of casaulties at close range salvos. Steel crossbow rule.

gunpowder, lightly better range,but slightly lower acc (only a little) hand gunners have very short range.

cavalry archers have lowered range in half, but better acc than normal archers. Also they fire only directly. anyway, not match for crossbows.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Try those files:



stil need to fine tuning them,but with this, pavise crossbows will beat longbowmens, even they will have some looses.


Bows have higher range, but lower acc. also they have area effect (indirect fire more effective,but not too much)

xbows, lower range, but high accuracy in direct fire - lots of casaulties at close range salvos. Steel crossbow rule.

gunpowder, lightly better range,but slightly lower acc (only a little) hand gunners have very short range.

cavalry archers have lowered range in half, but better acc than normal archers. Also they fire only directly. anyway, not match for crossbows.

Can HA kill anyone. I think that HA had to big range but i did not want to reduce them so much (range 120 with composite bows) . Range do not have any impact agains inf( if they come to you) but against ranged it have because of beeter kill ratio if yor enemy is on half range.I will try this tomorow. Change HA to normal range because they had good range (Same bow or reduce 10% - 20% for more compact bow).
Did you try our test?


.

[JaM]

actually, from horseback it is quite hard to use upper derees. Therefore they shouldnt have more range. Plus they have a benefit of speed - i used them with big sucess agaisnt other units - especially other cavalry. If i gave them more range, they will be able to outrange crossbows in direct fire, but crossbows were actually the best killers of horsearchers during crusades,King RIchard used them with big sucess against them.

Best unit against bows is now a pavise crossbow - it can decimate enemy if it gets to its effective range. Enemy arrows are not effective against them thank to pavise.

[Cobar]

One thing you guys might not be taking in to consideration is velocity.

since most of the misses seem to be high or low, arrows coming in pretty flat tend to plow in to the ground or fly right over the targets heads. Arrows coming in on a more curved path have the whole area (front to back, side to side) of the formation to hit.

I was messing around with the values and realized that if I made the peasant archers have double velocity they ended up missing more since a lot of arrows hit the ground or just sailed over the targets.

EDIT: Longer range with the same velocity and accuracy would cause the arrows to come in at more of an angle, letting them make more hits. That could be the reason you were getting similar kills at longer ranges when you didn't change anything else.

[Point Blank]

Update: Sorry Sonny, I have done further testing, and there is no doubt that you are wrong about the ranges.

Test 1: Grassy Fields. AI: Crossbowmen, maximum range set to 180m, ammo set to 20, accuracy 0.06. Me: Billmen

Begin the battle, crossbowmen start at about 180m distant so start shooting immediately. After all ammunition used, average casulties caused to Billmen: 77

Test 2: Grassy Fields. AI: Crossbowmen, maximum range set to 60m, ammo set to 20, accuracy 0.06. Me: Billmen

Begin the battle, crossbowmen start at about 180m distant and run in to 60m range then start shooting. All Billmen killed every time.

In both cases, Crossbowmen were shooting at their maximum range (180m and 60m respectively). If you were right Sonny, and range doesn't matter, then casualties would be the same in each case, since both tests were conducted at 100% range. However, casualties were much more at 60m.

This is conclusive. Range matters.

Sonny I also tried your test, versus peasants (do not test versus armored targets as it adds another variable, test versus peasants or billmen etc). Scots Guard first set to max range 300m, then set to 180m, then set to 50m. Casualties per volley with 300m were the same as with 180m (because the Scots Guard were shooting from 180m), and both were about 30% what they were with 50m, ie when shooting at 50m (100% of unit range) more casualties were caused than the other 2 cases. You need to do your tests again.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Update: Sorry Sonny, I have done further testing, and there is no doubt that you are wrong about the ranges.

Test 1: Grassy Fields. AI: Crossbowmen, maximum range set to 180m, ammo set to 20, accuracy 0.06. Me: Billmen

Begin the battle, crossbowmen start at about 180m distant so start shooting immediately. After all ammunition used, average casulties caused to Billmen: 77

Test 2: Grassy Fields. AI: Crossbowmen, maximum range set to 60m, ammo set to 20, accuracy 0.06. Me: Billmen

Begin the battle, crossbowmen start at about 180m distant and run in to 60m range then start shooting. All Billmen killed every time.

In both cases, Crossbowmen were shooting at their maximum range (180m and 60m respectively). If you were right Sonny, and range doesn't matter, then casualties would be the same in each case, since both tests were conducted at 100% range. However, casualties were much more at 60m.

This is conclusive. Range matters.

Sonny I also tried your test, versus peasants (do not test versus armored targets as it adds another variable, test versus peasants or billmen etc). Scots Guard first set to max range 300m, then set to 180m, then set to 50m. Casualties per volley with 300m were the same as with 180m (because the Scots Guard were shooting from 180m), and both were about 30% what they were with 50m, ie when shooting at 50m (100% of unit range) more casualties were caused than the other 2 cases. You need to do your tests again.

All I was doing is testing. If both units stand still range counts because unit with higher range is in beter position. For example unit with 300 against unit with 180. They are at range. So distance is 180. Unit with range of 180 is at maximum range and the have worser presicion. Unit with range of 300 is at 60%-70% percent range and they have much greather chance to hit.
But when unit move towards you eg. pikeman. You will have same resoults before melee.
Ranges are fine now but accuraccy still favour bows especialy longbows. I did before make x-bows slitghtly more powerfull even when i did not know this.But now im in conclusion that they need far more greater precision. Gunpowder could be equal but as I see they have advantage of one shot more. So they need little less accuracy than x-bows (for early gunpowder). With muskets you can still dueling but im not shure should we make muskets better than best x-bows.
Horse archers should have worst precision but range of 320 (uh i don't remember) is to high because you can go to closer range and have better precision. They become more effective than they should be. Wester aproach is that you will use x-bows against them not any other units than x-bows. So YaM is right reducing their range we will put x-bows in better firing range and they will be finally better than HA. I had tested with everything and this is what I find. If we make high tier units long ranged they will obsolite earlyer units immediat. I like it. Diff betwin tiers should be about 25% increasing range or more. When you increase accuracy of x-bows and make them more precise (this will make archers indirect firing unit) they own the battlefield but archers are still wery effective and they faster reload. Wit this setting you will avoid long range duelling like before. You will rush arrchers to better firing position wit x-bows you will have of steady precise fire.
I think that this is most accurate ( historicaly and in battlefield condition). Are you prepaered to lower archery accuracy?

[Point Blank]

All I was doing is testing. If both units stand still range counts because unit with higher range is in beter position. For example unit with 300 against unit with 180. They are at range. So distance is 180. Unit with range of 180 is at maximum range and the have worser presicion. Unit with range of 300 is at 60%-70% percent range and they have much greather chance to hit.
But when unit move towards you eg. pikeman. You will have same resoults before melee.

No. I tested with the AI as the shooter. No units were moving. Unit with range 300 and range 180 were both shooting from range 180, because the custom battle always starts with units 180m apart. They caused equal casualties. Chance to hit is the same at 180m. I won't argue this anymore because my tests are 100% conclusive, please re-read them. Archers with 50m range shooting at 50m cause a lot more casualties than archers with 180m range shooting at 180m, though both are shooting at 100% of range.

Armor upgrade model is OK IMHO. Plate + Mail is now 11, and Full Plate 13. That could be made 14 if we can accept a minor inconsistency in the upgrades. There are no more unit slots available to make new units based around upgrades.

Missile ranges should probably be effective ranges, ranges where the weapons were most often used historically, though we can't really have less than 40m because then skirmishing does not work.

Currently looking at using following:
Comp bow 200
Longbow 180
Steel crossbow 180
Heavy crossbow 140
Crossbow 120
Wooden crossbow 100
Musket 160
Late arquebus 120
Early arquebus 100

Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy were surprised to be out-ranged by longbowmen, so a 40m difference (at average quality) is reasonable, and steel crossbow was reckoned to be about same range as longbow.

Later arquebus was frequently used at 100m, and earlier ones closer as JaM states. We could use 100m for late and 80m for early but that would give crossbows a too-large range advantage. As later arquebus was thought to be similar effective range as heavy crossbow, 120m is good compromise, also considering that crossbow load sequence is less effective. Musketeers often opened fire at arounf 160m.

Accuracy has been improved for crossbows (about equal to composite bow at average, and better for steel crossbow, and much better than bows for militia or peasants), and also for firearms.

SwampRAt's suggestion to re-work the crossbow load sequence is a very interesting one.

[JaM]

yes it is. range matter. But i like the short range direct fire exactly as it is able to do lots of casaulties.
Some things needs to be implemented - pavise crossbowmen needs to be slowed a lot - they run too fast - same speed as normal crossbowmens.

With that, they will do horible damage at short range, but if not protected, they will be overruned and killed in melee.

I'm playing campaign game right now, and musketeers are able to deal same amount damage as longbows do everytime. If used properly, they are deadly, if not, they will be killed as they are just average melee fighters - almost any specialised melee unit will defeat them in melee - in one test i send 120 S&B vs 150 musketeers. They killed 50 S&B until they were close enough to charge - after that, 70 S&B were able to wipe out the floor with musketeers, they killed 140 and lost another 10 men.

from history we know, that only fast units were sucessfull against mass gunfire. Scotland Highland charge was so sucessfull, because they were able to close distance very fast and in melee they were much more potent than english musketeers. Armored knight in 20-25kg armor will be moving slow, so they would be decimated by fire. It was the exact reason why armor lost its importance...

[Point Blank]

With current settings (ie about 0.065 - 0.0675 accuracy) at close range arquebus gets about 33% casualties versus unarmored, ie about 50% hits (because only maximum 60% of hits will be casualties). That is probably about right. Musket will be better. How do you feel about those figures?

Slowing pavise crossbow can probably be done via animation.

Slower heavy unit move speeds with latest patch should help gunfire units.

EDIT: Checked crossbow run animations, Pavise crossbow run speed is same as other crossbow run speeds, should be able to fix it.