decrease heavy cavalry hit point please.

[Prince Vinc]

Its possible,household Knights and many heavy knights are superman,

thanks

[4th Regiment]

I also hate this concept of more than one hit points (elephants excluded). No man can fight with an axe in the head or arrow in the body. Stat of heavy knights(and general's units) is big enough to represent their fighting ability but they were not superhumans. If play as Serbia I experienced that in hard way while taking Ragusa rebel province, which have like 5-6 household knights units. Literary impossible to kill them. Also, they should be resistant to arrows, but due to hit point concept (I guess) they suffer NO (zero) losses even to steady fire down hill from good quality archers.

[Prince Vinc]

the archers are weak and in too small numbers,at start all factions have many elites unities.Its unrealistic,it must changed the bodygard

[Gigamacdaddy]

the best way to handle cavalry is to flank them, or just get pikemen

[Prince Vinc]

yes,but a more weak cavalry is very important,I find invicible knights boring...sorry

[phoenixemperor]

Maybe the problem isn't the cavalry, but your way of dealing with them.

[Prince Vinc]

in other mods the the heavy cavalry have good potienciel for attack,but a knigth isn't a tank,right??!!phoenix.

[DaVinci]

Wrong, mounted knights were "tanks" in the certain timeframes, as cataphracts were earlier on.

Only the (re-)invention of pike-regiments changed this way, and of course also the crossbow (if the bullet meets his target at the right point), and then the gunpowder-units made more and more the highly armoured warrior superflouos, and the cavalry tactics changed.

Until this, charging knights were deadly, alone the punch from a galopping/running horse is enough to struck down a man, and not only this, they (as always in the history) spread a lot fear to infantry.

You can try to experience this, if you would go on a field with a LOT of horses on it, and this massive crowd of flesh runs eventually for you, because you are a disturbing individuum on this field, and this then without the circumstances of a real battle with highly armoured elite warriors on the horseback, who in fact intend to kill you, try to imagine this!

The stats in this mod reflect all this, this isn't only a mathematical statistic of joule-values.

Also, if you compare with other mods, you should take into consideration, that the knights in this mod have far lower troop numbers than usually applied.

In general to this theme: We had a lot of those discussion in the past. And i could list a lot of occasions, where a little number of highly armoured elite warriors (even non-mounted) were able to stay superior to a huge number of non-elites in the middle-age (and earlier). You should know, that knights learn fighting from childhood on, a normal deployed "soldier" (in most cases a non-professional in the middleage times) is often completely untrained, and can eventually hold his weapon and shield in the right way, but not much more. There is no 1:1 comparision possible, rather a 1:50 ratio in the whole (incl. the fear-factor ... and then even eventually still higher).

The 2hp is another question, if we would put them on 1hp, then we would need to increase/change other stats, this change of the combat model is possible in future.

[Prince Vinc]

Thanks Da VincI,but how I can change this stats in the EDU or something

[STELLover]

I think they are fine as they are

[STELLover]

But it is harder for the infantry to resist them

[Emperor Basil]

I reckon the cavalry is a bit too powerful. It should be able to rout most infantry pretty easily in the charge but at the moment it totally wipes them out. Infantry is almost pointless. In fact often I've just had a full stack of cavalry which is invincible.

[DaVinci]

In fact often I've just had a full stack of cavalry which is invincible.

Yes, and that would be realistic, but is a kind of cheating vs. the AI imo. ... perhaps we need to increase the upkeep costs of heavy cavalry?

Infantry is almost pointless.

Depends on the infantry type ... , and where you fight this out. In the open field poor infantry is just inferior to heavy cavalry, not so in the streets of a settlement.

[xeryx]

I will play this weekend and give you my verdict, but from my experience, the only units that should have 2 hp is the general. This should be to reflect the eliteness of his handpicked unit. The key to the cavalry's power should always the charge and penetration. That is where the most losses should occur. It should however not be able to wipe out a unit, not even from behind during a charge. If a unit is poorly armoured and has cruddy weapons, then sure wipe em out. ( I would never waste cavalry for this though) I do agree with the "Fear Factor" of the knights, but balance must be mantained.

Curious thing though, with XBAI new moral system, that works correctly, how has that affected the moral of the units.

I have loaded up Chiv2: SV and the XAI conversion for testing this weekend. I will let you know what I think on the Cavalry.

[DaVinci]

I will play this weekend and give you my verdict, but from my experience, the only units that should have 2 hp is the general. This should be to reflect the eliteness of his handpicked unit. The key to the cavalry's power should always the charge and penetration. That is where the most losses should occur. It should however not be able to wipe out a unit, not even from behind during a charge. If a unit is poorly armoured and has cruddy weapons, then sure wipe em out. ( I would never waste cavalry for this though) I do agree with the "Fear Factor" of the knights, but balance must be mantained.

Curious thing though, with XBAI new moral system, that works correctly, how has that affected the moral of the units.

I have loaded up Chiv2: SV and the XAI conversion for testing this weekend. I will let you know what I think on the Cavalry.

I know about the recent teamwork between you and SV in this regard as he told me about it in the dev forum.

Of course if this will improve things in this mod (and this is to expect from what SV told me), then it is very welcome and should be the new state of the art for the basic combat balancing design in Chivalry II

Xeryx, if you playtest the mod, i recommend to use the Early era camp as reference, because that was the most balanced campaign.


After all, i provided the SV combat-model in 2007 for the release SV 2.5, and a bit revision-work for internal SV 2.7 short after (still in 2007), and this is basicly what is used currently in Chivalry II. And it all was of course wip.

As i stopped the actual SV coding and betatest-managing after the internal 2.7 (and the beta-testing team left us in this moment as well), the combat model design should get a renovation, if it is for the better, and keeps in a certain sense the original intended Chivalry-mod-type of balancing, which is quite unique since years, and not (only) a statistical balance of joule values and categories (quality-classes) of units, and also it is not only an isolated view on unit capabilities, it considers the global balancing work and its goals.
Also as we have a vast amount of other files that influence the combat behaviour, rather the AI behaviour on the battlefield and on the strat-map (as ie. ds, trait/ancs, tech-tree, scripts), we should never only see the direct combat related files isolated.
But i don't wanna spread confusion, it's just an extract of my personal style and view about coding applied since years for all relevant files. A specialisation on certain modding aspects can improve things of course very much, i expect this from XAI and XBAI, and hope the Chiv-style won't go under completely

And anyway, as for the many changes in the whole modification, it needs normally a deep revision of the basic balancing works in this regard (the pure combat relations) and in other regards (the global balancing), for what i have no time unfortunately, as i'm already lucky when i find enough time to work on Chivalry I TW. Btw., the Chivalry I combat model and related files is currently in an overhaule status with still more AI consideration than it was already in the past times. Eventually i'll have time some day in future to transport some certain things to Chivalry II, if they fit, as M2/Kingdoms is though a slight other engine/platform in several regards than the RTW engine.

[Emperor Basil]

I will play this weekend and give you my verdict, but from my experience, the only units that should have 2 hp is the general. This should be to reflect the eliteness of his handpicked unit. The key to the cavalry's power should always the charge and penetration. That is where the most losses should occur. It should however not be able to wipe out a unit, not even from behind during a charge. If a unit is poorly armoured and has cruddy weapons, then sure wipe em out. ( I would never waste cavalry for this though) I do agree with the "Fear Factor" of the knights, but balance must be mantained.

Xeryx is right. Cavalry should have a strong charge and fear factor but not wipe out an entire unit. After that they should not be all powerful. The cavalry domination during the middle ages wasn't based on how effective cavalry were against infantry. It was just that infantry was crap for most of the MA!
Mounted knights only trousted infantry because the infantry usually fled on seeing a huge cavalry line charging towards them. There are quite a few examples where cavalry have been beaten by even not very good infantry when they have stood their ground.
Examples:
-Hastings 1066 - mostly English levies (fyrd) and a few professionals saw off all the Norman knights and were only beaten because they were too indisciplined to stand their ground. They were not crushed by one charge.
- Courtrai 1302 - Flemish militias defeated a royal French army by placing themselves infront of a river so no-one could run. Between a third and a half of their knights were killed including their commander Robert de Artois.
- Crecy 1346, Poiters 1356, Agincourt 1415 and various others in the HYW - well positioned archers and dismounted men-at-arms (not a pikeman in there) totally crushed vastly superior French knights.

The fact was that infantry could beat cavalry so long as it stood firm. It just took hundreds of years to realise. Two years before Courtrai Pierre Dubois, a royal clerk of Philip IV of France, claimed that no one would or could stand against the might of the royal French host.

My suggestion would be to reduce the power of cavalry so they are powerful but not all powerful and make it so that in the early and, to a lesser extent, the high campaigns good infantry (not just pikemen) capable of standing up to cavalry with some morale strength are only available after investing a lot of time and effort in building and training them. Infantry should really be defeated by cavalry because a charge of cavalry is bloody scary for them. Poor or rookie infantry should flee at a cav charge but experienced infantry and/or with a good general should be able to stop them.

[A_B]

Das Heilige Römische Reich did a lot of work regarding more realistic knight statistics, but I haven't had a chance to try it yet. Might be worth a look, though. 2hp does seem to create some odd battle results.

Another option might be to reduce HP to 1, but increase charge and attack even more. The idea being that Knights have a good chance of routing units on the initial charge. However, if the opponent stands their ground, the knights will start taking significant casualties. The weak point of a knight is the horse, which are vulnerable when surrounded by angry peasant with pitch-forks, if, of course, the peasants aren't running for their lives.

I think knights with unarmored horses should be vulnerable to missile fire. I would imagine, considering the relative size, that horses would be hit 4 or 5 times for every time the man on it's back was hit. If the horse is hit, the man is most likely out of the action, and possibly killed or seriously hurt in a fall.

Armored horses would be a significant advantage in melee, and especially from missiles.

[Buggsy]

Das Heilige Römische Reich did a lot of work regarding more realistic knight statistics, but I haven't had a chance to try it yet. Might be worth a look, though. 2hp does seem to create some odd battle results.

Another option might be to reduce HP to 1, but increase charge and attack even more. The idea being that Knights have a good chance of routing units on the initial charge. However, if the opponent stands their ground, the knights will start taking significant casualties. The weak point of a knight is the horse, which are vulnerable when surrounded by angry peasant with pitch-forks, if, of course, the peasants aren't running for their lives.

I think knights with unarmored horses should be vulnerable to missile fire. I would imagine, considering the relative size, that horses would be hit 4 or 5 times for every time the man on it's back was hit. If the horse is hit, the man is most likely out of the action, and possibly killed or seriously hurt in a fall.

Armored horses would be a significant advantage in melee, and especially from missiles.

I would guess that barding on a horse protects it better from missle attack then melee. If you have a spear or sword you can cut and slice under the barding, and missles always come from the side or up, and the barding protects from those angles, not from underneath.

Originally I liked the idea of 2 hp knights, but when cavalry charges constantly destroy spearwalls of good spearmen in the ready position without a single casualty maybe one, and a couple of hundred arrows don't even kill one knight you got a problem.

I think the best solution would be to jack up the armor ratings of the knights to something like 30-35 or whatever so that in melee combat they are clearly superior, but they can still be killed any way a human being can be killed on the field of battle.

If only the human could be separated from the horse then it would be more realistic. Speaking of which, I hear Empire Total War, you can dismount. WOHOO!! WOHOO!! WOHOO! WOHOO!

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I can agree with A_B. While yes, they have insane armour, that's represented by the armour stat already, not the HP stat.

[Gigamacdaddy]

Originally I liked the idea of 2 hp knights, but when cavalry charges constantly destroy spearwalls of good spearmen in the ready position without a single casualty maybe one, and a couple of hundred arrows don't even kill one knight you got a problem.

I think the best solution would be to jack up the armor ratings of the knights to something like 30-35 or whatever so that in melee combat they are clearly superior, but they can still be killed any way a human being can be killed on the field of battle.