Page 4 of 357 FirstFirst 12345678910111213142954104 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 7124

Thread: Deus lo Vult: Battlefield Balanced v4.36 <25/01/15>

  1. #61
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    A good buggering from behind is what it's all about, thanks for that

    Dunno what might cause that deploy ctd, especially if you reloaded and played the battle and it worked.

  2. #62
    hotcobbler's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    I reloaded and it didn't work. Hmm... restarted and it didn't work either.

    I'm not sure what's going on, but I can't test it now.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    about pricing units, doing it according to specifics, like "well, it is well armored, elite training, axe, hardy, etc etc, then it must be about 1000fl.." its not worth it unless you have an excellent batch calculator / applier

    the best you can do is do as you do with damage for example

    pikes standard price: X
    pike is good: +xx% per goodness level
    pike is bad: -xx% per badness level

    you can tweak the calc in my sig to make its edb feature to show simply "levels" as per wall steps, then write down the level you asign to the unit in goodness level next to that, then confirm that better units come with better buildings etc, but it might be too much work
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM.

  4. #64
    Condottiere SOG's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in Europe
    Posts
    2,275

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    remember a mass of 1.0 equals 100kg.

  5. #65
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    Hiya Condottiere, I've found that just doesn't work out so well. I prefer to think of the mass value as a way of helping to determine the resistance of infantry to cavalry and each other. So I've been adjusting it until it looks right to me, trying to make units push or hold well, etc.

    The current values for cavalry are amazingly high and I think some of the missile units could do with a bit more mass to counter this. Thinking about mass in terms of what it might represent to the designer doesn't really help me.

    But thanks for the tip!

  6. #66

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    hello taiji-kun

    well, having tested a few quite specific battles, i can give you a hint or two of what may be happening on the field.



    -why templar spears have so much defense skill and so few armor?
    they start with same armor as dism. feudal knights, but the latter have 2 more points.
    they have 12 defense skill more than dism. feudal knights, but hey! knights are knights, this guys are but armored spears... meaning one belongs to high class, good training, owns lands and have not to work themselves.
    the other has to work and miss the perfectly fighting fit status... land work dumb muscles and head, destroys reflexes and speed.

    you also pointed out that 12 is the top bonus a unit can get against spears, and then you gave spears that bonus. so ipso facto you are making spears as good in melee as swords, ruining the whole point of paper rock scissors logic. even more, against blunt weapons they are even better melees.

    and the templar knights that should be their absolute masters (meaning that this guys actually own the fields the spears labor when not at war front)... man they are a dism. feudal knight copy and paste..

    so.. two choices there... one you took a wrong path, two the only spear unit in the world to be that badly designed was the spear templar..




    -all other balances seem to be right in place except for hammers. they deserve to be still less powerful against cavalry. a unit of d. English knights should not beat mercenary knights from France in a 2:3 kill ratio. this mercenary knights are like feudal knights but starting with excellent armor.

    feudal knights on the other hand, maybe by sheer luck got their ass kicked in a more fair manner, more like a 3:4 ratio

    mark my words, if their lances had ap bonus, the story would be told quite differently.






    i insist, most of the battles played resulted as expected. but this two things need urgent amendment. iŽd say find a way to make hammers less deadly to cavs, then go to spears and remove 12 defense skill from them... and redo a little the status of armored spears and templars when compared to such as knightly ordered troops.

    then retest cav against spears..

    i know.. unending story. that's life.









    EDIT/PS:

    let me show you the starlight mightiness of AP lances.
    my English dismounted knights against a host of feudal knights from France (which brings to the battlefield shiny new weapons)


    (remember, this battle resulted in a 70% of feudal knights killed against 60% of the English dismounted, and the cav routed the field. mercenary knights could only kill 40% of the English before they got totally massacred)


    here are the low armored french pikemen, showing that despite the new lances that the English feudal knights have brought to the field, they are not people easy to intimidate with shiny poky thingies... they are the shiny poky thingies MASTERS!!



    (now. this are cheap, low class, easy to train... and useful little brats!)



    and the latest and not new at all battle: already proven and working in perfect proportions and grace... without any editions i present you with....

    the almighty dismounted English knights are now sent to fight hand to hand against those graceless bastards sons of a whore (literally, but normally the father would be a knight... that's what makes them bastards off course) that think that holding an extra large stick makes them more manly..








    now... lets say that feudal knights are "scissors", pikemen "rocks" and.. well.. dismounted English knights shall be "papers"...
    it does look familiar doesn't it?
    just two letters. replacing "no" for "ap". endless gratification.





    -as you can see, i use spanish plains to fight, because my best guess is that my troops are not suffering climate altering their stats here.
    /as compared to arsuf desert easiest map pick
    -i also make all my test with 5 units, which usually forces the AI to save the general to the back line, and therefore his death does not affect the outcome. it also helps to have a more realistic percentile values.
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason: Removed spam

  7. #67
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    Hmm a lot to think about, arigato Ivanhoex-sama!

    My first response about templar sergeants is that they get +4 def for using a spear and then +7 def for being elite spearmen (the +7 is the new training level dependant modifier - all 1h long spear get that weapon bonus of +4 just like all swords get +2, etc.), they get only 1 point of the slashing penalty mitigated So they are -5 vs swords and axes but +1 versus blunt. Oh and their starting armor is light mail because they get a heavy mail upgrade.

    Ap lances, at the moment it seems to me that flanking charges are more effective and that this is desired. If I gave them ap lances I'd suspect they could get more or less the same results from the front as they are getting on the flank. It would at least reduce that gap in flanking effectiveness. Most lancers are killing plenty full plate guys on the frontal charge and not losing many. I'm concerned that more powerful charges from them might see us back in the bad situation of being able to kill a whole army with 4 units of heavy cav and no particular skill.

    Need more time to think about the rest of your feedback...

    Thanks again for your awesome input mate!

    EDIT:

    I am not letting scissors cut that paper! That paper should be good anti-scissor paper, I honestly don't like this clumsy rock/paper/scissor analogy.

    Thinking about reducing defence for 2h swordsmen animation types again - have them die a little faster.

    Definately considering reducing cav attack and doing as you say with giving ap.
    Last edited by Taiji; January 30, 2009 at 07:15 AM.

  8. #68

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    so feudal knights and templar knights are not elite but templar spearmen are.. now thats a far shot ^^

    i am honestly all wonders on what make those troops so special.. i mean you are comparing them to english knights level of training, or to sherwood archers, battlefield assasins..

    what part on history have this guys pulled off to become such a known world nightmare.. or should i say knightmare?
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM.

  9. #69
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    Well, templars offer 2 elite foot units and 1 elite cav just like hospitallers if I do it this way. It's not something I am going to defend very strongly. If you don't like elite spearmen then I can reduce their level and if it's just the name you don't like then I can change their name. "Templar Guard" sounds nice

    Battlefield assassins are a level above elite and feudal knights are a level below.

    Do you prefer troops to become better trained over time or do you prefer that only their equipment changes over time?

    My choice so far is that training levels increase. To me it seems another area where perhaps history fails at making a good game - feudal knights may be just as well trained as chivalric historically but that is boring gameplay wise. No difference in attack and defence for mailed, feudal, chivalric = no fun.

    (knightmare )

  10. #70

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    i agree about knights, early knights should not be so awesome as late ones, but thats more because of better weapons and armor than actual training. but yes, probably late knights had better training too.

    mailed knights are some kind of... well a bad unit. personally i would rule them off if i could, but since they are in the game i actually consider them as plain axemen that want to call themselves knights.. but i wont be paying them no extra respect for doing so.


    templar guards sounds great!...
    just make sure you can only recruit them at level 3 guild, above horsed templar knights.
    and make the swordy ones to appear together with feudals, so you might have to set requirements for guilds one step up.. maybe two
    also you will have to set the 2hswords of hospitallers to be elite too..
    and compensate setting a unit for muslim, pagan and orthodoxs to be elite when they shouldnt..

    if you want to keep guilds as they are, they should be just an armored spearmen available from a different building. same stats for them all as for mercs spearmen.


    oh

    and dont think that pikemen are better trained than armored spearmen. they werent. they were cheaper because of that. and because they had normally no armor.
    just an example on new units that comes over time that are not training upgraded, just better equiped.
    another one would be musketeers. those guys shouldnt be great in melee, but their new weapons were a matter to consider in the new trap-full fields of battle

    just add the money factor. new units may be just as powerfull as old timers. but they are cheaper!
    gendarmes should be cheaper than chivalric knights for example, just because their normal expenditures didnt include all those pretty things and polite dresses. they were required to have good armor and good training. thats all. only their captains were from higher nobility
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM.

  11. #71
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    Hmm I think maybe I like "Templar Guard" because there's a cool SS unit of the same name.

    I agree with dismounted mailed knights being a bad unit, maybe a heavy mail unit with a kite shield and sword would be better.

    Whatever the level pikemen are extremely weak up close and yet extremely useful when used correctly. Their balance with other troops is something I'm kinda happy with.

    I think with new units most should be more expensive, phasing out old troops is not something I'm fond of, taking away units to increase the players fun? It doesn't make sense to me gameplaywise but I can appreciate it might be historically accurate. I'd prefer to have older troops as a cheaper but generally less capable option.

    I think simplicity is the best approach to the pricing system, better unit = more money. It has to be done simultaineously with changes to recruitment pools or the AI will build armies full of chivalric knights or something and cripple it's economy or maybe destroy your empire.
    Last edited by Taiji; January 30, 2009 at 06:08 PM.

  12. #72
    hotcobbler's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    I got the London battle to work, though it was very choppy. I noticed that all of the AI spawned units were trapped in the buildings in a tight bunch. Forgot to get a screenshot of it, I just wanted the battle to be over.

    Anyway, that was pretty bad, as they couldn't take part in the battle at all. Maybe that happened because England had a large garrison already in the city when I tried to take it. Just thought you should know.

  13. #73
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 29/01/09

    Thats really odd, I wonder what could have caused that.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    i dont mean to have new troops to be worst than oldies.


    what i meant is to have new troops to be different to the oldies.

    a pikemen may be beaten by strong armored spearmen, but pikemen will have a chance to stop a plated cavalry charge, the same charge that would decimate the heavy armored spears.

    so you will have a cheaper unit, with certain characteristics made really stronger, but other points weaker.
    then in time you will get a better army with very specific tasks for every unit, not an "old" army composed of lots of similar troops good-for-all but excellent-for-nothing


    in fact, i am thinking in a new approach to heavy armored 2handers, making them worst against light troops than swords, not like now but even more. therefore you will need "old good swords" to fight off lightly armored fellas and the hammers and halberds will come in handy to fight off those heavy swords to their death as no other foot unit will be able to.

    it will be good, dont you think?
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Removed spam

  15. #75
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    To be honest I'm not sure how to make them good against lighter inf. The idea I have is to make 2 handers kill faster and die faster than other units to try to encourage the player to use them for flanking. But where it shouldn't be the case I won't force it - plate guys with 2handers can stand on the front line ok but die faster than plate with shield.

    no armor + 2h = front line disaster, flanker, very bad vs any missile.

    to

    advanced plate + 2h = front line defence ok, ideal front line charge unit, flanker, vs ap missile very bad.

    so the basic idea is really that armor + shield performs better on the front line by not dying so fast and also has better defence vs missile when avoiding missile flankers.

    2 handers take down cav much faster than 1h troops.

    I agree that 2handers should be a good choice for defeating same level sword and shield guys in a straight fight, they should kill faster than they die.

    polearms are another matter, with halberds and pikes arrangement should be important.

    pikes have incredibly weak flanks but whatever is in front of them is in danger. pressing into them with sword or axe inf produces high casualties for both sides. speamen can be used to disrupt pikes formation, as can shield wall and so can armored cav - no matter what, it's costly. A heavy cav charge in the rear of pikes will be devastating and so will a hail of missile. like other spearmen pikes are -12 defence versus slashing.

    halberds are again about formation, they can hit from a longer range than normal 2 handers and so are much better front line troops, the best when used correctly. the most important thing for halberds is cohesion, if they are allowed to present a 3 deep line to attackers they can go on killing forever just like pikes only less depth and no spearwall. they need to have secure flanks but have much less of a problem with flankers than pikes do. they will not kill as fast as 2h handers but they can hold them back long enough to win as long as they offer a cohesive front. so like with pikes a combination of spearmen to push them out of formation and swords to kill is very effective vs halberds.

    as far as further changes go I'm thinking to reduce 2hander defence skill to get them dying faster in front line fights. the downside is that this makes them less vulnerable to flanking.

    I'm not happy with how weak cav charges are at the moment due to stalling so I'm thinking of raising the unit charge percentage for cav and if that doesn't get me what I want I'll look at adding ap like you suggest. the charge percentage thing basically forces the unit to keep charging until a certain percentage of the units have hit the enemy, I lowered it for inf to reduce the river of men stupidity and I should probably have left cav alone.

    If Repmans restrictions on cav production work (gameplay wise) then I am not too bothered about them being over powered as far as history and good gameplay are concerned if there aren't going to be too many of them about.

    What do you think of the price changes from europa? My thought after 10 turns is "OMG they're coming for me!", the AI's finances seem to be shooting up. There are plenty of individual discrepancies but overall it seems to mean that much more cash is available. I looked at Europa's EDB and all the building's cost double. I wonder if there are more differences when compared with DLV's current economy. Either way I can't see how this is going to work to create more realistic army composition for the AI. DLV needs work doing on EDB to change recruitment pools and recharge rates, maybe this will look easier with many of the cav being ordered in terms of tier now that Repman's tagging the units with conditions requiring certain general ranks.

    EDIT:

    Just tested out ap for heavy cav spear and I like it, thanks for suggesting it. I've raised the charge percentage also and although the cav look stupid again sometimes, dancing back and forth just like they did before, they are more fearsome. I also raised inf charge percentage and I guess more river of men problems will occur. The inf charge needs this help, units were breaking up badly when they charged - the front row would charge and leave the rest behind - raising their charge percentage helps this a lot but it still happens occasionally and more river of men problems should will occur. nasty double edged sword there with inf charges - choose crap charge or choose river of men.
    Last edited by Taiji; February 01, 2009 at 07:58 AM.

  16. #76
    hotcobbler's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    I say choose a crap charge. River of men is much more devastating.

  17. #77
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    Hiya Hotcobbler, I agree in principle, damn I wish it was as simple as I make it sound it's more a case of balancing things between those 2 extremes and not really choosing one over the other.

    Ah well, a new update is uploaded with some nice little extras included

  18. #78
    hotcobbler's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    Good work, gonna test that out today, I'll get back to you soon.

    Also, just a suggestion, would you consider bundling the weapon upgrade removal with BB? I think it makes sense logically.

    Thanks again for your persistence.

  19. #79
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 31/01/09

    Some people want their battlefield mechanics improved only to mess it all up with the weapon upgrade, I'm trying to cater to that group...

    EDIT: I've been working a little on a guide to help players understand the battlefield I am designing. I've uploaded a rouch version on the first post I need to edit it properly and add a great deal but still I hope people will find it useful (it's in the spoiler at the bottom of the post).
    Last edited by Taiji; February 02, 2009 at 08:55 AM.

  20. #80

    Default Re: Battlefield Balance for DLV 6.0 - 01/02/09

    paper rock scissors works to help ensure that you dont want an army composed of a single unit.

    you give more speed and less damage to one unit, it becomes better against light armor.
    you give ap and damage to one unit but they are slow, they will not be good against light armor but they will rock heavys.

    if you are using heavy armor troops, pit them against woodsmen. those guys have enough damage to kill at fairly good rates on heavy armored foes, they should oppose a tighter resistance to axes/hammers that use heavy armor but they should be utterly destroyed by swords of any type.





    halberds are a mix between pikes, axemen and spearmen.
    as far as i can see, their best place on the battlefield is to be axemen better against horses than against foot soldiers, and good shock trops.

    then you may give them less speed, same damage as axes, some anticav bonus (together with its negative bonus against slashing) and excellent charge bonus.



    i dont like at all the way you think about "flanking units".. i strongly differ on that way of thinking troops. you should think ballance in terms of one army fully composed of X type of unit, and then think.. "is this the best army of the world?" and then if that seems to be true, you diminish the units all-around abilities.
    Last edited by Taiji; May 26, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Removed spam

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •