Hidden stats?

[marceror]

I’ve been very happy recently to find enough spare time to play M2TW a bit recently. It has also given me an opportunity to start contemplating questions that, I’m sure, are much better left unasked. But what fun would that be?? And since I don’t have a lot of time to do a lot of field testing, I figured I’d throw some of this out to the community.

So here we go:
--What really is the difference between light infantry and heavy infantry?

Sometimes light infantry and heavy infantry end up with pretty similar stats? Generally speaking “light infantry” usually seems to move a bit faster and “heavy infantry” has a slightly more powerful charge stat (perhaps a 4 vs. 3), but are there further differences here? In general, it seems like in a fight, a unit of light infantry with similar stats to a unit of heavy infantry (e.g. comparable attack, morale, discipline, training, armor, etc) is going to lose. Heavy infantry just seems to suck up more hits, but there isn’t always a clear “stat-based” reason that I can find for that? So is there something else going on here, or are my findings perhaps skewed by other factors in my campaign battles?

--Is there really such thing as “medium” infantry?

I hear the term medium infantry thrown around quite often. To help illustrate my question, we can take Denmark as an example. From a castle level settlement and a drill square they can train Norse Swordsmen. From a fortress level settlement and a barracks they can train a much more costly unit of Dismounted Feudal Knights. Okay, so true, the Feudal Knights generally have better stats, but I would say that they are only slightly better (I’m talking about the stats I can see in the EDU, btw). 13 morale for DFK vs. 12, for example NS. Big deal. There’s nothing that says wow, I need to start scrapping my Norse Swordsmen for my shiny new Feudal Knights, especially not at 80 florins a turn more in upkeep, and a couple hundred florins more in training costs. And further, Norse Swordsmen have the shield wall ability, which is pretty darn effective, and Feudal Knight don’t. That said, in spite of fairly similar stats, the Feudal Knights seem to have better staying power overall, at least, without shield wall being used. Why is this? Is it because NS are medium infantry and DFK are heavy? And if so, what, really, is the defining difference (similar question to light infantry vs. heavy infantry above).

A Similar situation exists with Sword Brethren for the Teutonic Order. They have great stats, particularly after some armor upgrades, but generally seem inferior to knights trained at a fortress, even if the stats indicate that they are pretty similar. So is there some hidden stat here that defines “heavy infantry” as more rugged than “medium infantry” or are such distinctions even valid at all?

--Do missile infantry fighting in melee have some inherent disadvantages that aren’t visible in the EDU?

I mean, if a ranged character ends up fighting with a melee character with identical stats (same level of training, same level of discipline, morale, attack bonus & attack speed, armor bonus, etc) does the “ranged character” have some inherent disadvantage, likes, perhaps, a different animation, that the “melee” character does not have? It sort of seems like a ranged character ends up losing the fight in most cases.


So these are some of my recent musings. I suppose similar questions could apply to cavalry, but I’m just focusing on infantry at this point. Perhaps my observations are skewed by the fact that 99.99% of the battles I fight are in the campaign, rather than predefined custom field battles. But either way, I’m looking for the wisdom of others to help deepen my understanding here.

And oh, sorry, I do tend to be long winded. I know this.

[kosmosje1]

As far as I know:

Light Infantry is 'lighter' and will have more emphasis in their defence on their skill factor. This is something that is negated by ranged units, and therefore they are easily shot down by the hundreds. This works similar to being armored, but not having a shield. Scottish Nobles generally don't stand a chance against the force of English longbows.

In addition, on an attack value of roughly 3-6, 2-3 extra armour is going to make a big difference. So their stats may look pretty siimlar, but the difference is still there. The same goes for 'medium' versus 'heavy' infantry. A combination of more missile vulnerability, slightly more melee vulnerability and a little change in morale makes all the difference.

With archers, I think its pretty much the same story, though they often also have a disadvantage in spread I think. This allows a normal unit to get many 2-1 situations in which the archers get buchered. (archers also tend to stick to normal, longer lines that do not collapse when they are engaged in melee).

[JaM]

there is no difference - you can give light infantry same armor as to heavy one, and they will be the same. they will move same speed etc...

[Caesar Clivus]

As far as I am aware, the only difference is that it allows for different voices for the different classes of units.

[Sixela]

As far as I am aware, the only difference is that it allows for different voices for the different classes of units.

..and different placement in the battle when you choose your formations for the whole army. When you make a straight line with infantry (using the mixed line formation button ) heavy infantry occupies the centre of the formation, whereas light inf falls at the flanks

[delra]

I think the OP should just read EDU and find for himself how units are defined in M2TW... Compare what he calls "medium infantry" to other infantries and compare melee stats of ranged units to melee stats of melee professionals.

[marceror]

I think the OP should just read EDU and find for himself how units are defined in M2TW... Compare what he calls "medium infantry" to other infantries and compare melee stats of ranged units to melee stats of melee professionals.

I realize my post was wordy, but I am reading the EDU. My question is, are there differences between some of these different categories of soldier that aren't documented in the EDU. Perhaps there's a "template" for light infantry that has certain inherent strengths and weakness before you even start assigning stats in the EDU, or perhaps there are subtle differences in the animations (I'm just making these up as possibilities). I'm just trying to account for what "seems" to be an undocumented difference between some of these solidier types, OR... have players who have some insight here tell me, no, there's no difference, you're just imagining it. At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of the game a little better.

[Tacitursa]

Its not the stats you should be looking at but the Attributes bonuses and huge impacts they give units.

Norse Swordsmen - sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit

Dismounted Feudal Knights - sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit

DFK's have the "Hardy" Attribute which means they tire much slower than Norse swordsmen.

I.e Norse swordsmen are going to be exhausted and very tired much quicker than DFK. Add the extra +1 stat difference here and there and it all adds up.


You can see this best in battle have norse swordsmen fight DFK and at first it will seen pretty even but when norse swordsmen reach tired status before DFK the tide of battle changes and norse swordsmen will start dropping like flies and depending on the length of the battle will rout.

Edit: Quite alot of the scandinavian infantry have the Hardy trait its so underated by most people

[marceror]

@wizav85

Very good insight; perhaps a rather obvious one, but one that I was overlooking nonetheless.

And frankly this describes exactly what I'm commonly seeing. Battles are often starting out fairly even, or if I'm defending a settlement, initially I may even seem to have the upper hand. But things commonly change as the battle wears on, and, say, the polish knights start absolutely punishing my sword brethren. The only way I can realistically hope to win is to bring up reinforcements and double team the polish knights. And I'm left wondering, between my home court advantage, my arrow towers, etc, why the heck is this, as it was sometimes happening even when I had a decent general and the attacker had only a captain leading them. Add in the better overall stats and it makes a lot more sense!

I had wanted to say in my original post that it seems like some units have better "fortitude," but decided not to as that seemed like an ambiguous statement. But it seems that it's actually right on.

+1 rep for pointing this out.

Okay, here's another silly question, can someone enlighten me as to the mechanics of "discipline" in battles? For example, sword brethren are listed as being "disciplined." Most units have "normal" discipline, some have low discipline. But I'll be a monkey's uncle if I actually know what that means in game terms. In truth, I'm not exactly sure what training level is either, but I'm surmising that it has something to do with improving a miss chance in battle (i.e. highly trained soldiers are much less likely to miss than untrained soliders).

[Cleitanious]

Hits and Misses depend on the unit's attack rating versus the target's total defence rating.

[marceror]

Well that's clear enough, but does training not have some effect on this outcome also? Perhaps making it less likely to have an attack move "interrupted" by a foe, and therefore resulting in more opportunities to hit? That seems to be a logical way that it might work, and that's sort of how I unoficially think about it, but I suppose at the end of the day, I'm probably just as clueless about this mechanic as I am the discipline mechanic.

[Cleitanious]

Training adds to experience, experience adds directly to attack values. Which are visible on the unit card.

[marceror]

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm not talking about "field training" here, where a solider gains experience (i.e. chevrons) from fighting in multiple battles. I'm talking about the stat in the EDU that lists a unit as being untrained, trained, or highly_trained. Are you saying that a highly trained unit has the opportunity to gain experience faster in battle than an untrained unit? I guess I didn't exactly follow your post.

[Cleitanious]

Some buildings allow units to be born with chevrons. Besides that I'm not sure what you could be talking about.

Discipline is to morale, what hardy is to fatigue.

[Tacitursa]

Okay, here's another silly question, can someone enlighten me as to the mechanics of "discipline" in battles? For example, sword brethren are listed as being "disciplined." Most units have "normal" discipline, some have low discipline. But I'll be a monkey's uncle if I actually know what that means in game terms. In truth, I'm not exactly sure what training level is either, but I'm surmising that it has something to do with improving a miss chance in battle (i.e. highly trained soldiers are much less likely to miss than untrained soliders).

Disipline is all about the fighting status of a unit for instance the status that says 'Defeat is a certain possibility'. Low disciplined units with this status are much more likely to rout whereas Disciplined soldiers are more likely to fight untill death.

This can effect other things aswell such as if a tottaly different unit routs there is a very high chance any low disciplined units that are nearby will rout aswell and thats ussualy what happens when you see a mass rout, Any units that remain and still fighting are ussualy the disciplined units.

low Discipline "lets run lads , we cannot win this fight"
Disciplined unit "To the death , for the king!!!!"

[marceror]

Some buildings allow units to be born with chevrons. Besides that I'm not sure what you could be talking about.

I'm glad I clarified, as I am definitely not talking about "experience" or buildings that grant levels of experience (e.g. swordsmith guild, horse breeders guild, tourney field, etc). Training is something different. If you look at the EDU file in the Stainless Steel\data directory you'll notice that every unit is assigned a level of training. I believe the most common assignments are untrained, trained and highly trained. Peasant archers, for example, are untrained, regardless of how many levels of experience they may have. Ritterbruder are highly trained, again, regardless of how many levels of experience they might have. I'm assuming "training" has some impact on how well a soldier fights, but I may have that totally wrong. As far as I know, this is another one of CA's largely undocumented game mechanisms.

Discipline is to morale, what hardy is to fatigue.

Okay, so if you're right there, does that mean that discipline level affects how rapidly a unit loses morale in a less than optimal situation? Anyone else want to vouch for this explanation?


EDIT:
Didn't see Wiz's post before submitting this post. Okay, what you're explaining here comports with what Cleit has alluded to, and it makes plenty of sense to me. Wow, this is turning out to be a rather enlightening little thread. Thanks for all the input folks. Other's comments are certainly welcome. We still haven't dug into the effect training level actually has in game.

[Cleitanious]

I'm glad I clarified, as I am definitely not talking about "experience" or buildings that grant levels of experience (e.g. swordsmith guild, horse breeders guild, tourney field, etc). Training is something different. If you look at the EDU file in the Stainless Steel\data directory you'll notice that every unit is assigned a level of training. I believe the most common assignments are untrained, trained and highly trained. Peasant archers, for example, are untrained, regardless of how many levels of experience they may have. Ritterbruder are highly trained, again, regardless of how many levels of experience they might have. I'm assuming "training" has some impact on how well a soldier fights, but I may have that totally wrong. As far as I know, this is another one of CA's largely undocumented game mechanisms.


Okay, so if you're right there, does that mean that discipline level affects how rapidly a unit loses morale in a less than optimal situation? Anyone else want to vouch for this explanation?

read the post right before this. :-p

[marceror]

I did. It wasn't there when I started my reply, but you'll notice my edit. Your reply wasn't there when I started that!

[Tacitursa]

As for the trained , well trained etc im not completely sure about this one but i think it could effect the following.

Charging or attacking without orders. Im pretty sure a well trained unit will not do anything untill ordered. Certain units howeva will charge randomly unless on guard mode.

Maybe it effects how quick they respond to certain orders aswell (not sure about this one) But it seems to me as if some units need movement or attack orders repeated more than others.

Also animation for instance a well trained unit that gets surrounded will react quickly and men from the rear will turn around to respond to attacks from that specific position.

Ive seen all of the above happen in battles but have no idea if its connected with the training of the unit ill do some tests in Custom battle and try comfirm

[Cleitanious]

As for the trained , well trained etc im not completely sure about this one but i think it could effect the following.

Charging or attacking without orders. Im pretty sure a well trained unit will not do anything untill ordered. Certain units howeva will charge randomly unless on guard mode.

Maybe it effects how quick they respond to certain orders aswell (not sure about this one) But it seems to me as if some units need movement or attack orders repeated more than others.

Also animation for instance a well trained unit that gets surrounded will react quickly and men from the rear will turn around to respond to attacks from that specific position.

Ive seen all of the above happen in battles but have no idea if its connected with the training of the unit ill do some tests in Custom battle and try comfirm

"Charge without orders" is a completely separate attribute though, and belongs to many units that really shouldn't have it. The Knight's Templar, for example, have this attribute, and do charge without orders. However in actual history the Knights Templar were very disciplined and specifically trained to never charge without orders, not even to chase a routing enemy. There are many instances in history were other crusaders would charge without orders and the Knights Templars would hold their ground until ordered.