Battle System (1hp)

[DimeBagHo]

The vote over the new 2hp system seems pretty evenly split, so I will include a 1hp system in the next version of XGM as an install option. The two most significant effects of switching from 2hp to 1hp are shorter battles and relatively more powerful ranged units. The aim of this poll is to determine whether and how the power of ranged units should be reduced.

No change: Apart from hitpoints, ranged units will have the same stats in both systems. In the 1hp system this will make them much more effective (about the same as vanilla RTW).

Reduced Ammo: Ranged units will run out of ammo sooner, so the amount of damage they can do in a battle will be about the same in both systems. (Ammo counts would be reduced by about one third to one half).

Reduced Accuracy: Ranged attacks will be less accurate, so the amount of damage they can do in a battle will be about the same in both systems. (Accuracy would be reduced to levels similar to the old XGM battle system).

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

What about the lethality statistics? Weren't they altered so that the 2HP and 1HP systems would have different melee combat as well?

Personally, I would say reduced ammo count is the best solution IF you consider archers overpowered. Reduced accuracy just results in so many friendly fire casualties that there's even less of a point to bother with archers at all.

I would just tone down the damage a bit from vanilla RTW, so that they are less effective against armored enemies. Unarmored enemies should take significant casualties from massed archer fire, as one would expect in real combat.

[DimeBagHo]

What about the lethality statistics?

Lethality might be adjusted as well, but that has no effect on ranged units.

I would just tone down the damage a bit from vanilla RTW, so that they are less effective against armored enemies. Unarmored enemies should take significant casualties from massed archer fire, as one would expect in real combat.

Unfortunately there is no direct way to adjust the damage done by ranged units (hence all the messing around with ammo, accuracy, and hitpoints).

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

What does that statistic in the EDU do then? Does the missile damage number not actually change anything?

That's odd, because I remember tweaking that setting a few times and having hugely different results.

Playing in XGM, the issue of archers being overpowered...well, it doesn't seem to be an issue at all. Skirmishers being overpowered on the other hand....I find myself using velites a ton simply because they are so cheap to recruit and upkeep, yet can devastate almost any enemy unit, unarmored militia unit or elite armored unit alike. Archers cost say 700 denarii, velites cost 360 and inflict far more casualties whenever I use them. (archers end a battle having fired all day at plentiful enemies with about 50 enemies dead, velites end with 150-300 enemies down.)

I think reducing their range might help. Currently they can fling those spears a bit too far. Does anyone know historically how far these guys could throw those things reasonably accurately?

[DimeBagHo]

What does that statistic in the EDU do then? Does the missile damage number not actually change anything?

Do you mean the attack value? If you reduce it then the AI won't recruit the units or use the ranged attack, and they will still be over-powered in the hands of a human player because the base attack value soon gets outweighed by the effect of experience and upgrades.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

I'm somewhat curious as to how effective you think archers should ideally be against various targets. I personally think that they should inflict minimal casualties against armored heavy infantry and cavalry, but against unarmored targets such as most barbarian units, they should kill at least a few hundred in a battle.

If they can't kill 200 unarmored enemies with their ammo, there is no point to recruiting them, because skirmishers can kill 200 enemies and cost less than half as much to recruit and upkeep.

I agree that upgrades in particular will throw all of the balance of the damage factor out....but frankly, upgrades throw out the balance of almost every unit. It isn't very historically accurate either....were Caesar's legionaries so effective because they had some upgraded gladius that did +2 damage? Of course not.

[cherryfunk]

Unfortunately there is no direct way to adjust the damage done by ranged units (hence all the messing around with ammo, accuracy, and hitpoints).

Interesting; so what does missile attack value do? And what does determine ranged damage?

[Scutarii]

I voted for reduced accuracy. It worked (for me) surprisingly well, although I was initially skeptical.

[Zarax]

Another way would be to play with the shield values, they are the ones that can make a huge difference with missiles.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Another way would be to play with the shield values, they are the ones that can make a huge difference with missiles.

Hmm, sounds like a good idea to me, especially as it would make unarmored units without shields even more vulnerable to missiles.

Personally I reduced the range and number of missiles for all skirmishers. It used to be 60 metre range with 6-8 javelins, I reduced it to 40 metres with 3 javelins. They are no longer Olympic caliber javelin tossers . Still work great for their role though: when the enemy get close enough, if you use those 3 volleys properly, they can be very useful.

[Barend]

Hmm, sounds like a good idea to me, especially as it would make unarmored units without shields even more vulnerable to missiles.

Personally I reduced the range and number of missiles for all skirmishers. It used to be 60 metre range with 6-8 javelins, I reduced it to 40 metres with 3 javelins. They are no longer Olympic caliber javelin tossers . Still work great for their role though: when the enemy get close enough, if you use those 3 volleys properly, they can be very useful.

I'm not very informed about the exact workings of ancient warfare, but just three javelins for skirmisher troops seems a bit too few.
Their primary role on the battlefield was harrassing the enemy with javelins and spears. I can't see them just sitting down in the grass after throwing 3 volleys, that would make them very useless. They must have had some extra javelins.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

I'm not very informed about the exact workings of ancient warfare, but just three javelins for skirmisher troops seems a bit too few.
Their primary role on the battlefield was harrassing the enemy with javelins and spears. I can't see them just sitting down in the grass after throwing 3 volleys, that would make them very useless. They must have had some extra javelins.

How many could they carry while still moving faster than more heavily armed opposition?



With my modifications, they're still very far from useless. The thing is that they were way too good before: one unit of velites could inflict like 300 casualties in a very short period of time. That wasn't balanced, in my opinion.

Also, they throw more than 3 volleys, as ranged javelin and pilum units almost never all throw a javelin at the same time. You've probably noticed that Roman legionaries, while only equipped with 2 pilum, often throw 4 or 5 volleys, because only half the unit is within range, and that half throws the pilum that the rest of the unit has.

[DimeBagHo]

Another way would be to play with the shield values, they are the ones that can make a huge difference with missiles.

That would make sense, but remember the AI is easily discouraged. If you increase shield values it will stop using range attacks.

[Suppanut]

I also agree with increase shield value, the most important function of shield is to stop projectile before reach body especially arrows.

[Suppanut]

I think that units with huge shield bonus should have penalty in based defense skill too.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

I think that units with huge shield bonus should have penalty in based defense skill too.

What kind of units have a "huge" shield bonus anyway? I thought large shields just got a 5 rating, how is that huge?

[Suppanut]

Shield bonus is max at 31. And I propose if units using rectangular or tower shield then it should have some penalty in defense skill in compensate.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Shield bonus is max at 31. And I propose if units using rectangular or tower shield then it should have some penalty in defense skill in compensate.

How is a shield bonus 31, I thought the shield bonus is just what it adds to the defense value under the "shield" thing when you click on the unit card.

You know, peltasts have a small shield which is like 3, any large shield is 5, etc.

[RedFox]

I suggest reduced ammo, increased attack and reduced accuracy. That will make Archers into kind of 'fire and forget' weapons. You fire your volleys, weakening the enemy a little and then march in with your troops.
Another cool way would also be to increase all skirmishers to 120 units, reduce ammo and accuracy. That would add a lot more mayhem to the battle and would make skirmishers more useful. That way you can reduce ammo by 1/3 and retain the exact same firepower.

Just a few cool ideas..

[Zarax]

I have another idea.
What about reducing missile unit ranges?
This way quick advancing units will be able to subdue them while static ones will suffer more like in reality.
Javs and western bows are especially overranged compared to reality so we might want to look into that.