Feedback from experienced player

[4th Regiment]

OK, I have finally installed and played famous DLV for some time. You guys have done great job in scripting and role playing. Also, most of the unit models are artistic master pieces. But there is big but in some other things

1. Rebels

- Most important - totally random units in most cases. For example in fort in south Palestine I have found Transylvania axmen, near Syria husites and on Cyprus Slav levies etc.

- Less important – I do not see point of those rebel forts in faction controlled provinces. It is Ok to have them somewhere, to make simulation of historical rebellion in some parts of province, or where whole province was not controlled by faction etc .But to have them everywhere? Also, those clone rebel armies everywhere in faction provinces in start make no point

2. Map and factions

- Even if I play “historical” campaign there is far too much unhistorical things. I have seen you are pushing for one more western faction – Aragon. I mean, OK, it is western centric/Anglo-centric mod but…eastern part of the map his empty. For example UK territory is as big as former Yugoslavia, and there are how many provinces? Come one, guys, if you want to make something like that, you can make hundred years war submod or something. I medieval Europe, center of economy/politic was around Mediterranean. Scotland, Ireland...it was edge of known world. They are proud nation of course, but were Ireland in 1180 unified country at all ? What was their relevancy for history of Europe out of British islands? Some times ago I have posted a simple key to what faction to include or not in some mod. It is overall political/historical/military importance in medieval times measured by wars and interaction that nation have with other major factions and not so major faction. For example, Serbia had numerous wars against major faction like Byzantines, Hungary, Venetians, Turks, Mongols and with not so major like Bulgaria, Cumans, Bosnia, Ragusa etc. And Scotland, Ireland have wars with…England?! Also, size, wealth and overall development are incomparable…not to mention importance of south eastern europe during the spiritual struggle between Rome and Constantinople ...

If you do not have spare faction slots, Aztec faction is totally, I must say, insane (I do not want further explain it, I think it is clear) Make this continent full will rebel settlement, and it will be much much more realistic and historically correct (after all, euro nation didn’t need to “declare war” against some American “faction”). It will free one more faction slot.


- If nothing rearrange map of southeastern Europe little bit. It is total mess. Ragusa was town, small city state, not whole province. And whole interior is one province with capital in Zagreb

Things about battle balance I have posted in BB min mod hjere

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=1#post5751550

Thanks for listening

[Kjertesvein]

1.
- M.I.
Strange how Vikings traveld from England, Denmark, sweden, norway, iceland, slavic rus, traveld down to Byzantium, Iceland, Newfoundland, Baghdad, Marocco, and fought for Kiev and the Byz. Empire.
Strange how Normans migrated to sicely, Antioch.
How European to Americas.
Etc. Etc.

- L.I.
So you would either take 1 single settlement and the whole COUNTRY become yours. No bandits, no clans, no guilds, opposition party, etc.? I know, more some places, less other regions. I get that, but the WHOLE REGION don't kneel to your command because 1 city is taken.

2.
The rest here is just a complete nonesence ranting. Why is Teutonic order and KoJ a faction, when it allready are guilds and crusade ablility? Why Portugal, when it is so small and so young? Why are only 3 factions in whole of Iberia and Western africa? Why is Africa 2 factions? Who cares about a small faction as Flanders? Why Norway, it was an extremly unstable nation? Why did Kingdoms consist of the rich continent of today; Britannia(UK and Norway), Americas(America) the increasingly developing the Baltics(Germany, Denmark, Norway and the Baltic states)? Also to mention the most famous military expansion known, the Crusades in the Outreamer(Well known in pop culture)? Why have I personally played Hungary 2 times during 4 years?

Reason A.) The answer is; nationality recognizing "their own team and familiar arena".
Thats why you have; Lithuania, teutonic order, Rus, Denmark, Poland, HRE ganged togather.
Thats why you have Norway, Anglo-Normans, Scotland and Ireland ganged togather.
Thats why Byz, Turkey, Georgia, KoJ, Ayyubid and Desert Tribe and ganged togather.

Reason B.) It also becomes harder to fight for regions. Instead of having a gigantic cash cow, like whole of Britannia to England. The whole of Scandinavia to Denmark, the whole of Caucasus to Turkey. The whole of Baltics to Poland. The whole steppe to Kiev.

[Kjertesvein]

BB-Gunz-Blazing

Besides morale, one more thing I have notices is too high attack value of most of the units. It makes units dieing too quickly and too big casualty’s rate during battle. It push player to frenzy which many mods (since RTW) wanted to ovoid making battles slower and giving some time to some tactics.

With high morale and high attack values it makes just what I said – fast killing butchery. It especially visible at levies again – few times, I found my foot temlar knights suffering serious casualties against some levy spearmen (spearmen have like 6-7 attack while temlar knights have like 11-12, so too small difference). In real life levy spears would be massacred with few if any templar deaths. So, lowering both morale and attack will make battles long and realistic. Elites and professionals will continue to fight, while levies would flee, unless you take care about their morale (flanks protected, you are winning the battle, they are not suffering big casualties etc). In SV for example zero chevron levies have only 1 attack, while elite sword infantry have like 5-6-7. So, t is like in real life – men pushed to service and given a spear were not able to do some serious killing, basically they were there to hold the line (for some time). Also, elites attack value seams too low in SV, but it is 5 times bigger than levies, making big difference – making very hard for levies to do some damage to foot knights. Defense and amour is same as here, so it makes battles slower. Sorry, it became free commercial for SV, but I am usually realistic when criticizing some of SV –good thing SV is always ready to implement all good suggestion, and usually do it fast.

I guess it is OK to post some other things I have noticed about mod on main DLV forum

PS. I made moral of all units lower by 4 points, and it is better I think. Although, levies still have 5, which is still too high. Maybe for one, or two more will be OK for them (in SV all basic levies, as peasants, have morale 2)

Its more room to discuss here; BUT as a infantry unit, no no.

Knights: Knights is a mounted unit. They train in charging from a horse. That is the whole coscept and training. They know how to use the "medieval tank engine" to mow down an opponent. They can also attack as inf, since they are quite handy with the sword. Tho that's not how they fight on the battle field:

• Defending with their small shilds as a collected and dynamic unit...
• Pushing the line forward...
• Holding lines, etc. is not training of a Knight.

Swordsmen and Spearmen: is the best form of professional infanty unit in reality. They train as a dynamic group. Medium attack, good defence. They know what to do, because it's their field and profession.

2 Handed Swords and -axes: Is a pure shock infantry. Known from suecidel Vikings/Varangian and swabian swordsmen. Just as the dis.mounted.Knight, not for defending against man nor mount. But much better at attacking then a knight, because thats their field.


All in all, I think we can learn little more from BC here. Dissmounted knights and shock infantry should have more distance, because thats how they fought.