What affects what?

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Hello all,

I've been in a long, constant battle with the TW engine to try and develop a submod of SS for my own use, which makes things feel far more 'medieval'. As an avid student of military history, I'm never very satisfied with how the combat actually works in Medieval, and how the campaign progresses.

Now, I read somewhere on these forums that the "skill" part of a unit's defence total is ignored by ranged attacks - is this correct? Is there anything else that is ignored/affected by other attributes or attacks? I assume AP weapons halve the armour value of the defence skill (I read that somewhere too) and I don't know what effect shields have, other than an increase in overall defence value.

I am thinking it may be wise to give lightly-armoured units a high "skill" attribute, and low armour, and heavily-armoured units a low "skill" attribute and a high armour value. The aim of this would be to give the player a reason to hire light troops later on in the game.

I've already upped their movement speed by 20%, which is fantastic when they manage to break a unit of feudal knights, etc, so I was wondering what else could be done to improve the balance of the game without making it unrealistic.

I was thinking that the skill and armour values of the defence skill could be tied to the level at which they could be recruited - say, 5 for first-tier units, 10 for second, 15 for third and so on. These numbers are just off the top of my head, so don't shoot me if they sound unrealistic.

I was also thinking of giving heavy cavalry the "frightens infantry" trait across the board and then reducing the actual charge damage of the cavalry - historically, well-trained infantry in close formations would be able to stop a cavalry charge, the problem was that a large amount of heavy cavalry tended to scare the living daylights out of a footman (it'd terrify me, to feel the ground rumbling beneath my feet), causing him to lose his nerve and run, which ruined the formation and allowed the cavalry to plough through. What do you all think of this?

Cheers all,

Sargon

[Gnostiko]

Very insightful; you should post your thoughts in the RR/RC thread, I'm sure we could use your contribution there

[Caesar Clivus]

and I don't know what effect shields have, other than an increase in overall defence value.

The shield value only contribute to defenses when the soldier is attacked from the left and/or the front. The position of the shield on the soldier (i.e. whether it's held on the arm slung over the back of the soldier) is irrelevant.

Dunno if you have already done this or not, but you might want to check out the Mod Workshop forums. Should be some info and/or ideaa to help you there.

[caralampio]

I'm no expert on these things but I would like to give my $0.02...

Hello all,

Now, I read somewhere on these forums that the "skill" part of a unit's defence total is ignored by ranged attacks - is this correct? Is there anything else that is ignored/affected by other attributes or attacks? I assume AP weapons halve the armour value of the defence skill (I read that somewhere too) and I don't know what effect shields have, other than an increase in overall defence value.

Right about skill and AP. Shields, AFAIK, were integrated into the overall armor in patch 1.2 to avoid some bug or the other. Therefore the concept of the shield covering the left side and the front but not the rear and right side is probably obsolete. "An increase in overall defence" would be closer.

I was also thinking of giving heavy cavalry the "frightens infantry" trait across the board and then reducing the actual charge damage of the cavalry - historically, well-trained infantry in close formations would be able to stop a cavalry charge, the problem was that a large amount of heavy cavalry tended to scare the living daylights out of a footman (it'd terrify me, to feel the ground rumbling beneath my feet), causing him to lose his nerve and run, which ruined the formation and allowed the cavalry to plough through. What do you all think of this?.

Knights owned the battlefield in the early medieval era, it was only until the late medieval and renaissance that infantry formations started to be able to hold their own and stop cavalry charges.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Thanks for the swift replies all, what did you think to the suggestions overall? How do you think it would change the nature of the game?

Right about skill and AP. Shields, AFAIK, were integrated into the overall armor in patch 1.2 to avoid some bug or the other. Therefore the concept of the shield covering the left side and the front but not the rear and right side is probably obsolete. "An increase in overall defence" would be closer.

Since this directly contradicts Caesar above, could someone confirm this for me? Not that I don't believe you, but I would like to be certain.

Knights owned the battlefield in the early medieval era, it was only until the late medieval and renaissance that infantry formations started to be able to hold their own and stop cavalry charges.

They did, but for the reasons I gave above, not because they were unstoppable uber-tanks running over marshmallows.

The Battle of Hastings (1066) and the Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) both had infantry lines breaking a full-fledged cavalry charge. At Hastings, most of the troops were militia-grade Fyrd men, and the Flemish were also militia-level too.

From a historical standpoint, I know of which I speak.

Thanks again for your help, all!

[Gorrrrrn]

Have to disagree about Hastings - the Norman knights were not doing full-fledged cavalry charges against the main English shield wall.

they approached slowly uphill and engaged with spears and then retired.
(as shown by most of the cavalry in the bayeux tapestry.)

the shield wall held but I'd hardly call it breaking a full-fledged attack.

the norman knights were more effective against the english when they (the english) lost discipline and broke their shield wall.

[Point Blank]

In the game a shield is fully effective vs opponents from the front, and 50% from left and right.
Defense is fully effective versus opponents from front, left and right, though not against missiles however.

This is different from RTW etc. I preferred the RTW version.

Be aware that, if animations are assigned correctly, that light units are faster via their animations, eg a light unit might have MTW2_Fast_Swordsman, and a heavy knight might have MTW2_Slow_Swordsman, with one in mail having MTW2_Swordsman.

It makes sense to give lighter units a defense boost, along with lower heat value, lighter terrrain penalties (or better bonuses) and the faster movement you mention. They all combine to give a good rationale for using light units in certain circumstances.

Giving Heavy Cav 'frightens infantry' is a very powerful boost to their power and also affects nearby enemy units, but doesn't seem to really apply well to a unit that they are charging prior to actual contact, ie in testing I never saw a unit break prior to the cavalry actually charging home. Unfortunate, because it would be a great feature. It would probably still be reasonable to give heavy cav that attribute when in the early era.

Agree with Rozanov about Hastings.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

In the game a shield is fully effective vs opponents from the front, and 50% from left and right.
Defense is fully effective versus opponents from front, left and right, though not against missiles however.

This is different from RTW etc. I preferred the RTW version.

Thanks for this info, its good to know.

Be aware that, if animations are assigned correctly, that light units are faster via their animations, eg a light unit might have MTW2_Fast_Swordsman, and a heavy knight might have MTW2_Slow_Swordsman, with one in mail having MTW2_Swordsman.

I haven't checked this, but in-game the light units seem no faster than the heavy ones, but with the speed increase the difference is noticeable. At first I had it at 30% faster, but this was like a Benny Hill sketch (which was admittedly hilarious), so I scaled it back. 20% seems about right.

It makes sense to give lighter units a defense boost, along with lower heat value, lighter terrrain penalties (or better bonuses) and the faster movement you mention. They all combine to give a good rationale for using light units in certain circumstances.

That's what I'm aiming for. I don't want spear militia to be the equivalent of knights, however, so I was planning on doing it on recruitment level. I think I'll probably have to increase the value of armour to compensate, though. I'm trying to balance out archery, so peasant archers do effectively nothing to full-plated knights, but annihilate unarmoured troops. I imagine it'd put a bit of extra emphasis on AP units too.

Giving Heavy Cav 'frightens infantry' is a very powerful boost to their power and also affects nearby enemy units, but doesn't seem to really apply well to a unit that they are charging prior to actual contact, ie in testing I never saw a unit break prior to the cavalry actually charging home. Unfortunate, because it would be a great feature. It would probably still be reasonable to give heavy cav that attribute when in the early era.

I'll have a play around with it, see if I can get it to work in a reasonable manner and post my results here. Hopefully I can figure something out!

Agree with Rozanov about Hastings.

Well, everything I've read implies that cavalry generally won't attempt a suicide attack against a wall of shields, spears etc, or perform poorly at it. According to Wikipedia, for example, the horses apparently just shied away from the wall.

[Point Blank]

I think vanilla 6.1 doesn't have faster animations for lighter units, its mostly the same animation.

Evidence regarding actual effect of cavalry charges, or how often or successfully they were performed against braced defenders, is surprisingly fragmentary. Regardless, it wouldn't be to the cavalryman's taste, though there is no doubt that cavalry on occasion did get to close quarters with spearmen and pikemen, often successfully. Almost all examples of infantry successfully withstanding heavy cavalry during medieval times also see the infantry in favourable tactical circumstances. Otherwise, it was mostly considered impossible for infantry to resist heavy cav, though that changed as power returned to the infantry with pikes, polearms and a more professional and disciplined approach in the 14th century.

Its also interesting to note that almost nowhere is the spear specifically mentioned as being especially more effective vs cav than any other weapon. In fact some miniatures rules sets such as DBA give blades a better performance vs cav than spears. Pikes are a different matter, though even then some super-heavy late cavalry managed to penetrate deeply into or even charge right through pike squares.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Okay, a little light testing with the settings very hard, on English plains, has shown this:

Feudal Knights with frighten_foot vs Peasants

Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference with or without frighten_foot. The peasants bravely charged my cavalry, and under the leadership of what I can only assume is the most heroic and inspirational captain ever, they fought until they had about 40-50 men before breaking, out of 250. I couldn't believe it. I lowered the camera to watch from the peasant's perspective. I would have wet myself, if I were them.

Dismounted Italian Men at Arms vs Peasant archers

This was interesting. MMA have 9 5 6 defence value, peasant archers have 3 ranged attack.

With the normal defence value, the peasant archers killed approx 30 men (multiple runs) before the MMA hit them and just carved through them. When I put the 5 skill value onto armour, making them 14 0 6, the MMA lost 15 before hitting my lines. A massive difference, in other words.

Dismounted MMA vs longbowmen

A massacre on 9 5 6. The longbowmen had killed approx 120-130 before the MMA had even engaged, and the longbowmen proceeded to kill a few more before they broke. Longbowmen losses were negligable, less than 10.

With 14 0 6 it was a very different story. The longbowmen managed to kill about 90-100 of them before they had engaged, and then the MMA began carving into the longbowmen, until eventually their captain died and they lasted a little longer before they broke. I thought I was going to lose it, as out of 200 longbowmen I had about 80-110 left afterwards.


All in all, very interesting results.

I think that "defence skill" should literally be read as "agility". Basically, troops in heavy armour should have very little of this, with the current amount added to their armour value. It makes them a lot more resilient to archery fire, and they stood up fairly well against longbowmen, even though they were outnumbered by 50 men.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Some more thoughts after modding my version:

Crossbows shouldn't have a higher damage than bows, but should have the AP value. They already fire slower than bows, so that's good balance, and they remove the defence skill attribute and halve the armour value.

So a spear militia guy with 0 2 6 defence value (not at home, atm, just an example) only loses 2 points of defence, and recieves less attacks against him vs the peasant archers, who fire faster, and so crossbows are less effective than if they were being used against 14 0 6 dismounted knights of some kind, where the shortbows have very little bonus, where the crossbow now removes 7 points of defence.

I think I have finally managed to balance the bows!

Also: two-handed weapon people, and light-armour troops, should have bonus defence skill. They aren't easier to kill in close combat per se, it is more that the archers can muller them that makes them vulnerable. This should be balanced with AV - probably a judgement call, haven't done enough testing yet.

[emzu]

Well, keep up the good work mate, interesting approach there. You have a few very good suggestions, make sure to use them!

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

It also now makes swords a more desirable weapon. I don't know about you guys, but I don't pick sword-wielding troops over axe (ap) troops, even though the swords have a few more points of damage. If I know that the AP troops will be coming up against high-defence/low-armour units, they're pretty damn useless, where the swordsmen have nearly twice the attack (say, Huscarls vs Feudal Knights).

[smoesville]

I tested some of the ideas you put forward. They're good, obviously i haven't balanced things properly but the theory is sound and i will implement it if my mod ever gets past the mapping stage

[King Siegfried]

The frightens_foot attribute I believe should be reserved for special units, i.e. Ritterbruder. I've noticed many smaller units flee before knights even hit them (in campaign, not custom battle, of course), and that's without the "Frightens Infantry" line. Without the army's general, they just don't have the morale to take the charge. Most of my knights will simply ride over peasants. The frightens_foot attribute simply helps to further morale-damage the enemy. I would imagine this would make morale shocks even more effective, and should really help the Ritterbruder break militia grade units.

And Sargon, I know there are instances where infantry have resisted cavalry charges, but remember these were the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm was thus: a bunch of 200-lb men versus a bunch of 1,000-lb riders. The velocity of impact from a real knightly charge would have been enough to simply plow through most infantry. It wasn't until the halberd and the pike developed that cavalry charges lost their power, but that was more because of the braced positions of the polearms impaling the horses first. Also, until the more professional armies started hitting the battlefields, most infantry were peasants who had been handed a man-sized stick with a metal point on it and told to stick the pointy end into the medieval version of a tank. That is the same as telling a soldier to run up to a tank and blow it up with some C4 today. Sure, it happens. But nowhere near enough for the tank to stop being used. Medieval knights = medieval tanks.

And while your armor ideas are indeed interesting, please keep in mind that "heavy armor" is only called thus because there is so much more of it than "light armor". It is not as cumbersome as popular perception would have you believe. And defense skill is intended to reflect a unit's skill at arms. That's why most of the militia-grade units have a much lower defense skill than knights. And from what I've seen, defense skill acts to prevent a unit from being hit in melee at all. I could be wrong, but just from my own testing, defense skill seems to be different from armor or shields in one major aspect: it is preventing a blow, rather than preventing damage. So while archers may seem to be a little overpowered, maybe it's because the archers' attack is too high, rather than the knights' armor being too low.

Just some points to keep in mind, my good sir. Good luck with your mod!