FINAL SS RR/RC COMPILATION ***AUGUST 13***

[k/t]

I knew you'd be back! The Scriptures promised it!

I've been promoting RR/RC while you were gone and defending the one true faith from pathetic unbelievers who keep asking why longbows aren't AP.

I've been waiting for the new version, but keeping busy with BC (2.02 is terrible - the stats are all wrong) and TATW 1.41. Anyway, there's no rush (except the world might end next year, so I was hoping to play the new version a bit before that), because good things are worth waiting for.

[Phil of Loreauville]

So this RC 2.0 Medieval.txt file is official? Latest & Greatest??

If so, mind if I make a pdf or doc or even html file out of it and post it on my site?

[Point Blank]

So this RC 2.0 Medieval.txt file is official? Latest & Greatest??

If so, mind if I make a pdf or doc or even html file out of it and post it on my site?

Yes go ahead , any tweaks from this point will be minor.

[k/t]

I think he will tweak it a bit more before it's fully done.

[Phil of Loreauville]

Great.
I'll try to make it something downloadable as well as static. Like a pdf or something.

[smitty]

Hey PB,

Glad you are back!

While reading through the RC 2.0 text you uploaded I noticed in the description of differences between missileers and skirmishers both descriptions say "Tend to have more 'fragile' mental stats eg Low Discipline, but this is also dependent on their type eg Local, Pro, Feudal or whatever"

Are these supposed to be the same, or is there a difference in regard to mental stats between the two unit types?

[Point Blank]

True for both, but Skirmishers are a bit more robust, have a look at the GENERAL DISCIPLINE GUIDE tables near the end of the document.

Also Skirmishers have slightly better morale, slightly higher mass, better melee stats.

[k/t]

There have been a bunch of suggestions made around here while you were gone: increased mercenary pools from 1350 or so on, uh...and some other things I can't remember.

[Point Blank]

I guess I need to go through the posts.

Moneybags14 is not too far away from completing a set of spreadsheets that autogens RC 2.0 unit stats for TATW, hopefully it can be modified to apply to the medieval era.

[napoleonic]

I hope you can release the 2.0 compilation soon, but here's something that always has been bothering me : these fancy unit classes system on RC, is it already integrated within the stats or is it stacked up?

I mean, let's say there's an early pro elite archer unit armed with composite bows with 4 missile attack stats (from the in game unit information table), according to RC guide, that unit should get +2 extra damage and another +1 extra damage (more or less, I haven't exactly read the entire guide)...

so, does that unit actually have 7 missile attack? or just 4? if it 7 then the in game tables are misleading (and so does that RR/RC compilation units project page website), perhaps you should consider put the correct information in the game?

[k/t]

The in-game stats are the end product of all the class and type bonuses and penalties.

The tables explain how the final number was reached.

Elite bowmen get +1 to the missile attack, so the unit would have 4 (foot composite bow) + 1 = 5. There is no +2 for elite bowmen anywhere.

[Point Blank]

Napoleonic is actually correct, in RC 2.0 such a unit would have 4+2+1. As k/t says all bonuses stack.

[napoleonic]

so the in game unit information is totally wrong then? but here's the thing I'm confused... where does that extra stats come from in the game files??? I'm going to give example here, I'm using RW's submod so things may not be the same :

type Mourtatoi
dictionary Mourtatoi ; Mourtatoi, local
category infantry
class missile
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Mourtatoi, 48, 0, 0.9
officer byzantine_unit_officer
officer byzantium_missile_flag

attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, extreme_range, hardy, can_withdraw, foot_archers, stakes, stakes, mercenary_unit, free_upkeep_unit
move_speed_mod 0.99
formation 1.2, 1.2, 1.8, 1.8, 4, square
stat_health 1, 2
stat_pri 5, 2, quality_mass_composite_arrow, 210, 45, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 4, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 20, 1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 7, 3, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 1, 1, 1, -1
stat_mental 9, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 6
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 620, 280, 90, 70, 605, 4, 170
armour_ug_levels 2, 6, 8
armour_ug_models Mourtatoi, Mourtatoi_ug1, Mourtatoi_ug2
ownership all ; byzantium, slave
era 1 byzantium
era 2 byzantium
recruit_priority_offset 10

IIRC in RW's submod, the in game info says that mourtatois are superior local with 5 missile attack... I can see that "5" from the stat_primary, but where do the bonuses & penalties (being as superior unit, using composite bows, being as local unit etc) come from?

*I'm not only talking about attack stats here, but also about defense, morale, heat penalty from armor, etc
so I can see that they have 9 mental stats, but where do the extra modifiers come from? (as the same case with attack stats and everything)

[k/t]

I was going by the old version, so I was correct.

I just took a look at the new file.

1) Are camels really as fast as the fastest ponies?
2) Are bowmen getting a few too many boosts? Just because an archer is better trained it doesn't mean he can shoot an arrow with more energy than a lesser trained archer. The only things that matter are the bow and the arrow. If a man is capable of pulling the bow to full draw, then he'll do the same damage with it the first time he picks it up as someone who has spent years training with it. He won't be as accurate or as fast to reload and he'll get tired more quickly, but the arrow will fly equally far.
3) I didn't see anything about accuracy in the new version, but in the old one longbows were more accurate than composite bows. What prompted you to make it so?
4) Is the distinction between Chargers and Brawlers based on history? Didn't the tactical situation rather than general military doctrine dictate the tactics employed by cavalry? If ordered, the cavalry can retreat and charge again, or push through to break the enemy's formation. I assume things like Lancers will be classified as Chargers, but in that Pavia example you give on occasion they rode through the pike squares. Wouldn't such superheavy cavalry keep driving forward after slamming into an enemy and switching to swords? (This is based on the assumption that the "Idle" animation means they would just stand there with only the front guys fighting instead of pushing forward or backward.)

but where do the bonuses & penalties (being as superior unit, using composite bows, being as local unit etc) come from?

You mean why they are listed as Superior and why they have composite bows and why they are Local units? Historical accuracy plus some judgment calls by PB.

Another thing that I've been wondering about for a while is mounted archers getting -1 compared to foot archers due to the assumption that mounted archers have to use less stiff bows. On the forum of his website, Grozer Csaba said he didn't believe that horsearchers used bows that were much "weaker" than the ones used by infantry. When you shoot a bow, you push with one hand and pull with the other. Whether your feet are planted firmly on the ground or in stirrups shouldn't matter. I will do some more snooping and see if I can find additional opinions from people with experience on this subject (ideally someone like Kassai Lajos or Lukas Novotny).

[Point Blank]

so the in game unit information is totally wrong then? but here's the thing I'm confused... where does that extra stats come from in the game files??? I'm going to give example here, I'm using RW's submod so things may not be the same :



IIRC in RW's submod, the in game info says that mourtatois are superior local with 5 missile attack... I can see that "5" from the stat_primary, but where do the bonuses & penalties (being as superior unit, using composite bows, being as local unit etc) come from?

*I'm not only talking about attack stats here, but also about defense, morale, heat penalty from armor, etc
so I can see that they have 9 mental stats, but where do the extra modifiers come from? (as the same case with attack stats and everything)

Did you see the old PDF guide? Have a look at the attached file, it contains WIP RC 2.0 data, see the Guide especially.

I was going by the old version, so I was correct.

Yes

I just took a look at the new file.

1) Are camels really as fast as the fastest ponies?

Nope, they have a mov_speed_mod that is applied to the camel animation, which is slower than the horse or fast_horse anim. All the mov_speed_mod values in the Mount Table apply to the animation used by that particular mount as shown in the 'Animation' column. The various animations already impart quite a lot of difference in move speeds, the mov_speed_mod values just alter them further.

2) Are bowmen getting a few too many boosts? Just because an archer is better trained it doesn't mean he can shoot an arrow with more energy than a lesser trained archer.

A trained archer can pull a heavier draw.

The only things that matter are the bow and the arrow. If a man is capable of pulling the bow to full draw, then he'll do the same damage with it the first time he picks it up as someone who has spent years training with it. He won't be as accurate or as fast to reload and he'll get tired more quickly, but the arrow will fly equally far.

True but trained archers will use heavier draw bows.

3) I didn't see anything about accuracy in the new version, but in the old one longbows were more accurate than composite bows. What prompted you to make it so?

All the accuracy values are in descr_projectile, its in the attached file.

Longbows typically shoot a longer shaft leading to greater stability and slightly better accuracy. The effect in-game is small.

4) Is the distinction between Chargers and Brawlers based on history? Didn't the tactical situation rather than general military doctrine dictate the tactics employed by cavalry? If ordered, the cavalry can retreat and charge again, or push through to break the enemy's formation. I assume things like Lancers will be classified as Chargers, but in that Pavia example you give on occasion they rode through the pike squares. Wouldn't such superheavy cavalry keep driving forward after slamming into an enemy and switching to swords? (This is based on the assumption that the "Idle" animation means they would just stand there with only the front guys fighting instead of pushing forward or backward.)

The designation of a mounted unit as Lancer, Charger or Brawler is decided by a combination of the unit's weaponry and its typical historical role. This designation is the one that modifies the unit's stats:

MOUNT CATEGORIES
Category Anim Melee Charge Defense move_speed_mod mass heat morale
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All ponies shuffle_backward 0 0 0 0 0 0
HA/Javelin shuffle_backward 0 n/a 0 +0.1 -0.5 -2
Lancer shuffle_backward -1 +2 -1 +0.05 +0.25 -1
Charger idle 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1
Brawler shuffle_forward +1 -2 +1 -0.05 -0.25 +1 +2

So an obvious example for a Lancer is, well, a French Lancer (as you mention above re: the pike squares), which receives the above Lancer stat changes of -1 melee attack and defense, +2 Lance Charge, +0.05 mov_speed_mod, +0.25 mass and -1 heat; morale remains unchanged.

After this, we consult the following table:

Modifiers Anim
----------------------------
Elite melee or better +1
Impetuous +1
Bodyguard -1
Light Cavalry -1
Spearmen Cavalry -1

So the French Lancer, as an Elite Impetuous, gets +2. This means the actual animation set used in melee by the French Lancer is 2 categories shifted from 'Lancer', which makes it 'Brawler'. So yes, in this case this unit, though its tactical role is a lancer, will still perform very aggressively in melee due to its Brawler animation set.

Note that for French Lancers, in the EDU the mount type is:

mount french armoured horse brawler lancer

ie its a french armored horse using the brawler anim set with lancer stat modifiers. In the descr_mount this can be seen as:

type french armoured horse brawler lancer
class horse
model Mount_Armoured_Horse_Brawler
radius 1.2
x_radius 0.5
y_offset 0.7
height 2.5
mass 4.25
banner_height 0
bouyancy_offset 1.8
water_trail_effect horse_water_trail
root_node_height 1.0
rider_offset 0.0, 0.38, 0.70

with the 'model' line specifiying the anim set to use, and the mass value reflecting it being a lancer with mass of 4.25 rather than 4.

The mounted Norse War Cleric (Armored Clergy), on the other hand, has no charge weapon, so is immediately assigned as a Brawler, with Brawler bonuses and a Brawler animation set:

mount mailed horse brawler.

The way in which these designations, bonuses and animation sets interact with a units role and weapon set gives a wide range of individualization to the various mounted units. No doubt there will be numerous comments on the designations I've chosen

You mean why they are listed as Superior and why they have composite bows and why they are Local units? Historical accuracy plus some judgment calls by PB.

Right, many Mongol units are also Local and they are elite with composite bows.

Another thing that I've been wondering about for a while is mounted archers getting -1 compared to foot archers due to the assumption that mounted archers have to use less stiff bows. On the forum of his website, Grozer Csaba said he didn't believe that horsearchers used bows that were much "weaker" than the ones used by infantry. When you shoot a bow, you push with one hand and pull with the other. Whether your feet are planted firmly on the ground or in stirrups shouldn't matter. I will do some more snooping and see if I can find additional opinions from people with experience on this subject (ideally someone like Kassai Lajos or Lukas Novotny).

Its more an issue of a functional mounted bow typically being smaller than one able to be used by a foot soldier, but I guess this could be argued on a case by case basis - in some cases

[napoleonic]

no k/t... I'm asking about the game mechanics not real world data

[napoleonic]

I said I'm talking about game mechanics

5+2+1, I can see the 5, but where do the 2 and 1 come from?

stat_pri 5, 2, quality_mass_composite_arrow, 210, 45, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

where's the 2? 1?

[Point Blank]

Well you are talking about RC version before 2.0. In that case, Composite Bow has base 4 attack +1 for being Superior shooter = 5, as in the PDF.

For RC 2.0 you can find the damage modifiers in the tables
MISSILE WEAPON EFFECTS MODIFIER TABLE
MISSILE WEAPON SHOOTER QUALITY ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TABLE

[napoleonic]

Well you are talking about RC version before 2.0. In that case, Composite Bow has base 4 attack +1 for being Superior shooter = 5.

aaaah I see now.... so 5 (or any other numbers we can find from the in game unit description) is the final total points... so everything was done first on paper, not +2 -1 etc appeared out of thin air I see that now...

[Point Blank]

Yes