Real Battle, Buildings, Recruitment (RBBR) for BC 2.3

[rusnmat]

You must have an old merc file or you installed the new merc file while playing the old campaign.
While everything is save game compatiable but the mercs file doesn't updates for already going campaign.

[Rex Inanimatus]

You must have an old merc file or you installed the new merc file while playing the old campaign.
While everything is save game compatiable but the mercs file doesn't updates for already going campaign.

Thanks didn't know that, yes it's an old fascinating campaign playing as Rum, don't want to restart that one!

[rusnmat]

Then, of course just keep it. Mercs is a minor thing in the game, all the upkeep costs will be current ( due to the EDU file). I started a few campaigns to see how my alernative campaign mod works ( with Sindh, Oman and Seljuks). Personally, Seljuks is my favorite, mostly because of the central location, opportunity to engage with different factions.

[David93]

Are the elephants still one turn to recruit?

[rusnmat]

Basic elephant unit as javelin elephants have 1 turn, medium quality elephants - 2 turns, high tier- armoured elephats - that disciplened and don't run amok - 3 turns

[Phosphoricus]

Elephant bodyguard can still take rebel town by itself. See attached image.

I recommend revising elephants to rely upon hitpoints instead of armor and defense values. This will cause elephants to wear out in prolonged combat and remove special sensitivity to javelins.

For example, I've modified my EDU entry for bodyguard_rajputs thusly:
stat_health 1, 6
stat_sec_armour 14, 6, metal

BECOMES

stat_health 1, 12
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, metal

[Moritol]

I started playing this mod again and thanks to this minimod, battles are more fun and realistic than before

Still got some issues:

1. It is a bit disturbing that my elite archers (SoIraq) have a better range than a ballista, not that I would use one , but it is still strange.

2. Did you consider that Mutatawwi'a Warriors (those guys from the silk road) fight with spear AND sword? At least they are less overpowered than before.

[Wareg]

Good changes, mainly with taking away ap from crossbowmen and balancing mace/axemen.

On the first page there are 4 files but I can't find descr_mount. In descr_unit there is line HORSE ARMOUR with 3 (or more) tipes of horse armour.
How does it work? Does it give extra points to rider's armour or work when for example arrow hit horse?
Isn't a better idea to give horse armour value in descr_mount according to type of horse(like in SS)?

[rusnmat]

Regarding elephants, the problem is mostly in AI stupidity. It shouldn't sally out of the town at the first place. When units comming from the gates elephants or other elite unit would deal with one unit at the time. Likely if you'd use heavy armoured Kwarez or Roman BG results would be very similar. Elephant units are strong, but they have a few weakneses as running out of control ( all except BG and 2 other top level units), vulnerable to javelins, a few in numbers (could be possible killed by single catapult/balista shot) and being very expensive . Removing any defence values and increasing hit points will make them much more vulnerable to archers, even levies archers. Their stats could be bettered, maybe will make some small adjustments in a future.

Suprisanly as it sounds, historically balistas had a shorter range than Mongol/ Turks elite foot archers. Just do a web search on it. Currently their effective range around 180-190m, it could be bump up by another 20-30 m.

Yes, I think that it is cool to have a few foot units that use 2 different weapons ( most of cavalry units use 2 different melee weapons). Mutatawwi'a Warriors give Muslim factions some dedicated higher morale troops. They are not very strong againts elite infantry, but good against both cavalry and infantry. Due to high level building requirment, they can be recruited only in small numbers.

[Moritol]

Suprisanly as it sounds, historically balistas had a shorter range than Mongol/ Turks elite foot archers. Just do a web search on it. Currently their effective range around 180-190m, it could be bump up by another 20-30 m.

If you say so, I only looked into wikipedia a bit. But there they only wrote sth about the roman scorpion with an effective range of 500 m. But I must admit the german version compared with the english one "source" is different.
As long as you can shoot elephants with them...

[rusnmat]

Ok, from the same wiki:
" The maximum range was over 500 yards (460 m), but effective combat range for many targets was far shorter. The ballista's relatively lightweight bolts also did not have the high momentum of the stones thrown by the later onagers, trebuchets, or mangonels; these could be as heavy as 200-300 pounds (90–135 kg)."
Best mongol/ turk archers had maximum range at 500-700 m. Maximum effective range for the best foot archers in this minimod is about 230m , and balistas around 190m, which are bigger than original BC2.3 ranges. Yes, it could be increased a bit. Balistas arrows do have much higher attack value ( damage) than regular arrows

[Moritol]

Not from the same .
I am German. So I looked in the german version first, 1000 m maximum, but 500 m effectiveness. That is a huge difference compared to the English one which is by-the-way more detailed.
They really should find out where the Romans shot those ballista bolts across the Donau.

[Wareg]

I've noticed that some horse archer units are unrealitically overpowered.

Nokud HA or Turkoman Medium HA have got 6 of shooting power and range 170-200m. It is very similar to range and shooting power of medium foot archers.
Infantry bows were bigger and have got more power than HA bows. If HA want to equal or overshot foot archers (like muslim HA fighting against Hindu longbowmen) they were using lighter arrows but with lower penetrating power. This tactic was good against unarmoured enemies or horses.
Many HA were using haeviest arrows good against well armoured enemies but with much shorter range (like Turkoman close bow HA).
I think that for long range HA 4 of power is enough (or 5 for elite). It is still more than for ex. Toxotai.

I've read that Mongols and Turks HA prefered close bow tactic. Of course that doesn't mean that thay hadn't got lighter arrows for bigger range. The best way may be to add special abbility 'long range arrows' for all HA units (with different proportion of ligt/haevy arrows for different units and nations) but It is probably utopia...
So I suggest that the most numerous of Mongol warriors, Nokud HA, should be close archers (with for ex. 80 m range and 7 shooting power).

What do you think about it?

[rusnmat]

Wareg, thanks for the suggestion. Yes, that is a historical fact that Mongols uses different arrows when engaging different enemies, which makes total sence since they encounter different enimies and were able to defeat them all. They had heavy arrows with armour piercing tips for heavy armoured targests, and used other arrows and tips for lighter armoured troops.
Their prefered ranges where at 200-240m when enemy had numbers of foot archers. That kind of distances allowed them to pepper enemy at safe distance, staying out of range of mass inferior bows of peasants/levies or militia archers.
Unfortunately, the game mechanics doesn't allow for missile units to have different missiles ( even if they did I am not sure if AI will use them efficiently
There are number of reasons why I choose to have the attack values and ranges to be the way they are.
1) By making HA max range at 80m or so, we are creating some kind of kamikadze units. That was one of the reasons I did my older minimod for SS6.3 . I could not stand that my peasant crossbows, archers and even javelinmen would slaugher top tiered Mongol / Turk HA just because we artificially limit their ranges to 80m. I just doesn't make any sence to me, why somebody would risk almost certain death to get just closer to the enemy for a more powerful shot. The whole tactical plan for HA was to constantly shower an enemy from the distance.
2) Mongol/Turk foot archers of the same class have a higher attack value 5 vs 6 or, 6 vs 7. The other factor that is not visiable is that HA accuracies are much lower than for FA. That is as important factor as the attack value.
3) Cost for HA per warrior is at 3-4 times the cost per one soldier for FA, you can recruit and pay for upkeep for several FA units instead of one HA. For the same cost several FA will easily defeat any HA unit with minimal casualties.
4) At that time a quality HA was the best, most efficient type of warfare. Just in much later centuries with introductions good half-plate and plate armour, and gun powder HA lost their edge. Mongols , historically, were able defeat armies 5-10 bigger in size. Of course, they didn't do that through kamikadze tactics, but by using their supperior bows, tactics and speed.
5) By lowering mongols HA stats, will be nefing them too much for the game, which is already pretty much in a human favor
( since AI is neither very smart or creative). Since in BC, mongol faction is purely AI, making them even stronger through stats makes more sence than having their stats low and spamming stacks after stacks of Mongol armies. It wasn't how they conquered almost the whole continent , by having countless men coming from Mongolia
Those are my thoughts on this topic

[Phosphoricus]

Regarding elephants:

Even if the AI is stupid in sallying, a few (realistic) elephants would not be able to kill such hundreds of diverse soldiers - often well-equipped and well-trained - on the open field. I let the entire army leave the walls and face me, as if it were a pitched battle on the field instead of a siege battle. I just charged the elephants back and forth through the various ranks of soldiers who, despite surrounding the elephants and frantically stabbing and charging at the elephants with all sorts of weaponry, somehow couldn't down even one.

If you have been able to destroy such armies with non-elephant bodyguard cavalry of other factions, this, if anything, suggests that a similar balance issue affects those cavalry as well.

In my experience (I made similar modifications to the EDU for elephants before using your Real Battle minimod) such changes to elephant values did not result in great vulnerability to archers. I worried that it would, but it didn't. In theory, the elephants should start to fall after receiving sustained fire from arrows at a close range. That would actually be somewhat realistic, but that is not what I observed.

My tests with the archers, however, were not based on your EDU. Perhaps your changes to the archers will allow manifestation of this theoretical vulnerability. I will go to custom battle to test elephants versus archers.

[rusnmat]

To Moritol, I did more research on the topic of ranges for siege weapons. Thanks for bringing it up. Yes, they have to be increased for all siege weapons and tower balistas as well. I will do it shortly. I paid little attention to the siege weapons since the main focus were hundreds of infrantry/ cavalry units in BC. Siege weapons stats were not changed, I just changed their costs.

[rusnmat]

Regarding elephants,Those guys are the toughest to get right. I did a lot of test with them, there are different elephant units. The bodyguard units are the best elephants of course. I did reduced their stats by a lot comparing to original BC2.3 already. Also their numbers in one unit were reduced as well. It seams like I should take another look to top tier units since they don't run amok. Thanks for the feedback

[rusnmat]

I just uploaded the updated EDU and wall files. Ranges for siege weapons were increased. Elephats defence was slightly decreased(-1 armour and/or -1 defence skill) and their costs were slightly lowered as well, and javelins units elephant bonuses were slightly reduced ( from +6 to +5). I did number of test with the new stats. Elephant are more vulnerable to regular weapons now such as swords and spears, about the same vs javelins

[Wareg]

Thanks for answer. Regarding HA:
I agree with you that HA were useful units couse of their tactics and speed but not cause of their bows power and casualties inflicted by them.
They were tormenting enemies by continual fire, hurting horses and trying to separate smaller groups of enemies making use of their speed.
About 40% of Mongol army were lancers and often their charge after HA 'preparation' was decisive.
If HA were fighting against well disciplined FA (or crossbowmen) they had some problems:
for ex. units of crossbowmen defending bridge during battle of Mohi or Lionheart's infantry fighting against Turkoman HA
Regarding "kamikadze": If I imagine It correctly (my MTW II is temporarily uinstalled and I can't check It) more dangerous
for HA fighting against FA with similar range is long range duel (couse of their lower accurancy).
Both units will die slowlier but It seems to less profitable for HA then close range duel.
Of course, firstly close bow HA have to reach their range but I think that It gives FA only about 2 vollies of advantage.

Mongol/Turk foot archers of the same class have a higher attack value 5 vs 6 or, 6 vs 7. The other factor that is not visiable is that HA accuracies are much lower than for FA. That is as important factor as the attack value.

Turkoman light FA have got 4 attack value, light Turkoman HA also. Seljuk medium FA and HA - both 6.
Only haevy FA have got higher value (7) than HA (6)...
High attack value of normal bow HA causes strange situations, for ex. medium Seljuk close bow have got 7 attack
(and souldn't have more, Janissary with much more powerful bows also have 7) whereas normal bow only 1 less.
I understand that HA have got lesser accurancy than FA but in fact they had also smaller range and power.

I totally agree that the biggest problem is AI. Highier statistics are kind of meed.
But maybe are there another solution apart from unhistorically high statistics?
For ex. you can check how HA work with ReallyBadAI Battle System mod. HA can use looser formation (horde ability?).
Light HA may have more armour points than FA (horse were more difficult to kill). They can be chepar than now.
There can be 2 types of Mongol common HA: close and normal range (like in case of Seljuks).
I've got also some questions:
In duel of HA and FA of the same class and in the same number who often wins and with how high casualties?
Are you sure that reflex bow had got better accurancy than longobow?
I've noticed that longbowmen can't shot in very close distance (about 20m?) Is it cause of arrow trajectory? Can you repair It?
What about horse armour (my yesterday's post)

[Moritol]

After the siege thing is done, thx by the way, I played some custom battles with Varangian Axemen and Heavy Janis.
The main problem I think is the shield value. Maybe it would be better balanced by reducing it to 1, I am still wondering how you can use a helberd and a shield properly, it should be at least more difficult than using a sword and a shield; right now both methods have the same values (4) which can't be right.

Attacks without any shield should be higher, I also know the stats from RC/RR, 8 attack for elite 1H axemen and 10 for elite 2H.