RR/RC for The Last Kingdom (released)

[k/t]

I'm not contesting the blunt force trauma. I'm just saying that RR/RC doesn't give AP to any swords. Ideally AP wouldn't exist and everything would be done through higher attack numbers, attack delay, soldier spacing and animations, and also the engine would distinguish between different types of weapons and give each a specific effectiveness against each type of armour, but until someone works out a comprehensive system without AP, I'll stick with what PB has done.

Also, there are no two-handed swords in TLK, and there is only one unit with longswords. Units in TLK have a maximum of 9 armour, and most have a lot less, so AP isn't all that important in the end. Not compared to SS, in which you have a bunch of units start with 11 armour or more and get 3 upgrades.

[Mihajlo]

Ideally AP wouldn't exist and everything would be done through higher attack numbers, attack delay, soldier spacing and animations, and also the engine would distinguish between different types of weapons and give each a specific effectiveness against each type of armour

Yes, totally 100% agree! Although 2H units armed with poleaxes n other crushing weapons should (well maybe) have AP.

Also, there are no two-handed swords in TLK, and there is only one unit with longswords.

Yes. Unhorsed knights are good as they are now. IIRC Only saxon huskarls n axe huskarls beat them in 1-1. It would be really overkill to make them stronger. Normans won on hastings because of few factors going on their side. Put a side all non armor-weapon-army factors (like huge march from previous battle, for example), Normans had nice mix of their troops, Harold's army was mostly melee infantry, with little experience against such army formation n composition. In game terms, that battle is after time line, so top tier norman units shouldnt be most powerful in TLK, mixing all they have should be more then enough to win against elite troops, not just to pack knights.

[Cincinatus]

I'm not contesting the blunt force trauma. I'm just saying that RR/RC doesn't give AP to any swords. Ideally AP wouldn't exist and everything would be done through higher attack numbers, attack delay, soldier spacing and animations, and also the engine would distinguish between different types of weapons and give each a specific effectiveness against each type of armour, but until someone works out a comprehensive system without AP, I'll stick with what PB has done.

Also, there are no two-handed swords in TLK, and there is only one unit with longswords. Units in TLK have a maximum of 9 armour, and most have a lot less, so AP isn't all that important in the end. Not compared to SS, in which you have a bunch of units start with 11 armour or more and get 3 upgrades.

I apologize if I mistakenly lead you to believe I thought units in this time necessarily had two handed swords, I was really only using it as an example. And sure, depending on how and what stat numbers you changed, ap factor may not be necessary, but in the vanilla game, it is practically needed, even if it is less than historical, because it weakens probably, as the last guy said, the most powerful unit in the game to be far less than that. Since the viking units and saxon units of comparable ability have slightly better numbers and a higher unit number value. This makes the unhorsed knights lopsidedly and unrealistically weaker than the other top units of the other factions. So to fairly balance them out, they probably need that in vanilla TLK or some other unit value change to reflect what should be comparably speaking a more powerful and advanced unit. This is especially so given the expense and the time/wait it takes to be able to even recruit this unit. And still as you said, the game engine is unrealistic and does not allow enough flexibility which is why sometimes you are forced to do some slightly unrealistic things or changes in order to try to emulate and reflect a more realistic outcome.

That number 9? Is that the armor value, or the defense total value? And if the armor value, does that make the lighter units like spear men about half of that?

[k/t]

"Straight to the point."

Of course. What am I, a woman?

Actually, I do tend to answer simple yes or no questions with long, rambling stories, but that's old man behaviour, not woman behaviour. And I do complain about kids today.

Thank you very much, Fred! I will let you know how it goes.

The cheapest unit is over 100. Agents are over 100 too.

There are only cities in the mod. What has to be changed as a result?

Come to think of it, I haven't seen any money script either. However, the bonuses to the King's Purse are huge on higher difficulty settings. Also, this TLK release is a beta, so maybe no money script was made for this version.

[Fred Putz]

What has to be changed as a result?

Nothing

[k/t]

So you were just talking in principle? I don't understand. I can't do anything about Vanilla. Did you try the files I uploaded?

9 is the armour.

[k/t]

Apparently there was a mistake in the files I got from Heathen Storm, but it's easy to fix. The Norman Retainers were given the wrong animation.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=476882&page=2

[Cincinatus]

I will try them. I figured I would wait until you got done making adjustments. The ap principle thing I was talking about, I meant the end effect. If, which in the case of the non RR/RC last kingdom mod, you had huskarls, hearthgeneats, and unhorsed norman knights all wibh 37 or better total defense, and 12 or better total offense, and the Unhorsed Norman knights have fewer troops per unit (62 to 75 on huge setting), then the most modern and most powerful unit in the game, is effectively not where it should be. Plus, all the extra time and expense to acquire the Unhorsed Norman knight seem frivolous when a better unit could be acquired much more easily. The Huskarl and viking bodyguards, do in fact have a ap attribute, which makes them much better than fellow vikings who supposedly combined technology and techniques with those of the Franks and perhaps Britons to supposedly achieve a better more advanced military force including unhorsed knights, that by all rights should be as good or better than Huskarls and Vking bodyguards comparatively given also the added wait time and expenses. This should very well be the case. In this scenario, adding a ap value is the least we could do to balance and equalize the various factions and units.

But, if what you say is true that may not be needed. Still though, regardless of what the RR/RC guide says, whether you consider some swords or units effective against armor or not and given units that do in fact have a blunt force trauma attribute that are obviously not strictly armor piercing, then the guide needs to be updated to reflect what is reality. If axes and clubs are given a AP, or anti armor, effective against armor value, yet heavy swords or skilled swordsmen such as knights using clearly anti armor and effective against armor training, skills, techniques are excluded then where is the realistic equilibrium balance for either or infact any unit or weapon?

I am not trying to insult you or what you do in anyway, but, does it make sense if you have armor piercing and armor blunt force trauma units/weapons that do get the attribute but others that clearly also have those qualities do not?

However on the other hand, given that you say you will give such a unit a higher attack value, it may balance it but that is also dependent in the same way among the units I stated earlier. So that if their overall stat values are not very different or unit sizes from vanilla or that stated above, then, the effect is the same. That the most advanced and modern, and arguably best units, have little difference than those of Viking and Saxon factions. So therefore, I wonder, if the other non norman factions have a upper tier unit with similar offense and defense values, but no ap, yet the others do, then is the Norman unit really much better or more advanced as it should be?

[k/t]

I will release some updated files soon, so you can wait for those.

Like I said, I made the Unhorsed Knights 80 for balance purposes, since the Normans also have Norman Foot Soldiers, who are Feudal and Elite. I gave each faction one Exceptional unit, other than the bodyguard, except the Normans, who have two (the other being the mounted version). While in a one unit against one unit fight the Unhorsed Knights may lose against a few high quality units, they are still very good and they have Command, which is important, considering the lowered morale for Average and Militia units. I didn't want a Norman army to always have the upper hand against another army due to numerous high quality units. I will do more tests and maybe bring the Unhorsed Knights up to 100, or 90. It will mean they can hold their own against pretty much any other unit while not making a too big difference in a big battle.

"knights using clearly anti armor and effective against armor training, skills, techniques are excluded"

Not really, because they have very high stats, and the only heavily armoured units they will meet will be other knights, who've had training to avoid hits in their armour's weak spots.

Give me a few days to put out the new files and you'll be able to see for yourself. Or you can use the current ones if you just want to play some Custom Battles.

Also, I find "the most powerful and most modern unit in the game" to be an assumption. Why should the Unhorsed Knights be the top unit? Because the Normans won at Hastings? The Saxons, the Norse and the Franks had some elite fighters as well, who wouldn't have been any worse trained or equipped.

[MrExpendable]

I'd think that the Unhorsed Knights shouldn't be stronger then any other elite infantry. Why would they? They weren't even focused on infantry battles (though they surely wouldn't suck at it either), but fighting from horseback. Whereas the Saxon Huscarl class would solely fight on foot, and in formation. As a matter of fact, I think that Unhorsed Knights should be one of the weaker elite infantry classes since early knights weren't very trained to fight in large-scale infantry battles. They just lacked the cohesion the Huscarl class had.

[Cincinatus]

Actually, I said the most powerful and modern unit, because thats what knights were. Why else would Knights and Knighthood be to dominate so much of Europe for so many centuries if they were not? If Huskarls were the best or most modern unit, would we not have seen the age of Huskarl, not the age of Knighthood or chilvary? Most all combat for centuries were centered around and on knights. Knights are commonly considered the tanks of the medieval world. Training, skill, physique, technology, weapons, and armor all played a major part in what made a knight a knight.

You may consider what Mr Expendable said, in that they may not have been in their top or most evolved form yet, but they were still the military force to be reckoned with and dominate the western world in general for generations. The main thing that eventually ended their age were gunpowder weapons.Ho

They may have been a smaller force with some differences in tactics of what eventually became the typical medieval knight. Their training may not have been at its crux yet. But you also have to consider, contrary to what Mr Expandable said and in some ways what you implied, the Normas WERE Vikings. Any type of unit, tech, training, weapon, or armor associated with Vikings, or Huskarls would have been known to the Normans. So even if Huskarls had some advantages, the Normans and therefore the knights would have been well aware of such and been more than capable of countering any such major advantage, had anything significant existed.

[MrExpendable]

Actually, I said the most powerful and modern unit, because thats what knights were. Why else would Knights and Knighthood be to dominate so much of Europe for so many centuries if they were not? If Huskarls were the best or most modern unit, would we not have seen the age of Huskarl, not the age of Knighthood or chilvary? Most all combat for centuries were centered around and on knights. Knights are commonly considered the tanks of the medieval world. Training, skill, physique, technology, weapons, and armor all played a major part in what made a knight a knight.

You may consider what Mr Expendable said, in that they may not have been in their top or most evolved form yet, but they were still the military force to be reckoned with and dominate the western world in general for generations. The main thing that eventually ended their age were gunpowder weapons.Ho

They may have been a smaller force with some differences in tactics of what eventually became the typical medieval knight. Their training may not have been at its crux yet. But you also have to consider, contrary to what Mr Expandable said and in some ways what you implied, the Normas WERE Vikings. Any type of unit, tech, training, weapon, or armor associated with Vikings, or Huskarls would have been known to the Normans. So even if Huskarls had some advantages, the Normans and therefore the knights would have been well aware of such and been more than capable of countering any such major advantage, had anything significant existed.

Norman cavalry set an example and were the precursor to the way knights would fight in the future middle ages. They surely had innovative tactics (charging with lances underarm, throwing spears while galloping to increase throwing range etc.). And I won't deny that they would function well in a melee when they maintain formation against lower/medium/probably even most professional ranked soldiers of the Saxons. But whilst the Norman knights dedicated their lives to fighting from horseback, the Saxon Huskarls specialized in infantry fights. Apart from Viking heritage, the Norman knights spent less time training dismounted because they had to spend more time in training on horseback. Whilst the Huskarls, apart from riding their horses, could spent their training on dismounted fights exclussively. They would learn the most advanced infantry tactics at the time which allowed them to do what they did best. Just like the Norman Knights would learn what they did best.

It's like comparing the modernized Imperial infantry to the Samurai class during the Satsuma Rebellion. Surely the Imperial infantry had the most modernized weapons and could beat the Samurai class in ranged fights. But when it came down to an old-fashioned melee, the Samurai were far superior most of the time. And just because the Imperials knew how the Samurai would fight, didn't mean that they would be able to neutralize them in melee, even when some of their own officers were Samurai. This is because both military doctrines specialized in different fighting styles, and not because one side had superior training as opposed to the other, per se.

In my opinion, I see it like this: Unhorsed Knights are superior to most units, except for the Gaelic, Saxon, and Viking elite/royal infantry class. Mounted Knights are the best cavalry unit in the game, with high charge damage and high armour rate.

BTW, I hope that k/t is still working on this. He seems absent.

[nebunelux]

I installed RR/RC by k/t on top of the Last Kingdom 3.6.
Meaning files from post 48 and EDU from post 49 and my game crashes at start. I get that crash message with Odin.

Can anyone help with this?

Also I want to thank k/t for this great idea of adding RR/RC over this great mod.

[k/t]

What does your log say? The only time I got that Odin message was when I started up the game with an EDU from which I had removed all the non-TLK units. Then I added them back and the game ran without problems. Without the log, though, I can only guess as to what the problem is.

[nebunelux]

The log says like this:

16:54:38.345 [script.err] [error] Script Error in mods/Last_Kingdom/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/descr_strat.txt, at line 3077, column 1
The character record Lendrmaðr Guttorm the Honest is set as faction heir but is not in the family tree.
16:59:21.361 [script.err] [error] Script Error in mods/Last_Kingdom/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/descr_strat.txt, at line 3077, column 1
The character record Lendrmaðr Guttorm the Honest is set as faction heir but is not in the family tree.

[k/t]

Oh, that. Yeah, I got that too. It was weird, because I hadn't altered descr_strat in any way that related to family trees. I mentioned that in post #68.

I fixed the problem by adding Guttorm to the family tree.

Here's what my code looks like now in descr_strat:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

character_record Gudrod, male, age 85, dead 43, never_a_leader
character_record Aasa, female, age 82, dead 20, never_a_leader
character_record Halfdane, male, age 42, dead 2, never_a_leader
character_record Ragnhilde, female, age 35, dead 7, never_a_leader
character_record Olafr, male, age 64, dead 14, never_a_leader

relative Gudrod, Aasa, Olafr, Halfdane, end
relative Halfdane, Ragnhilde, Guttorm, Harald, end

[smoesville]

Isn't Guttorm meant to be in a separate family? Why not put him alone in his own tree?

[k/t]

Isn't he already in his own tree? The game CTD because, according to the log, "he is the heir but he isn't in the family tree", so I put him in the family tree. Now the game works. I didn't have that problem before tampering with the files, but I didn't touch the family trees or the armies factions start with, so I don't know what went wrong.

FIRST POST UPDATED!

[MrExpendable]

Great update so far! I've been halving the troop costs so they are more affordable in custom battles. Will upload it soon.

I found a small problem with the Hearthgeneats: they cost a 2200 in gold, whilst their stats are identical to those of the Hirdmenn, which cost 1750 gold.

Also, I'm a bit concerned about the Scandinavian and Saxon infantry bodyguards. They have a very small unit size, while being more expensive then, say, the unhorsed Norman knights. I advise to either increase their unit size, or lowering their price.

That's all for now. My exams are over, which means that I've got the time to playtest this submod thoroughly.

[k/t]

The recruitment cost of bodyguards is irrelevant (except in Custom Battles - and in that case their cost is identical) since they cannot be recruited in the Campaign. Units are already more affordable in Custom Battles: Huskarl Axemen cost 1150 in the Campaign but only 420 in Custom Battles.

Heorthgeneats and Hirdmenn have upkeep 200 for 40 men, while Unhorsed Norman Knights cost 340 for 100. The difference is the bodyguards regenerate. Having more regenerating troops makes bodyguards too powerful.

I intend to revise all costs at some point, in accordance to the unit pricing system I'm working on.