Real Combat/Real Recruitment 1.4.1 by Point Blank UPDATED to 3.2 Vanilla-version 1.5 RELEASED

[Malanthor]

The system is supposed to be logical based on armor-weapon type etc. But id say it is decently faithful to middle earth without going all crazy on the game balance, (1 elf killing 50 orcs etc=would be impossibly to balance)
By the way when not playing with AUM units the Rhun pikeman is bad pikeman, this is because hes pike is the shortest of all the pikes out there. In reality wielding a 3 meter long staff with bladed instruments at the end would differ alot from wielding a 5 meter long pole sharpened at the end. So putting them both as "pike" and using the same stats really dont work. I say you need to find a middle ground or something. Hes weapon is too long and thus too good for a polearm and too short and thus to crappy for a pike. But hey you dont have to do anything, im fixing it for myself anyway, its just an annoying unit to give stats too because hes in the middle of two weapontypes.

edit: i saw that the unit is just listed as light_spear, by changing that to spear and long_pike it does much better against cavalry and thus fulfills the role of pikeinfantry better.

[Nemesis_GR]

@Maximilian
Yes it is save game compatible.


@GueulEclator
Open the Export_desc_unit file and before the gondor units part it says the racial bonuses.Everything is by middle earth standards...Elfs have low numbers but are all classed as Elite/Exceptional/Special and get big racial bonuses.They really own orcs dont worry.Also they have big recruitment costs but low upkeep which suits them well.


@Malathor about Rhunnic pikemen
As u very well described it is a pain to class/balance them...
I made them as normal pikemen(instead of halberdiers) for two reasons:
1.They are regular pikemen in vanilla.KK intended them to be like that.(the unit description says that this unit ensures rhun wont be defeated by the cavalry of rohan again-lore thing)
2.Gave their stats to the AUM rhunnic halberdiers.

And btw they are elite and not guard so they have a big attack(5) and get higher numbers like all pike-spear units.Also i increased Rhun elite infantry armor to 13(advanced lammelar 11 +plates 2).So imo rhun is ok regarding infantry.Actually it probably has the best unit roster...

@Gallus about Spiders
I didnt gave them 3 secondary hp,they already had it.(in vannila tatw 3.1 and in MOS6.31).
Gave them high armor(12) since spiders have exoskeleton and only 4 defence skill since they arent so agile.Also lowered their mass(2.5) and their attack(10) and charge(6-which is 2 more than elite inf since they rand fast and probably jump).
I tested them and they are ok now imo.If everything they maybe need a buff since they are not a recruitable unit-only mercenary.
Lastly since they are recruited in mirkwood i tested them against the silvans and a couple arrow volleys +1 unit of the new silvan axemen defeats them easily.


EDIT:@Malathor i changed em at the last minute so i made a mistake there.They should have "spear, long_pike" at their "stat_pri_attr"-also on their formation numbers the last one should be 8 instead of 4.Fixed it,will be in next version-which will be when i finish checking the secondary hp of the units and doing a check at the evil factions.(they get no love )Tnx for the feedback mate.

PS.As i said Good factions+Rhun/Harad are checked thoroughly but some feedback on the rest Evil factions would be much appreciated.Hf all!

[Point Blank]

Updated:

Recommend the following for secondary hp's (cumulative):

Foot Unit 1
Mounted Unit 2

Missile Unit +1
Skirmisher Unit +1
Human Peasant or low-quality Militia -1
Heavy Cavalry +1
All non-human evil -1
Elven +1

MAXIMUM IS 3
MINIMUM IS 0

[Aper]

AFAIK, the sec HP thing was intended to balance the performance of missile and cavalry units, that in autoresolve are underpowered in comparison to heavy infantry, right?

If so, why heavy infantry gets this bonus as well? Don't this mess the whole thing up?

Thanks

[Point Blank]

Where does it say Heavy Infantry get a bonus?

Its also meant to compensate for unit numbers having far too much influence on outcomes.

[Aper]

Where does it say Heavy Infantry get a bonus?

Its also meant to compensate for unit numbers having far too much influence on outcomes.

Here

type Dwarven Warriors
dictionary Dwarven_Warriors ; Dwarven Warriors
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier dwarven_warriors, 48, 0, 1.25
officer dwarf_captain_early_flag
mount_effect horse -1, camel -1, elephant -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 2

My question is: is this system actually tested and proved to work?
From the stats, I find hard to believe that factions with a lot of heavy infantry, like dwarves for instance,
are better balanced in autoresolve and no longer overpowered if many of their units get 2 sec HPs,
that is almost the maximum possible amount...
I'd bet they still rape everything in their way like in vanilla.

[Nemesis_GR]

@Qba One-handed axes shouldnt have AP.But they do for gameplay reasons afaik.

@Gallus Spiders are not exactly balanced using RC(unit qualities,weapon,armor etc).Like all creatures(trolls,mumakill etc) they are just meant to be as realistic as possible.So PB couldnt have an answer for u. Btw spiders are elephant unit so the secondary hp is not only for auto-resolve i think.So 1-3 isnt the same as 2-2?Dont know for sure.Will do some testing...

@Aper I will update secondary hp according to PBs formula in the next version.When RC 1.4 was made he probably gave +1 to dwarves since they get lower numbers.And yes this system works if i take SS as an example.

Anyway PB told me that he will release RC 2.0 soon so everything will be updated to it.Animations will also be updated as they are very important.

[Qba]

Why all axes have "armor piercing" attribute?

[Gallus]

OK I think I figured out the spiders. Their attack and defense values are perfect, but they need 2 hit points and probably 2 secondary hitpoints (am I right PB?).

[Point Blank]

Yes I think I gave dwarves +1 as well, the table I posted above was from memory. I don't know how 3.1 has altered unit sizes so not sure if that is still appropriate. The (by far) most weighted factor is unit size. Its not ideal but its the best we can do unfortunately.

[Nemesis_GR]

PB i have used the same unit numbers 1.4.1 had with some changes of my own to make each faction more unique.

Anyway dwarves indeed raped everything in 2.1 so maybe they shouldn't get the +1 secondary hp.(But we have to check how they perform with RC in 3.1->they have fewer numbers).

ps.uploaded version1.2b with some minor fixes.(ex some pikemen stats,gave all missile class(long-range) archers cannot_skirmish,some bg numbers tweeking etc).Check OP.hf all

[Aper]

From the feedbacks of other users (I have not played TATW in some time) dwarves were a sort of "grey death" in 2.1, so it will probably be better to discard this +1 bonus they have IMO.

But they aren't the only faction who get a boost to the sec HPs of heavy infantry anyway.

Look at this:

type Gondor Spearmen
dictionary Gondor_Spearmen ; Gondor Spearmen, Superior
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_spear
banner holy crusade
soldier Armored_Sergeants, 80, 0, 1.25, 0.3
officer gondor_captain_early_flag
mount_effect horse +2, camel +2, elephant -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit
move_speed_mod 0.95
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square, schiltrom
stat_health 1, 2

This guys are heavily armored spearmen with large unit size, I'm not sure a bonus to their sec HPs would be appropriate for them... when I'll be able to reinstall TATW and run a campaign I'll try to pay attention to the outcome of autoresolved battles to see how things go on.

[Nemesis_GR]

PB said that the formula was from memory(1.4.1 RC was released 1.5 year ago) so if he finds the exact formula i am sure he will share it with us.When i play some campaigns and some feedback is posted by other players i will make some changes for the next version as i said.gn

[Malanthor]

Shouldent light infantry move faster than medium and heavy. Very few units have a modifed move_speed_mod line it seems, i thought the rules said something abouth light armor having fast move-something, medium average and heavy slow. Maybe i have misunderstood something. I might just have done that. But realistically speaking light infantry should have faster movement speed than medium and heavy infantry as a rule rather than as an exception, just try wearing a heavy bulletproof vest and running a kilometer compared to not wearing one, its quite a difference and a medieval heavy armor do weigh more than that and are more hampering to boot.

edit: smiths of eregion seems to be kinda bad for what they are. As i understand the smiths of eregion forged the rings of power at saurons behest and with hes counsil. Then eregion was destroyed.. well i really dont know what beeing a "smith of eregion" means in the third age, but from what i can gather from lore it seems like a rather potent title. But they are only elite and elf1 and have an armor value of 8 even though their armor seem quite heavy and are prob quite potent given that they are mage-smiths or something like that. Just seemed odd to me.

[Point Blank]

Yes Gondor Spearman should definitely only have 1 secondary hp.

Units move at 3 different base rates according to their armor/shield/weapon load, and this is done by having 3 different animations that move the units at different speeds. Have a look at the battle_models.db file in data/unit_models folder, eg M2TW_Slow_Swordsman, M2TW_Swordsman, M2TW_Fast_Swordsman.

[Malanthor]

Ahh, yeah i read something abouth that although if that governs speed i dont understand what the move_speed_mod line is for, unless its for easy changing a units speed.

[Point Blank]

Yep thats what its for.

[Malanthor]

Thanks.

[Knel]

It looks like defence from shields is only dependent on the size of the shield. I think metal shields should be superior to wooden shields but at the moment Breeland Militia has the highest shield-defence (9) if I remember right. I don´t think their shields are from high quality compared with the shields from Dragonslayers (shield-defence 8, altough it looks like a full metal shield and is pretty huge for a dwarf) At least in close combat the quality of a shield will/should be an issue. Or is the shield-quality somewhere else considered?

Apart from that this RC is awesome.

[Nemesis_GR]

@Knel
Yea right now only size matters.I was also thinking of adding shield qualities.Something like this:

Shield quality:
wooden -1 , +1 defence skill
partial steel/steel frame 0
full steel 1
adv steel/unique 2

And racial:
dwarven +2
elven +1,+1 defence skill
isengard uruk +1, -1 defence skill
orcs -1
elite orcs 0

ps.Also dont forget that spear unit get +2 shield.So breeland militia get a pavise(7) + spear (2) and dragon slayers get a pavise(7) +1 for quality.

@Malathor
Right now infantry with large round/kite shield gets 0.9 movement,with pavise 0.8 and phalanx 0.7-will check if this is applied to all cases.

EDIT:I am changing secondary hps according to the formula PB posted plus this
Elite infantry/archers that get lower numbers +1
Isengard uruks dont get -1
Unique units/bodyguards +1