Top 5 things...

[brapollo]

I have really come to love this mod. I think it has the promise to be the best mod for the entire total war series. The only other competitors, things like Stainless Steel and Third Age, have such major issues that I think they kind of peak out. So in the spirit of being both constructive and critical of my favorite mod

My top 5 favorite things (in no particular order)

1. The units are gorgeous. Just compare the Roman units of Stainless Steel to Broken Crescent. It's not even close.

2. Buildings actually cost something. This is the mod where you have to put the most thought into what you build and where you build it. And how much you want to spend on armies vs. development. It makes for much more interesting development.

3. The history. I have actually learned a lot of things. And there's no weird "trebizond archers" running around this mod.

4. AoR. I am sure some people don't like it but it gives the game a lot of flavor. If you want to conquer a large empire, you will probably need to recruit lots of locals to sustain your offensive. And that seems very realistic to me.

5. Sieges. It's hard to take a city. Or at least harder than other mods. And this is the only one I know of where battering rams have been justifiably reduced in effectiveness.

And my top 5 hopes for improvement (in no particular order).

1. Archers. Foot archers did not carry only 12 arrows. Elite horse archers didn't carry only 7 or 9. For a game so concerned with historical accuracy, this is a bizarre oversight. I presume there was a real reason for setting up the mod like this, I just can't figure it out. But it essentially makes foot archers, except crossbows, useless. And elite horse archers are just weaker heavy cavalry. As an additional gripe, because of the way archer stats are compiled, all archers have a "5" attack. I understand the mechanics (based on varying accuracy) but it does make it difficult to easily compare the relative abilities of different units.

2. AoR. As much as I love the idea, it should be tweaked. I've got a little tired of seeing so much Ahdath infantry spread all the way from Upper Egypt to eastern Persia. I think it would probably be okay to take some base units of some of the factions, much like Vishap warriors in Armenia, and make them more widely recruitable for everyone.

3. Some famous units are strangely flawed. Cataphracts don't carry maces? In the unit description itself, it talks about them carrying that weapon. I realize it's hard to simulate units which carried more than 2 weapons but leaving out the most notable weapon seems to be a bad choice. Mamluks armed with bows are not recruitable in the campaign? I only hope that's a bug. Janissaries turn up in the 12th century? I don't really have an explanation for that. Those should be only recruitable at the highest level barracks or after a late event.

4. The Kingdom of Jerusalem. Way too powerful and way too many units. My feeling is that most mods have a fascination with the Crusades that leads developers to go a little overboard developing Crusader factions. For example, there's no good reason to have 4 different types of spearmen. I am not aware of any historical distinction of crusader sergeants differing from armoured sergeants or Templar order sergeants. And there's really no reason for two different types of crossbowmen. Also, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, instead of being in a precarious position, regularly seizes Damascus and the rest of Syria with way too much ease. It would probably be better for for them to be weaker or for Syria to start in Ayyubid control.

5. Mongols. There's not enough of them. They are always far weaker than they were historically. There's absolutely no chance, for example, of seeing a Mamluk-Mongol throwdown in Syria. They need more money or more armies.

Anyways love the mod and I look forward to continue playing it.

[TMK]

1.We will look into this.

2. Yes the Ahdath infantry are a little too widely spread however using some factions basic units will reduce the uniqeness of using them. Also we cannot use too many units from other factions as AOR units as people will have to play a while to get to the unique units of a faction as they would have probably already used the basic units with another faction.

3. Hmmm, I think these are just bugs, we will recheck their historical information and change it accordingly for 2.4.

4. The KOJ should not be able to get Damascus that early. There is a script in place which gives the Ayyubids a very good chance of taking over Damascus and in turn, Homs and Hamas. I think maybe the chance fell that the script did not fire leaving the KOJ free to take Jerusalem.

5. The Mongols might need redoing but we cannot go too overboard with money and armies as the AI might make them just sit there and also if you are playing factions near the Mongols, like the Kwarezmshahs, then it will be a real game killer if the Mongols turn up and completely destroy your hard earned empire.

[Pyres Δt Varanasi]

1.We will look into this.

2. Yes the Ahdath infantry are a little too widely spread however using some factions basic units will reduce the uniqeness of using them. Also we cannot use too many units from other factions as AOR units as people will have to play a while to get to the unique units of a faction as they would have probably already used the basic units with another faction.

3. Hmmm, I think these are just bugs, we will recheck their historical information and change it accordingly for 2.4.

4. The KOJ should not be able to get Damascus that early. There is a script in place which gives the Ayyubids a very good chance of taking over Damascus and in turn, Homs and Hamas. I think maybe the chance fell that the script did not fire leaving the KOJ free to take Jerusalem.

5. The Mongols might need redoing but we cannot go too overboard with money and armies as the AI might make them just sit there and also if you are playing factions near the Mongols, like the Kwarezmshahs, then it will be a real game killer if the Mongols turn up and completely destroy your hard earned empire.

All true

[k/t]

The CBUR units of SS are very well made and I don't see anything wrong with them.

All unit stats in BC are off, not just the archers'. Ironically, in an earlier version, armour values reached higher and archers had different attack numbers.

The AI is stupid and therefore it doesn't really matter how many armies it gets, since it won't use them properly. A human player should be able to conquer half the map with the armies the Mongols get, yet the AI never manages it.

The Toassin Mamluks and the Rum roster will be addressed in 2.4.

[brapollo]

"Yes the Ahdath infantry are a little too widely spread however using some factions basic units will reduce the uniqeness of using them. Also we cannot use too many units from other factions as AOR units as people will have to play a while to get to the unique units of a faction as they would have probably already used the basic units with another faction."

That's why the Vishap warrior idea works so well. The Armenian version throws javelins and has slightly higher stats. So it kind of works out well both ways. And also as a general rule, being able to recruit something like Persian militia all over Persia hardly degrades factions that use that unit as a base unit. Higher tier units should remain unique.

"The CBUR units of SS are very well made and I don't see anything wrong with them."

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them and if anything, the revamp of the Roman units was a huge step forward. The creator should be applauded. All I said is that they aren't as pretty as Broken Crescent-but that doesn't mean they are ugly.

[Ichon]

Well I can say that it is very difficult to portray archers and really all missiles accurately in MTW2 simply due to the mechanics. Basically there are 4 main variables and I'll list them in order of importance I think they had historically-

1. Range
2. Accuracy
3. Penetration power (attack value) and includes weight of the missile.
4. Ammo loads

Most mods make the range of missiles relatively similar because its hard to account for outliers. IE- there is always someone capable of taking even a simple bow or crossbow and getting off a very good shot but is that an accurate way to judge average? Even the same type of bows would have different ranges depending on what kind of missile they are shooting. Composite bows using flight arrows get those extreme ranges (1,000+) written about but flight arrow is a relatively light, stiff arrow designed to travel very quickly and with wind at the shooters back can achieve amazing range(but lower accuracy due to air resistance/wind on the light arrow along with almost 0 penetrative power as at the end of their flight they are just falling). Because such light arrow does not make good use of the bows energy and has low weight its penetration power is relatively weak because while it is faster its not like modern bullets where extreme speed can make up for less mass in penetration power and shooting very many overly light arrows compared to the draw of the bow might even harm the bow(since the draw energy goes into the bow instead of being transferred to the arrow).

The draw of the bow compared to the weight and length of the arrow makes a large difference. A lighter draw bow shooting a long heavy arrow might not do much of anything but a heavier draw bow shooting a long heavy war arrow with a heavy point could get both decent distance(not max distance and at cost of accuracy) and decent penetrative power even at that distance which is usually far below max range. However even harder to reflect is that same bow at close range of between 20-60 meters would have nearly dead on accuracy and incredible penetrative power.

Most archers in historical eras would have several types of arrows for different tasks unlike modern archers with carbon arrows that are nearly manufactured identically. So we can say a Turk horse archer had typically at least 2 and sometimes 3 quivers of arrows but most likely each quiver carried a different type of arrow. So the Turk might have 60 arrows but only 20 for one kind of shot. In MTW2 I think its better if we pick the specific task for each unit rather than blending all the types of shots and arrows together which results in the similar ranges, attack strength, and low quantity of arrows necessary for balance- if arrow has same attack power at max range as at 40 yards then in game archers will typically stand at max range to deliver shots that can get past shields and armor when in reality to get good penetrative power the archer more likely had to move much closer than max range. Also even counting 60 arrows for HA might be low as in a battle the HA would probably loose more long range arrows than any other type and return to a supply wagon or some other way refill on arrows and over the course of the battle might use 100 arrows or more. Obviously since we don't restock arrows in MTW2 giving HA 100 arrows is patently unbalancing. I would argue that really anything much beyond 20 arrows with how most mods blend the range, power, and accuracy is unbalanced and I actually like how BC has given lower ammo loads than many other mods.

Take for example the difference between crossbow and composite bow. The first point to remember is that these are both bows. Crossbow has short bow stave drawn under high pressure and fires short, heavy, stiff arrows(bolts) which results in low percentage of draw energy transferred to the bolt but since it could be 300 lbs of draw (early medieval crossbow draw- late medieval crossbows achieve draws in excess of 1000lb arblests and even higher 2500lb example for siege crossbow exist) compared to 150 lbs for a very high good composite bow. The crossbow has poor efficiency energy transfer but due to the much higher draw power results in a much faster and penetrative shot. Since the bolt is stiff and moving at a very high speed it has a high max range, however because the bolt is short and heavy and the sights of a crossbow don't allow effective gauge of distance accuracy at long range would be very low(at ranges under 80 meters where the crossbowman could look directly at his target and did not require aiming with elevated degree accuracy conversely would be higher than a bow typically). Of course the higher the weight of the crossbow draw typically the more difficult the crank would be resulting in either complicated mechanism prone to damage or very long reload speed.

So Richard advancing against Saladin's Turkish archers would probably have outranged the Turks with his crossbowmen though very inaccurate at that long range the Turks would have been only slightly more accurate and been shooting much less penetrative arrows compared to the crossbow bolts. Of course the main advantage of the Turks would be the rapid rate of bow fire but if they couldn't close the range even 100 arrows would be relatively ineffective against armored and shielded men however the Turks could maintain a nearly small but steady stream of arrows fired from small groups for a very long period with relatively little risk exhausting the Crusaders and making it difficult for the Crusaders to feed and water their horses. The crossbowmen at long range would be relatively inaccurate against small groups of moving horse archers and with the slow rate of fire even less effective. So basically the Crusaders could move slowly and in range of the coast- supply lines had to remain short of the much greater mobility of the Turks would cut off the supply lines- but the Turks if they wanted to mount a large battle would come into the effective range of the crossbowmen (where the crossbows could be relatively accurate(200 meters or less) if they wanted to be within the range where their composite bows had the penetrative power to punch through the Crusaders armor. So basically it was a stalemate where Crusaders had limited mobility but the Turks had to take a large risk in a big battle so Richard achieved some gains along the coasts but was never able to go inland because Turks would cut off his supplies and surround and isolate his armies.

How to portray anything close to the above with MTW2 mechanics? Probably we should base ranges and power on the effective range and relatively the average draw weights. So early crossbows with lower draw weights would have slightly less effective range than composite bows, slightly higher penetrative power, but much, much slower reload. However crossbows require much less training so relatively larger units could be fielded somewhat offsetting the lower reload speed. Result is still a clear composite advantage especially as hand drawn crossbows able to reload on horses are so weak as to be useless in war so mobility of HA is clearly superior to crossbow. In siege setting however crossbow is quite effective as levies can be quickly trained and the quick release nature of crossbow is an advantage compared to a bowman who has expose more of his body to loose an arrow. Given MTW2 wall settings this really an impossible effect to show and bows in MTW2 remain much more effective in sieges.

Composite bows given to armored warrior who rides in relatively close to enemy and loose from short range can be devastating, particularly against opponents without massive numbers of crossbows. Also massive numbers of crossbows require massive supply lines which is how Mongols were still able to win in China. So there would be a style of composite bow that Mongols used relatively often compared to Turks but all steppe archers would be capable of it. Main thing it was a tactic specifically for wars, not raiding. So more well trained men with some armor are most likely to use this, Ghulams, Mameluks, probably Roman Cataphracts, some Janissaries etc. To ride close in formation(formation necessary to wheel and change direction quickly- requires special training). These would be horse archers having a relatively low effective range (100 meters or less) but using very heavy arrows at a relatively high accuracy. Such arrows could penetrate most single layer armor short of plate but exposed the horse archer both to lower ranges of lesser bows(simple bows and hunting bows of levies) and early crossbows and also much more danger from heavy cavalry which could close 100 meters distance in a few seconds. Hence the fake retreat tactics so common of Mongols, ride close to the heavy cavalry, loose a volley or 2 of arrows then retreat, if the heavy cavalry pursued they can be ambushed and hit by other Mongol archers from sides and rear where armor is even less covering. Multiple layer armors still provided some protection from even such short range heavy war arrows so in MTW2 with armors in BC probably such arrows shouldn't be more than 8 in power. Also such heavy large arrows could fit comparatively less per quiver so lower ammo amounts make sense, 14-24 I'd think.

Next would be the medium range harassment/sniper style where effective range is probably around 250 meters and attack value is a bit less than current 5 due to high range range, 4 value should still do good damage but not so often decimate armored troops. (in MTW2 units just stand there and take arrow barrage. In reality they would raise their shields from arrows coming down from far away and lower the effectiveness). Accuracy is lower than the previous style but still higher than crossbows at that range. This is probably the most common style of full time HA as its close enough to provide relatively aimed shots for a good archer but more often its barrage style fire. Its just out of effective range of most early crossbows but within effective range of composite bows. Ammo would be higher than previous style but since we can't simulate refilling quivers from supply wagons etc probably for balance about what war arrows HA might carry in 3 quivers of mixed types of arrows. 24-36 ammo load. This style would take a good chunk out of most armies from range but still require closing in to melee to finish off enemy after all arrows are used.

Last would be the complete barrage style clouds of arrows. Less often used by HA but frequently by foot archers. Rapid fire and range are the key here, not penetrative power of the arrows. Range is relatively high 350 for composite bows fired by good archers(IE levied/militia archers using this style would have lower range). Attack value however is much lower at 2. Still capable of killing a few well armored men with lucky shot but probably better to aim at unarmored men. These would have the highest ammo amounts due to style of firing rapidly and range they are the closest to resupply. 28-42 ammo (based on quality- higher quality has more arrows initially and greater ability to demand resupply first). Lowest accuracy of all bow types due to range and high elevation angle of the volleys but the most rapid firing. Devastating over time to low armor units but relatively ineffective against medium/high armored units.

Crossbows would have just 2 styles, long range and short range with the ranges of both growing slightly over time as better crossbows are implemented though the short range has a maximum effective range of 120 meters(about the most you can hope to aim for over flat open sights). Early crossbow short range would have effective range of only 80 meters but equal power to composite bows (8) with only slightly lower accuracy but very slow firing rate. Later generations(higher tier) crossbows would surpass composite bows in power and only reach 120 meters range while retaining slower firing rate but accuracy would surpass composite bows. Ammo loads are less than bows, 12-18 bolts. Power of later tiers would also increase to 12.

The longer range crossbow style would start at effective range of 200 meters but in higher tiers, later eras reach 300 meters. These would have power start at 5 slightly better than medium range composite bows but lower accuracy. Later tiers, eras would get up to power 8 but remain inaccurate and slow firing. Longer range bolts are slightly lighter and smaller but still lower ammo loads than bows. 14-22.

Since many Turks and others in regions that also had composite bows eventually adopted crossbows and even there began to appear composite crossbows I think we can acknowledge that crossbows had some advantages compared to composite bows but also alot of disadvantages, primarily slow fire speed and low accuracy at range.

[RollingWave]

Well I can say that it is very difficult to portray archers and really all missiles accurately in MTW2 simply due to the mechanics. Basically there are 4 main variables and I'll list them in order of importance I think they had historically-

1. Range
2. Accuracy
3. Penetration power (attack value) and includes weight of the missile.
4. Ammo loads

Most mods make the range of missiles relatively similar because its hard to account for outliers. IE- there is always someone capable of taking even a simple bow or crossbow and getting off a very good shot but is that an accurate way to judge average? Even the same type of bows would have different ranges depending on what kind of missile they are shooting. Composite bows using flight arrows get those extreme ranges (1,000+) written about but flight arrow is a relatively light, stiff arrow designed to travel very quickly and with wind at the shooters back can achieve amazing range(but lower accuracy due to air resistance/wind on the light arrow along with almost 0 penetrative power as at the end of their flight they are just falling). Because such light arrow does not make good use of the bows energy and has low weight its penetration power is relatively weak because while it is faster its not like modern bullets where extreme speed can make up for less mass in penetration power and shooting very many overly light arrows compared to the draw of the bow might even harm the bow(since the draw energy goes into the bow instead of being transferred to the arrow).

The draw of the bow compared to the weight and length of the arrow makes a large difference. A lighter draw bow shooting a long heavy arrow might not do much of anything but a heavier draw bow shooting a long heavy war arrow with a heavy point could get both decent distance(not max distance and at cost of accuracy) and decent penetrative power even at that distance which is usually far below max range. However even harder to reflect is that same bow at close range of between 20-60 meters would have nearly dead on accuracy and incredible penetrative power.

Most archers in historical eras would have several types of arrows for different tasks unlike modern archers with carbon arrows that are nearly manufactured identically. So we can say a Turk horse archer had typically at least 2 and sometimes 3 quivers of arrows but most likely each quiver carried a different type of arrow. So the Turk might have 60 arrows but only 20 for one kind of shot. In MTW2 I think its better if we pick the specific task for each unit rather than blending all the types of shots and arrows together which results in the similar ranges, attack strength, and low quantity of arrows necessary for balance- if arrow has same attack power at max range as at 40 yards then in game archers will typically stand at max range to deliver shots that can get past shields and armor when in reality to get good penetrative power the archer more likely had to move much closer than max range. Also even counting 60 arrows for HA might be low as in a battle the HA would probably loose more long range arrows than any other type and return to a supply wagon or some other way refill on arrows and over the course of the battle might use 100 arrows or more. Obviously since we don't restock arrows in MTW2 giving HA 100 arrows is patently unbalancing. I would argue that really anything much beyond 20 arrows with how most mods blend the range, power, and accuracy is unbalanced and I actually like how BC has given lower ammo loads than many other mods.

Take for example the difference between crossbow and composite bow. The first point to remember is that these are both bows. Crossbow has short bow stave drawn under high pressure and fires short, heavy, stiff arrows(bolts) which results in low percentage of draw energy transferred to the bolt but since it could be 300 lbs of draw (early medieval crossbow draw- late medieval crossbows achieve draws in excess of 1000lb arblests and even higher 2500lb example for siege crossbow exist) compared to 150 lbs for a very high good composite bow. The crossbow has poor efficiency energy transfer but due to the much higher draw power results in a much faster and penetrative shot. Since the bolt is stiff and moving at a very high speed it has a high max range, however because the bolt is short and heavy and the sights of a crossbow don't allow effective gauge of distance accuracy at long range would be very low(at ranges under 80 meters where the crossbowman could look directly at his target and did not require aiming with elevated degree accuracy conversely would be higher than a bow typically). Of course the higher the weight of the crossbow draw typically the more difficult the crank would be resulting in either complicated mechanism prone to damage or very long reload speed.

So Richard advancing against Saladin's Turkish archers would probably have outranged the Turks with his crossbowmen though very inaccurate at that long range the Turks would have been only slightly more accurate and been shooting much less penetrative arrows compared to the crossbow bolts. Of course the main advantage of the Turks would be the rapid rate of bow fire but if they couldn't close the range even 100 arrows would be relatively ineffective against armored and shielded men however the Turks could maintain a nearly small but steady stream of arrows fired from small groups for a very long period with relatively little risk exhausting the Crusaders and making it difficult for the Crusaders to feed and water their horses. The crossbowmen at long range would be relatively inaccurate against small groups of moving horse archers and with the slow rate of fire even less effective. So basically the Crusaders could move slowly and in range of the coast- supply lines had to remain short of the much greater mobility of the Turks would cut off the supply lines- but the Turks if they wanted to mount a large battle would come into the effective range of the crossbowmen (where the crossbows could be relatively accurate(200 meters or less) if they wanted to be within the range where their composite bows had the penetrative power to punch through the Crusaders armor. So basically it was a stalemate where Crusaders had limited mobility but the Turks had to take a large risk in a big battle so Richard achieved some gains along the coasts but was never able to go inland because Turks would cut off his supplies and surround and isolate his armies.

How to portray anything close to the above with MTW2 mechanics? Probably we should base ranges and power on the effective range and relatively the average draw weights. So early crossbows with lower draw weights would have slightly less effective range than composite bows, slightly higher penetrative power, but much, much slower reload. However crossbows require much less training so relatively larger units could be fielded somewhat offsetting the lower reload speed. Result is still a clear composite advantage especially as hand drawn crossbows able to reload on horses are so weak as to be useless in war so mobility of HA is clearly superior to crossbow. In siege setting however crossbow is quite effective as levies can be quickly trained and the quick release nature of crossbow is an advantage compared to a bowman who has expose more of his body to loose an arrow. Given MTW2 wall settings this really an impossible effect to show and bows in MTW2 remain much more effective in sieges.

Composite bows given to armored warrior who rides in relatively close to enemy and loose from short range can be devastating, particularly against opponents without massive numbers of crossbows. Also massive numbers of crossbows require massive supply lines which is how Mongols were still able to win in China. So there would be a style of composite bow that Mongols used relatively often compared to Turks but all steppe archers would be capable of it. Main thing it was a tactic specifically for wars, not raiding. So more well trained men with some armor are most likely to use this, Ghulams, Mameluks, probably Roman Cataphracts, some Janissaries etc. To ride close in formation(formation necessary to wheel and change direction quickly- requires special training). These would be horse archers having a relatively low effective range (100 meters or less) but using very heavy arrows at a relatively high accuracy. Such arrows could penetrate most single layer armor short of plate but exposed the horse archer both to lower ranges of lesser bows(simple bows and hunting bows of levies) and early crossbows and also much more danger from heavy cavalry which could close 100 meters distance in a few seconds. Hence the fake retreat tactics so common of Mongols, ride close to the heavy cavalry, loose a volley or 2 of arrows then retreat, if the heavy cavalry pursued they can be ambushed and hit by other Mongol archers from sides and rear where armor is even less covering. Multiple layer armors still provided some protection from even such short range heavy war arrows so in MTW2 with armors in BC probably such arrows shouldn't be more than 8 in power. Also such heavy large arrows could fit comparatively less per quiver so lower ammo amounts make sense, 14-24 I'd think.

Next would be the medium range harassment/sniper style where effective range is probably around 250 meters and attack value is a bit less than current 5 due to high range range, 4 value should still do good damage but not so often decimate armored troops. (in MTW2 units just stand there and take arrow barrage. In reality they would raise their shields from arrows coming down from far away and lower the effectiveness). Accuracy is lower than the previous style but still higher than crossbows at that range. This is probably the most common style of full time HA as its close enough to provide relatively aimed shots for a good archer but more often its barrage style fire. Its just out of effective range of most early crossbows but within effective range of composite bows. Ammo would be higher than previous style but since we can't simulate refilling quivers from supply wagons etc probably for balance about what war arrows HA might carry in 3 quivers of mixed types of arrows. 24-36 ammo load. This style would take a good chunk out of most armies from range but still require closing in to melee to finish off enemy after all arrows are used.

Last would be the complete barrage style clouds of arrows. Less often used by HA but frequently by foot archers. Rapid fire and range are the key here, not penetrative power of the arrows. Range is relatively high 350 for composite bows fired by good archers(IE levied/militia archers using this style would have lower range). Attack value however is much lower at 2. Still capable of killing a few well armored men with lucky shot but probably better to aim at unarmored men. These would have the highest ammo amounts due to style of firing rapidly and range they are the closest to resupply. 28-42 ammo (based on quality- higher quality has more arrows initially and greater ability to demand resupply first). Lowest accuracy of all bow types due to range and high elevation angle of the volleys but the most rapid firing. Devastating over time to low armor units but relatively ineffective against medium/high armored units.

Crossbows would have just 2 styles, long range and short range with the ranges of both growing slightly over time as better crossbows are implemented though the short range has a maximum effective range of 120 meters(about the most you can hope to aim for over flat open sights). Early crossbow short range would have effective range of only 80 meters but equal power to composite bows (8) with only slightly lower accuracy but very slow firing rate. Later generations(higher tier) crossbows would surpass composite bows in power and only reach 120 meters range while retaining slower firing rate but accuracy would surpass composite bows. Ammo loads are less than bows, 12-18 bolts. Power of later tiers would also increase to 12.

The longer range crossbow style would start at effective range of 200 meters but in higher tiers, later eras reach 300 meters. These would have power start at 5 slightly better than medium range composite bows but lower accuracy. Later tiers, eras would get up to power 8 but remain inaccurate and slow firing. Longer range bolts are slightly lighter and smaller but still lower ammo loads than bows. 14-22.

Since many Turks and others in regions that also had composite bows eventually adopted crossbows and even there began to appear composite crossbows I think we can acknowledge that crossbows had some advantages compared to composite bows but also alot of disadvantages, primarily slow fire speed and low accuracy at range.

Great post, but I think the general problem is that in the M2TW game engine there is already a significant factor that gives a very large edge to long ranged units, in the sense that the scale it becomes more accurate and powerful when it comes close usually more than make up for the difference in damage. so if you have a 3 damage 200 ranage HA vs a 5 damage 100 HA... the former will most likely hit HARDER at 100 range...

So the only practical soluation is either try to make the descr_projectile seperation and the damage level spread REALLY REALLY big, or simplely orient towards the longer range onces in general, accounting for the fact that units with low armour are unlikely to ride up close anyway.

[Ichon]

Great post, but I think the general problem is that in the M2TW game engine there is already a significant factor that gives a very large edge to long ranged units, in the sense that the scale it becomes more accurate and powerful when it comes close usually more than make up for the difference in damage. so if you have a 3 damage 200 ranage HA vs a 5 damage 100 HA... the former will most likely hit HARDER at 100 range...

So the only practical soluation is either try to make the descr_projectile seperation and the damage level spread REALLY REALLY big, or simplely orient towards the longer range onces in general, accounting for the fact that units with low armour are unlikely to ride up close anyway.

Does 3 hit harder at closer range? I've suspected that the max range compared to the actual range does something but I can't find any stats in the engine to back that up as well the few tests I ran seemed inconclusive. Perhaps its a factor of experience so harder to test in custom battles? Or it is completely an artifact of accuracy and how arrow spread works as you mentioned?

The more I read about armor as well I wonder if early values of mail are too low- or the late values are too high as while partial plate and plate were quite good were they 4x as good?

I think the reason why firearms were used is because:

- They travel longer Distance
- Requires less physically training
- Pierces through
- Demoralizes enemy through sight and sound


But not necessarily more accurate.

Early musket or the generations of guns after first introduced were more accurate than later 18th century muskets because the barrel and ball fit much more tightly. The bad part was the fouling and more likely jams or misfires which men with very little training couldn't deal well with and volume of fire became more important than accuracy or range when there was also effective artillery.

[nein]

1. yes they are awesome, history always trumps fantasy

2. It's an interesting difference for a change, although TA is moving more and more in the same direction

3. Yes the history is wonderful, it makes BC stand out

4. Yes the aor is great, sometimes annoying but still a nice feature

5. I have never manually sieged an enemy city in any TW game or mod... too much hassle

And my top 5 hopes for improvement (in no particular order).

1. Yes this can be annoying, especially when coupled with the lack of effectiveness vs other mods such as TA... that being said light horse archers are still overpowered, they have alot of ammo combined with manoueverability which allows them to crush infantry centric forces. It is annoying that the more elite your archers are the less arrows they carry... also that foot archers have far less arrows than light HA.

2. The aor is fine, largely

3. generals guard do use maces but the royal kats do not... sometimes there are unit description errors, I did not realise that the player could not recruit mamluk infantry, if so it needs to be fixed. In fact the egyptian roster is somewhat weak compared to the crusaders... until you build alot of buildings anyway. They also lack easy access to cheap levy troops just like the khwarezmshahs. And yes the 11th century ottomon units are annoying and innacurate... I mean you could use the excuse that 'this is what CA did!' but I think it is cheap... the main reason they exist is that turk members of the team want to create a connection between the rum seljuks and ottomons. CA also gave the fatamid dynasty mamluks, which is hilarious

4. This has been fixed in the latest patch, the crusader ai no longer dominates. Although I agree that they have easy access to excellent troops whilst the ayyubids have to work hard

5. This is due to the games limitations, if they wanted to guarantee mongol domination of the map wudang would need to add 50 stacks or something... this does not factor well with gameplay balance although it would be interesting trying to survive such an onslaught. I guess you could give their troops godtier stats as opposed to spamming gigantic armies, after all for the most part mongol armies were not that big, indeed they often numbered less than their adversary. There is also the question whether the player would enjoy such hopeless odds... you may end up on an island trying to hide from the mongol zombie outbreak

I agree that BC's battles need some work to become enjoyable, there are a number of issues that are addressed by the gamegeek edu. It stops heavy cavalry from being godlike forces of destruction, it limits light HA arrows meaning no more nomad spam, it also stops infantry from routing so easily... although this can be annoying when an ai army will fight to the death no matter how much you are stamping on their face

the edu may not be compatible with the new version, I think the team changed desc_unit or whatever it is called

[dogukan]

Good points except for the AOR. I actually think AOR should be expanded and faction units should be reduced.
And yeah, Janissaries have to go.

[Naja]

I'm a really big BC fan, and can't wait for 2.4!

My only gripe is that some of the Roman (and Roman AOR) units have a really ugly seam down their face. Sort of kills immersion for me if I can't drool over pretty units.

[Harith]

I'm a really big BC fan, and can't wait for 2.4!

My only gripe is that some of the Roman (and Roman AOR) units have a really ugly seam down their face. Sort of kills immersion for me if I can't drool over pretty units.

I remember this comin up some place other, yes they do know and I think that it will be fixed in 2.4..... not sure though lol

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Amazing analysis from Ichon on bows. BC Janissaries are nice-looking, maybe they could be kept for the late period. They were instituted in the 14th C. As for the Crusaders, in my 2.3.2 campaign they had been destroyed by 1198, which as far as the Kingdom of Jerusalem goes, was amazingly historical. In their absence, however, their Armenian and Egyptian neighbours became consequently the strongest factions in the campaign. In fact, the Armenians were the strongest faction, which seems even stranger than the Crusaders being overpowered. This may have been pure chance - or have others also noticed it?

[Robert Guiscard]

Amazing analysis from Ichon on bows. BC Janissaries are nice-looking, maybe they could be kept for the late period. They were instituted in the 14th C. As for the Crusaders, in my 2.3.2 campaign they had been destroyed by 1198, which as far as the Kingdom of Jerusalem goes, was amazingly historical. In their absence, however, their Armenian and Egyptian neighbours became consequently the strongest factions in the campaign. In fact, the Armenians were the strongest faction, which seems even stranger than the Crusaders being overpowered. This may have been pure chance - or have others also noticed it?

It doesn't seem to be chance at all: The Armenians have access to a lot of rebel regions and can expand very quickly, especially if they conquer Antioch. Whenever I play a non-Levant/Anatolian faction (such as the Abbasids, Oman, Kwarezms, or Ghaznavids), the Armenians tend to dominate the Seljuks of Rum and the Roman Empire. Only when I play as the Roman Empire, the Ayyubid Sultanate, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, or the Seljuks of Rum can I hedge off the Armenian juggernaut. It should be fixed with BC 2.4, though, with the introduction of the Zengids and other factions

Back to the thread topic: Top five things I like
1. Units (need I say more?)
2. Established Faction rivalries: Ghaznavids vs. Ghurids, Abbasids vs. Oman and or Seljuks of Iraq, Ayyubids vs. KoJ, etc.
3. Kingdom of Jerusalem: the way it is set up, it's very historical. Early on, you have to rely on units from the Religious Orders to form the basis of your army since they provide the best knights, spearmen, and light cavalry available at the time. You then need Turkopoles to provide horse and foot archers. It makes for an interesting campaign and it makes since that when you are strong enough you can rely on the Kingdom's own troops (Knights of Outremer, Poulain lancers, Armored Sergeants, etc.) to provide the backbone of your army
4. Unique rosters: Each faction has unique armies, as opposed to vanilla M2TW where every European factions' armies look the same
5. Atmosphere: the map, the music, the units, all of it creates a wonderful atmosphere, one where I feel like I am leading armies through the Middle East, Central Asia, or India

I have only one thing that I don't like: the Armenian juggernaut, but it will be fixed soon, so it's not a big deal

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

I am new to BC but I like practically everything. Perhaps the battle animations look slightly simple, I don't know why. Maybe I am expecting footprints in the sand...

So far what I can think I like most is:

1. The portraits from Kingdom of Heaven.
2. The heavier Seljuk units - they look gorgeous and more frightening than the Mongols.
3. The ambience and light. As yet, no black skies over brightly illuminated landscapes.
4. The Rajput elephants.
5. The extremely varied and unusual Christian, Hindu and Muslim factions. I am also hoping to see the Zengids. They should have been included in Kingdoms Crusades.

Could the four Crusader states be simulated with some kind of script perhaps as semi-independent feudal vassals?

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

1. Archers. Foot archers did not carry only 12 arrows. Elite horse archers didn't carry only 7 or 9. For a game so concerned with historical accuracy, this is a bizarre oversight. I presume there was a real reason for setting up the mod like this, I just can't figure it out. But it essentially makes foot archers, except crossbows, useless. And elite horse archers are just weaker heavy cavalry. As an additional gripe, because of the way archer stats are compiled, all archers have a "5" attack. I understand the mechanics (based on varying accuracy) but it does make it difficult to easily compare the relative abilities of different units.

To chip in something on archers, though they did not carry just 7 arrows, they would have probably needed to be shooting arrows for a long time before they finally killed someone. Total War battles are extremely highly condensed in time.

To put it in perspective, in the English Civil War, where people were using muskets, there were shootouts that lasted about an hour, then the two sides broke away with only a couple dozen killed on either side. The useful shooting distance was still a few hundred meters at most. It is difficult to have the kill ratio per battle from arrows from ancient battles, but if archers had a better chance, firearms might have never been used.

Missile units seem well balanced. You can still win battles against small lightly armoured armies with careful use of your skirmishers, without much or even any melee. Any changes, if any, should not affect too much their overall impact in a battle.

[Harith]

To chip in something on archers, though they did not carry just 7 arrows, they would have probably needed to be shooting arrows for a long time before they finally killed someone. Total War battles are extremely highly condensed in time.

To put it in perspective, in the English Civil War, where people were using muskets, there were shootouts that lasted about an hour, then the two sides broke away with only a couple dozen killed on either side. The useful shooting distance was still a few hundred meters at most. It is difficult to have the kill ratio per battle from arrows from ancient battles, but if archers had a better chance, firearms might have never been used.

Missile units seem well balanced. You can still win battles against small lightly armoured armies with careful use of your skirmishers, without much or even any melee. Any changes, if any, should not affect too much their overall impact in a battle.

I think the reason why firearms were used is because:

- They travel longer Distance
- Requires less physically training
- Pierces through
- Demoralizes enemy through sight and sound


But not necessarily more accurate.

[RollingWave]

I think the best way to test this is simply to have a unit with the same damage and projectile property but different range, for example one of them at 1 damage 100 range and the other at 1 damage 300 range, then see the difference if they're both riding up close to fire... or better, fight them against each other while you control the longer range one and turn off auto fire until the shorter range one comes into range. (turn off cantabrian circle for both so you have less factor to look ino)

I do kinda agree that I feel RR/RC's stats may have underselled the effectiveness of armor / shield a bit. but when everything is so tied up together it is hard to really figure out a good balance.

[Mamertine]

Hello everyone. New to posting and BC, but not to playing mods in general. Because BC has quickly become my favorite mod by far, I have decided to weigh in here.

My top 5 favorite things:

1. The feel of battle in general. Too many mods and vanilla m2tw felt very robotic and generic in hand to hand combat, BC does not.

2. The importance of what to build/recruit and when. It can mean the difference between domination and subjugation.

3. I was always drawn more towards European medieval history and hesitated to try this for fear of clone factions like everything else, boy was I wrong. Simple answer is how unique the area and setting is, as well as the looks all around.

4. The balancing. I know it seems like a common sense thing, but there are many, many mods where cavalry is OP'ed (I do not feel this to be the case in BC) or archery is OP'ed or completely useless. But the spears have their use, as well as the swords, maces, bows, etc. It really is quite shocking how this isn't the case with most mods. I'll even go a step further and say that vanilla does a better job at this than most mods (obviously not this one).

5. The lack of spamming by human and AI alike. Now you can't please everyone and some can argue that is always room for improvement, but I grade on a curve. And since there has never been perfection in this area I give top billing to BC from everything I have played.

Honorable mention: AOR. It is the best I have seen so far.

Things I would like to see improved (that hasn't already been mentioned in things to come for BC3):

1. I want the Balkans/Greece. I know this is not a Eurocentric mod (and I do not want it to be), but the Balkans and Greece were very important for many factions. Obviously ERE, but also Sultanate of Rum for Janissary. I would also like to point out that the Kips, Rus, and even the Mongols eventually made their way at least into the Balkans at one point, albeit some much later than others (the Mongols laid siege to Vienna, but hundreds of years later). Plus, who is with me when I say I would LOVE to take an army full of pikes, along with cataphracts and skirmishers and recreate Alexander's former glory with the (Greek) ERE. I cannot be the only one.

2. While I have not played all the factions yet, I want to focus on one thing, ERE cataphracts. Yes this is esoteric, but I feel it is important. The ERE cataphracts should have a mace and there should be two types to recruit, lancers and close bow HA. The ERE was not lacking in archers or archer quality, far from it. And the cataphracts would always shoot into the enemy in a wedge formation to soften them before the lances hit. Infantry would follow and try to exploit the gaps, thus encircling the enemy. This was ERE 101 in battle tactics before the loss of Anatolia (and high quality and numerous heavy cavalry recruits along with it). Another thing I read, and agree with, is that horse armor is not taken into account for armor rating. If the the unit is inseparable and the rider dies if the horse does, than the horse armor should count towards fending off attacks. It's easier to think of it this way if you realize that cavalry is one living, breathing unit on its own, not two. If anything this should be a compliment to the BC team, since I have to look for such insignificant details just to list 5 things I would like to see changed.

3. The KoJ accents. I KNOW I am not alone on this. I would rather them change the accents just due their annoyance and I am a history buff. But I can easily argue against having French accents for the sake of historical accuracy. While most agree that the Franks drummed up and led the way for the first crusade, they are not the only ones, nor did they compose the majority of the army. Many HRE/Germanic, Norman/Italian, and even Spanish joined in. All these people from different countries and different cultures were unified under one banner, Christianity. But they needed communication and were unified under one language, Latin, the language of the Pope and Catholicism in general (even to this day). One must not forget that Crusader knights like the Templars and Teutonic (who still exist) were not exactly knights, they were monks. And guess which language the monks spoke? Yep, the language of the church. This is not to say that everyone spoke Latin or there weren't other languages used, but the majority did and especially those in command, for political and cultural reasons. For this I argue that the KoJ accent should be generic Med/Southern European, since that is the closest to a Latin accent.

4. CTD, 'nuff said. It seems like sometimes my game doesn't want to let me click on a unit, priest, and add anything to the rq without shutting down for no reason. But I am sure this is already known.

5. AOR. I know I said this is the best I have seen so far (and it is), there is a little room for improvement. Maybe do something that is tiered (if possible). There is reason to believe that after a generation or two of holding an area that those inhabited would be able to be recruited, and they would be trained in your art of warfare. Surely some, but not all would hold allegiance after a certain amount of time (history proves this) in a new territory. I see no issue with, for example, ERE recruiting spearmen or cataphracts in Jerusalem (but obviously not far off places like India) after 30-50 turns. Heavy cavalry was often given land in newly conquered areas in exchange for loyalty and service (the Ottomans copied this with their Sipahis as well). But I would say that it is not logical to be able to recruit Varangians there after any amount of time (for obvious reasons).

Thanks for reading!

[brapollo]

Hello everyone. New to posting and BC, but not to playing mods in general. Because BC has quickly become my favorite mod by far, I have decided to weigh in here.

My top 5 favorite things:

1. The feel of battle in general. Too many mods and vanilla m2tw felt very robotic and generic in hand to hand combat, BC does not.

2. The importance of what to build/recruit and when. It can mean the difference between domination and subjugation.

3. I was always drawn more towards European medieval history and hesitated to try this for fear of clone factions like everything else, boy was I wrong. Simple answer is how unique the area and setting is, as well as the looks all around.

4. The balancing. I know it seems like a common sense thing, but there are many, many mods where cavalry is OP'ed (I do not feel this to be the case in BC) or archery is OP'ed or completely useless. But the spears have their use, as well as the swords, maces, bows, etc. It really is quite shocking how this isn't the case with most mods. I'll even go a step further and say that vanilla does a better job at this than most mods (obviously not this one).

5. The lack of spamming by human and AI alike. Now you can't please everyone and some can argue that is always room for improvement, but I grade on a curve. And since there has never been perfection in this area I give top billing to BC from everything I have played.

Honorable mention: AOR. It is the best I have seen so far.

Things I would like to see improved (that hasn't already been mentioned in things to come for BC3):

1. I want the Balkans/Greece. I know this is not a Eurocentric mod (and I do not want it to be), but the Balkans and Greece were very important for many factions. Obviously ERE, but also Sultanate of Rum for Janissary. I would also like to point out that the Kips, Rus, and even the Mongols eventually made their way at least into the Balkans at one point, albeit some much later than others (the Mongols laid siege to Vienna, but hundreds of years later). Plus, who is with me when I say I would LOVE to take an army full of pikes, along with cataphracts and skirmishers and recreate Alexander's former glory with the (Greek) ERE. I cannot be the only one.

2. While I have not played all the factions yet, I want to focus on one thing, ERE cataphracts. Yes this is esoteric, but I feel it is important. The ERE cataphracts should have a mace and there should be two types to recruit, lancers and close bow HA. The ERE was not lacking in archers or archer quality, far from it. And the cataphracts would always shoot into the enemy in a wedge formation to soften them before the lances hit. Infantry would follow and try to exploit the gaps, thus encircling the enemy. This was ERE 101 in battle tactics before the loss of Anatolia (and high quality and numerous heavy cavalry recruits along with it). Another thing I read, and agree with, is that horse armor is not taken into account for armor rating. If the the unit is inseparable and the rider dies if the horse does, than the horse armor should count towards fending off attacks. It's easier to think of it this way if you realize that cavalry is one living, breathing unit on its own, not two. If anything this should be a compliment to the BC team, since I have to look for such insignificant details just to list 5 things I would like to see changed.

3. The KoJ accents. I KNOW I am not alone on this. I would rather them change the accents just due their annoyance and I am a history buff. But I can easily argue against having French accents for the sake of historical accuracy. While most agree that the Franks drummed up and led the way for the first crusade, they are not the only ones, nor did they compose the majority of the army. Many HRE/Germanic, Norman/Italian, and even Spanish joined in. All these people from different countries and different cultures were unified under one banner, Christianity. But they needed communication and were unified under one language, Latin, the language of the Pope and Catholicism in general (even to this day). One must not forget that Crusader knights like the Templars and Teutonic (who still exist) were not exactly knights, they were monks. And guess which language the monks spoke? Yep, the language of the church. This is not to say that everyone spoke Latin or there weren't other languages used, but the majority did and especially those in command, for political and cultural reasons. For this I argue that the KoJ accent should be generic Med/Southern European, since that is the closest to a Latin accent.

4. CTD, 'nuff said. It seems like sometimes my game doesn't want to let me click on a unit, priest, and add anything to the rq without shutting down for no reason. But I am sure this is already known.

5. AOR. I know I said this is the best I have seen so far (and it is), there is a little room for improvement. Maybe do something that is tiered (if possible). There is reason to believe that after a generation or two of holding an area that those inhabited would be able to be recruited, and they would be trained in your art of warfare. Surely some, but not all would hold allegiance after a certain amount of time (history proves this) in a new territory. I see no issue with, for example, ERE recruiting spearmen or cataphracts in Jerusalem (but obviously not far off places like India) after 30-50 turns. Heavy cavalry was often given land in newly conquered areas in exchange for loyalty and service (the Ottomans copied this with their Sipahis as well). But I would say that it is not logical to be able to recruit Varangians there after any amount of time (for obvious reasons).

Thanks for reading!

Your 3rd point is exactly how I felt. This mod really show you how awesome middle eastern medieval history is. And it makes something like Stainless Steel (never mind vanilla) look woefully inadequate in how it treats the eastern half of the map. For example, Georgia or the Abbasid Caliphate are far more important and powerful in this time period than many of the other factions included in Stainless Steel. But they are only part of the rebel faction. That's plain silly.

I do agree the map should stretch a little more west. I realize you have to cut things off somewhere but cutting the ERE in half doesn't seem like the best option. As for the cataphracts, I think everyone realizes their current form is inadequate and they will surely change in the next version that comes out.

I also wanted to add, having recently played as the ERE, that some factions have a strange recruitment system where the cities recruit all spearmen and the castles recruit all melee infantry. The Kingdom of Jerusalem is a better model with a mix of both in the cities. It's not a big deal but I hope the Broken Crescent team mixes up the recruitment in cities and castles a little bit more.

As one final note, I noticed in the custom battles only that the Kingdom of Jerusalem has regular mounted sargeants- and they look way better than the strange monks the Hospitallers use in the campaign. It occurred to me that virtually every element is there almost to make Broken Crescent the best mod by far with just a few little tweaks to the EDB and EDU files.