Titanium Suggestions & Complaints

[Melooo182]

My tests were done repeating the same conditions over and over with only changing armour defence or upgrades.
I had created units specifically for this purpose, even the attacking archers were custom dealing 1 of dmg.
IIRC I repeated them at least 20 times and results were consistent enough.

It is certain that armour upgrades do confer an armour defence bonus but in no way is +1 like the UI says.

To properly discuss what upgrades to give to the units we must first decide on implementing a realistic armour system.

I thought Real Combat already did this

[paleologos]

My tests were done repeating the same conditions over and over with only changing armour defence or upgrades.
I had created units specifically for this purpose, even the attacking archers were custom dealing 1 of dmg.
IIRC I repeated them at least 20 times and results were consistent enough.

I do not dispute the above.

It is certain that armour upgrades do confer an armour defence bonus but in no way is +1 like the UI says.

Do you understand what a differential equation is?
(If you don't it's not a crime, most people don't)
The point that I was trying to make is that an increase of armour rating by one is going to result in a difference in the rate of taking casualties that is greater than the armour increase.
It is normal.
If we take for granded that an increase of 10% in armour would decrease vulnerability by 10% and measure that decrease of vulnerability in terms of casulaties (wrong way to measure it), we will see that vulnerability is decreased more than expected and then we will wrongly conclude that the orginal increase in armour was greater than 10%.

I thought Real Combat already did this

Real combat (wrongly) assumes linear correlation between the rates of casualty exchange and the stats of units.
The correlation is differential.
I mean real armies (modern) have conducted studies that have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the correlation between the rates of casualty exchange and the stats of adversary combatants is differential.
There is no reason to assume that the case was different in medieval times.

Example:
If we both start with a hundred soldiers each and in the first round my hundred kill 10 of yours and loose 5, then in the beggining of the second round I will have 95 and you will have 90.
This means that the ability of your unit to dish out casualties will decrease faster than mine and this disadvantage of yours will further widen at an ever increasing rate until your troops rout.
That's what "differential" means.

I hope you understand.
If you understand, it is then a matter of whether you agree.
If you are not familiar with the concepts I am using let me know so I can try to explain them better.

[Melooo182]

I don't really get your point dude. seems like we're discussing different things.

casualties statistics result is like the only way to measure units durability in these cases.
If unit X with armour 1 always get more casualties than unit Y with armour 0+1ug
Is pretty much clear that unit Y has more durability than unit X.

RC apparently works fine and has been praised here and there, even being used in TATW.
TBH I'm absolutely not interested in developing a completely new system of stats scales for defence damage and etc.
I really don't have the time and will for that.

If you and/or someone else want to have a go with it, be my guest.

[paleologos]

Alright then, we put it to rest.

[Melooo182]

Im serious if you already have a plan for a new scale of stats, don't make this stop you.
You could always implement it to the EDUs at a later date.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

The mods whose EDU I have tinkered with do not have armour upgrades, so I have never made my own tests. I should think an unarmoured unit with a defense of 0 means that it gets no modifier to a hit by e.g. an arrow or sword. A hit would always hurt. I imagine most sharp weapons used in battles would cause some damage, probably enough to take a warrior out of the fight. I remember playing football where a badly-aimed kick or a knock in the head was enough to take me out of the game at least for a few minutes, sometimes altogether. An arrow would probably hurt more.

For me at least, the important factor has been game balance, so you get realistic results between otherwise similar units fighting wearing no armour vs leather vs some metal armour, etc. Higher values mean more long-drawn battles. However, there are additional effects such as more men reaching your lines and engaging your archers in melee, so that the value of archer fire is reduced and archers can easily be rendered useless by increasing defense stats, affecting the balance of battles.

Also other modifiers such as unit density etc, also play a role, so one must test the units against all other types of units. I remember one situation when units of peasants with a high spacing and a defense of 1 could take out heavy cavalry units who got stuck in melee and could not disengage because of the large numbers of spread out peasants acting like a trap for cavalry. Taking the peasants' defense down to 0 and reducing their spacing to something less extreme gave more realistic results of an encounter between peasants and heavy cavalry.

As long as battle balance is carefully done and units have a reasonable ability to inflict damage as one might expect of them, and as expected from their cost, whether all unarmoured peasants get a defense of 0 or 1 is not all that important.

[+Marius+]

I was thinking;

Could it be done that the AI Byzantines be given half a stack(or more) of free upkeep elite units that are garrisoned in Constantinople and irremovable from the city?
To prevent an easy capture of the city.

[paleologos]

I was thinking;

Could it be done that the AI Byzantines be given half a stack(or more) of free upkeep elite units that are garrisoned in Constantinople and irremovable from the city?
To prevent an easy capture of the city.

How easy is it for the AI to capture Constantinople?
If it is too easy this is a solid idea, I mean if it can be scripted for troops to be irremovable.
It sounds a lot like the garrison script, it has limitations and drawbacks that will be made more intense with elite troops.
Otherwise, maybe Constantinople can be made a harder target by beefing up it's walls.
I don't know for sure, what do you think?

[jurcek1987]

Yeah both good suggestions. A garrison script with elite units would simulate Constantinople's permanent garrison (according to wiki 10.000 man strong, though I believe that number to be inflated), and increasing the strength of the walls to simulate it's mighty defenses. Ideally, Constantinople should have its own unique strategy and battle model.

[+Marius+]

Well the usual garrison scripts create units if the city is already besieged.
On the other hand, if the units are constantly present in the city, that will also deter enemy AI from besieging the city in the first place.

[Grabbin_Megroin]

Now I know you're all talking about AI, but it may be worth mentioning that every time I get to Constantinople it has 1-3 units garrisoned inside it. I've probably just auto resolved every time with a full stack because it would otherwise be a tedious guaranteed win. I think it would be cool for it to have a permanent garrison so it doesn't take just 2 button clicks to take the city.

[Melooo182]

Well once the garrison script with unique garrison units get implemented, taking cities will not be a cakewalk anymore...although powerful full stack autoresolve might still work, your army will probably suffer a lot more loses.

[+Marius+]

More accurate coats of arms for early era factions;







Aragon;




Cumans;

- yes its the same but the field should be blue


Portugal;

or this




Kingdom of Sicily;






Now, the entire Castilian faction needs a rewamp, the kingdom of Leon was completely independent until 1230 so the faction should just be "Kingdom of Castile" without Leon;

[paleologos]

About the Cumans:
As cannot contest that either way, I am prepared to endorse your findings.

About Portugal:
I thought they won't be included in the early era campaign (right Melooo?).

About Castile and Leon:
I know man, I don't have any objections on the historical basis.
I do have one objection on the texturing basis: Castilian shields will look monotonous without the Leonese symbols.
I was looking forward to render the shields of Castile and Leon so that they would show some soldiers originating from Castile and others from Leon and it's not like there is another faction sporting purple and white.

About Aragon:
Diagonal and horizontal bars?
Never seen that C-o-A for Aragon before.
Where did you find this (hungry for links )?

[+Marius+]

About the Cumans:
As cannot contest that either way, I am prepared to endorse your findings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuns%C3%A1g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumania

About Portugal:
I thought they won't be included in the early era campaign (right Meloo?).

Um;

About Aragon:
Diagonal and horizontal bars?
Never seen that C-o-A for Aragon before.
Where did you find this (hungry for links )?

It is a rendering of the earliest known heraldry of Aragon, the seal of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_...t_of_Barcelona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galler...ragon_princeps

The Crown of Aragon and the Kingdom of Aragon are two completely separate things, so considering the importance of the County of Barcelona and the House of Barcelona along with the fact that the earliest depiction of the Aragon coat of arms was in the late 14th century, I decided that the proposed banner(with the counts seal) is not only more immersive, but also looks far cooler

Similar decor is also present in the earliest depictions of their knights(from Barcelona to Navarre);





Perhaps we should implement the coat of arms of Navarre instead?

http://www.hubert-herald.nl/EspanNavarra.htm

[+Marius+]

Scratch the Aragon/Barcelona type, too ahistorical for 1100.

I found the absolutely perfect replacement, Aragon/Navarre;

[Melooo182]

ARAGON-NAVARRE
Is that the symbol for Aragon-Navarra (1076-1134)
Navarra subsequently used a similar charge with a red field hmmm.
Edit: i've been ninjaed xD
Allright lets use that one for 1100 campaign

SICILY
Not sure if present in v0.84 but Sicily is currently using the Hauteville coat of arms, blue shield with red and white chequered diagonal stripe.
I'd rather not use the red shield with lions as it looks too similar to England's coat of arms, I suppose the flag could make it's way into the battle map banners.

CASTILE AND LEON

Now, the entire Castilian faction needs a rewamp, the kingdom of Leon was completely independent until 1230 so the faction should just be "Kingdom of Castile" without Leon;

Already researched this exhaustively mate, as Hispanic descendant i'm quite interested in the subject.
By 1100 both kingdoms were ruled by a single King, Alfonso VI, * and remained so until Alfonso VII's death at 1157, so what I did was giving Leon and Galicia their own rebel subfactions in case those regions revolt.
* Alfonso's VII mother, Urraca, reigned as Queen of both kingdoms along her husband Alfonso I of Aragon-Navara until 1126.

EDIT:
About Early Era Campaign, yes in v0.84 portugal is still available, however for v0.9 there will be two Early Era campaigns, one starting at 1100 with the Zirids and another starting at 1139 with Portugal

[paleologos]

Endorse meaning:

Give support or one's approval to

(WordWeb dictionary)
There was no contest about the Cumans.

ARAGON-NAVARRE
Edit: i've been ninjaed xD
Allright lets use that one for 1100 campaign

Have I too been "ninjaed"?
Do you guys want me to redo the Aragonese shelds?

SICILY
Not sure if present in v0.84 but Sicily is currently using the Hauteville coat of arms, blue shield with red and white chequered diagonal stripe.
I'd rather not use the red shield with lions as it looks too similar to England's coat of arms, I suppose the flag could make it's way into the battle map banners.

For De Hauteville Sicily I also endorse this one:

CASTILE AND LEON
Already researched this exhaustively mate, as Hispanic descendant i'm quite interested in the subject.
By 1100 both kingdoms were ruled by a single King, Alfonso VI, * and remained so until Alfonso VII's death at 1157, so what I did was giving Leon and Galicia their own rebel subfactions in case those regions revolt.
* Alfonso's VII mother, Urraca, reigned as Queen of both kingdoms along her husband Alfonso I of Aragon-Navara until 1126.

So this one is still good, right?

(Yes, I know, the symbols' positions need a bit of re-adjusting but the general idea is still agreeable, right?)

EDIT:
About Early Era Campaign, yes in v0.84 portugal is still available, however for v0.9 there will be two Early Era campaigns, one starting at 1100 with the Zirids and another starting at 1139 with Portugal

So, I also make Portugal, got it.

[+Marius+]

SICILY
Not sure if present in v0.84 but Sicily is currently using the Hauteville coat of arms, blue shield with red and white chequered diagonal stripe.
I'd rather not use the red shield with lions as it looks too similar to England's coat of arms, I suppose the flag could make it's way into the battle map banners.

That could also work.
Current CoA of Sicily is still the old vanilla one.

CASTILE AND LEON

Already researched this exhaustively mate, as Hispanic descendant i'm quite interested in the subject.
By 1100 both kingdoms were ruled by a single King, Alfonso VI, * and remained so until Alfonso VII's death at 1157, so what I did was giving Leon and Galicia their own rebel subfactions in case those regions revolt.
* Alfonso's VII mother, Urraca, reigned as Queen of both kingdoms along her husband Alfonso I of Aragon-Navara until 1126.

Alright.

So this one is still good, right?

(Yes, I know, the symbols' positions need a bit of re-adjusting but the general idea is still agreeable, right?)

Whelp, it's your call but there are other color versions as well;








Ladies and Gentleman, after extensive research I managed to find a historically accurate Coat of Arms for Novgorod.
You are witnessing total war history now since before this moment, every single game just pulled a CoA for Novgorod out of their...out of thin air


Behold, the mighty Beast of Novgorod;






Present in city seals and treatises throughout the middle ages;







Since Novgorod pretty much did not have heraldics in general, this is the closest anyone will probably get with putting something on a Novgorod banner and calling it accurate

[paleologos]

These are very interesting findings.
The number 9 depiction of the Novgorod beast looks like a donkey with talons, while the number 8 looks like a horse with lion's paws, I wouldn't know how to render this.
What I really like is the manuscript image of that Castilian King on barded horse.
I need you to put it in context though:
Which manuscript, when was it written, when was it illustrayed and which king does it depict?
(Btw, this is +1 rep in advance)