Titanium - Bug Reports

**+Marius+** · September 03, 2015, 07:19 AM

I besieged forts in Cilicia and North of Kerak and they are wooden forts with a stone campaign model.

The game allows you to build siege towers and ladders for no reason.

Perhaps it would be better to have stone forts only with them representing places on map that were actually stone castles in 1100 AD.

**Grabbin_Megroin** · September 03, 2015, 01:34 PM

In siege assaults my soldiers absolutely refuse to run down routing enemies. What they'll do is get within melee range of them but then just stop moving while the routing unit gets away. The only way to kill them is in the town square, or if they get caught on something and stand still, or with archers.

**paleologos** · September 03, 2015, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Grabbin_Megroin

In siege assaults my soldiers absolutely refuse to run down routing enemies. What they'll do is get within melee range of them but then just stop moving while the routing unit gets away. The only way to kill them is in the town square, or if they get caught on something and stand still, or with archers.

I don't think that this is a Titanium problem, though only Melooo can tell for sure.
It has happened to me (as a defender in a siege) to order an attack against a unit that was half on the wall, half on the ladder.
My troops did not move.
Would it be safe to assume that when this happened to you you were in defence of the settlement and the routing enemy was partly on the walls.
Even if one soldier is stuck in some corner in the walls the rest of his unit bocome sort of untouchable to the ones that are not in the wall, especially cavalry.

**Melooo182** · September 03, 2015, 03:06 PM

Thanks Used2Broz had already reported the wooden fort issue and how to fix, it's been taken care for v0.9

Currently Forts are placed were other important settlements were located at the time, In theory we could make some of them look in the battlemap just like minor settlements while others remain as Stone Forts, likewise we could use the 2 remaining culture slots for different Stratmap models.

But i leave all that for a later date, since the priority right now is getting all Eras (at least High and Early) Campaigns playable for v0.9

About chasing routed units, I have experienced some jerky behaviour before, but never as bad as you describe....not mentioning that I haven't changed anything that could cause that...unless is a byproduct of ReallyBadAI or RC2.0

**Grabbin_Megroin** · September 03, 2015, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by paleologos

Would it be safe to assume that when this happened to you you were in defence of the settlement and the routing enemy was partly on the walls.
Even if one soldier is stuck in some corner in the walls the rest of his unit bocome sort of untouchable to the ones that are not in the wall, especially cavalry.

Even when completely off the walls. For example if there is an enemy reinforcing army coming to the aid of the garrison and I cause them all to rout in the field before they are anywhere close to the walls, my men won't kill them, but just run up to them and do nothing. I have to wait until they are pinned up against the locked gate (due to my men standing near it) and then send in infantry (cavalry still won't touch them at this point usually) to finish them off or use archers to shoot at them. Or I can move my men away from the gate and let them continue to the town square, and kill them there.

Either way it's inconvenient because it ruins any sense of immersion and makes the battle more tedious than it should be.

**+Marius+** · September 04, 2015, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Grabbin_Megroin

I noticed that Macemen and Ghulams still have low attack (3 I think?) and the AP (armour piercing) trait. I thought that the new balancing made it so that AP'ing units don't have the AP trait and as a compromise they have higher attack? Or was is it intentional that they have been exempt from the new rule?

Originally Posted by Melooo182

yeah maces with ap is intentional, they are the exception. Im not really good with the EDU stats in fact i kinda need someone to take care of that area while i focus more on the maps and UI.

About the fatimids generals, lolwut?
xD probably those are bribed/married byzantines or something

I went through the files and I saw that the majority of axe wielding units and bladed polearm units still have armor piercing trait, which is idiotic because bladed weapons aren't ap just because their weight balance is closer to the tip.

I will try and modify this and test it for every unit.

The bladed weaponry should have higher damage to represent the impact force of a weapon with a forward weight balance(which most already have), not with an ap trait.

Otherwise they become really OP, heavy jannisaries were ordinary professional troops and yet ingame they plow through the heaviest armor like butter.

**paleologos** · September 05, 2015, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

I went through the files and I saw that the majority of axe wielding units and bladed polearm units still have armor piercing trait, which is idiotic because bladed weapons aren't ap just because their weight balance is closer to the tip.

Such weapons are not necessarily armour "piercing", some of them are armour "crushing".
Even a mace whose head is a -perfectly blunt- orb would incapacitate an adversary with one good head-landed blow.
An arming sword would not cut through the combination of helmet, maille aventail and padded coif but a mace would not have to.

On the other hand a good blow with a sword against an armoured torso might cut through armour as well, but not deeply enough as to pierce skin.
However, a glaive or a partisan blow that would cut through torso armour just as deep, would still inflict incapacitating damage underneath.
(A broken rib is surely incapacitating when combat is so physical.)

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

I will try and modify this and test it for every unit.

Test it if you must, be beware of confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

The bladed weaponry should have higher damage to represent the impact force of a weapon with a forward weight balance(which most already have), not with an ap trait.

Perhaps, if it is a short hafted axe with a light blade for swift swingings.

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

Otherwise they become really OP, heavy jannisaries were ordinary professional troops and yet ingame they plow through the heaviest armor like butter.

At the timeframe of the game janissaries were recruited in their childhood and were trained ever since under the strictest discipline.
There is nothing ordinary about that.
The ones that were talented in the use of two handed, long hafted weapons were so equiped.
And they were totally proficient.
The halberd features a variety of impact points, so as to provide the handler with something that suits any circumstance.
Would we not expect them to plow through less proficient troops, no matter what they are wearing?

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by paleologos

Such weapons are not necessarily armour "piercing", some of them are armour "crushing".
Even a mace whose head is a -perfectly blunt- orb would incapacitate an adversary with one good head-landed blow.
An arming sword would not cut through the combination of helmet, maille aventail and padded coif but a mace would not have to.

On the other hand a good blow with a sword against an armoured torso might cut through armour as well, but not deeply enough as to pierce skin.
However, a glaive or a partisan blow that would cut through torso armour just as deep, would still inflict incapacitating damage underneath.
(A broken rib is surely incapacitating when combat is so physical.)

You need to read more closely next time.

I was talking about bladed weaponry that have the ap trait(axes and such), not blunt weaponry.

Originally Posted by paleologos

Perhaps, if it is a short hafted axe with a light blade for swift swingings.

What?

Originally Posted by paleologos

At the timeframe of the game janissaries were recruited in their childhood and were trained ever since under the strictest discipline.
There is nothing ordinary about that.

They basically never performed extra ordinary.
They were deployed in large numbers and acted as professional infantry, nothing more.
They often had very bad performance loosing against militias and doing horribly in sieges against 10 times less numerous enemies.

They became elite and proficient in warfare only when they switched to ranged firearms, then their discipline and training overshadowed their incompetence in close melee engagements.

Originally Posted by paleologos

The ones that were talented in the use of two handed, long hafted weapons were so equiped.
And they were totally proficient.
The halberd features a variety of impact points, so as to provide the handler with something that suits any circumstance.
Would we not expect them to plow through less proficient troops, no matter what they are wearing?

...they win against gothic knights.
They should not even win against halberdiers.

**paleologos** · September 05, 2015, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

You need to read more closely next time.
I was talking about bladed weaponry that have the ap trait(axes and such), not blunt weaponry.

You were answering to Meloo who mentioned maces and I mentioned glaives and partisans that are bladed, also halberds are bladed, Dane axes are bladed and so on and so forth.
A warrior who choses an axe over a sword (if he had that choice) sacrifices the versatility of a sword (which can land more types of blows) for the greater impact force of a weapon which can land fewer types of blows but at both a higher angular velocity and angular momentum, making those blows more devastating, even if skin is not pierced.

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

They basically never performed extra ordinary.
They were deployed in large numbers and acted as professional infantry, nothing more.
They often had very bad performance loosing against militias and doing horribly in sieges against 10 times less numerous enemies.
They became elite and proficient in warfare only when they switched to ranged firearms, then their discipline and training overshadowed their incompetence in close melee engagements.

Are you talking about prior to 1450?

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

...they win against gothic knights.
They should not even win against halberdiers.

Alright, your post reads very surely written, I don't feel so authoritative myself about this matter.
Bring up some documentation about the performance of the Janissaries and we'll put it to rest (about them).

I still maintain that the idea of having AP weapons serves to indicate the ability of certain weapons to perform almost as well versus armoured and unarmoured opponents, while weapons like arming swords were not so effective against thick armour of a combination of different materials.

**Deepstrike101** · September 05, 2015, 03:32 AM

This has probably been answered before, but...

I cannot start the campaign as any faction. When I click to begin, it simply ejects me to the main menu again. I have tried running as admin, but this does not change a thing.

I am running Windows 10 64 bit with Steam, and everything appears to be installed correctly. The custom battles work more or less fine. I'm going to continue trying to trap the issue here, but a reply would be much appreciated!

EDIT:
Starting campaigns in vanilla SS 6.4 works perfectly.
I've also found that after it ejects me to main menu in Titanium, it will not allow me to select "Early Campaign" again until I go to another screen and back.

Funny thing is, I have played Titanium a number of months ago and (aside from bugs) it was pretty smooth.

Right now I am running the 84 build.

EDIT 2:
Looking at the log, I see a few dozen errors saying settlements are in the incorrect tile.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Not sure if it has anything to do with it, but I copied all those string files to their respective folder. Do I also need to change all their file names from .txt.string.bin to just .txt?

Unrelated, but if running the setup in admin mode, attempting to toggle any watchtower option crashes the setup launcher.

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by paleologos

You were answering to Meloo who mentioned maces and I mentioned glaives and partisans that are bladed, also halberds are bladed, Dane axes are bladed and so on and so forth.

And I said; "I went through the files and I saw that the majority of axe wielding units and bladed polearm units still have armor piercing trait"

Originally Posted by paleologos

A warrior who choses an axe over a sword (if he had that choice) sacrifices the versatility of a sword (which can land more types of blows) for the greater impact force of a weapon which can land fewer types of blows but at both a higher angular velocity and angular momentum, making those blows more devastating, even if skin is not pierced.

Not for single handed weapon that much and especially not against armor.
There is a very good reason why everyone who could afford a sword had a sword and why swords became more and more popular as centuries went on regardless of the fact that armor became more and more common.
The moment its price went down everyone who could, bought them and used them

Sword strikes are far more versatile and cause wider cuts and horrifying thrusts, that is why it is simply better than a single handed axe and that is why they should be, simply better.

Single handed axes should not have the ap trait, if you want to simulate their point focused weight balance then increase their base damage, do not give them some magical ability they never had.

As for the two handed bladed weapon, same thing, their damage is represented by their higher base damage value, currently with the addition of ap trait they are op as hell, a halberd unit should not go through heavy armored elite units as the do ingame right now.
Not nearly as well.

Originally Posted by paleologos

Are you talking about prior to 1450?

I am talking all periods.
They weren't anything special.
They are literally never recorded as doing anything extraordinary on the battlefield without their large numbers being the main factor to their success.
They were proper professional infantry, that is it, nothing more.

Originally Posted by paleologos

Alright, your post reads very surely written, I don't feel so authoritative myself about this matter.
Bring up some documentation about the performance of the Janissaries and we'll put it to rest (about them).

Routed by a bunch of peasants;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)

Nearly annihilated in a battle against a twice smaller army;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kosovo

Heavy casualties against a three times smaller army;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Varna

Horrible results against a ten time less numerous German garrison;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

Horrible results at siege assaults(granted, they were siege assaults but still);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_G%C3%BCns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Szigetv%C3%A1r
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Castelnuovo

Against much smaller and less developed armies of Moldavia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vaslui
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valea_Alb%C4%83

Later they had an even worse track record;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zenta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Petrovaradin

Were they good professional infantry?
Of course they were.

Should they plow through heavy elite infantry like butter?
Of course not.

Originally Posted by paleologos

I still maintain that the idea of having AP weapons serves to indicate the ability of certain weapons to perform almost as well versus armoured and unarmoured opponents, while weapons like arming swords were not so effective against thick armour of a combination of different materials.

The AP has to be maintained with maces, warhammers and generally stuff that was designed for blunt impact.

So this;

should be AP, while this;

should rather have a higher base damage instead.

Bladed weaponry sucks at delivering blunt trauma;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JSdrBWcmk&t=2m5s

Not to mention that the current state of animations allow polearm wielding units to strike nearly as fast as one handed weapon wielding units...they are simply OP ingame.

**Grabbin_Megroin** · September 05, 2015, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Marius Marich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JSdrBWcmk&t=2m5s

How could he hit him like that! That is so dangerous!

but cool

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 03:03 PM

Watch till the end, the second strike is even more powerful

But it is safe, because he is wearing armor

(with padding underneath the armor that absorbs impact)

**Melooo182** · September 05, 2015, 06:09 PM

Check the files again, bladed polearms and axes in general should have the AP characteristic commented out (preceded by a ;)

I thought Noble Knights were armed with poleaxes, ain't that a bladed weapon?

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Melooo182

Check the files again, bladed polearms and axes in general should have the AP characteristic commented out (preceded by a ;)

Nope;

"attr ap" on all of them.

I have the updated alpha.

I am currently revamping the entire _descr.

Originally Posted by Melooo182

I thought Noble Knights were armed with poleaxes, ain't that a bladed weapon?

Poleaxes have the blade for dealing with unarmored enemies and a hammer side for dealing with armored opponents;

Problem is that any ap weapon with a value above 7-8 practically make expensive armored units useless.

Think about it, lances do not have armor piercing value, why the hell should axes?

**Melooo182** · September 05, 2015, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by export_descr_unit.txt v0.84

type English Knights
dictionary English_Knights ; English Knights, f
category cavalry ; elite mounted melee, lance/axe
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_cavalry
banner holy crusade_cavalry
soldier English_Knights, 20, 0, 1
officer English_Knights
officer northern_captain_early_flag
mount barded horse brawler charger
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge, frighten_foot, knight, free_upkeep_unit, command
move_speed_mod 0.95
formation 1.5, 4.4, 2.5, 6, 2, square ; , wedge
stat_health 1, 3
stat_pri 5, 13, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 90, 1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 12, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 75, 1
stat_sec_attr no ; ap ; 1H axe
stat_pri_armour 15, 4, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 13
stat_ground -1, -2, -3, 0
stat_mental 17, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1165, 600, 120, 95, 1165, 4, 210
armour_ug_levels 22, 30, 37, 40
armour_ug_models English_Knights, English_Knights_ug1, English_Knights_ug1, English_Knights_ug1
ownership england, slave
era 1 england
era 2 england
recruit_priority_offset 50

The EDU inside the campaign folder is the one that counts, just pointing that out.

About poleaxes, hmmm will ponder that
i wonder what k/t thinks about that, after all i just copied what he had suggested for RC2.0

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 06:52 PM

Edit; My descr is different, damn, I always mess up the simple things.

Originally Posted by Melooo182

after all i just copied what he had suggested for RC2.0

He didn't suggest enough

Two handed axes and other bladed polearms should be represented with a higher melee damage value.

There is no explanation for a 500g-700g axe head on a pole to be so devastating to armor, perhaps to non padded supported mail, but late era units suffer greatly from this ahistorical itch because those same weapons then continue on to be nearly as effective against plate armor as well...which is really frustrating because then you have voulge militias plowing through plate armored knights which they really, really should not be able to do(that easily ofc);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XngmQyV0vuA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4el5gX6_98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s

There's are reason people kept spending mountains of gold on armor regardless of weapon development.

**+Marius+** · September 05, 2015, 07:36 PM

Now I realize what I did.

I reinstalled Titanium as a standalone a couple of hours ago and I extracted all the data into a folder.

So I pretty much patched it up and then, ran the TITANIUM_SETUP.bat which probably replaced the Titanium descr with the SS one.

Edit; nevermind that.

**Melooo182** · September 07, 2015, 04:39 PM

Ok changed knights poleaxe to previous dmg values (~10) with AP...not sure if this value is too high
bladed polearms (without AP) do around 15dmg

**+Marius+** · September 07, 2015, 04:44 PM

I am nearly done with my own overhaul.
I am changing one at a time and testing them in custom battles.

I will post results tomorrow.

Thread: Titanium - Bug Reports

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Re: Titanium - Bug Reports

Posting Permissions