Low armor and attack make buffing seem pointless

[gdwitt]

What is the reasoning behind the low armor stats for the latest DEI?
Armor in Vanilla RTW was set tested and balanced so that the royal units were significantly different from levees.
Now that they all have low armor, the incentive to upgrade buildings and pay triple is gone.
The obvious strategy now is to build 2-3 stacks of levees and march.
Look at it this way. In Vanilla, levees have 60-70 less armor points than royal guards or praetorians.
Now they are only separated by about 20 points.
So if I get a 10% buff over 20 turns, techs and 9000 gold, I only see an improvement of 2-3 armor points versus 7-9.
Plus this: It costs 500 gold to buff a unit to silver/silver. The net gain is 1-5 armor or 1-5 attack, which is pretty much meaningless.

I like that there are so many armor types, but I don't see how it is improving the game.
It also makes it very hard to balance with units from other mods.

The same logic can be applied to the way you reduced attack on many of the units.
I can't comment for sure because the attack is all over the place right now.
But in general, they are about 50% of what we see in Vanilla.

So buffing attack is also pointless except for the most elite units.

[lollaaja]

What is the reasoning behind the low armor stats for the latest DEI?
Armor in Vanilla RTW was set tested and balanced so that the royal units were significantly different from levees.
Now that they all have low armor, the incentive to upgrade buildings and pay triple is gone.
The obvious strategy now is to build 2-3 stacks of levees and march.
Look at it this way. In Vanilla, levees have 60-70 less armor points than royal guards or praetorians.
Now they are only separated by about 20 points.
So if I get a 10% buff over 20 turns, techs and 9000 gold, I only see an improvement of 2-3 armor points versus 7-9.
Plus this: It costs 500 gold to buff a unit to silver/silver. The net gain is 1-5 armor or 1-5 attack, which is pretty much meaningless.

I like that there are so many armor types, but I don't see how it is improving the game.
It also makes it very hard to balance with units from other mods.

The same logic can be applied to the way you reduced attack on many of the units.
I can't comment for sure because the attack is all over the place right now.
But in general, they are about 50% of what we see in Vanilla.

So buffing attack is also pointless except for the most elite units.

There's several issues. Firstly, nobody knows the mathematical formula for how combat is calculated. Every stat modification is a guesstimate. Secondly, the person/persons in charge of these changes for DeI do not/did not keep a sortable xml to track these stats. That's why gold for gold Celtic Shortswords are better or at the very least equal to Marian legionaries. Anyway, as long as CA doesn't tell people exactly how their combat calculations work in a single clear documentation, any changes made by modders are by "poking in the shadows."

[Damocles]

There's several issues. Firstly, nobody knows the mathematical formula for how combat is calculated. Every stat modification is a guesstimate. Secondly, the person/persons in charge of these changes for DeI do not/did not keep a sortable xml to track these stats. That's why gold for gold Celtic Shortswords are better or at the very least equal to Marian legionaries. Anyway, as long as CA doesn't tell people exactly how their combat calculations work in a single clear documentation, any changes made by modders are by "poking in the shadows."

Most all of the Germanic/Celtic/Gallic units are extraordinarily powerful, compared to the Romans. (Although, I'd still take hollow square over anything else).

[tybor87]

@lollaaja

I think we easily discover that formula by creating a few units with for example 10 health points, 1 weapon dmg and other stats near zero and then run some custom battle test. Next we can change some stats and see how it change the battle outcome.

But this would be time consuming

[lollaaja]

@lollaaja

I think we easily discover that formula by creating a few units with for example 10 health points, 1 weapon dmg and other stats near zero and then run some custom battle test. Next we can change some stats and see how it change the battle outcome.

But this would be time consuming

That would still be a guesstimate, not based on the raw formula used by the engine, with weights for each stat and so on. Another thing I thought about that makes the R2TW system inferior to before is how "armor" and the "weapon" itself is a separate entity. Therefore instead of being able to edit armor and weapon damage directly in a string like in, say, M2TW, you have to jump between tables and over a large project this becomes much harder to keep track of.

[gdwitt]

Yes, it's a pain that armor is its own table when it could be so easy.
I appreciate that DEI has tried to offer a wide range of armors to suit the wide range of units. Could you make the naming scheme more sensible please?

Main point:
CrzyRndm did a great study on armor in Rome last Fall.
He found that even with armor at 99, damage does occur and accumulates.
And it doesn't require an attack anywhere near 99.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...light=crzyrndm
We should message him for the study.

The reason I started this posted is that DEI creators seem to be under the misguided notion that armor should be lower than the highest available attack.
That's not the case and their decision to cut armor values in half are damaging the strategic value of superior units and buff buildings.
The creators seem to think that if you just give the barbs low defense (along with high attack) things will be equal.
Another study by CrzyRndm showed that attack is at least three times more valuable in battle than defense points.

This, along with the nerfing of roman (and many hellenic) units' attack relative to barb attack makes the mod unplayable without serious modification.

[Red_Barron]

It also makes it very hard to balance with units from other mods.

I am pretty sure mods such as DEI consider themselves one of them there fancy "total overhaul mods" (or some variation on that theme). Subsequently the ultimate goal is to achieve balance of units within the mod exclusively.

Of course balance is not yet achieved because we have a pre 1.0 version right now. The mod team has stated that an initial balance (of all non-eastern units exclusively I think) will be the goal of 1.0 if I recall correctly.

There is plenty of balancing work for the mod team to do with the vast amount of units from within the mod (where they have control over editing every stat). What they cannot do is edit the values of other modders' units to balance with DEI (unless a DEI version of that unit is brought into the fold with collaboration between the two modding entities). The idea of trying to balance units within DEI (one single entity of a mod) to also balance with units from multiple mods that they have no control over is a wasted effort, as units from different mods may not be balanced to each other.

[TheOrangeProject]

1) I doubt the formula is anywhere near being easy. If i recall correclty there were some posts about it TWC and Official Forum and those things are really complex.

2) Balance is an issue, DeI team knows that, they will do their job as always

3) About romas vs babarians. Especially with those two groups...i dont have much problems, because almost every meele unit of rome has formations which increase stats. I had hastati killing 300 babarians (middle size units) while in square formation - playing on legendary. Anyway, as said before, balacing is not perfect but is one of the main things DeI will do for us in the future.

[gdwitt]

That square formation is a strange and unbalanced powerhouse that's totally unrealistic.
I held off a force twice my size until the battle timer with my Rorarii in square. Their attack is only 7. Why were they killing.
But the moment they break it they flee.
Something is wrong with the weapon...intiative? stat
The point is that the changes being made don't seem to reflect a scientific or historic approach to stat balancing.

[Damocles]

That square formation is a strange and unbalanced powerhouse that's totally unrealistic.
I held off a force twice my size until the battle timer with my Rorarii in square. Their attack is only 7. Why were they killing.
But the moment they break it they flee.
Something is wrong with the weapon...intiative? stat
The point is that the changes being made don't seem to reflect a scientific or historic approach to stat balancing.

The thing about the hollow square is that it removes morale penalties for being flanked/attacked in the rear. That's a huge, huge benefit.

However, if you continue playing into the late game, you'll eventually encounter Barbarian units (at least from the Celtic and Gallic factions), that are far more lethal.

Carnute Cingeto, with druid chant, massive stats, high deadliness, and shield wall on top of it...are god like. They would win every battle, if DeI units weren't so resilient.

As it happens, even Marian veteran legionaries have a hard time holding out, until a rear-cavalry can be set up. And if you lack cavalry? Well. You're screwed barring some extraordinary luck. Carnute Cingetos with vanilla killing speed wouldn't even break their stride colliding with the Roman line.

[gdwitt]

Hmm, Godlike sounds very historic for a historic mod. I like special abilities, but the mod has nerfed so many of them, why would they leave those intact?

Here is a great discussion thread that shows a rational approach to figuring out the best relative values of armor.
Here is a great mod that will allow anyone to test the effect of various stats on battles between any unit.

[Klierowski]

I hate how much the Dei is unbalanced...

[zonks40]

I tried a little experiment, I've added 10 damage to all the weapons, removed AP damage and added the AP damage to the weapons total, just to see if it made the armor stat more of a factor.

You would think that by adding 10 damage to all the weapons that the battle would play out much faster, but with the removal of AP damage, there is no longer damage applied no matter how strong the armor, by adding the AP damage to the normal damage, it gives the weapon a better chance of bypassing the armor, as it should, a hit with an AP weapon can still glance off the armor, the way it is now, any hit is 100% AP damage.
The thing with AP weapons is that just because they can pierce armor, it doesn't necessarily mean they do more damage to the body, but the fact is that AP damage in this game is probably the most common damage dealt out in a battle, when in actual fact, the AP weapon should increase the melee attack rating, as it improves the chances of the wielder inflicting damage.

I also reduced the flank and rear attack morale penalties by 5 each, and gave the Pike and Pike_Elite the same damage as a spear, and gave them damage vs Horse and Elephant, the two battles I tried played out quiet well.
The 1st battle I played as the Romans Vs The Areverni, I got my ass handed to me in that one, but it was a costly enemy victory, the 2nd battle I played as Sparta Vs Athens, just to see how the pikes went, I won that battle, though it was also costly.

So when a soldier attacks another, the Melee attack is rated up against the melee defense of the victim, if the attack roll is higher there is a hit, then the weapon damage is rated up against the armor rating, if that beats the armor rating, then damage is dealt.
So in this scenario, a successful hit does not mean automatic damage, the armor can still turn aside the weapon, making armor much more important, as it was.

[FlashHeart07]

I tried a little experiment, I've added 10 damage to all the weapons, removed AP damage and added the AP damage to the weapons total, just to see if it made the armor stat more of a factor.

You would think that by adding 10 damage to all the weapons that the battle would play out much faster, but with the removal of AP damage, there is no longer damage applied no matter how strong the armor, by adding the AP damage to the normal damage, it gives the weapon a better chance of bypassing the armor, as it should, a hit with an AP weapon can still glance off the armor, the way it is now, any hit is 100% AP damage.
The thing with AP weapons is that just because they can pierce armor, it doesn't necessarily mean they do more damage to the body, but the fact is that AP damage in this game is probably the most common damage dealt out in a battle, when in actual fact, the AP weapon should increase the melee attack rating, as it improves the chances of the wielder inflicting damage.

I also reduced the flank and rear attack morale penalties by 5 each, and gave the Pike and Pike_Elite the same damage as a spear, and gave them damage vs Horse and Elephant, the two battles I tried played out quiet well.
The 1st battle I played as the Romans Vs The Areverni, I got my ass handed to me in that one, but it was a costly enemy victory, the 2nd battle I played as Sparta Vs Athens, just to see how the pikes went, I won that battle, though it was also costly.

So when a soldier attacks another, the Melee attack is rated up against the melee defense of the victim, if the attack roll is higher there is a hit, then the weapon damage is rated up against the armor rating, if that beats the armor rating, then damage is dealt.
So in this scenario, a successful hit does not mean automatic damage, the armor can still turn aside the weapon, making armor much more important, as it was.

True enough. Deadliness is dmg always dealt when a unit strikes and initiative decides who gets to strike first. How much did you buff the pikes against cav and elephants? Since they already get buffed when going into phalanx formation? Something that I would say is more realistic than having them always get a bonus vs cav/elephants. Out of formation I would suppose the sarissa would be quite hard to manage and therefore should not give them any bonus vs cav. As it is now they get a +10 vs cav and elephants when in phalanx formation.
Could you perhaps post some screenshots of battles to give a better view?

[zonks40]

True enough. Deadliness is dmg always dealt when a unit strikes and initiative decides who gets to strike first. How much did you buff the pikes against cav and elephants? Since they already get buffed when going into phalanx formation? Something that I would say is more realistic than having them always get a bonus vs cav/elephants. Out of formation I would suppose the sarissa would be quite hard to manage and therefore should not give them any bonus vs cav. As it is now they get a +10 vs cav and elephants when in phalanx formation.
Could you perhaps post some screenshots of battles to give a better view?

I was unaware of the bonus that the pike unit gets when adopting the phalanx formation, I was going by the Melee weapons table which said 0, however, even with a 10 bonus vs Cavalry, that falls way short of the bonus that some spear units receive, like the Eastern spear that gains a 22 point bonus vs Cavalry.
I can post some screenshots, but a still picture won't really show much in the way of combat flow, I have just done a test between the Roman Imperial Praetorian Guard unit and a Arverni Faithful guards unit, the faithful guards unit won the battle losing about half their number, the Romans losing about 3/4 before breaking.
Most of the stats were pretty much the same, give or take a few points, however the Faithful Guards had a much larger melee defense, probably due to the formation they adopted, so it was probably this that tipped the battle in their favor.

When my boy gets home we will do some more testing using full armies and see how things pan out.

[FlashHeart07]

I was unaware of the bonus that the pike unit gets when adopting the phalanx formation, I was going by the Melee weapons table which said 0, however, even with a 10 bonus vs Cavalry, that falls way short of the bonus that some spear units receive, like the Eastern spear that gains a 22 point bonus vs Cavalry.
I can post some screenshots, but a still picture won't really show much in the way of combat flow, I have just done a test between the Roman Imperial Praetorian Guard unit and a Arverni Faithful guards unit, the faithful guards unit won the battle losing about half their number, the Romans losing about 3/4 before breaking.
Most of the stats were pretty much the same, give or take a few points, however the Faithful Guards had a much larger melee defense, probably due to the formation they adopted, so it was probably this that tipped the battle in their favor.

When my boy gets home we will do some more testing using full armies and see how things pan out.

I also gave them more than 10 against cav. You can change it under special_ability_phase_something. There you can see, change and add to all bonus that each formation or special ability give a unit. I also increased the missile block chance for legionaries in testudo.
Just let me know when you have done some further testing.

Sendt fra min GT-I9100 med Tapatalk

[zonks40]

I tested out a fight between a Athenian Hoplite and an Imperial Praetorian Guard, the Hoplite unit won on account of the 40 melee defense bonus for the Phalanx formation.
I tried this battle out again playing as the Athenian Hoplites, and did not use the phalanx formation, the Athenians still won, but only just.
I then reduced the Initiative by 1 for all units, Then tested again, the Praetorian's won this time, but the losses were even, the higher morale of the Roman unit won it for them.
I then reduced the Initiative for all units by a further 1, the praetorian's also won this fight, but there was a difference in casualties by about 25%, just by dropping the Initiative by 1 point.

What I did find in the last test was that at first, the Praetorian Guards were killing the Hoplites at a rate of 3 to 1, however, once both units got to the very tired stage, the Hoplites started to tip the balance back, not enough to win, but they definitely made the figures at the end of battle look better for themselves.