More Feedback (~10 hours)

[Friar Chris]

I'm back to pester some more . I've been referencing my findings against the mod databases and making my own changes to test and to try and ensure accuracy... And also rationalise my observations based on what's actually been changed in FotE and from vanilla; I'll re-iterate a few points I made already in the process.


Spread values on projectiles

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've already pointed out how the nerfs to bows and slings make them practically useless, but I've actually been finding that even javelins are struggling to do their job well. Javelins have been nerfed too, presumably along with some universal damage changes, but what I've found is that there's actually been a double-whammy nerf to the efficacy of all ranged weapons: firstly they've had damage reduced, and secondly they've all been given a lot of 'spread', such that their accuracy is effectively reduced.

This actually explains partially why bows have become so bad; it wasn't just a matter of reduced damage. In the vanilla setup, both bows and javelins have 0 spread. That's not to say that they're 100% accurate, just that the projectile doesn't have any automatic deviation from target added to it in the engine after it is fired by the unit. Gunny seems to have given both javelins and bows significant amounts (spread values of 5, 6) of spread value, meaning skirmisher and ranged units have a rather nasty tendency to fire very loosely distributed volleys of missiles, most of which don't impact the mass of a body of enemies - don't forget that the spread is 3-dimensional so this exaggerates the effect of missiles flying over and falling short of targets as well as falling to the sides and in a less dense mass of projectiles. This causes three main problems:

1. It vastly decreases efficacy of all ranged weapons, because the shots spray everywhere, missing more and not falling in the same density or consistency.

2. It often increases friendly fire effects, as archers and skirmishers firing into the rear of enemies or over your own lines are 'missing' even more with shots that over-shoot or fall short, hitting your own men even more than they already did.

3. It looks hilariously dumb to see javelinmen at a few metres range try to throw a volley into an enemy formation's fleshy rear, only for them to mysteriously throw many of their javelins in a ludicrous direction straight over enemies or to the sides even when they're standing at literally point-blank range. Anyone would think that your javelinmen had never held a javelin before; I'm sure even my javelin-throwing was more accurate at school on sports day!


I can see why spread was introduced, it's a 'realistic' concept, but the balancing has to be considered. If spread is to be a factor, then the damage values for missile weapons need re-increasing. Additionally, spread need not be so horribly severe - bows with a spread of 2 and javelins with just 1 produce some deviation in the shots sufficient to minorly affect accuracy and represent a more realistic volley, without causing such a huge nerf in effectiveness or total inaccuracy. In comparison the mod was using (iirc) 6 spread for bows and 4-5 for javelins, which were simply too high.

Javelins also feel weak in general

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Equites Dalmatae and other horse skirmishers are very rarely worth their upkeep, mainly because their little volleys of (highly spread) javelins don't really kill anything. They don't 'hit and run' so much as 'lightly mock your mother and run'.

Seriously, increase those archery and slinger ranges

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've brought most horse archers up to 225 range, foot archers 300 (composite/longbow 350) and slings up to 350 (380 for the elite version). Does that sound extreme when we consider the measly ~150 range they have now? It sounds extreme, but it's not. I actually had increased them to 200-250 and was so underwhelmed by the amount of difference in range that this makes in-game that I went up another degree of magnitude.

300 range archers aren't firing over hills ridiculously, they're performing properly: instead of being glorified javelinmen with worse damage, they can be used as ranged infantry for attrition, harassment, target removal, sieges, sniping. 140 range is pointless on an archer; any old infantryman can charge that down in Attila in a matter of moments; the scale is all wrong. Buff it right on up, and see just how much better force diversity and ranged-melee balance feels with archers and slingers actually capable of doing their job on the battlefield!

Shields need entirely re-doing

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Discussed this a little elsewhere, but the shield stats currently are entirely borked. Various cavalry shields bestow +75 melee defence, giving e.g. Steppe Mounted Tribesmen 90+ melee defence, because the vanilla values have been tripled. Tripling a shield with +5 melee defence gives +15 melee defence and helps slow frontal combat down in FotE, but tripling a shield with +25 melee defence gives +75 melee defence, which breaks anything that it's applied to and makes it a super-melee unit frontally, allowing cheap cavalry to completely tank melee combat when this is the opposite of their role. There are no 'infantry' and 'cavalry' shields specifically, but the ones with the highest melee defence in vanilla were small and round shields used almost exclusively by cavalry, which presumably had +melee defence as part of the vanilla cavalry balance. Tripling these shields' melee defence boni has produced absurd unit stats.

Armour bonus from shields are also bamboozlingly inconsistent; most shields at a fairly standard small amount but the tower shield in FotE bestows +75 armour to the unit carrying it. What this means is that Armenian Slingers and Steppe Levy (among various other units) have wildly better armour value than, say, most of the heavy infantry in the game, making them hilariously good units. I believe the gothic shields confer +45 armour, which gives a similarly crazy but not wholly overpowering boost to any unit that happens to carry it.

This is currently also messing up the unit stats relative to each other. 'Very Heavy' Auxilia Iuniores Palatini have less armour value than a cheap-ass Cohors Limitaneiorum - not because they wear worse armour, but because the Limitanei are using a shield with +45 armour value while the Palatini are using a shield that gives +22 armour value. Result is that, despite being the heavier, more expensive and armoured unit, the Limitanei have the better armour value in-game.

Garrisons

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Having idly dreamt of my ideal system of Roman barracks and the garrisons they'd differently provide, I've been actually trying to make such a thing. Such a pain in the arse, garrisons - all that defining unit groups and such. Eww. That's my own flavour so I'll possibly make it a submod. Anyway, my thought on this is that, for Romans at least, they should probably receive less base garrison from their settlements, while having the barrack-line buildings provide bigger garrisons that are themed around the type of barrack.

This way the perceived 'need' for larger garrisons in Attila can be somewhat serviced by giving the player the option to invest in military buildings to provide a larger overall garrison than in vanilla, but without every settlement under the sun automatically getting a load of free units and stagnating the pace of gameplay.

Churches

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The maintenance costs might be a little steep. At least for Tier II buildings; there's a huge jump up in cost just to get beyond the first tier of the building line which itself isn't very useful. I think the maintenance is a much better system than the food consumption, but maybe tone down the cost, at least for the earlier levels of religious building; I can understand the Tier III and IV buildings inflating rapidly in upkeep cost, but the Tier II currently seems like it'd be too economically crippling to use in many instances; -600 is practically the income of an entire province just for one building!

[legio_XX]

I agree with everything you said but the Garrisons. At least for The Capital Garrisons are done very well. I love the fact that attacking a provincial capital forces you and the AI to pause and be sure to gather sufficient forces.

[Friar Chris]

I agree with everything you said but the Garrisons. At least for The Capital Garrisons are done very well. I love the fact that attacking a provincial capital forces you and the AI to pause and be sure to gather sufficient forces.

Incidentally, the only thing I've changed for the capital garrisons in my own personalised version has been to reduce the Limitanei spear units that the capital upgrades give. Instead of starting around 3 and inflating quickly to 6 (and above iirc), I've reduced it such that it goes 2, 3, 3, 4 while all the other units are just as numerous as in vanilla. I found the sheer spam of decent spear infantry to be the only thing I objected to; and if one has a barracks present with the garrison units I've added to them, the actual garrison for a capital becomes a notably formidable army moreso than the vanilla capitals would be even without the nerf.