[UPD - 21 MAY] Closed Alpha - Feedback

[alphasquad]

Because all the skirmishers use the same javelin weapon. The difference between them comes in their accuracy (a hidden stat unfortunately, as there wasn't enough room on the UI), their Tier level, armour and their other combat stats.

I was meaning that arrows and javelins have the same damage

[Commissar Caligula_]

I was meaning that arrows and javelins have the same damage

Oh right I see what you mean. Arrows have 30 damage, 8 armour piercing damage whilst javelins have 16 damage and 22 armour piercing.
They both equal 38 damage, but they actually deal that damage quite differently. If I understand it correctly, armour piercing damage is applied directly to the Health of a unit because it bypasses the Armour stat. Therefore javelins do quite a bit more damage compared to arrows despite the UI saying they do the same damage.
We'll probably change it in the future just to avoid this confusion though.


Also, I'm not sure whether anyone's brought up the difference between Ithilien Rangers and Gondorian Archers on TWCenter, but they have on ModDB so here's my explanation on how Ithilien Rangers are slightly better than Gondorian Archers.

Ithilien Rangers have +2 accuracy, +4 melee defence, +7 charge bonus, +14 melee damage, +3 ammunition and +9 speed. In addition they can hide anywhere on the map, and shoot whilst staying hidden.
However, they have 30 less health, 17 less morale and 37 less armour compared to a Gondorian Archer.
In our balancing so far, all Tier 1 to 3 archers get a shortsword or a dagger. Rangers and Tier 4 Archers on the other hand get a longsword.
Furthermore, all Tier 1-3 archers get -25% melee attack, melee defence and charge bonus. Rangers and Tier 4 Archers aren't affected by this.
The accuracy comes from Rangers getting +25% accuracy, and +3 ammo cos they're Rangers.
The speed is because I've made it so Rangers are 1 tier lighter than they would otherwise be. Eg Ithilien Rangers are Very Light rather than just Light.

I don't think Rhovanion Rangers are affected by all of these buffs however. If you want a lore friendly reason then its because they're not Dunedain or Elves. If you want the actual reason, its because their cloaks bug out really badly when they crouch down but that'll likely be fixed.

[Maetharin]

Does distance play a role with missile damage?
Because in reality kinetic energy has quite an impact on armour penetration.

Shooting arrows at maximum range f.e. would just about scratch metal armour, as their speed would have decreased drastically.
At close range however, arrows shot from composite or longbows can easily penetrate chain and unhardened plate.

I´d be curious if it were possible to shift AP damage to normal damage according to distance, as this seems to me the most accurate way to depict this

[Commissar Caligula_]

Does distance play a role with missile damage?
Because in reality kinetic energy has quite an impact on armour penetration.

Shooting arrows at maximum range f.e. would just about scratch metal armour, as their speed would have decreased drastically.
At close range however, arrows shot from composite or longbows can easily penetrate chain and unhardened plate.

I´d be curious if it were possible to shift AP damage to normal damage according to distance, as this seems to me the most accurate way to depict this

Kinda, but the affect is more because the greater the distance the more inaccurate the shots are. There definitely is a big difference between firing at maximum range, and firing right up in their face.

[Maetharin]

But the only difference is accuracy, not actual damage?

[alphasquad]

Oh right I see what you mean. Arrows have 30 damage, 8 armour piercing damage whilst javelins have 16 damage and 22 armour piercing.
They both equal 38 damage, but they actually deal that damage quite differently. If I understand it correctly, armour piercing damage is applied directly to the Health of a unit because it bypasses the Armour stat. Therefore javelins do quite a bit more damage compared to arrows despite the UI saying they do the same damage.
We'll probably change it in the future just to avoid this confusion though.


Also, I'm not sure whether anyone's brought up the difference between Ithilien Rangers and Gondorian Archers on TWCenter, but they have on ModDB so here's my explanation on how Ithilien Rangers are slightly better than Gondorian Archers.

Ithilien Rangers have +2 accuracy, +4 melee defence, +7 charge bonus, +14 melee damage, +3 ammunition and +9 speed. In addition they can hide anywhere on the map, and shoot whilst staying hidden.
However, they have 30 less health, 17 less morale and 37 less armour compared to a Gondorian Archer.
In our balancing so far, all Tier 1 to 3 archers get a shortsword or a dagger. Rangers and Tier 4 Archers on the other hand get a longsword.
Furthermore, all Tier 1-3 archers get -25% melee attack, melee defence and charge bonus. Rangers and Tier 4 Archers aren't affected by this.
The accuracy comes from Rangers getting +25% accuracy, and +3 ammo cos they're Rangers.
The speed is because I've made it so Rangers are 1 tier lighter than they would otherwise be. Eg Ithilien Rangers are Very Light rather than just Light.

I don't think Rhovanion Rangers are affected by all of these buffs however. If you want a lore friendly reason then its because they're not Dunedain or Elves. If you want the actual reason, its because their cloaks bug out really badly when they crouch down but that'll likely be fixed.

Why ithilien rangers have lower morale and health than gondorian archers?

In my opinion that doesn't make sense. In the lore, as in the film they are descrive as being mostly volontiers wanting to defend their lands against Sauron's forces. They have to ambush entire enemy armies with few numbers. They even killed oliphants from harad; Which means they just have a great morale and they will not give up easily.

They should have much higher morale than gondorian archers.
The health should be the same like all other men. They have already low armour, which is already a real pain for them in melee.

I agree with Meatharin about the missile AP damage, the most realistic way to balance archers is to decrease it in function of the distance. The accuracy should be the same. However, i'm not sure if this is possible to do.

[Tinteex]

Things i noticed :

1. Uruks will open their mouth while fighting, and sometimes you can look through it like it's a tiny window
2. Bardings have that too, but somewhere else

[Maetharin]

I so agree with the decreasing accuracy, it is harder to hit a target at range
It´s just that the effectivenes of missiles even if they do hit is pretty much nil against armoured targets at range.
It´s a completely different story with unarmoured targets though.
If it were possible, this would make for some interesting mechanic though.
Missiles would only be effective against armoured troops through direct fire, with indirect fire only affecting lightly armoured units.
AFAIK there is a difference in the way units fire their missiles relative to their distance, maybe it´s possible to do something there?

BTW just for my curiosity, will plate armour represent hardened or unhardened steel?
Because AFAIK it took at least until the end of the 100 year war for plate armour to be effective against English longbows again.
And even then it was fairly uncommon and very expensive.

This would be a possible way of representing the superiority of Dwarfen and Elven armour when comparing them to others.
I would imagine that since Gondor was in fairly well economical contact with the Elves in the early 3rd Age, I´d say their plate should be hardened,
whereas Uruk, Orc plate would be effective in melee, but suck against missiles.
Since Easterling armour has their scales sloped upwards, I´d imagine it to have excellent protective value even if it weren´t hardened.

But again that´s my opinion.

[♔atthias♔]

Thats surprising, I would've thought the Ithilien Rangers would've won because they have the Stalk ability which means they're always hidden. The reason Rhovanion Rangers don't have it is because it makes their cloaks really bugged out and we didn't have time to fix it.

In terms of how skirmishers work, they've got 3 shots and they're powerful anti-infantry but have short range. You could use them against units attacking a barricade if you're defending in a siege, or against pikes. They require a bit of micro-management due to their short range.


Because all the skirmishers use the same javelin weapon. The difference between them comes in their accuracy (a hidden stat unfortunately, as there wasn't enough room on the UI), their Tier level, armour and their other combat stats.


Pikes are quite useful, I'd certainly always bring one. They basically deny the enemy access to a certain area, eg you could put them in the middle of your formation so the enemy avoids them since they can't really be beaten from the front, and then you flood some reserves in through the pikes and attack the flanks of the enemy because they're avoiding your centre.
They are very costly as you pointed out however, and cheap archers can target them and take them out due to their lack of shields and tight formation.

thanks for learning me how to use skirmshers worked perfectly
put dale skimshers againgst foutain guard in 3 salvos they killed 47 men very usefull thank you

[alphasquad]

I so agree with the decreasing accuracy, it is harder to hit a target at range
It´s just that the effectivenes of missiles even if they do hit is pretty much nil against armoured targets at range.
It´s a completely different story with unarmoured targets though.
If it were possible, this would make for some interesting mechanic though.
Missiles would only be effective against armoured troops through direct fire, with indirect fire only affecting lightly armoured units.
AFAIK there is a difference in the way units fire their missiles relative to their distance, maybe it´s possible to do something there?

BTW just for my curiosity, will plate armour represent hardened or unhardened steel?
Because AFAIK it took at least until the end of the 100 year war for plate armour to be effective against English longbows again.
And even then it was fairly uncommon and very expensive.

This would be a possible way of representing the superiority of Dwarfen and Elven armour when comparing them to others.
I would imagine that since Gondor was in fairly well economical contact with the Elves in the early 3rd Age, I´d say their plate should be hardened,
whereas Uruk, Orc plate would be effective in melee, but suck against missiles.
Since Easterling armour has their scales sloped upwards, I´d imagine it to have excellent protective value even if it weren´t hardened.

But again that´s my opinion.

I was meaning "should NOT be the same" forgot to tap not.

[Alkar]

But the only difference is accuracy, not actual damage?

That's correct, there's no way to implement the lessening of kinetic energy. Which is kinda awful, because archers would still be good at killing peasants with no armor at long range rather than missing them entirely.

Why ithilien rangers have lower morale and health than gondorian archers?

In my opinion that doesn't make sense. In the lore, as in the film they are descrive as being mostly volontiers wanting to defend their lands against Sauron's forces. They have to ambush entire enemy armies with few numbers. They even killed oliphants from harad; Which means they just have a great morale and they will not give up easily.

They should have much higher morale than gondorian archers.
The health should be the same like all other men. They have already low armour, which is already a real pain for them in melee.

I agree with Meatharin about the missile AP damage, the most realistic way to balance archers is to decrease it in function of the distance. The accuracy should be the same. However, i'm not sure if this is possible to do.

Does distance play a role with missile damage?

Because in reality kinetic energy has quite an impact on armour penetration.

Shooting arrows at maximum range f.e. would just about scratch metal armour, as their speed would have decreased drastically.
At close range however, arrows shot from composite or longbows can easily penetrate chain and unhardened plate.

I´d be curious if it were possible to shift AP damage to normal damage according to distance, as this seems to me the most accurate way to depict this

I so agree with the decreasing accuracy, it is harder to hit a target at range

It´s just that the effectivenes of missiles even if they do hit is pretty much nil against armoured targets at range.
It´s a completely different story with unarmoured targets though.
If it were possible, this would make for some interesting mechanic though.
Missiles would only be effective against armoured troops through direct fire, with indirect fire only affecting lightly armoured units.
AFAIK there is a difference in the way units fire their missiles relative to their distance, maybe it´s possible to do something there?

BTW just for my curiosity, will plate armour represent hardened or unhardened steel?
Because AFAIK it took at least until the end of the 100 year war for plate armour to be effective against English longbows again.
And even then it was fairly uncommon and very expensive.

This would be a possible way of representing the superiority of Dwarfen and Elven armour when comparing them to others.
I would imagine that since Gondor was in fairly well economical contact with the Elves in the early 3rd Age, I´d say their plate should be hardened,
whereas Uruk, Orc plate would be effective in melee, but suck against missiles.
Since Easterling armour has their scales sloped upwards, I´d imagine it to have excellent protective value even if it weren´t hardened.

But again that´s my opinion.

I definitely concur.

[Alkar]

Sorry if I have to disagree, but IMO pikes aren´t a defensive weapon.
Their purpose is to wound an enemy, is it not? That it happens at a longer distance is of no matter IMO.
Also, according to interpretation of course, there are historical examples of pikes being used offensively.

F.e. how the romans were pushed back during Pydna.
We could discount one source telling of Sarissai punching through Scuta,
but all sources agree of the dread frontal combat against pikes invoked.

I purposefully took Pydna as an example, since it is the only case when the legions actually defeated a Macedonian Phalanx from the front.
And even then this was only possible due to their flexibility and superb training and discipline.
Without these attributes they´d have broken before the Phalanx had lost cohesion in uneven terrain.

In all other Roman - Macedonian confrontation the issue was settled through different means, elephants, skirmishers, cavalry, getting into the flanks, aso.

You mention pike formation being unwieldy. Again I disagree.
All it takes is for them to lift their pikes and they can reform their formation.
It just takes a lot of training, which most armies did not have.

But since all big formations of men are unwieldy and need training to be flexible,
I wouldn´t single pikes out.
Pike formations simply need to attack in a single line and as long as they do not loose cohesion, their only weakness is their flank.
But again, all armies need flank protection during their attack, with lowered pikes just simply moreso, which is a disadvantage.

I do agree on the fountain guard being no field unit though.
How many of them do we even see in the movie?
6? And are any of them ever seen outside of the courtyard?
IMO if Gondor should have a Pike unit, it ought to be a fiefdom unit.

This doesn´t mean you should completely get rid of them,
just that I´d prefer it if they were designated as an exclusive General unit once (or if) you´ve introduced another pike unit.

I'm with Maetharin. There are a great number of examples of pikes being used offensively. My field of interest runs a little later than does Maetharin's and the example that comes to mind is the Swiss pikemen. They were not a strictly defensive force. In fact they were extremely effective at steamrolling other infantry formations. They were famous for advancing and breaking their opponent with the impetus of their blocks of pikemen.

You mention "moving to him with a long pole is generally a bad idea since he is much quicker and much more agile to maneuver and strike you, a pikeman, in the vitals". Well this may or may not be true if I've got a pike and you've a sword and shield and we're alone in a field. But when I'm part of a line of pikes, with the rank behind me bearing pikes forward, and the rank behind them bearing their pikes, being more agile is a moot point. A pike block works because the ranks behind the front rank can poke too, and progressively closer to the actually dudes in front.

As far as I've read, pike blocks were notoriously difficult to combat. Their greatest weakness, it seems, is that they're generally hard to maneuver and wheel in formation. They possess vulnerable flanks.

In my opinion, pikes should be OP when fighting other units head on. However, they should possess obscene flanking penalties. They require proper positioning to be used effectively. This encourages skill. If placed effectively, they do well. If not, they're practically useless.

And this is part of the reason why I'm against having the Fountain Guard as a pike unit. These are super elite dudes; having them as this strictly defensive meh unit isn't going to incentivize me to ever bring them. And it will certainly make me smile when I see an enemy has wasted their florins.

Based on the historical books I have read, I would tend to agree with most of this. Pikemen were definitely usable offensively, but were often used defensively as well. They were vulnerable to sudden strikes to the sides or rear for sure. Untrained pikemen would be devastated by this due to their slow maneuvering, but trained pikemen could only be taken down if taken off guard or held up with fighting to the front, then charged from another angle. Untrained pikemen would be ridiculously slow too, as well as trained pikemen, just not as slow. Another main weakness was the vulnerability of their formation, the formation that was also their strength. If the formation was broken through men routing or dying (such as under a hail of arrows), the whole formation was toast. Sorry for the double-post, I didn't want too massive of a wall of text! So much new activity in these threads (a good thing)!

[Commissar Caligula_]

For the people wanting pikes to be more aggressive, I don't really see how it could be done. Pikes are hardcoded to in a way that means they're only really defensive. They stop like 15m away from the enemy so they can arrange their pikes, and if you give them an attack order on an enemy they'll waddle forward until at least 1 man in the unit is attacking, after which you can't really move them or their formation will break and they'll get destroyed.

Why ithilien rangers have lower morale and health than gondorian archers?

In my opinion that doesn't make sense. In the lore, as in the film they are descrive as being mostly volontiers wanting to defend their lands against Sauron's forces. They have to ambush entire enemy armies with few numbers. They even killed oliphants from harad; Which means they just have a great morale and they will not give up easily.

They should have much higher morale than gondorian archers.
The health should be the same like all other men. They have already low armour, which is already a real pain for them in melee.

Health and morale (and unit sizes) are a work in progress that we didn't get around to fiddling with, but the reason they have lower morale is because they're Tier 2 compared to Tier 3 and the reason they have lower health is because they're Very Light, compared to Very Heavy. I guess since Rangers automatically become a weight lower, I should give them extra health to bring them up to what they'd normally be.
The morale of all units needs to be lowered, because its a bit high.

BTW just for my curiosity, will plate armour represent hardened or unhardened steel?
Because AFAIK it took at least until the end of the 100 year war for plate armour to be effective against English longbows again.
And even then it was fairly uncommon and very expensive.

This would be a possible way of representing the superiority of Dwarfen and Elven armour when comparing them to others.
I would imagine that since Gondor was in fairly well economical contact with the Elves in the early 3rd Age, I´d say their plate should be hardened,
whereas Uruk, Orc plate would be effective in melee, but suck against missiles.
Since Easterling armour has their scales sloped upwards, I´d imagine it to have excellent protective value even if it weren´t hardened.

But again that´s my opinion.

I guess it's kinda do-able, you can make certain types of armour weak against missiles, or have a bonus armour value against missiles.

[♔atthias♔]

I have a question what is the reason the team decided to go whit the fake division between spear=melee and schok cavalry like in attilla?
I mean cavalry is not mean to stay in melee just cycle charging
can that be explained?

[♔atthias♔]

I ran a few tests and find untill now the spear infantry good balanced between gondor and dale
also a bug the mantles of the swan knights clip whit their horses when accerelating could not take a pic of it for it is only visible in the blink of an eye

[Gamersville101]

CRASH

if you try to change map from grand campaign it crashes the new map is fun to play as thanks doom!

[zwadishi]

In regards to the arrows doing big damage close range
Would you be able to just have a new arrow type to fire and modify the range of the arrow? Like change "Fire arrows" to "precision shot" where the arrows only have a range of 50 and more AP damage.

...Although if you make arrows too good against armor why bother with javelins.

[Nikoline]

I just pass the advantages of this mod and talk straight.
But only one advantage I want to notice.Battle balance has back to vanilla version(Total war),really good one.
1.Really weak pike infantry:Fountain guard,dale pike man.
In vanilla total war attila,pike infantry is very strong when no missile enemy attacks.They can hold the line all day and kill 400-500 people in one battle.They can also easily break under arrow rain and flank attack.They are supposed to be OP when facing melee infantry in front of their pikes and weak against bowman or side attakers.
If pike infantry kill as many enemies as a sword infantry do,I don't see the reason why I hire them.

In the teat battle,Fountain Guard do hold the line for a while,but not so long.And they really not doing very well killing Uruks...Gondor swords man hold the line as long as they do but kill much more enemy than Fountain Guard.U can See my point is:Why do I waste more money hire a Elite infantry but with slow movement(Pike infantry),weak against missile and they are no better than the tier 2 units?

Suggestion
1.With Excellent skill and power,Elite pike infantry know how to focus on their enemy's weakness,it provides them:Excellent Armor-Piercing damage or Good Armor-Piercing Damage.
2.Just Buff them,at least better than vanilla and act like an elite tier 3 infantry,and don't forget those tier2 pike infantry and uruk hai.

From the movie,U can cee Uruks prefers swords melee,they do kill some Elves in Two Towers by pikes in formation but mostly use their swords.Their pike infantry will have some ability against charge foes but weak in melee battle,they do more damage when they drop their pikes.
I'll try my best to make is more balance.
BTW,I replied Mr.Jox's message but he hasn't write me back yet(Sadly)So I can only do this by watching my friend's battle test replays.

[Mr.Jox]

I just pass the advantages of this mod and talk straight.
But only one advantage I want to notice.Battle balance has back to vanilla version(Total war),really good one.
1.Really weak pike infantry:Fountain guard,dale pike man.
In vanilla total war attila,pike infantry is very strong when no missile enemy attacks.They can hold the line all day and kill 400-500 people in one battle.They can also easily break under arrow rain and flank attack.They are supposed to be OP when facing melee infantry in front of their pikes and weak against bowman or side attakers.
If pike infantry kill as many enemies as a sword infantry do,I don't see the reason why I hire them.

In the teat battle,Fountain Guard do hold the line for a while,but not so long.And they really not doing very well killing Uruks...Gondor swords man hold the line as long as they do but kill much more enemy than Fountain Guard.U can See my point is:Why do I waste more money hire a Elite infantry but with slow movement(Pike infantry),weak against missile and they are no better than the tier 2 units?

Suggestion
1.With Excellent skill and power,Elite pike infantry know how to focus on their enemy's weakness,it provides them:Excellent Armor-Piercing damage or Good Armor-Piercing Damage.
2.Just Buff them,at least better than vanilla and act like an elite tier 3 infantry,and don't forget those tier2 pike infantry and uruk hai.

From the movie,U can cee Uruks prefers swords melee,they do kill some Elves in Two Towers by pikes in formation but mostly use their swords.Their pike infantry will have some ability against charge foes but weak in melee battle,they do more damage when they drop their pikes.
I'll try my best to make is more balance.
BTW,I replied Mr.Jox's message but he hasn't write me back yet(Sadly)So I can only do this by watching my friend's battle test replays.

Haven't you received a message with link to gdrive storage?

[♔atthias♔]

I find the balance of the sword infantry of gondor and dale suberp very well balanced
good job