Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Tactical and realistic stat approach

  1. #1

    Icon4 Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Hey so I have been able to come up with a new formula for working on unit stats that I would like to introduce to the modding community. I think if all mods used this formula the game could play much much more better and be more fun for everyone as it would significaly increase the strategy and tactics players need to put in to win battles. (However its not like that there are that many way how to do that with total war games)

    Generaly what all mods need and especialy eb is statistical encouragement of flanking while decreasing the damage units can take upfront significaly for all line units. Especialy units such as hoplites should have this driven to the maximum, while units as skrimishers should take loses from any direction. You can do this by instead of giving units armor because they wear armor you give them stat points for how they should play like (meaning that even when unit has no shield but I want that units to take little damage upfront but be absolutely defenseless when flanked, I give that unit shield stats)
    This could be futher encouraged by traits (I know rome had stabbing trait, meaning unit dealt more damage from back attacks, dont know if its in med2)

    Basicly what you want to do is make units be able to hold line while become really vulnerable from behind depending on the unit type (the more organized the unit is the more capable should the units be at holding line without taking any loses)

    This would also signifacaly increase the strenght of elite units as their better fighting abilities would shine in fights versus weaker units (they wouldnt take any damage while slowly melting away the enemy thanks to their superior stats, which is how it went on real battlefield in most cases) While still being vulnurable from behind, where their stat difference would no longer matter that much

    Anyway I am just putting this out there for players and modders to read as I hope to see someone really trying this approach out as it would make any mod much more tactical and fun

  2. #2
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    The battle engine in RTW was better than the one in M2TW. Cohesion and charging worked better, pikemen could have secondary weapons that functioned, and you could set lethality on an individual unit basis.

    Don't assume things that were present in RTW are also present in M2TW without actually verifying it.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The battle engine in RTW was better than the one in M2TW. Cohesion and charging worked better, pikemen could have secondary weapons that functioned, and you could set lethality on an individual unit basis.

    Don't assume things that were present in RTW are also present in M2TW without actually verifying it.
    woah there cowboy

  4. #4

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    It's a good point though, Med2 requires, shall we say, workarounds to make some units function at all, and this makes it hard to standardise things.

    Pikemen are a notorious issue: their secondary weapons always deploy too soon, so removing them totally is the only way to get pike formations working at all - but then you can't break the formation by flanking it because it just automatically becomes a pike square. So various workarounds regarding cohesion and mass and animations and movement speed have to be put in place to make pikemen function basically at all, and getting them to be extra vulnerable to flanking the way they are in Rome1 is kind of (afaik) impossible - and if you give them defensive/offensive stats in line with other units they become massively overpowered because they never drop those pikes. It's a delicate, fragile mess, and that kind of goes for the whole battle engine.

    What you're proposing, OP, is imo already represented fairly well by the morale system - frontal grinds take ages, flank or rear charges will wreck face.

  5. #5
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex Modding Staff Director

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,327

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    He may have a point, the calculations that take place in the AI might factor in the direction of the best way to attack.


    Although knowing CA, they may not have even bothered doing something like that. Battle AI isn't something they really cared about sadly.
    Contributor in The AI Workshop
    AI/Game Mechanics Developer for Europa Barbaroum II
    Developer of The Northern Crusades
    Retired Lead Developer for Classical Age Total War
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance/MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  6. #6
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    I'm not completely sure this is the right thread to ask in but I have a question about the unit statistics in general which somewhat relates to the opening post. At least it's about unit stats.

    The EB II team did not use the kind of approach suggested in the first post. But how ARE the unit stats calculated? Do you have a formula or guidelines that you would like to share?

    I started working on a submod to increase the number of soldiers in the units and went through the EDU raising costs by the same factor and reflected on some curious things. Javelin damage is one. Gauls have rather common stats, about 7-12 damage mostly. German mercenaries outshine them with 13. But lusitanians dwarf them all with 22, both for elite and medium level infantry. Hercules and his unknown twin brothers surely dwell in iberia! Also surprising is the charge damage of cataphracts, going up to 30(!) and beyond maybe. With somewhat comparable mass values for the mount, you usually see the heaviest chargers (heaviest late medieval braced couched lance) having 16-17 for charge value in mods. This is not intended as a complaint, I can easily fix it to my own liking, but I am very curious about the reasoning and calculation behind it all.

  7. #7
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    The EDU isn't the only thing that matters as far as missiles go, the descr_projectiles is at least as, if not more important.

    Unit stats are based on the equipment present and the status of the unit. So an overhand spear is 5/3 in the hands of a levy unit, 7/4 for a semi-professional and 8/4 for a professional and 11/6 for an elite.

  8. #8
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Am I to understand from your answer that there is some sort of template, then, with weapon numbers and wielder skill numbers and so on to combine?

  9. #9
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by Maltacus View Post
    Am I to understand from your answer that there is some sort of template, then, with weapon numbers and wielder skill numbers and so on to combine?
    Yes. Same goes with defence values; armour and shield value are based on an average of the equipment present, defensive skill on the status of the unit.

  10. #10
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    And would you consider sharing that template/documentation?

  11. #11
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by Maltacus View Post
    And would you consider sharing that template/documentation?
    It isn't documented; you can see it in the EDU by comparing and contrasting units. We use existing units as a check and balance for statting up new ones.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    It isn't documented; you can see it in the EDU by comparing and contrasting units. We use existing units as a check and balance for statting up new ones.
    Didn't you at some point use, or consider using, Aradan's EDUMatic spreadsheet? Or was that some other M2 mod?

  13. #13
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Didn't you at some point use, or consider using, Aradan's EDUMatic spreadsheet? Or was that some other M2 mod?
    Before my time, someone attempted it. Looks like it was given up.

  14. #14
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    It isn't documented; you can see it in the EDU by comparing and contrasting units.
    This is precisely what I have a hard time seeing and following. I made a small comparison between javelin-armed units (because I like javelineers a lot) between a sample of the gauls, germanic and hellenistic javelineers appearing first in the respective section in the EDU. To me it seems that numbers have generally climbed up (or down) when going from faction to facion. I can kind of see the pattern that units with the javelin projectile has lower damage, followed by the longche, akon and pilum and so on. But that in itself does of course not answer why a specific unit is assigned a specific javelin kind in the EDU.

    Looking closer at my comparative study it would seem the gallic units are the mods most incompetent javelineers. The light riders throw weaker and shorter than the germanic counterparts. Overall the gauls may have a slight range advantage but hardly enough to explain the difference in attack. The most obvious difference is to the hellenistic units though. Most have an attack that is about twice that of the gauls and I frankly don't understand why. They do not throw at closer range - in fact they have a general range advantage. Looking at the models, the hellene troops do not have particularly larger javelins either, apart from the pilum. Instead, the elite peltasts do have quite small javelins. And while the amentum (a sort of throwing sling on a javelin that stabilizes its flight) accounts for some increased range and accuracy it does not explain all the differences in stats, and double damage is in any case a lot to expect from that handy little invention. Besides that, even normal javelins have greater range among the hellenes.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    ; COMMENTS Hatjaknehtoz (Chatti Youths)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 60, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Frisadruhtiz
    stat_pri 4, 0, javelin, 60, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Ridanz (Germanic Light Cavalry)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 50, 3, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Late Ridanz (Late Germanic Light Cavalry)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 50, 3, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Langabardo Halithoz (Lombard Warriors)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 55, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Dugunthiz Early (Germanic Veteran Spearman)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 55, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Dugunthiz Late (Late Germanic Veteran Spearman)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 55, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Gaizafulkan Frijato Early (Germanic Levy Spearmen)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Gaizafulkan Frijato Late (Late Germanic Levy Spearmen)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Skathinawiskaniz Harjoz (Early Scandinavian Spearmen)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Jugunthiz (Germanic Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 4, 0, javelin, 60, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1



    ; COMMENTS Eporeda Akus (West Celt Light Cavalry)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 55, 5, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Epokorion (Mercenary West Celt Light Cavalry)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 55, 5, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Arkoi (Gallic Nobles)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 65, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Nedes Nesamoi (Celtic Retainers)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 65, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Nedes Nesamoi (Mercenary Celtic Retainers)
    stat_pri 9, 0, javelin, 65, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Batoroi (Gallic Swordsmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Mercenary Batoroi (Mercenary Celtic Swordsmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Kingetoi Uisuparanon (Celtic Spearmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Mercenary Kingetoi Uisuparanon (Mercenary Celtic Spearmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Gargokladioi (Celtic Swordsmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Koxsalotoi (Celtic Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 60, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Salduria (Aquitanii Nobles)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 65, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Karroi (Celtic Chariot)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 65, 15, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1



    ; COMMENTS Makedones Peltastai (Hellenistic Assault Infantry)
    stat_pri 16, 0, akon, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Machairophoroi (Hellenistic Swordsmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Thureophoroi (Hellenistic Medium Spearmen)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Hemithorakitai Peltophoroi (Hellenistic Medium Infantry)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 65, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Euzonoi (Hellenistic Medium Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 16, 0, akon, 70, 5, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Akontistai (Hellenistic Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 13, 0, akon, 70, 5, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Kretikoi Peltastai (Kretan Infantry)
    stat_pri 16, 0, akon, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Hyperaspistai (Hellenistic Champions)
    stat_pri 12, 0, longche, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Promachoi (Southern Anatolian Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 16, 0, akon, 70, 5, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Bosporitai Logades (Bosporan Elite Skirmishers)
    stat_pri 20, 0, pilum, 60, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Peltastai Logades (Hellenistic Elite Infantry)
    stat_pri 16, 0, akon, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

    ; COMMENTS Vratyakshatriya Tomarabharas (Indo-Greek Medium Infantry)
    stat_pri 7, 0, javelin, 70, 2, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1

  15. #15
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,413

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    You're focusing on one value, ignoring all the other factors. The Germanic units with an attack value of 12 are using framea - heavier javelins - which is why the projectile is a longche, not a javelin in the stat line. The infantry are also veterans, not regular units. 12 is the standard value for longche-style heavier javelins.

    7 is the attack value for a regular javelin without amentum/ankyle. There's no evidence we've found for the Celts to use it. By contrast it was widely in use by the Greeks.

    The Bosporan Logades are using a very heavy barbed javelin, which isn't comparable to anything else used by any of the other units you've quoted.

    4 is the value for fire-hardened javelins. 13 or 16 is the value for javelins with amentum/ankyle.

    Once again, the attack value alone isn't the whole story, you need to compare javelin/akon/longche/pilum/soliferrum in the descr_projectiles as well.

  16. #16
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    I am not focusing on only one value. I am trying to understand chiefly one value, yes, and how it relates to other things. I have raised the question of how the attack value relates to range and to what javelins the unit model is actually carrying. Are you saying that there are stat differences in descr_projectile that evens the differences? Which ones? Accuracy is similar it would seem, 0.035. The radius is different but that doesn't make much difference unless a projectile does area damage, right?

    I am trying to see those other factors by comparing and contrasting units in the EDU as you said before, but I can't see the reasoning behind some of those contrasts.

    Levied germanic spearmen throw javelins with an attack of 9 at a range of 60. The medium level (between levies and nobled) gauls throw the same distance but only with 7 attack. Why is that then? If those germanic levies also use a larger javelin they would surely not be able to throw as far. And the hellenistic infantry with the projectile type javelin - without amentum then - have a range of 70, longer than even the gaul elite.

    And what about the hellenistic peltasts? Some have javelins of "standard" size but some carry short and thin twigs compared to the rest when you look at them. How can those peltasts deal the kind of damage they do with such a small and light weapon?

    Also, another curiosity are the Gaisatoi. Not only do they manage to scrape together an armor value of 2 (twice that of those who actually wear clothes) with only a few of them having helmets, they also have a longche that they throw at a range of 65. But their javelins are of identical size to the regular gaul units who have been coded with javelin instead. That does not make sense to me.

    The Bosporan Logades have javelins heavy enough to have an attack of 20. Fine. A very heavy, large and quality made javelin, so the damage number is understandably very high. But what puzzles me is the range. The range is 60 even with a weapon that is large enough to (in combination with the other factors i mentioned) inflict such massive damage. That is what I can't understand, how the combination of such high damage and range is possible in that and several other cases.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Wouldn't the use of an amentum cause a slightly lower rate of fire, seeing as you need to fix the thing before throwing (particularly if you use just one, as opposed to one for each javelin)?


    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Before my time, someone attempted it. Looks like it was given up.
    I see. Kind of a pity though, I was looking forward to hearing about your experiences with that system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maltacus View Post
    But their javelins are of identical size to the regular gaul units who have been coded with javelin instead. That does not make sense to me.
    That might just be a model issue, though.

  18. #18
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    That might just be a model issue, though.
    Hm, how can it be "just" a model issue? I mean, as long as the model depict a certain armament the statistics must be based on that very same gear. Then. once you've had the time to correct the model in accordance with your plan, the stats should be changed accordingly.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Tactical and realistic stat approach

    Quote Originally Posted by Maltacus View Post
    Hm, how can it be "just" a model issue? I mean, as long as the model depict a certain armament the statistics must be based on that very same gear. Then. once you've had the time to correct the model in accordance with your plan, the stats should be changed accordingly.
    My understanding is that the stats are based on the gear that the unit has, according to the research team. It's theoretically possible that a model (given how challenging modelling is) hasn't been updated or something like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •