[Sub Mod] [WIP] DAC Unreal Mod

[The Great Khan of Rome]

DAC UNREAL Mod

UNREAL is a balancing mod series that radically changes how combat feels. It tries to strike a balance between arcadey style combat and tactical warfare. The mod has gone through several iterations, the first one was fairly basic. As of now, it more along the lines of EU4 and Paradox games with many % modifiers; flat buffs are rare and are quite powerful as a result. REDACTED! This mod series is now going back to basics with some of the features being rolled in. This is now legacy version. This still a WIP in progress at the moment.

Features:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- AP is no longer a factor. The only AP weapons are magic.
- Multiple HP for mounts (you have to kill the mount and rider). Also applies to heavily armored units (1 HP per 15 armour)
- Weapon damage (stat_pri and stat_sec) is based on morale and morale type (low, normal, etc), as well as race (for fantasy), culture and faction.
- Charge bonus is based on weapon, it's primacy, the mount and the mass of the unit (every 1 unit mass equals +1 charge bonus) as well as race, culture and faction.
- Armour is now of more importance; now longer will peasant archers (unless they happen to be elves or an archer focused faction), will present a threat to heavily armoured units. What will, however, is gunpowder and crossbows.
- Unit size is based on many factors. Their armour value, how much morale value the unit has, what it's morale type, how they're trained, what faction, culture, or race the unit is a part of.
- Ranged missiles now have different projectiles for morale, race, and culture. These effect accuracy.
- Unit speed (move_speed_mod) is affected by mass, race, culture, and faction.
- Def skill is simply morale value and the morale type, as well as race, culture and faction.

Weapon stats table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Beta V0.6 DL Link: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/down...o=file&id=4502

[Grathus]

I'm excited.
I can't wait for the beta version for DaC.
Your mod for EB2 is great also.

[Grathus]

The Great Khan of Rome if may I ask how is work going?

[The Great Khan of Rome]

Slowly. I just implemented ammo counts and how it relates to damage.

[Grathus]

I Just have played some battles on first beta version.
I like how battles looks now but i want to ask if You plan to add "no attack delays" in future and a faster way of killing by removing long killing style in combat battles?

[UncleBilbo]

The dwarves in this mod have crazy strong armour. This leads me to, when playing with orcs or other trash, to spamming balistas. I am talking about 10 units on balistas in an army. Attack the dwarven army, watch as they line up in neat rows and await your next move, then just unload. By the time they get close all ballistas are just ordered to retreat. This was the way I beat the Blue Mountain saviour-stack with old orc-based Angmar.

This of course is very silly. It's not historical or realistic or lore-accurate. Siege weapons in general weren't built in towns and logged around on wheels alongside soldiers. They were constructed in a similar fashion to how the rams and the siege towers are made - at the siege site often using wood chopped down from nearby forests for the job. They didn't have wheels either since firing a catapult would quickly break the wheels it's standing on. Strictly speaking in the lore there were no guns or crossbows or ballistas at all.

Armour is an interesting mechanic in general because realistically it's not as useful in melee as it is against incoming missile fire. The greatest longbows could barely pierce steel plate at point blank range. Crossbows couldn't either unless they were very large and required about a minute to reload but even the large ones were worthless at long ranges. Because of how short the bow and arrow are crossbows have a really short range making them a very spealised weapon ill suited for many battles. In melee, however, armour is not as impactful. Even a fully armoured oponnent can be grappled to the ground and stabbed in any exposed area with a dagger. Alternatively a hit from a big club over the head is going to hurt no matter how large your helmet is. It's interesting seeing various mechanics put into play though without armour piercing weapons and with the addition of more hit points to me it seems armour becomes an even more terryfing presence on the battlefield than it already is.

[Arthillidan]

Strictly speaking in the lore there were no guns or crossbows or ballistas at all.

Armour is an interesting mechanic in general because realistically it's not as useful in melee as it is against incoming missile fire. The greatest longbows could barely pierce steel plate at point blank range. Crossbows couldn't either unless they were very large and required about a minute to reload but even the large ones were worthless at long ranges. Because of how short the bow and arrow are crossbows have a really short range making them a very spealised weapon ill suited for many battles. In melee, however, armour is not as impactful. Even a fully armoured oponnent can be grappled to the ground and stabbed in any exposed area with a dagger. Alternatively a hit from a big club over the head is going to hurt no matter how large your helmet is. It's interesting seeing various mechanics put into play though without armour piercing weapons and with the addition of more hit points to me it seems armour becomes an even more terryfing presence on the battlefield than it already is.

I don´t remember what was written in the books here, but in the movies Isengard used Ballistae at the battle of helms deep to raise ladders. It makes a lot of sense for both catapults and ballistae to exist in the setting even if they aren´t actually mentioned in the books. You are right that siege weapons were historically only used in siege battles however, both defensively and offensively.

Armor is really effective in both melee and from a distance. The greatest longbows CANNOT pierce plate armor at any range, this has been tested. Possibly if the plate was low quality but generally not. Swords (let´s say long swords because sword is a very broad term) are useless against plate or even mail, which is why historically it was only carried as a backup weapon by mounted knights with lances, and half swording techniques were used against armor which basically meant using the sword as a club, making it inferior to weapons specialized against metal armor such as poleaxes and maces. grappling an armored knight to the ground and stabbing him is extremelyl difficult unless both of you are armored. If you are unarmored you are probably dead in a battle against an armored knight unless you are far more skilled. Even if you use bashing weapons, the armor offers a lot of protection and subduing a dude in plate armor with a club is easier said and done.

Crossbows don´t have less range than bows. That´s a myth perpetuated by games and movies. IRL the range of a weapon was not measured in how far an arrow could go but in how far it could go and still do damage. In both regards, what matters is how much kinetic energy the projectiles have when fired and how aerodynamic the projectiles are. kinetic energy is simply measured in the power of the weapon. The most powerful crossbows will be more powerful than bows, and the projectile differences are probably not large enough to matter. What matters is that neither weapon was used at particularly long ranges firing in arcs. They were used head on and point blank and retreated behind infantry just before the enemy closed up on them.

The difference between crossbows and bows have little to do with in what situations they are more useful but more so with the difficulty of training and maintaining a force of archers. Bows have a higher rate of fire which is very advantageous, but learning how to operate a crossbow is far easier and requires much less strength than a warbow. England used bows with success in the hundred years war and they could do so because they had an archery tradition and could muster men who had trained all their lives to fire warbows. France could not copy them because it would take many years to train those archers. Think numenorian steelbows which the unit card says can only be drawn by the very strongest men. That´s historical warbows.