Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

  1. #21

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by gathomas88 View Post
    Key word being "professional," there, guy. This is a problem that's being regularly observed even with militia missile units in this mod.

    And even so, if we're talking about Crossbowmen at arms, or something, how exactly do you figure that a gaggle of guys with nothing but a short piece of wood and a short sword/hammer are going to be able to contend with armored foot knights with kite shields and long swords? God forbid a heavy cavalry charge!

    Again... Care to point to any actual examples of such a thing happening in historical reality?
    The janissaries were always at the center of the Ottoman army and they were usually very effective at that. We're talking about archers and gunners. One good example is that they successfully defended against the king and his cavalry at Varna, leading to his death and the rout of the Polish-Hungarian forces. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that a strong charge will be devastating regardless of the unit receiving it (with minor exceptions like pikes and other polearms in formations), I still don't understand why you keep saying that cavalry simply loses.



    Quote Originally Posted by gathomas88 View Post
    First off, what in the Hell do you mean by "bad charges?" You've eluded to that multiple times.

    Unless you guys have some hidden stats at play here (in which case, you really kinda need to let the player actually know about that kind of thing), a charge should just be a freaking charge. Annnd again... Unless those archers are forming an invisible schiltron, or something, it shouldn't really matter where or how that charge lands. The guys with the short pieces of wood and long knives/short swords should die. Quickly.

    I mean... You do you, dude. But there are several threads on this topic throughout this subforum, all with several posters saying the same thing; "the archer units in this game make no damn sense."

    You can stick your head in the sand if you want... But it would appear that this is, in fact, a real issue.
    I've never eluded it. I keep saying that a charge against unformed infantry should aim to hit as many units on the charge itself because of how charges work, namely charge damage comes from the velocity. You also need to give the units enough space to get into full gallop. Maybe cavalry units are too slow and the charge damage isn't high enough because of it, that is possible, but the damage is still significant as it is now. It was effectively tuned down from what it was before because people complained you could mop up every infantry unit (barring exception) on a charge, and part of that power was transferred to charge bonus, and we're still monitoring the effectiveness.

    The posts about archers is what I explained earlier, that basically peoples' expectations are not the correct ones. It is the same, to me, for people to complain about quality archer units being too strong in melee, as it would be if people complained that the roman javelin units (i.e. the legionnaires) are too strong in melee. A soldier's quality is not solely based on him using missile weapons or not.

  2. #22

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Well the solution is simple then isnt it, post some video of the cavalry losing to archers.

    Although to be fair, in my playthrough I also remember having that problem, my french knights charged enemy Toulouse crossbowmen behind the lines and got massacred. They got caught up in a protracted melee with one unit of crossbowmen and then the other crossbow units were able to just shoot them down at will. If I remember correctly I had at least two units of knights.

    Something you guys should maybe look into is giving the horse data base more mass in the Mount table, and increasing the collision damage under the Rules KV table. This will make it so that the cavalry push into and penetrate the enemy formation which leads to them panicking and routing. I'm using this system in my upcoming 11th century mod and it feels much more satisfying than watching the cavalry make contact with an infantry formation and just stop to engage in melee.
    Last edited by Athos187; January 15, 2020 at 04:59 PM.

  3. #23
    Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    871

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Im amazed, how people can behave so insulting, while they`re getting such a great mod for free.

    I`m also really pleased with the mods take on the proffesional Archers.

  4. #24
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    348

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    There is definitely a problem with archer effectiveness vs heavy cav in melee, without a doubt, and a problem with archer resistance to charges. I had some instances of this yesterday, I don't know how to record video on demand so I can't show it and replays in this mod are broken. They crash when loading which makes showing this far more difficult, is there a fix for this? I could easily provide massive amounts of evidence of this happening if replays were working. I definitely found a major crack in the case yesterday and I wish my replay of it was functional.

    Just yesterday I had two instances: cataphractoi charging a Milanese crossbowman from the rear. The cataphractoi killed 0 crossbowmen in the charge and got stuck in melee. After 1 minute or 2 of melee they had killed 2 crossbowmen. I noticed it and withdrew them from melee and threw another cataphractoi at the crossbowmen which was much more effective. A second instance is similar to that described by Athos, I sent 1 cataphractoi after 2 units of crossbowmen. Instead of charging, they slow-trotted into melee range of one of the crossbowmen and did not get their charge off, while the other crossbows stood there shooting away. I pulled the catas through the first unit to attack the second and they lost about 15/80 models doing so. Only the death of the general while this was happening routed both units and saved my horses. It was at this time that I realized a large part of the problem that is causing this.

    Charging AI in Attila is dumb. Ranged units controlled by AI always have skirmish enabled by default and will skirmish away from any unit that approaches them. In theory you would think this makes cavalry charges more effective because the skirmishing unit will be showing its back and rear charges are always stronger than frontal charges. But no, the skirmishing AI is messing up the charging AI. Much of the time while a unit is skirmishing away, a pursuing unit of heavy cavalry doesn't even charge. They just slowly approach the skirmishing unit from the rear, literally trotting up to them until they are in melee range. Then they switch to melee weapons and start hacking away, presumably with no charge bonus. It happens often while in wedge formation, I believe because the speed reduction prevents the cavalry from getting the speed the game requires for them to lock onto the center-mass point of the targeted unit and initiate their charge. This obviously makes heavy cavalry much less effective without their charge. Skirmishing AI is causing charges to simply not work sometimes.

    In my above example with the Milanese crossbowmen, the first charge did nothing because the crossbowmen were skirmishing away, breaking the charge Ai. The second charge was very powerful because the crossbowmen unit was still stationary, stuck in 1v1 animations with the withdrawing first unit. It couldn't skirmish away due to melee contact and was quickly destroyed by the follow up charge.

    The way charges work is thus: every unit on the field has a point somewhere between the individual models of that unit that the game considers the "center" point of the unit. You can see this with archers and artillery, they always pick a certain point in the unit to shoot around because this is where the game considers the "center" point of the unit. If some models of the target unit are in range to be shot at, your archer may still consider itself out of range and try to move up to shoot because they are not engaging single models but rather are looking for that center point the game tells them to shoot at. When a unit is charging, it locks onto the center point of the target unit and rushes forward evenly around that point. This is why if your cavalry unit is spread out, only some of them will make contact with their target when charging and the rest will overshoot the target with no effect. When the target is skirmishing away, it is constantly in motion and that center point is constantly moving around and away. The cavalry seems to have trouble locking onto the center point under these circumstances so it simply never charges, instead it slowtrots into melee and accomplishes nothing. If the target is already stationary because it is engaged in melee or moving toward the cavalry to engage in melee, charges will be much more effective because that center point is not moving away and the charge AI is not getting confused at estimating the distance between itself and that point.

    I hope this makes sense, now that you know what to look for you will definitely notice it when you see it.
    Last edited by Artannis Wolfrunner; January 16, 2020 at 02:55 AM. Reason: brain don't choose words so easy

  5. #25

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by Morifea View Post
    Im amazed, how people can behave so insulting, while they`re getting such a great mod for free.

    I`m also really pleased with the mods take on the proffesional Archers.
    I do agree that some of the posts could be a bit more civil in tone but I think as a modder it is good to hear feedback and discuss these things. People are very passionate about this mod which is a good thing but unfortunately sometimes that makes people get a little emotional.

  6. #26
    Marble Emperor's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Where soul meets body
    Posts
    115

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    I understand what zsimmortal is saying, that professional missile units should be effective in melee, but that’s just it, they should be effective not tanky. In every Nicaea play through I’ve done, I’ve had a terrible time fighting against the sergeant crossbowmen utilized by the Latin Empire. They literally will win against scoutatoi swordsmen in melee and unless you get a rock-solid charge against them with cataphractoi, they’ll even beat them. That is just a little ridiculous to me... I’m not saying they should route instantly, or that they should hands-down lose in melee, but they render melee infantry pointless the way it is currently set up.

  7. #27

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Yeah I totally agree, I think they just need to mess around with some of the other db tables to add some more depth to the combat.

    Right now the basic archers strong everyone else weak mechanic feels a little too straightforward and lacks realistic nuance

  8. #28

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by Marble Emperor View Post
    I understand what zsimmortal is saying, that professional missile units should be effective in melee, but that’s just it, they should be effective not tanky. In every Nicaea play through I’ve done, I’ve had a terrible time fighting against the sergeant crossbowmen utilized by the Latin Empire. They literally will win against scoutatoi swordsmen in melee and unless you get a rock-solid charge against them with cataphractoi, they’ll even beat them. That is just a little ridiculous to me... I’m not saying they should route instantly, or that they should hands-down lose in melee, but they render melee infantry pointless the way it is currently set up.
    Tankiness is based on their armour level. I'd like to see the combat between scoutatoi and sergeant crossbowmen, because scoutatoi are better units statistically off the top of my head.

    With regards to melee infantry being pointless, that's kind of factually accurate situation. Most infantry was made up of soldiers using missile weapons. Polearms were also quite common. A soldier showing up with a sidearm and a shield was grossly underequipped to fight infantry with missile weapons or polearms as a main weapon, but also who carried sidearms.

  9. #29
    Marble Emperor's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Where soul meets body
    Posts
    115

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    I just flat out disagree with that, and I hope I don’t sound disrespectful because I certainly don’t intend to. I love the mod overall, but dedicated professional melee infantry should be good at what they do. The way it is now, it feels like there aren’t really any specialists other than missile infantry, which are for some reason the only really competent soldiers on the field. I don’t think there’s any historical justification for this. And I don’t think that professional ranged troops should be weak, I just have trouble believing that crossbowmen could take a charge from dedicated heavy infantry and not only hold out, but outright win. Or better yet, bog down cavalry so much that they rout some of the heaviest cavalry in the game.

  10. #30

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by Marble Emperor View Post
    I just flat out disagree with that, and I hope I don’t sound disrespectful because I certainly don’t intend to. I love the mod overall, but dedicated professional melee infantry should be good at what they do. The way it is now, it feels like there aren’t really any specialists other than missile infantry, which are for some reason the only really competent soldiers on the field. I don’t think there’s any historical justification for this. And I don’t think that professional ranged troops should be weak, I just have trouble believing that crossbowmen could take a charge from dedicated heavy infantry and not only hold out, but outright win. Or better yet, bog down cavalry so much that they rout some of the heaviest cavalry in the game.
    I don't think disagreeing is disrespectful. Let me address this properly.

    The first thing is that 'dedicated melee infantry' never existed with some few exceptions. When you read material on the medieval period, dedicated infantry from a professional soldier standpoint was a very limited group. Retainers of nobles or other people with military obligations would be the most common ones, and then you'd have mercenaries hired for a campaign. Now from these, most would be soldiers using ranged weapons, like crossbows and bows. The other 'melee' infantry part would be equipped with polearms (like spears, halberds, and so on). Now all these people usually carried sidearms, such as swords, axes, knives, maces, clubs, whatever.

    Examples of people going to war only carrying sidearms, that were career soldiers, was exceptionally rare. The reason being, if you are a professional soldier, being outranged by the enemy equipped with missile weapons and polearms, puts you at a significant disadvantage. One such group I can think of are the italian rotulari or the spanish rodeleros, but their place in armies was short-lived due to its failure to provide a reliable infantry corps. In Europe, most 'native' professional infantry in the period of the mod was the other part of the lance (i.e. not the man-at-arms), so the mounted archers or crossbowmen.

    So, now comes the issue of how to present this in the game. The problem is that those professional troops are the effective top of the line infantry for the most part. The idea that they were any lesser than a professional soldier who shows up with a sword and shield makes no sense to begin with. An archer who has to fight someone charging him will drop his bow, pick up his weapon and shield or polearm and fight, like those English longbowmen deployed alongside the men-at-arms did at Agincourt. There's plenty of ways to adjust balancing with other levers, so we'll see to that where needed, but the idea that some units should just be gimped because they're missile units or that units with sidearms and shields only be buffed to be the kings of infantry despite not being really a thing in our part of the medieval era just seems completely antithetical to history and our attempt to emulate it.

    In a more ridiculous thought process, consider it like having a 'marine' unit with an machine gun, grenades, a pistol and a knife, then a 'marine knife wielder' unit with only a knife, and then making the knife wielder better in melee combat because he's a dedicated knife unit. It doesn't make sense really.

  11. #31
    Teutonic's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    780

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Very nice post Zsimmortal! Us fans of this mod, other Ttal War games, and people interested in the Medieval period, have a few blind spots enforced by games as these, entertainment media, myths established by earnest but wrong academics in the early days of History as science in the 19 century... etc. These blind spots are different for different people.

    Anyway, for people who read your post there will be one less blind spot . Of course, it's not a black or white issue and some of the lower end missile infantry should not be put in the same level as proper soldiers/warriors who are fully competent with both melee and ranged.

  12. #32

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by Artannis Wolfrunner View Post
    I've definitely run into stubborn ranged units that refuse to route but not nearly the frequency you are describing. You are saying every archer behaves this way which I find difficult to believe, sounds like confirmation bias where you only remember the time it did happen because it was so frustrating and ignore the much more numerous times that it didn't since things aren't memorable when they are working as intended. You need to make sure you have enough heavy cav in your army to be able to put 2 cav units on each enemy ranged unit, since they route very quickly when flanked. Most will not require 2 but when you run into one that does you should have a unit nearby to help.

    Not sure why this would affect Mongol AI. The AI just autoresolves against each other with no field battles, and this is in-battle behavior that wouldn't factor into autoresolve.

    Hammer and anvil is extremely strong in 1212 and Attila. Half a dozen units of heavy cav are still enough to wipe an entire stack.
    sry i only can have 20 cav units per army.
    Jokes aside... the guy you responded to is totally right.Its ridiculouss how archers/crossbowman beeing your biggest threat in this game.You allways fight them as one of the last survived armys on the field, most of the time multiple of them.
    They are so tanky, i tend to stop shooting with my own and send them right into melee, because with some support they fight like actual infantry.
    You really cant deny that there is something wrong with missle units, and because of the fact that ai tend to spam these units in their armys is double frustrating.I allready asked a guy to make a mod that limits missile units to 2 per army,
    so frustrating it is actually.
    sry bad english

  13. #33

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by zsimmortal View Post
    There is no screw up here, you just assume the balancing is done in a way, when it clearly isn't. There are no 'John Wick' archers here, only high quality infantry.

    Unlike CA games, we've decided that to properly emulate medieval warfare, we needed to stop using purely arcade combat systems. Does that mean it can't be adjusted? No, absolutely we will tweak it. The main complaint we hear about this, however, is that basically people keep trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, then ask why we didn't make their round peg a square peg.

    For context, in medieval warfare, or in any premodern warfare period really, being an archer or crossbowman didn't make you a worst soldier. If anything, in the medieval period, an archer was typically a very good soldier because archery required a lot of training and a professional soldier who mastered a bow also learned to use other weapons. As such, the idea that because you use a melee infantry and rush it into an archer should mean immediate victory is simply not valid in the mod. The advantage of soldiers with polearms or melee weapons usually comes from their unit being able to use formations, which makes them significantly more effective. Professional archers, crossbowmen or handgunners will likely be quite proficient in melee, and act more as a hybrid infantry unit (ranged/melee) than a pure ranged glass cannon unit.

    With regards to cavalry, the big issues we often see is that people charge just like they would in other CA games and expect the same outcome, when there's many variables to it. In prolonged melee against quality units, cavalry will often lose because they are simply outnumbered (160 v 80) to begin with. Cavalry's main power is always in the heavy charge they have, which will kill a good number of units immediately and the following moments after. If you do not micro your units and do not properly charge, you will likely lose a lot of cavalry. You also don't have to absolutely rear charge or flank with cavalry, since infantry that is not in formation is too light to receive a front charge without taking heavy casualties.

    If you do not enjoy this combat, you're free to stop playing the mod. We did not design it so that we could please everyone, but rather that we could make what we thought was a mod we were happy with internally.
    sry but then i not get the point why bother anyway to build infantry units, because even in formation they get decimated by missiles.And if i have to chase 4 archers units with my last full infantry unit, get nailed in an infight with one of them while beeing pounded from all sides from the rest of them > WHERE IS THE FUN???

    otherwise thanks for the tip.it seems to me i just looked at the mod from the wrong perspective... i gonna try out to build armys exclusively consisting of archers/crossbow man because they seems to be the best available unit (beats cav, equals infantry)

    furthermore, you cant disengage with cavalry because you take massive losses while doing that + if you dissengaged you get shot by in the back loosing even more men.To be honest, the only reason i build cav is to have some quick units.Even if knowing that
    they get decimated in every fight to about 8-15 men, making them useless for the next 5 rounds (if i am lucky enough to be in own territory)
    Last edited by Leonardo; January 31, 2020 at 09:02 AM. Reason: Posts merged.

  14. #34

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by zsimmortal View Post
    I don't think disagreeing is disrespectful. Let me address this properly.

    The first thing is that 'dedicated melee infantry' never existed with some few exceptions. When you read material on the medieval period, dedicated infantry from a professional soldier standpoint was a very limited group. Retainers of nobles or other people with military obligations would be the most common ones, and then you'd have mercenaries hired for a campaign. Now from these, most would be soldiers using ranged weapons, like crossbows and bows. The other 'melee' infantry part would be equipped with polearms (like spears, halberds, and so on). Now all these people usually carried sidearms, such as swords, axes, knives, maces, clubs, whatever.

    Examples of people going to war only carrying sidearms, that were career soldiers, was exceptionally rare. The reason being, if you are a professional soldier, being outranged by the enemy equipped with missile weapons and polearms, puts you at a significant disadvantage. One such group I can think of are the italian rotulari or the spanish rodeleros, but their place in armies was short-lived due to its failure to provide a reliable infantry corps. In Europe, most 'native' professional infantry in the period of the mod was the other part of the lance (i.e. not the man-at-arms), so the mounted archers or crossbowmen.

    So, now comes the issue of how to present this in the game. The problem is that those professional troops are the effective top of the line infantry for the most part. The idea that they were any lesser than a professional soldier who shows up with a sword and shield makes no sense to begin with. An archer who has to fight someone charging him will drop his bow, pick up his weapon and shield or polearm and fight, like those English longbowmen deployed alongside the men-at-arms did at Agincourt. There's plenty of ways to adjust balancing with other levers, so we'll see to that where needed, but the idea that some units should just be gimped because they're missile units or that units with sidearms and shields only be buffed to be the kings of infantry despite not being really a thing in our part of the medieval era just seems completely antithetical to history and our attempt to emulate it.

    In a more ridiculous thought process, consider it like having a 'marine' unit with an machine gun, grenades, a pistol and a knife, then a 'marine knife wielder' unit with only a knife, and then making the knife wielder better in melee combat because he's a dedicated knife unit. It doesn't make sense really.
    Great post, I agree with the historical view point and that if you guys play around with some of the db tables I've mentioned you should be able to make it all feel a bit more natural. Good luck and I'm looking forward to seeing how you guys change things!

  15. #35

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Quote Originally Posted by zsimmortal View Post
    The first thing is that 'dedicated melee infantry' never existed with some few exceptions. When you read material on the medieval period, dedicated infantry from a professional soldier standpoint was a very limited group. Retainers of nobles or other people with military obligations would be the most common ones, and then you'd have mercenaries hired for a campaign. Now from these, most would be soldiers using ranged weapons, like crossbows and bows. The other 'melee' infantry part would be equipped with polearms (like spears, halberds, and so on). Now all these people usually carried sidearms, such as swords, axes, knives, maces, clubs, whatever.

    Examples of people going to war only carrying sidearms, that were career soldiers, was exceptionally rare. The reason being, if you are a professional soldier, being outranged by the enemy equipped with missile weapons and polearms, puts you at a significant disadvantage. One such group I can think of are the italian rotulari or the spanish rodeleros, but their place in armies was short-lived due to its failure to provide a reliable infantry corps. In Europe, most 'native' professional infantry in the period of the mod was the other part of the lance (i.e. not the man-at-arms), so the mounted archers or crossbowmen.

    So, now comes the issue of how to present this in the game. The problem is that those professional troops are the effective top of the line infantry for the most part. The idea that they were any lesser than a professional soldier who shows up with a sword and shield makes no sense to begin with. An archer who has to fight someone charging him will drop his bow, pick up his weapon and shield or polearm and fight, like those English longbowmen deployed alongside the men-at-arms did at Agincourt. There's plenty of ways to adjust balancing with other levers, so we'll see to that where needed, but the idea that some units should just be gimped because they're missile units or that units with sidearms and shields only be buffed to be the kings of infantry despite not being really a thing in our part of the medieval era just seems completely antithetical to history and our attempt to emulate it.

    In a more ridiculous thought process, consider it like having a 'marine' unit with an machine gun, grenades, a pistol and a knife, then a 'marine knife wielder' unit with only a knife, and then making the knife wielder better in melee combat because he's a dedicated knife unit. It doesn't make sense really.
    That is all true, but if that is the mod's design philosophy, then the unit rosters themselves are not representative of it, as they are distributed in very much the same way as in any TW game. If the melee roster was entirely two-handed polearms and spear-and-shield wielders, and starting army compositions would have a clear archer bias, it wouldn't be as surprising for new players to find out the archers are the bulk infantry here.

  16. #36
    Teutonic's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    780

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    Indeed, the reality of warfare throughout the actual Medieval period and gameplay in the video game are not one and the same. And if quality archers are this hardy, then heavy cavalry should be less vulnerable and much more capable in melee (war horses were the most dangerous thing on the battlefield in the melee), plate armour should make much more difference, etc.

    Also, to add to ZSimmortal's post, I think there were plenty of fighting men who usually went about their "work" mainly with sidearm and a shield, or in later Middle Age with a two armed weapon. The majority of stuff fighting men did wasn't fighting in big battles or campaigns. But! in confrontations involving lagre numbers of infantry- pitched battles, and even sieges, these troops were not very useful, compared to other types. Or, in the later period, men-at-arms would dismount and fight as infantry. So given the difficulty with logistics and money in maintaining large number of troops commanders didn't have the luxury of having "side arm armed infantry" along for pitched battles.
    And pitched battles is what Total War is about- in the context of this conversation, of course. There's diplomacy etc.

  17. #37
    Bran Mac Born's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    I have addressed these issues in my Battle Ai submod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil...44&searchtext=

  18. #38

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    First of all thanks for this great mod, its obvious just after minutes of playing just how much work was put into this. I think there is one thing being overlooked in the thread and that is Gameplay. Personally i agree with both sides, kind of. I think there were some archers units in medieval era who were very capable, and could withstand an attack from infantry. but not all. i had a fight against Trebizond as Sultanate of Rum and their archers cut my medium cavalry to pieces after absorbing a massive charge. now i dont know if this was realistic, personally i dont but you guys surely researched this subject alot more than me so i respect that. but i think Gameplay should also be considered as this is a game. and when balanced this way i think players are alot less likely to use certain units (and that is a shame because every unit in this mod is just gorgeous) because alot of archer units just do it all.

  19. #39

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    and i cycle charged with no success as the archers were just not losing alot of men, and when pulling away my cavalry would just melt away

  20. #40
    Condottiere SOG's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,262

    Default Re: A Bone to Pick with Balancing

    A big reason for the "EPIC FAIL" of light and medium cavalry is the lack of a secondary arm. Lances(spears) are just as luggy and slow on horseback as they are on foot. It's not a good look when cavaly is routed by medium, or even light infantry...PLEASE FIX. Lances rarely survived collision in the first place. I am surprised in this mod that even when dismounted...scouts and sergeants cannot go immediately to the axe, mace or sword.

    In fact, a lot of units lack secondary weapons...and personally it bugs me deeply as I favor this mod over all others. If these issues are not fixed, I will eventually get to what I regard as a serious eye-sore and fix it myself. I am patient. Pikemen will not keep using a pike in close melee, for example.

    Which brings me to another point...the redundancy of units. In Medieval 2 Total War...the necessity for dismounted units was there because CA failed to implement a dismount feature for cavalry units...which was rectified as early as Empire Total War...sooooo…I find it redundant to have a dismounted variety of knights and sergeants and other cavalry...because we have a dismount feature. Which likely led to the reason light and medium mounted cavalry are so impotent in battle as they only have lances. BIG OOF !!

    awesome Mod .!! Love it and only wish to see it improve...since CA continues to deny us a Medieval 3 and Empire 2. For whatever illogical reason. However, Attila will suffice to make both Medieval and Early modern mods.

    Good day to all !
    Last edited by Condottiere SOG; February 03, 2020 at 01:09 PM. Reason: typos
    Erasmo
    Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601)
    System Manufacturer: ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
    System Model: G73Sw
    Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.0GHz
    Memory: 12288MB RAM
    Available OS Memory: 12266MB RAM
    Page File: 2634MB used, 21881MB available
    Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 11
    DX Setup Parameters: Not found
    User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
    System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
    DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
    DxDiag Version: 6.01.7601.17514 32bit Unicode

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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