Unit stats and performance

[Ampe211]

Hi all,
Im posting this thread because i noticed that at least in some cases, unit performance doesn’t reflect their statistics when pitted against other units. For example, i noticed that celtic swordsmen, such as batoroi or adskoros tend to lose decisively against standard hoplites (Dorekim Afriqim, Turm per Rasna etc.) despite their statistics (10 melee atk 18 def vs 8 melee atk 18 def) telling us otherwise. I am sure there are important factors deciding how a unit fares against another other than attack and defense, but since im not too familiar with EDU and with the way combat works in medieval 2 in general, i would like someone to educate me on this matter. Just to be clear , this thread is not about why certain types of units perform well or not so well, im simply trying to find a way to accurately compare units to each other.

[QuintusSertorius]

It isn't just about stats; WYSIWYG applies to the animation (and movement speed is animation speed), reach matters (bounding spheres) as does fatigue.

[Ampe211]

Oh, i see. I have a couple of questions though. What exactly is WYSIWYG? The movement speed which you are referring to is the one in the EDU? Although i find the current balance of units perfect, i would still be interested in seeing these values (reach for example), which files can they be found?. Thanks in advance.

[QuintusSertorius]

What You See Is What You Get - the animations you see in battle are reflected by the underlying mechanics.

move_speed_mod is the movement speed. It also applies to attack animations.

Reach I have no idea, I think it's calculated in the background by the battle engine, you can't modify it without modifying the unit model, then updating the bounding sphere.

[Ampe211]

Thanks. So upon giving these statistics to units these other parameters must have been taken into consideration, therefore the difference between for example adskoros and hoplites doesnt reflect the intention of making the former more powerful.

[eyelurker]

Hoplite have more compact formation and heavier armor than most infantry which might contribute to their victory despite similiar stats.

I wonder if hoplite fight against roman legionnary or gallic noble which have superior stats but less rigid formation than hoplites and see how they fare?

[QuintusSertorius]

The compactness means more men can get at the less dense unit at once (again because what you see on screen is what is happening in the game engine as well).

[Ampe211]

It actually makes sense, and it also makes the best hoplite units probably the most effective infantry force in the game, the Carthagian sacred band unit is just as powerful (or even more so) as the arkoi, based on my test battles.

[Shoebopp]

There's also the shield factor. A soldier's shield value counts twice if he is attacked from the front. In a "fair" frontal engagement, the Classical Hoplite, who already has a bigger shield value (6) than the Gallic Swordsman (5), now has an effective shield value of 12 compared to the Gallic Swordman's 10. Combined with the previously mentioned factors (spacing, armor, fatigue), the hoplites have the upper hand.

Some more performance mechanics are the fact that when attacked from behind, a unit only benefits from its armor. So in an "unfair" rear-attack scenario, the Classical Hoplite will have a total defense of 7 compared to the Gallic Swordsman's 3.

[Shoebopp]

This is why I think that Hellenistic Assault Infantry, West Anatolian Elite Infantry and Cretan Infantry with their shield values of 4 are subpar. They look fancy and have cool historical basis, but their puny shields mean they disappoint in melee and suffer under missile fire. Southern Anatolian Skirmishers are even worse, with their shield value of 3. Don't let their total combat stats of 10/15 fool you, these guys aren't even in the same league as Thracian Peltasts

[Ampe211]

Also, there is a number at the end of the stat_pri line in the EDU. I dont know what that number stands for, but it is 0.2 for hoplites and 0.3 for swordsmen, so i suspect that it has something to do with unit density. I noticed that if i change this number to 0.3 for the hoplites, and 0.2 for the swordsmen, the hoplites lose by a huge margin.

[Ampe211]

It is actually at the end of the “soldier” line, sorry, cant edit my posts.

[QuintusSertorius]

Also, there is a number at the end of the stat_pri line in the EDU. I dont know what that number stands for, but it is 0.2 for hoplites and 0.3 for swordsmen, so i suspect that it has something to do with unit density. I noticed that if i change this number to 0.3 for the hoplites, and 0.2 for the swordsmen, the hoplites lose by a huge margin.

; soldier       Name of the soldier model to use (from descr_models_battle.txt)
;               followed by the number of ordinary soldiers in the unit
;               followed by the number of extras (pigs dogs, elephants, chariots artillery pieces etc attached to the unit)
;               followed by the collision mass of the men. 1.0 is normal. [Only applies to infantry]
;               followed by the unit radius (default=0.4 in RTW). [Only applies to infantry]
;               followed by the unit height (default=1.7). [Only applies to infantry]

[Ampe211]

So it tells us how much space a soldier model needs for fighting. Is it intentional that the loose formation for Principes and Hastati are actually tighter than the default formation?