A question about units in M2TW mods

[R.P. Gryphus]

I always struggle to figure out what is the best stats balance for my units. Some mods have unit attack stat around 15, others around 2 or 3, some even higher than 20. Same for their defense stats. In your experience with all the mods available, which one feel the more reasonable to you and why? I'm just shopping for a new experience and I'd like to know from this community what kind of stats you prefer to play with when it comes to units. For me, I am playing Rise of Three Kingdoms and I feel that my units just die too quickly, somehow. Even when my more professionnal units fight against peasant, there is just too many of them dying and it feels wrong somehow. I think my issue is mostly to find a practical way to differenciate low tier unit, mid tier and high tier unit from one another, but so far in the mod I am playing, a high tier unit will still suffer great casualties if fighting a lower tier. They will win, for sure, but at a higher cost than it should be.

[AnthoniusII]

Well that depend of each moddinng team prospective about what "ballance" is. Some still use paper stone scissors way of adding stats. The perameters that determine the number that each mod uses has to do with the prospective of how extensive the difference in power each unit will be in game. For example if a mod uses damage point scale 1-10 the varuetion between the power of units is limited. If a mod uses number from 1 -20 the varietion become HUGE. Such extrensive varietion can be done with the separationof each type of weapons to sub categories.
An example: TGC mod uses 6 types of arrows. From close to useless to extreme peircing and huge range steppe ones. That allows the mod to adupt the statistics of archers per faction/culture and per each unit separatly mre easy.
An extreme example. Lombard archers have knives as secondary weapon with value close to 2. They have no armor expet their clothing but their bows have great range and are leathal against armored units.
On the opposite side The Roman (byzantine) Thematic archers have short range and with low danage arrows simple bows. That is because of historical issues. But Those guys begin with a helmet a bucler and an axe that is deadly to heaviloy armored units on close combat. That forces the player to have deep knowlege of his/her units real limitations. Armors come 2nd in statistic. Because no one wants imortal units. So after a mod desides the variety of damage limits adupts a climax of armors depend of the status of each unit. Armors though have a secret weakness. In the EDU txt were units are having their stats armors can be damaged by a variety of factors such different weapons. So a spear holding unit has a advandage over a cavalry unit and how good in that role can it be depends of how each mod desides to be. There is no wrong when high tier units can be killed by peasantry if that unit has the right weapon.
An other example: In TGC we have many "cataphract" style units with great power when charging. The prpblem is that if they will be stacked inside enemy lines mot only spearmen but hamble javelinemen can killthem and that is realism. Because a javelin in short range has more power than an arrow!

[Artorath]

From how I've seen the combat explained, the absolute value is noise, comparative ratios are what matter: the game rolls random number up to attack value, random number up to defense value, compares them, unit lives/dies.
For a unit to be durable against an attacker requires defense at least ~2X the other unit's attack value. At an even 1:1 ratio every attack will be a coin flip, so even if the elite gets guaranteed kills it can be 2v1d from the front by militia. It may help to think of them as low-mid-high for attack and defense separately, rather than assessing them as low-mid-high generally. Elites with mid-tier defense fighting militia with mid-tier attack is giving the militia their optimal use case.
Personal balance preference for me depends on how devastating cavalry (particularly mount mass, not just visible stats) and archers/walls are. If upper attack range is ~0.5X upper defense and cavalry aren't nerfed, unit matching infantry is pointless and flanking/maneuvering/firing is everything. Usually 0.8-1.0X is a good place.

[R.P. Gryphus]

Thank you both for your input, I will work on balancing my unit stats with what you have told me until I'm satisfied. But I'd like to know, if you had to use the unit stats of one mod for all your other mods you like to play, what mod would it be?

[AnthoniusII]

Thank you both for your input, I will work on balancing my unit stats with what you have told me until I'm satisfied. But I'd like to know, if you had to use the unit stats of one mod for all your other mods you like to play, what mod would it be?

Your delima/question reminded me the early days that Rusichi/MARKA team came with its first release.
Exept their magificent work that followed their own prospective of unit stats they used models from other mods like Baltic TW by MADAO and Politeia ton Romaeon 1.0 (CBUR project's byzantine units for SS 6.1). The result was a disaster.
I notticed it and informed them and they made an entire unit rosters total re-new ballancing system.
Ballance is a matter of taste like the style of textures and the model shape. There is no right or wrong. Is has to do with what you have in mind.
TGC in its 0.043 (before _tartaros came to mod and Koultouras made the unit stats) had an extremly complicated ballancing system. Each unit HAS to be atleast 1% differents from another similar one depending onhistorical evidebces providing by their culture/ society status/ weapon / ammunition . We have (in TGC 4 kind of bows and 6 types of arrows). Now calculate the compinations. For now we still use Koultouras stats and with similar new entries we copy them in EDU . Long time ago i had a Roman campaign that crashed in turn 464 (from total 800). I encountered full stack of Pecheneg armies ...
In the 1st battle they had 3 armies against two of mine fully trained.
Saved by the "bell" ...That is what remained from my army simply because time was up.

In a 2nd attempt i tried toi defebd a brdge at night... but i came across with them :


Despite the fact i had balistas their army was full of trained archers that desimated my army from long distance.
Causes:

1. Their composite bows
2. Their steppe arrows
3. Their accuracy based on their culture (steppe)
4. Their expirience.

These were onlky 4 factors that determined the battle. See its all about how YOU feel what is realistic and on that you will base the ballance. DO NOT just cipy /paste stats from other mods simply because they might had different point of vuew than yours . See how they balance the weapon vs armor though to get an idea.
EDIT: With the correct ballance you will force the player to carefully select the battlefield according to his units and according to the enemy's ones. In open plain if you see this sight in TGC:


RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless youhave too many welltrained spearmen to hold their lines.

[paleologos]

I believe it is reasonable to have troops balanced with a low attack rating, as in M2TW troop experience only gives them +1 attack per chevron color.

If troops start with an attack rating of 10, then a gold chevron unit (exp. 7-9) would have an attack rating of only 13.
In my opinion, experience should confer a much higher advantage than a 10:13 attack difference.

The exception being elite troops that are supposed to start out their careers with the "experience" of training and earn more as they do actual fighting.
So it is reasonable to have peasants with attack of 1, sergeant swordsmen with an attack of 4 and feudal foot knights with an attack of 7 or more at start.

In that way it would take a very seasoned sergeant to be the equal of a rookie knight when it comes to swordplay.

[R.P. Gryphus]

I believe it is reasonable to have troops balanced with a low attack rating, as in M2TW troop experience only gives them +1 attack per chevron color.

If troops start with an attack rating of 10, then a gold chevron unit (exp. 7-9) would have an attack rating of only 13.
In my opinion, experience should confer a much higher advantage than a 10:13 attack difference.

The exception being elite troops that are supposed to start out their careers with the "experience" of training and earn more as they do actual fighting.
So it is reasonable to have peasants with attack of 1, sergeant swordsmen with an attack of 4 and feudal foot knights with an attack of 7 or more at start.

In that way it would take a very seasoned sergeant to be the equal of a rookie knight when it comes to swordplay.

That's very good, I'm going to make some test and see how it goes! You are right about the chevron, but also the blacksmith. If you plau with stats in the 15s or 20s, chevron and blacksmith just become useless, basically. The lowest unit stat right now is 4 I believe, they are the peaseant, and the equivalent of men-at-arms have an attack of 9 or 11 (around that), but defense wise the difference between both armors are somewhere between 4 or 6. So I think I will decrease to attack to make the lowest attack 1, and I'll make defense value be double of the attack value or in the range of double of the attack value. So for example if a unit has 11 attack and 16 defense, I'll change them to be 6 attack and 13 or 14 defense, or 8 armour and 4 defense skill, and shield value will depend on arrow damage that I'll have to look up. If that make sense.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I believe it is reasonable to have troops balanced with a low attack rating, as in M2TW troop experience only gives them +1 attack per chevron color.

If troops start with an attack rating of 10, then a gold chevron unit (exp. 7-9) would have an attack rating of only 13.
In my opinion, experience should confer a much higher advantage than a 10:13 attack difference.

The exception being elite troops that are supposed to start out their careers with the "experience" of training and earn more as they do actual fighting.
So it is reasonable to have peasants with attack of 1, sergeant swordsmen with an attack of 4 and feudal foot knights with an attack of 7 or more at start.

In that way it would take a very seasoned sergeant to be the equal of a rookie knight when it comes to swordplay.

That's a very good advice!

[AnthoniusII]

Aemoury does not only add advanced weapons or armor upgrades. It helps to make a realistic way of recruiting system.
Question: How a sergeant will have his padded armor if there is no armory? How a horsemen can be one if there is no stables at the city.
With "hidden" sources way you can make a realistic recruitment system.
Fact one.
There were always high ranked soldiers and no the way Vanilla game give them to the player.
Fact two. You need a barack to host your troops (host and train not upgrade).
Fact three. You need the proper material to allow units to have better armors.
In TGC (always as example).
Scutatoi spearmen start with no armor and upgrade with padded armors with the 1st armory, they have their chain mails (iron black) when there is available 2nd tier armory and end up with Lammelar when armory get ti tier 3.
Caution. When a new armory us available unlocks units that start with that armor representing high ranked units.
Also there is a local nobillity. If your mod includes knights they must be rare in recruitment and recruited by castles ....
In TGC that there are no castles local cataphracts are recruiting by Estates (similar in fanction with castles ) every 20 turns to avoid to have full stack armies with them.

In your mod that task will be the knights as land and castle owners. The rest cavalry must be squires and not knights. That way you will have low/high tier units from the start but with the proper recruitment time limitation , their recruitment high cost and high upkeep Knights will become as rare and valuable as they were in reality.

[Artorath]

if you had to use the unit stats of one mod for all your other mods you like to play, what mod would it be?

RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate has the best battle balance I've ever seen (selecting reduced cavalry charges and not extended combat). But the stats are designed to work with the changes under the hood (altered animations etc.)
Edit:

That's very good, I'm going to make some test and see how it goes! You are right about the chevron, but also the blacksmith.

This is quite important, if you want a unit to survive flank attacks from particularly bad infantry/archers the armor value independently needs a good ratio vs their attack