DESIGN: Unit Values

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

As you wish, I can only say that mounted archers were exactly what their name implies... Archers moving on horses. They were only using their horses to move and were getting down from their mount before the battle. They were certainly not used as cavalry was.

On the contrary, they were cavalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry

Seems more common than dismounting and firing. Which would make it just an archer otherwise.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


On the contrary, they were cavalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry

Seems more common than dismounting and firing. Which would make it just an archer otherwise.

It seems like I have to learn again the basis of military history.

[Tamerlin]

Maq,

I would like to create the new Longbowman unit but I don't know what is the name of the Alexander Archer's graphic file and where I can find the said file. Could you help me ?

Please...

[Maquiladora]

Its GU089.SPR and it already comes with the game, so you dont need the sprite file. You just need to create a new entry in newsprite.txt for the AE mod.

[HuangShang]

Well when in combat, the attackers stand in the middle of the defenders, so the attackers actually die first. When the sides are uneven, the smaller stack is at a greater disadvantage to attackers. When the sides are even number wise, a stack of 6 defenders is better.

I guess since m.archer only have attack of 10 then adding flank does not take away the balance in very large armies, but it would still be much more devastating if you have a stack of m.archers of less than 10 units. Isnt it the fastest unit until longship and the fastest land unit until calvary?

[Maquiladora]

Knights have 4 movement compared to M. Archers 3.

I wanted to change the movement based on type, but dont know where we got with that.

If we changed Knight and M. Archer to 2 moves, compared to 1 move for Hoplite/Pikemen and Archers/Catapults, it would balance the whole thing out. Fast flanking units are good, but not if they can be caught by a strong balanced army. This makes it more useful to defend or attack with a balanced army. Rather than going purely for speed, which is the case with a full army of Knights, that can move 4 times faster than a stronger balanced army of the same period.

[Tamerlin]

AE Updater with Longbowman

Thanks to Maquiladora and a good deal of tests and failures I have finally managed to create a new longbowman unit.

Here are all the text files you need to include the Longbowman as a new unit with the AE Upgrade path discussed earlier.

Here are the files that were modded in the process :

In the Gamedata Default Folder

Line added in newsprite.txt :

SPRITE_LONGBOWMAN 89



In Units.txt :

Unit number 72 created (included in the rar)

Note : I don't know if it is a mistake but I have increased powerpoints to 200 instead of 100.


In uniticon.txt :

Following line added

ICON_UNIT_LONGBOWMAN { FirstFrame "UPUP089L.TGA" Movie "NULL" Gameplay "UNIT_ARCHER_GAMEPLAY" Historical "UNIT_ARCHER_HISTORICAL" Prereq "UNIT_ARCHER_PREREQ" Vari "UNIT_ARCHER_STATISTICS" Icon "UPUP089A.TGA" LargeIcon "UPUP089L.TGA" SmallIcon "UPUP089B.TGA" StatText "UNIT_ARCHER_SUMMARY" }

In the Gamedata French Folder :

str_loc.txt :

UNIT_LONGBOWMAN_PREPOSITION "de l'archer médiéval"


gl_str.txt

UNIT_LONGBOWMAN "Archer médiéval"


LONGBOWMAN will have to be translated in the various languages.

Posters are encouraged to add the missing parts or unmodified parts in the various text files

[HuangShang]

knights are faster? was that a change?

2 moves for both sounds good, but swordsmen move 2

[Maquiladora]

Knights have always been 4. There hasnt been any changes to movement AFAIK.

Well done with the Londbowmen BTW Tamerlin. Im still wondering if its the right thing to do, adding units to fix such problems, but i guess we'll only know by thoroughly playtesting it.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Well done with the Londbowmen BTW Tamerlin.

Thanks Maquiladora... Is there anything to fix?

Im still wondering if its the right thing to do, adding units to fix such problems, but i guess we'll only know by thoroughly playtesting it.

The Longbowman is here to fill a gap between two unit ugrades that are now really too far away from each other. The Archer and the Infantryman. IMO, there is no change in the gameplay and it renews the interest of Archers that were active on the battlefield until the "Renaissance".

IMO again, the Longbowman is the equivalent of the Stealth fighter as far as Fighters are concerned. Sincerely, would you keep on building Fighters once you reach the last quarter of the game?

I think that the Longbowman introduces new choices without adding any complexity nor any drastic change in the gameplay.

But you are right, only experience will tell us if I am right.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

Thanks Maquiladora... Is there anything to fix?

I havent tested it. Just giving you a well done for actually doing it.

I think that the Longbowman introduces new choices without adding any complexity nor any drastic change in the gameplay.

I do too. I wouldnt have agreed if it were only about historical accuracy, but it adds choice, and as long as both choices are useful in different ways, im all for it.

On the subject of choice, how do you propose we fix the problem of unbalanced units like, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks and Fusion Tanks? That can move much faster than their contemporaries, but are also strong, and can also flank.

Pikemen, Infantrymen, M. Gunner, Hover Infantry, theyre mostly useless, especially on large maps where you defend open areas against these fast units.

Major factors of usefulness of a unit are: Speed, armour and firepower, production/support cost, around that order. Of course if the cost is much too high it becomes a useless unit, but none of the unbalanced units cost too much for the comparitive power they give.

Ideally in the most cost-effective army, I'd like to see something like a 1:2.5 ratio of Tanks to M. Gunners, or Knights to Pikemen, or Cavalry to Infantrymen, or Hover Inf. to Fusion Tanks, with the rear 5 units being taken up as any kind of ranged. Whether that means changing costs, armour/fp, or speeds.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora

I do too. I wouldnt have agreed if it were only about historical accuracy, but it adds choice, and as long as both choices are useful in different ways, im all for it.

I like relative historical accuracy but, thanks to my long experience as paper role playing gamer and paper wargamer, I know that historical accuracy must never get in the way of fun and take precedence over it. We play game because we find them fun not because they are historically accurate. As far as I am concerned, a historically accurate game that is not fun is not worth playing. And most of the time, fun is about interesting choices.

On the subject of choice, how do you propose we fix the problem of unbalanced units like, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks and Fusion Tanks? That can move much faster than their contemporaries, but are also strong, and can also flank.

The problem is that the way I am playing does not allow me to learn the inner priciples of the game. I am not looking at the higher difficulty level, I am only looking after the most interesting difficulty level and, as an empire builder, I like to build things because they are fun and not only because they are useful. I like to design a strategy and then to implement it and to adapt it to the needs and/or the context.

I don't really like games that force me to play in a given way especially if this is the only way to win.

All this to say that, for the moment, I really don't know.

Pikemen, Infantrymen, M. Gunner, Hover Infantry, theyre mostly useless, especially on large maps where you defend open areas against these fast units.

Major factors of usefulness of a unit are: Speed, armour and firepower, production/support cost, around that order. Of course if the cost is much too high it becomes a useless unit, but none of the unbalanced units cost too much for the comparitive power they give.

Ideally in the most cost-effective army, I'd like to see something like a 1:2.5 ratio of Tanks to M. Gunners, or Knights to Pikemen, or Cavalry to Infantrymen, or Hover Inf. to Fusion Tanks, with the rear 5 units being taken up as any kind of ranged. Whether that means changing costs, armour/fp, or speeds.

The problem is that toned down units could not be worth building.

The real challenge, IMO, is to make the AI learn how to use these units efficiently and how to keep up in technology with as less cheats as possible.

I can only say that I will try to have your questions in mind in my current and future playtests.

[LemurMadness]

I've found this interesting:

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

First I thought a Crossbowmen was a better option than Longbowmen, but there isn't much difference (Althought the Cho-ko-nu crossbow was one hell of a weapon)

Because the Pikemen made reliable defense against Knights, ancient units would be in disadvantage against flanker units. Therefore, I don't recommend a flanking unit in Ancient times (War Elephant).

Can't wait to see the space layer restored, and space units

PS: I would recommend changing the Knight's movement to 3 and Mounted Archer's to 4 -- A Knight's armor should be heavy, and therefore, decrease it's movement rate than a normal, lightweight mounted archer (As the game suggests, it should be a scout unit)

On the subject of choice, how do you propose we fix the problem of unbalanced units like, Knights, Cavalry, Tanks and Fusion Tanks? That can move much faster than their contemporaries, but are also strong, and can also flank.

I thought two possible solutions before:

- Decrease the flanking damage. (Is it possible to lower it to 1/5 of it's ranged/melee damage?)

- Remove flanking units. If it's a problem that needs a solution then why fix it when it could be simply deleted?

[Maquiladora]

Thought i'd give this thread a bump. Maybe we can start discussion within our little group again.

The Longbowman seems to be a nice addition. It needs an entry in unitbuildlists.txt though.

If we're working our way through the tech tree, I would bring up the subject of a Legion unit again. Not just for the sake of a new unit, but aswell to fix Samurai uselessness. Also a look at the reintroduction of the Elephant Warrior, just because it adds variety i think.

At the moment the Samurai is too early in the tree IMO. Iron Working (for Samurai) requires only Bronze Working and Trade, this is usually still well into the BC years. Which is right, but the Samurai there is wrong IMO. It should be at Feudalism. "The Japanese Knight"?

If we had Legion (defence) at Iron Working, which could upgrade the Hoplite, then we could move Samurai to Feudalism, and make the Samurai more useful there too.

Now the Elephant Warrior. It shouldn't be a flanker, but it does logically upgrade to a Knight. It could also require elephant good, which would present some unique battles around the ancient map.

Hoplite > Legion > Pikemen...
Warrior > Samurai > Infantryman...
Elephant Warrior > Knight > Cavalry...

If we try to change as little as possible (*=changed from original), perhaps this would create a good balance between units:

		att	def	ran	arm	dam	move	vis	cost	require
Hoplite		10	15	0	1	1	1	1	175	bronze w.
Legion*		15*	20*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	245*	iron wor.*
Pikemen		10	25	0	1	2	1	1	380	feudalis.

warrior		10	10	0	1	1	1	2	150	toolmaki.
elephant warr.*	20*	10*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	210*	agricult.*
samurai		30*	10	0	1	2	2	1	460	feudalis.*
knight		25	15	0	1	2	4	2	740	feudalis.
infantryman	25	35	10	1	3	2	2	1000	gunpowde.

Just some suggestions, hopefully we can settle this Legion/Elephant/Samurai thing.

EDIT: LemurMadness, will respond to your post in a little while.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness
I've found this interesting:

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

First I thought a Crossbowmen was a better option than Longbowmen, but there isn't much difference (Althought the Cho-ko-nu crossbow was one hell of a weapon)

Remember that we only have some high quality (fully animated) sprites that we havent used yet, so this limits our choices for new units unfortunately.

The CtP "Pikemen" sprite is actually holding a Pollaxe aswell IIRC, but we generally overlook that as the Pikemen is more popular.

Because the Pikemen made reliable defense against Knights, ancient units would be in disadvantage against flanker units. Therefore, I don't recommend a flanking unit in Ancient times (War Elephant).

This is true, but the Elephant Warrior wasn't used for flanking. It was used for charging, or preventing charges on the front line. So it could still be an option.

PS: I would recommend changing the Knight's movement to 3 and Mounted Archer's to 4 -- A Knight's armor should be heavy, and therefore, decrease it's movement rate than a normal, lightweight mounted archer (As the game suggests, it should be a scout unit)

I think i (or someone else) suggested this earlier. It does make sense that the M. Archer should move faster. More importantly though, it would weaken Knights slightly, which is no bad thing.

I thought two possible solutions before:

- Decrease the flanking damage. (Is it possible to lower it to 1/5 of it's ranged/melee damage?)

- Remove flanking units. If it's a problem that needs a solution then why fix it when it could be simply deleted?

I dont think its possible to change flanking damage, without a sourcecode modification.

Removing flanking units well i hope we can fix it more easily than this.

One solution is to instead look at the units of the same era to these flanking units.

For example Pikemen+Archers/Catapults eat Knights for breakfast once theyre stacked together. The problem is Pikemen/Archers/Catapults dont move fast enough (compared to Knights) to stack an army before the Knights arrive.

The same is true for Fascists+Cannons against Cavalry.

Of course nothing stops Tanks though.

Perhaps just decreasing the speed of the flankers is all thats needed. And changing Tanks or Machine Gunners/Artillery to deal with Tanks. Fusion Tanks its the same thing.