how is it possible to make battles harder to win?

Thorgil asked about do battles more harder on Unique Battlefield thread. I think that it is best reply and ideas in new thread.

Thorgil said:

damn 
outstanding scenes, no question.
---
but yea, i have a question about battles for Idibil or/and Adorno:
how is it possible to make battles harder to win? will new scenes help?
my settings are on "good" for AI in combat and campaign. damage to friends is set on "normal".
despite, if there is a battle with (for example) 100 enemy troops MORE - i usually win  ... without making any "special maneuvers" or something.
plus enemy troops are heavy infantry, at least mostly.

i have to mention i have only heavy or elite infantry (or cavalry).
but still... it´s kind of boring if you know the chance to loose is very low, even if the enemy is equal or sometimes better.

could it have something to do with my doc (orosio), which has level 10 in wound treatment, surgery, ... ?
to be honest, i would like to see more of a challenge in battles (of course excluded if enemies outnumber me 1 to 5 or something).

any info on how to make battles harder is most welcome! and sorry if this is wrong topic for threat.
cheers.

Click to expand...

----------------------------------------

Well, Motomataru have worked hard AI but it would be more intelligent, and he improve his system day to day. However, if we try to code all their activities in the field of battle, AI will be more harder to begin og game, but more late it will be expected and more easy.

As we can not change the whole root system, we must be conformed to the AI's Warband. We can use this thread for ideas.

One idea is to match all of the troops, it is something that I did in the mod total war iberia and endowed him with more difficulty. What mean this?
Well, human beings have two arms, two legs and a head, in general we are all equal (well, the Cantabrian are stronger, faster and smarter  ), the only difference between a warrior and a skilled artisan is that they have their lives in different activities.

Maybe Warrior would be more streng and agile by training, pero no más inteligente but not more intelligent (we are born we are born with) and no more charismatic (which depends on intelligence and physical presence)

Wherever I go?. We propose a rationale very similar attributes and skills for all troops in the game. For example (only a example)

Person (Common):
Man/ Attributes: (over 30): Str - 18, Ag - 18, Int -20, Cha - 20
Woman/ Attributes: Str - 15, Agi - 19, Int - 20, Cha - 23
Skills (Over 10): (we are in VII century): Ironflesh 3, Power Strike 3, Power Trown - 3, Shield 2, Atlet - 5, trade 2
Prof (over 200): OHW - 20, THW - 20, POL- 90, Arc- 20, Cross- 20, Thrw - 70

And over this, we create specific troops skills, for example:

Veteran Archer:
Attributes: (over 30): Str - 21, Ag - 21, Int -20, Cha - 20
Skills (Over 10): (we are in VII century): Ironflesh 3, Power Strike 3, Power Trown - 3, Power draw - 8, Shield 2, Atlet - 5, trade 2
Prof (over 200): OHW - 20, THW - 20, POL- 90, Arc- 150, Cross- 20, Thrw - 70

etc...

What I mean is that with a strong base (common man/woman) on proprietary and modified weapons, enemies, even low-level, not without some difficulty, even at high levels, and more balanced battles.

But it is only an idea, really, We want to hear your ideas and opinions, for you are those who are veterans in the battles of mod

So you want to take away the RPG aspect and make every npc more or less the same with small differences in skill?

I'd think that would be a very bad idea. Because then, players can easily surpass the NPCs. Then we would have battles where the player could easily kill hundreds of Elite units, simply because they're not a lot better.

Maybe implement a system where max damage of hits is capped to prevent 1/2-hit kills?

The harder option would be to make the AI better. For example knowing where a shieldwall is weak to then force the wall to split and etc. But that's going to be really hard I think.

Another way would be to make training units a LOT slower. I reason a person can't be considered truly veteran or elite without at least five to ten years in duty, no? In ingame time, I'd say that it would then take about half a year to get to an elite unit..
But to counter that, we'd have to implement something academy alike. Like your constable can train troops in a castle, but then all over your kingdom by very expensive trainers.

Howitzer said:

Maybe implement a system where max damage of hits is capped to prevent 1/2-hit kills?

Click to expand...

That would be pretty ridiculous when you start policing your territories, wiping out bandit groups harassing your villagers and so on. A dirty linen shirt doesn't stand up to a hard-swung axe too well, nor does the guy underneath it.

I like your training concept, but it would make starting the game pretty prohibitive if you're stuck with the Kosetlas and other weak first tier Infantry that long.

Howitzer said:

Another way would be to make training units a LOT slower. I reason a person can't be considered truly veteran or elite without at least five to ten years in duty, no? In ingame time, I'd say that it would then take about half a year to get to an elite unit..
But to counter that, we'd have to implement something academy alike. Like your constable can train troops in a castle, but then all over your kingdom by very expensive trainers.

Click to expand...

i dont know if other players feel the same, but for me i would really prefer more challenge in battle.
its always the same pattern in equal or up to 1 (me) : 2 (AI) proportion battles: i let them hit my shieldwall, make battlecry and if they flee after several seconds in "shieldwall fight", i let my cavalry ride them down. if they do not surrender from "shieldwall fight", i let my cavalry come from behind and kill them where they are 

what Howitzer said could be a solution. sounds not too bad for me:
if you cannot get 100 elite infantry within a week (in 7 days from peasant to well experienced old battle veteran  ) - but within lets say 4-6 months or something, you will look much more after your army to survive in order to get heavy infantry sometime. plus you will never have too much heavy infantry, or at least its a challenging goal to build up your elite army.

if man can find a good balance between a players army which develops very slowly and medium to good leveled AI troops, it could get much more tensioning to win a fight, respectively to think about which fight to pick or not. - i like Howitzer`s idea.

the other thing is: if you need month to develop a good army and then you loose it in one battle ... 
because of this i can understand if people maybe do not like it, because they want to get a good army fast and conquer the whole map with it.
lets wait and see what people say.

Idibil, Adorno, whats your opinion?
would it maybe be possible to make it optional in game, like e.g. the heavy armour penalty?
its only about experience points for the players army, right? so not too much effort in coding, isnt it?

Mm, I think that it is possible do it, a option where troops need more xp for upgrade, famer to elite troop 5 or 6 mth is a idea. I have that look if this xp this in code or it is hardcore (I havent look it never before), if it is in code, I think that can do it without problems.

Howitzer idea is similar to we did with items first Brytenwalda release 0.93 open  beta (far yet  ), low damage, but actually I think that it is best because damage-speed weapons/player level is very equilibrate.

Maybe my initial option delete rpg option, true. But we wish hear you, you are who really play Brytenwalda.

Idibil said:

..
Maybe my initial option delete rpg option, true. But we wish hear you, you are who really play Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

That's why I love this mod, its devteam isn't cocky and accepts input. Good or bad (And is extremely talented.)

AKM said:

Howitzer said:

Maybe implement a system where max damage of hits is capped to prevent 1/2-hit kills?

Click to expand...

That would be pretty ridiculous when you start policing your territories, wiping out bandit groups harassing your villagers and so on. A dirty linen shirt doesn't stand up to a hard-swung axe too well, nor does the guy underneath it.
..

Click to expand...

You're quite right actually. Wasn't thinking of very low-tiered units.

Maybe another addition to the troops' training: When they're in your party, they "advance" twice or three times as quick, with a smaller fee to upgrade. (They receive heaps of loot in your service, while garrisoned troops don't.)
I.e. a way to truly reward you for training units yourself. And also to offer a chance to get back on your feet reasonably "quick" after a total defeat.

Now I think of it, the best way to "use" this system as a player would be to recruit a lot of farmers etc. Garrison nearly all of them and take some with you, coupled with some high-end mercenaries. Raid and fight around to train them. Go home and pick up new troops and incorporate them into your 'veteran army'.

tough terrain would make battles harder. a good example is in AD1257. the thick forests change every thing. suddenly your calvary can't charge! though heavy infantry will always dominate. so the earlier suggestion of making it longer to upgrade is probably a good idea. i hate the idea of not having my 200 elite infantry army, but im sure that was rare or non existent back then. giving NPC's  some advantages like capping stats. aslo making them hold good ground more. force the player to be the aggressor.

Look at the NPC status (and damage of items) of the Expanded Gameplay 3 mod, where a Farmer can easily kill you if you aren't aware

Those units are really hard to beat if you aren't really used to the action of the mod, and the AI act very intelligent compared to other mods.

In other way, if you think, a Farmer, even without combat training, is a man, and a man in a panic situation will had sufficient strenght to grab a sword and kill another man for surviving with all the adrenaline in their veins.

Maybe it's not realistic in EG3, so it doesn't fit with the mod, but things like the unit stats combined with the huge wage for Elite troops force you to have a balanced army (A lot of inexperienced soldiers, or a few elite ones), and I think that the Cavalry should cost twice than a single man, things like that.

Well this is subjective as hell, because there are some players that doesn't like the combat in EG3... And I find it really awesome (Every time that I reinstall M&B, I play that mod for some time, it's like an addicted routine  )

Maybe this is not a good idea after all, it would look to much like EG3 D: (A fast paced combat mod)

But, I would like to see some of these:

- Less damage to kill a horse in battle (to counter the AI unability to kill a horse charging)
- Less charge for horses
- More wages for troops and elite troops (that forces yourself to have some unexperienced troops in your party, and have a low ammount of elite troops because of the money)
- More time to get elite troops (more like a reward than a thing that you need to win battles)
- Faster AI reactions (it's some related to the prof's, maybe add a base sum to all units can make them more fast)

Greetings

Howitzer said:

Maybe another addition to the troops' training: When they're in your party, they "advance" twice or three times as quick, with a smaller fee to upgrade. (They receive heaps of loot in your service, while garrisoned troops don't.)
I.e. a way to truly reward you for training units yourself. And also to offer a chance to get back on your feet reasonably "quick" after a total defeat.

Now I think of it, the best way to "use" this system as a player would be to recruit a lot of farmers etc. Garrison nearly all of them and take some with you, coupled with some high-end mercenaries. Raid and fight around to train them. Go home and pick up new troops and incorporate them into your 'veteran army'.

Click to expand...

Great idea. Troops on garrison duty maintain their skills, but don't have a lot of opportunity to improve them unless they're of pretty low quality. It's impossible to concurrently hold guard duty and training exercises, is what I'm driving at. Troops garrisoned in castles, in particular, should slowly improve their experience while troops with the player should do so much faster. Bloody good idea mate.

blackitalian said:

tough terrain would make battles harder. a good example is in AD1257. the thick forests change every thing. suddenly your calvary can't charge! though heavy infantry will always dominate. so the earlier suggestion of making it longer to upgrade is probably a good idea. i hate the idea of not having my 200 elite infantry army, but im sure that was rare or non existent back then

Click to expand...

Historically, two hundred oath men, all well equipped and considered elite by the standards of Brytenwalda, would be a rare thing, the preserve of a pretty major King. That said, formed bodies of household (as opposed to mercenaries or local levvies; farmers with pitchforks and so on) troops of that size and quality did exist. Now, having said that, historical records from this period also state things like "And then God came down and smote the enemy from the field," so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Your point on terrain makes all the difference. Cavalry can't charge, throwing spears becomes a waste of time, archers are pretty useless. Let's see some more dense forests and marshes in Brytenwalda.

AKM said:

Howitzer said:

Maybe another addition to the troops' training: When they're in your party, they "advance" twice or three times as quick, with a smaller fee to upgrade. (They receive heaps of loot in your service, while garrisoned troops don't.)
I.e. a way to truly reward you for training units yourself. And also to offer a chance to get back on your feet reasonably "quick" after a total defeat.

Now I think of it, the best way to "use" this system as a player would be to recruit a lot of farmers etc. Garrison nearly all of them and take some with you, coupled with some high-end mercenaries. Raid and fight around to train them. Go home and pick up new troops and incorporate them into your 'veteran army'.

Click to expand...

Great idea. Troops on garrison duty maintain their skills, but don't have a lot of opportunity to improve them unless they're of pretty low quality. It's impossible to concurrently hold guard duty and training exercises, is what I'm driving at. Troops garrisoned in castles, in particular, should slowly improve their experience while troops with the player should do so much faster. Bloody good idea mate.

blackitalian said:

tough terrain would make battles harder. a good example is in AD1257. the thick forests change every thing. suddenly your calvary can't charge! though heavy infantry will always dominate. so the earlier suggestion of making it longer to upgrade is probably a good idea. i hate the idea of not having my 200 elite infantry army, but im sure that was rare or non existent back then

Click to expand...

Historically, two hundred oath men, all well equipped and considered elite by the standards of Brytenwalda, would be a rare thing, the preserve of a pretty major King. That said, formed bodies of household (as opposed to mercenaries or local levvies; farmers with pitchforks and so on) troops of that size and quality did exist. Now, having said that, historical records from this period also state things like "And then God came down and smote the enemy from the field," so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Your point on terrain makes all the difference. Cavalry can't charge, throwing spears becomes a waste of time, archers are pretty useless. Let's see some more dense forests and marshes in Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'd like to see Lords with maybe 40 elite housecarl-ish troops and kings with ~ 100 elite troops, the rest being worthless rabble 

I wouldn't say worthless, but they would be kosetlas and geogutha at most, not much better than that.

Considering that's enough to set down any adrenaline-amped-up farmer, it'll provide the measure of control the thegns need. They're also not exactly what I'd call top tier troops, given that Dena pirates can rout them.

NacroxNicke: Good point regarding adrenaline. The difference between a scared civilian fighting for his life and a trained warrior/soldier though, is that one is physically better conditioned for fighting (having done both, slinging haybales and throwing punches is not one and the same) and knows how best to use his weapons. That said, a hard swung club will cave my head in just as readily as a purpose designed warhammer, so I see and agree with your point.

I suggest to look into the combat system of Expanded Gameplay mod. Thread for the Warband version is located here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,155344.0.html. I found battles with this combat system to be incredibly difficult, no matter which level you are.

Also, the combat system aof PoP has made combat very difficult as well. This system is less brutal and unforgiving then EG, but seems to be more balanced.

There are several already known ways how to increase the difficulty of battles:

1) Increase battle speed (both weapons and mvmnt). At least in games options. ExpGameplay's approach (not sure it's natural speed though)
2) Eliminate horses from the game. For all. Roots of Yygdrassil approach (not historical)
3) Provide units with uber stats except hero and NPCs. PoP approach (unfair as for me)
4) Play realistic mode (w/o save-load)  Then add permadeath  Point 4 will bring you unforgettable experience. All battles will become much more harder even w/o any other changes - this is smth you should think about Maybe you just lack a natural fear for the battle's outcome at its start? (very natural, historical and fair - don't you think? )

I am not in favour of any drastic action, personally.  What I do find is that enemy troops seem to flee very easily, often within moments of my charging them.  This does not mean that they would win if they stayed,  , but if they fought harder I would suffer casualties to grind down my army from battle to battle.  As it is I can suffer so few casualties in even a large battle that my companion's lvl 10 in surgery is for all practical purposes irrelevant.  This is most likely due to the fact that I like to have armies of top-tier units, vs. their mix. 

My opinion is that it should be somewhat more difficult to get high level troops, so that I can't raise an army of 300 teulu or hearthwerus from a bunch of peasants within a week or two.  Because if I can, I will,  .  In economic terms, I think the availability of top-tier troops is a supply-side issue, the demand for top-tier troops will always be there.

For example, in Prophesy of Pendor you can't train a peasant to a knight, you have to get a special noble recruit that you can only get after you own a castle/town and have built an appropriate building, and even then the amount of these recruits you can get per week is limited.  Another mod I played a long time ago (Sword of Damocles I think), had a two-step approach to upgrades, the first was an experience upgrade for a unit from comat/training (i.e. a stat/lvl increase which costs nothing or next to nothing), and then the equipment upgrade (which costs $$$ and might require a special building in a town/castle to allow at the highest levels) to fully upgrade a unit to the next level. 

The Revolution is my Name said:

There are several already known ways how to increase the difficulty of battles:

1) Increase battle speed (both weapons and mvmnt). At least in games options. ExpGameplay's approach (not sure it's natural speed though)
2) Eliminate horses from the game. For all. Roots of Yygdrassil approach (not historical)
3) Provide units with uber stats except hero and NPCs. PoP approach (unfair as for me)
4) Play realistic mode (w/o save-load)  Then add permadeath  Point 4 will bring you unforgettable experience. All battles will become much more harder even w/o any other changes - this is smth you should think about Maybe you just lack a natural fear for the battle's outcome at its start? (very natural, historical and fair - don't you think? )

Click to expand...

1) i did. but its only concerning myself, it wont have an effect on troops.
2) less horses would be good - could be approached through massive costs for horses (at least double to heavy infantry)
3) ? what does that mean?
4) i do. of course.
thanx for the reply.

ppga said:

I am not in favour of any drastic action, personally.  What I do find is that enemy troops seem to flee very easily, often within moments of my charging them.  This does not mean that they would win if they stayed,  , but if they fought harder I would suffer casualties to grind down my army from battle to battle.  As it is I can suffer so few casualties in even a large battle that my companion's lvl 10 in surgery is for all practical purposes irrelevant.  This is most likely due to the fact that I like to have armies of top-tier units, vs. their mix. 

My opinion is that it should be somewhat more difficult to get high level troops, so that I can't raise an army of 300 teulu or hearthwerus from a bunch of peasants within a week or two.  Because if I can, I will,  .  In economic terms, I think the availability of top-tier troops is a supply-side issue, the demand for top-tier troops will always be there.

Click to expand...

- enemy troops flee very easily = damn right.
- more difficult to get high level troops = damn right.

ppga said:

For example, in Prophesy of Pendor you can't train a peasant to a knight, you have to get a special noble recruit that you can only get after you own a castle/town and have built an appropriate building, and even then the amount of these recruits you can get per week is limited.  Another mod I played a long time ago (Sword of Damocles I think), had a two-step approach to upgrades, the first was an experience upgrade for a unit from comat/training (i.e. a stat/lvl increase which costs nothing or next to nothing), and then the equipment upgrade (which costs $$$ and might require a special building in a town/castle to allow at the highest levels) to fully upgrade a unit to the next level.

Click to expand...

good solution.

In short according to the ideas I see here we should:
Note: elite troops = lvl 20 or more.

-More XP need for upgrade (by example: three times the current for low troops, and ten times for elite troops)
-NPC Capping stats (more equilibrate lvls) - (by example: enter 10 for most low troop and 30 for elite troop)
-Low horse life and horse power charge.
-Wages - more weekly cost for elite troops (two time current)
-More damage to weapons.
-More morale to enemy troops




Others reply:

@Howitzer

Now I think of it, the best way to "use" this system as a player would be to recruit a lot of farmers etc. Garrison nearly all of them and take some with you, coupled with some high-end mercenaries. Raid and fight around to train them. Go home and pick up new troops and incorporate them into your 'veteran army'.

Click to expand...

I think that Warband Training system is good, you can train your troops with a skill, and they are best day to day, but it is enough slow like for you havent elite army too soon. If We add more xp cost for upgrade, it would be like you say.


@blackitalian

ough terrain would make battles harder. a good example is in AD1257. the thick forests change every thing. suddenly your calvary can't charge! though heavy infantry will always dominate. so the earlier suggestion of making it longer to upgrade is probably a good idea. i hate the idea of not having my 200 elite infantry army, but im sure that was rare or non existent back then. giving NPC's  some advantages like capping stats. aslo making them hold good ground more. force the player to be the aggressor.

Click to expand...

Actually, We have terrain modificators yet, and on Warband, if scene have too trees, cavalry have problem for move.
NPC stats: less differences enter farmer and elite troops?

@NacroxNicke

Look at the NPC status (and damage of items) of the Expanded Gameplay 3 mod, where a Farmer can easily kill you if you aren't aware

Click to expand...

EGIII added high lvls to all troops, it is a idea.

- Less damage to kill a horse in battle (to counter the AI unability to kill a horse charging)
- Less charge for horses
- More wages for troops and elite troops (that forces yourself to have some unexperienced troops in your party, and have a low ammount of elite troops because of the money)
- More time to get elite troops (more like a reward than a thing that you need to win battles)
- Faster AI reactions (it's some related to the prof's, maybe add a base sum to all units can make them more fast)

Click to expand...

-I understand you say low horse life and horse power charge.
-Ya do for 1.34.
-More cost udgrade? What mean reward here?
-are you talk about NPC Capping stats, no?

@AKM

NacroxNicke: Good point regarding adrenaline. The difference between a scared civilian fighting for his life and a trained warrior/soldier though, is that one is physically better conditioned for fighting (having done both, slinging haybales and throwing punches is not one and the same) and knows how best to use his weapons. That said, a hard swung club will cave my head in just as readily as a purpose designed warhammer, so I see and agree with your point.

Click to expand...

One to One, Famer always die. A train man know what do each moment, a untrain man only acts on instinct, making errors every second.


@The Revolution is my Name

1) Increase battle speed (both weapons and mvmnt). At least in games options. ExpGameplay's approach (not sure it's natural speed though)
2) Eliminate horses from the game. For all. Roots of Yygdrassil approach (not historical)
3) Provide units with uber stats except hero and NPCs. PoP approach (unfair as for me)
4) Play realistic mode (w/o save-load)  Then add permadeath  Point 4 will bring you unforgettable experience. All battles will become much more harder even w/o any other changes - this is smth you should think about Maybe you just lack a natural fear for the battle's outcome at its start? (very natural, historical and fair - don't you think? )

Click to expand...

1- When more difficult was Brytenwalda is when open beta we had more low speed and damage, but I am agree, realism and equilibrate is important. 1.332 have good stats here, no? True that if we add more lvl to troops, we have add more damage (dont speed) to weapons.
2- No option, horses are important.
3- Enemy too easy to player, no?
4- Mm, I dont understand well this, Low morale to player party?

@ppga

For example, in Prophesy of Pendor you can't train a peasant to a knight, you have to get a special noble recruit that you can only get after you own a castle/town and have built an appropriate building, and even then the amount of these recruits you can get per week is limited.  Another mod I played a long time ago (Sword of Damocles I think), had a two-step approach to upgrades, the first was an experience upgrade for a unit from comat/training (i.e. a stat/lvl increase which costs nothing or next to nothing), and then the equipment upgrade (which costs $$$ and might require a special building in a town/castle to allow at the highest levels) to fully upgrade a unit to the next level.

Click to expand...

nobility is important, but a young man with courage and weapons could gain experience by killing enemies and be part of the bodyguard of a nobleman. We shouldnt delete this.
But add more upgrade cost of medium troops to elite can help.

Idibil said:

Others reply:

@NacroxNicke

Look at the NPC status (and damage of items) of the Expanded Gameplay 3 mod, where a Farmer can easily kill you if you aren't aware

Click to expand...

EGIII added high lvls to all troops, it is a idea.

- Less damage to kill a horse in battle (to counter the AI inability to kill a horse charging)
- Less charge for horses
- More wages for troops and elite troops (that forces yourself to have some inexperienced troops in your party, and have a low amount of elite troops because of the money)
- More time to get elite troops (more like a reward than a thing that you need to win battles)
- Faster AI reactions (it's some related to the prof's, maybe add a base sum to all units can make them more fast)

Click to expand...

-I understand you say low horse life and horse power charge.
-Ya do for 1.34.
-More cost upgrade? What mean reward here?
-are you talk about NPC Capping stats, no?

Click to expand...

1.- Yes
2.- Ahm, okey
3.- I mean that the maintenance/salary cost (wage) of a Elite troop should be more huge, and then the player would be forced to have a low number of Elite troops (like in the party's of the Lords AI). In the reward thing, I mean that the cost for upgrading a Veteran to Elite should be from a battle like a "reward" and not from a training ground, because a Elite troop is Elite because of the experience in battle.
4.- Yes, something like that, but you can test modifying the proficiency of the AI, because that affects the velocity of reaction I think

Idibil said:

@AKM

NacroxNicke: Good point regarding adrenaline. The difference between a scared civilian fighting for his life and a trained warrior/soldier though, is that one is physically better conditioned for fighting (having done both, slinging haybales and throwing punches is not one and the same) and knows how best to use his weapons. That said, a hard swung club will cave my head in just as readily as a purpose designed warhammer, so I see and agree with your point.

Click to expand...

One to One, Farmer always die. A train man know what do each moment, a untrained man only acts on instinct, making errors every second.

Click to expand...

Mmh, I don't know, the farmer will die in a 1 vs 1, but not always in a mob fight, because a close-combat-fight can be very confusing even for Veteran troops.

I'm not sure about this but, a farmer with a life of a farmer (hard work life), could had the sufficient strength to survive in a battle, and the battles normally aren't really clear to see what is going on and it's more a thing of lucky than a skill to kill a man, in the game this isn't really represented, but for example, with a helmet you have a very tunnel vision, so you can be easily killed from the sides if you are focusing on a enemy in the front, so it's possible to see a Veteran warrior killed by a simple farmer in that situation, in a mob fight.

Maybe a trained warrior know all about his weapons and weakness against certain situations, but it can make the difference in small skirmish battles, or by having a great number of trained troops in a disciplinary army, but if you have a battle with a range of different soldiers from untrained to trained troops, it's a matter of brute force than skill.

A real life war scenario where a Veteran can easily kill a Rookie by knowing all about his tools, is the WW2 war scenario in the sky, there are a hell lot of situations where a bad maneuver moved the odds be against you totally (Mainly because the loss of kinetic force), but that's because the fights in the sky where in small sections of flying planes.

I'm sure that if you put 50 planes against 60 planes, even a Ace can be killed by a simple rookie.

Idibil said:

@The Revolution is my Name

1) Increase battle speed (both weapons and movement). At least in games options. ExpGameplay's approach (not sure it's natural speed though)
2) Eliminate horses from the game. For all. Roots of Yygdrassil approach (not historical)
3) Provide units with uber stats except hero and NPCs. PoP approach (unfair as for me)
4) Play realistic mode (w/o save-load)  Then add permadeath  Point 4 will bring you unforgettable experience. All battles will become much more harder even w/o any other changes - this is smth you should think about Maybe you just lack a natural fear for the battle's outcome at its start? (very natural, historical and fair - don't you think? )

Click to expand...

1- When more difficult was Brytenwalda is when open beta we had more low speed and damage, but I am agree, realism and equilibrate is important. 1.332 have good stats here, no? True that if we add more lvl to troops, we have add more damage (dont speed) to weapons.
2- No option, horses are important.
3- Enemy too easy to player, no?
4- Mm, I dont understand well this, Low morale to player party?

Click to expand...

1.- The speed of weapons isn't really a problem, I like at it is, it really gives a different atmosphere than in native, but if you can manage to add a AI that can react better to your maneuvers, that would be really great, but as far I know, it would be impossible, and the only way to "cheat" it, would be to making the AI more fast, but I dunno how it can be done :S (apart from the difficulty setting)
2.- Agree totally
3.- In PoP they added some "uberhard" party's spawned in middle-later game randomly, and those party's had some uberhard soldiers and an uberhard number of troops (~300 - 500). These were really fun to kill, and a very pleasure experience, but it's done for a main quest of the game. I don't know if it will suit the frame of the mod.
4.- He speaks of adding Perma Death to the player, so if you are killed in a battle, you have a % of being killed forever and ever. Basically, it's like the stat loss thing if you are knocked down, but with a option of being killed and game over. In EG3 it's done at level 7, so you can't be killed before reaching that level... But level 7 in EG3 is like level 20 in native and other mods =P.

In my opinion the "4" would be great if it's added with a option to activate/deactivate it, because some guys doesn't like it at all (in EG3 going leeroy jenkins isn't a very good way to fight a battle btw, and you would be instantly falling to the ground and going rage because you died )

One thing I do way too often  is to pretty much abuse the ability to recruit prisoners by talking to them.  After large battles where most or all of the prisoners I have are top-tier troops, I often recruit all of them, which with my prisoner management level means close to a hundred top or second from top tier troops.  Through this I usually gain far more high level troops than I lose in a battle.  I know it's a bit of an exploit and I shouldn't do this, but what can I say, I have no impulse control. 

Perhaps troops of a certain level (perhaps 20 as things now stand) should not be recruitable as prisoners, as a means of addressing this?

ppga said:

..
Perhaps troops of a certain level (perhaps 20 as things now stand) should not be recruitable as prisoners, as a means of addressing this?

Click to expand...

I think they should be recruitable. Just not very easy at all. As elite troops, they're probably the "household troops" which means they've been very close to their lord. So it shouldn't be as easy to recruit them, as recruiting farmers would.