Recent content by AJAJP_Juan

Adorno said:

‘Napoleon’ Director Ridley Scott Dismisses Critics: “The French Don’t Even Like Themselves’

Scott's Napoleon is played by Joaquin Phoenix with Vanessa Kirby co-starring as Josephine.

deadline.com

Click to expand...

amoc said:

1-So, its not best strategy to have only cavalry? You have not only fight in the open field.

2-Have you uptodate buffs and debuffs value?

Click to expand...

Reworked the Auto Battle Calculation system.

• Mission and terrain types now provide bonuses or penalties for attackers and defenders.
• For example, an attacking horse archer on flat terrain now has a large bonus but if you throw him into the forest that converts into a large penalty. Defending archers do great in a siege while attacking ones receive a penalty and so on.
• Perks of the Army/Party leader that have a Captain effect now also give a bonus to all the troops under their command. A tier is determined for each of these perks and those are then counted together. Tier 1-3 gives a bonus of 1%, tier 4-6 of 2%, tier 7-8 of 3%, and tier 9+ of 6%.
  • For example, having the Deft Hands (T6) and Form Fitting Armor (T2) perks results in a bonus of 3% (T8 ).

Click to expand...

Apocal said:

The autoresolve is faction-agnostic.

The thing that matters for troops is their power (GetPower), which is literally just three things:
Hero? 50% bonus.
Tier? This determines most of a unit's power.
Mounted? 20% bonus.

From there is the usual dicerolls (SimulateHit and GetSimulatedDamage) which other people covered in more detail.

Cataphracts (T5 or T6) are never going to need a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio to beat a typical Khuzait force, since most Khuzait mounted units aren't that high tier. And even if the Khuzaits were only T5 or T6 -- for whatever reason -- the exchange ratio would be around 1 to (napkin math) 1.3 at worst. That's before getting into the issue that higher numbers are favored by (usually) rolling first, so right from the beginning they kill some of the less numerous defenders.

Click to expand...

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

To me, the challenge with this is that clans follow a different set of diplomatic rules than kingdoms. So it wouldn't just be a matter of enabling independent player clans to call armies. If that was permitted alongside owning settlements, it would essentially be better than a kingdom as other kingdoms could not target you and you could essentially force peace through barter given enough resources (for the wars that you start). Still, if we allowed kingdoms to declare war on you... we might just as well turn you into a kingdom when you capture a town - which would reduce the grace period of players that wish to prepare the creation of their kingdom.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

I have said before in this thread quite a few times that spears can and should be buffed.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

Well you said you think all base damage is too high, right? So if you lower both bow damage and other melee weapon damage, without touching armour penetration, aren't you going to just preserve the current problem of bows being better than melee weapons because they do the same thing but at range? And aren't melee weapons like swords going to deal too low damage with the amount of cut damage reduction that currently applies?

I'd be interested in seeing your ideal proposal for how much the base damage of most melee weapons should be lowered, and how much bows should be lowered.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

1: Archers in Warband were absolutely not "useless outside of sieges", Vaegir and Sarranid high tier archers were highly effective and Rhodok Sharpshooters in particular were a deadly menace, even in field battles.
2: sieges comprise a very big part of fighting in Warband. There is also lots of fighting on uneven terrain with massive randomly generated cliffs or steep hillsides, where archers excelled - and which are still present to a lesser degree in BL.
3: Again, being the only troop who can attack from range had a huge number of other benefits. Fighting looters? Your infantry might possibly get wounded but your archers can literally kill them without a scratch. Fighting a enemy who's holding position? Your infantry have to wait for them to show up, but your archers can damage them the whole time. Etc.

4: I'm not even asking for the same amount of protection against arrows as Warband had, anyway. Warband armour gave about 2x more protection against arrows, I am asking for 1.7x more protection against arrows. So if you think BL archers are too strong and WB archers are too weak, a midpoint should result in balance.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

No, armour calculation is a problem too, as can be determined by looking at the vast difference in protection from blunt/cutting and from pierce. Until that is changed, there will always be an imbalance among this group, even if you significantly reduce the base damage of all weapons, then ranged weapons will still come out on top, because they are in the category of weapons that penetrate armour the most, while also doing average base damage compared to other weapons and also being the only weapons capable of attacking at range.

This is why I have no specific objection to something being done to base damage as well, but the pierce damage modifier to armour absolutely needs to be changed either way.

Click to expand...

Not being able to assign troops and lords in the party screen is intended but the reasons are different.

Being able to assign troops to different formations would break the saved values and how the percentage sliders/filters work. If you could assign a horse archer to an infantry formation, you couldn't get him out of the infantry formation in current implementation of the OoB. Zeroing the Infantry slider in that formation would still keep the horse archer you put in there. OR we disregard the horse archer assigned there are, move him back to a horse archer formation when the slider value changes. Formations would be a mishmash of troops and it's not possible to represent that with sliders.

If we add all 4 troop type sliders to all of the cards then one of the problems is, "when do we remove the troops assign from party screen?". Player changed the filter, do we remove them? Player set the slider to zero, do we remove them? I'm not even going into AI problems with having 8 different mishmash formations.

Now one way to overcome that can be locking each formation's troop type from the get go and not letting the player change them. Formation I-II is Infantry, Formation III-IV is Ranged, Formation V-VI is Cavalry and Formation VII-VIII is Horse Archer and you can only assign a troop to a formation that is related to their equipment. But we didn't want to restrict the player to these pre selections.

All in all, assigning formations to normal troops in the party screen is conflicting with changes made in OoB that's why it's removed.

---

Now lords/companions are a different story. Since they're more fluid with their equipment and they're unique, they don't have to conform to the formation types. We can handle them in a different way. This doesn't have to be in the party screen, we can add a separate UI in the formation cards that you could use to put unassigned heroes in that formation as troops. We can save the assigned formation of the hero and not let them be affected from the sliders. I am, personally, not against this and would love to bring it up internally. That's why I asked for a suggestion post, here. If you feel the assignment of heroes to specific formation as troops, not just captains, would be a good addition feel free to leave a comment in that post.

Click to expand...

I've discussed this change in many posts in this forum, this is one of those I'll leave it here:https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/why-was-old-troop-assignment-system-removed.448574

Click to expand...