Computica said:I actually did that and it really ruined the gameplay. Instead Camels have more health than the average horse. There good for people who like to get into the fighting.Halrik said:I'd say the Vaegirs and Villianese, although I have to admit that the Sarranids need some buffing up. As a suggestion for that, I'd say to make camels scare the crap out of horses. (A horse's first response to a camel is usually WTF IS THAT!? followed by something like I said that out loud didn't I?... )
If you've been playing 3.8 you'll notice that the VAE Are pretty damn tough now. There Calvary and Infantry are acceptable fighters. The horses they use are strong and there archers have another upgrade level.Halrik said:The Vaegirs might just be at a disadvantage against their neighbors, being poorly suited for fighting the Rhodoks and Antarians, but it seems to me that too many of their units are pure chaff. Their rank and file infantry tend to be easily mowed down, having no real defense or niche. At least the Nords have throwing weapons and pure manliness behind them, but the Vaegirs have neither. Their archers? They're alright, but they're never in sufficient numbers to make a difference, and I believe that should be adjusted. Their cavalry lines are nice though, but they rarely make up for what they're missing.
VIL Infantry are actually supposed to be playing more of a defensive role. If you couple them with archers and let your scouts pick off troops from the rear they are quite effective. I myself am still afraid to get into fights with the VIL. The fact that they have board shields makes them more defensive to ranged fire leaving the enemy left to charge before the archers kill them off.Halrik said:The Villianese, their problem is obvious. Their only decent infantry are their nobles. They look good thematically, but they just don't seem to pan out right. Also... I think they looked cooler with the round shields. (Who is going to drag around a board shield through their terrain, other than a Roman? ) I think they really just need higher agility and athletics skills... and faster looking shields.
The Game difficulty is a BIG Factor with how troops fight and the odds your put up against you. SOD:Warlords is nothing like native when it comes to the AIs actual skill with each weapon type they specialize in. If your not cheating and you play with normal settings you'll start to notice that your getting your ass handed to you. Play in the melee arena and you'll be able to tell how much harder this game is compared to native and many other mods.Halrik said:On the topic of secondary weapons. EVERYONE had a large knife, if nothing else, as a weapon. From the kid on the street begging for change, to the gentry, everyone would have a knife. So, I see no reason to at least toss a dagger onto every soldier who's using a hafted weapon. (Unless that slot is reserved for ammo. )
Oh, and as a side note... WTF are you guys talking about with difficulty? Most of the settings for "difficulty" have nothing to do with how your troops fight, only with how they compare against you... or issues completely unrelated to the battle! Most of "difficulty" is just the damage percentages involving the PC, and troop AI which evens out anyhow. (In fact, the only things I've found myself doing differently between the extremes is that I stop getting off my horse in tournaments after dismounting everyone, as a matter of honor... cause... screw em, I had one horse to, and I'm not the first person up the ladder, since the first person gets hit with a javelin in the face. )
Computica said:I agree with Halrik here. I did my best to simulate the effects of Plate Armor on bullets. Even though bullets are piercing weapons; the effect they have on armor is very light. Like I said though. Firearms are valuable for point, shoot, & kill. If you land a hit it will do damage. Just because it might not kill your target on the first hit they are definitely dangerous against a crowd of troops.