搜索结果: *

1.5.5 Veteran's Respect perk bug.

Not sure if this is the place for it... But anyway.

Disclaimer: I am using some mods on 1.5.5, though nothing that should conflict with the issue I encountered (xp multiplier, v's faction armories & the like).

As Disciplinarian has been removed, I noticed the current "Veteran's Respect" perk as enabling you to level bandit troops into regular troops as per their old unit tree. HOWEVER, without the perk, I couldn't level bandit troops into their regular Bandit tree.

I.e. I couldn't level a bushwacker into a freebooter, a freebooter into a forest bandit or a hillman into a brigand (the ones I tested) as it said I lacked "veteran's respect".

I'm assuming this is a bug, so it should be simple to reproduce: try to upgrade a regular bandit into a higher level bandit.

This is an awesome post and it's very well presented. I hope it's still in discussion amongst the devs as the current state of armor and weapons doesn't make much sense, leaving pretty much everything and everyone in one-shot territory from horseback and in 2-3 shot territory on foot. This results in short, unsatisfying battles and winning by mobbing the enemy with numbers or thinning his herd with arrows before mobbing him with numbers.

While the discussion on how to make armor viable is great, I think the approach should be top-down, effect to cause.

Instead of deciding "oh, well a sword does 50 damage and a mace does 40 damage and a spear does 30 damage, but that one goes through armor like that, and that one is blocked like that", the desired effect should be put into perspective first and then the math adjusted so that effect is obtained.

By this, I mean deciding that, for example:
An imperial Legionaire, the best-armored troop in the game, should go down when fighting an equal-tier opponent in...10 hits? It sounds like a lot, but there are 3-4 guys landing hits on him, he will go down sooner rather than later. Fighting a looter, he should go down in 20-25 hits? he costs as much as 10 recruits, why not have him behave like it? Take that number and give cavalry and archers a bonus... let's say that he'll go down in 5 arrows from a high tier archer or 10-15 arrows from a low tier archer. Have charging cavalry take him out in 2-3 direct couched lance hits, so Cavalry serves a purpose when charging.

This then trickles down to lower tier units, where unarmored peasants go down like a sack of potatoes to 1 hit from a two-hander, two-three hits from a sword, unless hit in the head, etc.

The point is that by deciding what you want the answer to be, you can then decide on what the variables should be. If there is no plan for this and only the formulas and weapon values are tweaked, we get a lot of imbalance in the form of some weapons/units being overpowered while others being overly weak.

Also, a hard cap on damage past a certain threshold should be put into place and more use made out of location damage multipliers. For example, limiting two-handed polearm swing damage, javelin +speed bonus damage as well as couched lance damage to a maximum, predefined amount of raw damage ensures that you can balance the end result around whatever you intend it to be. Let's say that you want those to be super-powerful and one-shot everything short of the absolute top-tier units. That is achievable if you know what that maximum damage value is and how you adjust for it with armor.

archaicwarrior 说:

What am I doing wrong ?

点击展开...

Playing 1.5.5 without mods?

I noticed lots of cows everywhere too. Villages whose world map icon was supposed to be grain are actually something else (often cows), etc.
Other than that, passive income has been pretty bad lately. In 1.5.3 i could get away with wool weaveries, especially in khuzait lands. They'd get to a solid 200-250 gold per day. Now that clothes prices have gone down with the armor "rework and rebalance", I expect their income to go down too, but i've been too lazy to test it.

stevehoos 说:

(...)

点击展开...

Terco_Viejo 说:

(...)

点击展开...

Thanks for the replies!
Yes, the main issue I have with the combat is the speed with which it happens. The fact that all units are so vulnerable leads to a total irrelevance of tactics and maneuvers once the melee has started. I mean... The only viable strategy (short of horse archers and overwhelming arrow fire) available is to make sure you do enough morale damage that the enemy breaks and runs as soon as the lines clash. With enough arrow damage and a simultaneous cavalry charge, low tier units run from the battle around when the infantry clashes and it leaves your infantry able to swamp and kill the remaining enemy high tier units. But let's be honest... The only way you're getting through a battle without losing a large chunk of your troops is by completely overwhelming the enemy in both numbers and quality of soldiers, leaving little room for tactics and strategy short of the aforementioned arrow rain of death.

Dreed89 说:

Did they acknowledge anywhere that they like the current armor mechanics such that it doesn't make that much difference?
(...)
I still think killing fully armored units with heavy weapons should be possible with speed bonus of a mount or hitting from head even if the attacker is unmounted.

I also suspect currently there is some hidden calculations when fighting enemy lords.
(...)

点击展开...

I sure hope they're not happy yet with where armor and weapons are, because for the moment, they're all over the place.

Killing armored units from horseback should be possible, as well as smacking them really hard on the head, as both things make sense. But a peasant with a dull axe shouldn't be an issue for a fully armored soldier.

The problem with this is balancing it so it's both fun and somewhat realistic.

The mod I mentioned in my initial post is really in depth with regards to the effects of armor (and unit tactics and fighting skill, but that's beyond the point of the current post).

First off, they gave armor purpose. Chopping away with a sword at a fully armored legionaire gets you between 5-7 dmg. Because armor absorbs a large amount of cutting damage. Stabbing him with the sword gives a more reliable 10-15 dmg, to simulate the fact that you're stabbing at exposed bits in the armor. The list goes on.

This was done by giving every weapon damage in cutting, piercing and blunt. Cutting with a sword deals cut and blunt damage. The cut part is severely affected by armor, the blunt part not so much. Leads to very little damage against armor and a lot of dmg vs no armor. Maces are effective vs all types of armor, but do less damage than swords VS no armor (ok, not realistic, but it's there for balance purposes, otherwise maces would rule supreme... Though to be fair, throughout history most actual weapons were spears and polearms, with swords usually a sidearm... Unless we're talking about ancient Romans).

The problem with the mod I mentioned is the fact that by going for maximum realism, it draws fight out quite a bit, sometimes making them feel a bit too long. I tweaked some of the values to reach a point that I enjoyed but that still kept armor relevant. The end result was that while the infantry lines were fighting I had time to order my archers in a better position, take my cavalry and go murder their archers and lord and then come back and help my infantry clean up by sniping high value enemy units (menavliaton, legionaires, etc).

Lastly, cavalry charges were made so that charges break formations of infantry. Your cav doesn't stop at the first looter they run into. They run him over (for 10-20 dmg) and keep riding. Hitting unarmored units with cav leads to lots of murder. Hitting armored units with cav leads to disrupted formations and the occasional kill when couched lances connect with faces.

I mean... Honestly, the only thing I don't like with the mod was the fact that in order to get ranged weapons to a point where high tier bows and piercing arrows are good against armor while low tier bows and cutting arrows are good against unarmored opponents led to some hilarious results of making low tier enemies fly off like you shot'em with a ballista when delivering high damage headshots from a high power bow. But other than that, the changes were spot-on.


Now... I realize that this might not be TW's vision for the game, in which case... Long live the modding community... But the state weapons and armor are currently in is disappointing to say the least.



* with regard to lords... From horseback they go down in 1 shot in vanilla if you have good speed and a polearm. With a good bow you take them down in 3 shots-4 shots or 2 headshots. (one if it's a noble woman who doesn't want the helmet messing up her hair... Yes, there are plenty of those in the game and I think they need a helmet, especially since their tactics-less ass is charging straight into my lines). At most they could've had the damage reduction the player can get added on top, but I haven't really noticed it.



#MakeArmorGreatAgain ? or at least useful.
Oh, and Ffs, they really need to check out the pricing algorithm for armors. 500k for a piece of armor means that the only way you're going to afford it is to either grind away at battles for a few decades or... Abuse smithing. Armor prices should be in the max 100k price range for average quality top-of-the-line chest pieces and can go higher for "masterwork" or whatever pieces. Btw, you guys still haven't fixed the bug where pressing "reset" on the party screen after doing any type of change will reset the modifiers on equipment in the inventory. For the moment, all it does is remove the "rusty, charred, frayed, etc" negative modifiers from loot. But if it will also remove "fine, masterwork, lordly" modifiers from armor and weapons... It's a problem.

Ok, I made an account for the very purpose of commenting on the following change:

"

• Body armours with arm, leg covers now provide more armour to those parts. Armour pieces have been rebalanced and recalibrated. Most troops now use different armour pieces that are balanced for their tier and troop type."

What on earth is up with that?
I've got a question for the game designers about their vision for the game... How exactly should battles play out? An arcade whack-a-mole one-shot simulator where armor is irrelevant? Or a somewhat decent combat game where tactics and formations matter?

My main gripe is this: armor is irrelevant. Unarmored looter? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 2-3 hits in melee. Fully armored legionaire? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 3-4 hits in melee... Omg, such armor, much impress. I mean really, the difference between wearing the hair on your chest and lamelar over chain mail with presumably a gambeson underneath while wearing a steel helmet is 1, at most 2 extra hits? Every peasant with a pitchfork having a chance at killing "heavily" armored knights? In what universe is this a thing?

Medieval armor, even the lowly (compared to Renaissance full plate) chain mail and lamellar armors could reliably stop a blow from bladed and pointed weapons to great effect and minimal injuries to the wearer. That's why people used armor... Because it worked. As it currently stands, there's not much difference between wearing top-of-the-line armor and going into battle naked. You'll at most endure 1-3 extra blows.

I would strongly advise the devs, and specifically whoever is in charge of balancing and overall gameplay to take a look at the downright awesome "Realistic Battles" Mod that's on the nexus. While it does take realism a bit too far (and over-buffs spears), leading to drawn-out fights and domination of heavily armored units, it is a step in the correct direction.

Balancing should probably start top to bottom. Decide that a legionaire should take an average of 8-10 hits to put down with an axe. Increase that to 10-13 with a sword or 5-7 with a mace or 3-5 high power bow arrows. Use that as a benchmark for everyone else, up to the point where on unarmored targets (looters and recruits) you need 1-2 hits from horseback and 2-3 hits on foot (sort of where we are now, but with the need to give armor some meaning) or 2-3 center of mass arrows from high power bows.

This is, of course, a generalization, and implies an "average" weapon. Looters and low level bandits should have little chance against elite troops, while keeping the amount of hits necessary to down an opponent on more or less equal tier opponents to what I wrote above.

The thing is, battles should last a bit longer. Most encounters are decided in the first 10-20 seconds of the infantry lines clashing, when the kill feed lights up. There's literally no time to set up, for example, a maneuver where you move your archers from the back line to the left flank to shoot into exposed enemy sides because by the time they're done running, the battle is over and the infantry is coming for them.

This change to the armor values was, in my opinion, a step in a wrong direction. Armor's effect in combat is poorly explained, pretty much negligible and leads to short and pretty unsatisfactory battles.

OK, end of rant. I just hope someone actually bothers to read this and maybe consider it. Oh, and if you check out the mod I mentioned, look at how they've balanced unit and army AI. Comparing elite soldiers on challenging difficulty with mid-tier soldiers on normal difficulty with the mod is a night-and-day difference. They indeed fight as if they're trying to survive, not to participate in the "let's see who gets killed the fastest because he forgot he has a shield" contest.