If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

[LyonExodus]

it is not really unreasonable to dismiss the value of these test either.

To those that want to dismiss the most in depth data on the current matter they are invited to do two things to make the tests truly irrelevant:

1) Put the time in and test, brake down in easy to understand bits, and analyze in a deeper way that has already been done.
2) Pay or support whoever is running the research to spend more time and resources in finding more accurate data.
The thing is that those who dare to criticize not only have no idea on how to get some form of "accurate enough" data (as i have been shown multiple times by some) but are also unwilling to put in time and effort to create a counter argument, based on facts and not just based on their own opinions (have a watch at this post to understand how their mind functions) .
This also highlights one thing: that is the "extremist" views of the forum community. Which makes sense since only the hardened veterans of the game would even access this website on a daily basis. But this is an interesting tangent and nothing else.

Thus resulting in being hypercritical of something that ends up informing a wider community and brings information to a given subject.
Altough an healthy member that wants to counter "disinformation" is driven to run tests themselves and gather data to then explain to the community.
Or even better, help in the discovery by running complementary tests in order to widen the knowledge about the subject.

An unhealthy member will just limit himself to be insulting towards the work. While not putting even a little bit of time into it, discussing opinionistically about the data instead of doing what an healthy member would do.

an inaccurate study is better than no study at all.

As 1 person trying to find the most accurate data and explaining why you can't use shortcuts i can tell you that many have no idea how much time goes into even something small like 10 tests. Despite having the best of intentions gathering this data is not even enough to pay for some necessary utilities. So before discounting a perceived "inaccurate set of data" always take into consideration that 1 person is, just 1 person. And their resources are limited to say the least. If you want to use point number 2) the 1 person might become 4 and the hours spent gathering data in a single day might become 20 instead of just 7. Just something to consider.

Researchers can get petty and competitive in any field, but in the end while they might try to prove each other wrong their pettiness allows external viewers to have an even greater understanding about the subject (ElctroBoom and Steve Mould discussing about this subject widened the understanding of both).

If those "critics" were willing to put in the time i would be glad to have an intelligent discussion and some sane competition over the data. Instead their methods seem to resemble more the ones of ancient tribals that will throw rock at the person in different clothing just because they perceive it as WRONG. Even when the person wants to help.

There is also the opposite case of people believing the research without understanding it.
In that case the tribal mentality will lead them to never question anything that is said. Which is something anybody, no matter the field, has to be aware of. And not surround themselves with people that only think alike them.

The hardest thing for most humans is admit when they are wrong and realize that something must change in their ways.
If someone was to really go much more in depth than what i currently do it would be hard to digest, and i will be lead to question their work or my methods if it ends up being wildly different.
Altough i will also admire the dedication this person has for the cause. That's a sane rivalry and is what's drive most researchers.

it's clear this isn't our case.

 

[Dabos37]

@LyonExodus you are going to get a lot of hate from a few guys (and their fake accounts) if you call their favorite units OP. If you invest time on trying to show them why some units are evidently OP/Broken, their only argument is going to be something like: Khan’s Guard/Fians are not OP, just everything else needs a buff XD.

I have seen all your videos and I find them pretty useful. Keep up the great work!

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

@LyonExodus I like watching your vids but man they do remind me of just how poorly thought out the troops are. At this point you might as well add a little 'suggestion' where you propose your own alternatives or fixes to a troop in hopes that TW picks up on it.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

To those that want to dismiss the most in depth data on the current matter they are invited to do two things to make the tests truly irrelevant:

1) Put the time in and test, brake down in easy to understand bits, and analyze in a deeper way that has already been done.
2) Pay or support whoever is running the research to spend more time and resources in finding more accurate data.
The thing is that those who dare to criticize not only have no idea on how to get some form of "accurate enough" data (as i have been shown multiple times by some) but are also unwilling to put in time and effort to create a counter argument, based on facts and not just based on their own opinions (have a watch at this post to understand how their mind functions) .
This also highlights one thing: that is the "extremist" views of the forum community. Which makes sense since only the hardened veterans of the game would even access this website on a daily basis. But this is an interesting tangent and nothing else.

Sorry, I havnt had time to go through your entire post with the diligence that I am sure it deserves. But, this is not how research actually work. The vast majority of research projects fail because the researchers are unable to adequetly lift the empirical burden of prof.

It is rarely enough that there is nothing better (at best, you might be lucky to get into a C or B tier journal). Again, everything else being worse is, in itself, not an argument that a study has merit.

I have not seen your work so I cannot really comment. Though, I have seen a few other videos of the mash x against something variant and those I personally dont see any merit to either. On rare occations I do some test myself, but not like that.

 

[LyonExodus]

'suggestion' where you propose your own alternatives or fixes to a troop in hopes that TW picks up on it.

Before Patch 1.8.1. came out i wanted to try and create a mod myself to address this very subject.
Everything as been delayed but with hindsight, it is probably for the best

I have not seen your work so I cannot really comment. Though, I have seen a few other videos of the mash x against something variant and those I personally dont see any merit to either. On rare occations I do some test myself, but not like that.

Yes, indeed you need to inform on my ways and especially how i analyze it. It's not just smash units together and calling a day.
I assume you have seen some very old videos that smashed T5 Vs other T5 units. without considering that most enemy armies don't even bring that many T5 units.

My data is not just much more in depth, considering how the troops act in different situation and how they deal in situation X in comparison to Y but also explains the difference that changing the AI, mechanics or equipment's among the units does.
The latest patches especially tweaked the way Cavalry function and the related video explains what every change improved or diminished in comparison to patch 1.8.
and the impact changing the horses had on the units.
As far as i am concerned the way i test is the most analytical there is out there. It doesn't get the merit it deserves (this are not my words but the ones of viewers) but it's not even close, in terms of pupularity, to what others do in just a few hours and often by cheating the system using mods to speed the game up.

The videos are a bit too analytical if anything in comparison to what the casual viewer might want and that is seen in the poor permanence of all videos in comparison to more casual friendly testing. That's why i got mad at that guy calling me a showman, a real showman would find a more lucrative style of content.

 

[Helerek]

I think they are in fine spot, it's just AI that gets in the way.
Yes fians/khans are domination, but the reason is the AI behaviour. Simply put horse archers vs archers and you will see that horse one will obliterate foot one for no reason (only difference being the AI behaviour).
I had problems killing T2-3 units with my fians if they faced me and broke only 2-3 shields with 100 fians vs 10-20 enemy T2-3 units. I don't think fians deserve a nerf, but maybe shields do.
Main problem with fians is they are archers, but also shock troops and I think it's fine for a noble unit, however their armor/weapon efficiency is too good. Maybe nerf their armor/weapon and make them slightly weaker or make troops with shields better at blocking => shields weaker => making shield infantry stronger for all factions.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Well, here is my scientific and perhaps less scientific reason why KGs might suck.

- The area from which you gain them is the worst area to work in in the game. Having them is great, but the question is if the process of getting them is worth it.
- When used in large numbers it simply looks awkward.

 

[JunKeteer]

IMO, just reducing the accuracy of bows (or add a few more bows) by a few small points would address many of the issues, without having to rebalance all the other infantry/armor troops around it to account for what seems to be a few select OP units; and without 'nerfing' those faction unique units (Fians/KGs).

The recent cavalry targeting, horse charge, and armor fixes made EC/cavalry units a lot better and more 'in line' with what they should be; and they do noticeably counter HAs well enough atm.

But it's still relatively too easy to field a full troops of T6 EC/BK/KG/Fians (or a combo of those). Yes, we can choose not to do that to create a handicap for ourselves, but why not do it the other way, where it's a challenge to get a stack of T6s? Make higher tier troops wages scale higher as it's still too cheap and almost no thought is needed to just upgrade all troops at the party screen to the next tier vs balancing which you can afford to.
This is why the early-game is fun, as it's a bit of challenge to create a decent mercenary party relative to how much money you can earn at the beginning. Once you get that first castle/town (which is way too easy/quick); you get ~$2-3k denar daily (not even accounting workshops or caravans), which means you can essentially field a full party of top tier units already.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Once you get that first castle/town (which is way too easy/quick); you get ~$2-3k denar daily (not even accounting workshops or caravans), which means you can essentially field a full party of top tier units already.

This does not reflect the reality of your finances in the game.

In practise, it is going to be near impossible, as it is, to balance units around finances.

 

[Helerek]

But it's still relatively too easy to field a full troops of T6 EC/BK/KG/Fians (or a combo of those). Yes, we can choose not to do that to create a handicap for ourselves, but why not do it the other way, where it's a challenge to get a stack of T6s? Make higher tier troops wages scale higher as it's still too cheap and almost no thought is needed to just upgrade all troops at the party screen to the next tier vs balancing which you can afford to.

As long as smithing is in game it won't matter .

 

[JunKeteer]

This does not reflect the reality of your finances in the game.

In practise, it is going to be near impossible, as it is, to balance units around finances.

What do you mean, those are the finances of my current playthrough - I'm getting ~$3.7k with just a single town + 4 workshops and 2 caravans (both those only netting ~$1k of that roughly).
I can just recruit from every village/town - and just upgrade them without a thought and having a party of 100 T6 units, maybe only cost me $2k? That's on a single town, considering you usually get the first couple castles that your faction takes, your income generated quickly accelerates to the point where there's no weighted consideration in trying to balance a good party composition; just upgrade all.
They should balance finances around field units; besides that, the only purpose for money in this game is just buying armor (any maybe just hoarding for those crazy $200k trade bargains).

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

What do you mean, those are the finances of my current playthrough - I'm getting ~$3.7k with just a single town + 4 workshops and 2 caravans (both those only netting ~$1k of that roughly).

3,7k is what you use to tip the waiter. It is nothing.

They should balance finances around field units; besides that, the only purpose for money in this game is just buying armor (any maybe just hoarding for those crazy $200k trade bargains).

Buying clans is what you safe up for.

 

[JunKeteer]

3,7k is what you use to tip the waiter. It is nothing.

Buying clans is what you safe up for.

Exactly, it is nothing, and that's without effort, but I can already field a max stacked party with just that.
Buying clans, sure, at that point in the late game, you should have a lot higher than that easily, not even accounting for the loot or prisoner money (or smithing work orders). And your companions should easily have top tier armor/weapons too, so there's literally nothing else to do with your hoarded ~3mil money or more.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Exactly, it is nothing, and that's without effort, but I can already field a max stacked party with just that.

It is. So the question is how much do you think it would need to cost to field e.g. 100 T6 units before it would be viable to choose something lesser (for financial reasons)?

 

[Halvdan]

Well, I think the deviation can be high if there's a legit reason to bring specialist units to the battlefield, but there isn't for the pikeman. Putting shield infantry in square formation is just better. Pikes don't seem to work well in square formation either so you can't combo them well with it. They are basically specifically for dealing with cav charges, but they're not even worth using for their singular purpose over other options.

Like if I'm bringing a good % of my infantry as pikemen, they better be pulling a lot of weight against cav charges considering how vulnerable they are to archers and other infantry.

As for cost offset for the player for noble units.... I think because it's more expensive to replace units than pay their wages, and because winning battles gets you way more loot and thus more money to pay wages, and because elite units tend to die less, and because archer units die less than infantry and cav.......... there's no way to balance this unless the cost in wages is way, way higher than it currently is. Like they could cost 5-10x the wage and doomstacking them would still be a good option for your main party. And even playing without intentionally stacking, over time if you simply keep the most effective units via prisoners and so on and integrate them into your army, you can still end up with a doomstack just sort of by doing whatever you find works.


Some players can do extremely well with lesser units using more complex strategies or just cheesing the AI, but it's not that much cheaper plus that can be time and/or micromanagement intensive.

It seems like an easy solution would be just to make certain whole arms such as the pike obliterate horses. The problem right now is if you have a bunch of spearmen or Pikmin and you're charged by cavalry the cavalry easily breaks through and then they are completely defensive against the cavalry melee weapons.

We should be able to use Spears to thoroughly deter cavalry

Not to mention making a pike kill a horse instantly if it charges a line of Pikmin makes a lot more sense. It would do a ton to balance out the game. At least for unarmored horses. As it stands right now a horse bandit can charge through a line of Pikmen unscathed

 

[JunKeteer]

It is. So the question is how much do you think it would need to cost to field e.g. 100 T6 units before it would be viable to choose something lesser (for financial reasons)?

I'd have to run the actual numbers as I don't have those memorized, but obviously more than what it currently is.
Yes, I'm not expecting it to cost $10k daily or grow with your income, but it's too easy to get their top units for the player atm, so you can easily roll/accelerate from just joining a faction, to owning a couple castle/towns (as battles are easier with said T6 party comps), to the late-game grind of just accumulating yet another town/castle - within a single game year.
If they slow that down so it maybe requires a couple castles/towns (or keep noble troops at castles/towns only or make acquiring a town/castle more difficult) with a bit of perk min/max, you extend the mid-game at least - and whatever fallout having troop wages higher to the rest of their 'economic' system. I'm sure, even the fact you get wages daily vs weekly plays some part in that acceleration too.

 

[LyonExodus]

the problem with a financial adjustment is that you need thousands of hours of simulation testing to get the right amount.
Or simply tweak the prices little by little each patch until you get to a point where the players consider it a real "limitation".

In a way a financial adjustment will work the same way limiting the player to a maximum number of a specific unit would.
And i think we made it clear that some didn't like the idea of limiting the player

At that point wouldn't it be better to nerf their performance?
Also all of this still doesn't help the AI in creating challenging armies so stacking high tiers of any kind will still make the player way more powerful than the AI
The problem with the Khan's is not that they are good Horse Archers, is that they make all other Khuzait units pointless in comparison.

A Khan's Guard is all of their units into one without a shield.
A Similar case happens for the Fians with the Falxman
While the Cataphracts don't really have a design issue, since i would still prefer using Legionaries for that prisoners bonus over a very similar unit in terms of melee performance

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I'd have to run the actual numbers as I don't have those memorized, but obviously more than what it currently is.
Yes, I'm not expecting it to cost $10k daily or grow with your income, but it's too easy to get their top units for the player atm, so you can easily roll/accelerate from just joining a faction, to owning a couple castle/towns (as battles are easier with said T6 party comps), to the late-game grind of just accumulating yet another town/castle - within a single game year.
If they slow that down so it maybe requires a couple castles/towns (or keep noble troops at castles/towns only or make acquiring a town/castle more difficult) with a bit of perk min/max, you extend the mid-game at least - and whatever fallout having troop wages higher to the rest of their 'economic' system. I'm sure, even the fact you get wages daily vs weekly plays some part in that acceleration too.

Or perhaps rather not join a faction.

The basic issue is the opportunity cost of spending time on nonproductive activites, such as hiring men, is very high. So, to the extend that T6 units are needed, to keep going continously, they will be worth it at nearly any cost.

 

[Grank]

Hot damn. You people really got nasty over a vidya gems. I'd rather listen to a random youtuber performing an imperfect research than someone who only boasts about their play time or gAmE dEsIgN dEgReE without giving actual proofs to their claims. Besides, no research is perfect and this is just a video game. Don't expect some dude to do a full scientific method just to prove a point. Keep doing your stuff, @LyonExodus.

 

[JunKeteer]

the problem with a financial adjustment is that you need thousands of hours of simulation testing to get the right amount.
Or simply tweak the prices little by little each patch until you get to a point where the players consider it a real "limitation".

Which is what the beta EA should be for - but they also put themselves into a corner having everything economically tied together on the campaign map where even a minor tweak here or there will completely ruin their 'fine balance'.

In a way a financial adjustment will work the same way limiting the player to a maximum number of a specific unit would.
And i think we made it clear that some didn't like the idea of limiting the player

It's a different limit as it's something you could achieve or aim towards to a degree, not the same as, say, limit with workshops, limit with caravans/companions, or limit with the clan tier system (sort of as that's 'achievable'). I haven't gone beyond the late-game where I own half the map yet but I imagine someone has and could clarify how much money they get around that point or where that diminishing return point is but I don't think there is one (ie financial 'limit').

At that point wouldn't it be better to nerf their performance?
Also all of this still doesn't help the AI in creating challenging armies so stacking high tiers of any kind will still make the player way more powerful than the AI
The problem with the Khan's is not that they are good Horse Archers, is that they make all other Khuzait units pointless in comparison.

Yep, I'm not against nerfing their performance or balancing them in relation to other troops; but if they aren't going to do it via their combat stats, as I'm assuming they want the Khuzait to have that 'characteristic/unique' troop without turning them into yet another bland 'Empire' faction. Why not modify their wage in reflection or across all units so that encountering or getting those T6 units feels more impactful that what it is currently.