Imperial Legionaries too good?

[HalfMetalJacket]

Posted this in what was probably the wrong forum, so I'm going to make the thread here instead.

Now I could be in a minority, but I reckon Imperial Legionaries are too good. The supposed pride and joy of Sturgia, their Veteran Infantry, can only go 50/50 with the same group of Legionaries. All the sudden Sturgia doesn't really feel like the 'go to' faction for heavy infantry. The fact that the Empire also have amazing options everywhere else only makes this worse. In effect, they also end up making infantry heavy factions like Battania feel a little weak too.

In terms of lore, it doesn't make sense either. The current army of the empire is not meant to be as formidable as the legion back in the Battle of Pendraic- the remnants of that legion can be found in the Legion of the Betrayed. The whole playstyle of the Empire is also supposed to be the well armoured, well rounded faction that must use combined arms tactics to make up for a lack of individual might. But again, right now you might as well use them for top of the line infantry and a great roster.

If I were to tone Legionaries down, I'd lower their combat stats. Make them noticeably slower, worse at one handed and throwing (hopefully by making pila throwable). It would make them feel a lot more like what they should be- a hard, heavy all rounder that can hold the line for the rest of your forces, but not the main strength. Their armour should be their only stand out quality, to represent the Empire's advantage in wealth.

That, or buff the stats of everyone else. Maybe adjust equipment here and there, Battanian Oathsworn are shockingly frail.

Now if you want the glorious legionary of old, seek out soldiers from the Legion of the Betrayed instead. Hopefully TW makes minor factions more recruitable.

 

[hruza]

They are bit too strong in my opinion as well, but I think it fits faction lore just fine. I don't see problem there. For one you have very limited option with them, you basically can go only one line, as Imperial spear line is not as strong.

What other factions offer is much bigger variety in the infantry department. With Sturgia for example you can go heavy javelin infantry, heavy infantry with good anti-cav capability or 2H shock infantry. T5 Imperial legionary for example does not have a throwing weapon. So if you want one, you're out of luck and while they have spear, it does not compare in anti-cav power of Sturgian shock troops with their war razors.

Where Imperial infantry really shines in my opinion is mid tier infantry. They are much better then any other faction counterpart, which makes them easier to train. Now I don't have problem with that either, as it makes sense lore vise. Imperials are more "civilized" faction while Sturgians or Batanians are more "barbaric" factions, so their infantry having less armor fits their overall theme well. Problem is that armor is absolutely the most important factor determining combat efficiency in the mechanic of the game so Sturgian and Batanian mid tier units are underperforming. If they get poor armor, which again is fine by me, they should get higher damage dealing weapons or higher skills (or imperial mid their should get worst). Something that would make them bit more competitive.

 

[Koshkasa]

So I had to delete my entire post since meister @hruza already posted everything I thought. Duh.

Legionaries are well-geared and well-trained, and directly outpeform any other frontline infantry which has similar skills but worse armor. There's no going around that without either buffing Sturgian/Battanian armor (wouldn't make much sense from the lore standpoint, seeing that both factions also have nudist two-hander dudes), or their skills. If Legios are supposed to be "the tanky" option out of all other T5 frontline inf, slowing them down would also make sense, gearing them more towards defensive playstyle and taking away the ability to F1-F3 and watch them win whatever melee you throw them at.

Not sure why Sturgia is famed for their shield walls in a world where Legionaries exist, though. Those guys need some love

 

[hruza]

So I had to delete my entire post since meister @hruza already posted everything I thought. Duh.

Sorry for that -but then, great minds think alike

If Legios are supposed to be "the tanky" option out of all other T5 frontline inf, slowing them down would also make sense, gearing them more towards defensive playstyle and taking away the ability to F1-F3 and watch them win whatever melee you throw them at.

Not sure why Sturgia is famed for their shield walls in a world where Legionaries exist, though. Those guys need some love

Legionaries are already slower by the fact that their armor is heavier, but I don't think it makes much difference in the combat. Batanian and Sturgian unit may catch Imperial counterparts while they flee but that's something you have cavalry for anyway.

I know that there is a debate going on on the internet about importance of the skills in AI versus AI combat, but if there is some, it's not decisive. Therefore I doubt that just raising skills (or lowering them for Imperials) alone would do anything either.

The best way in my opinion would be to give Sturgian and Batanian mid tier units weapons with higher damage -yes they have less armor, but they do more damage sort of logic.

Not sure why Sturgia is famed for their shield walls in a world where Legionaries exist, though. Those guys need some love.

They got better shields in 1.3.0. Now most of their units have large round shields, which really helped them a lot. What I would like to see are their t2 skirmishers get a shield -even the small one. They have small chance to spawn one, but it's like 1 in 10 making them effectively just recruits with javelins.

 

[Owen Wulfson]

I dread fighting Legionaries in Tournaments taking place in Imperial Cities as they have more armor than any other high tier units and even many lords by my reckoning. One-on-One fights with swords and shields are a slog with these guys (who usually make it to the final round). Their only weak spot is their helmet, get off about 12-15 damage when you manage to hit him in the head with a sword swing.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Not sure why Sturgia is famed for their shield walls in a world where Legionaries exist, though. Those guys need some love

While I don't believe Sturgians are as sucky as they were before, I definitely think the existence of the current Legionary stops them from truly standing out. If legionaries weren't as powerful as they are, I bet people wouldn't complain as much about the Sturgian roster beyond mistaken stats.

Legionaries are already slower by the fact that their armor is heavier, but I don't think it makes much difference in the combat. Batanian and Sturgian unit may catch Imperial counterparts while they flee but that's something you have cavalry for anyway.

I like to think that with how speed and damage works, more athletics means the potential to hit harder. Could be wrong, but if I am, it doesn't hurt to flank harder or reposition faster. Athletics does have a noticeable effect. Still, it wouldn't make or break anything.

I know that there is a debate going on on the internet about importance of the skills in AI versus AI combat, but if there is some, it's not decisive. Therefore I doubt that just raising skills (or lowering them for Imperials) alone would do anything either.

The best way in my opinion would be to give Sturgian and Batanian mid tier units weapons with higher damage -yes they have less armor, but they do more damage sort of logic.

This does get me thinking for sure though. If stats aside from the likes of athletics doesn't matter, equipment changes would work far better. Aside from giving barbarian armies better weapons, I'd actually buff their armour sets too.

Now I know you guys are saying that's not a good idea but hear me out. Sturgians may be barbarian, but they've got plenty of armour, all things considered. They shouldn't match armour from the Imperials, but rather that of Vlandia. They both share coat of plates and chain mail, and yet Vlandians are tougher. So I think it wouldn't be too far fetched.

Battanians on the other hand should be mostly the same. Maybe give Falxmen a more savage looking shoulder piece, they don't look mean enough. I'd only really adjust the Oathsworn, seeing as they're the frailest of Battanian infantry despite their obvious role of being their army's anvil. In fact their torso piece is weaker than that of the Picked Warriors preceding them. Boost their shoulders, give them better gloves and I think they'd be respectable.

I dread fighting Legionaries in Tournaments taking place in Imperial Cities as they have more armor than any other high tier units and even many lords by my reckoning. One-on-One fights with swords and shields are a slog with these guys (who usually make it to the final round). Their only weak spot is their helmet, get off about 12 damage when you manage to hit him in the head with a sword swing.

I regret using the Armour Does Something mod with a Legionary in a tournament. While playing a brand new campaign no less.

Anyway in my opinion, the infantry of each faction should be something like:
- Imperials: Heaviest armoured. Slow, has a bit of everything.
- Battanians: Fast, offence oriented with a diversity of options at the cost of armour.
- Sturgians: Will win head to head fights with all infantry, without necessarily being better at a specific niche.
- Aserai: Skillful, with a lot of tactical versatility, but you gotta get them to t4.
- Vlandia: Polearms everywhere, very heavily armoured but limited in their flexibility and speed. Besides Imperial infantry, I think they're probably stronger than they should be. Voulgiers and Sergeants could be toned down.
- Khuzaits: Overshadowed by their cavalry. Darkhans are slept on hard, they're crazy good. Would take to a siege.

I could be wrong in all this, or making no sense. A bit sleepy, but I want to ramble.

 

[Monkey]

- Khuzaits: Overshadowed by their cavalry. Darkhans are slept on hard, they're crazy good.

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean khuzait troops are overshadowed by their own cavalry or khuzait cavalry is overshadowed by Bucellarii or Cataphracts? And what does "slept on" mean? You can F1 and F3 and "go to sleep" and they'll still win? I'm sorry I'm not a native english speaker.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean khuzait troops are overshadowed by their own cavalry or khuzait cavalry is overshadowed by Bucellarii or Cataphracts? And what does "slept on" mean? You can F1 and F3 and "go to sleep" and they'll still win? I'm sorry I'm not a native english speaker.

Overshadowed by their cavalry, referring to infantry. So the Khuzait infantry are overshadowed by Khuzait cavalry. I should clarify or put down something more serious though.

As for 'slept on', imma explain in this meme I slapped up.

Spoiler

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[Monkey]

Overshadowed by their cavalry, referring to infantry. So the Khuzait infantry are overshadowed by Khuzait cavalry. I should clarify or put down something more serious though.

As for 'slept on', imma explain in this meme I slapped up.

Spoiler

via Imgflip Meme Generator

ROFL. I tried going non-mounted Khuzait more than once but the map speed bonus for cavalry is too much to pass on. I don't like raiding villages (because of the relationship penalties and its consequences to recruiting) and there aren't many more options for getting the enemy to come to me, so I need to chase them. Khuzait speed bonus is such a blessing. The only thing actually worth passing it on for is Battanian fians. Dude... talk about handing of kicked asses to enemies who have no idea what shower of trains hit them.

 

[CZII]

I dread fighting Legionaries in Tournaments taking place in Imperial Cities as they have more armor than any other high tier units and even many lords by my reckoning.

If you have them in your party you can fight them in spear and shield duel rounds in Khuzait and Sturgian towns. Joy.

Now I know you guys are saying that's not a good idea but hear me out. Sturgians may be barbarian, but they've got plenty of armour, all things considered. They shouldn't match armour from the Imperials, but rather that of Vlandia. They both share coat of plates and chain mail, and yet Vlandians are tougher. So I think it wouldn't be too far fetched.

Sturgian and Vlandian armors are already mostly the same.
The problem is half of the top tier Sturgian units use northern lamellar which is worse than nordic hauberk used by lower tier units. Tier 2 militia spearman is one of the most well armored units of Sturgia because of it. The current northern lamellar seems to be a legacy armor, there are new Sturgian lamellar armors in the game assets but they are not fully implemented yet.
There are also t4 Sturgian spearmen that get northern leather tabard instead of northern leather tabard over mail, which I assume is a mistake since the latter is a lot closer to armors used by other tier 4 infantry units.

 

[hruza]

I like to think that with how speed and damage works, more athletics means the potential to hit harder. Could be wrong, but if I am, it doesn't hurt to flank harder or reposition faster. Athletics does have a noticeable effect. Still, it wouldn't make or break anything.

In theory Athletics might look great, it should allow units to keep effective distance -using long weapons to keep enemy out of reach or to close distance with shorter reach weapons and should add bonus to the damage when moving. In reality AI can hardly use any of that and during field battles everything soon dissolves in to large cluster**** where AI units can hardly move. It's all down to armor and DPS.

This does get me thinking for sure though. If stats aside from the likes of athletics doesn't matter, equipment changes would work far better. Aside from giving barbarian armies better weapons, I'd actually buff their armour sets too.

Now I know you guys are saying that's not a good idea but hear me out. Sturgians may be barbarian, but they've got plenty of armour, all things considered. They shouldn't match armour from the Imperials, but rather that of Vlandia. They both share coat of plates and chain mail, and yet Vlandians are tougher. So I think it wouldn't be too far fetched.

Well, lore vise, top tier Sturgian troops get fairly good armors but it's logical that lover tier units can't afford as much armor as their imperial equivalents. So not been able to afford expensive armors until becoming veterans makes lot of sense. That said I am not against adding bit of armor to some of them. In particular Sturgian T4 spearmen could use some shoulders, adding 5-10 more armor for the body. But in general I am fine with Imperial mid tier having better armor then "barbarians". It's just that there is nothing to compensate for them game mechanic vise.

I would even accept mid barbarian tier to be inferior in general to Imperials, if they would get much stronger top tier unit at the end of the process. But that's not the case.

Btw, I need to check if barbarian units are not cheaper to maintain. That would also be possible compensation and would too make sense lore vise -yes, legionary is better equipped, but that also makes him more expensive.

 

[Bramborough]

Small topic tangent, but am just wondering...in threads like this, I see many statements like, "Unit X has worse armor than Unit Y".

Where are people finding the armor values upon which to base such comparisons? They're certainly not visible in game. Are that many folks (successfully) delving into the game files to find that info (I tried once, couldn't find it)? Are players just making that judgment based on appearance of the unit's avatar (in a game where relatively cheap leather-constructed Rough Tied Bracers offer second-highest hand armor available)?

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Small topic tangent, but am just wondering...in threads like this, I see many statements like, "Unit X has worse armor than Unit Y".

Where are people finding the armor values upon which to base such comparisons? They're certainly not visible in game. Are that many folks (successfully) delving into the game files to find that info (I tried once, couldn't find it)? Are players just making that judgment based on appearance of the unit's avatar (in a game where relatively cheap leather-constructed Rough Tied Bracers offer second-highest hand armor available)?

A very simple way which I've only recently tried in some modding escapades is the use of the developer console command mod. I get to see everything and work out some things.

Before that, I pretty much delved into the spitems.xml file using notepad++. Been trying to create my very own Battanian roster, except with more archers and less cavalry.

In theory Athletics might look great, it should allow units to keep effective distance -using long weapons to keep enemy out of reach or to close distance with shorter reach weapons and should add bonus to the damage when moving. In reality AI can hardly use any of that and during field battles everything soon dissolves in to large cluster**** where AI units can hardly move. It's all down to armor and DPS.

Yeah, guess not. If they do get perks working on troops in battles though, perhaps that would make the difference? The Huscarls of Warband were significantly stronger than other units thanks to those. Would be great to see perks made with units in mind.

Well, lore vise, top tier Sturgian troops get fairly good armors but it's logical that lover tier units can't afford as much armor as their imperial equivalents. So not been able to afford expensive armors until becoming veterans makes lot of sense. That said I am not against adding bit of armor to some of them. In particular Sturgian T4 spearmen could use some shoulders, adding 5-10 more armor for the body. But in general I am fine with Imperial mid tier having better armor then "barbarians". It's just that there is nothing to compensate for them game mechanic vise.

I would even accept mid barbarian tier to be inferior in general to Imperials, if they would get much stronger top tier unit at the end of the process. But that's not the case.

Yeah, pretty much. I really wouldn't mind if all Imperials remained consistently more well armoured than everyone else. Let that be one of their faction 'hats'. A boost for the barbarians is good and all, but I don't need them overshadowing the Imperials in defence.

Btw, I need to check if barbarian units are not cheaper to maintain. That would also be possible compensation and would too make sense lore vise -yes, legionary is better equipped, but that also makes him more expensive.

I don't think that's the case sadly. I think everyone is mostly the same price and upkeep throughout, will check myself though.

 

[Maximum997]

About javelines - too offten infantry get shot to the face while trying to use it. They can kill few pesants and even decent units, and it is cool to have them. But i dont think they are important to the infantry.

 

[drallim33]

Small topic tangent, but am just wondering...in threads like this, I see many statements like, "Unit X has worse armor than Unit Y".

Where are people finding the armor values upon which to base such comparisons? They're certainly not visible in game. Are that many folks (successfully) delving into the game files to find that info (I tried once, couldn't find it)? Are players just making that judgment based on appearance of the unit's avatar (in a game where relatively cheap leather-constructed Rough Tied Bracers offer second-highest hand armor available)?

spnpccharacters.xml has the equipment used by each troop. There are about three variations in loadout for each troop chosen randomly, so a spearman might have decent armor 33% of the time and crap armor 66% of the time. Or slightly different weapons.

spitems.xml has the stats for the items themselves.

Both are in modules/sandboxcore/moduledata directory

Athletics is a double edged sword because like a fast horse it makes you get into battle first and take the brunt of the attack. Some of those naked two-hander guys run as fast as a horse, if they are in with the rest of the infantry they will be at the front line ahead of everyone else.

So in some situations having low athletics or slow speed can be an advantage, if your more lightly armored lower tier troops rush ahead and take the big hits for you.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Athletics is a double edged sword because like a fast horse it makes you get into battle first and take the brunt of the attack. Some of those naked two-hander guys run as fast as a horse, if they are in with the rest of the infantry they will be at the front line ahead of everyone else.

So in some situations having low athletics or slow speed can be an advantage, if your more lightly armored lower tier troops rush ahead and take the big hits for you.

Much of that can be mitigated by grouping your shock infantry separately from your line infantry. Once that gets sorted, high athletics becomes really handy for getting flankers into position.

 

[drallim33]

Nobody got time for that. I deliberately give companions slow horses so they don't zoom ahead of the rabble and die before the fight even started.

But the point wasn't about naked guys. It was that being heavy and slow can help legionaries survive because the faster weaker units around them take the first hits.

 

[Mikey]

Too good? Huh. I find my Legionnaires die at 3-4 x the rate my Elite Menavlions do - especially in sieges, which is surprising. I would have thought the Legionnaires' shield would help them survive there. Perhaps it's more to do with the AI not raising shields until the unit is in melee or something. Though granted this is based on gut feeling and memory, not actual statistics so take it with more salt than Good King Harlaus uses in an average week.

 

[MinhTien]

Too good? Huh. I find my Legionnaires die at 3-4 x the rate my Elite Menavlions do - especially in sieges, which is surprising. I would have thought the Legionnaires' shield would help them survive there. Perhaps it's more to do with the AI not raising shields until the unit is in melee or something. Though granted this is based on gut feeling and memory, not actual statistics so take it with more salt than Good King Harlaus uses in an average week.

My Menavliatons are made out of paper lol. I don't think I ever had more than 5 Elite Menavliatons, they keep dying to missiles.

I personally don't find Legionaries to be particularly strong. They seem tankier, true, but killing-power-wise, they are pretty unimpressive. I don't have the stats, but I find the Darkhan to be similarly tanky, but a lot more dangerous with their javelins, but it could just be my flawed observation. All my fiefs are at the Western end of the map, so I don't have many Darkhan, even though I'm a Khuzait lord.

Sturgian Shock Troops are absolute killing machines with their 2h Warrazors, but they tend to die a lot when using those, so eh. Hope they fix the group assignment soon, so it's more convenient to have dedicated Shock troops group. I do like the the Sea Raider Chief and Sturgian Veteran Warriors, decent enough armor, big shields, deadly javelins, they perform well enough.

Vlandian Sergeants seem pretty weak to me, like an inferior version of the Legionaries, nothing impressive all around. But maybe that's part of the faction balance?

Battanian infantries do seem to be squishier compare to others. Again, I mainly use the Wildling line for their javelins, don't use the Oathsworn enough to form a solid opinion on them.

 

[CZII]

Sturgian Shock Troops are absolute killing machines with their 2h Warrazors, but they tend to die a lot when using those, so eh.

I did some tests in custom battles and as far as shock infantry fighting other shock infantry goes it's Menavliatons > Shock Troops = Voulgiers.

Here's the caveat, I deleted 1h and 2h swords from their equipment sets to run the tests. Units seem to prefer to use the weapon with higher value unless specific behavior kicks in (e.g. use polearms against cav) and the value of a weapon is based on damage per second. Menavlions and voulges have 1h mode with very low damage and handling and that is the mode used to calculate their value which ends up being on par with some peasant weapons. Warrazor doesn't have a 1h mode so its value is calculated for 2h mode and it's one of the most expensive weapons in the game. As a result, Shock Troops use their polearms in most situations while Menavliatons and Voulgiers whip out their murder scythes only when they fight horses.

If devs fixed weapon preference, value of menavliatons and voulges or introduced weapon type commands for the player then Menavliatons would be more viable as they have a lot more armor than Shock Troops and Voulgiers.

I personally don't find Legionaries to be particularly strong. They seem tankier, true, but killing-power-wise, they are pretty unimpressive.

Forming a bulwark against the enemy is their main function. Infantry simply can not do as much damage as ranged units, at least the way the game currently is. Staying power allows them to kill more enemies in bigger battles if you really care about that.

Vlandian Sergeants seem pretty weak to me, like an inferior version of the Legionaries, nothing impressive all around. But maybe that's part of the faction balance?

Sergeants have a chance to spawn with a 2h billhook, some of them are closer to shock infantry than to heavy infantry. That gives them an advantage in melee. They win both against Legionaries and Veteran Warriors if the latter don't have a particularly good javelin volley. In a shield wall they are not great though. If units in formations hid units without shields behind the ones with shields they would work a lot better but then you would be able to mix heavy inf and shock inf in a single formation and they still would be the odd unit with blurred specialization.