Thormac
Veteran

This set of consentrated suggestions got "a bit" out of hand. New ideas sprouted problems or other ideas and there was no end. I thought "what the heck" lets write them down. So sorry about the length of this post. Some of these ARE too big, unusably bad or Mount&Blade 2: Revenge of the Warrider material but hopefully there is some valid ideas for this game. If anyone finds mistakes, illogicalities, contradictions, loopholes or other stupidities (excluding the numerous typos) please post a reply.
I have been playing Mount&Blade(: Warrider) a lot, but the game is getting a bit repetitive at times. I feel that it needs some additional tactical twist and more dynamic gameplay. Hireable units should be more specific and defined. To make them count game mechanics should be also tuned.
Sigh...here we go.
PARTY
First about how party's composition is defined.
HERO FRIENDS AND PARTY SKILLS:
I think it would be much better to separate hero friends from hired & commanded help. Simple CHA attribute could define how many hero friends player can have accompanying him. The number of heroes could be CHA/3 for example. This way player doesn't have to put points in leadership to gain friends. Players charisma should be enough. So hero companions shouldn't fill any "stacks". Available number of heroes in the game should be higher than player can have in his party (even with high CHA) and some of them could be well hidden, random or hard to aquire. Player would have to choose carefully who to let join his party.
There is a problem with party skills however. With only 3 heroes the party skills can be maxed out pretty easilly (so can other skills). Maybe you can extend skills to 10 points. Max skill level is now 6, right? This could apply only to party skills. In the same time you could lower the experience gain.
or/and more preferably...
Party skills could be less efficient, but could be affecting collectively. Not just the highest one. I know many players will be pissed off if they accidentally raised some party skill while other hero had it at higher level. Effectively that skill point would be totally wasted. Total collective party skill (shows in the party screen) could be calculated like this:
Start with a highest skill as a whole, add second highest as halved, then third highest as 1/3, then fourth highest as 1/4 and so forth. For example if player had tactics skill of 2 and his four heroes had the skill at 5, 3, 3 and 1 party would have a collective tactics skill of (5+1.5+1+0.5+0.2=8.2) 8 instead of 5.
Now the other lesser skill points wouldn't be totally useless. This can be somewhat realistically applied to all party skills imo. Leadership, prisoner management and inventory management could also be party skills. Companions could help player as his leutenants by leading his soldiers and managing prisoners. They could also help carry stuff improving party inventory size. There could actually be a separate inventory screen in the party screen for party stuff. Player could move equipment to himself or other party members from there.
HIRED SOLDIERS:
Hired units (see "tech tree" resembling figure below) could be stacked bit like now. It would feel logical to me if every stack could mean different branch of service in the battlefield.
Determining how many stacks and how many soldiers player can command could be done differently. I suggest the following:
LEADERSHIP skill (based on CHA) could determine maximum number of troops and their morale multiplier. As I stated earlyer this could be a party skill. Skill could also affect on the availability of hireable soldiers and maybe their cost. City lords wouldn't give out soldiers so easilly if player wasn't worthy. Maybe player should have a chance to command larger party since there is groups like war parties with close to 100 men. I suggest max number of soldiers in party could be calculated like this: 2xCHA + LEADERSHIP x CHA/2
TACTICS (party) skill (based on INT) could determine how broad unit branching (number of stacks) player can use. Currently stack number is determined by CHA based LEADERSHIP skill, but I think INT based TACTICS is more accurate. TACTICS skill could determine how broad command set player can use to direct his soldiers (see "COMMANDS" below). Also TACTICS would have an impact on how much soldiers and what kind of troop composition player can start the battle phase. With higher TACTICS skill player could choose more accurately what unit types participate in a battle phase. I don't really know how this is done now.
I also feel that the minimum number of player's units in the field should be at least 12. Preferably more. Max number should be players option. As I said earlyer party skills like TACTICS should be collective so players heroes are helping player to manage battles. They would be acting as player's leutenants if you will.
Different stacks and explanation why:
RECRUITS = Poorly skilled undisciplined recruits who need some attention from leader. [peasants, militiamen]
FIGHTERS = Basic attack soldiers to finish enemy off [Men-at-arms, Footknight]
SPEARMEN = Defence and fixing units to hold & stop enemy [Spearmen, Pikemen]
MISSILES = ranged units who might need to be protected [crossbowmen, bowmen, javelinmen]
Mounted units would be categorized as above effectively doubling the stacks.This adds up to 8 different stacks. Maybe there could be more specialized units.
EXAMPLE OF RECRUITABLE FACTION UNITS TREE
YOU COULD EASILLY TRIPLE UNITS BY ADDING "poor" and "good" PREFIXES TO UNIT NAMES AND ALTER THEIR SKILLS ACCORDINGLY. Of course there could be more like "green", "poor", "experienced", "veteran", "elite" etc.
MAKING IT ALL COUNT
To make these unit changes have some meaning there should be some additional changes. Different units should have distinctive weaknesses and strenghts.
Missile units:
Missile units have their range, but should be poor in melee. Currently (v.2.60) missile units are borderline useless while using their missile weapons. I have watched AI missile units shoot eachother yet rarely hitting anything. They can deplete their ammo without a single hit. I think increasing their accuracy and maybe damage would be in order. Javelin damage particularly seems a bit low. The speed difference which javelin hits has more impact on the damage than arrow because of it's mass. This means that throwin javelin to a rider who is riding away makes "significantly" less damage than throwing one to rider who rides towards the thrower. I'm thinkin this insignificant feature might be difficoult to do, but it is just a thought. Also initial accuracy of crossbows should be much higher than bows due to their simple point and click interface. Historically this was also true. Training good bowmen took years, but effective crossbowmen unit could be assembled in a matter of weeks. You wouln't need to speed up the skill increase. Crossbows just should be more accurate than bows with the same skill. Particularly in the low skill range.
On a side note I did a little googling on English longbowmen, and found out that first class longbowman at the time should be able to shoot 10 or more arrows per minute and hit "small" target "frequently" on distances up to 300 yards (274m). I think this could be a bit of an exaggeration or vague eventhough, supposedly, some modern day amateurs can do this too (with traditional longbow). Also, supposedly, modern day longbow tests confirm that; "A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards (183m). No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 (183m) yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards (91m)".
Spear/Pikemen:
Spear and pike troops should have much more reach. I (think I) understand the difficulty of doing this, but could it be done something like this:
Pike soldiers would have a reach about 250-300 or maybe even more. This would enable them to engage enemy swordmen (and other lesser reach troops) from a safe distance. Horses could be also stopped relatively easilly. If enemy moves deep inside thrusting polearms reach (so that the pike/long spear wielder cannot attack) unit would be defending with shield (if he was using one) and trying to back up. Soon if pike AI was unable to hit pike could be dropped or changed to secondary weapon. There could be a random delay for changing weapon (depending maybe on morale and more importantly enemy number in reach distance and damage taken). More importantly pike would be forced to upward position if any unit was in the pike's way & inside it's reach. This would prevent pike unit to attack enemy trough friendly units. I think this is doable. Am I right? Pike and longer spearmen could move with their weapon pointing up as usual. Weapon would be lowered only when enemy was close to reach and in front of them. Maybe pike and other long spear units would turn much slower while pointing their weapon forward.
I think player can hit enemy trough his own units. This could be a "problem" when using weapon as long as these. Maybe you can solve this kind of "clipping"? If not I would be 100% satisfied if player would be denied of such long reach weapons alltogether, or that player continues to hit trough friendly units (if this really even happens). Best solution would be that weapon could be force raised to upwards position if something was too close. I think this can be done relatively easilly???
1h & 2h fighters:
Short reach melee units such as swordmen would be good at finishing enemy off. Best of them have high damage and good armour, but still lack the reach. They would usually suffer few "free" hits from longer reach enemy units such as pikemen if charging them head-on. When hit (by pike or other) they should normally be pushed back a bit making it hard to maneuver close to higher reach opponents. Would it be easy to adjust AI to occasionally try to circle around higher reach opponent?
Riders:
Horse units would have their mobility, but would be vulnerable to missile and pike/longspear units.
IMPROVED COMMANDING IN BATTLE:
All these changes would be almost useless without improved commanding. Moving a bunch of varied units in a single horde wouldn't bring anything notable tactics in the game. Here is what I suggest.
Player uses "§" and number buttons in this example to select different unit(s).
selecting a unit:
So when player pushes 2, 1 and finally 3 he selects foot crossbowmen. If he pushes 2 and 2 then all non-missile footmen would be selected. There could be more subgategories. Crossbowmen for example could be divided to light and heavy as seen on the unit tree figure, but maybe its a bit too much.
Player could also group units together with a GROUP command (see below). He could then select this group by pushing a single button. Maybe groups could be created before battle begins or in a pause mode.
Hero companions could be assigned to player or to any other selectable unit group as seen above. This could be done from party screen for example.
When player has selected units or group he can assign an order.
COMMANDS:
FOLLOW
-units try to stay near player and protect him by attacking enemy who was too close
HALT
-units stop where they stand perhaps seeking nearby high ground, but will fight when attacked
CHARGE
-units charge the enemy to melee (also missile units)
SKIRMISH
- missile units will move to range and use missiles while evading melee with enemy
- non-missile units will wait untill enemy was in certain range (same as missile units evading range) and then switch to CHARGE mode
MOVE
-player clicks terrain and units will go there and turn to SKIRMISH mode (or HALT mode)
FLEE
-units will try to evade enemy, move towards closest edge of the map and leave the battlefield [units with low enough morale will have this "command" in effect until they regain their morale and switch to earlyer command or FOLLOW]
GROUP
-selected unit will join a group player selects
Maybe a high enough TACTICS skill would be required to acces more complex orders like GROUP, SKIRMISH, MOVE and FLEE. So initially player could only order his soldiers to FOLLOW, HALT and CHARGE.
STARTING POSITIONS IN BATTLEFIELD AND FLEEING
Placements in the beginning of battle
In case of attacking a fleeing group:
Fleeing group (with reduced morale) should be placed in center of the battlefield and attacking group near it.
In case of attacking a waiting group:
Attacker should starts at the edge of the field and waiting group at the center. In case on AI attackin it should arrive slowly to the field from outside the battlefield borders. Player would now have enough time to prepare his defence. In case of AI group waiting it's different brances should be positioned "tactically". AI would try to position itself to opposite side of river. Missile troops would be positioned on the hill and melee footmen somewhere close in front of them. Cavalry could be somewhere in the flank rear.
Both groups attacking:
Both groups would start at their own sides normally.
About fleeing
What if player's group away from any cities was slower and totally inferior to the AI chasing it? Player should be doomed because I feel that there should be more penalty when losing a battle. I can think of two solutions. Hiding and creating a diversion.
First if there was a hide or evade skill which would be embedded in path finding skill. Pathfinding could be unchanged or changed to huntmanship, outdoormanship, wilderness knowledge or such. Now this skill could affect; party speed, food production and hide/evade ability. hunting for food would only be effective when waiting by pushing space. This would not support huge party though. When trying to hide from chasing enemy there would be a check between this new pathfinding skill and spotting skill. Terrain, size of the groups and distance between them would be factors. Also horses would make hiding much harder. Hidin/evading group's movement speed would be lowered.
AI could also have this skill. It could wait and use hide in the map. AI would now be invisible untill player party's spotting skill would reveal it. Alternatively AI could become visible gradually. For example if spotting check was only barely succesfull AI model would become transparent and barely visible. This transparency should be so strong that it would be very hard to spot AI from the landscape.
For creating a diversion player could drop (preferably slower) units off his group. This wouldn't be like evil player sacrificing bunch of peasants to save his own ass. It would be more like "We are doomed! Its every man for himself!" situation. Only controlled by player. For this "diversion" to work AI should consider more which group to attack. If it was chasing much faster group for a while and a slow trade caravan slides by, there should be great chance that AI would target this caravan instead.
UNIT DESCRIPTIONS (Don't ask why. Just for the heck of it)
I tried to describe average unit. There could be better or worse skilled as I wrote before. Player would need appropriate rank in a faction to hire certain units. Other non faction special units wouldn't obviously need this.
Peasants:
Simple farmers using farm tools as weapons
Weapons = scythes, forks, cleavers etc.
Armour = thick clothes or less
Weapon skill = 35
Morale = 3
Cost per week = 35
Militia:
Peasants with basic weapon training with poor melee weapons
Weapons = Poor low damage swords, spears, axes etc.
Armour = Leather armour
weapon skill = 50
Morale = 5
Cost per week = 60
Javelinmen:
Using javelins to skirmish, but has also melee weapons.
Weapons = Javelins, poor shield and small 1 handed weapon.
Armour = Good leather armour
Weapon skill = 70, melee 60
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 110
Heavy Javelinmen:
Using Jarid or better to skirmish, but has also melee weapons.
Weapons = Jarids, Shield and 1 handed weapon
Armour = Padded, thick leather or equivalent
weapon skill = 90, melee 80
Morale = 8
Cost per week = 185
Archers:
basic missile infantry using short bows or equivalent.
Weapons = short bow, small 1-h melee weapon, no shield
Armour = Leather armour
Weapon skill = missile 70 (looks poor but relative AI accuracy should be raised dramatically), melee 55
Morale = 5
Cost per week = 150
Longbowmen:
Elite missile infantry using long bows or equivalent.
Weapons = Long bow, good 1h weapon (and maybe small buckler shield)
Armour = strong leather
weapon skill = missile 110 (should rarely miss immobile targets at < 40m), melee 65
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 225
Light crossbowmen:
Similar to archers, but has better armour.
Weapons = light crossbow, small 1-h melee weapon, buckler(small) shield
Armour = padded or thick leather armour
Weapon skill = missile 65 (poorer than archers skill, but is still more accurate as I wrote earlyer), melee 80
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 150
Heavy crossbowmen:
Like light crossbowmen but has better armour, better crossbow and better skill.
Weapons = Heavy crossbow, good 1h weapon, small shield
Armour = light metal armour
weapon skill = missile 90 (poorer than longbowmen skill, but is still more accurate as I wrote earlyer), melee 80
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 205
Men-at-arms:
Core melee fighters of the army.
weapons = 2h weapon or 1h weapon and shield
Armour = ringmail or similar metal armour
Weapon skill = 100
Morale = 10
Cost per week = 220
Footknights:
Elite and proud melee infantry.
Weapons = Fine 2h weapon or fine 1h weapon and fine shield
Armour = Plate or similar armour
Weapon skill = 140
Morale = 13
Cost per week = 355
Spearmen:
Long reach melee fighters suited for stopping cavalry
Weapons = Good Spear and shield
Armour = Strong leather or padded. no metal.
Weapon skill = 90
Morale = 8
Cost per week = 165
Pikemen:
Longest reach melee infantry to fix enemy.
Weapons = Fine longpike with good shield, secondary small 1h weapon.
Armour = ringmail or similar metal armour
Weapon skill = 120
Morale = 12
Cost per week = 260
Horsemen:
Simply mounted militiamen with slightly better skills. Riding saddle horses
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 110
Horse skirmishers:
Mounted javelinmen. Riding saddle horses.
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 150
Horse archers:
Mounted archers. Riding saddle horses.
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 180
Mounted crossbowmen:
Yup. (light) crossbowmen riding saddle horses.
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 200
Riders-at-arms:
Men-at-arms on horseback. Riding hunters or chargers.
Morale = 11
Cost per week = 280
Knights:
Mounted knights. Riding warhorses.
Morale = 15
Cost per week = 440
Cavalrymen:
Spearmen on horseback. Riding hunters or chargers.
Morale = 9
Cost per week = 225
Lancers:
Like knights with lances and shields delivering heavy warrider damage. Lances would be able to outreach some short spears, but not long spears or pikes. Lancers would be superior agains other horse units due to their reach on head-on charges. Enemies could be possibly knocked off their saddle. Secondary 1h weapon for footed melee with about 100 skill. Riding warhorses.
Morale = 16
Cost per week = 460
SPECIAL MERCENARIES:
These could be selected in battle using group buttons 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 or 0.
Nomad band:
Steppe warriors used to fighting on horseback. Only hireable in 6-40 warrior groups. Encountered on map.
Weapons = Missile and melee weapons
Armour = Leather
Weapon skill = missile 80, melee 80
Morale = 2-10 (depends on players relation. Initial morale = 6)
Cost per week (daily payments) = ((250-10xLeadership)-[number of warriors]) x number of warriors
Dark riders:
Seasoned soldiers on slave and pillaging business. Only hireable in 12-40 men groups
Weapons = Large and heavy
Armour = Thick and strong
Weapon skill = 160
Morale = 4-12 (depends on players relation. Initial morale = 8 )
Cost per week (daily payments) = ((500-15xLeadership)-[number of men]) x number of men
Refugees:
Homeless peasant women and men looking for a new start. Only refugees that are allied with player will join him. Only hireable in 3-40 peasant groups.
Weapons = farming tools, cutlery, sticks and clubs
Armour = thick clothes or less
Weapon skill = 30
Morale = 3
Cost per week = ((100-5xLeadership)-[number of peasants]) x number of peasants
Well... I better stop here.
I have been playing Mount&Blade(: Warrider) a lot, but the game is getting a bit repetitive at times. I feel that it needs some additional tactical twist and more dynamic gameplay. Hireable units should be more specific and defined. To make them count game mechanics should be also tuned.
Sigh...here we go.
PARTY
First about how party's composition is defined.
HERO FRIENDS AND PARTY SKILLS:
I think it would be much better to separate hero friends from hired & commanded help. Simple CHA attribute could define how many hero friends player can have accompanying him. The number of heroes could be CHA/3 for example. This way player doesn't have to put points in leadership to gain friends. Players charisma should be enough. So hero companions shouldn't fill any "stacks". Available number of heroes in the game should be higher than player can have in his party (even with high CHA) and some of them could be well hidden, random or hard to aquire. Player would have to choose carefully who to let join his party.
There is a problem with party skills however. With only 3 heroes the party skills can be maxed out pretty easilly (so can other skills). Maybe you can extend skills to 10 points. Max skill level is now 6, right? This could apply only to party skills. In the same time you could lower the experience gain.
or/and more preferably...
Party skills could be less efficient, but could be affecting collectively. Not just the highest one. I know many players will be pissed off if they accidentally raised some party skill while other hero had it at higher level. Effectively that skill point would be totally wasted. Total collective party skill (shows in the party screen) could be calculated like this:
Start with a highest skill as a whole, add second highest as halved, then third highest as 1/3, then fourth highest as 1/4 and so forth. For example if player had tactics skill of 2 and his four heroes had the skill at 5, 3, 3 and 1 party would have a collective tactics skill of (5+1.5+1+0.5+0.2=8.2) 8 instead of 5.
Now the other lesser skill points wouldn't be totally useless. This can be somewhat realistically applied to all party skills imo. Leadership, prisoner management and inventory management could also be party skills. Companions could help player as his leutenants by leading his soldiers and managing prisoners. They could also help carry stuff improving party inventory size. There could actually be a separate inventory screen in the party screen for party stuff. Player could move equipment to himself or other party members from there.
HIRED SOLDIERS:
Hired units (see "tech tree" resembling figure below) could be stacked bit like now. It would feel logical to me if every stack could mean different branch of service in the battlefield.
Determining how many stacks and how many soldiers player can command could be done differently. I suggest the following:
LEADERSHIP skill (based on CHA) could determine maximum number of troops and their morale multiplier. As I stated earlyer this could be a party skill. Skill could also affect on the availability of hireable soldiers and maybe their cost. City lords wouldn't give out soldiers so easilly if player wasn't worthy. Maybe player should have a chance to command larger party since there is groups like war parties with close to 100 men. I suggest max number of soldiers in party could be calculated like this: 2xCHA + LEADERSHIP x CHA/2
TACTICS (party) skill (based on INT) could determine how broad unit branching (number of stacks) player can use. Currently stack number is determined by CHA based LEADERSHIP skill, but I think INT based TACTICS is more accurate. TACTICS skill could determine how broad command set player can use to direct his soldiers (see "COMMANDS" below). Also TACTICS would have an impact on how much soldiers and what kind of troop composition player can start the battle phase. With higher TACTICS skill player could choose more accurately what unit types participate in a battle phase. I don't really know how this is done now.
I also feel that the minimum number of player's units in the field should be at least 12. Preferably more. Max number should be players option. As I said earlyer party skills like TACTICS should be collective so players heroes are helping player to manage battles. They would be acting as player's leutenants if you will.
Different stacks and explanation why:
RECRUITS = Poorly skilled undisciplined recruits who need some attention from leader. [peasants, militiamen]
FIGHTERS = Basic attack soldiers to finish enemy off [Men-at-arms, Footknight]
SPEARMEN = Defence and fixing units to hold & stop enemy [Spearmen, Pikemen]
MISSILES = ranged units who might need to be protected [crossbowmen, bowmen, javelinmen]
Mounted units would be categorized as above effectively doubling the stacks.This adds up to 8 different stacks. Maybe there could be more specialized units.
EXAMPLE OF RECRUITABLE FACTION UNITS TREE
Code:
Peasants
|
|
|
Militia
|
|
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| Javelinmen Archers Light Men-at-arms spearmen
| | | crossbowmen | |
| | | | | |
| Heavy Longbowmen Heavy Footknights Pikemen
| Javelinmen crossbowmen
|
|
Horsemen
|
|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
Horse Horse Mounted Riders- Cavalry
Skirmishers Archers Crossbowmen at-arms |
| |
Knights Lancers
MAKING IT ALL COUNT
To make these unit changes have some meaning there should be some additional changes. Different units should have distinctive weaknesses and strenghts.
Missile units:
Missile units have their range, but should be poor in melee. Currently (v.2.60) missile units are borderline useless while using their missile weapons. I have watched AI missile units shoot eachother yet rarely hitting anything. They can deplete their ammo without a single hit. I think increasing their accuracy and maybe damage would be in order. Javelin damage particularly seems a bit low. The speed difference which javelin hits has more impact on the damage than arrow because of it's mass. This means that throwin javelin to a rider who is riding away makes "significantly" less damage than throwing one to rider who rides towards the thrower. I'm thinkin this insignificant feature might be difficoult to do, but it is just a thought. Also initial accuracy of crossbows should be much higher than bows due to their simple point and click interface. Historically this was also true. Training good bowmen took years, but effective crossbowmen unit could be assembled in a matter of weeks. You wouln't need to speed up the skill increase. Crossbows just should be more accurate than bows with the same skill. Particularly in the low skill range.
On a side note I did a little googling on English longbowmen, and found out that first class longbowman at the time should be able to shoot 10 or more arrows per minute and hit "small" target "frequently" on distances up to 300 yards (274m). I think this could be a bit of an exaggeration or vague eventhough, supposedly, some modern day amateurs can do this too (with traditional longbow). Also, supposedly, modern day longbow tests confirm that; "A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards (183m). No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 (183m) yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards (91m)".
Spear/Pikemen:
Spear and pike troops should have much more reach. I (think I) understand the difficulty of doing this, but could it be done something like this:
Pike soldiers would have a reach about 250-300 or maybe even more. This would enable them to engage enemy swordmen (and other lesser reach troops) from a safe distance. Horses could be also stopped relatively easilly. If enemy moves deep inside thrusting polearms reach (so that the pike/long spear wielder cannot attack) unit would be defending with shield (if he was using one) and trying to back up. Soon if pike AI was unable to hit pike could be dropped or changed to secondary weapon. There could be a random delay for changing weapon (depending maybe on morale and more importantly enemy number in reach distance and damage taken). More importantly pike would be forced to upward position if any unit was in the pike's way & inside it's reach. This would prevent pike unit to attack enemy trough friendly units. I think this is doable. Am I right? Pike and longer spearmen could move with their weapon pointing up as usual. Weapon would be lowered only when enemy was close to reach and in front of them. Maybe pike and other long spear units would turn much slower while pointing their weapon forward.
I think player can hit enemy trough his own units. This could be a "problem" when using weapon as long as these. Maybe you can solve this kind of "clipping"? If not I would be 100% satisfied if player would be denied of such long reach weapons alltogether, or that player continues to hit trough friendly units (if this really even happens). Best solution would be that weapon could be force raised to upwards position if something was too close. I think this can be done relatively easilly???
1h & 2h fighters:
Short reach melee units such as swordmen would be good at finishing enemy off. Best of them have high damage and good armour, but still lack the reach. They would usually suffer few "free" hits from longer reach enemy units such as pikemen if charging them head-on. When hit (by pike or other) they should normally be pushed back a bit making it hard to maneuver close to higher reach opponents. Would it be easy to adjust AI to occasionally try to circle around higher reach opponent?
Riders:
Horse units would have their mobility, but would be vulnerable to missile and pike/longspear units.
IMPROVED COMMANDING IN BATTLE:
All these changes would be almost useless without improved commanding. Moving a bunch of varied units in a single horde wouldn't bring anything notable tactics in the game. Here is what I suggest.
Player uses "§" and number buttons in this example to select different unit(s).
selecting a unit:
Code:
§ = select all
1 = Mounted;
1 = Mtd. missile;
1 = Mtd. javelin
2 = Mtd. archers
3 = Mtd. crossbowmen
2 = Mtd. melee;
1 = Mtd. fighters
2 = Mtd. spearmen
3 = Mtd. militia (could be in Mtd. fighters alternatively)
2 = Footmen;
1 = Missile;
1 = javelin
2 = archers
3 = crossbowmen
2 = Melee;
1 = fighters
2 = spearmen
3 = peasants&militia
3 = Group 1
4 = Group 2
5 = Group 3
etc.
Player could also group units together with a GROUP command (see below). He could then select this group by pushing a single button. Maybe groups could be created before battle begins or in a pause mode.
Hero companions could be assigned to player or to any other selectable unit group as seen above. This could be done from party screen for example.
When player has selected units or group he can assign an order.
COMMANDS:
FOLLOW
-units try to stay near player and protect him by attacking enemy who was too close
HALT
-units stop where they stand perhaps seeking nearby high ground, but will fight when attacked
CHARGE
-units charge the enemy to melee (also missile units)
SKIRMISH
- missile units will move to range and use missiles while evading melee with enemy
- non-missile units will wait untill enemy was in certain range (same as missile units evading range) and then switch to CHARGE mode
MOVE
-player clicks terrain and units will go there and turn to SKIRMISH mode (or HALT mode)
FLEE
-units will try to evade enemy, move towards closest edge of the map and leave the battlefield [units with low enough morale will have this "command" in effect until they regain their morale and switch to earlyer command or FOLLOW]
GROUP
-selected unit will join a group player selects
Maybe a high enough TACTICS skill would be required to acces more complex orders like GROUP, SKIRMISH, MOVE and FLEE. So initially player could only order his soldiers to FOLLOW, HALT and CHARGE.
STARTING POSITIONS IN BATTLEFIELD AND FLEEING
Placements in the beginning of battle
In case of attacking a fleeing group:
Fleeing group (with reduced morale) should be placed in center of the battlefield and attacking group near it.
In case of attacking a waiting group:
Attacker should starts at the edge of the field and waiting group at the center. In case on AI attackin it should arrive slowly to the field from outside the battlefield borders. Player would now have enough time to prepare his defence. In case of AI group waiting it's different brances should be positioned "tactically". AI would try to position itself to opposite side of river. Missile troops would be positioned on the hill and melee footmen somewhere close in front of them. Cavalry could be somewhere in the flank rear.
Both groups attacking:
Both groups would start at their own sides normally.
About fleeing
What if player's group away from any cities was slower and totally inferior to the AI chasing it? Player should be doomed because I feel that there should be more penalty when losing a battle. I can think of two solutions. Hiding and creating a diversion.
First if there was a hide or evade skill which would be embedded in path finding skill. Pathfinding could be unchanged or changed to huntmanship, outdoormanship, wilderness knowledge or such. Now this skill could affect; party speed, food production and hide/evade ability. hunting for food would only be effective when waiting by pushing space. This would not support huge party though. When trying to hide from chasing enemy there would be a check between this new pathfinding skill and spotting skill. Terrain, size of the groups and distance between them would be factors. Also horses would make hiding much harder. Hidin/evading group's movement speed would be lowered.
AI could also have this skill. It could wait and use hide in the map. AI would now be invisible untill player party's spotting skill would reveal it. Alternatively AI could become visible gradually. For example if spotting check was only barely succesfull AI model would become transparent and barely visible. This transparency should be so strong that it would be very hard to spot AI from the landscape.
For creating a diversion player could drop (preferably slower) units off his group. This wouldn't be like evil player sacrificing bunch of peasants to save his own ass. It would be more like "We are doomed! Its every man for himself!" situation. Only controlled by player. For this "diversion" to work AI should consider more which group to attack. If it was chasing much faster group for a while and a slow trade caravan slides by, there should be great chance that AI would target this caravan instead.
UNIT DESCRIPTIONS (Don't ask why. Just for the heck of it)
I tried to describe average unit. There could be better or worse skilled as I wrote before. Player would need appropriate rank in a faction to hire certain units. Other non faction special units wouldn't obviously need this.
Peasants:
Simple farmers using farm tools as weapons
Weapons = scythes, forks, cleavers etc.
Armour = thick clothes or less
Weapon skill = 35
Morale = 3
Cost per week = 35
Militia:
Peasants with basic weapon training with poor melee weapons
Weapons = Poor low damage swords, spears, axes etc.
Armour = Leather armour
weapon skill = 50
Morale = 5
Cost per week = 60
Javelinmen:
Using javelins to skirmish, but has also melee weapons.
Weapons = Javelins, poor shield and small 1 handed weapon.
Armour = Good leather armour
Weapon skill = 70, melee 60
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 110
Heavy Javelinmen:
Using Jarid or better to skirmish, but has also melee weapons.
Weapons = Jarids, Shield and 1 handed weapon
Armour = Padded, thick leather or equivalent
weapon skill = 90, melee 80
Morale = 8
Cost per week = 185
Archers:
basic missile infantry using short bows or equivalent.
Weapons = short bow, small 1-h melee weapon, no shield
Armour = Leather armour
Weapon skill = missile 70 (looks poor but relative AI accuracy should be raised dramatically), melee 55
Morale = 5
Cost per week = 150
Longbowmen:
Elite missile infantry using long bows or equivalent.
Weapons = Long bow, good 1h weapon (and maybe small buckler shield)
Armour = strong leather
weapon skill = missile 110 (should rarely miss immobile targets at < 40m), melee 65
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 225
Light crossbowmen:
Similar to archers, but has better armour.
Weapons = light crossbow, small 1-h melee weapon, buckler(small) shield
Armour = padded or thick leather armour
Weapon skill = missile 65 (poorer than archers skill, but is still more accurate as I wrote earlyer), melee 80
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 150
Heavy crossbowmen:
Like light crossbowmen but has better armour, better crossbow and better skill.
Weapons = Heavy crossbow, good 1h weapon, small shield
Armour = light metal armour
weapon skill = missile 90 (poorer than longbowmen skill, but is still more accurate as I wrote earlyer), melee 80
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 205
Men-at-arms:
Core melee fighters of the army.
weapons = 2h weapon or 1h weapon and shield
Armour = ringmail or similar metal armour
Weapon skill = 100
Morale = 10
Cost per week = 220
Footknights:
Elite and proud melee infantry.
Weapons = Fine 2h weapon or fine 1h weapon and fine shield
Armour = Plate or similar armour
Weapon skill = 140
Morale = 13
Cost per week = 355
Spearmen:
Long reach melee fighters suited for stopping cavalry
Weapons = Good Spear and shield
Armour = Strong leather or padded. no metal.
Weapon skill = 90
Morale = 8
Cost per week = 165
Pikemen:
Longest reach melee infantry to fix enemy.
Weapons = Fine longpike with good shield, secondary small 1h weapon.
Armour = ringmail or similar metal armour
Weapon skill = 120
Morale = 12
Cost per week = 260
Horsemen:
Simply mounted militiamen with slightly better skills. Riding saddle horses
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 110
Horse skirmishers:
Mounted javelinmen. Riding saddle horses.
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 150
Horse archers:
Mounted archers. Riding saddle horses.
Morale = 6
Cost per week = 180
Mounted crossbowmen:
Yup. (light) crossbowmen riding saddle horses.
Morale = 7
Cost per week = 200
Riders-at-arms:
Men-at-arms on horseback. Riding hunters or chargers.
Morale = 11
Cost per week = 280
Knights:
Mounted knights. Riding warhorses.
Morale = 15
Cost per week = 440
Cavalrymen:
Spearmen on horseback. Riding hunters or chargers.
Morale = 9
Cost per week = 225
Lancers:
Like knights with lances and shields delivering heavy warrider damage. Lances would be able to outreach some short spears, but not long spears or pikes. Lancers would be superior agains other horse units due to their reach on head-on charges. Enemies could be possibly knocked off their saddle. Secondary 1h weapon for footed melee with about 100 skill. Riding warhorses.
Morale = 16
Cost per week = 460
SPECIAL MERCENARIES:
These could be selected in battle using group buttons 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 or 0.
Nomad band:
Steppe warriors used to fighting on horseback. Only hireable in 6-40 warrior groups. Encountered on map.
Weapons = Missile and melee weapons
Armour = Leather
Weapon skill = missile 80, melee 80
Morale = 2-10 (depends on players relation. Initial morale = 6)
Cost per week (daily payments) = ((250-10xLeadership)-[number of warriors]) x number of warriors
Dark riders:
Seasoned soldiers on slave and pillaging business. Only hireable in 12-40 men groups
Weapons = Large and heavy
Armour = Thick and strong
Weapon skill = 160
Morale = 4-12 (depends on players relation. Initial morale = 8 )
Cost per week (daily payments) = ((500-15xLeadership)-[number of men]) x number of men
Refugees:
Homeless peasant women and men looking for a new start. Only refugees that are allied with player will join him. Only hireable in 3-40 peasant groups.
Weapons = farming tools, cutlery, sticks and clubs
Armour = thick clothes or less
Weapon skill = 30
Morale = 3
Cost per week = ((100-5xLeadership)-[number of peasants]) x number of peasants
Well... I better stop here.