Articulo34 , thanks for the link on that tweak for thrusting!
However...it is that awkward moment when i am not sure whether i should apply it on my mod-version, just because i know, that everything in mod is balanced with default thrust, default animations in mind.
How much better troops start to perform? Less irritating but still bad? Slightly better? Much better?
DeuxGzuis, initially i was going to post a lot of infantry vs infantry stuff, starting from the faction top-tiers and down to footman\light infantry levels , but looking at the change-log for POP 3.8 (which says there will be re-balancing of all units) , and reading things about possible time of release, i decided that it would be pointless to post info that might be outdated and obsolete after 2 weeks...
I think i will wait for pop 3.8 and then after checking new balance, changes, and performing some new tests i will post all inf. tests.
But If you are interested in some particular match ups, comparisons - i might search just for them, and post them in comments here .
So, would it be "Empire Mortals and Legionaries , Kierguard and Dragon Drake"
Articulo34 , thanks for the link on that tweak for thrusting!
However...it is that awkward moment when i am not sure whether i should apply it on my mod-version, just because i know, that everything in mod is balanced with default thrust, default animations in mind.
How much better troops start to perform? Less irritating but still bad? Slightly better? Much better?
This tweak increases the speed of the "release" animation. That means the chance of deliver a full blow is much greater than before. You´ll see less of that annoying "bounce-off-armor" attacks that deal 0 damage if the enemy happens to move forwards or backwards during your attack.
It´s not game changing on its own though. But if you combine it with the overhead thrust for spears/pikes you make thrusting polearms really battle worthy.
GIL, Ravenstern Man at Arms used to have a chance to get Blunt steel Polehammer in 3.7 , now almost half of them will have "simple" polehammer (you know, one with huge rock at the end of the stick
----
i will most probably follow sher's advice , and postpone some intensive testing , however , i will take a look (just a glance ) at some troops performance.
I will post some impressions in comments section, before making final table\spreadsheet for topic:
Starting from faction top inf.
Kierguards got +10 WPF , BUT! in reality they perform worse than in earlier version, because now (in POP 3.8.) something like 18-24 out of 50 kierguards will use mediocre Rav.Longswords. In POP 3.7 vast majority of them would use Knight War Axe.
I have no idea why they suddenly decided to go for swords - editors (like Morgh, and Konrad`s "barracks")are showing, that inventory is the same as for 3.7 v. (mb there is something else influencing choices?)
So quick testing showed, that Kierguard are now inferior compared to Huscals (which is good and logical, cos kiergs were just too powerful in 3.7) - in POP 3.7. they would beat Huscarls really hard .
Part of the reason why Huscarls (and stat-wise they look the same as in 3.7) made comeback in this rivalry - Fierds top-choppa-boyz , again, for unclear reason (inventory looks the same) suddenly realized , that they have Heraldic mail with tabard !
So, now roughly 17-20 ot of 50 spawn with this armor (while in pop 3.7. only 7-9 soldiers would spawn with this best possible armor) .
Glad to see that pendor blade(s)man do have cool and great helmet now
And during my quick test they are no longer some beautiful vase now, meanwhile not too strong too(maybe a little bit weaker than huscarl, but still have chance to win), just balanced very well
thanks for pointing to this, k0nr@d!
It would explain most of these seemingly "unexplained" changes
Heraldic mail surcoat was 3457 denars and now -> 6457
Heraldic mail with tabard : 3659 - > 6889
Fierds Briesplate over mail : 6947 - > 4367
Valdis Huscarl Armor: 4660 - > 5320
So, mb that is why they started to wear H.m. with tabard more - it is currently most expensive armor in their inventory , and previously a lot of them really would chose F.briestplate over mail for the same reason.
Ravenstern Longsword 224 -> 354
Kn.War Axe 3160 -> 280
So, huge drop in KWA price, which was 14 times more expensive in 3.7 than longsword (and was preferred weapon previously) now is cheaper, and pretty much in the same category with longsword.
i guess formula is not 100% reliable , and is subject to some random - but the "trend" is noticeable now, when you have pointed this out.
(earlier i thought it is just amount of items in their inventory )
thanks for pointing to this, k0nr@d!
It would explain most of these seemingly "unexplained" changes
Heraldic mail surcoat was 3457 denars and now -> 6457
Heraldic mail with tabard : 3659 - > 6889
Fierds Briesplate over mail : 6947 - > 4367
Valdis Huscarl Armor: 4660 - > 5320
So, mb that is why they started to wear H.m. with tabard more - it is currently most expensive armor in their inventory , and previously a lot of them really would chose F.briestplate over mail for the same reason.
Ravenstern Longsword 224 -> 354
Kn.War Axe 3160 -> 280
So, huge drop in KWA price, which was 14 times more expensive in 3.7 than longsword (and was preferred weapon previously) now is cheaper, and pretty much in the same category with longsword.
i guess formula is not 100% reliable , and is subject to some random - but the "trend" is noticeable now, when you have pointed this out.
(earlier i thought it is just amount of items in their inventory )
Here is another example which might against it, the weapon of knight of Griffin, In 3.7063( sry I haven't got the new price), the Ebony knight sword is much more expensive than sliver long sword, but the fact is Griffin knights prefer to use sliver long sword.
I think the original loot table from troops.txt for each soldier determines which items they actually get in their inventory, and then if they have multiple weapons/armor in their inventory, they more likely choose to equip the more expensive one.
I am doing testing of troops inventory and subsequent weapons assigning\spawning . I will post details tomorrow, let me just tell you, that this warband system is close to being stupid and absurd . No wonder we are getting confused so often , seeing strange "exceptions" all over the place.
It is still predictable enough, but in rather counter-intuitive form. Wait for results and examples and you will see what i mean.
So, about inventory system...
After couple of days, my thought are like this: oh my God... how on earth could anyone came up with such strange system?
I don`t think i can even post some sort of " final results of testing, to be used as a guidance" , because inventory\equipment spawning system is such a MESS, that it probably has to be tested in game every time you add or move item, since it is almost impossible to predict results from Editor , while adding equip. I will post just findings and examples.
There are many weird things here and lot of unnecessary difficulties were created (and kindly and happily introduced) by talewords.
So, there are two processes going on -
1) Spawing particular weapon\piece of equipment on a unit (or in his in-game "backpack" )
2) deciding to choose it after it has spawned (to use it)
+ there is random. But not too wild one, but sort of predictable randomization like +10%/-10% .
The first process of spawning weapons is heavily influenced by the order in which unit`s inventory is organized .
In case of several - identical - melee weapons added into pool :
1) First weapon in the list will have bigger chances to spawn - 41-45 times for 50 soldiers
By default it will be probably used by 50% soldiers +/- random
2) Second weapon will spawn roughly 25 times for 50 soldiers (+/- random) , and will be used by the same amount of soldiers (if 20 swords are spawned - 20 swords will be drawn out)
3) If first weapon Is faster - it will be chosen over second one. (even slight advantage will count)
If it has more damage - then most likely it will be chosen over second .
However, the exact formula for this is probably too complicated and not set in stone.
- if competing weapons have 20 cut damage, adding +7 to first one -will be enough for soldiers to prefer it.
- if weapons are 30 cut damage - only +10 cut damage will do the trick . (8 or 9 will not give anything. It is "step" , not smooth progression with increse)
- Looks like pierce damage counts for more.
In this case 43-46 soldiers who spawned with first weapon will use it, ignoring second.
Obviuosly, second weapon who spawned just 25 times because of its place in the inventory list - will not benefit too much of being better - cos it is already used by all who possess it.
Oh, btw, just to make system more logical - adding 7 instances of the same secondary weapon - will DECREASE it chances to spawn. While adding instances of first weapon - will INCREASE its chances of getting to your soldiers ,
So, if you have inventory like this
Sword A - Armor -shield- boots- gloves-Sword B - head armor :
and you put additional instances of Sword B - it decreases in-game instances of sword B ,
If you add sword A - it increases its chances to be used
-----
Price does not seems to increase weapons usage in pure weapon tests (like when you give weapons to naked soldiers and test price increase) , UNLESS there is some piece of alternative equipment in the same inventory (like two sets of armor available). We will see it later on.
ARmor - it is harder to test, because you cannot see "unused but spawned" armor . like you can see holsters , swords on the backs etc
Looks like system ignores Armor rating. It is just about Order and price.
BTW - just 1 denar more expensive armor - is considered by system as "far better" , there is no progression , like slow increase in use with each additional +100 or something like this, no , just one flag "more expensive".
If you got 2 pieces of body armor , then most of the times first armor will be used by 40-45 soldiers, and second armor by remaining numbers 5-10.
if there are 3 armor pieces , and 50 soldiers
first Armor ( price 100 ) - 27-29 users
second Armor ( price 100 ) - 12-15 users
third Armor ( price 100 ) - 7-10 users
first Armor ( price 101 ) - 27-29 users
second Armor ( price 100 ) - 12-13 users
third Armor ( price 100 ) - 10-11 users
first Armor ( price 100 ) - 13-16 users
second Armor ( price 101 ) - 27 users
third Armor ( price 100 ) - 10-11 users
first Armor ( price 100 ) - 11-14 users
second Armor ( price 100 ) - 8 users
third Armor ( price 101 ) - 25-31 users
first Armor ( price 100 ) - 0 users (yeah, it got "eliminated" )
second Armor ( price 101 ) - 26-29 users
third Armor ( price 101 ) - 21-24 users
You thought , finally! logical and working system?
Again, "screw you! "
I had this "perfectly logical situation" in my testing
Sword A (300 denar) 19 users (drawn out this when ordered), and 42 swords spawned (only those seen in holsters)
1-Armor (100 d) 0 users
2-armor (100 d) 24 users
3- armor (100 d) 26 users
Sword B (100 d) 31 users, (31 spawned)
Can you explain disappearing of first Armor ?
Look at my magic , i moved sword B higher in stack aaaand:
booms!
Sword A (300 denar) 19 users (drawn out this when ordered), and 42 swords spawned (only those seen in holsters)
1-Armor (100 d) 16 users
2-armor (100 d) 24 users
Sword B (100 d) 31 users, (31 spawned)
3- armor (100 d) 10 users
And our first armor is back!
Also, once I had inventory like this
Sword A (price 100) - Armor-C (price 100) - Armor-F (price 100) -shield- boots- gloves -Sword B (price 100) -Sword C (price 100) - head armor
- In this case 43 to 7 soldiers were putting on Armor F . (not the first one! second one)
When i increased price of Sword C to 3000 d, all of a sudden it turned to 42-43 to 7-8 in favor of first Armor C ...
See ? It is perfectly fine system, predictable, reliable, modding friendly
"See ? It is perfectly fine system, predictable, reliable, modding friendly"
Ha. Usually there are only two types of systems - direct control and lazy ones "simply and fast" to use. Latter can be used if they're designed well right from the start but it almost always leads to situation when creators continue to use "simply and fast" system as a base for more advanced and complicated goals while what they should do is to throw it away as inappropriate and "served enough". M&B inventory system is bad right from the start since it prohibits direct control completely (unless it's used for only one fixed setup per unit and even then it fails in case of 2 packs of ammunition and such) only for the sake of fast initial development I suspect - only one list to program and maintain and some no matter how stupid algorithm to generate variations from this list. You can reach "some playable result" with this but no more than that.
Snouz , i could make this, if i were sure, that i am not interfering with developers intention and vision - there is some sort of border line, where fixing ends and starts modifying , i sent you pm about it, with a specifying .
sher , exactly, it feels like they just throwed in few algorithms and "rules" (with a lot of exceptions) , without too much attention to the fact that some of this rules are making life much harder. yeah, i guess it worked for their Native, but i can imagine that it is really annoying to mod developers.
Like : added weapon suddenly affecting number of armors present on a battlefield...
Hi, I just thought that I'll share my findings with you, regarding your units who have a shield on their back receive a passive absorb bonus when shot, or not:
I've been doing some tests on shooting my Knights of the Ebony Gauntlet with a Mettenheim Arbalest in the middle of the chest and in the exact opposite side of their backs, from the same distance (around 3 meters in the game).
Those units who had a shield on their back took damages ranging between 30-34, while the others took damage in the range of 41-46 (from both sides of course). I did 50 pair of shots (25-25 with shield on the back, and 25-25 with no shield on the back) with the units that wore the Ebony Gauntlet Heavy Plate Armor exclusively, just to be sure. None of the results surpassed the given ranges.
So it seems that the shield on the back provides a passive absorb bonus to not just the player, but for other units as well.
Edit: Everything I said seems to work only if the given unit receives a shot directly into his shield on his back of course. So to prevent any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that receiving a shot into bodyparts apart from the back would result in a damage reduce. That would be absurd
Hm, that's good to know, maybe something has changed over the years... Now I have to figure out what shield will look good on backs of my CKO knights in noldor ancient plates instead of throwing daggers they never use... Nerherworld should be fine.
Slightly better? Much better? 
