[S] Pike and Blade 3.5: Riders on the Storm!

[Enok]

Hi!

Wonderful mod, really like the way it makes you careful how you treat your horse...

One opinion troopwise: I am a bit tired of being bashed to pulp by pikemen, especially the Rhodok Sergeant pikemen. I love the way they slaughter my horse, but I don't really appreciate when they kick my plate-armoured butt (and my Vaegir champions, Nord huscarls etc) on foot by swinging their pike. They have tremendous reach and with power strike 7 or 8 they land a pretty nasty BLUNT damage...
So what I am curious about is if it is possible to nerf the swing damage on pikes OR increase thrust damage and nerf power strike. In my opinion Pikemen should be deadly to horses but at disadvantage against other infantry unless they manage to home in a thrust.

 

[dave_k]

Enok: just edit troops.txt and nerf power strike of those units if you feel that's gonna be better in balance. At this point I rather observed that nord Thegn are so fukken overpowered due to the fact that they are so sturdy.

[removed part which I have written disregarding anything said previously in this thread]

 

[RdZaNoN]

Yeah, I've got a Rhodok Sergent as my Chamberlain, so there is a small problem there, albeit a cosmetic one it seems.

As for your previous posts: Post 1: Sounds good, I'd like to see how that plays out, as it stands there is still a bit of that "pick random crap" element, here and there. Post 2: Firstly, LOL. Secondly, I'll try to *****.....um.....give me some damn t6 archers on the Vaegirs, god you suck.

On a more constructive note, I'd like to see at least one truly unique feeling unit in each faction. Like with the original, the Nords had Huscarls, the Vaegirs had the best archers, the Vaegir Marksmen, the Swadians had Knights, the Rhodoks.....well.......not sure about that.....they had board shields? Khergits.....they were a god damn horse army, enough said? And the Sarrinids, well, they had good archers, nearly as good as Vaegirs, they had some well roundedness in their own right, but as for uniqueness, I'd say it was the Mameluke.

That said, your version feels more balanced, but at the same time, I feel like the factions are missing that pull they had before when deciding who you really wanted to focus on, faction wise. I love the units overall, but I feel they could use a more unique unit, probably at the top tier.

As it stands, the Swadians still have their Knights, the Nords still have their Huscral equivalent (The Thegn), the Sarrinids still have an elite horsemen, etc. But to me, it still feels like overall the factions are still missing some flavor to them. Though balance still needs to be maintained, of course. I don't know, maybe its just me, but it feels like something is missing.

Just some thoughts and ideas. I'll try to be more of an ass next time 

Man...just Perfectly Done!
Your Balance its just awesome, but there is some need to "spice" each faction with some unique traits...
I dont think thats about some hardcore modding, just some arrangements at the Tiers, basicaly in the t5 and t6, to look more "unique"
Something like you did with the Vaegris, "killing" their knights and putting them on T4 without THAT much power - (Horseman)

Also, i want to consider something..! The "Man at arms/knights" Separation...?
I mean...i think that someone can just be skilled at something after training with it(i mean, the horses)...I think that instead of pulling out the Man At Arms from the "Knights" line, you could put the Squire in the place of Man At Arms, and put Man At Arms in the place of "Squire"...!

Oh yeah...and t6 archers in Vaegris wil rule! Hah! (not that i play with them, but it would be nice!)

And...hey Kogara, Rhodoks main line are the Pikemans heh...but the board (lol) is nice too rsrs

 

[dave_k]

On a more constructive note, I'd like to see at least one truly unique feeling unit in each faction.

I think, contrary to most of the people here, that the factions are actually pretty unique (save perhaps for the vaegirs who lost their archers). When fighting Swandians I know that I must keep a very tight formation for my infantry or else the Knights will just bust through it and massacre everything on their path. When I'm up against the Nords, I will want to rely on a combination of heavy cavalry and archers' rain of doom, unless I can match them unit-for-unit (the Vaegir seem to be kinda capable of that).

I think that maybe the Vaegirs lack any kind of uniqueness at this moment - they have Champion footmen who are sturdy as hell, their archers are pretty good and their horsemen are quite capable. I think that cutting the champion footman and adding a T6 archer unit would be the way to go.

About standarization, I'm not exactly sure about it. Remember that it will impact other things (e.g., changing levels of troops will have an effect on how well they can be trained by heroes/the player).

But, as a starting point, it can make balancing WAY easier. Once all the values are set to be the same (barring equipment differences), you can actually see how it plays out and balance the game ONLY by changing troop skills/proficiencies. But, that would require you to: (1) maintain the mod - if you want to really balance things, it will need some time; (2) have a group of playtesters dedicated to the mod.

As for (2) I'm up for it.

 

[RdZaNoN]

;P

Sorry, but I dont agree with "standarization" rsrs

But i understand your concern...

About the "uniquessence" (lol), Swadians, and Khegits are Calvary based...
Nords, Vaegris and Rhodoks are Infantry Based (and dont come with... "Rhodoks are specialized with Pikes, because with the mod they became very very "overal"), Sarranids Have 4 T5 and 1 T6, so they are good at everything...(heh)

In my opinion...the problem is that most of the factions became too much balanced, in the way that i dont have a t6, but i have an awesome t5 that does the work...

Thats what I mean when i talk about the "Vaegris Knight", thats what we need! Kill some more T5... and Personalize the T6

That would do the Job i think =D

Edit: When I say "Personalize",I mean not exactly in equipment, but in Types of Specialization...yeah..im talking about the T6 Vaegris Archer for example heh =P.
So, Kill some T5. 1 T5-Max [non upgradable] for each faction should do I think, it would be something like "secondary faction specialization", like:

Swadians - 1º:Heavy Calvary 2º: Crossbowman (or Infantry, if more heavly armored based, I dont realy kno what do you think about they)

Vaegris - 1º Archery 2º: 2 Handed Bardiche Killer (lol, like you said in the past post)

kHEGIT: 1º Mounted Archery 2º: Medium Calvary (Or Melee Calvary first, i realy dont remember the T5 right now)

ANd so on...


Edit 2 : Sorry About this Big Post...
I just came to talk about the Rhodok, for a good example of "much balance".
They have like 4 T4 [non upgradeable] , and 2 T5 [non upgradeable], and NO T3!

That plus the fact that it doesnt have any T6 makes it become like, a totally Overal Infantry Faction!
And thats not the focus of the Rhodoks...
I know that Rhodoks are intended to be like "Farm people" (lol!), and its a good idea for a faction not to have a T6, but in the way it is, it lacks the "uniquessence" stuff!

Sometimes its better to just do a Flawed T6 (like a T6 Pikeman, but without the Godly protection like the Elite Infantry Generaly does) than to have no T6 at all...

Or if you intend to keep it like that, then at least take of the T4 Overdose (lol)

Thats the kind of "spice" that i was talking about =)

Oh, and dont get it bad...im just "****ing with you" as you asked for... LoL
But I do still love your mod rsrs

 

[Kogara]

On a more constructive note, I'd like to see at least one truly unique feeling unit in each faction.

I think, contrary to most of the people here, that the factions are actually pretty unique (save perhaps for the vaegirs who lost their archers). When fighting Swandians I know that I must keep a very tight formation for my infantry or else the Knights will just bust through it and massacre everything on their path. When I'm up against the Nords, I will want to rely on a combination of heavy cavalry and archers' rain of doom, unless I can match them unit-for-unit (the Vaegir seem to be kinda capable of that).

I think that maybe the Vaegirs lack any kind of uniqueness at this moment - they have Champion footmen who are sturdy as hell, their archers are pretty good and their horsemen are quite capable. I think that cutting the champion footman and adding a T6 archer unit would be the way to go.

Dave_k, I understand your point of view, but for starters, its not that I don't think its balanced, or that the whole thing needs to be changed, as previously stated I was mostly concerned about the high tiers, specifically T6 and maybe T5. As it stands it feels like there isn't much of a "set them apart from the other faction" -- unit for each faction, i.e. there needs to be atleast one unique T5 or T6 unit that really sets each faction apart from each other. For example, the Nords use to be the "Best melee" faction, simply because they had Huscarls, whilst the Vaegirs had the best archers, the Vaegir Marksmen, both of these units being top tier.

I like what Aeon has done over all with the troops, don't get me wrong, I think that, for the most part, its on the right track. BUT, I miss that top tier unit for each faction that was unique and gave me a reason to choose one faction over another, often based on how I was going to play my character, or what kind of overall play style I was going to use in that game. Granted, the T5 and T6 on some factions still have a good and/or unique unit, its just that its not that way all around. This is just my opinion of course.

Also, I feel like Swadians and Rhodoks are a little too much alike, but maybe that's just me.

Basically, I agree with you, for the most part, that overall there is some general uniqueness, but I believe that they've lost their top tier uniqueness overall as well. At least to some degree.

As for Standardization, I'd atleast like to "give it a try" and see how it goes, that said, I too would be willing to help on testing, at the very least.

Anyway, hopefully I haven't just repeated myself....lol.

And...hey Kogara, Rhodoks main line are the Pikemans heh...but the board (lol) is nice too rsrs

Lol, well, seeing as I was talking about original Warband units, the issue with that is that the Rhodok Pikemen/Sergent's typically came with a sword, shield, and then a pike. The problem with this was, they would often use their Sword and shield instead of their pike, which got really annoying lol.

 

[Waihti]

Yeah, I've got a Rhodok Sergent as my Chamberlain, so there is a small problem there, albeit a cosmetic one it seems.

That's a bug in Diplomacy versions 1.8beta and  1.9beta. Current workaround reappoint him via spouse.

 

[Anth]

Props for a great mod. You've done a better job of balancing the game than any other mod I've tried. Here's my opinions/criticism faction by faction.

Rhodoks: I think they have an unique feel to them with the pikes, crossbows and boardmen. Totally different from the nords even though both are pure infantry. Having 3 assault infantry units seem unnecessary though. The maces and glaives are clearly separated as fast/vulnerable and slow/tough units, but the cleavers sort of fall between. They feel rather unnecessary to me.

Vaegirs: As others have mentioned, they don't really have a unique feel at the moment. Maybe give them a T6 archer unit, and make the current champion a T4/5 two-handed infantry unit. They're described in the game as having great archers but being undisciplined, so having the best archers and the second best infantry after Nords would reflect that. The bardiche/jarid cavalry and skirmishers both suit this feel nicely, pikes maybe not so much.

Swadians: Good, but like others have said it feels wrong that Men-at-Arms don't upgrade to knights. IMO, make squires a light cavalry unit that upgrades into knights and Men-at-Arms into a heavy armor two-handed assault infantry. (The names make more sense if squires are the mounted unit)

Sarranids: Currently playing them and can't think of complaints so far. I haven't gotten any cataphracts yet, so can't comment on their balance.

Khergits: Haven't played them properly in your mod so I'll skip them. Keeping them completely mounted is a must though.

Nords: Nothing to add here, you've nailed them. I had a really nice viking army going on until they got caught setting fire to a village. I took on 100 vaegirs + 50 villagers with about 70 troops, mostly mid-tier infantry and archers with a handful of thegns/huscarls and skirmishers thrown in. I lost everything, but at the end the enemy had only 5 guys standing. Of course I had an advantage in that the vaegirs couldn't use cavalry, but it's safe to say the nords perform well.

Also thanks to the people who figured out how to make Diplomacy work with this. It inspired me to merge a bit of stuff myself, so I put in the banners from 1257(nicer than Better Banners mod imo) and some new armour from Litus. Just cosmetics really, but it's nice to have a character wearing something other than plate mail or coat of plates.

 

[Aeon221]

There we go, that's the kind of feedback I need!

I've got good news and bad news. The good is that I've got a netbook now (and thus can post) and will be staying in a hotel with wifi until my house is together. And comcast has brought the time to internet down to about a month from now.

The bad news is that it'll be a month til I can update the mod, period.


But YES, this feedback is excellent. There's too much for me to go post by post -- although I absolutely did read every one -- so I'll just respond in general terms to stuff that struck me, for whatever reason, as requiring comment.

Standardization:

While maintaining this will be a *****, I really think that standardizing stats across all units is important. It will make implementing new units and balancing existing ones worlds easier, as it'll reduce the variables to their gear. But the maintenance problems would be significant, and it'd make merging with other mods even worse than currently. Again, I'm only talking about standardizing stats.

It depends on how much I manage to get done writing wise this month -- if I'm ahead of schedule and moved in, I'll probably go ahead with standardization. If I'm not happy with where I'm at, I'll just go through and give units a quick lick of the stats balance stick.

Rhodok Pikes:

They're the only main line infantry unit that lacks a shield, they're slow as hell (I think I set their Athletics at 0, but if it isn't 0 it's gonna be when I get my computer from the movers), and they're also one of two factions entirely without cavalry. To compensate for that, they're infantry monsters like the Nords. When fighting them, bring skirmishers and bows, keep at range, and shred their pikes as they slowly crawl towards you.

However, I will admit to similar fears about the excess potency of the Rhodok pike against other factions that do not have a significant cavalry presence. I might drop their power strike a couple points just to be safe, or dink them "down" to ashwood pikes -- the lower range should significantly reduce their ability to gangbang a foe.

Rhodok more generally:

I chose to give these guys no t3 and no t6 to make them a well rounded and (and this is key) easily replaced army faction. You're supposed to get big ol' hordes of them, lose a ton in fights against enemy cav, and then replace your losses quickly with high level training skills. They're something of a zerg faction -- or, putting things more thematically, they're the faction that relies on armies of veteran citizen soldiers rather than smaller troops of elite warriors.

Their assault infantry is numerous and varied because I like the idea of the Rhodoks having tons of viable army configurations for the player. Also the cleavermen should be somewhat faster than the glaive or macemen, but I can't check right now.

I've also tried to keep factions close to their MP weapon types, as well as what I perceive to be their faction damage types (blunt (major) and piercing (minor) for the Rhodoks),=.

Swadian/Rhodok closeness flavorwise:

This is mostly for lore reasons. The Rhodoks are something of a splinter group from the Swadians, and I'm trying to keep that feeling going. Hence the similar weapon types and fighting styles. The major differences are in their preferred damage types (blunt v. slashing) and military ethos (armies of commoners vs. elite knights). The Swadian main infantry line are equipped with fast and light swords and shields so as to make them (theoretically) fairly effective in holding Rhodok pikes and taking advantage of the knockdown effect of a charge of knights -- the vastly increased charge stat of horses means that densely packed infantry can easily end up on ass en masse, and therefore easy pickings for quick weapons.

Vaegir t6 Skirmisher/Archer:

I'm leery of a faction having a range based t6. Sitting on a hill and annihilating enemies from range is just not good gameplay. But a t6 skirmisher with t5 ranged capability and better melee I could do. I agree 100% that the Vaegirs need something like that -- mostly because I want to recenter their main line infantry around the bardiche!

To compensate for this serious loss in melee effectiveness, I think I'll swap the vestigial pike line to a full t4 mace line, take the polemace to t4 (maintaining an effective anti-cav infantry unit), and then swap the main infantry line to a bardiche/scimitar/shield setup. The multi-weapon loadout is a nod to the slightly disorganized feel I want them to have. It should also increase the flavor value!

Doing all that kills the "learn from our neighbors" things I had going, but would improve their flavor and probably their combat effectiveness.

t6 units not unique enough:

I feel like I have to disagree on this one, since WB only has the huscarl in the t6 slot! Can we do more here? Yeah, probably we can work harder to differentiate between the different factions, but I definitely do not want this mod to end up like Vanilla/WB where each faction had one strongly dominant unit that completely outshone the rest of the options for the faction. While it is unfortunate that we have to give up some of the shiny value for a more balanced offering of units, I think they're still cool enough to warrant inclusion and provide some spice!


Cut t5 to 2 units per faction, make more use of t3:

I'm already making fairly heavy use of t5 as a driver for faction specialization -- the only place it isn't super explicit is with the Nords, but their t3/t4 end units are over-strength, and their main line is using throwing weapons! Most factions have some fairly bread and butter lines, such as their assault infantry, ending in t4 positions. I didn't explicitly limit myself to any specific number, but a hard limit could have been very interesting if I had thought of it back when I was getting started. Cutting some of the t5 units (like the Rhodok Sgt. Glaive) isn't feasible due to the slot upgrade limits, and would require me to add duplicate t4s in their place to prevent existing saves from breaking.

Plus it'd require me to completely change the focus of some factions -- like the Sarranids, who would no longer be able to manage two entirely distinct playstyles -- a throwing weapon focused skirmisher based one, and a defensive strategy based around the cataphract.

Still, it's a tempting intellectual puzzle!

I'm also extremely leery of lowering my "standard" troop level for most factions from t4 to t3. T3 is ~L15 in most cases, which is much lower than is necessary to provide a serious threat to the player at higher levels.



I can't repeat enough how great this feedback was -- you guys all really pulled out the stops! Even though I'm strenuously defending my position in most cases, it's more that I want to ensure that this stuff goes through the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis!) than that I'm inflexible. I'm definitely willing to change stuff to someone else's idea if I think it's cool, but I want to turn it over in my head and argue it out to be sure it's not just a passing fancy! Concrete counter examples would be massively handy here, as it's hard for me to come up with anything good when I'm totally disconnected from the game. Thanks again, and good night!

 

[dave_k]

I'll only respond to a few of your thoughts:

Standardization:

But the maintenance problems would be significant, and it'd make merging with other mods even worse than currently.

This kinda worries me, since now that I have successfully merged P&B with Diplomacy, I'd be very reluctant to give up on either of those mods! I think that compatibility is key in Mount&Blade in order to make this game highly modular.

Rhodok Pikes:
[cut]

It didn't quite yet strike me that Rhodok pikes are overpowered... probably because I really hadn't fought against them much in the open field, so can't provide feedback on that. However, the fact that they lack shields I think is very well balanced by the fact that the Crossbowmen have those bigass board shields and the board shield line of infantry seems to be covering archery weakness just OK.

Rhodok more generally:
I chose to give these guys no t3 and no t6 to make them a well rounded and (and this is key) easily replaced army faction. You're supposed to get big ol' hordes of them, lose a ton in fights against enemy cav, and then replace your losses quickly with high level training skills. They're something of a zerg faction.

I didn't think of this in such a way. Now that I can consider them to be more of a zerg-ish faction... it makes a lot of more sense.

Their assault infantry is numerous and varied because I like the idea of the Rhodoks having tons of viable army configurations for the player. Also the cleavermen should be somewhat faster than the glaive or macemen, but I can't check right now.

Yes, their athletics is 7 while glaivemen have 5. I rather think that glaivemen are almost strictly better than cleavermen, but it is balanced by the fact that they're higher tier and you have to give up on pikemen in order to get them.
Glaivemen are actually my favorite Rhodok unit, followed closely by their crossbowmen.

Vaegir t6 Skirmisher/Archer:
I'm leery of a faction having a range based t6. Sitting on a hill and annihilating enemies from range is just not good gameplay. But a t6 skirmisher with t5 ranged capability and better melee I could do. I agree 100% that the Vaegirs need something like that -- mostly because I want to recenter their main line infantry around the bardiche!

I must agree that such strategy is not appealing at all and not good for the gameplay in general. As for Vaegir troop tree, I think that giving them T6 skirmisher should be combined with removing the other T6 unit (champion footman), as that would make them the only faction with 2x T6, I think.

 

[Aeon221]

Oh of course, I assumed it was a known fact that no faction will ever have more than one t6 unit. They're intended to represent the apex of military achievement in a given faction.

Kinda like, if there happened to be a Japanese faction, their t6 would probably be pretty similar to what I'm going to make for the Vaegir update -- a dude with a focus on bows and melee weapons, but probably a 2h weapon user for them.

The Rhodoks don't have one because their citizen soldier ethos is the antithesis of that sort of military elitism -- although the Vaegir update is going to probably include one merc horseman per top tier recruit party for the Rhodoks, so that their lords no longer charge in alone. And the Khergits don't have one because their whole horde is specialized -- instead, they get "auxiliary" units from less focused cultures.

re archer weakness of Rhodoks:

Yes! Exactly! The boards are there to provide cover for the pikes, but they'll get cut down by horsemen due to their utter lack of longer weapons. Plus they cap out at t4! And the crossbows fire slowly, so they can't really keep the longer ranged archer companies at bay -- but they've got the range and melee equipment to operate independently of the main infantry force, so you can use them for flanking actions or crossfire or supporting your skirmishers as they advance.


Before I go, I have a feedback request! Are people taking advantage of the new mercenary units, and if they are how is it going? Thanks!

 

[Waihti]

Hey Aeon221,

thanks for the description how to merge Pike and Blade with Diplomacy. I added some new troops and items in version 1.9 so you have to copy more stuff now Maybe you change the description to a more generic version like: 'copy the Diplomacy troops like trp_chamberlain, trp_constable etc to....'

I have also created a thread which contains detailed information about changed files including troops.txt, items_kind1.txt and party_templates.txt, so maybe its a good idea to mention it: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,116434.0.html

 

[Kogara]

I'll have to get back to you on overall feedback, especially seeing as Dave_k already said some of the same tings I would, to some degree anyway.

On the note of t6 uniqueness, I can agree with your reasoning, but I'd like to reiterate that I didn't intend for them to be made as over-powering/dominate units, but rather as something that just really stuck out and felt right for that faction as a whole.

Rhodoks and their background: You're right, I guess I kinda just space that out to some degree, but when you think about it, it fits.

Its funny that you mention the Japanese military, because I jokingly commented to myself: "Tell that to early Japan" (In relation to T6 Archers and how that kind of gameplay can be an issue, etc) although I do agree with you.

Edit: As to your second post Aeon, I've been using the Mercs off and on, and I feel like, they're a good change, but I'm not sure that I feel like a whole lot changed overall. I mean, I know it did to some degree, but I don't know. I'll try and grab a bunch of mercs and toy around with them and take notes, then get back to you on that =\. In the meantime maybe someone else has some good thoughts to add on that!

Hey Aeon221,

thanks for the description how to merge Pike and Blade with Diplomacy. I added some new troops and items in version 1.9 so you have to copy more stuff now Maybe you change the description to a more generic version like: 'copy the Diplomacy troops like trp_chamberlain, trp_constable etc to....'

I have also created a thread which contains detailed information about changed files including troops.txt, items_kind1.txt and party_templates.txt, so maybe its a good idea to mention it: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,116434.0.html

Hey Waihti, thanks for informing all of us! Love your mod and I'm glad I can play it while keeping Aeons troops now =\.

 

[Aeon221]

The Vaegir t6 Skirmisher (among other changes) will be interesting. I think I'm going to change their primary focus from the archer and infantry lines to the multi-purpose skirmisher line. This should allow them to do some fairly funky tactical stuff, and serves to really differentiate them from the other factions. It's too bad the game doesn't have better options for tactical or strategic ambushes -- the two areas this sort of force doctrine would really shine -- but the sheer versatility should make up for it. I'm worried about the potential for hard hitting dual purpose units to seriously mess things up, especially if they can dominate at range, so I'm going to give them short range bows and cruddy ammo/skills to compensate. The archers will have better long range gear, but will be fairly inept with the shorter bardiches they carry for self defense.

Ideally the Vaegirs will have trouble against heavily armored units that get close, but should mow down lightly armored unshielded units. The high mobility and versatility of their skirmishers should allow them to dominate the tactical game against slower armies -- giving them total control over first strikes. They should have trouble dealing with a screening force of t4 light cavalry from the other factions, and heavy cavalry should be able to cause them all sorts of havoc unless the Vaegir player has maintained a balanced force profile.


Their primary weapons will be the sword/scimitar/shortbow in their skirmisher line (t6), the long bardiche in their infantry line (t4), the polemace in their assault line (t4), and the "longbow"/bardiche in their archer line (t5). They'll keep their horseman (t4) as a second assault option, since he's pretty fun. The pike line will be dropped entirely, because it is both vestigial and made redundant by the long bardiche of the infantry. I'm also considering a t5 skirmisher (t4 split) who uses a mace in place of a scimitar -- mostly to give players a choice between blunt and slashing damage.

Hey Aeon221,

thanks for the description how to merge Pike and Blade with Diplomacy. I added some new troops and items in version 1.9 so you have to copy more stuff now Maybe you change the description to a more generic version like: 'copy the Diplomacy troops like trp_chamberlain, trp_constable etc to....'

I have also created a thread which contains detailed information about changed files including troops.txt, items_kind1.txt and party_templates.txt, so maybe its a good idea to mention it:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,116434.0.html

Great to know, I'll fix it tomorrow morning and try harder to keep it up to date. It's extremely specific because I know -- as a member of the computer impaired -- that detailed instructions are pretty much the only way us inexperienced folks ever do any of this cooler stuff.

Mega props for keeping your mod clean and keeping an exact log of changes. I should probably do that, but wah I dun wanna =D


@Kogara

I think they do stick out pretty well. I often found myself counting how many t6 the AI had before engaging, as it tended to be a rough indicator of how many casualties I was likely to take. I definitely don't want to make them too much stronger than they already are -- for me, the bread and butter tier is t4, and t5/t6 are more about faction specialization and added options than essential troopers.

Ideally, the player would focus on using the main infantry line, with support from their various off-line units, and an elite core of t6 to bust a nut in the enemy's face when the moment is right. If that's what is happening, hells yes!

re: mercenary changes, I think it might have something to do with you not having a chance to really bugger about with them. But I'd also definitely agree that they're not up to code, which is why I'm really in need of feedback there from other people -- it's a ***** to make such a fun concept actually worth the price you're stuck paying for it without totally invalidating faction troops.

 

[Kogara]

Lots of interesting changes in mind there, can't really comment without seeing them in action. Doesn't sound bad though.

As for your reply on T6("Uniqueness" part), I didn't mean to imply that they were too weak or anything. I guess I'm just having a problem conveying what I mean in relation to that right now, so for now I'll drop that subject lol.

As for mercenaries, I spent some time tracking them down, used tweak MB to make it possible to get anywhere from 1 to 20 mercs at a time so I could see how they work in groups bigger then 2-5, seeing as the focus was the mercs.

A few I don't really have any comments on, more or less I'm neutral on a few, like crossbowmen, they're fine, just not a whole lot to say.

The mounted merc' crossbowmen crack me up, and are somewhat surprisingly effective as you level them, while at the same time, even with 20 maxed out on their tree, they aren't mowing done loads of troops, which is good. Merc Calvary men, are like crossbowmen for me, they are good, but not a whole lot can be said for them so far. Merc swordsmen, well, to me they feel like a stepping stone to hired blade, but they don't suck mind you, they're fine, kinda neutral on them. Hired blades, previously they had a lot of appeal but were over powered, now they die more, and honestly feel like a leveled up version of a swordsman....I can't decide if this is a good thing, or if its ruined the reason behind working toward a hired blade. Something to think about?

I only got to try some of the other branches in smaller samples, so I can't be definitive, but a few of the melee or melee/ranged combos felt redundant, while others felt just "fine". I like the idea behind Militia as a low end unit.....I just do, seems to make sense.

I'm sure I'm leaving one or two out or something, but you get the idea.

About Diplomacy: I am still getting that "bug" where my Chamberlain is showing up as a Rhodok Seargent, and the new Constable is showing up as a Rhodok Pikemen. According to Waihti's previous post on this page, it was a bug on his end, and was supposedly fixed. If it was, then maybe it has something to do with Pike and Blade? (Merged them, obviously)

Can anyone confirm? Is it just on my end? New game by the way, not an old one, may not matter but still. Not really a huge deal, but its a bug either way.

 

[RdZaNoN]

Just have a complaiment right now...

Im afraid that the Vaegris T6 will become weak, compared to any other T6...
In fact, he can even be but...Not a good archer, nor a good fighter...

But thats up to you...curious about the work =)

 

[RdZaNoN]

Swadians: Good, but like others have said it feels wrong that Men-at-Arms don't upgrade to knights. IMO, make squires a light cavalry unit that upgrades into knights and Men-at-Arms into a heavy armor two-handed assault infantry. (The names make more sense if squires are the mounted unit)

Sarranids: Currently playing them and can't think of complaints so far. I haven't gotten any cataphracts yet, so can't comment on their balance.

Sarranids also have the same Upgrade configuration for Cataphract... They have a "Horseman" in T4, and another Line with Cataphract Calvary in the end...

"My Quote"
Also, i want to consider something..! The "Man at arms/knights" Separation...?
I mean...i think that someone can just be skilled at something after training with it(i mean, the horses)...I think that instead of pulling out the Man At Arms from the "Knights" line, you could put the Squire in the place of Man At Arms, and put Man At Arms in the place of "Squire"...!


What do you think about this?

 

[BlackRainZ]

The whole point that I am pretty sure he was trying to get across was that a squire is what leads to a knight. A man at arms doesn't actually lead to a knight. A squire is one who is trained to then be a knight, usually a son of a lord or some such. A man at arms is a professional soldier, but not of nobility.

 

[Aeon221]

Squires are the horseless upgrade to cavalry units because I don't want the player to be able to easily acquire an all high tier mounted army. It's a balance concern, seeing as all-horse  armies travel faster -- allowing them to pick and choose their fights, reduce the risk of starvation and plunder at will without serious repercussion  -- and fight extremely effectively with small numbers. I don't mind the Khergits doing that, since that's their whole purpose, but other factions shouldn't be able to horn in on something so potent without a great deal of effort.

If you WANT to build an all knight army, it's entirely possible. But it will cost you, and you won't be able to replace your losses while on the move unless you bring squires, who are vulnerable when unsupported by friendly infantry (and potent warriors if they are!).

If what you want to do is ride around raiding and stuff, bring one of the t4 mounted options for your faction -- they're a balanced and easily replaceable unit, and pretty much any mid-level character can train t1 to t4 in a few days.

The t5 junction unit is called a squire so that it's easily understood even by people who have downloaded the mod and have no idea what is inside. It's a perfect example of historical lore being used to further game balance, not the other way around.


re: Vaegir changes

Yeah, it's very risky making this kind of change, so we'll see. Multipurpose units can either be horrifically weak or insanely strong, balancing them is incredibly finicky. My primary goal balance wise is to shift some of the Vaegir power to the off-tree units, so that they can provide the punch the player needs against foes that the on-tree units have trouble with.

And don't forget that if focused melee units are necessary, there are plenty of mercenary units. This is really more a continuation of the mercenary changes, where I feel confident that the rationalized mercenary structure is capable of taking on some of the roles usually filled by the faction troops, so I can get away with enhancing them in some areas and weakening them in others.

 

[dave_k]

This is really more a continuation of the mercenary changes, where I feel confident that the rationalized mercenary structure is capable of taking on some of the roles usually filled by the faction troops, so I can get away with enhancing them in some areas and weakening them in others.

Brilliant.

As for the merge with Diplomacy: I, too, have the constable/chamberlain appear as rhodok pikeman and sergeant. I think somewhere Diplomacy picks the appearance of chamberlain/constable referring to a troop number and with this many troops added in P&B pikemen happen to fall into these numbers.

But I have no idea about modding, so that's just my assumption based on having a few looks at the .txt files.