Users who are viewing this thread
Yes, that’s the 4th item on the 9.0 changelog: “Enabled constructing buildings in towns you don't own (for example, finance a school to make the peasants like you, or a temple to win converts to your faith)”
Manage all settlements allows you to finance the construction of religious buildings, if you want to try to convert people to your religion. However, if the fief is not already fairly strong in your religion and the angry populace destroys it, it is the player who will take a relations hit with the fief (not the owning lord). The effects of most other buildings you build would largely accrue to the benefit of the fief holder. This is useful if you want to aid your fellow lords or vassals in improving their settlements, as you don’t have to keep the fief until you have built everything you want.
Bear in mind AI lords do not construct buildings in their settlements on their own, so it always has to be the player to do the building.
Manage all settlements allows you to finance the construction of religious buildings, if you want to try to convert people to your religion. However, if the fief is not already fairly strong in your religion and the angry populace destroys it, it is the player who will take a relations hit with the fief (not the owning lord). The effects of most other buildings you build would largely accrue to the benefit of the fief holder. This is useful if you want to aid your fellow lords or vassals in improving their settlements, as you don’t have to keep the fief until you have built everything you want.
Bear in mind AI lords do not construct buildings in their settlements on their own, so it always has to be the player to do the building.
Hi Pode!
I fixed it in my working 10 version. My current plan is to wait to release until a couple of months have gone by, or the VC devs release a new patch (so that I could do compatibility changes in the same release), whichever comes first.
I'll drop the current changelog here, in case anyone wants to object to any changes or suggest further ones. Since we are months out, everything is open to change from discussion and possible reversion/changing.
One note--I'm not doing major feature additions anymore, as this is meant to be a final, slight polishing release.
Working Changelog for future 10 release
I fixed it in my working 10 version. My current plan is to wait to release until a couple of months have gone by, or the VC devs release a new patch (so that I could do compatibility changes in the same release), whichever comes first.
I'll drop the current changelog here, in case anyone wants to object to any changes or suggest further ones. Since we are months out, everything is open to change from discussion and possible reversion/changing.
One note--I'm not doing major feature additions anymore, as this is meant to be a final, slight polishing release.
Working Changelog for future 10 release
Fixed vanilla VC bug where AI kings courted ladies (includes code to make AI kings break up for current saves)
Saxon troop recruiting rosters made a bit more elite, to show their relative ascendancy in comparison to mercia and east anglia, and give a greater chance of them being the last kingdom to stand against (and defeat) the invading norse).
Made prison break success independent of whether the lord is conscious or unconscious (just put him on a horse or something, no need to abandon him even after all guards are dead, eliminate the video game escort quest annoyance)
To balance with the above, and encourage more interesting larger fights, village elders now require a good deal more money in bribes to take on the risk of involving themselves in your plots to set fires
Made prisoner escape check happen free of a couple of conditions (in particular, it will run periodically even during day)
armor performs a little better against blunt damage
A general balancing pass on all tier 2 and above slingers, increasing many of their WP, and making sure they use military slings and lead. Also slight increases to peasant sling WP of cultures that heavily use the sling
Frisian tier I peasants WP lowered, given shields, removed slings. They are an intermediate level between tier 1 and 2, and this should reflect that a little better, especially in the tightened Frisian troop tree.
Some slight increases to WP norse axe warrior to reflect unusual amount of XP needed to achieve
Sling rocks given less ammo (decided their stats reflect better shaped rocks, and wouldn't be so easily obtainable in battlefield conditions
Some increases to norse swordsmen line polearm proficincy (No effect at all on game currently, this is only if I decide to explore making the dane axe a polearm later, which I probably won't do because of certain issues, but just in case)
Removed range guranteed tag from briton champions (wasn't on any other infantry), but added to huscarls and axe warriors (also shield tag), to ensure they always have shieldsa available to be used. Gave norse axe warrior some shields and skirmish javilins (to give longer ammo for more consistent shield use). Should allow them to be more shield wall compatible when they spawn with 2 handed axe. REMINDER: TEST to make sure not an issue or fix or revert if is: any AI army group assignment issues from having guranteed ranged flag set
altered lord random personality distribution to shift a bit more away from the worst 2 personalities
interupt damage threshold moved to warband levels (meshes better with the improved mail armor)
Changed some values in AI courtship (ADD to credit list people participating in that discussion)
Right to rule increases slowed
further +2 damage increase to 1.5 handed axes, and additional +2 for non-irish basic 1.5 handed (closing the gap a bit). Dane axe -2 damage, +5 speed. Axes made swing only (thrusting being epecially poor choice for them). 1 handed battle axes given +1 damage. A couple Pict/irish 1 handed axes given -1 damage. A couple other axes slightly tweaked to create more logical progression of length/speed/damage and balance of factions.
1 handed axe speed reduced slightly
spears made a bit more breakable
plain length 30 seaxes/knives made stab-only when on foot (should help seax armed troops quite a bit, as their cut damage is terrible)
Fixed vanilla VC bug in Thora persuasion check (thanks https://steamcommunity.com/app/48700/discussions/6/1620599015869332344/ ) ADD credit
Saxon troop recruiting rosters made a bit more elite, to show their relative ascendancy in comparison to mercia and east anglia, and give a greater chance of them being the last kingdom to stand against (and defeat) the invading norse).
Made prison break success independent of whether the lord is conscious or unconscious (just put him on a horse or something, no need to abandon him even after all guards are dead, eliminate the video game escort quest annoyance)
To balance with the above, and encourage more interesting larger fights, village elders now require a good deal more money in bribes to take on the risk of involving themselves in your plots to set fires
Made prisoner escape check happen free of a couple of conditions (in particular, it will run periodically even during day)
armor performs a little better against blunt damage
A general balancing pass on all tier 2 and above slingers, increasing many of their WP, and making sure they use military slings and lead. Also slight increases to peasant sling WP of cultures that heavily use the sling
Frisian tier I peasants WP lowered, given shields, removed slings. They are an intermediate level between tier 1 and 2, and this should reflect that a little better, especially in the tightened Frisian troop tree.
Some slight increases to WP norse axe warrior to reflect unusual amount of XP needed to achieve
Sling rocks given less ammo (decided their stats reflect better shaped rocks, and wouldn't be so easily obtainable in battlefield conditions
Some increases to norse swordsmen line polearm proficincy (No effect at all on game currently, this is only if I decide to explore making the dane axe a polearm later, which I probably won't do because of certain issues, but just in case)
Removed range guranteed tag from briton champions (wasn't on any other infantry), but added to huscarls and axe warriors (also shield tag), to ensure they always have shieldsa available to be used. Gave norse axe warrior some shields and skirmish javilins (to give longer ammo for more consistent shield use). Should allow them to be more shield wall compatible when they spawn with 2 handed axe. REMINDER: TEST to make sure not an issue or fix or revert if is: any AI army group assignment issues from having guranteed ranged flag set
altered lord random personality distribution to shift a bit more away from the worst 2 personalities
interupt damage threshold moved to warband levels (meshes better with the improved mail armor)
Changed some values in AI courtship (ADD to credit list people participating in that discussion)
Right to rule increases slowed
further +2 damage increase to 1.5 handed axes, and additional +2 for non-irish basic 1.5 handed (closing the gap a bit). Dane axe -2 damage, +5 speed. Axes made swing only (thrusting being epecially poor choice for them). 1 handed battle axes given +1 damage. A couple Pict/irish 1 handed axes given -1 damage. A couple other axes slightly tweaked to create more logical progression of length/speed/damage and balance of factions.
1 handed axe speed reduced slightly
spears made a bit more breakable
plain length 30 seaxes/knives made stab-only when on foot (should help seax armed troops quite a bit, as their cut damage is terrible)
Fixed vanilla VC bug in Thora persuasion check (thanks https://steamcommunity.com/app/48700/discussions/6/1620599015869332344/ ) ADD credit
Sarkiss said:
Hi Sarkiss!
You'll have to first convince me that current party sizes are too big.
Here is my thinking on this issue, I'm open to any corrections:The Siege of Paris a few decades earlier by Danish forces had at least 5,000 men, so all danish lords added together should realistically be able to field at least that much--but currently they don't even have that many men. Estimates of the size of the Great Heathen Army vary, with some placing it as low as 1,000, and some putting it at several thousand. Current Northymbrian forces come close to those higher estimates, so within the range. But those estimates seem more geared to initial size, and VC drops us into a somewhat later stage of the invasion where they have already completed the conquest of Northymbria and are beginning further conquests. The Great Heathen Army was presumably getting reinforced throughout, and recruiting new levies from conquored populations--especially since by the later stages they are capable of splitting into pieces and challenging multiple great powers at the same time (ie, Guthrum going south and fighting wessex while Halfdan goes North). At the battle of Cynwit just Ubbe's attacking force represents over 1,000 men, and is in turn defeated by what seems to be a limitied local force of Wessex, which in turn implies that Wessex likely could field a much, much larger total force, and from population estimates of the time it does seem likely they could field a rather large force, at the very least 5-10,000, again putting the total of all wessex lords in VC less than that number.
So by my very rough estimates above, I'm inclined to think the armies were a bit larger historically than what we see in VC (but am open to corrections and counterarguments).
By the way--I think if you wanted to reduce the size of AI lord armies, lowering ideal party size as at that link might not be the best way. AI lords have the dual limits of ideal party size and economics, so just lowering ideal party size will essentially remove the economic limit as a factor, blurring the distinction between lords with more and less fiefs and leading to a general glut of gold among the AI lords, which in turn will make things like massive accumulated rents in just conquored fiefs more likely (since the decision to go collect rents by AI is partially based on their current need for gold). I'd think a cleaner way to reduce army sizes would be to lower base income (the amount AI lords get every week independent of fiefs), though the effects would be somewhat different--lords with relativelly fewer fiefs would suffer more noticable reductions to their army size (which I'd consider a nice effect, but opinions could vary), and the size of the effect might end up more subtle, depnding on how the particular AI lord rolls between the more elite C moderate elite B and less elite A recruiting tables (which has quite a bit of random variation in results, and would heavily influence how the wages/party size proportion works). In theory I'd love to offer such a reduction of ai lord army size tweak as one of the optional add-ons, since some players want it, but the problem is pretty much all of the ways of reducing it (whether base income, ideal party size, ai wages) run through scripts, which is also the file that handles the differences between the main 3 versions of balance mod. Might be something I could publish a text tweak for either way though.
i think its not the men we are lacking in the game but perhaps the lords that lead them. i cannot locate the source right now (it isnt in my private library so perhaps i borrowed the book) but the assertion the author was making is that individual warbands of lords and kings during this period were small - Anglo-Saxon kings would lead a band of about 300 men and the lords would have even smaller parties. the estimates for overall armies you cited may well be correct but the greater numbers aren't achieved, if we are to follow the scholars that assume small warband parties, by the assembly of a few lords with large hosts but another way around - many lords with smaller parties. because the game is based on lords and their followers (unlike say total war where it is a faction as a whole that is central to the gameplay) it would make sense, according to the work i read, to reduce the amount of men in lords parties somewhat. to reconcile that with the greater overall soldiers' count in a faction we'd perhaps need more lords per factions? that is a complex business i realise - there arent as many fiefs around etc.Tingyun said:Sarkiss said:
Hi Sarkiss!
You'll have to first convince me that current party sizes are too big.
The Siege of Paris a few decades earlier by Danish forces had at least 5,000 men, so all danish lords added together should realistically be able to field at least that much--but currently they don't even have that many men.
and i agree with you - simply reducing the party sizes isnt the best way for implementing it - economics etc need to be factored in and it isnt actually as one-dimensional as it sounds. thanks!
Hi Sarkiss,
You make an interesting point. I'd tend to interpret the "noble" units in lord armies as just that--more minor nobles and chieftains from the area of the lord leading the army. It doesn't work too well with the player's ability to promote to that unit, but I tend to headcannon player army "nobles" as just elite spearmen, and different in kind to the nobles that lord armies directly recruit. In that way, some of the other men in the lord's army are assumed as the men of some of the noble troops. There are a few odd aspects of that interpretation, but I think it holds up well enough, at least when compared to the background oddness of these lord standing armies that march around all year long as if they were professional soldiers.
You make an interesting point. I'd tend to interpret the "noble" units in lord armies as just that--more minor nobles and chieftains from the area of the lord leading the army. It doesn't work too well with the player's ability to promote to that unit, but I tend to headcannon player army "nobles" as just elite spearmen, and different in kind to the nobles that lord armies directly recruit. In that way, some of the other men in the lord's army are assumed as the men of some of the noble troops. There are a few odd aspects of that interpretation, but I think it holds up well enough, at least when compared to the background oddness of these lord standing armies that march around all year long as if they were professional soldiers.
Hi Dhamon,
I'll paste the code below, with the first couple of lines being the existing code (that you keep, I'm just including them so you know where to put things), and the next being what you add.
In assign_troop_love_interests:
Near the beginning, add two lines of code to fix the vanilla VC bug of king's initiating courtship (the bug is technically in simple_triggers, where they added an addition courtship initiation process but didn't add the proper conditions, but I fixed it with a check in scripts to make it easier for people to fix with a text edit, really doesn't matter for the end result):
(store_faction_of_troop, ":troop_faction", ":cur_troop"),
(neg|is_between, ":cur_troop", kings_begin, kings_end),
(neg|is_between, ":cur_troop", pretenders_begin, pretenders_end),
Later in courtship_event_troop_lady:
First change some random number range
(call_script, "script_lady_evaluate_troop_as_suitor", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(store_random_in_range, ":random", 10, 32),
Then add code to break up current king courtships to fix saved games (first few lines are existing code to give you location):
(call_script, "script_troop_get_relation_with_troop", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(assign, ":lady_suitor_relation", reg0),
(try_begin),
(this_or_next|is_between, ":suitor", kings_begin, kings_end),
(is_between, ":suitor", pretenders_begin, pretenders_end),
(call_script, "script_add_log_entry", logent_lady_rejects_suitor, ":lady", 0, ":suitor", 0),
(call_script, "script_courtship_event_lady_break_relation_with_suitor", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(try_begin),
(eq, "$cheat_mode", 1),
(display_message, "str_result_lady_rejects_suitor"),
(try_end),
(else_try),
Then increase the threshold for marriage, by replacing (several instances) of this:
(ge, ":lady_suitor_relation", 20),
with instead this:
(gt, ":lady_suitor_relation", 60),
It is kind of messy describing changes in this way, so only do this if you are comfortable enough with the code to then read the result of what you have changed and independently confirm it makes sense.
I'll paste the code below, with the first couple of lines being the existing code (that you keep, I'm just including them so you know where to put things), and the next being what you add.
In assign_troop_love_interests:
Near the beginning, add two lines of code to fix the vanilla VC bug of king's initiating courtship (the bug is technically in simple_triggers, where they added an addition courtship initiation process but didn't add the proper conditions, but I fixed it with a check in scripts to make it easier for people to fix with a text edit, really doesn't matter for the end result):
(store_faction_of_troop, ":troop_faction", ":cur_troop"),
(neg|is_between, ":cur_troop", kings_begin, kings_end),
(neg|is_between, ":cur_troop", pretenders_begin, pretenders_end),
Later in courtship_event_troop_lady:
First change some random number range
(call_script, "script_lady_evaluate_troop_as_suitor", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(store_random_in_range, ":random", 10, 32),
Then add code to break up current king courtships to fix saved games (first few lines are existing code to give you location):
(call_script, "script_troop_get_relation_with_troop", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(assign, ":lady_suitor_relation", reg0),
(try_begin),
(this_or_next|is_between, ":suitor", kings_begin, kings_end),
(is_between, ":suitor", pretenders_begin, pretenders_end),
(call_script, "script_add_log_entry", logent_lady_rejects_suitor, ":lady", 0, ":suitor", 0),
(call_script, "script_courtship_event_lady_break_relation_with_suitor", ":lady", ":suitor"),
(try_begin),
(eq, "$cheat_mode", 1),
(display_message, "str_result_lady_rejects_suitor"),
(try_end),
(else_try),
Then increase the threshold for marriage, by replacing (several instances) of this:
(ge, ":lady_suitor_relation", 20),
with instead this:
(gt, ":lady_suitor_relation", 60),
It is kind of messy describing changes in this way, so only do this if you are comfortable enough with the code to then read the result of what you have changed and independently confirm it makes sense.
Guys, what governs how much and how often one passively loses relation with various settlements? Is it due to a difference in religion? My christian fief rated me positively at 30 points and after 2 or so months dropped to -17. It was set at a normal tax rate. Is it possible to tweak how often one loses relation (not just with towns or villages but with lords)?
Hi Verisoxy,
It is the difference of religion between you and the fief.
In Vanilla VC, on average once per week you get randomly between 0 and -2 added to your relation. Expected monthly loss should be about -4.
In Balance Mod, I halved the magnitude to between 0 and -1, so expected monthly loss should only be -2.
However, "per week" is a random choosing of a center more than once per hour. It is entirely possible for your center to be randomly chosen many times, it is very unlikely of course, but random processes can result in extreme results.
The good news is, your extraordinarily bad luck is unlikely to continue. With Balance Mod's reduction in the magnitude of the drop, going forward you can expect to lose only about 2 points of relations per month. If you'd like to eventually stop that loss, Balance Mod lets you build a specific building to suppress riots (I think prison tower in towns, a hall in villages, the effect is listed in the description), so build one, and then you can safely build a shrine to start conversion. I wouldn't suggest building a shrine before protecting against riots, as they happen fairly frequently, and destroy the shrine.
It is the difference of religion between you and the fief.
In Vanilla VC, on average once per week you get randomly between 0 and -2 added to your relation. Expected monthly loss should be about -4.
In Balance Mod, I halved the magnitude to between 0 and -1, so expected monthly loss should only be -2.
However, "per week" is a random choosing of a center more than once per hour. It is entirely possible for your center to be randomly chosen many times, it is very unlikely of course, but random processes can result in extreme results.
The good news is, your extraordinarily bad luck is unlikely to continue. With Balance Mod's reduction in the magnitude of the drop, going forward you can expect to lose only about 2 points of relations per month. If you'd like to eventually stop that loss, Balance Mod lets you build a specific building to suppress riots (I think prison tower in towns, a hall in villages, the effect is listed in the description), so build one, and then you can safely build a shrine to start conversion. I wouldn't suggest building a shrine before protecting against riots, as they happen fairly frequently, and destroy the shrine.
I don't know a text edit for it. You can do it in the module files if you like, in which case you'd look for this simple_trigger:
(else_try),
(lt, ":faith", 30),
(store_random_in_range, ":rand", -1,0),
(val_add, ":cur_relation", ":rand"),
and
(try_begin),
(gt, ":p_faith", 40),
(store_random_in_range, ":rand", -1,0),
(val_add, ":cur_relation", ":rand"),
You will want to disable both of those, either by commenting out the appropriate lines (not everything quoted above of course), or the easiest is to just make the condition impossible (ie, change the faith one from lt to gt and amount from 30 to 300, and the p_faith required to be 400 instead of 40, and then it will never succeed in that check, because neither value is ever over 100).
(else_try),
(lt, ":faith", 30),
(store_random_in_range, ":rand", -1,0),
(val_add, ":cur_relation", ":rand"),
and
(try_begin),
(gt, ":p_faith", 40),
(store_random_in_range, ":rand", -1,0),
(val_add, ":cur_relation", ":rand"),
You will want to disable both of those, either by commenting out the appropriate lines (not everything quoted above of course), or the easiest is to just make the condition impossible (ie, change the faith one from lt to gt and amount from 30 to 300, and the p_faith required to be 400 instead of 40, and then it will never succeed in that check, because neither value is ever over 100).
Kalarhan: Thanks for the correction, I had forgotten about that.
Verisoxy: Given Kalarhan's correction, the expected monthly losses from opposite religion fiefs are actually:
Vanilla VC: 6 points of relations loss per month
Balance Mod: 4 points of relations loss per month
(with a great deal of random variation based on how often the fief is randomly selected in that month)
On your other questions: lt is less than, gt is greater than. Faith and pfaith are faith and pagan faith ratio, generally 0-100, p faith isnt actually stored it is just calculated anew by taking 100- faith whenever needed. 0 faith is a perfect pagan settleemnt, 100 faith is a perfect christian settlement.
Verisoxy: Given Kalarhan's correction, the expected monthly losses from opposite religion fiefs are actually:
Vanilla VC: 6 points of relations loss per month
Balance Mod: 4 points of relations loss per month
(with a great deal of random variation based on how often the fief is randomly selected in that month)
On your other questions: lt is less than, gt is greater than. Faith and pfaith are faith and pagan faith ratio, generally 0-100, p faith isnt actually stored it is just calculated anew by taking 100- faith whenever needed. 0 faith is a perfect pagan settleemnt, 100 faith is a perfect christian settlement.
Thanks Tingyun. However, I've got a question about this village in Orknejar, Sooth Was? I've already obtained permission to recruit from its lord but whenever I enter the village (multiple times, each time between 2 weeks or more) the recruit option is not there. My relation with them is at 30 something, so what gives?
Verisoxy: village recruitment refreshing in Warband/VC is pretty odd. I’ve not looked into the exact mechanics for it, but I’ve noticed that, for example, if you recruit, and then alter your relations score with the village by turning in a quest, then you can immediately recruit a 2nd time. I’ve also noticed it sometimes is present as an option, then suddenly disappears for a long time when some things happen related to the village (getting permission seems to cause that at least sometimes).
Contrast that with town recruitment refreshing, which is entirely regular and predictable (refreshing every 2 days at a certain time of day if I remember correctly).
Contrast that with town recruitment refreshing, which is entirely regular and predictable (refreshing every 2 days at a certain time of day if I remember correctly).
Responding to Bodhi68k’s question regarding Balance Mod posted here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,360183.msg9031017.html#msg9031017
Overall, Balance Mod is unlikely to change the difficulty much for any storyline mission, as both sides tend to be helped/hurt by the balance changes. Some specific units did receive a larger than normal change, but they are unlikely to affect balance in those missions much given army composition (for example, archers did receive some significant buffs, and Angle Bodyguards are much better as they no longer have a terrible sword selection). The exceptions are:
a) any mission where the player army is of substantially lower quality than the enemy is somewhat easier in Balance Mod, as Balance Mod makes basic spears better (most significantly, Doccinga Defense is easier because the player tier 2 spearmen do much better against the sword using enemy Vikings)
b) the player is a bit less safe being a one-man army in Balance Mod, as the result of several changes (buffing some basic weapons used by lower units, removing the overpowered stats of the player-only Orm’s Lorrica, shifting armor from glove hardening (player only) to base mail armor that both player and npcs benefit from, and horse slowing from damage making player cavalry a bit less invincible). Still, the overall effect isn’t dramatic, because for the most part we are talking about a couple of damage points here or there, and a player who solos large numbers of men generally does it by not getting hit anyway.
c) an infantry player who acquires Balance Mod’s improved Berserker trait will find his performance vastly improves in all unmounted situations—in particular, the movement speed boost has a dramatic effect. Still, overall the player would have done better in any large battle by having and activating the whole-army damage boost or enemy damage malus traits through their shield taunt or warcry, especially if they are able to safely reactivate for new reinforcement arrival waves (since they only affect units currently on battlefield when activated (the whole army traits being mostly unchanged between balance Mod and vanilla VC)
Overall, VC storyline mission difficulty is of course largely dependent on how elite the player army is. There, Balance Mod has changes going both ways—for example, elite mercs are made more expensive and rarer, but Balance Mod also gives troops a higher multiple of XP for kills in battle (among countless other changes to recruitment and such). But overall the situation remains the same—the leveling difficulty setting vs time invested will be the big influence on the eliteness of the player army.
Overall, Balance Mod is unlikely to change the difficulty much for any storyline mission, as both sides tend to be helped/hurt by the balance changes. Some specific units did receive a larger than normal change, but they are unlikely to affect balance in those missions much given army composition (for example, archers did receive some significant buffs, and Angle Bodyguards are much better as they no longer have a terrible sword selection). The exceptions are:
a) any mission where the player army is of substantially lower quality than the enemy is somewhat easier in Balance Mod, as Balance Mod makes basic spears better (most significantly, Doccinga Defense is easier because the player tier 2 spearmen do much better against the sword using enemy Vikings)
b) the player is a bit less safe being a one-man army in Balance Mod, as the result of several changes (buffing some basic weapons used by lower units, removing the overpowered stats of the player-only Orm’s Lorrica, shifting armor from glove hardening (player only) to base mail armor that both player and npcs benefit from, and horse slowing from damage making player cavalry a bit less invincible). Still, the overall effect isn’t dramatic, because for the most part we are talking about a couple of damage points here or there, and a player who solos large numbers of men generally does it by not getting hit anyway.
c) an infantry player who acquires Balance Mod’s improved Berserker trait will find his performance vastly improves in all unmounted situations—in particular, the movement speed boost has a dramatic effect. Still, overall the player would have done better in any large battle by having and activating the whole-army damage boost or enemy damage malus traits through their shield taunt or warcry, especially if they are able to safely reactivate for new reinforcement arrival waves (since they only affect units currently on battlefield when activated (the whole army traits being mostly unchanged between balance Mod and vanilla VC)
Overall, VC storyline mission difficulty is of course largely dependent on how elite the player army is. There, Balance Mod has changes going both ways—for example, elite mercs are made more expensive and rarer, but Balance Mod also gives troops a higher multiple of XP for kills in battle (among countless other changes to recruitment and such). But overall the situation remains the same—the leveling difficulty setting vs time invested will be the big influence on the eliteness of the player army.
