Recruitable Unit Rebalance Version 7.51 Released.

[Saber Cherry]

Edit: Renamed attached mod file from "Recruitable Rebalance.dm" to "Recruitable Rebalance 751.dm. This prevents overwriting of the older file, allowing a person to play 2 games with different mod versions. This is the ONLY change from 7.50. All subsequent releases will have a unique modname and filename; I apologize for not doing so previously.

************************************************** ******

A new version is out, 7.50! If you want to see the changes since 7.31, please read v7.5 and 7.4, since 7.4 was never actually released.


v7.5:


General:

Supplymult changed from 150 to 160. In other words, compared to the base game, provinces yield 60% more supplies.


Units:

Ulm Plack Plate troops increased to +2r, +5g from their original stats, to better reflect the costs and advantages of their magically smithed armor (they now cost 15 gold).
Ulm Guardians gain +4rcost (to 24g, 40r) because they also have the magical black steel halberd.
Ulm Black Knights gain +7rcost (to 70g, 77r); Templars gain +7r, +5g (to 105g, 77r). These changes are because their magical armor makes them quite elite and expensive to produce - and more survivable.
Slingers gain +1 morale (to 8). 7 seems to pretty much make any unarmored unit useless... especially considering that slingers are cheap, bad units (in the Dominions universe), and to be effective you have to have enough that they often starve, getting another -4 morale.
Fixed Ermorian Standard / Spectral Standard ID mix-up.
Pangaea hero, White Minotaur, gets bonus stats so as to be better than non-heroic Minotaurs. After all, he had special training.
Void Summons with an attack rating too low to be useful (Othernesses, and so forth) got attack boosts to the range of 9-12. Ryleh has by far the hardest time getting sacred units; they should be good! However, these changes will not usually matter too much, as Othernessess tend to trample, and the other units already had mind blasts and tend not to melee.
Illithids and Illithid Lords get +5 gcost. Illithids and Illithid Soldiers are now the same price, even though Soldiers have better stats... because Illithids have armor-piercing lifedrain rather than a trident, which is quite nice.
Tritons, being unarmored, were just terrible even though they "fly". And they are the only normal defense available underwater to land provinces, which gets expensive. So:
Knife tritons regain +1 def to 10...
Knife triton drops -1g to 6g, spear triton drops -1g to 7g, triton guard stays at 9g. All three gain +1 attack (to 10, 11, and 11).
Raptor drops -1g to 7g, and gains +2ap to 10, so that it should now be useful for patrolling.


Equipment:

Javelins get +2 prec, +1 dam (4, 0, 0, range=strength). Should be a bit more useful, and cause less FF damage.
Percolated ranged weapon modifications through to "Fire" versions.
Decided against adding major new ranged weapons (light xbow, etc) because there would not be a "fire" version.
Increased Sling range +4 to 24, to address complaints that they did not fire until the enemy was too close, and to increase realism.
Blow pipe increased another +2 range to 12. That's excessively far for a blowpipe, but done to model the fact that blowpipes are generally used stealthily from hidden positions, which is not possible on a Doms II battlefield.
Neifel Jarl +50 gcost (to 550) because it is a great SC chassis, ready from turn 2, and the mod gave it slightly better equipment.
Shortbow, Composite Bow, and Longbow get +1 precision (to 1, 2, 2) to reflect the consensus that ranged units tend to be too inaccurate.
Arbalest dropped to 12ap damage (-2) and given shield-negating (#flail). This should make them work better against enemies, and less likely to hurt Ulm's troops... and make their 1/3 fire rate worthwhile. Please note - some people may think this is a downgrade, but actually, this arbalest is generally far better than before.
Chi Kick was made #bonus (does not need ambidextrity). Also given +1 attack, since there are so many better pieces of footwear, and magical kicks should get some sort of bonus... The Horned Helmet at least acts as a full helmet, for example.



v7.4 (never released, but still cumulative):

General:

Longbow changed back to 14 non-AP damage, as a result of the poll. Unfortunately, they can no longer damage knights, as in history...
Longbowman and Elite Longbowman returned to 12g, 6r.
Longbowman (indy) gets 2 map moves.
Jotun Hurlers and Javelinists reduced from 30g to 26g, as they are skirmish units and skirmishing does not work well in Doms II.
Jotun Hurlers get 10 defense, on the assumption that they have thrown or dropped their boulders by the time they engage in melee.
They also gain +1 prec (to 11) because they are tall and have a good field of view. And for the price, they really should practice!
Boulders go from 10 damage to 0ap damage, shield negating. Hurlers have 20 strength, so really, it changed from 30 damage to 20ap.
Centaur Warrior increased +3g to 38g. I had dropped them to 35 because other medium cavalry were being dropped, but really, they're much better than normal medium cavs, so it was not not a fair comparison. Also, cheap centaur warriors made satyrs even more undesirable.
Centaur (with longbow) dropped 2g to 22g.
Mispelled word "recieve" replaced by "receive." I often mix them up... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Centaur Bardings all get unique names (Light, Bronze and Steel). Frees up 2 armor numbers and makes it more obvious what they're wearing.
Marignon Royal Crossbows get +1g to 11g.
Assassins dropped -5g to 55g, since they are not often useful, and even get killed by unguarded sages. Slayers unaffected as they are useful unequipped.
Marignon Royal Guard dropped -4g to 42g, since they lack lances, and lances were just made better (ignore shield).
Marignon Witch Hunter increased 15g to 165g, since they are just too good, especially being sacred, holy, and non-capitol. They make the other Marignon mages bad choices.
Marignon Captain gets +1 precision, -30g to 45g. They were crazily expensive since COtS Marignon has no cheap leader, and their only leaders are fragile.
Marignon Admiral gets +25 leadership (to 75), -10 gcost (to 90g), +1 strength, +1 mr, +2 precision, and Standard +10 - since captains of large ships need excellent leadership, iron will, an iron grip on the wheel, and unerring accuracy when consulting the stars and estimating wind effects.

Jaguar Warriors:

Jaguar Warrior regen fixed (they were missind the regeneration I claimed to give them. Thanks, Boron!)
Jaguar Warrior reduced -1 hp to 12 hp, increased 9g to 25 gold.
Were Jaguar reduced -1 def to 11, -1 str to 14.
Shred reduced from (3, 1, 0, 0, 2 attacks) to (2, 1, 0, 0, 2 attacks). Used by Jaguars, Jaguar Warriors, and Cu Sidhe.
Were Jaguar "Crushing Bite" (1ap, 1, 0, 0) replaced by "Bite" (2, 0, -1, 0). Real jaguars still have Crushing Bite.
These Were Jaguar changes were added because Boron noted that they were already good before the mod, and thus (since I made them better and dropped the cost) they became, in fact, insanely strong. Since they are not capitol-only like the other holy units, there is no production limit, either. I unbalanced them inadvertantly by trying to accurately model the power of a jaguar, and forgetting sacredness can drastically boost power while halving upkeep, and not realizing that they are Mictlan's only non-capitol sacred unit. In testing, with a 9-W 6-N 8-Holy pretender, I was able to easily clear level-9 indies of every type with only 20 Jaguar Warriors, suffering virtually no losses. The armor-piercing crushing bite was allowing them, unfortunately, to defeat knights despite being outnumbered, so the old "Bite" was put back. 25g sounds expensive, but with a strong bless it is really a great deal (they are still better than unmodded Warriors / Were Jaguars, due to regeneration and higher MR)... and I don't want them to be obviously superior to the capitol-only sacreds.

************************************************** ******


Version 7.31 is a very minor. It slightly increases the price longbows and Ulm Runic units. Details:

v7.31:

Ulm Black Plate units increased to 14g (to better reflect their runic armor and sealed helmets).
Ulm Black Knight / Templar increased +5g (same reason) to 70 and 100g.
Ulm Guardian increased +2g (same reason).
Longbow / Man elite longbow gain +1gcost (to 13g) since AP longbows are super good. I may change them back to non-AP eventually, depending on feedback.
Tien Chi Celestial Masters changed back from 2 air to 2 water. I had changed them to better enable casting of national spells (fly and celestial soldiers) but with Zen's magic mod, the change is not needed, and it prevented them from casting acid spells.
Slightly reduced Celestial Master price (250g S&A, 240g normal)

************************************************** ******

Version 7.2 adds some minor changes, and fixes a couple bugs. It also has some experimental changes to Ulm, and is sort of an experimental beta release before 8.0, which will be based on feedback from the ongoing multiplayer test game. If anyone has any questions or comments about these changes, or suggestions, please post them in order to help guide 8.0.

Equipment:

Shortbow range reduced to 30 again (Dominions' original setting). Range 30 to 32 seemed like a tiny increase, but it really feels seems abnormal on the battlefield when shortbows seem to go all the way across the battlefield. Crossbows stay at 32.
New armor, "Fur Cloak" given to were-creatures in human form. This is like "Furs" but without the stat penalties.
Valkyrie's Soul Spear gained secondary "Additional Damage" (1 armornegating, no strength, mr negates). This is like a direct attack on the soul... but weaker than soul slay, which would have been overpowered, unfortunately. Price increased to 75g to compensate.
Niefel units were too strong, so:
Mammoth Leather Armor (for Niefels) dropped from (8, -1, 1) to (7, -1, 1).
Niefel Axe gained secondary aoe 1 Concussion (4 ap, no strength).
Niefel Longsword lost area effect attack. Gained secondary aoe 1 Cold Radiation (1 armornegating cold damage, no strength).
Jotun Axe gets +1 att (7, 0, -1, 3). Before, they cost more resources and were virtually always worse than Jotun Spears, because Jotuns normally kill with one hit using either weapon.
Jotun Huskarls get Worn Chain Cuirass instead of Ring Hauberk. This results in +1 protection and +4 rcost.
Blowpipe improved (+2 range, +3 precision, +1 damage, ignores shield).
Woodsmen get Green Leather Armor (4, 1, 0). Positive defense modifier because it allows them to blend with vegetation. (are woodsmen too cheap now?)
Man's Lord Warden had accidentally been given Ulm's Lord Guardian equipment (got names mixed up). Fixed.
Maul went from (5ap, 0, -1, 3) to (3ap, -1, -1, 3). Ulmians and Barbarians are very strong, so it is still extremely dangerous.
Black Plate of Ulm changed to Runic Plate of Ulm, gaining +40% resistance to one element (varies: Ulmians with short weapons get Fire or Cold resist, long weapons or mounted get Shock resist.)
Full Helmet of Ulm changed to Sealed Helmet of Ulm, gaining +1 MR.
All Ulm infantry (and Guardians) with these equipment gained +2 gcost and +1 rcost, while cavalry gained +5 gcost.
Amazons (on foot) given double-ended Amazon Battle Spear (3, 1, 0, 4).



Units:

Added all Longdead and Corpse Construct, even though some (Longdead Archer, Corpse Construct, and Damned Buccaneer) can only be conjured. These were all given missile resistance if they did not already have a shield.
Corpse Construct made much better, size 3, and shock immune.
Light Archers reduced to 6g and 9 prec. (The "trained militia" of archers.)
Light Crossbows also dropped to 9 precision.
Light Infantry generally get +1 attack, to reflect the greater ease of fighting with no armor. Obviously, I could give heavy infantry -1 attack instead, by why make recruited units even worse? Units with tower shields were not boosted.
Fixed Galderman unit number.
Pythium Communcant bumped to 60g.
Jaguar Warriors (human form) got regeneration 1, to prevent battle afflictions before shifting.
Minister of Rituals dropped 10 more gold to 75 gold. Strat-move 1 is really... weak.
Master of Ceremonies dropped 5 more gold to 35 gold, same reason.
Wolf Rider cost reduced by 3 (to 15g).
Amazon Gryphons get 50% fire resistance, and Gryphon Riders get 75%. I hope this is a good compromise... otherwise, it is hard to use the units together with the fireproof infantry, and there is wierdness with the fireproof rider being killed by fire... which should be more rare now.
Jotun Herse cost dropped by 5 (to 55g), gains 1 HP (to 33).
Jotun Jarl cost dropped by 20 (to 110), gains +1 MR (to 15). And they're still dang expensive.
Jotun Gode is way too expensive... dropped 30g to 170g, gains +2 MR (to 16).
Niefel Giants lost "kick," axe stats changed (see above), and made 160g (+10).
Jotun Hirdman gets +1 att.
Ulm Black Plate + Tower Shield infantry given +1ap (to 13, or 6 after armor) because Dominions II does not model formations, so they fall way behind unshielded Black Plate Infantry when you try to mix them.
Amazon description mispelling corrected.


************************************************** ******


Version 7.1 fixes bugs with Tien Chi SA noted by Arralen.


************************************************** ******


A new version (7) is posted above! Here is the readme.


Recruitable Rebalance Mod Version 7: Changes from version 6.
Many of these are due to feedback in the forum thread. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!



Base changes:

Added #foodmult 150. This gives 50% more supplies. It makes the AI less likely to starve, makes units that eat less disadvantageous over non-eating summons, makes light units and militias more useful, and reduces the need for winebags, summer swords, cauldrons of broth, and nature picks on pretenders specifically for those items. If / when I make Chuckwagon units, this might be taken back out. The constant need for magical winebags when using mundane troops is annoying.


Equipment:

Added a bunch of new weapons and armors (maybe 10 of each). These are often for aesthetics (like gilded armors, silver armors, etc) and do not change balance, though some have slight effects.
Throwing axe precision went from -4 to -2.
Game's 4 worst weapons improved slightly:
Glaive went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Halberd went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Axe went from (7, -1, -1, 1) to (7, -1, 0, 1)
Sling becomes -1 prec instead of... whatever it was (-3?).


Indies:

Slingers get 9 prec (-1). They're still terrible, except against flagellants or with flaming missiles.
(remember, sling was also made more accurate, offsetting this change)
Hoburgs got lower resource costs. Just as big units have higher rcost for armor, tiny units deserve lower rcosts for armor. I doubt anyone built Hoburg HI, especially since (I think) hoburgs are grassland-only.
Indy Archers made slightly worse:
Light Archer: +1g (7g)
Archer: +1g +1def (8g, 9 def)
Heavy Archer: -1prec (10 prec)
Heavy Crossbowman: -1prec (10 prec)


C'tis:

Ctissian Slave Lizards dropped price by 1g each.
Ctissian Taskmaster given 3 moves, so now they not only have a reason to exist (before, they didn't), but also, Ctis Runners have a reason to exist (cheaper, and finally there is a commander that can lead them with 3 strat moves).
Falchioneer dropped to 11g.


Ryleh:

Lobo Guard dropped -1 hp, -1 att, -1 def, since they were abused to the point of mindlessness.
Crab Hybrid gets ambidextrous 4 (since I gave pincers length 2 rather than default 0)


Tien Chi:

Tien Chi immortal swordsman got way better. He was terrible before (in combat) partly because he had 2 weapons and no ambidextrity. However, some of the bonus is integrated into his sword and "imaginary" shield, so giving him a new weapon and shield will make them go away again (somewhat).
Tien Chi Eunichs get kung-fu training, and learn Punch and Kick (instead of Fist). They are now able to beat blood slaves in combat.
Tien Chi healing immortal gets a magical pruning knife.
All TC immortals get super weak armor (Immortal's Robes (2, 0, 0), or Flea-Infested Cape (1, 0, 0) for the old man).
Celestial Master (Standard and BK) gets +1 air, -1 water, +1 elemental, +15g. Result: F 2A W S ? #, 265g (sacred)
Celestial Master (SA) gets +1 sorcery, +15g. Result: F 2A W S 2$ # (linked), 265g (sacred)
(I still need to rewrite CM description to chage water reference to air reference)
Master of the Five Elements (SA) gets +1 elemental, +60g. Result: F A W E N 2# (linked), 250g (sacred)
In other words, Master of the Five Elements is assured level 3 in an elemental path.


Man:

Green Knight gets custom armor, reinvigoration 1, and regen 15% (instead of 10%).
Avalon Knights get silver armor - just like regular full chain, but -1 encumbrance. This has no effect since they are mounted.
Foresters got better stats and supplybonus 2 (feed themselves and 1 other person, probably with rabbits and truffles).
Daoine Sidhe back to 35g (+3)
Man Spearman (Short Spear) dropped 1g to 8g.


Machaka:

Bane Spiders and Spider Warriors get 11 mr instead of 10. Must either be their mysterious spider armor, or something that happens under the tutlage of the Black Sorcerers...
Spider Warrior dagger replaced by Poison Dagger. Makes sense, right?
Machaka riderless spiders get upkeep (great spider: gcost 10 {.66g/turn}, hunter spider: gcost 30 + sacred {1g/turn}). They are still an incredibly good deal, but someone needs to be paid to tend them (they don't get the money).


Vanheim:

Skin Shifters (werewolf precursors) bumped +2 hp (15 hp) to prevent pre-shift death.
Galderman gets +4 hp, +3 str, +1 att, +1 def, +25% since he is also a werewolf.
Einheres get +1 hp (to 13) so they don't die before they berserk, and full ambidextrity (3).


Marignon:

Royal Guard +3 rcost to 48 (it was too low compared to other mounted units with same equipment)
MAR Royal Xbows became 10g (+1).
Knights of the Chalice went back to 90g (+10)
Fire Lord (indy) and all Marignon's gold-colored units get Gilded Armor. Stats do not change.


Jotunheim:

Jotun Woodsmen dropped -5g to 45g. Why were they the same price as scouts that are better in every way? Plus, they are capitol only, and just not that good, with no armor, shield, javelin, or stealthy priest to bless them...
Niefel Giant gets +1 str and a bonus "Kick" attack (1, 0, 0, 1). They have really big feet, really near human-sized units' heads...


Abysia:

Anathemant Dragon dropped 40g to 320g.
Anathemant Salamander dropped 25g to 175g.
They are both still pretty expensive compared to other level 2 and 3 mages, even considering sacredness.
Pureblood Abysians get +1 attack (after all, they cost 20 gold, they're a warlike race, and only had 10-attack 9-defense?)
Pureblood Abysians also get -25% cold resist (from description: 'vulnerable to cold').
Humanbreds are unaffected by these changes.
Axe Thrower gets precision 9 (and throwing axe gets -2 prec modifier)


Ulm:

Ulm Rangers: I wanted to give them a patrol bonus but there is no way to do that yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Instead they got #neednoteat (and a description change about wilderness survival) and traded axe (terrible weapon) for shortsword (good weapon). Gold cost: +1 to 13g. They should still avoid melee, but at least have a chance.
Ranger Captain: +5g (to 50g) and leadership went from 10 to 25. Also, same changes as Ranger.
Black Forest Ulm Commander: 25 leadership went to 50 leadership, to be on par with other Commanders of Ulm. BF units are weaker, anyway.
Black Knight: Returned to 60 gold (+10)
Illuminated One became Shrouded One. Lost astral, gained blood, gained assassinate and assassin equipment. Stealth dropped -5 to 15, stats increased to Ulm elite. Cost: 110 gold (+30).
Second Tier became BBDD$ (sorcery random), slightly higher stats, stealth 0 (instead of 30). Cost: +60 to 220.
Fortune Teller gets true random instead of sorcery random (cost unchanged) and better att/def because she can predict the future.
Result: Ulm can now summon its own Vampire Counts with national mages, and harvest blood slaves, and it has 3 useful mages. Plus it can get all elemental magics (with lucky draws on random fortune tellers). Note that 2 boost items (e.g. brazen skull + skull staff) are still needed for counts unless a lucky pick or empowerment occurs.
Ulm units with full helms (Black Plate units) get Full Helmet of Ulm. This is 2 prot, 0 def, 0 enc. In other words, a weaker version of the Black Steel Helmet. Since this has no effect other than giving units +1 defense, and defense is virtually useless to the heaviest Ulm units, it probably has no measurable effect.


Pangaea:

All Pans for all themes dropped 30g.
CW Black Dryad dropped 10g (90 to 80) since that theme has little gold.


Pythium:

Serpent Priest +10g
Arch Theurg +30g
Theurg +30g



************************************************** ******




Recruitable Rebalance Mod Version 6
First Offical Release
Release Notes
by Saber Cherry.

This is the first non-beta Recruitable Rebalance Mod (version 6, with 1-5 being betas). I've spent over 100 hours (or 400, if you count combat-sim development time) attempting to adjust the costs, abilities, stats, names, equipment, and descriptions of all the recruitable units according to the following criteria.

Goal:

As many units as possible, if not all, should be made potentially useful. If one unit is inferior to another unit in virtually every situation, the weak unit should cost less or be improved, or the better unit should cost more or be debuffed. Most importantly, Dominions should become more fun, offer more choices, and have more interesting units.

Rules used to reach the goal:

1) All changes must be inline with Illwinter's thematic design for Dominions.
2) All equipment must reflect the unit portrait.
3) All unit abilities and stats must be thematic.
4) All descriptions must accurately reflect the unit, its abilities, and equipment... and vice versa.
5) The costs of units must follow their power and abilities, in accordance with loose guidelines, without violating thematicism. In other words, the "Flight", "Cold Immunity", and "Magical Weapon" abilities of Caelian units must to be paid for, but they are greatly discounted compared to the theoretical cost of giving such abilities to a unit of another nation's unit.
6) Changes should generally move the game closer to the historic balance and roles of classic military units such as archers, heavy infantry, conscripted peasants, and cavalry.
7) Before any change is made, the overall power of the nation should be considered. For example, light infantry from a very weak nation might be dropped in price more than light infantry from a very strong nation, or the weak nation's elite units might recieve higher morale than the guidelines recommend.
8) Lastly... Because the game is huge, and this mod is limited in scope, all affected units should be recruitable or summonable without magic. Pretenders are only affected if they share weapons ("hoof") or shapes ("werewolf") with recruitable creatures. Commanders are usually only affected if a non-commander version is changed. For example, if Ulm Rangers got Swamp Survival (hypothetically), I would have to give Ranger Captains Swamp Survival too. But sometimes they are changed independantly; for example, Paladins get a Holy Sword, which is too powerful to give to all the Knights of the Chalice, since they are already very strong.


Partial List of Changes:

Before I start this list, please realize that (as of version 6) I added 16 weapons, 20 armors, adjusted 20 extant weapons and armors, and altered every (AFAIK) recruitable archer, militia, infantry, and cavalry in the game, in addition to many commanders. There are at least 1000 changes, and I will not be able to list even a quarter of them... so if you use this mod, you will have to place some trust in me. My goal is to make the game as fun, fair, and strategic as possible (without changing Illwinter's fundamental design) simply because I enjoy playing fun and fair games that lack "obvious" or "no-brainer" choices. I'm providing it to the community out of altruism, because I believe that anyone who feels the same way will find this modification much deeper, more enjoyable, and more interesting than the base game. The changes are not haphazard or based on gut instinct, but based on (decent to extremely good, depending on the area) my understanding of statistics, economics, nature, history, mythology, metallurgy, warfare, physics, and the results of my fairly (but not perfectly) accurate melee combat simulator. If heavy infantry became 40% more expensive than light infantry, it's not simply because "heavy infantry perform better, and thus they should cost more". Rather, it takes more skilled man-hours to equip them, more effort to supply them, and more money to keep their equipment in good repair. A very small (more desireable) percentage of the population is capable of fighting effectively in 35kg armor, and they need more training to be able to do so; whereas anyone can fight with no armor. I tried very hard to avoid making any arbitrary (or even arbitrary-seeming) changes PURELY for balance reasons.

That said, these are the most interesting and relevant changes.





Equipment Changes:

Weapons are listed as (dmg, att, def, len)
Ranged Weapons are listed as (dmg, range, prec, ammo)
Armors are listed as (prot, def, enc)

All Ulmians get armor "Of Ulm" (+1 prot, sometimes +1 resource).
Ulm Guardians and Ghoul Guardians get Black Steel Halberd (10, 0, 0, 4, magic)
All Tuatha, Sidhe, Golden Age Arco, and Pangaea get bronze armor, helms, and weapons (sometimes increased enc or decreased prot).
Sidhe Champions given Ancient Bronze Sword (4, 0, 1, 1, 2 attacks).
All Mictlan daggers are obsidian.
Paladins get Holy Swords.
Valkyries given Soul Spears (5, 2, 0, 4, magic) and made 70g. Soul spears will get "Soul Slay" when it becomes possible.
Battle Vestals given Holy Spears (4, 0, 0 , 4, magic) and Sacred Shields (4, 2, 1).
Shadow Vestals given Shadow Spears (3, 0, 0, 4, causes weakness) and 1 enc.
Mictlan priests and mages get Obsidian Daggers (1, 1, 0, 0).
Neifel Giants and Jarls get Mammoth Leather Armor (8, -1, 1) and increased attack and defense.
Neifel Giants get Neifel Axe (10, 0, 0, 4).
Neifel Jarls get Neifel Longsword (10, 2, 0, 4, area 1) and Ice Helmet.
Atlantian Lobster Riders get Sharkskin Cuirass (4, 0, 0).
Longbow becoms 9 damage, armor piercing.
Crossbow and shortbow become range 32.
Maul becomes (5, 0, -1, 3) armor piercing.
Full Scale Mail becomes (11, -2, 3).
Tien Chi Imperial units with Falchions given Imperial Dao (7, 1, 0, 2).
Tien Chi Princes given Imperial Scale Mail (12, -2, 2) which is custom made.
Spider Armor became (16, -4, 4) due to spider silk making it lighter and more flexible.
New animal attacks, "Shred" (3, 1, 0, 0, 2 attacks) and "Crushing Bite" (1, 1, 0, 0, armor piercing) given to jaguars and were-jaguars.
Shred also given to Cu Sidhe.
Throwing Knife (1, 8, 0, 2) given to Assassins and Stalkers.
Armguards (2, 0, 0) given to Assassins, Stalkers, and Villains.
All Soulless get "Missile Resistance" (a shield, 0, 1, 0) and -1 def.
Ghouls get "Armor Scraps" (2, 0, 1) and 2x Venomous Claw.
Soulless get 2x Fist.
Soulless of Caelum get Ice Studded Armor and Ice Lance.
All "Strength Not Added" mount attacks (hoof, claw, bite, etc) made a minimum of length 1, so that the rider will not be poisoned if they strike a spiny target.
Rusty Armor capitalization corrected.
Alicorn made (12, 0, 0, 2, magic, armor piercing).
Pincer (for lobsters, etc.) made length 2, since it is a long armored appendage.
Fire Flare (Salamander) made (20, 6, 0, 5, fire, magic, armor piercing, AOE 1). The additional length makes it possible to repel spear units, and the additional attack makes it very hard to avoid, since it is area-effect.




Holy units:

All holy units get minimum 11 morale and 11 magic resistance.
Many of them (especially capitol-only or elite holy units) were given stats at least as good as the nation's top elite unit in the category.




Archers:

Cost averaged to 7g for shortbows and crossbows.
Heavily armored archers made 10g and given higher attack, defense, precision, and morale.
Light and medium archers given 2 strategic moves and new descriptions.
Slingers given increased precision and made 4g.
Villians made 9g 8r, given more armor, pillage bonus, and average stats of 10.
Sappers given higher stats.
Tien Chi Imperial archers made 11g and given better stats.
Ulm Rangers given much better stats and patrol bonus, as Rangers deserve.
Poison Slingers, Machaka Archers, and Abysian Axe Throwers given more precision. Note that it is currently impossible to adjust weapon precision, so modding the unit is the only choice to chainge their effectiveness.
Man Longbow renamed "Elite Longbowman" and given new description.
Tien Chi Archer renamed "Composite Bowman" and given new descr.




Militia:

Cost averaged to 5g for trained or armored militia.
Bottom-level militia (spear and negligible armor, Machaka, Hoburg, Lobo Guard) made 3g.
Jotun militia given higher morale and lower cost (11mor and 16g).
Flagellants and Harpies made 6g.
Machaka Militia given 2 map moves.
Insane militia (madman, thrall, mad deep one, ...) made 0 upkeep.
Many militia get new descriptions.




Light Infantry:

Describes infantry with 0-8 protection from armor.
Baseline cost (indy infantry with a round shield, spear, and leather cuirass) set at 7g.
Gladiators made 6g (trident Gladiators given a net and made 7g).
Barbarians made berserk 1, att 11, def 11, and 12g.
Atlantians split into Spearmen (7g) and Infantry (8g, shield).
C'tis predator lizards reduced in cost, and Elite Warriors made 14g, 12 att, 10 def.
Shamblers made 21g and 12 mor, War Shamblers 35g, 13 mor, 11 att, 10 def.
Satyrs split into Satyr (spear, 7g, lower stats) and Satyr Infantry (spear + buckler or javelin, 8g).
Maenads given forest survival.
Vaetti (and hags, wolfriders, etc) given 25% cold resist and lower rcost due to small size.
Unarmored Mictlan warrior changed to "Unproven Warrior" and made 5g.
Werejaguar given regeneration, more strength, new attacks (crushing bite and shred).
Pirates get Pillage Bonus.
Wolves given neednoteat because they forage, 12 attack, and coldresist 25.
Skinshifters (both themes) made cheaper.
Werewolves given coldresist 25, +3 ap, and +2 def (includes ***** Queen).
Jaguar gets better stats, attacks, and stealth +10 (includes Smoking Mirror Jaguar form).




Medium Infantry:

Describes infantry with 9-12 protection from armor.
Baseline cost (Spear, Javelin, Shield, Ringmail Cuirass) made 9g.
Salamander made 55g and gets a better attack.




Heavy Infantry:

Describes infantry with 13-15 protection from armor.
Baseline cost (Broadword, Round Shield, 16 protection) set at 10g.
Tower Guard rcost corrected to 17r.
Pythium / Ermorian HI debuffed or made more expensive.
Abysian Humanbred Heavy Infantries got unique names.
Illithid Soldiers got combat skills (mor 11, att 11, def 7).




Superheavy and Elite Infantry:

Describes infantry with 16+ protection from armor.
Baseline cost (no baseline unit) set at 11g.
Ermorian Praetorian Guard made cheaper (since they start with afflictions).
Arco heavy units made more expensive.
Ulm Guardian / Ghoul Guardian given better stats.
Ulm Infantry (generally) get unique names, like "Ulm Hammer Infantry".
Spider Warriors get Falchion and Poison Dagger.
Abysian Lava Warriors get -2 enc (down to 8 base).





Undead:

Soulless and Soulless Warriors given slightly higher mr, hp, and att.
Some Soulless (ctis, atlantis) given appropriate natural protection.
Ghoul and (plain human) Soulless each get 2x attacks.




Leaders:

Pan Black Harpies given 10 leadership, so they can lead harpy raids.
Assassins given armguards (+2 prot) and throwing knives.
Caelian scouts made 25g.
Communicants given bad att, def, prec, and no leadership.
All Abysia mages given 9 to 10 precision, so they can be used in combat.
Warlock Apprentice given douse bonus 1 and lesser fear (as per description), to make it a good blood hunter.
Mictlan Scouts get forest survival.
High Priest of the Sun becomes 370 gold (slight discount).
Tien Chi level 2 and 3 priests become 40 and 85 gold, since they have only 1 strat move and bad stats.
Tien Chi Prince Generals get Holy 2. Previously, Tien Chi had sacred troops with 2 strat moves, but no priests with 2 strat moves.
Wolfherd made cheaper, and gets animal awe.
Ranger Captain given more leadership.
Abysia Beast Trainer made cheaper (65g).
Ctis Taskmaster made cheaper (30g).
Slayer improved, so that his stat bonuses (above Abysian infantry) are similar to normal Assassin stat bonuses.
Indy Knight Commander gets 50 leadership.




National / General.

All Satyrs given 2 natural protection.
Ulmians given base 12 HP, 11 strength.
Black Plate Ulm Infantry given +1 morale, since they feel safe in all that armor.
Ryleh hybrids get new stats, names, and descriptions.
Caelian infantry made 1-2g above baseline.
Heavy infantry with helmets given -1 precision.
Heavy infantry with full helmets given -2 precision.
Humanbreds made cheaper (12g for Abysia, 10g for BoH Abysia).
Some ranged units given more precision (Jotuns Javelineers, Light Cavalry, Poison Slingers, etc).
Tien Chi Cavalry made cheaper than normal.
Some Capitol-only units improved slightly.
All units riding Unicorns get +2 animal awe and forest survival. For justification, read "The Last Unicorn".
Amazons made cheaper and given new names and descriptions.
Desert Tombs Ranger and Tomb Guard given fire resist 25%.
Units with Morningstars have descriptions altered to mention that morningstars get a shield bonus.
All mercenaries renamed to be descriptive ("Mercenary Swordsman" and etc).
Some scary units (from description) given lesser fear (-4, generally), e.g. Blood Marshal, Knight of the Unholy Sepulchre.
Ryleh Void Gate summons made upkeep free.
All recruitable animals made upkeep free.
Animals you get from mounted units being killed (Hunter Spiders, etc) made upkeep free.
Mounted Indy Mages (Fire Lord, Warrior Mage) dropped from 200g to 150g. High encumbrance makes them almost useless...
Some cavalries with incorrect rcost were corrected (e.g. Marigon cavs cost too many resources compared to others).
Moose Riders given higher protection (between Moose and Vaetti).
Jotuns generally got higher morale. They rout too much, just because the algorithm favors many weak units rather than few strong units.




Cavalry:

New (rough) guidelines established. This is directly from the .dm file.

-- Type Protection GCOST RCOST ENC MOVE

-- Light: 0-9 14 +4 4 3
-- Medium: 10-14 22 x1.5+6 4 2
-- Heavy: 15+ 30 x2+10 5 2
-- Elite: 17+ & stats+ 40 x2+12 5 2

-- Other factors to consider:

-- Factor GCOST

-- Bow: +2
-- Light Lance: +2
-- Full Lance: +6
-- Mount Attacks: varies
-- Trample: +.25*(size^3)
-- Mount Survives Rider: +10 (varies)
-- Mount Joins Army: varies
-- Slower Than a Horse: -2 to -10
-- Protection Above Minimum: +0 to 2 each
-- Bonus Stats: varies


-- Other changes: all cavs get +1 str to reflect mount's momentum,
-- and +2 hp to reflect hits taken by the mount (+3 on heavy cav)
-- heavy and medium cavs get minimum 11 morale
-- light cav precision penalties reduced, for 4 reasons:
-- 1) higher seat gives better vision and better angle
-- 2) they are trained to shoot / throw from horseback
-- 3) horses will often be still when firing
-- 4) the penalty made them worthless


Black and White Satyrs get Bronze Helmets and Light Lances.
Minotaurs get better attack and defense.
Mounted Commanders made cheaper (45g-55g based on protection and stats).
2-person chariots get more HP (16) and MR (11) and higher rcost since they have 2 people in them.
Elephants and Mammoths given higher defense, mr, and lesser fear (those things are scary and hard to hit).
Mammoths given fire resist -50% (wooly) and made 140 gold.
Vanheim Fay Boar made 100g, sacred, need not eat, and given 2 attacks (bite, gore). Did anyone buy them before?
Some unarmed (mainly female) mounted heros, who were almost unarmored, were given light armor.





************************************************** **************


Thanks for reading the readme! If you have any questions or comments, please post them on the public forum: www.shrapnelgames.com (http://www.shrapnelgames.com), Forums, Illwinter Game Design, Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars. Currently, you can link there directly through
http://shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB74

If you want to message me directly, please use the Shrapnel Forums PM system (I'm "Saber Cherry" there). The latest version of this should generally be up at
www.geocities.com/saber_marionette_cherry/ (http://www.geocities.com/saber_marionette_cherry/)
or at Arryn's much more comprehensive site,
http://www.dominions-2.org/index.htm
And it might even be at Illwinter's site,
www.Illwinter.com (http://www.Illwinter.com)
...which is the developers' site for Dominions II.

Many thanks to various people, especially Illwinter for making such a great game, and for providing modding capabilities at fan request! Specifically, several ideas were gathered from Arralen's thread leading to the Black Steel of Ulm mod, and a lot of important data was gleaned from Edi's Weapon and Armor Database and Unit Database.

[Saber Cherry]

Edit: This post showed preliminary mod contents, but has been superceded by the file attached to the above post.

[Endoperez]

Try the 'Oceania' mod, it has those last units.

[tinkthank]

Hey -- great to see you back!!!

I do not know for sure but I think "mad deep ones" come from "Imprint Souls" cast on an underwater province. (Never tried it, but encountered them against an imprint-casting Arco in one game, and think that is where they come from.)

[Saber Cherry]

Ah, thanks Endoperez & tinkthank.

[Ighalli]

Regeneration 1 will give the were jaguars 1% of their max hp per turn (nothing). Did you give them regeneration just to cut their battle afflictions down? If you want them to heal 1 hp per turn, you need to give them 10.

[BigDaddy]

have you tried them? I would have assumed Regen 1 would give them 1hp/turn. Because the computer always rounds in the players favor, so .1hp/turn=1hp/turn.

[BigDaddy]

I think Recuperation would be cool on them, because they heal wounds when they change shape!

[Thilock_Dominus]

It's #regeneration 10 - which means the unit heals 10 hit points for every 100 hit points it started with. So if you set it to 1 the unit heals 1 hit point for every 100

[Saber Cherry]

Regeneration 1 gives .1hp/turn, which is rounded up to 1/turn. I gave them regeneration for 2 reasons:

1) To keep battle wounds down, and
2) Because were-creatures always have regeneration.

I also boosted the strength because I saw a jaguar from 2 feet away through plexiglass, and their jaw muscles are bigger than my thighs. They naturally prey on turtles and crack them open with their jaws...

That's a good point about shape-shifters being able to heal their wounds when shape-shifting occurs... recuperation might be a good idea. However, according to the description, they aren't really were-creatures except during combat (when they shed blood), as opposed to werewolves, which can shift at will. Hopefully, the slightly higher HP on the human form and regeneration of the shifted form will reduce afflictions, and the more jaguar-like strength value will allow them to harm armored units despite their lack of weapons.

[Oversway]

So what is the overall idea of this? You are making sure that all recruitables have a fairly even gold cost? I think that is great for independants, but I thought that for some nations, they were supposed to have cheaper troops to make up for some other deficit (weak and/or expensive mages)?

Anyways, I think its very cool to make some of the troops more interesting.

[Pocus]

good mod, tell us when it is finished so we can pbem with it!

[Saber Cherry]

Oversway said:

So what is the overall idea of this? You are making sure that all recruitables have a fairly even gold cost? I think that is great for independants, but I thought that for some nations, they were supposed to have cheaper troops to make up for some other deficit (weak and/or expensive mages).



Hmm, it probably would have been a good idea for me to mention the idea behind it... =)

In dominions 2, there are some troops that I just never recruit, or only recruit as a last resort. Some of them have inexplicably high costs. For example, why would you pay 7 gold for and unarmored, untrained, shieldless militia... and why should it cost 70% as much as a well-trained, well-equipped professional soldier? Historically (AFAIK), peasants were just sent out to fight alongside professional soldiers without being paid anything.

So, my goal is to change unit pricing or stats MODERATELY and THEMATICALLY such that units that I would previously never consider recruiting... or were inconsistant with their descriptions... are better. Jaguar warriors? They're terrible for their price, and inexplicably weak. Shamblers? Unarmed and unarmored, they die in droves yet eat huge amounts of food, cost a fortune, and have very low morale considering their description says they "do not fear smaller opponents." Ryleh hybrids? Without ambidextrity, they have an attack of 6! That won't even hit a militia. Barbarians and barbarian leaders? Both way too expensive considering the leaders have 10 leadership, the barbarians have 9 morale, and with little armor, they all break rather instantaneously - and also, their combat skills are too low considering barbarian society is focused on fighting, raiding, and chest-beating rather than building, farming, and learning. Slingers? Wow... no sane person would recruit these guys if there was any alternative, and it's hard for me to imagine recruiting them even if there was no other ranged unit availible. They're just too terrible - for the price. And again, with no training and no inclination to participate in dangerous melee combat, why should they get paid nearly as much as regular troops, anyway?

This preliminary version doesn't make any huge changes. For example, even though I feel (unarmored) militia and slingers are worth about 3 gold, I only dropped them 30% to 5 gold. Furthermore, any changes I made to independants were generally made to national troops as well - for example, I made the baseline cost of minimally-equipped indy light infantry (shield, spear, leather cuirass) 8 gold (to reflect how undesirable they are), and propogated that across national units as well, unless they had special advantages (amphibious, natural protection, stats over 10, javelins, flight, and so forth). Well-equipped light infantry was dropped to 9. I'm planning on bumping up the price of some heavy and super-heavy infantries (to maybe 11g) and give them an accompanying boost in stats (like +1 HP and str) to reflect the fact that the soldiers recruited to wear the heaviest armor and equipment would probably be amongst the largest and strongest in the province, as there is always natural variation within a population. Some countries, like Ulm, will keep all their troops at 10g as a national advantage, though I've boosted all Ulm's troops with +1 HP, +1 str, and -1 enc. Furthermore, I gave Ulm's newer units (sappers, wolfherds, and etc) stats commensurate with Ulm's older units, since they share the same penalty (-1 mr).


In summary... I'm trying to make troop choices less blatantly obvious, and give purpose to to units that previously had none, while always reflecting the flavor of the unit (or nation) descriptions.

[PvK]

I think Militia could be as low as 0 or 1 gold.

If magic summons and stuff are keeping their low unmodded costs, then you might halve the gold costs of most other mundane troops.

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

PvK said:
I think Militia could be as low as 0 or 1 gold.

If magic summons and stuff are keeping their low unmodded costs, then you might halve the gold costs of most other mundane troops.

PvK





Mmmm.... I'm also doing a separate magic mod, based on Zen's, that would work well in conjunction with the infantry mod. I don't want to drastically change all infantry costs, which would necessitate changing every other mundane unit in the game as well. As long as I change them relative to each other (and keep the mean near 10g) I hope to be able to rebalance infantry without changing the balance of anything else... and then mod the overpowered summons (of which there are far fewer than mundane units) independantly.

As for militia costing 0 or 1 gold - keep in mind that some nations (e.g. man) can recruit these from the start. A choice between recruiting 6 heavy infantry or 120 militia on turn one is... already unbalanced, IMO. But there are not many militia types in the game, so I can quickly adjust them downward if they still seem utterly worthless at 5 g (which will probably be the case, though they can still be used absorb spells and lances, patrol, siege and defend castles at that price).

[Alneyan]

Am I the only one who actually likes militia and slingers for specific purposes? They seem the best deal to me whenever I only need fodder, and more specifically, some troops for sieges. Slingers in particular can be raised in most provinces very quickly, and they are as good as any other kind of infantry for this purpose.

They are, of course, very weak for anything else, but they seem decent enough for "giving some muscle to those mages in siege", and they are the cheapest mundane troops for this purpose (though Call of the Wind is very good for the same thing).

[Alneyan]

On a side note, you can only recruit fifty units per province every turn, so you would be unable to get 120 militia per turn; how impressive 50 militia per turn is would be another matter. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Alneyan said:
Am I the only one who actually likes militia and slingers for specific purposes? They seem the best deal to me whenever I only need fodder, and more specifically, some troops for sieges. Slingers in particular can be raised in most provinces very quickly, and they are as good as any other kind of infantry for this purpose.



Archers - which seem overpriced to me, considering their effectiveness - are about the same price as slingers, and vastly superior in every way. Militia with shields or LI are much more effective per unit gold as a meat shield / fodder than spear-only militia... do you ever buy unshielded militia?

I might run a little simulation to demonstrate how utterly crappy unshielded unts are. I'll post the results soon =)

[Alneyan]

I should have been clearer: I did not mean fodder in battle, but fodder outside battle, for spells like Flames from Afar and the like, or simply to repair walls. Actually buying militia for battle-duty would be another matter altogether. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Alneyan said:
I should have been clearer: I did not mean fodder in battle, but fodder outside battle, for spells like Flames from Afar and the like, or simply to repair walls. Actually buying militia for battle-duty would be another matter altogether. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Ahh, I understand now. In real life, though, untrained and under-equipped peasants were used in hordes in battle, not just as bait for "Murdering Winter" =) I want to make them viable for tactical military use in Doms 2 - as useful as vine men, claymen, wolves, hawks, imps, dragonflies, and soulless, considering price, survivability, and food consumption. Too bad there is no "food priority flag" that would allow an army to have 1000 militia and 30 knights, such that the 1000 militia are starving and diseased while the 30 knights are well-fed and happy.

[PvK]

I think 1 to 4 gold is about right for a militia.

On reflection, 0 is too low and would be used for Lobo Guards and Slaves.

I don't think being able to recruit a ton of them is too great an advantage - it's the advantage they're supposed to offer.

When I have excess gold (e.g., as Ulm) I will use Tribal Warriors and especially Tribal Archers for this, if I have them.

I almost never use slingers, but I will use shortbows.

I think there is a general error though in the accuracy ratings of units. It generally doesn't matter though, because only leaders can change equipment. Historically, archers or even slingers tended to be specialists, implying special training. So I would expect archers to have higher accuracy than regular troops. Generally, I think archers should be about as expensive as professional troops. I'd just lower the accuracy of non-missile troops (and most commanders) to about 8, leaving archers as is.

Unskilled or low-skilled troops would generally be rather less expensive than professionals. I'd think there would be about five tiers:

Slaves, lobo guards, summons - 0 gold
Militia, conscripts, unskilled fodder (skills 8) - 1-4 gold
Low-skilled troops (skills 9) - 4-8 gold
Professional troops, but not elite (skills 10) - 8-10 gold
Elite troops (skills over 10) - 11+ gold

Then I'd either jack up the costs of the powerful summons, or halve the costs of infantry as listed above.

Edit: Also, until Light Infantry gets the AI smarts to use their speed to avoid pitched battle with Heavy Infantry, I might lower their skills to 9's to justify charging 50-60% their cost, for balance purposes.

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

Those tiers and values sound about right, except for a couple things:

1) Conscription does not reduce province population in Dominions 2... therefore, fodder troops have to be a little more expensive to compensate for this "lack of a downside."

2) Archers seem fairly weak in Dominions 2. Possibly weaker than in real life? I'm not sure... obviously, real life has no "Staff of Storms", "Air Shield", and so forth. If Dom II archers are weaker than reality, the cost should reflect this (or something else should be changed). However, it certainly makes sense for someone trained as an archer to have higher precision than a militia, which is not presently the case.

But generally, they sound like good guidelines. Thanks!

[quantum_mechani]

I don't know about the rest of the ideas, but 0 gold lobo guards sound really scary. I already considered them a bargain...

[Saber Cherry]

quantum_mechani said:
I don't know about the rest of the ideas, but 0 gold lobo guards sound really scary. I already considered them a bargain...



They would still require 1 resource=) And I think Dom2 has a fundamental limitation of 1 gold per troop minimum. Not to mention that lobo guards are already amphibious and higher HP than a normal human.

Anyway, I'm modelling their effectiveness relative to other light units right now, and I don't plan to undervalue them =)

[Zen]

The easiest way to evaluate the gold cost of troops is to place Gold per pop 200%, then you can identify the discrepencies in gold/resource usefulness.

I don't think it's a fair accessment to base the value of archers on the effectiveness of Staff of Storms, Arrow Fend, etc, because of the overeffectiveness of these spells globally against one entire type of unit (archers).

It's obvious (at least to me) that these spells/magic items have to be toned down to provide a very real advantage but not totally negate the entire unit class.

Even with that argument, I don't think having more precision is a bad thing at all.

[Saber Cherry]

I've been fighting LI, militias, and archers against each other to try to get a feel for their relative power... basically, I tried to adjust the number in a squad (far left) so that the far right numbers ("Overall") would all equal 1000, indicating the squads are all of similar strength at that size. I tried to keep the numbers relative to 20 indy light infantry (the ones with javelins). Also, I didn't put in any shifters since they are not modeled yet, though I did include werewolves. No sacred units are blessed unless it is explicitly mentioned, and routing is not modeled.

Of course, this is all simulated, and there are no projectiles, just melee fighting. And it is just internal rankings... if I threw in heavy infantry, the relative standings would change, since (for example) flails are great against LI and bad against HI. But I thought I'd put up these numbers anyway, in case someone was interested, since they're helping me decide unit monetary values, and if any units simply need stat adjustments because no reasonable price can make them useful.

Edit: table removed, pending verification.

[Arralen]

Archers vs. Slingers

Ancient sources tell us, that archers (with shortbows) and slingers are roughly equal in terms of combat effectivness.

Arrows do more damager per shot, especially against troops with light armor and without shields. Slingers are actually better against troops with shields than archers, as they still cause full shock damage even if the projectile is caught with the shield, because of it's greater mass. Furthermore the volume of fire from slingers is considerably higher due to the easier availability of ammo ... .

The problems with slingers in Dom2 is actually their abysmal accuracy (-3 IIRC), which is IMHO not supported by ancient sources.

Longbowmen are an entirely different matter. In Dom, either their damage is too low or they should have "armor piercing" qualities.

Crossbow should have even more damage, much lesser range but even higher accuracy. Problem maybe: They start to run towards the enemy to get him in range and may end up in front of your inf. no big prob, though, they meet the slingers there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Arralen]

Barbarians

What about making all Barbs berserkers?
(Thinking about it - AFAICR they where berserkers in DOM1, wheren't they?)

[Boron]

Arralen said:
Archers vs. Slingers

Ancient sources tell us, that archers (with shortbows) and slingers are roughly equal in terms of combat effectivness.



Yeah just look at Rome Total war .
Those Balearic Slingers are quite powerful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

A few suggestions :
You should make the ryleh freespawns upkeepfree .
Militia could be need not eat to reflect that they only get surplus food but in times of need they don't get food and can starve .
1 Gold Militia would also make the "good" free militia events less troublesome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .
Maenads could also be need not eat because it is ridicoulous after 10 turns with 5 Pans you have like 500 Maenads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif . Their combat value is still almost zero but with need not eat they would at least be a nice "fodder horde" .

Do you intend to reduce resourcecosts also or will they be unchanged ?
I am anyways looking forward to your mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arralen]

Boron said:


Archers vs. Slingers

Ancient sources tell us, ..



Yeah just look at Rome Total war .




That was what I meant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif



A few suggestions :
..
Militia could be need not eat to reflect that they only get surplus food but in times of need they don't get food and can starve .



Great. But starving militia would -even in reality- take a morale hit. Oh, wait, they do in Dom, too, if they're starving. So maybe starving milita should be exactly that - starving milita?


Maenads could also be need not eat because it is ridicoulous after 10 turns with 5 Pans you have like 500 Maenads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif . Their combat value is still almost zero but with need not eat they would at least be a nice "fodder horde" .



1) Their combat value is not zero. Use the Pans to cast Protection/Mass Protection and/or Berserk etc. .

2) If you play Pangaea, you know you will have lots of Maenads if a) you choose high turmoil and b) build lots of Pans. Plan accordingly, use high growth..

[Boron]

Lol seems you don't like Rome Total War Arralen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif .

With Pangenea : If you take high Turmoil you can't really afford many Pans anyways .
Even with Mass Protection the Maenads have only Protection 10 and are still crappy .
They have only claws + 10 strength so they can't really hurt any of their targets . 10 Mech Men e.g. will beat 500 Maenads .

Since there is no Mechanism in starving included like first the cheapest troops like militia get no supply the need not eat ability for maenads and militia would be great because they would be the first ones who get rationed their food if it is scarce .

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen said:
Barbarians

What about making all Barbs berserkers?
(Thinking about it - AFAICR they where berserkers in DOM1, wheren't they?)



I'm pretty sure they weren't. Regardless, that's a good idea... I've been thinking about it a bit, and the only troublesome thing is that Barbarian leader descriptions say, "All barbarian leaders can berserk," implying that non-leaders cannot. However, I might just go ahead and modify the description=) If leaders retain their +3 berserk and normal barbarians get +1 berserk, it should all be ok, and Illwinter won't get mad, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Arralen said:
Arrows do more damager per shot, especially against troops with light armor and without shields. Slingers are actually better against troops with shields than archers, as they still cause full shock damage even if the projectile is caught with the shield, because of it's greater mass. Furthermore the volume of fire from slingers is considerably higher due to the easier availability of ammo ... .

The problems with slingers in Dom2 is actually their abysmal accuracy (-3 IIRC), which is IMHO not supported by ancient sources.

Longbowmen are an entirely different matter. In Dom, either their damage is too low or they should have "armor piercing" qualities.



More damage for longbows sounds reasonable, since historically they defeated fully-armored knights. How about reducing longbow damage to 4 and making strength additive? Then with longbowman strength 11 they'd end up at 15 damage, able to hurt heavy infantry regularly. I don't want to make them AP simply because that edges in on Crossbow turf.

As for slings, I could modify them to fire twice per round (I think)... were slings CERTAINLY much faster firing than bows? Are you (or anyone else) fairly sure about this?


Boron said:
A few suggestions :
You should make the ryleh freespawns upkeepfree.



Excellent idea, I didn't realize they had upkeep=)


Militia could be need not eat to reflect that they only get surplus food but in times of need they don't get food and can starve. 1 Gold Militia would also make the "good" free militia events less troublesome.


Another good idea, although I'll have to give it some thought. 1 gold AND need-not-eat would be too much, though. The problem is... if militia are need-not-eat, they will NEVER starve and get diseased... and what fun is Dominions 2 without starving, diseased militia? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif But I want to set militia pricing so that free militia events are, at worst, neutral.


Maenads could also be need not eat because it is ridicoulous after 10 turns with 5 Pans you have like 500 Maenads . Their combat value is still almost zero but with need not eat they would at least be a nice "fodder horde" .



I gave them forest survival, which will hopefully help somewhat... At any rate, I generally find a use for them. Pangaea should have a high growth scale and plentiful nature magic, anyway. I think that "need not eat" is an extremely powerful ability, and while it does solve the problem that Doms 2 has no "food priority system", it would introduce its own problems and mess with realism as well. Maenads may not be good against mechanical men, but they are very good against super-heavy-infantry, for example. 500 maenads against 50 Ulm black plate infantry... in order to kill the maenads, even at an impossible 1-hit-per-kill, the infantry would generate 100 fatigue each and fall asleep.


Do you intend to reduce resource costs also or will they be unchanged ?



I don't plan to change resource costs unless I change a unit's equipment (like Ghoul Guardian) or find an error.


I am anyways looking forward to your mod.


Thanks, me too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


P.S. I just combat-simulated harpies (which are similar to but even worse than maenads) versus Ulm heavy infantry, and found a roughly 5-to-1 equivalance:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
'50*Pan Harpy' versus '10*Ulm Inf Hammer 1' in 40000 bouts.

~ Attacker's Deathmatch Statistics ~

Score: ---------------------- 587
Wins: ----------------------- 58.73%
Losses: --------------------- 41.28%
Kills per battle: ----------- 6.96
Kills per round: ------------ .52
Deaths per battle: ---------- 42.16
Life expectancy (rounds): --- 32.11
Life expectancy (battles): -- 2.39
Avg. Rounds Elapsed: -------- 13.46
Avg. Rounds to Win: --------- 13.61
Avg. Rounds to Lose: -------- 13.25
Hit Rate: ------------------- 71.29%
Evade Rate: ----------------- 56.54%
Damage done per swing: ------ .26
Damage done per hit: -------- .36
Damage taken per hit: ------- 17.02
Hit damage taken per life: -- 17.46
Total damage taken per life: 18.41</pre><hr />

The Ulm troops are dying from fatigue. Please note that the difference between the last two numbers is due to repel damage (I think).

[Endoperez]

Maenads surely are easier to have stay in the battle than harpies, but they would still rout sooner or later... BTW, I could run some tests putting Ulm infantry against militia in Dom:PPP Battle Simulator. I don't think we can get closer to unscripted effectivity than that.

[Saber Cherry]

Hmmm... I should note that simulator version 40 has a pretty major bug that somebody noticed and notified me of via email, namely, that attack and defense rolls were not working correctly (probably as a result of my tabelizing statstics to make things run faster). I've fixed it and will post the corrected v41 presently. It's a pretty gross error, and I'm sorry about it=)

[PvK]

Maenads are worth their cost in food. They tend to stay to the death when berserk. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif They won't be your only unit, but having a mob of them to deal with in addition to other forces, makes them effective.

Same observation for Ulm vs. Maenads. Put shortbows behind the infantry of Ulm block, and the bows can take care of the maenads and let the infantry hold up longer.

As for the comments on slingers... I would like to see the sources which claim they are just as effective as shortbows. Maybe nearly as good, but I think they would rate somewhat lower damage, range, and accuracy than shortbows. There may be some factors to favor slingers (lighter, cheaper equipment), and yes they might supplant their ammo with rocks more readily than archers might replenish their arrows. However, military slingers would I think generally use sling bullets rather than just any rock. I don't think they had a better rate of fire than archers in general. I'm also extremely suspicious of the claim that a sling shot hitting a shield was likely to have a very useful effect.

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

I've integrated some of the suggestions on this board, made some additions, tried to eliminate all the errors that might have crept in, and re-typed the descriptions ofr all the units whose names I changed. Unfortunately, if you rename "Archer" to "Heavy Archer" because it carries a plate cuirass, that deletes the description, which is a pain=) Also, I upped the stats for Soulless... because in my experience, they are harder to get than longdead, yet vastly inferior in every way.

Longbows became armor-piercing (and dropped to 8 damage), mauls became armor-piercing (and dropped to 5), barbarians got berserk 1 (with morale 9, they are unlikely to berserk, though), barbarian leaders get standards so there is a reason to use to lead barbarians rather than normal commanders, villains and pirates get pillage bonus (and villains get better stats), all Jotun units get limited cold protection (25% for wolves and vaetti), bottom-line militia (for the most part) get their cost dropped to 3, xbow range is reduced to 32 from 35 (in RL XBows fire straight rather than in an arc, and have shorter range than even shortbows), jaguars and Cu Sidhe get new attacks that are better than before, Wolf Herders are made cheaper to reflect how weak wolves are, Ctissian predator lizards are made cheaper to reflect their value, assassins get throwing knives, all satyrs get 2 natural protection rather than 1 (goat hide is tougher than leather), soulless that should have natural protection (jotuns, atlantians) now have it (previously only ctis soulless got it), upper-end archers get 11 precision, and many many other changes. I can't list them all here, but I CAN post the completed portion of the mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif If you spot any errors, please say so!

Edit: Long annoying post removed, superceded by the beta file posted in this thread.

[Arralen]

There's one little problem with this mod:

It's totally incompatible with lots of others, nation-specific mods. There are some units which are changed in multiple mods, and which changes take precedence seems to be random !?


So I would suggest to make it an "indie troops mod", and incorporate some indie commanders/mounted troops as well, which maybe need some reworking, too. (E.g. mounted archers)

[Endoperez]

IIRC missile precision is changed via #att command.

Other than that and the fact Arralen noted above, great work!

[FrankTrollman]

I'm a little confused. Many of you don't seem to like unshielded militia and I'm just plain surprised. Those things are great. Not a mainstay in the army or anything, but great nonetheless.

You take your militia and break it into groups of 1 and hang them in the front of the army distributed up and down the battlefield. About three of those should make the enemy crossbowmen lose an entire turn (which is actually 2+ turns of the battle) if they are set to "fire closest" - and most neutrals are set to "fire closest" by default.

For 21 gold and 9 resources you can take a province losing only that crap militia. And Slingers are even better, because they count as Archers and will be targetted for death if your opponent is set on "Fire Closest" or "Fire Archers". Some of those crappy naked dudes can give you a serious advantage in archery duels. If you back those losers up with some real troops you can get big enemy archer piles to shoot at your skirmishers.

That and the use as siege bodies (and Fires from Afar soakers) makes those guys eminently worth while when there's nothing better that you can afford resource wise. And sometimes even if there is.

-Frank

[Saber Cherry]

That's a use for a tiny number of the units to confuse the tactical AI... they have no use in bulk, and no "real" use in small numbers, except for castle sieges (and FFA targets).

Even when you can find a use for them, there's always another unit that is better or more cost effective. Unshielded militia die with the first volley, while shielded ones often last several volleys! However, that's really the best place for your diseased / crippled / blind shielded HI - as long as they do not engage in melee, they will generally survive through the battle and be reusable. Arrows are virtually harmless to shielded HI...

[PvK]

There are other uses for scumbag troops. Split them into little groups with various kinds of attack orders on the flanks, and they can distract entire groups of enemies for at least a turn, or draw spells or missiles or whatever, which is often worth a few gold.

If you have a spell that makes use of dead units, then they can be nice twice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Having a shield is usually better than no shield, but of course it costs resources.

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

Ok, here's the first released version of the mod. It includes all units that I consider infantry and that can be "recruited" without magic, up to protection 13, and all mundane archer-types.

I divided units into categories:

Ranged (archers, slingers, axethrowers, etc)
Militia (below normal stats)
Light Infantry (0-8 protection)
Medium Infantry (9-12 protection)
Heavy Infantry (13-16 protection)
Superheavy Infantry (17+ protection)

The cost guidelines for "normal" units in a category:

Ranged: 7g for a medium (ringmail cuirass indy) archer
Militia: 3-5g depending on armor and stats
Light: 7g for a 6-protection (shield + spear) indy
Medium: 9g for an 11-protection (shield + spear) indy
Heavy and Superheavy are not yet finished.

From these baselines, the cost was pushed up for additional abilities (elemental resist, flight, amphibious, extra stats, javelins, magical weapons, and so forth) or down for deficiencies or national trends (Mictlan has cheap infantry, for example). Sometimes stats were altered slightly to justify the price changes, and sometimes stats were changed instead of changing the prices (for example, soulless have no price, but their MR, ATT, HP, and STR were increased slightly). And some weapons have changed; Niefel Jarls and Giants now have longer and better Niefel weapons instead of Jotun weapons. Some units have gained additional abilities; all vaetti gained 25% cold resist, for example, since they live in frozen tundra. Some unit names were altered (like "Amazon" to "Garnet Amazon") and as a result I had to retype the unit description; some of these descriptions were changed slightly (improved and made more interesting, I hope).

In general, virtually every unit in the above categories has changed, unless it seemed perfectly fine as it was. Most of the changes are minor, except for units whose pricing and power were completely incongruous (like unarmored militia) and units who did not seem to fit their historic role (longbow became armor-piercing, but less damage). I'm aware that this mod changes the balance of power between infantry and cavalry, and hope to address it in the future, but I can only do so many things at a time=)

All that said - this is a beta, so please try it out and see if it is fun and balanced. I suggest that you NOT use it with any other mods that alter mundane units (spell and scale mods are fine, nation mods may or may not be).

Have fun, and be sure to report back!

Edit: Thanks for trying the mod! The file has been removed and an updated version 5 posted at the beginning of the thread.

[Arryn]

I've made the mod available for d/l from my site, to increase its exposure.

I do have one minor comment for you, Cherry: you need to get someone else to make a better banner for you. The cherries are great but the text on the .tga looks like an ugly scrawl.

[The_Tauren13]

lmao... I love the new militia description...

[Saber Cherry]

Arryn said:
I've made the mod available for d/l from my site, to increase its exposure.



Thank you!


I do have one minor comment for you, Cherry: you need to get someone else to make a better banner for you. The cherries are great but the text on the .tga looks like an ugly scrawl.



It is an ugly scrawl - that's my mouse-writing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif But it's beta; the final will be a pretty scrawl! Or maybe I'll even open up Gimp and do something nice.


The_Tauren13 said:lmao... I love the new militia description...



Thanks; I had fun writing the descriptions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Scott Hebert]

Y'know, the Golden Era Engineer rip isn't all that nice to Engineers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Scott Hebert said:
Y'know, the Golden Era Engineer rip isn't all that nice to Engineers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Just wait till one gets hit by a seeking arrow and lives. +1 protection right over the heart is nothing to sneeze at... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Scott Hebert]

Heh. Considering I'll probably never hire an Engineer, the point is moot, I think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Heh. Considering I'll probably never hire an Engineer, the point is moot, I think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Why? They are an highly versatile and useful units, particularly in the mid-late game equipped with boots of flying.

[Scott Hebert]

My main issue with them is that they're Capital-only. Just like half of the other Arco commanders, it seems.

*shrug*

It's not like I play MP or anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ironhawk]

Is this longbow change included in the current mod? It is hard to tell given all the posts and edits.

If it is tho I wanted to point out that while this does make the longbow more effective against units with higher protection, it actually makes it LESS effective than shortbows against units with low protection. Which is kind of odd.

Not sure if that is what you were going for? You might want to consider the suggestion made earlier to make longbows strength additive. Or just boost the damage of the longbow up to 16?


Saber Cherry said:
Longbows became armor-piercing (and dropped to 8 damage),

[Saber Cherry]

Yes, the change is in the current mod.

It was kind of a tough decision... I don't want longbows to be utterly superior to xbows in every way. But I also don't want longbows causing universally instant death upon hitting a lightly armored unit, which would be the case at damage 16. Arrows are not generally capable of killing with a single hit on a random location, no matter what fired them. I doubt a longbow arrow would do any more damage than a shortbow arrow; the main differences should be range and armor penetration. But if I make longbows armor piercing and 10 damage, they're like crossbows... just... more than twice as good.

So difficult! If armor piercing could be set as a percent, it would be easier. With this mod, shortbows do more damage up to protection 3, and longbows do more damage above protection 5. Unmodded longbows do more damage than modded longbows up to protection 9, and modded longbows do more damage above protection 11.

Maybe I could move it up to 9AP. That would shift the breakeven points to 2 versus shortbows and 8 versus original longbows.

...

OK. I moved longbows up to 9AP and raised shortbow range to 32 to match Xbow range, and dropped the prices on all Xbows. Historically, Xbows are shorter range and their users less trained than bow users, but I don't want to mess with Dominions II's balance TOO much...

The end result is that longbows (compared to shortbows, composites, and xbows) should still reign supreme in all situations, but be much better able to pierce heavy armor, and no better at killing very lightly armored enemies (assuming a hit) than a shortbow. Longbows will be much better than composite bows versus enemies with armor over 6. Furthermore, Xbows can no longer safely fire at shortbows, since the range is the same.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, and pardon my stream-of-consciousness writing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[quantum_mechani]

A few balance/bug comments:

*You #cleared the Elite Longbowman, but forgot to give him back his longbow.

*Flagellents at 6 gold are a huge bonus for Marignon, I tend to mostly buy them as opposed to other infatry even at ten gold.

Also, I realize this is an infantry balance mod, but would you consider doing something about the many sorts of overpriced cavalry? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

quantum_mechani said:
A few balance/bug comments:

*You #cleared the Elite Longbowman, but forgot to give him back his longbow.

*Flagellents at 6 gold are a huge bonus for Marignon, I tend to mostly buy them as opposed to other infantry even at ten gold.

Also, I realize this is an infantry balance mod, but would you consider doing something about the many sorts of overpriced cavalry? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Thanks for noting the Elite Longbowman thing! I had to clear it to give it a leather hauberk, and forgot the weapons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for the cavalry, I'm already on it! There are like 100 of them but I got them all typed into the mod file today (names and numbers). I need to look up all the costs, though, and come up with guidelines, etc... How much do you think cavalry are worth? I never buy them, personally http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I expect to increase the STR and HP to reflect the fact that 1) the horse's momentum adds power and 2) the horse absorbs some damage intended for the rider, but they'll still need to become cheaper.

I think the final mod version will be named something like "Recruitable Unit Rebalance," though I don't intend to mess with mages and priests.


For flagellants, there are a few factors I considered...

1) Why do they need a salary? They're religious loonies who give away all their money and whip themselves bloody for fun, not highly respected pampered sacred units like Valkyries, Mother Guards, and Knights of the Chalice.
2) They have no training.
3) They start with random wounds. (like Ermorian Praetorian Guard)
4) They rarely last more than 2 battles... they're as disposable as gladiators and unarmored militia.
5) There are hidden costs. In order for them to be worthwhile, you have to pay for high pretender skills and high dominion strength.
6) Holy level already prevents massive production. You can never fill a production queue completely with flagellants regardless of their cost, like you can with militia, archers, shamblers, light infantry, and so forth.
7) How does the cost compare to other units? Double base militia (3g) and just below base light infantry (7g) which are more survivable.
8) Are cheap flagellants, limited mainly by holy level, thematic? Well... I see Marignon as the sort of place overflowing with religious zealots and ex-heretics whose minds have been destroyed in the torture chambers...

Sending flagellants off to war is kind of like a release valve. You wouldn't want violent, insane, unproductive people hanging around town claiming to be "better" and "more pure" than everyone else. So there should be sort of a constant trickle of flagellants, at the rate society produces them... and setting the price at 6 should cause the player to do such a thing.

So I consider 6g reasonable from a theoretical standpoint. If it continues to seem like a massive advantage in the actual game, I'll change it...

Thank you for your feedback http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Version 5 is uploaded, and can be found on the first post of the thread. Consider this a second beta. Thanks to quantum_mechani and Ironhawk for finding bugs/issues, to Edi for supplying the Unit Database, and to everyone who downloaded and played with the last version.

New:

Most important: Finished all heavy and superheavy infantry.
Now, aside from possible bugs and imbalances, all infantry, militia, and archers are complete.

Added all cavalry in the game, with name, number, and cost, but have not changed any cavalry yet.

Fixes Man longbowman (who lacked a longbow), makes longbow slightly stronger (9 ap) and shortbow slightly longer range (32, putting it equal to xbow). Xbowmen made slightly cheaper to compensate.
Assassins get armguards, so protection goes up to 5. Slayer gets no armguards but higher att/def to put him on par with cheaper assassins.
Fixes some bugs noted in Edi's unit database.
Abysian Salamander (the animal) improved and cheapened.
Lava Warrior base encumbrance drops to 8 (maybe they can stay awake for an entire battle now...)
Neifels get new, better Neifel-sized weapons, and Neifel Giants get attack high enough to hit militia reliably.
Tien Chi Imperial units improved.
Full Scale Mail dropped from -3 defense to -2 defense.
All Ulm units with armor get armor "of Ulm" (+1 prot, +1 resource cost)
Sappers made better.
Mounted unit "strength not added" mount weapons (hoof, bite, etc) got length 1, so that when striking spiny enemies, the rider would not be poisoned. I think length 1 is all it takes, anyway.
Cu Sidhe got stronger.
Alicorn gets armor piercing.
Black Forest Zweihander became elite, and Blood Marshal (Black Forest hero) gets lesser fear.
Indy Knight Commander gets 50 leadership, not 25.
Some Caelian infantry became slightly more expensive.
Changed a few weapon stats and added a couple weapons.
Some archers get 2 strat moves, and/or better attack and defense, and/or higher precision.
All non-commander units with full helms and heavy armor get reduced precision. Commanders are untouched because you can theoretically change their helmet.

Changed myriads of other things to make them closer to perfect. But I can't remember them all However, IMO, all infantry units are now "viable" except for a few that don't carry shields, and which only silly people would build. It's hard to balance soldiers that decide to leave some of their vital equipment at home http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As before, thanks for downloading it, and please post any error / bug / mispelling / thing you feel is unbalanced / anything related to the mod in this thread, so I can help make it better. Thanks!

[Arryn]

Saber Cherry said:
Version 5 is uploaded, and can be found on the first post of the thread.


The version number given in the .dm file was 4. I adjusted it to 5 before I uploaded it to my site. FYI.

Keep up the great work!


Best regards,

Arryn

[Scott Hebert]

Saber, I'm working on the 'mounted' cost from the commander end. It seems like 40g is the cost you pay for a mounted commander. That seems... rather extreme, to me. I do realize, though, that being mounted invariably adds at least one 'extra attack' (that doesn't disappear with rearming), increases AP, removes non-spell fatigue due to armor, and similar things.

Anyway, I figure that halving the cost (going from commander to infantry) might be a way of going there. That would leave 20g.

Another way of looking at it is this:

Infantry commander base cost: 10
Infantry unit base cost: 5 (half)

Add a couple of gold for the weapons of the infantry (after all, you can't re-equip them like commanders), and you get about the 7g that you use for light infantry, right?

Cavalry commander base cost: 50
Cavalry unit base cost: 25 (half)

It would seem fair. Just a suggestion...

[Ighalli]

I love the R'lyeh hybrid descriptions!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
You didn't make them upkeep free like you had mentioned though. Did you get them mixed up with the void gate summons?

[Ironhawk]

Yeah, I can appreciate how tough of a decision this one would be. With 9AP damage longbows definitely are the supreme missle weapon. But then again, in my experience, longbowmen are the rarest indy archer type. Which fits in with the reality of longbows (they were elite archers, basically) and its good for game balance too.

Interesting side note: Why are there no sacred archer units? I just envisioned Man with sacred longbowmen and a W9 blessing.


Saber Cherry said:
It was kind of a tough decision...

OK. I moved longbows up to 9AP and raised shortbow range

[Scott Hebert]

Actually, I think the Crystal Amazons still qualify as the rarest indy archer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Actually, I think the Crystal Amazons still qualify as the rarest indy archer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Considering you need to use wish to get them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Scott Hebert]

Oh, do you? I can remember (way back in the single digit versions) that I did find a Crystal Amazon province in a game or two...

Air/Astral, bowmen, Pegasus Riders, in plains, right?

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Oh, do you? I can remember (way back in the single digit versions) that I did find a Crystal Amazon province in a game or two...

Air/Astral, bowmen, Pegasus Riders, in plains, right?


It is possible thier disappearance happened in a patch, but I think they have been gone since dom I. Though they may be preplaced in a scenario or two.

[Endoperez]

They are placed in a province in Tyrande, although the defenders were general LI/HI/Archers.

[Saber Cherry]

Arryn said:
The version number given in the .dm file was 4. I adjusted it to 5 before I uploaded it to my site. FYI.

Keep up the great work!



Thanks, Arryn; I can always count on you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif But I'll try harder anyway!


Scott Hebert said:
Saber, I'm working on the 'mounted' cost from the commander end. It seems like 40g is the cost you pay for a mounted commander. That seems... rather extreme, to me. I do realize, though, that being mounted invariably adds at least one 'extra attack' (that doesn't disappear with rearming), increases AP, removes non-spell fatigue due to armor, and similar things.

Anyway, I figure that halving the cost (going from commander to infantry) might be a way of going there. That would leave 20g.

Another way of looking at it is this:

Infantry commander base cost: 10
Infantry unit base cost: 5 (half)

Add a couple of gold for the weapons of the infantry (after all, you can't re-equip them like commanders), and you get about the 7g that you use for light infantry, right?

Cavalry commander base cost: 50
Cavalry unit base cost: 25 (half)

It would seem fair. Just a suggestion...



Cavalry unit cost is sort of confusing. I've been thinking and thinking... but no matter how reasonable your rationale is, we end up with 25g light cavalry that NOBODY is going to buy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

However, light cavalry just use horses... you know, horsey-worseies. Whereas heavy cavalry use huge warhorses bred for strength and trained for battle... and armored! Well, I don't know if this is reasonable or not, but these are the factors I considered and their approximate costs. I made up all the numbers myself rather than analyzing Illwinter's numbers, and didn't really follow them very closely... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Also, Illwinter never really factored in the resource cost of breeding and training horses.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
-- Cavalry Guidelines:
-- Note that the existance of guidelines does not mean they are followed.

-- Type Protection GCOST RCOST ENC MOVE

-- Light: 0-9 14 +4 4 3
-- Medium: 10-14 22 x1.5+6 4 2
-- Heavy: 15+ 30 x2+10 5 2
-- Elite: 17+ &amp; stats+ 40 x2+12 5 2

-- Other factors to consider:

-- Factor GCOST

-- Bow: +2
-- Light Lance: +2
-- Full Lance: +6
-- Mount Attacks: varies
-- Trample: +.25*(size^3)
-- Mount Survives Rider: +10 (varies)
-- Mount Joins Army: varies
-- Slower Than a Horse: -2 to 10
-- Protection Above Minimum: +0 to 2 each
-- Bonus Stats: varies

-- Other changes: all cavs get +1 str to reflect mount's momentum,
-- and +2 hp to reflect hits taken by the mount (+3 on heavy cav)
-- heavy and medium cavs get minimum 11 morale
-- light cav precision penalties reduced, for 4 reasons:
-- 1) higher seat gives better vision and better angle
-- 2) they are trained to shoot / throw from horseback
-- 3) horses will often be still when firing
-- 4) the penalty made them worthless
</pre><hr />

Anyway, thanks for your analysis!



Ironhawk said:Yeah, I can appreciate how tough of a decision this one would be. With 9AP damage longbows definitely are the supreme missle weapon. But then again, in my experience, longbowmen are the rarest indy archer type. Which fits in with the reality of longbows (they were elite archers, basically) and its good for game balance too.

Interesting side note: Why are there no sacred archer units? I just envisioned Man with sacred longbowmen and a W9 blessing.



Since longbows are quite rare, have virtually no armor, and are 30% to 100% more expensive than other archers, I guess it should be OK. As for holy archers - there are Crystal Amazon Pegasus Riders and Centaur Hierophants... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif But nothing common or cheap.


Ighalli said:I love the R'lyeh hybrid descriptions!!
You didn't make them upkeep free like you had mentioned though. Did you get them mixed up with the void gate summons?



Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for the hybrids: They are recruitable with money, and require upkeep, though I did drop the prices of the inferior ones. I eliminated the upkeep on Void Gate Summons (Elder Thing, Vastness, Otherness, Thing of Many Eyes, etc). I don't know if they had upkeep before, but they definitely do not now.



So! I've spent about 30 hours in the last several days, smoothing over the previous changes, spotting and correcting bugs, and redoing every cavalry unit in the game. I also added some neat new weapons and armor to units that really needed them. For example: Soulless have no vital organs. They tend not to die from arrows. So I gave them "Missile Protection" (technically, a 0 prot, 0 enc, 1 def shield, and lowered their def by 1 to compensate). It should make arrows slightly less effective on Soulless, without affecting anything else. And I gave Sidhe / Tuatha full bronze equipment, based on their descriptions of "Hating iron and only using Bronze and Leather."

You can look at the attached picture to see some of the new armor and weapons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'm in the final stages of debugging (primarily, ensuring that no units are missing attacks, got their description cleared, cost too much or too little, or have the wrong unit number for their name) and plan to release the first non-beta today or tomorrow. Thanks for all your comments!

[Saber Cherry]

This is the first complete, non-beta release. You can grab it (and read the release notes) at the first post in the thread. You can also see a screenshot of some of the new weapons and armor that units are sporting in the post above this one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Have fun, and I hope you enjoy it!

[tinkthank]

Looks very nice! Am away from home atm and cannot test, but will try to do so soon.

Naive question: Can many mods modding stuff such as this exist at once? (E.g., since I selected light cav for my Oglala mod, feedback on which I am still desperately seeking (shameless plug), and you have modded them, will that cause a conflict?)

Really Smallish Question: Would you also consider incorporating my Abysian Salamander changes to your mod by the same logic you changed the Vanheimian Fay Boar ("did anyone ever buy one before?") -- 75 gcost, sacred.

Anyhow, thanks for this mod, it looks like a lot of work, and I appreciate it -- for me, modding is really tough, and it would be abysmal without feedback.

[Tuidjy]

What we need now is a game in which all spells beyond level 2 and all pretenders
with magic path cost over 10 are disabled. It would be the perfer way to test
this mod.

If it is not PBEM (I seem unable to stick to these) I would like to join.

[Saber Cherry]

tinkthank said:
Looks very nice! Am away from home atm and cannot test, but will try to do so soon.



Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Naive question: Can many mods modding stuff such as this exist at once? (E.g., since I selected light cav for my Oglala mod, feedback on which I am still desperately seeking (shameless plug), and you have modded them, will that cause a conflict?)



I don't think so... I think the computer loads mods alphabetically, and mine is named "Cherry Recruitable Rebalance", so "Oglala Sioux" should be processed second, with your changes overriding my changes. But I might try that out later today and see.


Really Smallish Question: Would you also consider incorporating my Abysian Salamander changes to your mod by the same logic you changed the Vanheimian Fay Boar ("did anyone ever buy one before?") -- 75 gcost, sacred.



I changed them to 55g, made their fire flare much better, and made Beast Trainers cheaper. However, it does make sense that they should be sacred - not necessarily because Abysians worship hot things (although they do), but because salamanders shouldn't get paid so much after they are trained, since they don't have a use for money http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Hmmm... I guess 75g and sacred sounds fair. I'll have to retype the description to incorporate that change.


Anyhow, thanks for this mod, it looks like a lot of work, and I appreciate it -- for me, modding is really tough, and it would be abysmal without feedback.



I completely agree. Thanks for the feedback!



Tuidjy said:What we need now is a game in which all spells beyond level 2 and all pretenders
with magic path cost over 10 are disabled. It would be the perfer way to test
this mod.

If it is not PBEM (I seem unable to stick to these) I would like to join.



It would be very interesting to test this mod without powerful magic and supercombattants... it would change Dominions II into (as close as I can make it to) the low-magic medieval military conflicts in most fantasy novels, like Lord of the Rings, Magician, or A Game of Thrones. However, I'm not sure how much interest there would be, as most Dominions II players (on this forum) seem to love powerful magic. I'd be up for it, though! Of course, it would take several more hours to disable all those gods and spells... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Ironhawk]

It's too bad you missed the Age of Men game. I designed it to be more about national armies and less about magic and SCs. It was quite fun!! And for the record I would certainly be interested if you are starting a game of that type up with your mod. Send me a PM or something if you do.


Saber Cherry said:
It would be very interesting to test this mod without powerful magic and supercombattants... it would change Dominions II into (as close as I can make it to) the low-magic medieval military conflicts in most fantasy novels, like Lord of the Rings, Magician, or A Game of Thrones. However, I'm not sure how much interest there would be, as most Dominions II players (on this forum) seem to love powerful magic. I'd be up for it, though! Of course, it would take several more hours to disable all those gods and spells... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Ighalli]

I'd also be interested in a very low magic game, or any test of this mod for that matter!

[Saber Cherry]

It's possible for me to host games, as I keep my computer on 24-7 now. Unfortunately, I am currently using a college's slightly unreliable wireless internet access... it generally works, but not perfectly. At any rate, I'd be happy to host, and it SHOULD work fine.

So... it seems there are at least 4 (including me) people who would like to play an MP game using this mod, and everone seems to want a somewhat reduced emphasis on magic and SCs. If anyone else is lurking and wants to play a game, please post here.

In the meantime, I will make a "low magic" mod based on Zen's mod, but more extreme. Then, if a consensus wishes to use the low magic mod as well, we can use both http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[quantum_mechani]

Saber Cherry said:
If anyone else is lurking and wants to play a game, please post here.



You can count me in.

[The_Tauren13]

Id be interested.

[Arralen]

Me too !

[tinkthank]

Me too, if this were to be PBEM on a fairly relaxed basis. Awaiting a new baby in the next 1-4 weeks, and that will take priority.

I tested it so far only a little, and like very very much of it a whole lot. I really liked the fact that many units are coming into their own. Now, the Indy nations are more interesting, and the AI can make better use of them. More testing to come.

Some tiny "criticism-type" remarks so far (I have detailed my remarks so far in a text-doc I have at home but forgot to bring here, sorry), and perhaps this is said too quickly, but here goes anyhow:

- Many ranged units became asymptotically better than their counterpart melee units, thinking in particular of X-Bows (especially of the Marignon flavor), which became BOTH cheaper AND better. I would have like to see them ONLY cheaper, NOT better, at least for some of the Indy troops, because I would still prefer there to be an incentive to purchase National troops above Indy ones of the same type (that is: get Indy troops if you are in a hurry or if you lack that type altogether, e.g. x-bows or archers for Abysia). I found the Heavy Archer (equally good warrior as bowman) a bit too butch -- if he is really wearing all that armor, his precision should drop.
- Marignon is now too butch for my tastes: The X-bow is now a cheap elite unit and the KotChalice is now much less expensive (why? I think he filled his niche quite well before), and the Flagellant has become almost half-price.
- I approve of making Light Cav less expensive, but dislike the fact that their precision has increased simultaneously. I read your justification in the readme, and didnt quite feel comfortable with "horses sitting still" etc. -- it really isnt easy to fire a bow from a horse. Also, it makes my Oglala mod outdated! ;-)
- Damn, I had about 4 other small points, but I will have to get back to you with those.
More testing to follow!
Thanks for your mod!

[st.patrik]

yo saber cherry - i'd like to play if you've got a spot!

[Huzurdaddi]

Nice mod I'm pretty impressed.

From my inital try it seems that I recruited a lot more cav than usual ( a good thing ).

The Matchaka archer is comical. You can build an aweful lot of those. They do seem pretty efficient. Although you need a growth dominion to feed them.

The only thing I can compain about is that it destroys a lot of my preconceived notions about what is useless and what is good. T'ien Ch'i with buff troops? Jotuns that don't run from combat? Up is down. I actually want to play man? What the heck is that all about?

[Ironhawk]

Checked out the mod in a quick test game last night, saber. Looks pretty good. You definitely did a good job with pricing becuase there were some units that I clicked on and I thought to myself "you know it might finally be a good deal!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for hosting, I would be happy to host this game on Sheap's machine. Which is very stable and has a rock solid connection. Just let me know what mods and maps I will need to download and what all the game parameters are.

Also, maybe you should post a thread over in the Multiplayer Forum and link it here so that people can officially sign up for the game?


Saber Cherry said:
It's possible for me to host games, as I keep my computer on 24-7 now. Unfortunately, I am currently using a college's slightly unreliable wireless internet access... it generally works, but not perfectly. At any rate, I'd be happy to host, and it SHOULD work fine.

So... it seems there are at least 4 (including me) people who would like to play an MP game using this mod, and everone seems to want a somewhat reduced emphasis on magic and SCs. If anyone else is lurking and wants to play a game, please post here.

In the meantime, I will make a "low magic" mod based on Zen's mod, but more extreme. Then, if a consensus wishes to use the low magic mod as well, we can use both http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[Ironhawk]

Saber, dunno if you were thinking this, but if you are going through and radically altering magic for a low-magic type game, I think it would be great if we could see more use of the low-end summons (wyverns, drakes, animals, etc)?

[Scott Hebert]

A short update from my end.

I've just gotten back from a trip. I'll be making my way through the rest of the commanders (probably just national for now) and posting the info on my own thread. It might be interesting to see what would happen if you played a game with both Cherry's unit mod and my (hopefully forthcoming) commander mod.

[Saber Cherry]

Ironhawk said:As for hosting, I would be happy to host this game on Sheap's machine. Which is very stable and has a rock solid connection. Just let me know what mods and maps I will need to download and what all the game parameters are.

Also, maybe you should post a thread over in the Multiplayer Forum and link it here so that people can officially sign up for the game?



Thanks a lot! Actually I found out last night my harddrive is (probably) dying, so I'm rush-ordering a new one, but in the meantime I'm trying to avoid HDD accesses http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So if you can host it (on this mysterious "Sheap" of which you speak) that would be perfect!

I'll start a thread in the MP section. As for mods and maps... hard to say about a map until I know how many are interested, but DEFINITELY under 200 provinces. Modwise... I spent many hours putting spells (and summoned units) into mod-format, and only finished conjuration. The other schools will go much faster (I think) but I doubt I'll have a complete "Low-Magic" mod in the next 2-3 days, and no current mod accomplishes this effect. However, I can at least adjust the best and worst spells to make a "Lower Magic" mod where blade winds, falling fires, artillery, army invincibility, and mega summons are nerfed.

I'll start an MP thread now.

[Ironhawk]

Yeah, modding all these spells is going to be quite the undertaking! Trying to think of an easier way to do it but I am coming up blank.

Don't forget to link back here once you have an MP thread so people can find it.

[Saber Cherry]

Ironhawk said:
Don't forget to link back here once you have an MP thread so people can find it.



Ok http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Please pick a nation and sign up here (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=340688&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=31&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=#Post340688)!

[Saber Cherry]

tinkthank said:Some tiny "criticism-type" remarks so far (I have detailed my remarks so far in a text-doc I have at home but forgot to bring here, sorry)



I'll look forward to seeing the complete list when you find it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


- Many ranged units became asymptotically better than their counterpart melee units, thinking in particular of X-Bows (especially of the Marignon flavor), which became BOTH cheaper AND better. I would have like to see them ONLY cheaper, NOT better, at least for some of the Indy troops, because I would still prefer there to be an incentive to purchase National troops above Indy ones of the same type (that is: get Indy troops if you are in a hurry or if you lack that type altogether, e.g. x-bows or archers for Abysia). I found the Heavy Archer (equally good warrior as bowman) a bit too butch -- if he is really wearing all that armor, his precision should drop.



Ok, I'll look into that. I did reduce the Xbow's range by 10%, by the way. You're right, though, archer units generally did get better overall... especially lightly armored ones, which (mostly) now have 2 strat moves so you can actually move them with a mobile army. I'll reevaluate the archer cost guidelines.


- Marignon is now too butch for my tastes: The X-bow is now a cheap elite unit and the KotChalice is now much less expensive (why? I think he filled his niche quite well before), and the Flagellant has become almost half-price.



Hmmmm. I like the cheap flagellant for thematic reasons, but I'll reexamine the other two. What do you think is a fair cost for the Xbow and KotC?


- I approve of making Light Cav less expensive, but dislike the fact that their precision has increased simultaneously. I read your justification in the readme, and didnt quite feel comfortable with "horses sitting still" etc. -- it really isnt easy to fire a bow from a horse.



I can always give them a +2 precision "horsebow" and drop their base precision to 8 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Seriously, though, I need to find some way to make them worth buying... at precision 8, they're almost useless, but cost more than 2 (superior) foot archers. Any suggestions?


Also, it makes my Oglala mod outdated! ;-)



Not at all, they still lack the magic resistance and... um... aesthetic appeal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif No to mention poisoned arrows and stealth! I can also change the descriptions to something like, "Please note that this unit's stats do not reflect how clearly inferior it is to Oglala cavalry" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



- Damn, I had about 4 other small points, but I will have to get back to you with those.
More testing to follow!
Thanks for your mod!



No, thank you for the feedback. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Huzurdaddi said:Nice mod I'm pretty impressed.

From my inital try it seems that I recruited a lot more cav than usual ( a good thing ).

The Matchaka archer is comical. You can build an aweful lot of those. They do seem pretty efficient. Although you need a growth dominion to feed them.

The only thing I can compain about is that it destroys a lot of my preconceived notions about what is useless and what is good. T'ien Ch'i with buff troops? Jotuns that don't run from combat? Up is down. I actually want to play man? What the heck is that all about?



Yay, pure praise http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif As for Machaka Archers, every one you buy takes money away from Black Hunters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif With a Fire Arrows spell, they might become super-strong. But Machaka (IMO) is a very weak nation aside from their Black Hunters and Bane Spiders, so maybe that's OK...


Scott Hebert said:A short update from my end.

I've just gotten back from a trip. I'll be making my way through the rest of the commanders (probably just national for now) and posting the info on my own thread. It might be interesting to see what would happen if you played a game with both Cherry's unit mod and my (hopefully forthcoming) commander mod.



Sounds good to me! I'm looking forward to the Commander mod, though I will say that Recruitable Rebalance does affect some commanders: generally commander versions of normal troops, like Paladins, Niefel Jarls, Black Lords, Lord Guardians, Prince Generals, and all mounted commanders. Usually it just changes their stats or equipment (Tien Chi imperial consort gets a "slap" weapon). Very few prices were changed, and the only magic path change was the Prince General, who got Holy-2. So with minor exceptions, the mods should be fully compatible.

That said, I'm going to leave the forums and try to finish the magic / low magic mod.

[Scott Hebert]

Cool. Most of those guys would just get cheaper, on my end.

I don't plan, at this time, to do anything but shift costs around.

[tinkthank]

OK, some more:

I like the strat-2 move of most bowmen, fine. I would prefer them to maintain their 10-precision, however, for their cheaper price.

So I have this changed in my mod of your mod:

Heavy Archer Prec 10
Heavy Xbow prec 10
Indy Longbowmen: prec 10

Mari Xbow: prec 10 (Context of Cheaper Flagellants, cheaper units of your mod)
Flagellants: GCost 7 (still dirt cheap IMO, thats the upkeep of a modded Militiaman too!)
Knight of the Chalice: Stays at 90. Did you feel he has no niche at 90?

Lobos Gcost 4 (too good at 3) (Cherry, do you play Ryleh? Lobos are hands down the BEST recruitable fodder in the game, I loved them at 5 gold; you cant compare them to Militia, which rout -- these guys will sit there and take a beating, and I think 4 gold is a fine price to pay for the difficult task of lobotomizing those poor froggies.)

Warlock Apprecs: GREAT change with the douse, but nix fear, prec stays at 8 (for no increased cost) (who cares, they cast prec100 spells anyhow)

Riderless Spiders given smallish gold cost (30 hunter spider, 10) -- you have to pay for food, heheh -- but seriously, no upkeep is too good for these units

Machaka Archer 11 prec for 6 gold? (I dont know about this yet, havent had time to test. I think it may be too good, unsure.)

Vaetti cold resistance: Fine. Why not Nornae and Seithkonae 25 CR too!?

Here's a question, since you were so thoughtful to change all those descriptions: The Salamander still reads something like "When injured, can erupt in flames??" -- but it never does. Would it be possible to mod the unit so that OnDeath: small area fire?

Cu Sidhe: No supply bonus. (Do you eat your dogs?)
D. Sidhe: No reduced price. Why make them even cheaper?

All (Light) Cavalry: Kept the drastically reduced price, but maintained the low horsey precision. No, we will have to invest in Wind Guide or Aim or something.

Am wary about giving all those cavs higher morale, too. It is not the rider, but the horse which is hard to control.

OK that is all I had the time for so far, really must work, but will try to do this more systematically soon.

Thanks for all your work -- great mod!

[rabelais]

I love the idea of this mod. Go Saber Cherry!

Some comments:

1. Hunterspiders that lost their riders were already upkeep free

2. AP Longbows is overkill, IMHO. Perhaps give them a reduced chance to be stopped by shields, instead?

BF has to endure much to get (AP) rangers. Which leads to:

3. Rangers were plenty good already. Fear them buffed.


Rabe the Generally Enthused

[TheSelfishGene]

Great mod! Really addressed some outstanding issues. I do have some short thoughts on the mod however;

Cavalry is perhaps a bit too cheap. There is a substantial difference between 10 armor and 20 armor; its not just double in effectiveness, its like 4-5x. So when you make, say, Black Knights cheaper AND stronger, they become pretty much the buffest national units in the game. Which may or may not be a bad thing, balance is not a zero sum game and Ulm pays for its Knights by being weak in many other areas, but i gather the Cavalry mod was added in at the last minute and didn't go through as rigerous a testing procedure.

I like the Firbolg Rule of Thumb; is this recruitable unit better than a 10 gem, 5-Path Firbolg? If it is, and its only costing me 50 gold, you might need to think about adjusting something here or there.

Short Bow archers seem useless now compared to xbows because everything has fairly decent armor. I think, imo, a bit too much armor was added to the game...at least with indie troops.

Some random thoughts and obserations:

Prince General has not been improved. Still 10/10 hitpoints.

Lowbowmen have 10 precision instead of 12? That should be changed back. I'm not really certain i like the Change; a weaker, faster firing crossbow...

I like the Change to Imperial Tien Chi troops.

Could you buff Black Forest Ulm's Illuminated One's somehow? Give them the assassinate abiliy, or a slight chance of causing bad luck in the province they occupy. They aren't bad, but BF Ulm is a pretty weak theme that relies almost 100% on a buffed VQ. Trying to play them WITHOUT a combat VQ is a very difficult exercise with their limited magic skills and poor morale troops. The Illuminated Ones are well rounded but rather inefficient per cost; and with death, BF Ulm has a hard time with upkeep, so a 160 gold non sacred caster is more expensive in the long run he looks at first. I see the I.O.s as a kind of traveling old man, with train of servents and hooded girls behind him, journeying to dine at the tables of foreign kings and dignitaries; practising unholy rights at night in his room when no one is looking, throwing poisonous converational barbs at state dinners, subtly manipulating the crowd, stirring up strife wherever he goes, and sometimes just for kicks dominating some poor serf to go burn his own house down, or kill some noble he disliked.

So i'm fond of them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif but would like them to a be a bit more powerful than they are now.

[Scott Hebert]

BF Ulm? Mass Ranger annihilation works well, so I hear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Illuminated Ones, as written, are rather disappointing. Granted, they ARE spies, and they should pay for it, but it could work out better. For me, changing Illuminated Ones/Members of the Second Tier from Astral Primary to Blood Primary would be a useful thing to do.

Illuminated One: B
Member of the Second Tier: SBB

Anyway, just a thought.

[Huzurdaddi]

Scott Hebert said:
BF Ulm? Mass Ranger annihilation works well, so I hear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Illuminated Ones, as written, are rather disappointing. Granted, they ARE spies, and they should pay for it, but it could work out better. For me, changing Illuminated Ones/Members of the Second Tier from Astral Primary to Blood Primary would be a useful thing to do.

Illuminated One: B
Member of the Second Tier: SBB

Anyway, just a thought.



I have to second that. The change would be pretty thematic for BF and would make it into a powerhouse.

[quantum_mechani]

I don't think BF Ulm needs any kind of boost (I would put them in the top ten nations/themes), but a thematic change might be fun. Such as giving the member of the second tier the assassin ability and raising his price.

[Scott Hebert]

My main issues with BF Ulm, from a 'fun' standpoint, are:

1. Bloodhunting Micromanagement (no fun)
2. Pretender 'must' be able to cast Sanguine Heritage
3. Illuminated Ones are pointless (Fortunetellers do everything they do and more)
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)
5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)

As an aside, Zen's mod making the Fountain produce Blood Slaves every turn is REALLY GOOD for BF Ulm.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

1. Bloodhunting Micromanagement (no fun)
2. Pretender 'must' be able to cast Sanguine Heritage
3. Illuminated Ones are pointless (Fortunetellers do everything they do and more)
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)
5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)



The Illuminated ones are not pointless. They can be used as spies when needed, and are not capital only. Yes, it is a good idea to have 3B3D on your pretender when playing BF, much like taking an non recuperating/immoral pretender with Arco is a good idea. Blood micro is a problem with all blood nations (and nations in general in the late game). The scales and expensive hunters just mean it needs to be played in a different way than most blood nations

[The_Tauren13]

BF Ulm is weak: No elemental magic, a national spell that cant even be cast by national mages, starting death gem income but no death mages, no good artilery mages, no good ritual mages, pathetic blood hunters, etc. The list goes on and on. However, it is very fun to play, which, by my standards, makes it better than Pythium http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Huzurdaddi]

quantum_mechani said:
(I would put them in the top ten nations/themes)



Hmm sounds like you are changing your tune from earlier:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=315303&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o =&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1

Perhaps you are simply conservative and reactionary to all changes and thus make unsubstantiated claims?

Ulm in general is pretty cruddy. BF is better ( maybe ) than base Ulm since it's a blood nation and blood nations rule however it's the worst of all of the blood nations. It hard to blood start your blood economy with BF since your recruitable blood hunters are the worst of all of the blood nations.

The change to SBB and B would be really good for BF and maybe *really* make them one of the top 10.

[Graeme Dice]

Scott Hebert said:
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)



Misfortune doesn't impact BF Ulm very much once you have enough fortune tellers.


5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)



Well, the difference in cost between these and warlock apprentices is about 5 blood slaves. It's in the very early game where their weakness is most noticeable.

One major weakness is that while vampire counts can make nice thugs, BF ulm doesn't have the low-level elemental mages (especially earth) that are needed for this to work. If you gave sanguine heritage to default or IF Ulm, you'd have quite a monster on your hands in very short notice.

[quantum_mechani]

Huzurdaddi said:

quantum_mechani said:
(I would put them in the top ten nations/themes)



Hmm sounds like you are changing your tune from earlier:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=315303&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o =&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1

Perhaps you are simply conservative and reactionary to all changes and thus make unsubstantiated claims?




I was not counting themes in that list, so I was rating Ulm as an average of it's themes. And I would appreciate it if we can keep the discussion civil.

[Ironhawk]

I don't agree with comments that cavalry are too cheap now. With cherry's mod I might actually consider building light or medium cav instead of ultraHeavy cav-or-nothing.

And as for suggestions to remove the precision bonus that was given to light cav: I see why people want that, from a realistic standpoint. But light cav needs to be good at *something* and they are poor melee units, so they have just got to be able to shoot.

Really I think the issue with Light Cav is that the dom2 tactical system doesnt support thier use. They seem designed for the Fire and Flee tactic but as we all know that breaks up your squads just like a rout, making it useless. If there was a legitimte Fire and Retreat tactic or possibly a Skirmish option (go and meleee for a few rounds, maybe hope to kill a leader or something? and then retreat) then light cav would suddenly spring into usefulness.

You know... just musing about light cav again... maybe we should just take away the bows all together since there arent any tactical options in dom2 to make use of it. What if, instead, we were to give them like +1 defence and a set of javelins. Kind of like REALLY watered-down Van. That way they could rush in fast, get off a couple of quality shots, and not get totally massacared by the counterattack?

[TheSelfishGene]

quantum_mechani said:

Scott Hebert said:

1. Bloodhunting Micromanagement (no fun)
2. Pretender 'must' be able to cast Sanguine Heritage
3. Illuminated Ones are pointless (Fortunetellers do everything they do and more)
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)
5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)



The Illuminated ones are not pointless. They can be used as spies when needed, and are not capital only. Yes, it is a good idea to have 3B3D on your pretender when playing BF, much like taking an non recuperating/immoral pretender with Arco is a good idea. Blood micro is a problem with all blood nations (and nations in general in the late game). The scales and expensive hunters just mean it needs to be played in a different way than most blood nations



... Which is why i wanted them to cause a slight amount of bad luck in the province they are in. The game doesn't really have the kind of robust "cloak and dagger" mechanics that the Illuminated One is supposed to effect upon the hapless empires around them.

Strictly speaking, BF Ulm is average; its weak if played as a 'standard' nation, just picking any old pretender, but decent as a vehicle for the VQ. I don't doubt that for some, that is enough. For myself, Death/Blood economies suck and i hate having only about 2 pretenders to realistically choose from. And the Illuminated One is priced correctly for his abilities, which is fair enough. But i'd rather see a more expensive, more capable I.O. that i could do something more useful with than cause unrest or cast the occasional scry, or have those abilities be more focused and complementary to BF Ulm.

[TheSelfishGene]

Graeme Dice said:


Well, the difference in cost between these and warlock apprentices is about 5 blood slaves. It's in the very early game where their weakness is most noticeable.







... and its a Death economy, so your income will be constantly shrinking. So having many IOs mean more and more upkeep for less and less income. If you don't 'cross the Rubicon', militarily speaking, fairly early on, you die in a spiral of bankruptcy. This is of course an issue for everyone to some extent, but it hits BF Ulm harder and more directly than most.

[Graeme Dice]

TheSelfishGene said:
... and its a Death economy, so your income will be constantly shrinking.



But then so is Abysia's when you play with their standard death-2, and that doesn't start to have a really noticeable effect till turn 60 or so. Many of your provinces will not have any taxes for bloodhunting purposes as well.


If you don't 'cross the Rubicon', militarily speaking, fairly early on, you die in a spiral of bankruptcy.



At 0.2% dying per turn, you'll have lost ~12% of your income in your capital by turn 60. Most of your newer provinces will have lost more than that just due to bloodhunting.

[TheSelfishGene]

Graeme Dice said:

TheSelfishGene said:
... and its a Death economy, so your income will be constantly shrinking.



But then so is Abysia's when you play with their standard death-2, and that doesn't start to have a really noticeable effect till turn 60 or so. Many of your provinces will not have any taxes for bloodhunting purposes as well.




Not to belabor this point, since this thread is about Saber Cherry's excellent mod, but death-2 is 'standard' Abysian scales? See this is what seperates the winners from losers in multiplayer games. I would lose every single game i played - against the computer! - with those scale choices. You just know exactly what works down to the turn, and damn all and everything else, i suppose.

[Saber Cherry]

tinkthank:


I like the strat-2 move of most bowmen, fine. I would prefer them to maintain their 10-precision, however, for their cheaper price.

So I have this changed in my mod of your mod:

Heavy Archer Prec 10
Heavy Xbow prec 10
Indy Longbowmen: prec 10



Hmmm... makes sense to me (I assume archering is harder with a helmet and plate cuirass...). Except for the indy longbow, who IMO deserves 11 precision, especially at 12g each. Longbowmen (from what I understand; please correct me if I'm wrong) are people who devote their life to the longbow, and their skeletal remains can be unearthed, examined, and shown to be from a longbowman because their hand and fingerbones are deformed in a certain way, due to the strength and practice required to use them. Whereas shortbows and (particularly) crossbows can be given to recruits who are taught to use them in weeks or months.


Mari Xbow: prec 10 (Context of Cheaper Flagellants, cheaper units of your mod)
Flagellants: GCost 7 (still dirt cheap IMO, thats the upkeep of a modded Militiaman too!)
Knight of the Chalice: Stays at 90. Did you feel he has no niche at 90?



Xbow: I tend to think of Marignon units as elites across the board. But you're right, prec 11 seems like too much considering I dropped the price. Maybe I should either make them prec 10 (-1) or 10 gold (+1)...

Flags: I don't know. Considering that they need no armor, training, or salary, it's hard for me to justify charging ANYTHING for them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I never build them unless I have a bless-effect pretender (useful for flagellants, like water, air, or fire). Anyone else have input on the cost of flagellants, considering trained light infantry is 7-8g and miltias are 3-5g?

Knight of the Chalice: I have no idea why I did that. Maybe I mistyped? Or maybe they just "felt" expensive and I didn't fully consider how good they are. At any rate, I'll put them back at 90.


Lobos Gcost 4 (too good at 3) (Cherry, do you play Ryleh? Lobos are hands down the BEST recruitable fodder in the game, I loved them at 5 gold; you cant compare them to Militia, which rout -- these guys will sit there and take a beating, and I think 4 gold is a fine price to pay for the difficult task of lobotomizing those poor froggies.)



I rarely play Ryleh, but it's fun to watch froggies poison themselves (due to range-0 attack) against Atlantain poison spears and poison armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I put them at 3g 2r instead of 5g 1r where the extra resource is to note that you don't get an unlimited supply of lobotomized slaves. They lower gold cost is for three reasons:
1) Their theme gives super-cheap lobo guards, and unless I dropped them to 3, human militias would become cheaper, which makes no sense!
2) They require magical leadership...
3) They should not have a salary; that's crazy.

At any rate, I cannot think of any justification for them costing more than 3 gold. However, I CAN think of justifications for dropping their stats. Should physical and mental abuse to the point of insanty increase HP? No... Should it drop you fighting skill? Yes... and by more than 1 att and 2 def. What do you think about lobo guards that are 3 gold and 12 hp (standard), 8 att (-2 from atlantian standard), 6 def (-3 from atlantian standard)? At that point they are much worse than the worst human militia in combat, aside from their 50 morale.

So... I think I'll drop their stats as described (-1 hp, -1 att, -1 def from base game) but keep the 3g price.


Warlock Apprecs: GREAT change with the douse, but nix fear, prec stays at 8 (for no increased cost) (who cares, they cast prec100 spells anyhow)



I boosted the precision to keep them in line with other Abysian mages, and for 1 other reason: some blood combat spells need precision. Of course, nobody ever casts them, so it shouldn't matter, but who knows... As for lesser fear -5, come on, it affects NOTHING! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It says "they are greatly feared" in their description http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Riderless Spiders given smallish gold cost (30 hunter spider, 10) -- you have to pay for food, heheh -- but seriously, no upkeep is too good for these units



(riderless) hunter spiders are perhaps the awesomest recruitable units in the game. Those costs make sense, assuming those units need tenders. I wouldn't want to turn my back on a riderless hunter spider if nobody was bothering to keep him on a leash http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yeah... I guess that's fine. Even with those costs, I still kind of hope my riders get killed, so that I get a much cheaper unit that's about as good as before http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Machaka Archer 11 prec for 6 gold? (I dont know about this yet, havent had time to test. I think it may be too good, unsure.)



Non-spider Machakans have to be good at SOMETHING http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I assume they do a lot of hunting, as a pre-agricultural society. Also, their archers get no armor and die in droves. I always recruited indy archers as Machaka. But if you find them to be too awesome, they could change...


Vaetti cold resistance: Fine. Why not Nornae and Seithkonae 25 CR too!?



Nornae and Seithkonae are humans who happen to live with/near the Jotuns, while Vaetti (I assume) were created / evolved in a cold place. In retrospect, it seems fair (to me) to give Vaetti 50% CR.

I sort of wonder what the effect of 25% FR / CR is on fatigue when fighting in hot / cold places...


Here's a question, since you were so thoughtful to change all those descriptions: The Salamander still reads something like "When injured, can erupt in flames??" -- but it never does. Would it be possible to mod the unit so that OnDeath: small area fire?



I wonder... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I don't think so, but I'll look into ways to add the ability, or else modify the text to be less misleading.


Cu Sidhe: No supply bonus. (Do you eat your dogs?)



I gave them a supply bonus of 1, with this logic:

1) They are fay (wild...-ish) hound capable of hunting and foraging for themselves.
2) They are size 3, and thus eat 2 food.
3) They are traveling with an army, and thus not capable of foraging as much as normal (they still need some additional food).
4) They were a pretty bad unit.

Hopefully, supplybonus 1 + size 3 = a unit that consumes half as much food as normal. Combining that with a better "weapon", hopefully they will become a useful unit. So, the "supplybonus" is misleading, considering that they still are a net consumer of supplies.


D. Sidhe: No reduced price. Why make them even cheaper?



I gave them bronze armor, resulting in +2 rcost and -1 protection (seems close to Illwinter's bronze armor guidelines). As a result they are slightly worse, so I dropped the cost 10% to compensate. I've only played that theme once. Is 35g still a fair cost even with them becoming slightly worse due to bronze armor?


All (Light) Cavalry: Kept the drastically reduced price, but maintained the low horsey precision.



And I gave them +2 hp, +1 str... and yet, they still aren't very good http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Especially with light archers getting 2 strat moves, which they deserve. I plan to keep them as they are unless I hear reports of them being overpowered...


Am wary about giving all those cavs higher morale, too. It is not the rider, but the horse which is hard to control.



Hmm, shows how much I know about cavalry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Still, Dominions' morale system greatly penalizes small groups of strong units, and it's terrible (and unrealistic) when a group of 10 heavy cavalry routs because one gets killed by the opposing 10 medium infantry.


OK that is all I had the time for so far, really must work, but will try to do this more systematically soon.

Thanks for all your work -- great mod!



You're welcome, thanks for the feedback!



rabelais:


I love the idea of this mod. Go Saber Cherry!



http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Some comments:

1. Hunterspiders that lost their riders were already upkeep free

2. AP Longbows is overkill, IMHO. Perhaps give them a reduced chance to be stopped by shields, instead?

BF has to endure much to get (AP) rangers. Which leads to:

3. Rangers were plenty good already. Fear them buffed.



1) I wasn't sure... I was setting them as 0 just in case. However, as mentioned above, there seem to be a couple justifiable reasons for making it nonzero. What do you think?

2) If I could find a way to do that, it would be great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Good suggestion! I'll have to experiment with the #flail command (att bonus versus shield) and see if it works on ranged weapons. Otherwise, I'll keep AP, as their seems to be good historical justification. If it is overpowered, I can always bump the price of longbow units (on the basis of the much longer training longbowmen undergo). If anyone wants to run a test to see if you can mod a ranged weapon (with #flail) to ignore shields (try giving round shield 20 defense), feel free... I have no computer on which to spend time with Doms II for a few days.

3) You're right, I gave them pretty darn good stats for a 12 gold stealthy unit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Seems too good. When I play BF Ulm, I ignore units and spend all my effort on blood, making vampires, and so forth. I don't think I've ever built a Ranger, because those vampire barons are just too much fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And the Zweihanders look really cool. Hmm...

On the other hand, Rangers wear almost no armor and use the crappiest standard 1-h weapon in the game, the Axe. Real rangers use swords. Considering that their bad armor and bad melee weapon make them poorly suited as anything except archers, and that they cost 20-50% more than normal xbows, I think 12g is fair. But if they got a broadsword and ringmail hauberk, it would be a different matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif At this point, I think I'll leave them as they are... unless their seems to be a consensus or anecdotal evidence of their overpoweredness.



TheSelfishGene:


Great mod! Really addressed some outstanding issues. I do have some short thoughts on the mod however;

Cavalry is perhaps a bit too cheap. There is a substantial difference between 10 armor and 20 armor; its not just double in effectiveness, its like 4-5x. So when you make, say, Black Knights cheaper AND stronger, they become pretty much the buffest national units in the game. Which may or may not be a bad thing, balance is not a zero sum game and Ulm pays for its Knights by being weak in many other areas, but i gather the Cavalry mod was added in at the last minute and didn't go through as rigerous a testing procedure.



Less rigorous, yes. As for last minute... it took me about 12 hours http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Unfortunately, I went in phases and first adjusted prices and stats, and later adjusted a few pieces of armor and probably forgot to re-change the prices. Black Knights die like flies before astral / air spells and especially Nether Darts / Bolts. But I agree, 50g is too cheap for possibly the best "standard combat" unit in the game... I'll put them back at 60.


I like the Firbolg Rule of Thumb; is this recruitable unit better than a 10 gem, 5-Path Firbolg? If it is, and its only costing me 50 gold, you might need to think about adjusting something here or there.



Interesting logic. Of course it also costs 70 resources, so you can't make more than 2-3 per turn (and personally, I'd rather have a Firbolg, esp. when playing Ulm), but they are also available from turn 0. So I'll put them back at 60.


Short Bow archers seem useless now compared to xbows because everything has fairly decent armor. I think, imo, a bit too much armor was added to the game...at least with indie troops.



Hmmm? I didn't add any armor to indy troops that I remember, other than Villians.


... I'll post the rest later, gotta run right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

TheSelfishGene:


Some random thoughts and obserations:

Prince General has not been improved. Still 10/10 hitpoints.



Oooh! Thanks, I missed that.


Lowbowmen have 10 precision instead of 12? That should be changed back. I'm not really certain i like the Change; a weaker, faster firing crossbow...



Indy longbowmen have 11, Man longbowmen have 12. I can't think of any units with 10 precision and a longbow, but I may have messed something up... was there one in particular you noticed that had longbow + 10 prec.? But the longbow weapon change... hmm... well, weaker, faster-firing, longer range, more expensive compared to Xbow. But compared to the original longbow, essentially the same on light units, and much stronger on heavy units. I wish I could give it 25% armor piercing. But doesn't it seem wierd to you that in Dominions 2, longbowmen are useless against knights? Quite contrary to reality. I really like Rabelais's suggestion, and I'll see if I can get it to work.


I like the Change to Imperial Tien Chi troops.


Thanks!


Could you buff Black Forest Ulm's Illuminated One's somehow? Give them the assassinate abiliy, or a slight chance of causing bad luck in the province they occupy. They aren't bad, but BF Ulm is a pretty weak theme that relies almost 100% on a buffed VQ. Trying to play them WITHOUT a combat VQ is a very difficult exercise with their limited magic skills and poor morale troops. The Illuminated Ones are well rounded but rather inefficient per cost; and with death, BF Ulm has a hard time with upkeep, so a 160 gold non sacred caster is more expensive in the long run he looks at first. I see the I.O.s as a kind of traveling old man, with train of servents and hooded girls behind him, journeying to dine at the tables of foreign kings and dignitaries; practising unholy rights at night in his room when no one is looking, throwing poisonous converational barbs at state dinners, subtly manipulating the crowd, stirring up strife wherever he goes, and sometimes just for kicks dominating some poor serf to go burn his own house down, or kill some noble he disliked.

So i'm fond of them but would like them to a be a bit more powerful than they are now.



I'll look at them; the current mod mostly ignores leaders with magic paths. I don't like themes to force your pretender choice, which BF Ulm does. Maybe there's some way of making Sanguine Heritage castable by national mages (assuming at least one +path item is equipped). And having units fulfill their description is never a bad thing, either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Scott Hebert:


BF Ulm? Mass Ranger annihilation works well, so I hear. FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="

Illuminated Ones, as written, are rather disappointing. Granted, they ARE spies, and they should pay for it, but it could work out better. For me, changing Illuminated Ones/Members of the Second Tier from Astral Primary to Blood Primary would be a useful thing to do.

Illuminated One: B
Member of the Second Tier: SBB

Anyway, just a thought.



Blood isn't very illuminating, but maybe SB? And/or throwing a random onto a mage might be interesting.


My main issues with BF Ulm, from a 'fun' standpoint, are:

1. Bloodhunting Micromanagement (no fun)
2. Pretender 'must' be able to cast Sanguine Heritage
3. Illuminated Ones are pointless (Fortunetellers do everything they do and more)
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)
5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)

As an aside, Zen's mod making the Fountain produce Blood Slaves every turn is REALLY GOOD for BF Ulm.



1) True, but it hits all nations.
2) Yes. Like Tien Chi, this is (IMO) unacceptable (for national mages to be unable to cast national spells).
3) Yep... what about making them making them (BBDD?) with a different name and description?
4) ... I never like death (with living nations). I don't care about misfortune so much, esp. with fortunetellers. But hey, they are thematic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
5) I agree...


Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I'll see what I can do, but remember that no solutions will be ideal to everyone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Note! This is just a preview; I have not yet uploaded a new version of the mod.

Ok... thanks for all your input! These are the changes I've made so far (many from forum input, many not). At least, the ones I've documented. I still need to look at some other things (like archer costs, adjusting longbows, and messing with BF Ulm's mages). If you have any problems with the changes, please say so...


Cosmetic Changes:

Added a bunch of new weapons and armors (maybe 10 of each) These are generally for aesthetics (like gilded armors, silver armors, etc) and do not change balance. Even the ones with different stats often don't change anything, but I'll list some:
Avalon Knights get silver armor - just like regular full chain, but -1 encumbrance. This has no effect since they are mounted.
Ulm units with full helms get Full Hlmet of Ulm. This is 2 prot, 0 def, 0 enc. In other words, a weaker version of the Black Steel Helmet. Since this has no effect other than giving units +1 defense, and defense is virtually useless to Ulm units, it probably has no measurable effect.
Fire Lord and all Marignon's gold-colored units get Gilded Armor. Stats do not change.
Tien Chi Eunichs get kung-fu training, and learn Punch and Kick (instead of Fist). They are now able to beat blood slaves in combat, which you sort of expect from a field commander.
Tien Chi healing immortal gets a magical pruning knife.
All TC immortals get super weak armor (Immortal's Robes (2, 0, 0), or Flea-Infested Cape (1, 0, 0) for the old man).


Important Changes:

Tien Chi immortal swordsman got way better. He was terrible before (in combat) partly because he had 2 weapons and no ambidextrity. However, some of the bonus is integrated into his sword and "imaginary" shield, so giving him a new weapon and shield will make them go away again (somewhat).
Sling becomes -1 prec instead of... whatever it was (-3?).
Slingers get 9 prec (-1, total of 8 with sling). They're still terrible, except against flagellants or with flaming missiles, but better than before.
Man Foresters got better stats and supplybonus 2 (feed themselves and 1 other person, probably with rabbits and truffles).
Throwing axe precision went from -4 to -2.
Axe Thrower gets precision 9.
Lobo Guard dropped -1 hp, -1 att, -1 def, since they were abused to the point of mindlessness.
Hoburgs got lower resource costs. Just as big units have higher rcost for armor, tiny units deserve lower rcosts for armor. I doubt anyone built Hoburg HI, especially since (I think) hoburgs are grassland-only.
Crab Hybrid gets ambidextrous 4 (since I gave pincers length 2 rather than default 0)
Spider Warrior dagger replaced by Poison Dagger. Makes sense, right?
Man's Green Knight gets custom armor, reinvigoration 1, and regen 15% (instead of 10%).
Machaka riderless spiders get upkeep (great spider: gcost 10 {.66g/turn}, hunter spider: gcost 30 + sacred {1g/turn}). They are still an incredibly good deal, but someone needs to be paid to tend them (they don't get the money).
MAR Royal Xbows became 10g (+1).
Knights of the Chalice went back to 90g (+10)
Daoine Sidhe back to 35g (+3)
Ulm Rangers: I wanted to give them a patrol bonus but there is no way to do that yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Instead they got #neednoteat (and a description change about wilderness survival) and traded axe (terrible weapon) for shortsword (good weapon). Gold cost: +1 to 13g. They should still avoid melee, but at least have a chance.
Ranger Captain: +5g (to 50g) and leadership went from 10 to 25. Also, same changes as Ranger.
Black Forest Ulm Commander: 25 leadership went to 50 leadership, to be on par with other Commanders of Ulm. BF units are weaker, anyway.
Black Knight: Returned to 60 gold (+10)


Non-unit changes:

Added #foodmult 150. This gives 50% more supplies. It makes the AI less likely to starve, makes units that eat less disadvantageous over non-eating summons, makes light units and militias more useful, and reduces the need for winebags, summer swords, cauldrons of broth, and nature picks on pretenders specifically for those items. If / when I make Chuckwagon units, this might be taken back out. The constant need for magical winebags when using mundane troops is annoying.

IMO, a higher #foodmult over default is vital to balance units... though I admit it is not an ideal solution, and it won't magically make hordes of militia as desirable and useful as hordes of vinemen or longdead.



Sound ok? Aside from things still to do, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

For example... I'm considering increasing the price of every recruitable mage in the game by 10%, EXCEPT the ones that are already "too expensive". If a 180 gold mage (say, a Vanheim Dwarf) can kill 50 units unboosted in a couple battles in the early game... why is he much cheaper than those 50 units? It makes you want to spend all your money on mages (which is what good players often do). 10% probably is not enough, but I'll do it and see how it feels.

[tinkthank]

Great!

After more testing, although I have come to appreciate even more the fine changes you made to national troops (GREAT - thanks! Love your mod!), I have come to be sceptical about one type of change (only): those changes to the Indy troops. Although you have done a fine job now of making most of these very viable to purchase, and additionally accomplished a nice feat in making Independent Province Nations more variable, slightly tougher, and more flavorful, you have also applied the same principles you used in beefing up the underused and niche-seeking national troops, who often sat sadly in a corner drinking tea out of a paper bag (IF they were lucky) just hoping one day to sit sadly in a niche. The effect of this is that it often now seems just as good to me to purchase Indies as national troops. I don't like this for only one reason (NOTHING to do with Balance): It encourages making the armies more homogenous, and hence also detracts from the national flavor impact of different nations. (Don't ge me wrong: it doesnt do this a lot, but I did notice it after a few more test runs with me.)

In other words, trying to phrase this without using "balance" at all: I think the "niche" which Independent troops should fill is actually a quite different one than that of national troops. I think this indy niche should be to (a) be purchased when really needed in a hurry out in the front or (b) to enhance a nation's access to a type of unit otherwise completely lacking (e.g. archers for Abysia, Atlantis, Van or Heavy Cav for Pythium or whatever) or (c) to buy when you really have some cash left over or (d) give the strong national themes a "local" flavor in the provinces those troops are naturally at home or (e) something else.

For this reason, I would really like to see most of those troops get a price increase (or read: have their original prices dropped NOT QUITE AS MUCH as you did, quite excellently so, with the national troops) or somehow be made less comparable to national troops.

Additionally, I would like to see map movement restricted again, specifically as examples Indy Archers be scaled back down to map move 1 (this btw would still make them fine province defenders or great buy-me-quick-near-the-front troops and good Indy Nationals). Low mobility would not only scale down those troops overall strategic value while keeping them viable for niche filling but would also (at least to my playing style) encourage the garrisoning of troops in as many provinces as possible (as an alternative defense form to mad castling, even if this form is no way equal in terms of balance to having a castle in every province, obviously).

(On an aside: do you have a comprehensive list of the changes to Indies, or could you send them to me? I could do some of these changes then for myself without pestering you, and offer them here on the boards on the off chance anyone would want them.)


Another Side Note Suggestion: For Ulm, I think a novel but decent tweak would be instead of the individual battle-style improvements in armor or armaments (although I like it, especially the magic weapon on the guardians) or a reduction in price, give each and every Ulmian a boost in MR of 2 or in some cases 3: Ulmians are infused in mundanity. (So just the opposite rationale which gave them crappy MR to start with.) Yes, Ulm is supposed to make up for its crappy MR by pushing its crappy Drain scale, but even in doing so they only get back up to "normal" -- I think a nice tradeoff for lacking magic whatsoever would be having decent resistances to it.

So.... thanks very much! Whole new worlds are opening up, and I think I am going to enjoy playing with different styles now some races I would like to like, like Pan New Era and Machaka, and new styles with races I already like, like Man and Marignon and Tien Chi....!

[PvK]

Ya, this sounds really nice, SC! Now I just need to steal time to play it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

PvK said:
Ya, this sounds really nice, SC! Now I just need to steal time to play it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

PvK



It's not nearly as major an undertaking as Proportions but hopefully it accomplishes a similar goal... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[PvK]

Ulmites being a favorite of mine, I'll comment just on what I've read in recent posts here, since I haven't gotten time to try this yet.

* Giving Ulm troops a helmet that doesn't reduce defense will in fact be helpful, at least to some of the troops (e.g. Chain/Hammer/Shield), particularly when they start gaining experience, at least against average regular troops.

* I second thinktank's suggestion to give Ulmites higher MR. If it were moddable (tis not), I'd have every level of drain scale add to their MR, but failing that, +2-4 MR for Ulm would be neat IMO, and I'd do that rather than improving their helmet design.

* Did you look at Ulm morale? Anyone know why Ulm pikeneers get +1 morale compared to the other troops? +1 morale would also be useful for the other troops, but IMO +MR is better - there are ways for Ulm to deal with their morale - not so much for their MR.

PvK

[Ironhawk]

Ulm is your fav PvK? I'm not sure how. I've been practicing with them a bit these past few days to get ready for the MP game with SC's mod. And I forsee myself getting utterly crushed, even if a low-magic rule is selected :}

Also, I wanted to reiterate:

Light Cavalry should have thier bows swapped out for javelins. Messing with precision, cost, etc, won't help when mounted bowmen (without appropriate tactical commands) are inferior in every way to un-mounted bowmen.

[quantum_mechani]

Ironhawk said:
Also, I wanted to reiterate:

Light Cavalry should have thier bows swapped out for javelins. Messing with precision, cost, etc, won't help when mounted bowmen (without appropriate tactical commands) are inferior in every way to un-mounted bowmen.


The standard indie LC already have a javelin variant, I don't know what the point of throwing out the shortbow ones would be.

[Ironhawk]

Do they? I'd never seen those hmm.

Well the idea behind throwing out the shortbow one is that there is no use for them. No matter how you tweak thier precision, cost, etc, etc. Are you telling me you are going to buy them as is? Even with SCs mod? What would you use them for?

My point was just that, in reality, mounted archers are(were) an incredible thing. They could move into range fast, shoot the enemy and then move away just as fast. Constantly killing the enemy while staying out of range themselves. But dom2 provides no tactical options for this. "Fire and Flee" would be optimal for these purposes if it didnt break up your units into a handful of provs like a rout. You could buy 20 LC and just sit them in the path of an attacking army and they would shoot at them and flee every game turn...

But we all know that Fire and Flee doesnt work. So then I am looking at the LC and seeing no place for it, no reason to recruit. And I thought to myself that giving them all javs would be - at the very least - more effective than having a unit which is no better than a traditional bowman, but costs more and consumes more supplies.

[quantum_mechani]

Ironhawk said:
Do they? I'd never seen those hmm.

Well the idea behind throwing out the shortbow one is that there is no use for them. No matter how you tweak thier precision, cost, etc, etc. Are you telling me you are going to buy them as is? Even with SCs mod? What would you use them for?

My point was just that, in reality, mounted archers are(were) an incredible thing. They could move into range fast, shoot the enemy and then move away just as fast. Constantly killing the enemy while staying out of range themselves. But dom2 provides no tactical options for this. "Fire and Flee" would be optimal for these purposes if it didnt break up your units into a handful of provs like a rout. You could buy 20 LC and just sit them in the path of an attacking army and they would shoot at them and flee every game turn...

But we all know that Fire and Flee doesnt work. So then I am looking at the LC and seeing no place for it, no reason to recruit. And I thought to myself that giving them all javs would be - at the very least - more effective than having a unit which is no better than a traditional bowman, but costs more and consumes more supplies.

To be honest, I don't think I would buy either javelin or shortbow LC, even in this mod. However, the javelin ones are just as common as the shortbow ones, so there is no need to replace them.

[Scott Hebert]

Saber Cherry said:
Scott Hebert:


BF Ulm? Mass Ranger annihilation works well, so I hear.

Illuminated Ones, as written, are rather disappointing. Granted, they ARE spies, and they should pay for it, but it could work out better. For me, changing Illuminated Ones/Members of the Second Tier from Astral Primary to Blood Primary would be a useful thing to do.

Illuminated One: B
Member of the Second Tier: SBB

Anyway, just a thought.



Blood isn't very illuminating, but maybe SB? And/or throwing a random onto a mage might be interesting.



Well... from my analysis, they aren't overpriced... from a strict numbers standpoint. (Well, they're not overpriced just like all cheap mages aren't overpriced...) Thing is... Spy-mages are horrible. Assassin-mages can at least do something while they're sneaking around (kill commanders), but why have a spy-mage? Now, if you could use other players' sites with spy-mages, that would be a different issue.

Another idea would be 'stealing' gem production with spy-mages.



My main issues with BF Ulm, from a 'fun' standpoint, are:

1. Bloodhunting Micromanagement (no fun)
2. Pretender 'must' be able to cast Sanguine Heritage
3. Illuminated Ones are pointless (Fortunetellers do everything they do and more)
4. Scales are bad (Death and Misfortune are things you don't want with a Blood nation)
5. Rather random Bloodhunters (I'm not paying 160g for a 1-blood hunter)

As an aside, Zen's mod making the Fountain produce Blood Slaves every turn is REALLY GOOD for BF Ulm.



1) True, but it hits all nations.



Yes, but it doesn't make it any less of a problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

With an enforced Death scale, there's no way to offset this problem (aside from Growth-enhancing sites).


2) Yes. Like Tien Chi, this is (IMO) unacceptable (for national mages to be unable to cast national spells).



*nods*


3) Yep... what about making them making them (BBDD?) with a different name and description?



Personally, can you add the third tier? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I know the Hero is one, so it exists, but you could do so much better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


4) ... I never like death (with living nations). I don't care about misfortune so much, esp. with fortunetellers. But hey, they are thematic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



I normally play with Zen's balance mod, or my own mod, both of which HEAVILY PUNISH Misfortune. Yes, it doesn't matter so much with the Fortunetellers, but it does hurt them otherwise (their Heroes are so cool, e.g.).


5) I agree...



Switching the Illuminated ones to Blood would be the best solution, IMO. That's still quite a bit worse than Mictlan or BoH Abysia.


Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I'll see what I can do, but remember that no solutions will be ideal to everyone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Heh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Saber Cherry]

PvK said:
Ulmites being a favorite of mine, I'll comment just on what I've read in recent posts here, since I haven't gotten time to try this yet.

* Giving Ulm troops a helmet that doesn't reduce defense will in fact be helpful, at least to some of the troops (e.g. Chain/Hammer/Shield), particularly when they start gaining experience, at least against average regular troops.



Ah, unfortunately... I only replaced full helms with Full Helm of Ulm. And only Black Plate units get those, not full chain units... and Black Plate units never really get defense above 10 anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So, it's mainly aesthetic...


* I second thinktank's suggestion to give Ulmites higher MR. If it were moddable (tis not), I'd have every level of drain scale add to their MR, but failing that, +2-4 MR for Ulm would be neat IMO, and I'd do that rather than improving their helmet design.



That would make Ulm more powerful, but really change their theme. A "Magic Resistant Ulm" theme might be interesting, but I'd do it seperately, if I did one.


* Did you look at Ulm morale? Anyone know why Ulm pikeneers get +1 morale compared to the other troops? +1 morale would also be useful for the other troops, but IMO +MR is better - there are ways for Ulm to deal with their morale - not so much for their MR.



I gave all Ulm Black Plate units +1 morale, since I imagine they would feel invincible in their super-heavy armor. And because they are used in small groups, and small strong groups have excessive routing trouble with Dominions II's morale algorithms. And (base) Ulm has only holy-2, aside from the prophet... which is a double whammy.

[Saber Cherry]

More changes. Still no new version uploaded.

Game's 3 worst weapons improved slightly:
Glaive went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Halberd went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Axe went from (7, -1, -1, 1) to (7, -1, 0, 1)
Indy Archers made slightly worse:
Light Archer: +1g (7g)
Archer: +1g +1def (8g, 9 def)
Heavy Archer: -1prec (10 prec)
Heavy Crossbowman: -1prec (10 prec)
Pureblood Abysians get +1 attack (after all, they cost 20 gold, they're a warlike race, and only had 10-attack 9-defense?)
Pureblood Abysians also get -25% cold resist (from description: 'vulnerable to cold').
Humanbreds are unaffected by these changes.
Man Spearman (Short Spear) dropped 1g to 8g.
Ctissian Slave Lizards dropped price by 1g each.
Ctissian Taskmaster given 3 moves, so now they not only have a reason to exist (before, they didn't), but also, Ctis Runners have a reason to exist (cheaper, and finally there is a commander that can lead them with 3 strat moves).
Falchioneer dropped to 11g.
Royal Guard +3 rcost to 48 (it was too low compared to other mounted units with same equipment)
Skin Shifters (werewolf precursors) bumped +2 hp (15 hp) to prevent pre-shift death.
Galderman gets +4 hp, +3 str, +1 att, +1 def, +25% since he is also a werewolf.
Einheres get +1 hp (to 13) so they don't die before they berserk, and full ambidextrity (3).
Bane Spiders and Spider Warriors get 11 mr instead of 10. Must either be their mysterious spider armor, or something that happens under the tutlage of the Black Sorcerers...
Jotun Woodsmen dropped -10g to 40g. Why were they the same price as scouts that are better in every way? Plus, they are capitol only, and just not that good, with no armor, shield, javelin, or stealthy priest to bless them...

[Graeme Dice]

Saber Cherry said:
Jotun Woodsmen dropped -10g to 40g. Why were they the same price as scouts that are better in every way? Plus, they are capitol only, and just not that good, with no armor, shield, javelin, or stealthy priest to bless them...



Now this doesn't make too much sense to me, as woodsmen with an appropriate bless effect already had better cost effectiveness than niefel giants.

[Saber Cherry]

Graeme Dice said:

Saber Cherry said:
Jotun Woodsmen dropped -10g to 40g. Why were they the same price as scouts that are better in every way? Plus, they are capitol only, and just not that good, with no armor, shield, javelin, or stealthy priest to bless them...



Now this doesn't make too much sense to me, as woodsmen with an appropriate bless effect already had better cost effectiveness than niefel giants.



Hmm, you're right, I never realized that. Should I decrease Giant costs or boost Woodsman costs, or something else? Woodsmen are not good enough for a bless strategy, in my opinion. I'd bet on the same cost in gold of Daoine Sidhe, Flagellants, Black Hunters, Vans, Paladins, Black Templars, Jaguar Warriors...

Do you find Woodsmen to be useful?

How about Giants?

[Saber Cherry]

Version 7 is finished. Check the first post for changelog and to download the file!

[PDF]

PvK said:
I think Militia could be as low as 0 or 1 gold.

If magic summons and stuff are keeping their low unmodded costs, then you might halve the gold costs of most other mundane troops.

PvK




I'd rather see Militia boosted somewhat and kept to "normal" price (5-15 gp) rather than a free crappy Militia that will soon be abused (by having tons of them boosted with enchantments. Ever thought of effect of Haunted Forest on a 1000-militia pack http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif o ? )

[Cainehill]

Saber Cherry said:

Tuidjy said:What we need now is a game in which all spells beyond level 2 and all pretenders
with magic path cost over 10 are disabled. It would be the perfer way to test
this mod.

If it is not PBEM (I seem unable to stick to these) I would like to join.



It would be very interesting to test this mod without powerful magic and supercombattants... it would change Dominions II into (as close as I can make it to) the low-magic medieval military conflicts in most fantasy novels, like Lord of the Rings, Magician, or A Game of Thrones. However, I'm not sure how much interest there would be, as most Dominions II players (on this forum) seem to love powerful magic.



There's been a lot of us who've mentioned that we'd love the option of limitting research the way it is in the demo : capping it at level 4 while avoiding the other limits of the demo. Even better would be an option to pick which is the highest research level (2, 3, 5, 7, etc) to be used. Not something most people would want to play regularly, but a very nice change of pace, with higher level magic and construction removed.

Best of all, something like this could be coded with minimal effort, since it would merely change the cap. Here's hoping to see something like it in Dom3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Graeme Dice]

Saber Cherry said:
Should I decrease Giant costs or boost Woodsman costs, or something else? Woodsmen are not good enough for a bless strategy, in my opinion. I'd bet on the same cost in gold of Daoine Sidhe, Flagellants, Black Hunters, Vans, Paladins, Black Templars, Jaguar Warriors...



Black hunters are too expensive for the very low MR that the hunter spider has in my experience.

[Endoperez]

Cainehill: there already are mods which do that. I don't remember if they are available somewhere, but try searching for them from the forum.

[Scott Hebert]

Re: Woodsmen, the Commander is dreadfully undercosted (by my rubric, at least). He should cost ~90g, IIRC. So, I think it's not the unit so much as the commander that needs the change.

[Saber Cherry]

Graeme Dice said:
Black hunters are too expensive for the very low MR that the hunter spider has in my experience.



I had boosted them to 8 (+3) because I don't like seeing sacred units with really low MR (seems somehow wrong). But that's still really low. Some other sacred animals, like Cu Sidhe, Gryphons, and Sacred Serpents have high (above 10) magic resistance. Do you think it would be fair to give Hunter Spiders 11 MR? It seems so strange for a sacred unit to be easily subverted.


Scott Hebert said:
Woodsmen, the Commander is dreadfully undercosted (by my rubric, at least). He should cost ~90g, IIRC. So, I think it's not the unit so much as the commander that needs the change.



You're right. I remember playing Jotunheim and conquering several provinces with solo Woodsman commanders, without any special equipment. That's pretty potent for a scout... Unfortunately, if you make them 90g, Jotunheim themes other than IW pretty much lose their ability to scout at all. If they were 100g stealth priests with 10 leadership, able to lead raiding parties of Woodsmen, it would solve both problems (and gaining the ability to do stealth raids of blessed woodsmen makes up for losing the ability to economically scout, IMO). Does that sound fair?

[Arryn]

I rarely purchase Jotun scouts and almost always use cheap humans in that role. OTOH, giving the commander stealth would provide me a reason to buy those, which I also rarely do now. Just thought you might want to hear the point of view of an infamous Jotun player ...

[Scott Hebert]

Infamous, indeed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Cherry, let me check... 10 Leadership + Holy-2 Priest for the Woodsman commander would raise his cost from a calculated 95 to a calculated 110.

I'm not about 'fair'. I'm about applying rubrics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[PvK]

Ironhawk said:
Ulm is your fav PvK? I'm not sure how. I've been practicing with them a bit these past few days to get ready for the MP game with SC's mod. And I forsee myself getting utterly crushed, even if a low-magic rule is selected :}




Ulm is my sentimental fav, and one I enjoy playing as much as any other, at least against the AI. I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy getting wiped out by competetive high-magic humans using Wrathful Skies and Life Drain SC's, though.

As with most nations, it takes some time to learn what does and doesn't work with them. I really enjoy building up a cadre of experiences Ulmites and trying to conquer a world full of Impossible AI's using mostly steel over sorcery (except when it's completely the wrong answer, such as against poison or soul vortex or wrathful skies).

PvK

[PvK]

PDF said:

PvK said:
I think Militia could be as low as 0 or 1 gold.

If magic summons and stuff are keeping their low unmodded costs, then you might halve the gold costs of most other mundane troops.

PvK




I'd rather see Militia boosted somewhat and kept to "normal" price (5-15 gp) rather than a free crappy Militia that will soon be abused (by having tons of them boosted with enchantments. Ever thought of effect of Haunted Forest on a 1000-militia pack http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif o ? )



Sounds ok to me, actually, except that battlefield resurrection spells might want some reconsideration. Medieval armies usually had a whole bunch of untrained fodder, mainly because conscripted peasants certainly cost much less than skilled warriors.

PvK

[PvK]

Cainehill said:
...
There's been a lot of us who've mentioned that we'd love the option of limitting research the way it is in the demo : capping it at level 4 while avoiding the other limits of the demo. Even better would be an option to pick which is the highest research level (2, 3, 5, 7, etc) to be used. Not something most people would want to play regularly, but a very nice change of pace, with higher level magic and construction removed.

Best of all, something like this could be coded with minimal effort, since it would merely change the cap. Here's hoping to see something like it in Dom3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif




It is pretty easy to mod out (or up) the spells. I agree it'd be fun. I've been working on a Hard Magic mod for a long time (taking forever mainly due to lack of spare time).

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

PvK said:

It is pretty easy to mod out (or up) the spells. I agree it'd be fun. I've been working on a Hard Magic mod for a long time (taking forever mainly due to lack of spare time).

PvK



Be sure to check out the "Null Spell Mod (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=341795&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) " I just put out. It lists all the spells with unaltered paths and costs, in mod format. Could save you some time...

[Arralen]

Celestial Master (Standard and BK) gets +1 air, -1 water, +1 elemental, +15g. Result: F 2A W S ? #, 265g (sacred)
Celestial Master (SA) gets +1 sorcery, +15g. Result: F 2A W S 2$ # (linked), 265g (sacred)



1) you forgot holy-3 ...
2) having water-2 on them acutally makes sense (Acid-Spells, which are rarely used otherwise), while having another nation with lightning-tossing mages is rather boring.
3) S&amp;A CM is FAWS 3R .. that's not what I read from above...

---

And if you take away water from the CM, or if you really want to beef up S&amp;A magic, replace Master of The Way's water with astral, so he can form communion with the CM, and summon water daemons.

---

And "Spirit Mastery" is starting spell of S&amp;A. There's little that S&amp;A has in the first turns, and now with 8 instead of 4 gems it won't even have Disposessed (sp?) Spirits ..

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen said:


Celestial Master (Standard and BK) gets +1 air, -1 water, +1 elemental, +15g. Result: F 2A W S ? #, 265g (sacred)
Celestial Master (SA) gets +1 sorcery, +15g. Result: F 2A W S 2$ # (linked), 265g (sacred)



1) you forgot holy-3 ...
2) having water-2 on them acutally makes sense (Acid-Spells, which are rarely used otherwise), while having another nation with lightning-tossing mages is rather boring.
3) S&amp;A CM is FAWS 3R .. that's not what I read from above...

---

And if you take away water from the CM, or if you really want to beef up S&amp;A magic, replace Master of The Way's water with astral, so he can form communion with the CM, and summon water daemons.

---

And "Spirit Mastery" is starting spell of S&amp;A. There's little that S&amp;A has in the first turns, and now with 8 instead of 4 gems it won't even have Disposessed (sp?) Spirits ..




...ahhh... I hope I didn't similarly break any other nations... I can sort of feel my reputation falling into a black hole... makes me want to play Space Empires IV... but I'll live http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I realize water-2 plus fire is more interesting that air-2, but I was trying to make their national spells accessable. Having never played SA, I didn't realize the national sites gave water gems...

So that's fixed in version 7.1 (available at the first post). Thanks for noting the problems! As for giving MotFE astral, that seems sort of wierd (violating their name). You can do communions with only Celestial Masters, anyway, which (with this mod) cost about the same.

[Arralen]

Don't confuse "Master of The Way" (100gp/WR2H) with "Master of Five Elements"(whatever) ...

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen said:
Don't confuse "Master of The Way" (100gp/WR2H) with "Master of Five Elements"(whatever) ...



Oh, hmm, I did exactly that. At any rate, I will take that suggestion under consideration (and probably accept it, considering how worthless Master of the Way is) for the recruitable rebalance mod v8, but I'm going to lock the current iteration (7.x) to balance changes unless bugs or major problems (like national spells becoming inadvertently nerfed) are noted... to avoid additional confusion. Hopefully TC has been boosted enough to compete in MP without communion, but we'll see...

[Saber Cherry]

Mod test game recruitment phase ended. Hopefully, valuable balance data will be gleaned for version 8 of this mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[PvK]

Saber Cherry said:

PvK said:

It is pretty easy to mod out (or up) the spells. I agree it'd be fun. I've been working on a Hard Magic mod for a long time (taking forever mainly due to lack of spare time).

PvK



Be sure to check out the "Null Spell Mod (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=341795&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) " I just put out. It lists all the spells with unaltered paths and costs, in mod format. Could save you some time...



That is extremely useful - thanks!

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

PvK said:
Ulmites being a favorite of mine, I'll comment just on what I've read in recent posts here, since I haven't gotten time to try this yet.

* Giving Ulm troops a helmet that doesn't reduce defense will in fact be helpful, at least to some of the troops (e.g. Chain/Hammer/Shield), particularly when they start gaining experience, at least against average regular troops.

* I second thinktank's suggestion to give Ulmites higher MR. If it were moddable (tis not), I'd have every level of drain scale add to their MR, but failing that, +2-4 MR for Ulm would be neat IMO, and I'd do that rather than improving their helmet design.

* Did you look at Ulm morale? Anyone know why Ulm pikeneers get +1 morale compared to the other troops? +1 morale would also be useful for the other troops, but IMO +MR is better - there are ways for Ulm to deal with their morale - not so much for their MR.

PvK



I've been thinking about Ulm's MR problem for a while, and various other things, like why armor is totally ineffective against many of the game's spells. And I had an idea...

I'm sort of morally opposed to giving Ulmians a high base magic resistance in their default theme, because the goal of this mod is to change the balance of Dominions II while keeping Illwinter's themes and races intact. However, Ulmians are afraid of magic, and wear specially smithed armor... and now, in my mod, they wear black steel full helms, too. Wouldn't it make sense for the Smiths to use special materials, and inscribe special runes into the helms blocked harmful magic from soldiers' brains?

So, I'm thinking of keeping Ulm's base magic resistance at 9, but giving +1 or +2 MR to all Black Plate units (Full Plate of Ulm and Full Helmet of Ulm), bringing them up to 10 or 11. The description would be altered, of course, to mention that costly materials and laborious techniques are used... justifying a price hike. At 10 MR, 12g sounds reasonable, and at 11 MR... 13 or 14g, possibly with a resource hike as well. Black Plate units are currently 11g by virtue of having higher morale, HP, and more armor compared to Chain units.

This change would essentially divide Ulm Infantry into two distinct lines:

Cheaper Chainmail units (10g / 20-25 resource / 12 HP / 10 MOR / 9 MR), good against indies, Lightning (armor-negating) and Water magic (which is either armor-negating, in which case cheaper units are always better, non-armor-negating, and unlikely to kill any Ulm units), and Nature magic (again, poison is armor negating).

Elite Black Plate units (12-14g / 35+ resource / 13 HP / 11 MOR / 10-11 MR), good against Heavy Cavalry (absorbing lances), Crossbows, Fire (armor-piercing, but unlikely to kill Ulm units), Astral and Death (both MR-save) magic.

I could even make Black Plate Armor more special, with protective runes against elemental magics (+ 25, 25, 25 or + 35, 35, 35), making them some of the most battlemage-resistant troops around.

Do these sound like good changes for Ulm? They're pretty major, but still completely thematic for a nation that fears magic and entrusts both magic and forging to masterful smiths.

[Endoperez]

I also think that having extra magic resistance would help Ulm, but that just increasing their magic resistance would make them play very differently from what Illwinter meant.

I could agree on the magic resistance, or elemental resistances, but not both. I also think elemental resistances would suit them better, but that would be quite a large jump in game balance.

[Saber Cherry]

All changes can be seen at the top of the first post in the thread. Aside from bugfixes, a bit of additional "flavor," toning down Niefels and mauls, and cheapening a few bad buys, the primary changes are:

1) Giving light infantry and cavalry +1 attack, to reflect the greater dexterity of a trained soldier wearing little armor.
2) A complete and major change to all Black Plate units, resulting in a new Ulm. Please tell me if you like it or not... I have a feeling some people may not, but it makes sense to me. Moreover, it makes their unit lineup more fun, varied, and interesting, while still entirely within the scope of Illwinter's concept of Ulm (in my opinion).

As a side note, virtually all units in the mod that had major changes or equipment changes also have new or adjusted descriptions to reflect those changes.

[FrankTrollman]

I'm still very much against what you did to archery. Longbows and Crossbows already did their respective jobs well. A Longbowman was more expensive to train and much more devastating against at long range and when used against lightly armored people. 9 points armor piercing for a Longbow is completelyu inane, 14 points of non-armor penetrating damage conveys their purpose really well.

That's the part I don't get. While the power of many units is off (especially Horse Archers, who suck), the Shortbow, the Longbow, and the Crossbow all fit perfectly together relative to each other. Why give them a new and different job on the battlefield when they are already desirable and historical as is?

-Frank

[Saber Cherry]

FrankTrollman said:
That's the part I don't get. While the power of many units is off (especially Horse Archers, who suck), the Shortbow, the Longbow, and the Crossbow all fit perfectly together relative to each other. Why give them a new and different job on the battlefield when they are already desirable and historical as is?

-Frank



I may change the longbow back... it's appearing to be overly powerful, and as you say, overlaps the function of a crossbow. The reason I made the change was because longbows were not fitting into their historic role, which is to kill heavily armored enemies at great distance. The historic role of crossbows, on the other hand, is to provide a use for untrained recruits (and to pierce armor at short range), as crossbows are much easier to operate and aim than normal bows. Dominions II does not seem to match either of these weapons to (what I understand to be) their historic roles, considering that

a) in Dominions II crossbows are longer range and more expensive than shortbows, instead of shorter range and cheaper, and
b) in Dominions II longbows are incapable of harming heavily armored units, while in real life they can, and
c) in Dominions II crossbows kill heavily armored units at their maximum range. In real life crossbows do much less damage at their max range than arrows; probably not enough to pierce heavy armor, and
d) in Dominions II, a longbow usually kills a lightly armored unit in one hit. This would be very rare in real life.

I was trying to rectify those things... but since Dominions II is already designed with specific roles for shortbows, crossbows, and longbows, changing them (to be, in my opinion, closer to their historic uses) can have adverse effects, and would certainly change their current relative balance, because it is (as far as I can tell) not historically accurate.

So, that's why this mod is "under development" rather than "complete." If I find (through testing) changes that made the game better balanced, more fun, and more realistic, I'll keep them. If I find changes seem like they would accomplish those things, but in practice, actually break the balance or reduce fun, then I'll adjust or remove them.

I wish I could add things like "Damage reduction rate over projectile's trajectory", "Armor piercing percent", and "Damage type (crushing, slashing, piercing) pierce bonus versus armor type (soft, plate, chain, scale)" and even "Weapon damage modified by x% of strength", and especially "Weapon speed: 1.2 attacks per turn (for example)." Each of these would help differentiate weapons and enable them to be customized to their historic role. But I can't do any of those, so I'm doing the best with the mod tools (and game engine) provided, and thus giving longbows their very real ability to pierce armor, without making them similar to crossbows, is simply not possible.

Have you played with Man and found it overpowered?

[Huzurdaddi]

I may change the longbow back... it's appearing to be overly powerful




I don't know if they are overly powerful but they are quite powerful at least against indeps. Against humans I think that their power would be somewhat muted by the "put little clumps of crud everywhere" tactic.

And as for white centaurs as discussed in the other thread I don't know if they are overly powerful. Yes they are clearly better than Vans which are, IMO, the best recruitable unit in the game. But it's capital only so it SHOULD be better than the Van.

[Arralen]

Saber Cherry said:
Dominions II does not seem to match either of these weapons to (what I understand to be) their historic roles, considering that

a) in Dominions II crossbows are longer range and more expensive than shortbows, instead of shorter range and cheaper, and
b) in Dominions II longbows are incapable of harming heavily armored units, while in real life they can, and
c) in Dominions II crossbows kill heavily armored units at their maximum range. In real life crossbows do much less damage at their max range than arrows; probably not enough to pierce heavy armor, and
d) in Dominions II, a longbow usually kills a lightly armored unit in one hit. This would be very rare in real life.



So why don't you fix it?
a) make them range=20, acc=+5
b) obviously, you need "armor piercing" and not to low damage
c) see a) ..
d) so you basically say that hitting a man through heavy armor is more likely to kill him than hitting an unarmored man? Think again ... never heard about shrapnel from armor piercing arrows http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Actually, the only good defense against a longbow is a thick, wooden shield, which will take much of an arrows momentum away by friction, as the shaft passes through it.

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen said:

Saber Cherry said:
Dominions II does not seem to match either of these weapons to (what I understand to be) their historic roles, considering that

a) in Dominions II crossbows are longer range and more expensive than shortbows, instead of shorter range and cheaper, and
b) in Dominions II longbows are incapable of harming heavily armored units, while in real life they can, and
c) in Dominions II crossbows kill heavily armored units at their maximum range. In real life crossbows do much less damage at their max range than arrows; probably not enough to pierce heavy armor, and
d) in Dominions II, a longbow usually kills a lightly armored unit in one hit. This would be very rare in real life.



So why don't you fix it?
a) make them range=20, acc=+5
b) obviously, you need "armor piercing" and not to low damage
c) see a) ..
d) so you basically say that hitting a man through heavy armor is more likely to kill him than hitting an unarmored man? Think again ... never heard about shrapnel from armor piercing arrows http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Actually, the only good defense against a longbow is a thick, wooden shield, which will take much of an arrows momentum away by friction, as the shaft passes through it.



a) The battlefield in Dominions II is so short, compared to real life, that range 20 weapons with 1 shot per 2 rounds would only get one shot on light units, and zero to one shots on cavalry... immensely weakening crossbows. Furthermore, xbowmen would invariably rush forward at the beginning of combat unitl something was in range, getting themselves killed... and real life xbowmen would never do such a dumb thing. I think crossbows were normally used from above (towers, walls, hills) rather than from ground level, which is impossible in Doms II. At any rate, I think range 20 xbows would be useless weapons. What I did do was drop the range by 3 (10%) and reduce the pricing of some xbowmen.
b) Exactly, which is why I gave longbows ap.
c) Again, I don't want to nerf xbows to the point of uselessness, or make xbowmen run suicidally out into the battlefield to get into range.
d) No... what I mean is, a 14 damage longbow (Dominions II) generally kills a light unit (leather cuirass only) in one hit by dealing 11+ damage, which is unrealistic. Modded longbows (9 ap) generally do not kill ANYTHING in one hit, since they only do 8+ damage to even units with a leather cuirass only, which is more realistic. On the other hand, while less likely to kill light units than original longbows, they are also more likely to wound heavy units, by virtue of the ap damage. Therefore, the mod makes them more realistic against light and heavy units than before.

I'm trying to adjust the units and weapons to reach a certain goal... but, for example, I'm not entirely certain that crossbows, shortbows, and longbows were even contemporary. You can't balance flintlocks versus Steyr AUGs, no matter how hard you try, because one has no role when the other is available. And furthermore, I can't really put each weapon into its correct role if the battlefield is too small to model that role, or lacks elevation required by a role, or if the engine does not model the degrees of armor-piercing or ability to wound without killing that are vital to accurately represent a weapon. If a damage cap was allowed on weapons (5 damage for all arrows and bolts, for example, with a 10% chance of a critical hit that ignores this restriction), it would make the situation a lot easier...

The simple answer to your question is, I'm trying to fix them, but I'm not sure it's possible... I don't think that Illwinter's stats, my current stats, or your proposed stats are particularly good solutions, but maybe one of them is better than the other two, and approaching a good solution.

[Alneyan]

In addition to reports of longbowmen slaughtering well-protected troops, I also heard of less optimistic reports, where the longbows were only deadly when used at a fairly close range (a sort of kiss of death). Either way, I think your solution works well SC: longbows can kill troops with a bit of luck (a lot of luck in the case of knights), perhaps better than in history, but they will be less fearsome once the enemy has reached the archers.

Of course, that's the theory: in-game actual use of the longbow is another matter altogether. I would think they are fine with your changes: they remain powerful against independents, but another human player can use protective spells/arrow fend/storm to make your archers much less of a threat.

[Arralen]

Saber Cherry said:
I'm trying to adjust the units and weapons to reach a certain goal... but, for example, I'm not entirely certain that crossbows, shortbows, and longbows were even contemporary.



At the Battle of Arsuf (1191 a.D.), the muslim attacked with mounted shortbow archers and javelin throwers on foot in a skrimishing way.

For most of the day, it was only the crusaders left column of spearmen and crossbows which fought back.

Interestingly enough, the muslim couldn't do much impact on the shielded spears or the felt (!) armored crossbows, but took heavy casualties from the bolts. Only the knights horses suffered badly from the constant hail of shortbow arrows.

You may also check the Wikipedia entries about Longbow and Crossbow - according to those, the Crossbow was used in Europe since 800, the Longbow since the 12th century. (by the welsh some hundred years earlier. Claims that it in fact dates back to prehistoric day I doubt sincerily. The romans never conquered the welsh hill country. But if they would have been met by devastating longbow archers, there shurely would be some written evidence, but I never heard of such.)



And furthermore, I can't really put each weapon into its correct role if the battlefield is too small to model that role, or lacks elevation required by a role, or if the engine does not model the degrees of armor-piercing or ability to wound without killing that are vital to accurately represent a weapon.
...
The simple answer to your question is, I'm trying to fix them, but I'm not sure it's possible... I don't think that Illwinter's stats, my current stats, or your proposed stats are particularly good solutions, but maybe one of them is better than the other two, and approaching a good solution.



It shurely wasn't my intention to offend you.
In fact, I think your supposed changes will go a long way to make the missile weapons more realistic.
What they are not, as Frank claims, in the standard game.

And my suggestions wheren't really that much thought-out, but just some numbers I threw into the dicussion.
Some more numbers (must most likely be tweaked somewhat) and intended use of the weapon .. :
Longbow 45 (ballistical archery, even on rear echolons)
Comp bow 35 (ballistical archery on distant targets, or over front troops which are close by)
Shortbow 27 (harrasing fire from the 2nd line into the front of the enemies battle line, or short-ranged direct fire into non-missile troops)
Crossbow 27 (precision fire against "heavy" targets, NO ballistic firing)

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen said:
It shurely wasn't my intention to offend you.
In fact, I think your supposed changes will go a long way to make the missile weapons more realistic.
What they are not, as Frank claims, in the standard game.

And my suggestions wheren't really that much thought-out, but just some numbers I threw into the dicussion.
Some more numbers (must most likely be tweaked somewhat) and intended use of the weapon .. :
Longbow 45 (ballistical archery, even on rear echolons)
Comp bow 35 (ballistical archery on distant targets, or over front troops which are close by)
Shortbow 27 (harrasing fire from the 2nd line into the front of the enemies battle line, or short-ranged direct fire into non-missile troops)
Crossbow 27 (precision fire against "heavy" targets, NO ballistic firing)



No offense taken. Thanks for the suggestions and historical info! I'll check the bows out on Wikipedia, and maybe some other weapons too.

[st.patrik]

why not drop the xbow range to 20/25 (i.e. almost useless) and make them way cheaper to compensate - the thought being that maybe they will die before they get to fire, but wth, they're cheap?

[PDF]

IMHO
AP longbows would be waaay too powerful - I think they were AP in Dom1, and they were too powerful... Give'em some more damage if wanted, but AP should be reserved to heavy clumsy weapons like Xbows
OTOH I'd rather have all bow/Xbow range extended (at least to prevent archers from rushing to front !) than some reduced

[wombatsSAR]

Always good to leap into the fray very late in the process... (and this is going to be LONG)

First comment, remember that this is a game, not a sim. While many of us would like it to be one (at times, me too!), it is really about having different tactical options and using them as best as they can be used.

Summary of suggestions:
Shortbow 0 AP, -2 precision range short
Longbow 4-6 AP, -2 precision range longer
Crossbow 10-12 AP, 0 precision longer yet
Arbalest 14-18 AP, 0 precision longest
Slings (cheap) same as before
Slings (elite) 10, maybe 4 AP, -3 precision, between short and longbow range
Blowguns - put back at original, up the poison (curare/paralysis?)
New- Tien Chi'n repeating xbow -2 AP, 0 precision, 20 range, mild poison.
rate of fire: 1 or 1.5/1 (fast reload, easy cocking)
====
Important notes: Longbowmen and the Slingers (elite) are elite and should
use the mechanism of having a high resource cost - they should cost as
much as a knight. Not because their equipment is expensive but because their training is expensive! There should only be a few available per turn. The other troops are militia or conscript quality.

Details (or why I'm shoot my mouth off (and maybe foot, too)):

AP - actually, any of the really pointy toys should be AP. Afterall, "AP" is nothing more than a mechanic to describe the physics of taking the force of the weapon and applying it to a very small area. Spear wpns in a charge or vs. a charge should be that way. Picks and the like are AP. All of the bow weapons are AP. Now, modelling that in the game correctly is going to be amusing.

Bows: actually, bows are AP only at close range and after that, they are going too slow to really pierce the heavier armors. However, the arrows inflict rather nasty wounds once they penetrate due to the instability of the flight path causing the wound to be ... complicated. The game can't support this level of modelling, iiuc. Also of note, different arrows were used for different targets. There were bodkin points for heavy armors, broadleaf points for no armor or v. light armors, and intermediate designs for other cases. This also complicates the game modelling problem.

XBows: they ARE long range, they ARE AP at all times. The xbow outranged the longbow. The quarrel is aerodynamically more efficient than the arrow at all points in the flight. IIRC, there was pretty much only one type of point for the xbow. This implies that it didn't really matter much what was used, it would hurt. (and I'm pretty sure the medievals checked this out - there are too many other examples of design improvements in weapons for that to have skipped.)

However, the biggest problem I see is that the troop recruitment methods are broken for distinguishing between these three troop types. Of the 3 - shortbow archers (sba), longbowmen (lbm), and xbowmwen (xbm), the lbm took a hideously long time to train. Recall that the ones used at Agincourt et al were the best of the best, sir! As such, they were HIGH morale, HIGH precision, and few in number. But, there is no mechanism in the game to model this. The sba troops were often levies, or issued bows on short notice, and the bow is a difficult weapon to master. They were lower morale, low precision, and expendable. The xbm were usually similar to the sba except that the xbow is v. easy to learn. So they should be low morale, high precision, and cheap in gold but less so resources. In game terms, one should only be able to recruit a few lbm per turn, while easily able to get many more sba or xbm. The only way I can see to model this is to up the resource cost beyond what the actual material costs are. Note, the national xbm (Marignon, for ex.) probably should be higher morale, better trained, etc. - they're not rabble given the death-dealer.

Another example of how "elite" the lbm were: they could pull a 150-200 lbs bow. This has shown up as distortions in their skeletal structure. The typical shortbow used for war is ~60 lbs. That takes loads of training. These guys were serious about bows. After Agincourt (iirc), the French tried to field their own lbm but failed. They didn't have the infrastructure designed to turn out vast numbers of archers that could then be culled down to those few that were superlative.

I would suggest going with AP 0 for short bows with a precision of -2/-3, AP 4-6 for the longbows with a prec. -2/-3 but the lbm are more highly trained!, and the xbows getting AP 10 or 12 and a prec of 0. Plate was pretty much only good for keeping the quarrel from coming out the back of the armor. The other projectiles operate under pretty much the same physics but just have lesser force behind them.

Slings: they are actually MUCH more dangerous than DomII models them. They are longer range than shortbows. They were noted for causing spalling to plate armors. For flexible armors, they were quite nasty as well. Note, the Rhodian and Balaeric slingers were much like the lbm - they were highly trained units and much sought after. Once the supply was wiped out, they pretty much disappeared from the battlefield. Professional slingers did NOT use random rocks found on the battlefield but instead used either cast lead or ceramic bullets - including incriptions and taunts cast in. If one wanted to mod "historical" slingers into the game, I would propose a range between shortbows and longbows, 10 pts damage, maybe 4 AP, precision of -3, but again, the troops are highly trained so the effective precision should be much higher. Gold cost would be moderate but the resource cost should be high - there are not that many of them.
------ of note: once the numbers of these professional slingers began to fall, the Romans opted to train new ones to use one swing around before launching their missiles. Previous accounts put the number at 3. Prowling the various sites that discuss slinging in modern times, folks claim to not be able to gain any advantage from doing more than once through the arc. I would put forth though that if the ancient slingers did 3, they meant to do 3 and that 3 gave them some advantage. Note that they were trained from a very young age to sling, unlike these modern blokes. The reason for the dropping of the number of swings by the Romans, as I understand it, was to make up in volume what they had lost in accuracy from using troops of poorer training.

Last bit: what of adding the repeating xbow for Tien Chi'n? It would be about as dangerous as the shortbow for impact, shorter range, maybe higher rate of fire, and with a mild poison? Troops were conscripts - point, shoot, run if out of ammo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Just to be complete: Blowguns are probably silly in the context of a sim, but fun as a game mechanic. No army ever fielded them. Why? They suck as weapons. The darts have horrible aerodynamics and the muscles used to propel them are rather weak. The physics of the blowgun are ugly for power projection. Practically, they are extremely close range and mostly used to shot vertically since they have huge, arcing flights. Personally? Leave the blowguns as is. Maybe make the poison more deadly? Mimic curare (paralysis)?

Sources: I'm doing this from memory with the following books and articles being source material. If called for, I can try to dredge through and find out why I wrote a particular bit.

Thomas Hardy - Longbow
Ralph Payne-Gallway - The Art of the Crossbow
2 Scienterrific American articles - one on bows and one on crossbows,
from the late '80's, early '90's (someone
borrowed them from me... grrr.)
Osprey's Military History books - oh, lots of 'em
oops, blanking on the author - The Medieval Art of Swordplay
Arthur Ffoulkes - The Armourer and his Art (iirc)
emails w/an honest to god, working plattner - "So, what about a longbow
arrow hitting your plate?" "Oh, it'd go right through it!"
Several books on ancient warfare - various authors have noted that the
various descriptions of the orders of battle have placed the slingers
BEHIND the sba (e.g. - Trajan's Column). They also describe the wounds
from the slings. Not pretty.
"Rocky" Russo - lecture series. He's also the author of "Achtung, Mustang"
(which is not relevant other than to give him some bonefides) - a WWII
air combat game, and "The Art of War", an ancients - renaissance
minis game. He also actually TESTS his work using replicas - as in
shooting xbows, throwing martio barbellae, and the like. Wish he had
a website...
Prime Mover: A natural history of muscle (have forgotten the author)

[Arralen]

English Longbowmen wheren't a chosen few, they where some bizarre form of conscripts. Longbows won battles by volume of fire, not precision. (very much like machine guns)

Do not use weapons with negative prec in the game. Due to the (not fully known) mechanics of battle calculations, those weapons tend to hit nothing - not even remotedly the square they are targeted at, and generally empty squares. (Try with slingers). Upping the prec of the archers themselves does not really help.

Crossbows do not outrange Longbows:
- Aerodynamics of the shorter, thicker bolt are actually worse then that of a Longbow arrow. Problem with Longbow arrows was(is) that they allowed very small tolerances only, before the deviation in flight path gets to big. Additionally, bolts are much sturdier than arrows
- Longbows where used for balistical mass archery. The thick crossbow bolt looses too much energy when fired in a ballistic arc. Crossbows where fired straight at the nearby enemy, from the second or third row of the shield wall.

[Endoperez]

Are you sure all that armor-piercing stuff wouldn't unbalance the game? It is, after all, a game, not a sim. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

This would make almost any ranged unit work against armor. The Ulm is said to be the weakest nation because it only has its troops going for it, and the only thing that supposedly makes them special is their armor.

Also, you wrote up '0 AP' as the damage for short bow. Does that mean that the strength of the shooter is added? Is it added for longbows, too? What about slings?

[wombatsSAR]

re: English Longbowmen wheren't a chosen few -
I will dig up the refs for you. King Edward used less than 10% of those that came to serve when he went to Agincourt, iirc. But, as said, I will dig up the ref. And, yes, in general, bow fire was massed fire. The reason that the xbow was shot in a flat trajectory was because it COULD be shot that way. A flat trajectory comes from a fast moving object, nothing else (short of lift).

re: Do not use weapons with negative prec in the game.
ok, hadn't played with that. I was just considering how hard it is to learn how to shoot a bow properly, as well as the sling. If the xbow was taken as a base, then the others were worse... and since I was looking at it as the ave guy was 10s all around... newbie mistake, obviously.

re: Crossbows do not outrange Longbows:
pretty sure you are wrong on both counts but I'll dig up the Sci. Amer. articles. I need to get new copies anyway. Arrows are even worse than you suggest. Straight out of the bow, they wobble and bend. The path is more or less straight but the arrow flexed quite a bit. Hence, a real need to match the mass of the point, the wood and flex of the shaft, and the pull of the bow. Also, the arrow HAD to flex or it would not shoot true. I _believe_ it began to precess later in flight, but that may be me confounding information.

re : Additionally, bolts are much sturdier than arrows
very true.

re: - Longbows where used for balistical mass archery. The thick crossbow bolt looses too much energy when fired in a ballistic arc. Crossbows where fired straight at the nearby enemy, from the second or third row of the shield wall.
again, I will get the article for you and post the aerodynamic results.

re: 0 AP or low AP
as I recall the damage rules, the weapons would be: wpn base damage + str (if used) + 2d6. I was basically trying to suggest a way to model all the bows the same and still have the xbows do what they did best, which was piss of the knights since they could now be killed by poorly peasants. Well, that it was harder to ransom some dead guy than a live captive. The suggestion might not work out right.

[wombatsSAR]

Ref: Scientific American January 1985 pg 104-110

examples: (from Payne-Gallway, actually) 85 g bolt shot 420 m from a 550 kg pull medieval crossbow. Longbows attained lengths of ~275 m. Article authors cite another historian claiming 2x pull weight xbows were common, fwiw. (note to self - find that guy's book)

Wind Tunnel Test results (so this is science and not conjecture):

Drag/Mass ratios and range (calculated from an 80 m/s start)
(the numbers are approx. since I had to eyeball a graph)

Arrow: &gt;1.5 range ~210 m
bolt 1: ~.75 range ~250 m
bolt 2: ~.72 range ~320 m
bolt 3: ~.70 range ~420 m
bolt 4: ~.68 range ~520 m

bolts 1 &amp; 2 were medieval designs, bolts 3 &amp; 4 were roman. Just to make it clear, the higher the d/m number, the worse the aerodynamic performance.

note: 80 m/s is a rather high speed for an arrow (from the authors of the article). Typical numbers are usually in the 60 m/s range (from me remembering what Hardy's book, which isn't nearly as handy as a journal).

Upshot: xbows flew further and hit harder. They could be fired ballistically just as easily as a bow and would have to be for the bowmen to hit targets farther away. Close shots are flatter just because the bolts flew faster.

[Saber Cherry]

Thanks for the information! I'll have to digest it a while...

I'm suspicious of xbows being fired ballistically, though. You say "Could be fired ballistically." Was there any evidence that they were or weren't? Of course they could be, but with a bow, you pull back the string and kind of have a feel for that arc, as a function of your draw and angle. Firing a crossbow ballistically is like firing a handgun ballistically - possible, but never done (aside from corrections of a few feet of drop, generally calculated by the scope) since you only have control over a single factor, angle. At least, that's how it would seem to me...

I'm particularly surprised at the terrible arrowodynamics (get it? A pun!). This might be mitigated a bit by firing in high arcs, thus storing some energy as potential (immune to drag) for much of the flight, as opposed to firing flat, where the energy is always kinetic (and thus vulnerable to energy loss from drag, proportional to v^2 IIRC).

Anyway, I'll muse over this new stuff... chew on it like cud... maybe build my own longbow out of balsa wood and piano wire, and extrapolate from there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

By the way, Wombats - the combat simulator has the att/def roll bug fixed now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Thanks for noting the problem!

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
Firing a crossbow ballistically is like firing a handgun ballistically - possible, but never done (aside from corrections of a few feet of drop, generally calculated by the scope) since you only have control over a single factor, angle. At least, that's how it would seem to me...



but that's how rifles and (some) artillery work today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



I'm particularly surprised at the terrible arrowodynamics (get it? A pun!). This might be mitigated a bit by firing in high arcs, thus storing some energy as potential (immune to drag) for much of the flight, as opposed to firing flat, where the energy is always kinetic (and thus vulnerable to energy loss from drag, proportional to v^2 IIRC).



you know one statement of the three laws of thermodynamics is "you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game"? same with arching flight: yes, you can reduce *instanteous* drag with the high trajectory, but the time of flight is much longer than a flat trajectory, so drag works *longer*. i'd have to dig up the drag-corrected ballistic equation to figure out what the actual numbers are.

there's also the little problem that for fin-stabilized projectiles, their ability to stay pointed in the right direction goes up as v^2 also, since that term is in the equation for lift. so, there goes their precision. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:

Saber Cherry said:
Firing a crossbow ballistically is like firing a handgun ballistically - possible, but never done (aside from corrections of a few feet of drop, generally calculated by the scope) since you only have control over a single factor, angle. At least, that's how it would seem to me...



but that's how rifles and (some) artillery work today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



I know, field artillery is like that, but they do a bunch of calculations before firing... and rifles have adjustable scopes that account for drop over distance... and medieval xbowmen had neither calculators nor scopes. The only crossbow I've ever seen with a scope was in Deus Ex, and I put it there myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I think it would be very hard to fire a crossbow accurately with more than a minor (&lt;5 degrees) arc... and any arc-firing requires more training than direct firing, which would defeat the point of cheaply raising masses of untrained crossbowmen. Assuming, of course, that crossbows were used by cheap masses of poorly trained soldiers, which could be another false premise on my part.

Your point on the longer trajectory negating a lower velocity is interesting... it would take several complex integrals to figure out how much energy ends up being saved, if any, by firing at a 30-degree angle or so. It would be much simpler to model in Excel (in .01 second intervals), given the drag formula. I did something like that once, to find the ideal angle to launch a water balloon for max distance, but I have a pretty poor memory...

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
I think it would be very hard to fire a crossbow accurately with more than a minor (&lt;5 degrees) arc... and any arc-firing requires more training than direct firing, which would defeat the point of cheaply raising masses of untrained crossbowmen. Assuming, of course, that crossbows were used by cheap masses of poorly trained soldiers, which could be another false premise on my part.



i imagine if you had to train levies to fire crossbows ballistically, you'd do it the way the napoleonics did with muskets: drill a few angles for likely ranges (maximum, half-max, short) and figure that will do well enuf.

[The_Tauren13]

I think gameplay should be way more important than realism. This is a fantasy game, after all.

[wombatsSAR]

Old question re: age of longbows
From Hardy's book, Longbow - arrow heads date back to 50,000 yo. However, bows don't preserve well. Cave drawings show "longbows" in scale but can the artists' sense of scale be trusted??? There are two Mesolithic fragments that have right proportions and geometries to be from a longbow. Various other Stone Age sites have uncovered bows ~175 cm in length, others between 177 and 200 cm. These are ~2,500 BC to 1,600 BC. Hardy goes on at some length about the "pre" history of the bow. Basically, a bow of some length has been around for quite some time, although the date of _the_ longbow's use in England has an unclear lineage.

Important note re: crossbow range - I'm using STEEL bows. If you count only composite bow xbows, then yeah, range is less than the xbow but greater than the lesser selfbow. Steel bows were fairly common about 50 yr after Crecy and available by Agincourt but the rate of fire of a crossbow is VERY poor, the moreso for the stronger pulls. The rate of fire is about 1/2-1/6 that of the bow. They were great for defense or other fortifide positions. Additional note, when used in the field, they often had either mantlets or pavisses to hide behind, or even had ~kite shields strapped on their backs. (Payne-Gallway and Hardy)

re: numbers of longbowmen and are they elite?
I admit that this is based more on peripheral arguments than on % numbers. Firstly, the strength required for using the bow was outside the casual norm and that this str requirement was unique enough to leave its marks in the skeleton. This implies that they had the time to practice their art enough to make a consuming activity. Secondly, ~20% of the English archers were mounted - this implies wealth and decent amount of it, hence, again, enough free time to make training possible. Third, there is at least one example of a longbowmen (probably one of the Black Prince's guard archers) getting his own coat of arms, and other honors (the family name is noted as part of Jodrell Bank in Cheshire). Fourth, longbowmen received higher pay than regular footmen. It was not as high as mounted knights, though. Fifth, "by 1590 Sir Roger Williams was complaining that 'out of 5,000 archers not 500 will make any strong shootes', and 'few or none do anie great hurte 12 or 14 score off'." Lastly, since this is long and circumstantial, Henry V left England with 2,000 knights and men-at-arms, 65 gunners, and 8,000 longbowmen. The army of conquest that Henry could muster had only 8,000 archers out of how many that were in England? It was his choice and I doubt he picked weenie ones.

re: range
From Hardy: (velocity and range, 70 lb bow)
Lozenge Bodkin 46.5 m/sec 180 yd max (sigh, let's mix units)
Long Bodkin 43.6 m/sec 170 yd
Broadhead 38.7 m/sec 150 yd

extrapolation to 150 lbs, still Hardy, ranges should be ~300 yds

re: blowguns
I found the refs in Steven Vogel's "Prime Mover". He _calculates_ a maximum range of 28 m with an impact speed of ~13 m/s, and thus an impact momentum of only 2% that of an arrow. Actual reports from his anthropological colleagues gave measures of 17 m to 30 m. Gotta have the poison.

re: ballistic fire
I think that's just a bias. In both cases (bow and xbow), you train with it and get to see the projectile in flight, hence learning its flight characteristics. I venture that the xbow is easier since loosing an arrow is a non-subtle art all its own whereas firing the xbow is much more easily mastered - it's a trigger! One usually doesn't fire a handgun "ballistically" because there's no need to learn (use a rifle or call in uncle arty) and it's difficult to learn since the bullet is smaller and travels too darn fast, hence you can't see what you're doing.

re: balsa and piano wire
mmm, bad choices. Balsa has low compression and tensile strengths. Piano wire easily cuts fingers when being drawn. However, since it is very light, geek-like muscles can heft it without sweating, and the piano wire could be tuned to play a one-note song. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

re: combat sim fix
Cool!!! Maybe I'll find the ambition now to balance out my ... uh ... mod.
if you can call it that. ... I have no sense of propriety. I'll leave it at that.

I'm quitting for a bit. Thanks for reading, all.

[Evil Dave]

The_Tauren13 said:
I think gameplay should be way more important than realism. This is a fantasy game, after all.


yup. it's mighty hard to realistically model gods on the battlefield. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

the main reason for bringing up realism is folks were asking how weapons "should" work. but another reason is that it provides justification for changing game balance. for example, if you agree with wombats' idea that many pointy weapons should be armor piercing, SCs become relatively less powerful and some regular units become relatively more powerful.

[wombatsSAR]

Sabercherry: "arrowdynamics"

Thanks, great pun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I used to have:

"Incorrigable punster.
Please do not incorrige."

as my sig.

[wombatsSAR]

One last post before my brain explodes.

Arralen, you might be confusing the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow with the energetic efficiency of the bow. Hardy's book has values of around 80%+ for the longbow. Iirc, modern, compound composite bows are closer to 90%+, while the crossbow is much lower but I can't find any relavent numbers right now. One rather biased source put it at 10% but that's too low considering extent numbers for ranges and projectiles. Xbows may have been capable of storing lots of energy but they really didn't deliver any where near all of it to the projectile.

[Arralen]

energetic efficiency of the bow
I'm not confusing it with the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow. In fact, I thought to leave it out of the discussion, but I found a nice comparison which should make it easy to understand: "Barrel Length" .. the distance over which the missile is accelerated by propelling forces.
With a X-/bow, it roughly equates to the length of the arrow minus some "overhead", which is 80cm with the Longbow and 25cm with the X-bow. Equations are most likely non-linear ...


examples: (from Payne-Gallway, actually) 85 g bolt shot 420 m from a 550 kg pull medieval crossbow. Longbows attained lengths of ~275 m. Article authors cite another historian claiming 2x pull weight xbows were common, fwiw.



That's shurely a 55kg-Xbow. And 110kg-Xbows where shurely not common before 1475.(Steel Xbows in general date from 1350 and later).
And think about the reloading time: I would rate such a Xbow as a last try to keep up with a)the very heavy armors and b)firearms. And it shurely would have been used in siege warfare only - much to heavy to use it in the field...


aerodynamic efficiency
Can you scan &amp; email me that wind tunnel results? Or give me a link? Think there's some fault in those numbers or the interpretation ...
E.g. using 80 instead of 60 m/s may have greater impact on the results than one would estimate because of special aerodynimc effects (boundary transition etc.)
Because of the differences in energetic efficiency of Long- vs. Xbow, I doubt both sorts of missiles start with the same "muzzle velocity".
=&gt; Normally, something long&amp;slender has always less drag than something thick&amp;short, as long as it points into the direction of flight.

Furthermore, there's a mixup:
A longbow's efficient range is roughly equal to it's maximum range, because of the energy-storing effect of the ballistic trajectory and the lift-generating effect of the long arrow. (Similar to the lift effects on modern olympic throwing spears)
A X-bow bolt, because of the higher drag at high velocities, loses too much energy before it can store as potential energy, respc. loses much more of it's velocity within the first meters of flight.


volume/mass fire
You can fire a X-bow ballistically. But
load time is way to high for volume fire. A longbowmen can fire his 12 arrows within a minute. It takes a minute to fire a heavy crossbow and reload it...
So apart from the initial volley, there wouldn't be any volume to speak of. But without volume, you'll actually have to aim for a target ...

pre-historic "longbows"
Where long bows, but not longbows in a strict sense:
"At least two Neolithic longbows have been found in Britain. One was found in Somerset. It was identified as Neolithic by radiocarbon dating in the 1950s, much to the consternation of some archaeologists at the time. A second was found in southern Scotland at Rotten Bottom. It was made of yew and dates to between 4040 and 3640 BC. A reconstructed bow had a draw-weight of about 23 kg (50 lbf, 220 N) and a range of 50 to 55 metres.


addendum
found it in your post:
From Hardy: (velocity and range, 70 lb bow)
Lozenge Bodkin 46.5 m/sec 180 yd max (sigh, let's mix units)
Long Bodkin 43.6 m/sec 170 yd
Broadhead 38.7 m/sec 150 yd
extrapolation to 150 lbs, still Hardy, ranges should be ~300 yds

But 70lbs = 31,75 kg, which is on the lower range for a longbow, 100lbs (45kg) or even more seemingly where common. Range will not scale linearily, though.
But as you can see from the numbers above, "muzzle velocity" wasn't anywhere near 80 m/s but maybe 55m/s at best. Aerodynamic effects could be quite different ...

[wombatsSAR]

Arralen said:
energetic efficiency of the bow
I'm not confusing it with the aerodynamic efficiency of the arrow. In fact, I thought to leave it out of the discussion, but I found a nice comparison which should make it easy to understand: "Barrel Length" .. the distance over which the missile is accelerated by propelling forces.



Which is only relevant if the applied force is the same. It is much, much higher in the xbow, hence the need for very stout bolts.



With a X-/bow, it roughly equates to the length of the arrow minus some "overhead", which is 80cm with the Longbow and 25cm with the X-bow. Equations are most likely non-linear ...



Yes, they are. Acceleration is a squared term. Friction is as well. Your point?




examples: (from Payne-Gallway, actually) 85 g bolt shot 420 m from a 550 kg pull medieval crossbow. Longbows attained lengths of ~275 m. Article authors cite another historian claiming 2x pull weight xbows were common, fwiw.



That's shurely a 55kg-Xbow. And 110kg-Xbows where shurely not common before 1475.(Steel Xbows in general date from 1350 and later).
And think about the reloading time: I would rate such a Xbow as a last try to keep up with a)the very heavy armors and b)firearms. And it shurely would have been used in siege warfare only - much to heavy to use it in the field...




By this logic, a 55 kg draw weight xbow can out shoot a 90 kg draw weight longbow. That's aerodynamic efficiency far beyond what's been measured and makes the longbow much less efficient than the crossbow.

I'm skipping the rest of your comments because they are based upon similar logic.

[wombatsSAR]

The whole reason for me posting was to weigh in was because various comments that desired a sim approach. I felt that some of the suggestions for the sim side were not accurately describing various phenomena and I wanted to add information from various knowledgable sources. I am not an expert on these subjects but I am moderately well-read.

Sim: xbows blow away everything else in terms of sheer hitting power. At least the steel variety. The pre-steel ones score over the traditional bows in being MUCH easier to train peasants to an adequate level of skill. They are cheaper to stock and the bows are more durable than regular bows. Reload rates sucked but then, if you kill them first, you don't have to parry.

Sim: pointy things - all of the pointy weapons are armor piercing in effect. They plant an enormous overpressure on the armor causing a point failure. The longbow and composite bows had enough force to let them pierce plate when using properly designed arrowheads. These bodkin points did a good job at piercing various armors but were inferior to a broadhead for inflicting wounds (we're neglecting sepsis here). The xbow did it by sheer force. Afaict, there were no bodkin point quarrels. One design sufficed for all applications.

Thus, my recommendations for a sim that longbowmen and composite bowmen have higher resource costs to reflect their long training times. Their projectiles should be AP but of low value to simulate the fact that the resulting wounds were of lesser severity. Even short bows should be AP but without the draw weight behind them, they couldn't do all that much. Spears and lances should be AP when used in charges. By precise definition, so should spears in static melee but the impact velocities probably don't make it worth defining that way, at least not for human wielders.

One obvious "flaw", as it were, is that the battlefield is so short that the effective ranges of the various missile weapons are ... modififed. This truncation results in the combatants starting very close together resulting in the effectiveness of bow fire being compromised. This could be hacked but I'm not sure if the game would support that???

[PDF]

Not sure we're going anywhere with this way OT discussions about bolt aerodynamics. What we just need is missile weapons that are tactically different and balanced in the Dom rules frame ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ironhawk]

Yeah I am with PDF here. As interesting as the discussion is in the general, historical sense, this thread is about SC's rebalance mod. So the question to be considered is only:

Is a 9 AP damage bow too powerful within the scope of the Dominions 2 archery system?

[Saber Cherry]

I plan to diversify crossbow into "light crossbow" (9ap, 25 range, less accurate), "crossbow" (10ap, 30 range, more accurate), and "heavy crossbow" (11ap, 35 range). The stats, names, and number of types are subject to change... but this will make it easier to balance the costs of the indy crossbowmen. Arbalests will remain unchanged.

This will also affect longbow considerations...

[PDF]

Saber Cherry said:
I plan to diversify crossbow into "light crossbow" (9ap, 25 range, less accurate), "crossbow" (10ap, 30 range, more accurate), and "heavy crossbow" (11ap, 35 range). The stats, names, and number of types are subject to change... but this will make it easier to balance the costs of the indy crossbowmen. Arbalests will remain unchanged.

This will also affect longbow considerations...



Are you sure so much variety existed ? To me there was Light and Heavy type, the heavy being also called "Arbalest" (French name). And anyway I'm not sure that minor differences between the types are worth the effort...

[Endoperez]

Range 25 and range 35 have a HUGE difference, but I don't think the middle one is needed. I would make one "heavy crossbow", which is still weaker and more expensive than arbalest, and "light crossbow", which is much weaker than even the "heavy crossbow".

Of course, I'm not going to do the balancing work, and if Saber Cherry needs the third one, then I trust that she knows what she is doing.

[Saber Cherry]

PDF said:
Are you sure so much variety existed ? To me there was Light and Heavy type, the heavy being also called "Arbalest" (French name). And anyway I'm not sure that minor differences between the types are worth the effort...



Much more variety than that existed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Just like with guns or hunting knives today... a class called "Medium Crossbow" would be about as specific as "Assault Rifle" or "Antipersonnel Mine," each of which has hundereds of types with wildy varying characteristics. Crossbows were pre-mass production, so they would be even less standardized. AFAIK, of course.

[Saber Cherry]

Hi!

I just put out v7.31, which has some very minor changes. Incidentally - I have not done this previously - I just realized it would be better (confusion-wise) if I put the name of the version in the filename, so it displays in the mod preferences screen, and people don't accidentally overwrite an older version that they are using for a current game. Therefore, the latest file name is "Recruitable Rebalance 731.dm"

If you downloaded it before I changed the filename (it appears exactly 1 person did), please download it again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Sorry!

v7.31:

Ulm Black Plate units increased to 14g (to better reflect their runic armor and sealed helmets).
Ulm Black Knight / Templar increased +5g (same reason) to 70 and 100g.
Ulm Guardian increased +2g (same reason).
Longbow / Man elite longbow gain +1gcost (to 13g) since AP longbows are super good. I may change them back to non-AP eventually, depending on feedback.
Tien Chi Celestial Masters changed back from 2 air to 2 water. I had changed them to better enable casting of national spells (fly and celestial soldiers) but with Zen's magic mod, the change is not needed, and it prevented them from casting acid spells.
Slightly reduced Celestial Master price (250g S&amp;A, 240g normal)

[Huzurdaddi]

Longbow / Man elite longbow gain +1gcost (to 13g) since AP longbows are super good. I may change them back to non-AP eventually, depending on feedback.




Did someone finally abuse the crap out of them in your test games? I'll be honest I did try a test game with them as soon as you made them and I was able to clear the map at a pretty silly rate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for celestial masters, I really like the little mod I made for them ( of course! ) where I chanhed the cost to be in line with Scott's formula and where I gave t'ien Ch'i 50 gold 1S casters to act as communicants and magic duel sponges. Worked *very* nicely.

[Saber Cherry]

Huzurdaddi said:


Longbow / Man elite longbow gain +1gcost (to 13g) since AP longbows are super good. I may change them back to non-AP eventually, depending on feedback.




Did someone finally abuse the crap out of them in your test games? I'll be honest I did try a test game with them as soon as you made them and I was able to clear the map at a pretty silly rate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for celestial masters, I really like the little mod I made for them ( of course! ) where I chanhed the cost to be in line with Scott's formula and where I gave t'ien Ch'i 50 gold 1S casters to act as communicants and magic duel sponges. Worked *very* nicely.



Wellll... longbows have not been particularly abused in the test game (Man is ranked about 3 or 4), but I played around with them a bit, and found them exceptionally strong. That, combined with comments in the test game thread and this thread, made me think that 9AP, 40 range, at 12 gold is unbalanacing. At 13 gold, they come closer to parity with cheap xbows. 13g is not a final solution, more like a patch to make them less "uber" while pondering a final solution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Fortunately, only Man - a somewhat weak nation, due to capitol-only troops and mages - has the ability to abuse longbows, since they natively only occur on grasslands (as far as I can tell). So it's not a very important issue, especially once storm, Staff of Storms, and Arrow Fend come into play. However, I want to rectify it by v8, and I'm considering a poll on the ideal cost and damage of longbows. Especially considering that the scientific data presented in this thread portrays them as being substantially weaker than most crossbows.

[Huzurdaddi]

Wellll... longbows have not been particularly abused in the test game (Man is ranked about 3 or 4), but I played around with them a bit, and found them exceptionally strong. That, combined with comments in the test game thread and this thread, made me think that 9AP, 40 range, at 12 gold is unbalanacing. At 13 gold, they come closer to parity with cheap xbows. 13g is not a final solution, more like a patch to make them less "uber" while pondering a final solution




Well I've felt for quite a while that crossbowmen are the most cost efficient non-sacred troops in the game. So I'm not sure using them as a balance point is super.

OTOH I do find the new longbowmen fun to use I know I ( personally ) would break even if I was in heavy armor if a bunch of guys were shooting arrows at me!

How did you addition of the flail attribue to the lowbowmen work? Were they useful units? They would probably no longer break HC but they would be pretty decent against infanty.

[Saber Cherry]

Huzurdaddi said:
Well I've felt for quite a while that crossbowmen are the most cost efficient non-sacred troops in the game. So I'm not sure using them as a balance point is super.

OTOH I do find the new longbowmen fun to use I know I ( personally ) would break even if I was in heavy armor if a bunch of guys were shooting arrows at me!

How did you addition of the flail attribue to the lowbowmen work? Were they useful units? They would probably no longer break HC but they would be pretty decent against infanty.



I won a game recently, Marignon (me) versus Machaka, fielding almost nothing but crossbows and Witch Hunters, and without using flaming arrows or wind guide. So you may be right about that. On the other hand, I rarely see other people use them unless they are playing Marignon. And they're essential as a last defense against SCs, as far as I can tell.

#Flail works for missile weapons. I tried it out on AP longbows, and they annihilated indies instantly. Not a good modding change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I did not try 14 non-AP plus #flail, but it would probably be similar versus medium infantry, though less effective on heavy cavs. Regardless, I see no reason why longbows should hurt people if they hit the shield. Arbalests, maybe... boulders, Jotun javelins, and castle ballistae, probably. And I plan to make those changes, after testing to see if boulders already ignore shields.

Anyone have any opinions on changing Arbalest to 11ap or 12ap + ignore shield? That would make it more useful against most enemies, and less lethal to Ulmians. In other words, people might recruit them instead of Sappers...

Well, I'll start a poll on longbows and crossbows tomorrow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Sandman]

Nice mod. I don't agree with everything (I've always liked Jotun Woodsmen), but it's a really impressive effort all the same.

Some suggestions/points:

The Lord Warden: At 130 gold, this unit is absurdly expensive. He's a good fighter and an OK commander, but not nearly enough to justify the cost. The Warden is already a rather pricey sacred unit (Tuatha are cheaper and better) and there's no justification for having a commander version which costs more than 3X the price of the basic unit. He might well be the most expensive infantry commander in the game. Hell, 130 gold will buy you an top of the range cavalry leader.

The Mother of Avalon is the same price, has the same leadership, is also sacred and stealthy and is a mid-level mage. She's also a much more useful addition to a stealth force.

T'ien Chi Light Cavalry: It's always bothered me that these guys don't have a hoof attack. Granted, they might not be riding trained warhorses, but I like to think of hooves as an intrinsic mounted bonus. Maybe a lesser hoof attack for light cav, versus a warhorse hoof for the heavy cavalries.

Conquerors of the Sea: The mages are priced fairly for this theme, IMO. However, the sailing commanders are dreadfully overpriced; 75 or 100 gold for a commander with rubbish equipment, average stats, and ok leadership? Granted, they have the sailing skill, but Vanheim gets that for nothing. Compare an admiral (100 gold) to a Vanherse (160 gold). The admiral has better leadership, but the Vanherse is vastly superior in every other way, including upkeep!

[BigDaddy]

wombatsSAR said:

. . .Sim: xbows blow away everything else in terms of sheer hitting power. At least the steel variety. . .




I looked into this for quite some time to prove that medieval x-bow where more powerful than medieval longbows. However, I found that that wasn't the case. Because of the inferior engineering and material medieval x-bow where made from, they where limited to a very short draw length, and the quarrel never even remotely approached its maximum velocity. Because of the respective weight of the missles, both end up being nearly the same. The difference from my historical research, was that longbowmen where actual troops, who carried swords, wore light armor, and could really fight. They fired faster, and hit more. A x-bowman, was just a conscript with an x-bow.

Today's x-bow have an incredible draw length. The bow goes from nearly straight to "V" shaped. This increased draw lenght allows the projectile to reach incredible velocities. Far superior even to compound bows. That was not the case in medieval times.

[BigDaddy]

I also found this:

"Surprisingly, a good slinger hurled a stone as far and accurately as a good archer. Roman military texts recommended archery target practice at about 200 yards. Slingers are known to hurl their projectiles even farther, as much as 440 yards (quarter of a mile)."

Sling stones ranged from golf ball sized pieces of lead to rocks the size of a tennis balls, and where tooled round. Slinging was a sort of game to ancient people, who made their own stones, and practiced for fun.

Also,
"As for accuracy, one ancient writer noted that the best slingers "would wound not merely the heads of their enemies but any part of the face at which they might have aimed." Experiments demonstrate that missiles leave a sling in excess of 60 miles per hour. One Roman writer noted that opponents in leather armor were in far greater danger from sling missiles than arrows. Even if the stone did not penetrate the armor, it was capable of inflicting a fatal internal injury."

I couldn't find information on the effectiveness of armor on slingstones, but I'd just assume slingstone aren't AP.

[Saber Cherry]

Sandman said:
Nice mod. I don't agree with everything (I've always liked Jotun Woodsmen), but it's a really impressive effort all the same.



Thanks for the suggestions! I've never played Conquerers of the Seas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

With regards to Woodsmen, when and how do you use them? Even with Nature-9 / Earth-4 I prefer other Jotun infantry... and for stealth armies, Vaettir are at least as good as unblessed Woodsmen, IMO. I'm really starting to think giving Woodsman commanders 10 leadership and Holy-2 would be ideal, because even having dropped Woodsman units to 45 gold, I still can't think of a use for them...

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>200 gold, 54 res, 4 holy of Woodsmen versus 200 gold, 150 res of Vaettir:

'4*JO Woodsman' versus '25*JO Vaetti' in 40000 bouts.

~ Attacker's Deathmatch Statistics ~

Score: ---------------------- 82
Wins: ----------------------- .00%
Losses: --------------------- 100.00%
Kills per battle: ----------- 4.13
Kills per round: ------------ 1.46
Deaths per battle: ---------- 4.00
Life expectancy (rounds): --- 2.35
Life expectancy (battles): -- .83
Avg. Rounds Elapsed: -------- 2.85
Avg. Rounds to Win: --------- .00
Avg. Rounds to Lose: -------- 2.85
Hit Rate: ------------------- 56.41%
Evade Rate: ----------------- 32.94%
Damage done per swing: ------ 12.41
Damage done per hit: -------- 22.00
Damage taken per hit: ------- 4.00
Total damage taken per life: 35.79</pre><hr />

[Saber Cherry]

Big Daddy: Thanks for the additional information about projectiles! Although, some of the stuff about slings is pretty hard to believe. Where did you find the information; do you remember? And by the way, I know very little about slings, though in RPGs they tend to differentiate between "staff slings" and "normal slings." Do you know which were being described, or if the difference is an artificial one invented in the 20th century?

[Arralen]

Concerning Staff Slings
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/staffsling.html
that's what I read from it (someone should check vs. historical sources)
- staff slings do more damage (due to heavier projectiles), but do not necessarily shoot further
- normal slings may carry a shield (AFAIK, historically they didn't, but would be nice in DOM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Concerning BigDaddy's post:
That's basically what I said before. Nice to see that someone checks the sources instead of re-telling misconceptions from Hollywood Movies ... Didn't have the time to dig anything up myself besides the Wargamers Research Groups Tabletop Rules.

Btw., those roman texts speak about shortbows, o.c., which are roughly equal to slings.
Concerning the range, one has to be careful that not effective and maximum range is compared - what I believe is the case with the above figures.

It's very obvious, however, that slings and bows (longbows too) where used for "mass archery", not for sniping.

Xbows where used in siege warfare and as sniper weapons against (and from) infantry forming a "shield wall".


Here's a pic from the "Maciejowski-Bible" (ca. 1250 A.D. ; Piermont Morgan Library, New York), which clearly shows:

- usage of iron pot-helmets and full chain (which even covers the hands) by knights and infantry.
- the Xbow-man only has (darker) leather cap and no chain mail, he's protected by a heavily armored infantry man with shield
- the Xbow is not pressed against the shoulder, it doesn't have a rifle stock.
- Xbow is used to snipe at single defenders, obviously successful

.
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/uploads/348703-xsniper.png

[Sandman]

With regards to Woodsmen, when and how do you use them?



With a water-9 bless and sloth scales. This turns their light equipment into a bonus, since they can be produced for few resources, and they get less fatigue. Quickened, they'll always strike first with enormous force, obliterating most indies. They can be used for flanking as well.

Despite it being the percieved wisdom, I've never really been tempted by a nature bless for them. Possibly because the Son of Niefel is so cool.

They're less useful as the game goes on, but the water bless stays handy forever, pumping up the Jotun Herses and with battle shrouds, boosting the Gygjas as well.

[Saber Cherry]

Arralen: Thanks for the research and the picture! The link is really well done, too.

Sandman: I'll have to try that sometime. As far as Gygjas go, don't you think it's odd that the Vaettir descriptions refer to them as sacred, and yet they are not sacred?

And also - I'm playing Jotunheim right now, and can't find a good use for Gygjas or Skrattis (though I have many vaetti hags, and uses for all of them). Both of them are very expensive to build and hope for good randoms (like 2 death). What do you do with Gygjas? Cast Crossbreeding?

[Boron]

Jotunheim is a big mystery for me also .
The scratti can at least be used for blood hunting + they can summon IDs with the +1 water ring and a random blood sorcery .
With random blood sorcery the scrattis can then forge blood boosters also and do the blood only spells like horde from hell and fiends .
So the scrattis are useful but expensive .
For gygias i have found no use at all . So if i play Jotunheim i normally chose utgaard instead of base Jotunheim .
Seithkonas and Nornas are more useful then vaetti hags and gygias .

[BigDaddy]

The second site is the one sighted. I could have sited the third, but I think its velocity figure is suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_%28weapon%29
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/sling.html
http://www.slinging.org/

And yes, longbows fired 400ms, as did x-bows, and surprisingly slings. The accuracy of the sling and longbow is rather more suspect at this range though. I think the sling was inferior, because it didn't penetrate metal armor well. My instinct (as someone who understands physics) is that the sling was likely as effective as described. A roman text describes excising a sling bullet. You'll see it sited on one of the websites.

Slinging was cultural. So, those cultures that used slings often practiced with them, and the male population at large was skilled and accurate. Longbows, hard to use, were trained from childhood to very young conscripts. By the time they reached adulthood, they were excellent troops all around (better than most any other non-elite troop), but expensive. X-bows were the great equalizer, because they where very easy to use.

[BigDaddy]

I couldn't find anything about historic ranges for heavy crossbows. They where never widely employed, and because of targeting issues (they had no scopes after all) the range of the other weapons was really already adequate.

I assume they fire somewhat farther, but likely not alot. The short draw lenght would still really limit any medieval x-bow.

[Endoperez]

One thing that would really help would be adjusting long/short distance accuracy. At the moment, crossbows can only be accurate or not accurate, while being accurate in short range but fastly becoming less accurate when the range increases would seem to work well for them. Longbows might be less accurate, but wouldn't suffer as badly from increased distance, because they are fired in an arc(ballistically?) anyway.

[Alneyan]

On a slightly unrelated topic, for Saber Cherry: I was considering hosting a game with limited research, as there were a few players who expressed an interest in "not being able to go beyond level 4 in research", as in the demo. Your null mod would be very useful for the purpose (though there remains the matter of magic items).

Such a game would really be better with a unit-balancing mod like yours, however. Do you believe your mod is ready enough for this kind of setup, or that it would benefit from this sort of test field, or should I wait for the results of the current "uncontrolled lab experiments"? (That is, the MP game using the mod)

[Sandman]

Gygjas are a bit of a lottery, compared to the Utgard witches, but they have loads of hitpoints, and are also cold-immune, so you'll have fewer flukey mage deaths, which in turn makes mage-booster items a more reliable investment. Gygjas also have lower encumbrance, stategic move 2 and forest survival.

With their toughness in mind, I'd mainly use them on the battlefield, laden with items, casting whatever suits their magic picks. Exceptions to this would be a blood-3 gygja who might as well stay at home doing blood stuff and astral gygjas if there was a magic duel danger. When not fighting, they'd be forging items or casting spells the vaetti hags couldn't.

As a final note, I always seem to recruit Gygjas in pairs, so they can cover each other's weaknesses.

[Endoperez]

Alneyan - A series of mods that remove spells over levels like 4 has been made, but I don't know where you could get it. It was announced on the forum, so Arryn or someone might have it, though.

[wombatsSAR]

BigDaddy said:
I also found this:

"Surprisingly, a good slinger hurled a stone as far and accurately as a good archer. Roman military texts recommended archery target practice at about 200 yards. Slingers are known to hurl their projectiles even farther, as much as 440 yards (quarter of a mile)."





Could you toss the source for this quote at me? I know I've read it as well but can't recall where now. As regards to penetration, I do remember someone else claiming that a sling could cause spalling on a bronze cuirass. Again, not worth that much without a reference.

[wombatsSAR]

BigDaddy said:

wombatsSAR said:

. . .Sim: xbows blow away everything else in terms of sheer hitting power. At least the steel variety. . .



I looked into this for quite some time to prove that medieval x-bow where more powerful than medieval longbows. However, I found that that wasn't the case. Because of the inferior engineering and material medieval x-bow where made from, they where limited to a very short draw length, and the quarrel never even remotely approached its maximum velocity. Because of the respective weight of the missles, both end up being nearly the same.


hmmm, that would contradict what Payne-Gallway has claimed for his experience in actually firing some bows from around that time, in terms of range. I do realize that medieval metallurgy was no where near a modern standard. Some sources claim that the shattering of the steelbow could seriously injure the user. That's probably seldom a modern problem. As for the two being nearly the same in practice, could be. My only real argument is with the recruitment scheme.


The difference from my historical research, was that longbowmen where actual troops, who carried swords, wore light armor, and could really fight. They fired faster, and hit more. A x-bowman, was just a conscript with an x-bow.


Aye, that would be the biggest advantage, afaict for the xbow. It was given to a peasant and he could actually hit something and do so with enough force to hurt the target.



[/quote]Today's x-bow have an incredible draw length. The bow goes from nearly straight to "V" shaped. This increased draw lenght allows the projectile to reach incredible velocities. Far superior even to compound bows. That was not the case in medieval times.

[/quote]

... and because I'm feeling combative, can you list your sources for your assertions regarding the effectiveness of the xbow? Actually, it's also that I like reading up on such things.

[wombatsSAR]

Endoperez said:
One thing that would really help would be adjusting long/short distance accuracy. At the moment, crossbows can only be accurate or not accurate, while being accurate in short range but fastly becoming less accurate when the range increases would seem to work well for them. Longbows might be less accurate, but wouldn't suffer as badly from increased distance, because they are fired in an arc(ballistically?) anyway.



Where does this idea come from? I'm really puzzled by it. Given that the quarrel was an aerodynamically efficient projectile, it's going to have better ballistic characteristics than an arrow. The only reason I see "sniping" being a common usage for a crossbow would be the slow rate of fire - if you can't shoot often, try to make each shot count.

[wombatsSAR]

BigDaddy said:
I couldn't find anything about historic ranges for heavy crossbows. They where never widely employed, and because of targeting issues (they had no scopes after all) the range of the other weapons was really already adequate.


I don't understand why a crossbow suddenly needs a scope to fire at distant targets. The quarrel arcs out into the air, just an arrow, just as bullet. As for ranges, Payne-Gallway has fired one to 400 m. This matches up with the known draw weight and aerodynamic efficiency of the quarrel. If you would like, I can repost the literature references so you can peer at them yourself.


I assume they fire somewhat farther, but likely not alot. The short draw lenght would still really limit any medieval x-bow.


The short draw length is only relavent in considering quarrel design and the rate of fire. Once the bolt is accellerated to its 60+ m/s, it doesn't matter. The fact that the old designs did this in such a short span meant that the quarrel had to be particularly stout. The rate of fire issue is related because an efficient bow means that it can have a lower draw weight for a given effective power and can therefore be recocked faster. A man can only put out so much work in a given period of time.

[BigDaddy]

The sling sites where sited earlier, after saber cherry asked for them.

Here's one of many comparisons showing a typical xbow vs a longbow.

I found it by typing:
longbow crossbow

into my search engine. I read the same thing repeatedly in my search to prove crossbows superior. If you look, you will too.

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

The draw length IS VERY IMPORTANT. I won't go into this in length, its covered on this site and many others. With much less draw stregth current crossbows fire quarrels 2-3 times faster (138fps to 320fps). Hee hee, I said V-shape (meant U shape). A medeival xbow is like ")" a modern crossbow is like a "U".

Scopes and sights are only important for accuracy, so you're right the heavy crossbows must not have been widely used for some other reason. Though the one on the quoted sight is 740lb draw (suspect).

A crossbow, it seems, can penetrate armor at somewhat longer range.

Did I miss anything?

[Arryn]

Endoperez said:
Alneyan - A series of mods that remove spells over levels like 4 has been made, but I don't know where you could get it. It was announced on the forum, so Arryn or someone might have it, though.

From what I recall, someone mentioned the feasibility of doing such a mod, but AFAIK, it's not been released. Or if someone actually went through with making it, I never saw a thread where it was made available. Else I'd be hosting it as I do so many other files.

[Saber Cherry]

Arryn said:

Endoperez said:
Alneyan - A series of mods that remove spells over levels like 4 has been made, but I don't know where you could get it. It was announced on the forum, so Arryn or someone might have it, though.

From what I recall, someone mentioned the feasibility of doing such a mod, but AFAIK, it's not been released. Or if someone actually went through with making it, I never saw a thread where it was made available. Else I'd be hosting it as I do so many other files.



Haha, I've got one =) I made it for use with the Recruitable Rebalance Test Game, but it uses an older version of Daesthai's Spell Tome (1.15) and thus some of the spells were slightly off (a couple site-search spells had incorrect costs, and a couple spells were the wrong level, and a couple of names were mispelled). So it's good that you're not hosting it because it still has a few errors, though they have not affected the game at all.


Alneyan said:
On a slightly unrelated topic, for Saber Cherry: I was considering hosting a game with limited research, as there were a few players who expressed an interest in "not being able to go beyond level 4 in research", as in the demo. Your null mod would be very useful for the purpose (though there remains the matter of magic items).



Since the Recruitable Rebalance game started, Daesthai has released a new Tome revision, and I've examined every spell in the Tome and compared them to the in-game spellbook, so if there are any errors, they have escaped both Daesthai and myself (and some other people who looked at the Tome). I strongly doubt there are any major errors, or more than 1-2 trivial errors. That data is the basis for the current Magic Null Mod.

I set up an excel file to easily generate mods based on certain parameters... but unfortunately, it only affects spells, not magical artifacts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Still, if you give me some rules (like "No spells whatsoever above level 4" or "all spells over level 4 should cost double, and all spells over level 5 should cost triple" or "all blood summons should cost at least 100 slaves" or "all Death-gem summons should be disabled" or "No evocation over level 5") I'll be happy to generate a mod to the specifications. It will take way less time than manually editing every spell in the "null mod," as long as the rules are very general like the examples I gave.


Such a game would really be better with a unit-balancing mod like yours, however. Do you believe your mod is ready enough for this kind of setup, or that it would benefit from this sort of test field, or should I wait for the results of the current "uncontrolled lab experiments"? (That is, the MP game using the mod)



In my opinion, version 7.31 is ready to roll http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. Boron noted a bug (I intended and claimed to give Jaguar Warriors regeneration, but they do not, in fact, regenerate), which is the only known outstanding issue, and I'll fix it before you start the game. Otherwise... everything seems fine. There will be changes in version 8.0, of course (especially based on the archery thread), but 7.31 does not seem to have any exploits, unbalance any units, or contain any bugs (other than the one I mentioned). So if your group wants to play with it, then please do so! And yes, BTW, it would benefit from this sort of field test, especially since not all nations and themes (notably Ermor, Ryleh, Atlantis, Ctis, and Mictlan) are present in the current test game. No pressure, of course, I'm just very enthusiastic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Alneyan]

Well, I will likely start that game soon then. If the spell reduction is something like "no spells above level 4", it will be easy enough to do on my own (find #researchlevel 5, replace all with #researchlevel 12, wash, rinse, repeat). Other, harder changes would be interesting too: maybe something like "double cost to all spells", for another kind of game... Hmm.

Now to the big one: compiling all item names on level 6 and 8.

[Saber Cherry]

Alneyan said:
Now to the big one: compiling all item names on level 6 and 8.



Have fun, and be sure to post it when it's finished http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Resok]

Heya, first time poster but long time lurker here.

Unit# 682 isn't actually the ermorian standard.

668 is... at least if I'm not mistaken. I checked a base-theme Ermor and confirmed this (changed the Unit# in your mod to 668 to test).

Also... with the Ryleh land national troops a few suggestions/ideas:

Unit 971 the Hybrid Soldier: Perhaps make them more in line with the Illithid Soldiers in the sense that they get a mind blast? The Hybrid Lords get a mind blast similar to how the Illithid Lords do... it makes alot of sense to me. Otherwise there is really little point to having this unshielded, trident wielding trooper as just more "fodder" as opposed to all the many other choices that Ryleh has for this function. I suggest instead giving them mind blast like their larger and much stronger Illithid cousins and raising their gold cost to about 40(45?) or so. I think this is around reasonable considering they have half the HP of Illithids, 4 less str, 3 less prot, 1 less att, 2 more defense, 2 less size (good/bad - less food/easier trampled).

Also instead adding ambidexterity to all of the tentacled hybrids perhaps adding #bonus to weapon #85 would be the better solution? Unless I'm mistaken and this unbalances some other unit that has tentacles as well as standard limbs. Either way it makes a good degree of sense that a unit will either be humanoid and have tentacles growing out of him/her as an extra benefit... or a creature that only has tentacles as limbs. Both fit being #bonus type weapons.

Also... some of the Ryleh earlier void summons have really low attack ratings for imho no particular reason. This causes some of their special melee abilities to be virtually useless (like paralyze and steal strength) since they never will hit after they use all of their mind blasts.

#752 has a paralyze melee attack... but a 6 att.
Suggestion: Raising to 9 or 10.
#759 It's not bas enough that they're only aquatic... but they have life drain AND paralyze with a whopping 5 att.
Suggestion: raising to 10
#755 and 756 (the Otherness and Lesser Otherness) - They have a crush melee attack but a 5 att. this makes them virtually useless offensively against anything equal size or larger.
Suggestion: Raising att to 8 (reasonable increase without making them uber against same-size or larger creatures)

Also I can't find offhand the monster# of the greater otherness, but perhaps raising their att to 8 as well if you can find the #.

These are just a bunch of things I came accross that seemed rather strange/inconsistent wit the rest of the game. I know that Ryleh is really strong as is... but these are commonly under/unused or really limited unit types before the changes.

Also... may I suggest changing the kick from Chi Shoes (Weapon# 175) to #bonus as well? It seems silly that gore isn't considered into weapon length factors, but a magical kick is.

Thanks for reading all this... hope it's of some use. Thanks for all the hard work on this mod as well, so many of the changes are right in line with what I've wanted for a while now.

Resok

[Resok]

Also the pangaea national hero (Monster #540) - The White Minotaur remains unchanged.

He is now weaker than the standard minotaur lords and I'd suggest increasing his stats to perhaps +1 higher than the standard minotaur lords.

Resok

[Saber Cherry]

Resok,

Thanks a lot for finding and noting these errors and anomalies! As for Ambidextrity versus #bonus, I think #ambidextrous command became available first, which is why I use it. But #bonus would be a better way to deal with it, so I'll make that change. And I'll look into all of your Void Summon suggestions; I never really noticed their low attack ratings before. Void Summons should be good units, and there are other ways to balance Ryleh if their changes end up making the nation substantially more powerful.


I'll put out a new revision within 24 hours or so that corrects all of them.

[Resok]

Excellent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Thanks for reading through my little list, hope that these things helped to improve the mod in the end. I really love this mod and it meshes up with alot of the thoughts and ideas I was having for modding the game. If I come across anything else over time I'll let you know.

Resok

[Saber Cherry]

A new version has been released. See the readme or first post in this thread for details.

Resok, I addressed everything you mentioned, except for the Hybrid Soldier. It would be nice if they had some special advantage... but not mind blasts, which would make them much too strong, IMO, even if the gold cost was increased to 40 or 45... partly because food is one of the few limiting factors on Ryleh mind-blasting ability, and they avoid it. And partly because they should be substantially cheaper than Illithids, as hybrids of lesser races without mental abilities. I see the Hybrid Lords as a very rare "perfect" hybridization result.

Some other sort of enhancement might be OK... or possibly, giving them a mind blast attack with only 1 ammo, if I can think of a way to mod it in. Or a life-drain tentacle with a fairly low attack rating.

Thanks for your help, and I'm glad you're enjoying the mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Resok]

Makes a lot of sense balance-wise, I agree. The thing that lead me to suggest this is how I would always recruit a Hybrid Lord from any land-castle that I have due to being so much better than a Illithid Lord: Cost-wise, smaller, has feet slots, same mind-blast, not magical-I.E.: not vulnerable to magic-creature only spells/weapons, only disadvantage is that they have 15 less magical leadership and they have less HP, MR and STR. Though isn't that the point of hybridization? Mixing your race with another's to create a more efficient breed species? Reducing both your own races strengths and weaknesses by creating a hybrid of a lesser race, but still being stronger than the race you're mixing with.

The Hybrid Soldiers also have one other limitation that they have over the usual Illithid's that people recruit (the non-armored/life-draining ones). They're limited by resources... though perhaps raising their resources to 22 to match the Illithid Soldiers would make sense(?), either way they become roughly equivilant to Illithid Soldiers. With your mod though, supplies become virtually a non-issue, even for larger, bigger appetite (what DO Illithid's eat anyway?) Illithid Soldiers compared to Hybrid Soldiers. Also... themeatically the entire purpose of cross-breading in fact IS to become more adaptable to this new world they're attempting to enslave. Thus the advantages of the Hybrid as opposed to the pure-blood.

These were all thoughts that I had when thinking about the Hybrid Soldier conceptually compared to the Illithid Soldier. If we could mod their mind-blast to perhaps be lower-strength than a normal Illithid it would make sense. As it stands now, star children are still a much better investment by far gold-wise, but limited due to only one per turn per keep and needing a lab.

Now... I do agree with you that the change to Hybrid Soldiers would increase the effectiveness of Ryleh land-recruited units since they're currently limited on their land-units to only produce leaders and front-line fodder types. The food limitation however is considerably lessened with this mod, leaving the higher str, higher HP, Illithid's still superior due to their being 60% more food available.

I've been experimenting with a game (single-player) with the Hybrid Soldier changes I mentioned, and it feels pretty good balance-wise so far. Then again, I mostly play single-player so far so it doesn't really factor in as much. Them being better than the under-water recruitables in some ways encourages Ryleh to push out of the water and solidify on land in order to create a cheaper, if weaker, army of hybrids to support/supplement their pure-blooded Illithids. Also, this forces Ryleh to solidify assets on-land (where they can't hide from their land-enemies) in order to get Hybrids (which were of very little use before this mod except for the Hybrid Lords and Star Children).

A quick hypothetical cost-breakdown:

Concept Hybrid Soldier (45 gold, 18-22? resources): 30 gold mind blast weapon, 15 gold 10 morale, +5 hp, +1 str, -1 def, +2 natural prot - non-magic unit. 2/8 move
Eqiupment: Plate Cuirass, Trident (Why aren't ANY Hybrids given helmets anyway? Easier access for Illithids to suck their brains out if they get hungry I suppose)

You get a cheaper mind-blasting unit, that will get cut apart by cross-bow fire (potentially dying in one hit), with lower morale, but is smaller (takes less to feed and fights in tighter formations) and slightly cheaper. Also, takes normal leadership instead of magical.


Illithid Soldier (55 gold, 22 resources): 30 gold mind blast weapon, 25 gold for 11 morale, +5 str, +19 hp, +1 att, -3 def, +5 prot - magic unit. 1/7 move (why are they 1 strat move anyway? Normal Illithid's are 2/8 and Illithid Lords are 2/7)
Eqiupment: Plate Cuirass, Trident, Helment
You get a larger, more powerful mind-blasting combatant who would stand up to cross-bow fire (2 solid hits), and packs more of a punch in melee after all the mindblasts are gone.

So basically what we're looking at is the fact that Illithid Soldiers are so tactically bad to begin with (except for HP/str/prot), that except for the fact they're armored and have a mind-blast, they're not worth their gold/resource cost. This makes the Hybrid Soldier seem glaringly powerful in comparison, but only because the Illithid Soldier is worse in the ways that in practice are bad as opposed to on paper. If the Illithid Soldier was increased to 2/7 moves, and perahps given 1-2 more defense they would become better than a Hybrid Soldier in practice (thus justifying the +10 gold cost for a higher hp/str/mr/morale unit). It's partially the strat move, size and extra resources that makes the Hybrid Soldier looks so much better.

Hmm... perhaps they could be balanced with an extra supply requirement? #supplybonus -1 or -0.5 for example? That would put them closer in line with the rest of the illithids as far as supply limitations.

Anyway, I've babbled long enough... take my opinions with a grain of salt as I'm more expressing myself than anything else. In the end, I understand that Ryleh, out of any nation, needs the least help as far as their units go just because of the mind-blasting attacks, though without this change the Hybrid Soldiers have very little, if any, place in the armies of Ryleh compared to the fixed (non -4 attack) Hybrid Troopers.

P.S.: I appologize for my long post... appreciate you reading it, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees. Feel free to dismiss the ramblings completely but I felt the need to explain my full reasoning for the suggestion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Resok

[Resok]

Also, quick typo I noticed...

The Hybrid Lord name is assigned to the Hybrid Soldiers. Below is the snip of the text in the mod... the monster# should be 972 for the Hybrid Lord.

#selectmonster 971
#name "Hybrid Lord"
#end
--cost unkn


Resok

[Saber Cherry]

I released a new version, 7.51. This is identical in every way to 7.50 except that the file and mod names were changed from "Recruitable Rebalance" to "Recruitable Rebalance 751". This was done so that people can play multiple games with different mod versions, should they so desire, without the files overwriting each other. All future revisions will be named in this manner. Sorry for any confusion!

Resok - thanks for noting the typo; I'll fix it in the next version.

[Makinus]

this mod works with the demo version?

[Endoperez]

No mod works with the demo version. That is one of its limits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[majama]

what i can do with your files? where copy it? maybe its any mod part?
(sorry i'm newby)

[Saber Cherry]

Unzip the zipped mod into \Dominions 2\mods\

That's the way to install any Dominions 2 mod. Once it is unzipped, you should see a file called "Recruitable Rebalance 751.dm" and a directory called "CherryData" in the "mods" folder.

After that, you can enable or disable the mod under "Preferences" in the Dominions 2 title screen.

Have fun!

[majama]

ok, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
are you in position to do mod for eliminate orion mercenaries from this game?

[Saber Cherry]

majama said:
ok, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
are you in position to do mod for eliminate orion mercenaries from this game?



I could weaken them, but I'm not going to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I like Orion's squad the strength it is. If I could increase the price to 150-200 gold, I'd do that, but currently mercenary prices cannot be modded. It does not matter in multiplayer, since everyone will just bid how much they think the Knights are worth.

However, I think Eternal Knights should heal, since they are listed as immortals...

[FrankTrollman]

This series of changes does a lot to Ulm, but a lot of it seems really counterproductive. The fact that various units have Cold, Fire, or Shock resistance is a nice trick, but since it's not consistent across the army, it ends up being very hard to plan ahead.

And the increase in resource price seems to take the BP units completely out of contention. Even with order 3 and productivity you can't afford 2 Black Knights a turn, and that means that you can't conquer neutrals in any kind of reasonable amount of time. Even a 3 turn build-up will just get smacked down by level 6 neutrals, and that's not cool. (Interestingly, you will have a big pile of money left over in a pile, not that it will do you any good).

I suggest an increased money cost (like you have it), with a decreased resource cost. And you should make the resistances on all the BP units the same. The setup in which your axemen are resistant to one thing and your hammermen are resistant to another and your guardians to still another is a non-starter.

The problem with Ulm is that they can't get a big pile of BP units in fast enough to take territory fast enough to actually make their "good" units matter. They need a random elemental pick on the Smith, and they need a reduced resource cost on the BP units. Until they get that, it almost doesn't matter what their units have and do.

Although on that score, is there any reason why BP units shouldn't just use actual BP? The whole impetus for having them use inferior BP has always been lost on me.

-Frank

[PDF]

Well, Frank,
Ulm just doesn't need many BP units or BK against indies, at least at strength &lt;=7.
Just build Arbalests, shielded chainmail units, back them with the Prophet casting SoC and it's done ...
Still I'll have a closer look at the mod's Ulm setup.
Maybe you could also couple the mod with Zen's scale : Prod is much better with it, so it helps our tin-can builders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.
I agree that the Smith needs a random Elemental. Why are Ulm smiths so much worse than Vanheim's dwarves ?

[FrankTrollman]

BTW, if you really want a Soul Slay effect that only works once per battle, couldn't you just make an additional attack that had a very negative "#ratt" value? It could do zero damage and have an on-hit Soul Slay effect, and it would go off once per 50 turns or so, which means that he Valkyries would cough it up on the first round of combat and not afterwards.

-Frank

[Boron]

PDF said:
Why are Ulm smiths so much worse than Vanheim's dwarves ?


25% Forgebonus !

[Saber Cherry]

FrankTrollman said:
BTW, if you really want a Soul Slay effect that only works once per battle, couldn't you just make an additional attack that had a very negative "#ratt" value? It could do zero damage and have an on-hit Soul Slay effect, and it would go off once per 50 turns or so, which means that he Valkyries would cough it up on the first round of combat and not afterwards.

-Frank



Yes, that would sort of work. Thanks for the idea... I might try it.

[quantum_mechani]

One change I cannot understand is upping the cost of serpent priests to 200. The theme is already regarded almost universally as weaker than base, why make it worse?

[Saber Cherry]

quantum_mechani said:
One change I cannot understand is upping the cost of serpent priests to 200. The theme is already regarded almost universally as weaker than base, why make it worse?



Ummm... I guess, when pricing some units from special themes, I did not pay any attention to the "known wisdom" of the power of theme. Serpent Cult Pythium would actually be very strong on many maps if it could be combined with Water Cult, yielding powerful, amphibious, poison-immune, high-MR sacreds able to kill Atlantians (with their poison weapons) and Illithids (with an Astral blessing for additional MR). Illithids tend to be unable to kill things with high regeneration, regardless of MR.

But that's all beside the point. The reason is just that I re-priced Serpent Priests at 200 when I went on a holy-priest-mage price-boosting spree, since that approximately reflects their value outside of the context of their theme's weakness. Compare to a 140g Druid at 2H, 2N. 60g for +1W, +1? seems quite reasonable... or, starting with an 80g High Priest, 120g for +2N +1W +1? seems like a great deal, considering that it's all sacred... or starting with a Witch Hunter (already a great bargain) at 150g, and adding +1H and +1? for 50g (and changing the magic paths) also seems like a great deal.

However, there's also the fact that low-level Water and Nature magic are almost entirely worthless in most cases, which neither I nor Illwinter had really considered when pricing mages.

I still think 200g is a fair price for the unit, when obseved in a vacuum. But as you point out, the theme is pretty weak (especially considering that it takes Pythium from the (arguably) strongest magic nation to the (possibly) weakest). Do you think that giving Serpent Priests (another random *or* a linked random *or* 3N *or* 4H *or* 2W), and raising the price to 220~230, would make SC Pythium competitive? What about giving Acolytes a sorcery random, or replacing their 1N with a sorcery random (so they become like sacred holy Vaetti Hags)? As it stands, their mages can do little except pray for their sacred hydras...

[quantum_mechani]

Saber Cherry said:

quantum_mechani said:
One change I cannot understand is upping the cost of serpent priests to 200. The theme is already regarded almost universally as weaker than base, why make it worse?



Ummm... I guess, when pricing some units from special themes, I did not pay any attention to the "known wisdom" of the power of theme. Serpent Cult Pythium would actually be very strong on many maps if it could be combined with Water Cult, yielding powerful, amphibious, poison-immune, high-MR sacreds able to kill Atlantians (with their poison weapons) and Illithids (with an Astral blessing for additional MR). Illithids tend to be unable to kill things with high regeneration, regardless of MR.

But that's all beside the point. The reason is just that I re-priced Serpent Priests at 200 when I went on a holy-priest-mage price-boosting spree, since that approximately reflects their value outside of the context of their theme's weakness. Compare to a 140g Druid at 2H, 2N. 60g for +1W, +1? seems quite reasonable... or, starting with an 80g High Priest, 120g for +2N +1W +1? seems like a great deal, considering that it's all sacred... or starting with a Witch Hunter (already a great bargain) at 150g, and adding +1H and +1? for 50g (and changing the magic paths) also seems like a great deal.

However, there's also the fact that low-level Water and Nature magic are almost entirely worthless in most cases, which neither I nor Illwinter had really considered when pricing mages.

I still think 200g is a fair price for the unit, when obseved in a vacuum. But as you point out, the theme is pretty weak (especially considering that it takes Pythium from the (arguably) strongest magic nation to the (possibly) weakest). Do you think that giving Serpent Priests (another random *or* a linked random *or* 3N *or* 4H *or* 2W), and raising the price to 220~230, would make SC Pythium competitive? What about giving Acolytes a sorcery random, or replacing their 1N with a sorcery random (so they become like sacred holy Vaetti Hags)? As it stands, their mages can do little except pray for their sacred hydras...

I would leave all as in the base game, except make the hydras cheaper (base theme hydras a bit too).

[Huzurdaddi]

SC: I think what you have done with Abysia's Salamanders is cool. The idea is right: make them useful. But the tripple buff of attack, length, and reduced cost seems a little much. They are *awesome* in combat.

They could use a little nerf. I like the attack and length mod. Perhaps an increase back to the old price or heck, even more than the old price.

[Saber Cherry]

Huzurdaddi said:
SC: I think what you have done with Abysia's Salamanders is cool. The idea is right: make them useful. But the tripple buff of attack, length, and reduced cost seems a little much. They are *awesome* in combat.

They could use a little nerf. I like the attack and length mod. Perhaps an increase back to the old price or heck, even more than the old price.



OK, thanks, I'll look into that. With only ~5 attacks per battle (at 20 encumbrance) and low survivability (low protection and defense) I wanted to err on the side of cheapness, but my intention wasn't to give Abysia a new supreme unit...

[Huzurdaddi]

I don't think I would call them a supreme unit. And the trick with them is to arrange it so they do not get hit. But my quote to soapy was when fighting HC "Run *****es! RUN! BUUUURN!" Which is exactly what happens the 2nd round after contact with the enemy.

[Huzurdaddi]

Please don't take my word for it, I could be smoking crack. Whip up a game with indeps at 9 and let it rip! I was using rich world settings and that does seem to make the problem considerably worse since you can recruit more of them more quickly.

Oh and I have a question wrt. the Jotun Herse. Why did you reduce it's cost? Did you think it was overcosted at 60 gold? They are fine units. Compare them to woodsmen ( both are sacred ). Similar units except that the Herse is wearing actual armor.

[Saber Cherry]

Huzurdaddi said:
Please don't take my word for it, I could be smoking crack.



I'll keep that in mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Oh and I have a question wrt. the Jotun Herse. Why did you reduce its cost? Did you think it was overcosted at 60 gold? They are fine units. Compare them to woodsmen ( both are sacred ). Similar units except that the Herse is wearing actual armor.



I think they are highly overcosted for any purpose, other than weak unequipped (or maybe a lucky coin) Thugs when heavily blessed. Jotunheim has access to much better thugs (like Banes / Banelords). Even at 50g it is usually preferable for Jotunheim to let 30g indy human leaders do the leading.

Their stats are way lower than Woodsmen and they lack the useful abilities of Forest Survival and Stealth. In other words... anything that Herses can do, indy leaders or Woodsmen can usually do better.

Jotun Scout @ 50g
HP 32
STR 22
ATT 12
DEF 12
PREC 11

Jotun Herse @ 50g
HP 33
STR 21
ATT 11
DEF 10
PREC 10

Note that the Jotun Scout should 33-34 HP; the 32 is a mistake (as non-leader Woodsmen already have 33).

[Huzurdaddi]

Good point about the scout.

Perhaps the Scout is undercosted. Let look at the other sacred non-holy leaders. IIRC the sacred non-holy leaders are: the Shaman, the Wind Lord, the Hunter Lord, the Lord Warden, Keeper of Tradition, the Communicant, and the Prince General. All of the ones with combat potential ( everything except for the Shaman and the communicant ) are seriously expensive. I personally think that it is the scout which is out of wack and undercosted and not the Jotun Herse. As a matter of fact, I consider the Herse one of the more exploitable units in the game.

[FrankTrollman]

Question: in order to do this, it looks like you went through and figured out what al the weapon numbers corresponded to. Any chance that list is stored somewhere?

And another question: If you give a unit a weapon like "fire flies", does it actually shoot out a pile of those dinky little fires, or does it try to wield them as a melee weapon somehow? And if the former, how much ammo does it have?

-Frank

[Ironhawk]

FrankTrollman said:
Even with order 3 and productivity you can't afford 2 Black Knights a turn, and that means that you can't conquer neutrals in any kind of reasonable amount of time. Even a 3 turn build-up will just get smacked down by level 6 neutrals, and that's not cool.




After just having finished a game with SC's mod while playing Ulm, I can tell you that Black Knights are not the initial way to go vs indies. Just use about twenty or so of the ultra-heavy morningstar inf and you are ready to rumble. Which, by the way, can be done - given your starting force and a turn or two. Once you have all the provs surrounding your capital captured (for the production boost) then you can begin building BK's for your 2nd indy-killer force.

Additionally, its the choice of castle, not prod scales that effects production most. So as Ulm, in any non-blitz game, you would want to pick a Wizards Tower, since it is cheap/fast to build and has good production. This allows you to ramp up the total production of your empire far more than any prod scale. The only nuisance is that you have to muster your troops from many forts (easy for BKs, hard for footsoldiers)



They need a random elemental pick on the Smith



Iron Faith



PDF said:
Just build Arbalests, shielded chainmail units, back them with the Prophet casting SoC and it's done ...



PDF, how can you suggest to anyone that Arbalests be used? Ever? Thier rate of fire is so terrible as to make them usless. Unless thier accuracy or ROF has changed in the latest version of the mod?

[Saber Cherry]

FrankTrollman said:
Question: in order to do this, it looks like you went through and figured out what al the weapon numbers corresponded to. Any chance that list is stored somewhere?

And another question: If you give a unit a weapon like "fire flies", does it actually shoot out a pile of those dinky little fires, or does it try to wield them as a melee weapon somehow? And if the former, how much ammo does it have?

-Frank



I wrote down (with much help from others) the equipment IDs when I started on the Combat Simulator. You can search the forums for that thread... or just download Edi's Weapon and Armor Database, available at Arryn's site among others. I used Edi's compilation when making the mod because it is much more complete and up-to-date than the list I had made previously (listing all the weapon effects and so forth).

Fire Flies (like all spells) cannot specifically be given as a weapon, although multi-shot ranged weapons can be created, and it may be possible to replicate Fire Flies with a cleverly-designed weapon. Ammo can be modded, and ranged weapons are only used ranged, never in melee. A unit without a melee weapon will have "fist" or "claw" by default. Download Illwinter's mod manual for more info. BTW, also remember that ranged weapons do not cause fatigue.



Ironhawk said:
PDF, how can you suggest to anyone that Arbalests be used? Ever? Thier rate of fire is so terrible as to make them usless. Unless thier accuracy or ROF has changed in the latest version of the mod?



ROF and accuracy unchanged. However, they are now shield-negating (and 12 damage). I'm not entirely certain how projectiles and shields work - for example, if a person has no shield, is there a 100% chance of a projectile hitting, or a 45.7% chance (0 attack versus 0 defense)? I *assume* it is the latter but I'm not sure.


Stats:

Xbow: 10ap damage, rate 0.5, range 32.
Arbalest: 12ap damage, rate 0.333, range 45.


Hitrate versus a 2-defense shield (like a round shield):
Xbow: 30.2%.
Arbalest: 45.7% or maybe 100%.


Hitrate versus a 3-defense shield (like a kite shield):
Xbow: 24.7%.
Arbalest: 45.7% or maybe 100%.


Hitrate versus a 4-defense shield (like a tower shield):
Xbow: 18.4%.
Arbalest: 45.7% or maybe 100%.

Source: http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=243917&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o =&amp;vc=1

So against shielded enemies, modded arbalests are always far better than crossbows by virtue of the greater damage and range; their high hitrate always more than makes up for the lower firing rate. The only weakness of modded arbalestiers is the high rcost.

[PDF]

About Arbalests : Ulm *only* has Arbalests as missiles at start, so even if they're bad they're better than nothing.
Additionally a critical mass of arbalests can rout indies outright, or break a charge (on their 2nd volley on round 4).
Even in middle game, Arbalests are the only weapon able to pierce the more common high-protection units.
So they're not that bad IMHO.

[Huzurdaddi]

Another question about Abysia: Do you think it was wise to increase the combat stats of the slayer to match those of human assassins? The slayer has 17 HP and 9 prot. He is very tough. And when I say very tough I mean Indep commanders have a rediciliously low chance of taking him out.

Everyone should have a chance to play Abysia at least once in this mod. It's comical!

[Saber Cherry]

Huzurdaddi said:
Another question about Abysia: Do you think it was wise to increase the combat stats of the slayer to match those of human assassins? The slayer has 17 HP and 9 prot. He is very tough. And when I say very tough I mean Indep commanders have a rediciliously low chance of taking him out.



Maybe, maybe not. Slayers have poison daggers instead of the superior poison dagger + shordsword, and are very expensive. In my experience, unmodded, unequipped Slayers are very unlikely to kill more then 2 indy commanders before dying or being wounded, and they certainly can't take out a commander with bodyguards. In fact I never found them (cost-effectively) useful for anything, without magical items, but used them anyway just for fun. If you compare a modded Slayer to a Star Child or Empoisoner, they come out far, far behind. Slayers may have gotten too much of a stat boost, so perhaps I should set them back -1/-1 to attack 13 / defense 12, but in so doing I'd also reduce their gold cost to perhaps 75. I'll look into it.

[Saber Cherry]

PDF said:
About Arbalests : Ulm *only* has Arbalests as missiles at start, so even if they're bad they're better than nothing.
Additionally a critical mass of arbalests can rout indies outright, or break a charge (on their 2nd volley on round 4).
Even in middle game, Arbalests are the only weapon able to pierce the more common high-protection units.
So they're not that bad IMHO.



Well... except Ulm now has Sappers, who carry crossbows. At 20g, they are not a good generic missile unit in my opinion, but for example Ironhawk employed them effectively as his main missile unit in the Test game, and their sapping ability came in very handy. Arbalests are certainly much more effective against high-protection units like Knights, HC, and Dragons, though, whether original (14ap) or modded (12ap sn).

[Boron]

Saber Cherry said:

Huzurdaddi said:
Another question about Abysia: Do you think it was wise to increase the combat stats of the slayer to match those of human assassins? The slayer has 17 HP and 9 prot. He is very tough. And when I say very tough I mean Indep commanders have a rediciliously low chance of taking him out.



Maybe, maybe not. Slayers have poison daggers instead of the superior poison dagger + shordsword, and are very expensive. In my experience, unmodded, unequipped Slayers are very unlikely to kill more then 2 indy commanders before dying or being wounded, and they certainly can't take out a commander with bodyguards. In fact I never found them (cost-effectively) useful for anything, without magical items, but used them anyway just for fun. If you compare a modded Slayer to a Star Child or Empoisoner, they come out far, far behind. Slayers may have gotten too much of a stat boost, so perhaps I should set them back -1/-1 to attack 13 / defense 12, but in so doing I'd also reduce their gold cost to perhaps 75. I'll look into it.


You have to keep in mind that Abysia is a bloodnation.
One lifelong protection is enough and a slayer can kill almost any commander/mage unless it is a SC.

[Huzurdaddi]

Boron,

That's a great strategy for later in the game and makes people's lives headaches. But the stat increase to the Slayer did not really affect the effectiveness of that particular strategy.

However if you equip a slayer with a sword of fire he will kill all indep commanders. I ran over 100 assassinations last night and lost 3. He is even better than C'tis empoisioners equipped with a skull talisman. And about equal to an empoisioners with a skull staff and enchantment-3.

It's just that good.

[Ironhawk]

Saber Cherry said:
Well... except Ulm now has Sappers, who carry crossbows. At 20g, they are not a good generic missile unit in my opinion, but for example Ironhawk employed them effectively as his main missile unit in the Test game, and their sapping ability came in very handy. Arbalests are certainly much more effective against high-protection units like Knights, HC, and Dragons, though, whether original (14ap) or modded (12ap sn).



I did use some Sappers, yes. They are too expensive to perform in the traditional role. But their effectiveness lies in that they are a walking seige engine AND a decent missle unit. Buy 20 of them and your army just got +100 siege points with no significant loss of firepower - hello!!!

While Arbalests may seem attractive because of thier high damage potential, its really just wasted by thier low ROF. If they get 3 shots off in an entire battle it is a miracle. On top of this, they are actually even worse when used in combination with Ulmish units since they can actually kill a BP or BK unit!! Better to have Sappers or even better (for indys) shortbowmen, who can fire willy-nilly right into your heavy Ulmish troops formations and not hurt any of your own men.

There is a possibility that Arbalests could have some kind of niche role as a heavy-armor killer type missle. But in my experience, I would rather be putting those resources to BP Morningstars or BKs which I know will be effective and combine them with long/short/xbow &amp; battle magic.

[FrankTrollman]

In general, I think you went way overboard on giving out the #flail tag to weapons. I mean, lances?! That's why mounted people carry shields in the first place.

Yeah, rather than making every weapon and its mom kick shields in the jinglies, you should just make weapons generically and actually useful. The Arbalest should be #ratt -2, that's all it really needs to be a powerful incentive to play Ulm.

All of those changes really just made shielded units basically not worth it, and perversely therefore made Greatsword Barbarians overpowered. Since there's no incentive to have an army composed of anything but two handed weapon users, moderately decent THW guys became astoundingly the top of the heap. Standard heavy infantry has no survivability in this mod, so there's no real reason to employ it.

-Frank

[Ironhawk]

While I do agree that lances don't need any help, I dont see it as that big of problem. I mean if someone hits you with a lance as it currently stands... its not going to matter if you have a shield or not, since its going to do like 25+ damage anyway.

What does #ratt -2 do?

What other weapons got ignore-shield?

[FrankTrollman]

"#ratt -2" makes the weapon attack every other turn instead of every three turns.

Cherry has made the following weapons ignore shields:

Arbalests
Boulders
Blow Pipes
Lances

The following weapons have been made armor piercing:

Jaguar Bites
Niefel Axe Explosions
Niefel Swords
Mauls
Boulders
Alicorns

I honestly don't understand why any of this happens. The more you make weapons ignore the defenses of your opponent, the more you encourage people to run around naked with a big sword. In general, armor piercing should be extremely rare - as it's a specialized damge bonus against Ulm (and those losers need all the help they can get).

Remember, AP just means it bypasses half your armor. It doesn't mean it bypasses half your protection. If you want unicorns to be able to threaten dragons, just have them do more damage, do not give them a specialized bonus against Ulm.

-Frank

[Huzurdaddi]

FrankTrollman said:
Remember, AP just means it bypasses half your armor. It doesn't mean it bypasses half your protection. If you want unicorns to be able to threaten dragons, just have them do more damage, do not give them a specialized bonus against Ulm.
-Frank



Whaaa? This does not jive with what the dev's have stated else where wrt. AP. Is this correct?

[Saber Cherry]

FrankTrollman said:

Cherry has made the following weapons ignore shields:

Arbalests
Boulders
Blow Pipes
Lances




These weapons are not often used. Boulders should ignore shields, period. Lances should arguably ignore shields and are NOT the reason shields are used... Shields protect from light projectiles like arrows and slings stones, and melee weapons. Cavalry lances will go right through most shields, as I understand it.

The questionable ones are Blow Pipes and Arbalests. My rationale is that blow pipes are exceptionally accurate and used at very close range on tiny game like songbirds. So, ignoring the shield (and, say, hitting a unit's neck) should not be difficult, but it does not matter anyway as nobody ever uses them. Arbalests ignore shields experimentally to see if that makes them useful and balanced... the rationale being that the projectile has enough energy per unit area to rip through a standard wooden or leather shield. This may or may not be realistic, but I like it, and it was the majority choice in the ranged-weapons poll.

You can hardly claim that those changes make shields noticably weaker, let alone irrelevant! Blow Pipes and Hurlers are never used in the default game. Arbalestiers are very rarely used (you mainly encounter them as province defence). Lances are nice but only used once per battle, by very expensive and hungry units, or by Tien Chi cavalry which is still hungry but less expensive, and belong to a weak nation. Shields are no less vital than before, and Barbarian Swordsmen are still just as vulnerable to arrows, slings, blade wind, and melee units as before those changes.



The following weapons have been made armor piercing:

Jaguar Bites
Niefel Axe Explosions
Niefel Swords
Mauls
Boulders
Alicorns

I honestly don't understand why any of this happens.




Jaguar bites can (and do) crush turtle shells; they have the strongest (in pressure) bite of any animal, I believe. Mauls are designed for crushing stone (and so forth) rather than harming flesh, like normal weapons, and as such should do massive armor damage on rigid armors and easily cause fatal damage through (for example) heavy chain mail, without actually piercing it. Boulders have immense momentum that ignores armor, and a similar effect to mauls. And Alicorns are magical, armor-melting organic rods of spiraling death that are quoted in the definitive book "The Last Unicorn" as being used to kill Dragons. This is not possible with a non-AP Alicorn, as dragons have thick armor.

Again, these are pretty rare weapons, except for the Maul, which had no reason for existance. Mauls have a quite low attack now, and are essentially a great weapon for cracking Ulmish armor and Hoplites; reducing Living Statues and Gargoyle to dust; defrocking Monoliths and Sphynxes; mobbing protection-30 SC's; and possibly nothing else. So now they have some great specialty uses instead of no uses at all.

It's possible Niefels are overpowered (and if so, I'll change something) but I did raise the price, and they're a lot cooler now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.


The more you make weapons ignore the defenses of your opponent, the more you encourage people to run around naked with a big sword. In general, armor piercing should be extremely rare - as it's a specialized damge bonus against Ulm (and those losers need all the help they can get).



I do want to encourage people to run around naked. Unmodded Dominions makes naked or low-armor units generally worthless, and mid-armor units quite bad. 2-handed weapons are usually a terrible idea, giving a small damage or length increase at the expense of 2 defense and 3 protection; the Greatsword is the main exception (though many people like the Flail and Pike). However, I accomplished this encouragement through stat and pricing changes, not through the shield-piercing and armor-piercing changes, since those only affect rare weapons. Except the Maul, which was not rare (only useless) but now has been given a niche.


Remember, AP just means it bypasses half your armor. It doesn't mean it bypasses half your protection. If you want unicorns to be able to threaten dragons, just have them do more damage, do not give them a specialized bonus against Ulm.



AP halves all protection, not just armor protection. There is never a distinction between protection sources after the final value has been calculated. Unicorn horns are very special in that they melt through the offending obstacle, like a lightsaber. I don't want Alicorns slaying a Queen of Elemental Air in two hits, but I certainly do want them to damage a Dragon in accordance with history and physics.

[PDF]

Thinking about missile weapons "bypassing shields" : I'm not sure it would have any effects if the bypassing apply to the shield defense bonus. AFAIK missile weapons ignore defense altogether, they are aimed at squares and happen (or not) to hit stg in the square.
And I'm not sure the bypassing apply to the shield protection.
Lastly I don't find shield-bypassing missiles much rationalizable, unless they are rationalized as guided precision ammo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif !

[Arralen]

################################################## ######

RANGED ATTACKS
A unit's defense does not matter when being attacked by an arrow.
Precision just determines which square the projectile will hit.

The attack roll on the projectile is 10+2d6,
while the victim's roll is 10+shield defense modifier+2d6.

A tower shield for example has a defense modifier of 4.
################################################## #######

[Saber Cherry]

PDF said:
And I'm not sure the bypassing apply to the shield protection.
Lastly I don't find shield-bypassing missiles much rationalizable, unless they are rationalized as guided precision ammo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif !



The shield-negating projectiles I added (arbalest, boulder, and blowgun) are not "smart missiles," of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Boulder: If a giant throws a boulder at you and you block it with a shield, you'll still die. Hence they negate shields.
Blowgun: Used from very close range, with a flat trajectory and short travel time, a blowgun user should be able to shoot at an exposed body part.
Arbalest: A thin wooden or leather shield might be pierced by an exceptionally powerful hand-held crossbow. So if you extrapolate to bigger, stronger Ulmians, and realize that it takes even them 3 turns to wind the crossbow, and maybe their weapons are forged by the clever magical Master Smiths who can get much more than the normal crossbow energy efficiency, and perhaps the bolts are tipped with Black Steel with superior density and penetration ability, it is reasonable to assume Ulmian arbalest bolts could pierce non-metallic shields and still do damage.

Certainly, none of the projectiles are laser-guided or anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Kuritza_Dru]

How about making blowguns deal 1d2-1 points of an armor-negating damage + mild (or weak, or fatiquing) poison?
Historically, blowguns were only used with poisoned darts, otherwise they were as useless as... well, as they are in Dominions 2 now, maybe even worse.
Though I must say, I'm not impressed by poison in Dominions 2 (I've not been able to put it to good use, so I'm not even sure how it works).