How combat should work

[Humakty]

This thread is not clear : do you intend to simply rework the tech tree, or do you want to redo all the combat system and how units must be used ?

 

[Darkform]

Vampire Counts should have access to ICBMs.

no but realy Vampire counts should have access to all Teachs that at least 1 other civilized civ already has.

I think their tech tree should be:

Eternal Life
Necromancy
Futuretech (or whatever you call it)
and the government tree

and then any other tech as long as someone else got it first. (that is they can research all the other techs also but only after at least 1 civ other than them has that tech. the Vampire Counts scavange tech from others except the techs I mentioned.) (to not confuse the AI most of the spell techs shouldn't be able to be researched. but I think if you gave the Vampire counts another 10 years past WH armybook they would have cannons. all they got to do is get to a Empire weapon depo.) of corse things like cannons would posably be 2 times as expensive for Vampire Counts do to having to have Vampire Thralls manning them. (the other undead are ether to braindead or to insane to run them.)

 

[Ahriman]

This thread is not clear : do you intend to simply rework the tech tree, or do you want to redo all the combat system and how units must be used ?

What I think we should do is some relatively minor tech tree adjustments (as in the tech tree thread) and then mildly increase the role to which units are soft counters for each other, so most unit types have a bonus or vulnerability vs some other unit type (as in post 48). This would fit pretty easily into the existing unit design, and into the current faction unit armylists. I agree with the basic idea that this would help promote combined arms, and that the general lack of this is one of the glaring weak points of FFH.

I think Squirreloid wants to completely redo both the tech tree and all the unit design, which I think is really not worth the effort to do it.

I also don't like Darkform's idea of somehow making vampires reliant on other factions for tech. It really isn't very in theme, and it would be very hard to implement and balance. If anything "pillaged" tech fits Greenskins better than it does undead. And there are some better ways of implementing something like this for greenskins; eg when greenskins capture a city and it ends resistance and is butchered down to pop1 and converted to greenskin religion, give the greenskins a one-type beaker payment of 25 beakers per population point killed.

 

[Ajidica]

I agree with Ahriman on the Vampires Tech scavenging. This would take away some of the uniqueness of the greenskins and I always tend to view aristocratic vampires as complete elitists, they wont use it if they didnt invent it or come up with the idea (barring a few circumstances).

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

What I think we should do is some relatively minor tech tree adjustments (as in the tech tree thread) and then mildly increase the role to which units are soft counters for each other, so most unit types have a bonus or vulnerability vs some other unit type (as in post 48). This would fit pretty easily into the existing unit design, and into the current faction unit armylists. I agree with the basic idea that this would help promote combined arms, and that the general lack of this is one of the glaring weak points of FFH.

I think Squirreloid wants to completely redo both the tech tree and all the unit design, which I think is really not worth the effort to do it.

pretty much sums up what i plan to do, except im going to do a little more than just "relatively minor tech tree adjustments" there are a lot of great ideas on how to fix the tech tree and it will be a fairly big job (i want to do it RIGHT the 4th time...)

 

[Ahriman]

pretty much sums up what i plan to do, except im going to do a little more than just "relatively minor tech tree adjustments" there are a lot of great ideas on how to fix the tech tree and it will be a fairly big job (i want to do it RIGHT the 4th time...)

Can I suggest you post some of these? Things might work better if you post your intentions and get some feedback. Though obviously the final decision needs to be yours.

 

[Darkform]

*waves his hand in front of himself*

"these are not the droids you're looking for"

 

[Humakty]

Ahriman : well if you do a document as for the nations, I'm ready to implement the changes, even if the lost of time must be correctly evaluated : modifying ALL existing units will be a long and tedious work : we must balance our priorities (vs implementing new stuff this mod desperately need), and think of the balance ahead, because I'm ready to do it once but not ten times ! Personnally, I think there is no real need for a complete rework, but...)

And of course we'll need the approbation of Psychic Llamas

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

im with Humakty still

 

[Ahriman]

Well, basically I'd go ahead and implement the changes made in this thread (or something like them - feedback would be great!).
The one downside of this type of system is that when archers are the city defense units, and shock cavalry are the anti-archer units, then shock cavalry become the best city attackers.... which is a little ridiculous. This can be mitigated with a city attack bonus (which I added to knights in my design).

I can write up a document that describes changes to all the core units and to all the currently implemented UUs. Might not happen until Monday next week, I'll see how I do.

I can try to update the various design threads as time allows; most of them won't be too bad though, because many of the changes are "same as unit X except for feature Y", so the design intention will still remain the same.

Can anyone come up with a reason for why so many (non-missile) units have first strike chances? My design will probably remove all these; its a mystery to me as to why millitia swordsmen should have a first strike. (Is it supposed to represent shields - the idea that giving the swordsmen a first strike effectively negates one first strike of a unit with more first strikes?. Or weapon length? I don't see why swordsmen should be getting first strikes against another melee unit.)

 

[kairob]

I agree with making combat more sensible and intuative than cIV is. Mounted cavalry should only really be able to be taken out by ranged units on foot (who are smaller targets, have longer range and a higher accuracy) rather than been beten by spearmen!
Lets ditch split mounted into heavy and light segments (or mounted melee and ranged melee) so we can give indevidual boneses to and against them seporatly.

I say the ideas in this thread need implementation. Also give all cavalry (heavy and light) -75 city attack.

 

[Ahriman]

Mounted cavalry should only really be able to be taken out by ranged units on foot (who are smaller targets, have longer range and a higher accuracy) rather than been beten by spearmen!

Do you mean missile cavalry here?

Shock cavalry and missile cavalry make more sense than "light" and "heavy".
A city attack penalty for cavalry *might* make sense, but 75% would be way too much. Maybe 20%. If so, then chariots should too. But we need to be careful with this; chariots and knights are the only high attack strength units that many factions get. We don't want to leave factions without some tier3 units that can be used to take cities.

Also remember that:
a) Many factions don't get many or ANY missile cavalry units, so we want to be careful with letting them be too important.
b) Many factions (eg Hung, Brettonnia, Kislev) are very cavalry oriented, so we want to be careful about making it too hard for cavalry heavy armies to take cities.

 

[Ajidica]

I dont think that the cavalry city attack penalty is a great idea. For light cavalry that works well, but for heavy cavalry, the rider can dismount and function as excellant heavy infantry. With the exception of French and German knights, most other heavy cavalry saw no problem in dismounting to fight. This also shows the power of cavalry because until the AI can field armies outside of cities and we can get good field battles reguraly, 80% of all battles are attacking cities.

I have some other ideas, but I dont want to post them until I can figure out or someone can tell me, is Warhammer fantasy with medieval/renniasance europe added or medieval/renniasance Europe with fantasy added?

 

[Ahriman]

I dont think that the cavalry city attack penalty is a great idea. For light cavalry that works well, but for heavy cavalry, the rider can dismount and function as excellant heavy infantry. With the exception of French and German knights, most other heavy cavalry saw no problem in dismounting to fight. This also shows the power of cavalry because until the AI can field armies outside of cities and we can get good field battles reguraly, 80% of all battles are attacking cities.

I don't really think that this is the point. A regiment of knights represents many many fewer men than a regiment of swordsmen; that regiment of knights with lances dismounting are going to be *far* less effective than an actual regiment of swordsmen. And knights are going to be much less effective on foot than they are in the saddle.
The issue is more of a gameplay one than a realism one.

I have some other ideas, but I dont want to post them until I can figure out or someone can tell me, is Warhammer fantasy with medieval/renniasance europe added or medieval/renniasance Europe with fantasy added?

I would definitely say that Warhammer is fantasy first, set in a medieval/renaissance world. Historical accuracy is to be taken lightly; we have ancient egyptian undead, 14th/15th century knights and longbowmen/crossbowmen, 17th century pistoliers, 16th century pikemen arquesbusiers, 19th century steampunk tanks and ironclads, 10th century viking raiders, 14th century mongol horse archers, ratmen, orcs and dragons.

 

[Ajidica]

Why would the knights be less effective dismounted than mounted? I understand that they are smaller in number, but knights have been training from birth and have the best in armour, weapons, and training. Most infantry in Warhammer seem to be militia or pikemen which each have less training than knights. The Normans and Justinian era Byzantines often choose to dismount the knights when they needed good infantry and on the crusades, the best troops in the entire army (with the exception of the mounted knights) were the dismounted knights (by best troops, I mean the best in a toe to toe fight.)

To sum it up, knights may be less in numbers, but due to their training, weapons, armour, and morale, they are at the very least equal to infantry in battlefield effectiveness.

 

[kairob]

I am with Ajidica here. Limiting the city attack penalty to Horse Archers is better with Realism, and also works better for gameplay as Horse centred civs still have city attack capabilities.

 

[Ahriman]

Why would the knights be less effective dismounted than mounted? I understand that they are smaller in number, but knights have been training from birth and have the best in armour, weapons, and training.

Because knights weaponry and training is designed for fighting from horseback; their unstoppable power comes from the momentum of a charge coupled with the weight of their horses and the reach of a lance. This is what the very high attack rating on knight and lancer units in the mod represents (and why they're more effective in open ground than in forests or jungles or marshes; by your logic, they could just dismount and fight just as effectively).

Heavy armor isn't really designed for fighting on foot, nor can you really use a lance.
Also, you really can't climb a siege ladder or charge on foot effectively in very heavy armor.

I know of no historic cases of dismounted heavy cavalry ever being used as assault troops.

on the crusades, the best troops in the entire army (with the exception of the mounted knights) were the dismounted knights (by best troops, I mean the best in a toe to toe fight.

Crusader knights fought dismounted when they had lost their horse or could no longer afford one.


But gameplay trumps all. I see no need for a city attack penalty for missile cavalry units only; missile cavalry units already have a lower attack strength than shock cavalry units (horsearchers vs light cavalry/lancers, cavalry vs knights) so an extra penalty isn't really necessary. Missile cavalry are already pretty inferior troops for attacking cities.
Plus, archery units get city defense bonuses AND bonuses vs missile cavalry in my redesign, so using missile cavalry to attack cities is already pretty unwise.

 

[Ajidica]

On knights being used as shock troops: The reason you hear of very few instances of knihgts being used as shock troops is becasue a general would only dismount his knights if he really needed defence or assault infantry. Examples:
Byzantine Heavy Cavalry: Belisarius often dismounted his cavalry when he needed good infantry.
Late Merovignian French: Charles Martels entire army (I'm not counting militia as part of the army, I consider army as permenant standing troops or organized bodies) was made up of cavalry and often dismounted to attack. EG: Tours.
Varangian Guard: The Varangian Guard were originaly cavalry but became infantry when Basil II needed more infantry for his Bulgarian Campigns.
Norman Crusaders: The knights would always dismount when attacking a city and were firghtfuly effective agaisnt the Muslim Infantry.
Dismounted English Knights + Longbowmen: Crecy and Agincourt, need I say more?
Austrian vs. Swiss Cantons: The only reason Leopolds knights lost when dismounted against the swiss was becasue he insisted on them using lances to attack halberds.

Plate armour was very effective regardless of wheter the knight was mounted or not. The armour was generaly designed for dismounted use becasue of 'chivilraic' sword fight. There are no cases (in my knowledge) of heavy cavalry armour being less effective than heavy infantry armour. The cavalry (if not using expensive plate or chain) used the exact same armour as the heavy infantry with a few modifications (adding armour to the calf).

I do not feel that knights should loose the terrain penalty, that is fine. But as it is currently, cavalry, unless they are designed to be the key of the army, (Bretonia, Hippus) tend to be a weaker choice. They cost more, they dont get terrain or fortification bonus's, they dont get city raider promotions, and are on the whole less of a reliable choice. This runs contrary to most of history and Warhammer (at least in Ancient Battles) where heavy cavalry were on the whole more useful than heavy infantry because they can dismount while the infantry cant mount.


I only feel that heavy cavalry should loose a city attack penalty but keep terrain penalties for the sake of gameplay and realism.


Oops, a little longer than I intended.

 

[Ahriman]

Bah! Just lost a big post to accidentally hitting “back” in browser (stupid laptop).

To summarize:
1. I am ok with no city attack penalty for shock cav units, but I’d argue that this decision should be gameplay based rather than worrying about “realism”.
2. If no city attack penalty for shock cav units, then definitely also no city attack penalty for missile cav units. These units already have lower attack strength, and (in the new design) are weaker vs archer units (which are strong at city defense).
(*edited*)
3. Mounted units are already very powerful in this mod. They have high attack strength (eg 8 for light cav, 12 for knights vs 7 for swordsmen, 7-8 for pikemen/halbardiers, 10 for giants/griffons), good mobility (and excellent for pillaging), and offensive AND defensive withdrawal chances (they’re amazing with flanking promotions). They’re more useful than in vanilla civ, and only get better with shock promotions (since all the units with anti-mounted bonuses are melee units).
4. Some of your historical examples are whacked.
Martel’s troops were primarily infantry, and Martel’s cavalry didn’t have stirrups! So they’re mounted infantry really, not knights or lancers.
As for Tours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
“Though outnumbered and depending on infantry, without heavy cavalry, Charles had a tough, battle-hardened heavy infantry who believed in him implicitly.”
Crecy and Agincourt were won because of effective massed use of longbows and superior defensive positions, not because dismounted heavy cavalry were particularly effective.
Varangians have almost always been portrayed as heavy-axe-wielding infantry. You can’t use weapons like that effectively from horseback.
And even if they were once a cavalry regiment that was converted to infantry over the course of some years, that is completely different to a cavalry unit dismounting.
The main point is simple; heavy cavalry units, almost by definition, are much more effective in fighting while mounted than while dismounted (mostly because they are much fewer in number), so an arguable way to represent this would be through lower strength when forced to fight dismounted, either in closed-in terrain or in cities.

 

[kairob]

2. If no city attack penalty for shock cav units, then definitely also no city attack penalty for mounted cav units. These units already have lower attack strength, and (in the new design) are weaker vs archer units (which are strong at city defense).

did you just copy my mistake and put mounted cav instead of ranged?
I thinkwe should boost ranged cav then, they were very powerfull (look at the Huns, the Mongols, the Turks etc...) on the open field, a boost to their stats would help balance a weakness to ranged and city attack.