Impressions of multiplayer tactics

[GreatWhiteBear]

Tested in the Remake.

Also, can we make corn and wine grow slower on dirt-snow mix.
It would look more realistic.

[caykroyd]

I'd like to see shield carrying soldiers having more defense against arrows.

yeah. or arrows, or all, i don't know, but i don't think its fair to have an axe fighter using additional shields and not gaining anything from it

[batoonike]

The shield protection from arrows sounds extremely good. Then maybe I would actually ever make a unit with shield and no horse Currently you don't need them for anything ever. Though it only has any real effect if the defense bonus vs arrows was really big. Something like virtually reducing a crossbowman to slinger.

[jakos2]

As for now if i dont want major changes ranged units must be nerfed mainly. The xbow attack is way too high and the archer is too strong too. I know in the singleplayer maps you mostly stopped the enemys massive army at a river or brigde, and with the lots of archer you could kill them. But now because of its power the meele is only used to stop the other meele or draw the fire. So if we want supporting ranged units we must weaken the ranged so that the crossbowman and archer have to deal less damage than a meele unit.
Now its time to test a lot and find a good mixe that would be fit. For example to start thinking an egangement between 35-40 axemen and an army with 20 axeman + 10 archer would cause a draw most of the time or just some units by luck. I dont know how big companies balance their games but we must find that the investment into archers how big againts just recruiting axeman. And the investment into xbows is how big againt an only axeman army. With this process the values of the army is clear so by testing the percentage of the defenses and attack could be balanced.
I think that my suggestion (to make horseman from axeman and swordsman) could fit in the game.

[Lewin]

yeah. or arrows, or all, i don't know, but i don't think its fair to have an axe fighter using additional shields and not gaining anything from it

The shield adds 10 attack points for the axefighter (compared to lance carrier) and 20 attack points for the sword fighter. (compared to pikemen)
That's 40% extra attack for axefighters, and 57% extra for swordfighters. That means they'll do 1.4x and 1.57x more damage. Sounds like a pretty good advantage to me.

Also, the direction from which the arrow hits does not effect the damage in the Remake so keep that in mind when you do tests. But you can't just calculate using the attack formula, because we customised arrows a fair bit compared to KaM. Some miss the target, some others have the damage reduced because they landed further away from the target (takes into account movement as well), and the accuracy is reduced over a longer range.
And 1 hit point restores every 10 seconds in the Remake. (including while in battle, if they don't restore while in battle fights are very much quicker than KaM) So in yours tests hit points were being restored to the units.

[caykroyd]

yeah. or arrows, or all, i don't know, but i don't think its fair to have an axe fighter using additional shields and not gaining anything from it

The shield adds 10 attack points for the axefighter (compared to lance carrier) and 20 attack points for the sword fighter. (compared to pikemen)
That's 40% extra attack for axefighters, and 57% extra for swordfighters. That means they'll do 1.4x and 1.57x more damage. Sounds like a pretty good advantage to me.

The shield adds those atk points? rly? strange... i always thought the diference in atk between melee and anti-horse was due to their weapon (whilst axe and sword have more atk, lance and pike get a bonus against cavalry), and i thought that the melee had more defense then the others.
once again, i'm mistaken :/
hint: the way it is doesn't sound much realistic, but never mind, not everything in the world is realistic

[Siegfried]

I think Lewin compared the amount of resources and work needed:
You need one additional item to train axe fighters compared to lancemen - the shield. The higher costs are justified by the higher attacking value. So this is kind of balanced.

[Lewin]

Yeah it probably is because of the weapon (militia also have 35 attack) but if you didn't need the shield, then the extra attack points wouldn't be fair. That would mean lances and axes are worth different amounts but cost the same.
There are good reasons why the units are balanced this way in KaM, I'd be very, very hesitant in changing anything. Changing archers is different because we can't produce the extra results from KaM quite so easily. (there are many unknown factors, where as melee combat is basically understood) However I think archers are already less powerful in the KaM Remake than in KaM TSK/TPR. I'm not opposed to making them miss slightly more often, but they will always be more powerful than other units because they don't need to be standing next to the enemy to injure them. (so you can have a lot of damage hitting one enemy, but with melee you can only have a few guys standing next to him hitting him)

[GreatWhiteBear]

I also noticed that the crossbowmen shoots at a target positioned 8 squares to the left and 7squares to the top.

That is ((8^2)*(7^2))^0.5= 113 which is closer to 11^2 than 10^2 so it should be out of range.

[caykroyd]

Yeah it probably is because of the weapon (militia also have 35 attack) but if you didn't need the shield, then the extra attack points wouldn't be fair. That would mean lances and axes are worth different amounts but cost the same.

It wouldn't be fair? how about the fact that lances are good against horses? shouldn't that balance the attack difference?? The axe fighter has the same attack as the militia (they use axes), and the axe fighter has the same defense as the lance carrier (they use leather armor). Where is the logic that the axe fighter should get a militia attack and a lance carrier defense, but spend an extra shield to make??
(Without trying to be rude or sound as if i know everything - i just want to understand, that's all)

[GreatWhiteBear]

Yeah, you are right about that.
Bonus vs cavalry is worth at least 10%.
But since cavalry isn't used due to its expensive horses, the only advantage for pike men and lance carriers is that they only cost armor, no shield.

[The Dark Lord]

Don't say cavalry is unused. I played a game yesterday and after my first farm I built a stable. By the time peace time was over I had a couple of knights, and I think I had about 40-50 cavalry units (mostly knights, at one point I even had 21 knights at the same time) in the whole game despite using just one stable. Many players build it very late, but it IS possible to have a lot of cavalry.

I think the strength of militia/axe fighter/lance carrier are pretty well balanced. For the cost of 1 wood you get 10% extra attack. Sure, the lance carrier has a 55% bonus against cavalry. But who will EVER use cavalry versus lance carriers? Lance carriers are handy to scare players with cavalry, but you will probably agree that most players use lance carriers the same way as militia and axe fighters: something that dies instead of your archers. Cavalry is mostly used to flank archers and not for melee combat, so that 55% bonus might seem alot but how useful is it exactly in real battle situations?
Personally I see axe fighters (and especially sword fighters) as some sort of 'luxury' unit: if you have enough wood you can afford them and that results in a 10% bonus.

On the other hand I agree that a defense bonus would have been more realistic AND more useful. The 10% attack bonus will hardly prove useful against a wall of archers. If they had a defense bonus though, they would survive longer and if you'd use a storm attack they might actually hit the enemy before they die.

[Lewin]

I also noticed that the crossbowmen shoots at a target positioned 8 squares to the left and 7squares to the top.

That is ((8^2)*(7^2))^0.5= 113 which is closer to 11^2 than 10^2 so it should be out of range.

The maximum range we use is 10.99 for this reason:
Range 11 gives you something like this:

  Code:

X XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX X

Range 10.99 gives you something more like this:

  Code:

XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX

These are NOT to scale, I'm just trying to show you why it's like this. We use 10.99 KaM's range looks more like the second one. If you have a rows of archers facing an enemy unit in KaM, either none of them shoot, or the entire row does (unless the row is quite long) You never end up with one unit from the row shooting and the others not, but if we used range 11 (or any whole number) that's what would happen.


Regarding the axefighters, it is NOT 10% extra attack, it is 10 extra attack points. (the % thing is a myth made up by some of the manuals, which were probably written by the publishers of the games not the programmers)
10 attack points compared to 25 is +40%, so it is a big advantage! The bonus of lance carriers against horsemen is not worth +40% attack in my view, because the enemy can mostly avoid sending mounted units against them. It's more of a threat to make the enemy hesitate when sending in their mounted units because they need to make them avoid your lance carriers.
I think the balance is good.
And I agree with The Dark Lord, I've seen cavalry used quite a lot. Some players don't bother with the stables or leave it on distribution 2 or don't build enough farms to supply it. But I encounter them most games I play.

[GreatWhiteBear]

I was more wondering why you don't use range 10.00 or 9.99 instead of 10.99.

I also agree with The Dark Lord, but on the point of improving defense rather than attack.
I mostly don't use storm attack because lagg sometimes delays the trigger to a time at which you aren't facing your enemy.

I still think horses should be faster, not much but faster than a charge. Or adding a gallop button which will increase speed for sometime, but decreasing it afterwards.

10% is just a habit, you know what I mean and thats what matters.

[Lewin]

I was more wondering why you don't use range 10.00 or 9.99 instead of 10.99.

If it was 9.99, a bowmen would only shoot 9 tiles in a straight line at the most. Measure it in KaM, I did that a long time ago and I found that the maximum range a bowmen would shoot was 10 tiles, so therefore we make it 10.99 and they will shoot a maximum of 10 in a straight line, but the entire first row will shoot at once. (due to the .99)

10% is just a habit, you know what I mean and thats what matters.

Well I mentioned it because 10% sounds like very little compared to 40%. If people didn't know what you meant they'd think "10%? That's nothing!"