Impressions of multiplayer tactics

[Shadaoe]

If you ask me the fighting in KaM is realistic and should not be changed that much, weren't archers and crossbowmen "overpowered" in middle-age ? Yes of course !
I'm quite interested in history and for exemple in the battle of Agincourt, during the hundred years war, the english army won against the french one thanks to their longbows, and you know what ? The english were 6 000 and the french 30 000. They killed the massive french cavalry with bows. They had 1000 melee fighters and 5000 range soldiers. So I think it's quite realistic to have a lot of ranged fighters and a few melee to defend them. Even though the terrain was against the french army, it's quite a miracle victory if you look at the number of soldiers for each camp, and the english were famous for their archers !
Also, look at the recent history, range combat has proven to be the most effective. That's a fact :p

I have one idea to improve the multiplayer fights : terrain factors. I'm sure it's a really hard thing to add to the engine of course, that's why it's only an idea :p Also, not a lot of people will like it I think :

Again the exemple of the battle of Agincourt : french cavalry was slowed down and disadvantaged by a "swampy terrain" (dirt and water, I don't know exactly the name).
-for the wet terrains, the strings of archers are not as effective, their range is reduced
-for the swampy/dirt/snow terrains, cavalry and all "heavy" soldiers are slower.
-on grass, cavalry is faster
-and there are many others
-I don't see a way to detect forests, so I won't say anything about this

Again, it's obvious that it's hard to implement (if not impossible), and maybe it would make fights really bad :p . But I think the ideas to improve the fighting should be based on the reality of middle-age ! In fact the KaM fights are already quite realistic, and I like it !
The realistic feeling of the game should not be sacrificed for some "balance" thing !

[Lewin]

That's a good point Shadaoe. I actually remember one of my friends saying he liked KaM because archers are realistic. He's really into history and he said that archers were very powerful and important in the middle ages, and KaM represents this well.

I'm not sure about different speeds on different terrain, it's not hard to implement but it kind of doesn't fit KaM IMO. I think it would make things very complicated because you'd have to try to organise a battle in a place that has a favourable terrain type for you. This feature kind of annoys me in games which have it, such as Stronghold. (Me: "Stupid man, get out of the swamp so you can walk at a normal speed!")

[Shadaoe]

I must admit I never (if my memory is correct) tested a game which had that type of terrain factor, so you're right maybe it's more annoying that anything else :p
Thinking about it, I can imagine saying the same thing to those slow soldiers !

And like your friend I really like the actual powerfulness (does this word even exists ?) of the archers ! I don't see anything good to change the fighting system of KaM right now (and indeed the terrain factors aren't that much a good idea :p ) But it's clear that it can be frustrating sometimes in multiplayer.

[batoonike]

The realistic feeling of the game should not be sacrificed for some "balance" thing !

In my opinion it's exactly the opposite The balance shouldn't be sacrificed for some "realism" thing!

[Jeronimo]

I opin the same as batoonike. However KaM as it is now, isnt 100% realistic with the Combat System.

I refer to Melee units who dont "persue" the target they were assigned to attack, when that target moves somewhere else.
With the current KaM script, Melee units simply stay quiet on the ground when the target changes ubication.

[caykroyd]

That's a good point Shadaoe. I actually remember one of my friends saying he liked KaM because archers are realistic. He's really into history and he said that archers were very powerful and important in the middle ages, and KaM represents this well.

Just adding a little comment, without complaining...
archers (im talking about longbowmen) were more powerful than crossbowmen if you ask me, they could fire a shot every something like 3 seconds and had a longer range. However, it took many years for a man to be able to shoot one of those giant longbows and be good at it, whilst the crossbow didn't need much practice...
i'm not saying that kam should be changed. I would really oppose changing kam because of that, it was just a little silly comment

[jakos2]

So now we are talking about realistic. You say that at agincourt archers won the battle. It isnt true. They won the battle cause the french taught that cause they highly outnumber the british they can send their troops without thinking and when they realised that their slow infantry took soo much damage (thousand of bodies laying on each other what slowing the "charge" more) they sent the cavarly what not just couldnt do anything, but they charged through their own infantry. Most of the french died not because of the arrows but because they couldnt get up after they got hit or their own cavarly charged into them that caused the same problem. After this they could only lay on the field and wait for the british spear that can end their lifes.

As for the crossbows. First they are stronger becasue its easier to learn how to use it. Second its precision was much better third yes a good archer can shoot hundreds of meters with a longbow but it will never hit as hard as comapred to an xbow. An arrow will never be as effective againt heavy infantry as an xbow.

So yes there were battles where ranged units were used very effectivly, but you can never win a battle with that. I can show lots of battles where cavarly won the battle or meele infantry won the battle (and yes there are some examples like agincourt where the very effective usage of the ranged helped) but u cannot say that yes they are the battle winners of the middle age. At agincourt the good british tactic beat the very poor french tactic.

[Lewin]

I refer to Melee units who dont "persue" the target they were assigned to attack, when that target moves somewhere else.

That's a bug, we will fix it. It requires us to rewrite/redesign the code for soldiers (which we were planning to do anyway) so it hasn't been done yet.

[Shadaoe]

In my opinion it's exactly the opposite The balance shouldn't be sacrificed for some "realism" thing!

That's a point of view :p

However KaM as it is now, isnt 100% realistic with the Combat System.

I refer to Melee units who dont "persue" the target they were assigned to attack, when that target moves somewhere else.
With the current KaM script, Melee units simply stay quiet on the ground when the target changes ubication.

A bug in the game doesn't even affect how much the game is realistic.

archers (im talking about longbowmen) were more powerful than crossbowmen if you ask me, they could fire a shot every something like 3 seconds and had a longer range. However, it took many years for a man to be able to shoot one of those giant longbows and be good at it, whilst the crossbow didn't need much practice...

Crossbows are easier to use, send stronger, faster arrows with a better strenght. Well trained longbows are very effective, with a better firing speed. I think that if we talk about "damages", crossbows are stronger.

So now we are talking about realistic. You say that at agincourt archers won the battle. It isnt true. They won the battle cause the french taught that cause they highly outnumber the british they can send their troops without thinking and when they realised that their slow infantry took soo much damage (thousand of bodies laying on each other what slowing the "charge" more) they sent the cavarly what not just couldnt do anything, but they charged through their own infantry. Most of the french died not because of the arrows but because they couldnt get up after they got hit or their own cavarly charged into them that caused the same problem. After this they could only lay on the field and wait for the british spear that can end their lifes.

... and maybe the archers were standing without doing anything while the french army was stuck into the swamp ? No, they did many kills with their arrows, and trust me, (I'm french and I know about the history of my country) this battle is famous for being an example of a battle won by range weapons.

I know there are many examples of the contrary, bu I speak about the middle-end of midde-age (like this game), which proved that ranged soldiers were very effective.

I didn't say that if you have archer you win, there's always :
-the commander skill
-the terrain (the terrain can also be against the archers)
-much more (morale ..)

It's just obvious they were core units in an army, and that you can't think they're just support. But it's also obvious that many factors could make a battle change. You can't win only by the composition of your army.

[jakos2]

Okay i dont want to argue cause i am not an expert my knowledge comes from reading. As for me i want realistic gameplay when i want to play singleplayer or campaign or co-op. But when i want to play pvp, i would rather play a balanced game than a realistic.

[GreatWhiteBear]

I am quite annoyed by the fact that when ordering a group of crossbowmen to attack, they wait till their flag man can, the others keep walking towards the target, which sometimes results in whole armies going down without you being able to change something about it before it is too late.
It isn't only me who is pissed about this, others started calling me names for the same problem happening with them.

[jakos2]

I think its because of the coding, so its the same bug as Lewin said before so we can only wait for them to rewrite this code.

[FeyBart]

Wasn't this discussed before? In my opinion, the default should be the original, and then you should have an option with more balanced game play. Everybody'd be happy then.

[Lewin]

I am quite annoyed by the fact that when ordering a group of crossbowmen to attack, they wait till their flag man can, the others keep walking towards the target, which sometimes results in whole armies going down without you being able to change something about it before it is too late.
It isn't only me who is pissed about this, others started calling me names for the same problem happening with them.

That's a bug due to the limitations in our soldier code design. We're planning to rewrite it but we're also in the middle of refactoring other significant parts of the code including building queues, deliveries (to make them more efficient/logical) and sprite loading. (to make loading faster)

[FeyBart]

(...)
That's a bug due to the limitations in our soldier code design. We're planning to rewrite it but we're also in the middle of refactoring other significant parts of the code including building queues, deliveries (to make them more efficient/logical) and sprite loading. (to make loading faster)

Does that imply the next update will be huge? I thought I heard somewhere you had also planned other stuff.