Knights and Merchants.net Forum

I am worried to start this topic, but i must. I think this question is always the most important as long as we want games to be interesting, compentitive and fun. The thing is that it is very plesaunt to enjoy the game. I think, people always expect fun when playing good well constructed strategy games. In this construction/system the most important thing is balance. For creating a good balance you must understand where is maxima and minima and understand wich elements of a system can help to provide equal interaction between parts of a system.

That was an introduction and now i want you to go throught few details of this quite complicated system - KaM Remake gameplay balance.

Ill try to do this by using the interdependence pricple and ofcourse i will hardly base it on princeple of difference, because it is what makes our world interesting and beautifull and wich holds the system interactions. The unitary system provide the distruction while system wich is based on differency is always consructive. So ill show you few the most important c o n n e c t i o n s wich brakes kind of equilibrium of the KaM remake balance:

- KaM Remake as long as i remember was always something really new and different compare to original game. You want to make game closer to original wich will give even more beauty to the project. So you did few moves in this way. For example, food production is much more important. What is a consequences of this move? Pracicly: You need more farms now to produce different types of wares. Ofcourse you can make sausages and play with the amount of farms you used in previous releases. But it makes game unitary and nondifferent. You can live with 9 farms and have eought decent weapon production if you use sausage strats. On the other hand you cant live on 9 farms when you want to have editional bread and horses. So you need 13 farms now. ITs 13 farms minimum wich is mostly impossible.
What is other consequence food productuion changes. You've taken a lot of time from playes by cutting their strategies in parts. Now they should all find the time for building a food production in the exactly same amount of peace time as it was before. So the actual consequence is that it is impossible to make as big army as it was in earlier releases. So now best players mostly have 40-65 units. When they could have managed 65-110 in release before. So it pulls the mechanism and more consequences comes. For example, less rushes , more macros.
Look now here! On the other hand you improved towers and you want to prevent builder rush. It will brake system so hardly because now players have better towers but less armed units. So how do you suppouse to atack the tower-town if you have that small armies. How do you expect us/players to go throught 10-15 towers? Its nearly imposible and completly not enought fun. I saw how it works. It stopps even the best players.
Earlier there ware ways to train different units for a battlefield. Use swordsman or axefighter, bow, etc. Now everyone clearly understand that xbows+lance cerrier is the most strong strategy and they freely play it in macro style while deffending their macro macro town by towers. So they are not more affraid about rushes, not more affraid about builders. Camping for everyone! Long tiredfull games for everyone. Back again to non-cavalry mode etc... The problem is that now you even made leather in the market 2 times more exepsive wich gives players less chances to make their gameplay as different as it was before. For me it is better to delete marketplace now because those who understands a game knows that this building is completly uselss now.

Guys, the main problem is that the algorithm looks now p a r t u a l y changed, but you need to change balance s y s t e m a t i c l y . Thats the biggest gap in logic. People think they will change a part or a symptom and they will cure or fix the whole thing. Wich is not always working. Please make changes systematicly and slightly/slower and everithing will be fine.

Please argue on empirical checked arguments. I am quite sure we won tournament with Revo because we understand the game very well but not because we are using to make everithing simple by using masses and tower-strategies. I Have a lot of expirience and what i write here was tested by me and i really want you to trust my opinion and be critiical enought to those who is rarely playing Remake(look in "towers" topic).

I also want to ask everyone who have personal problems with me: do not project our relationships in public discussions.Thnks

You describe a lot of problems, but I don't see a solution anywhere..

It's easy to criticize things, but it's hard to find solutions for problems. I'd have thought you'd have your own solutions, since you took a lot of text to explain the problem. I just think players were spoiled in older releases, since the change in food balance now completely mirrors original KaM. In that way, earlier versions of the Remake were just 'too easy'. I like the way it is now, since a lot of people just ignored food before, and built a massive army to vanquish the enemy before everyone in their village starved to death.

And btw, there is an easy solution to the one problem you say there are only small armies (45-60 units): increase Peace Time. You then have time for both food and weapon production.

Towers: In my opinion Mulberry is right about the tower change combined with the smaller armies. Defensive playstyles will most likely be the best.

Food: I can't complain about the food change since i still kinda ignore it, but thats only because my normal playstyle did fit the change already. This change won't cause too much problems when all maps start with more food, although its true that more people focus on just one strategy. When you want horses (1 stable) you have to "sacrifice" two farms without getting any food from it. This could be improved by reducing the horses grain cost a bit maybe.

I haven't tested the wine change yet although i think its a good change.
People want shorter games nowadays, so thats no option.

From the games I've played it's not that different to before. Players build more farms and more food, IMO that's a good thing. I don't think you need to build 13 farms as you said though, and if you do, then that's possible with slightly longer peacetime (70 minutes?).

I agree with T*AnTi-V!RuZz that people were spoilt before, food just wasn't a necessary part of the game. Why does it matter if players have a few less soldiers after PT? And if it does matter, just increase PT as was already mentioned! I haven't seen any players spam towers in this build, I really don't think it's as much of a problem as you're making out. They're still really easy to disarm with militia etc. and 3/5 units isn't that many, especially when you consider that they often waste more rocks by throwing at the same unit from two towers. If we see lots of defensive tactics being used we'll think about it, but so far I haven't.

I don't see what the problem with the market changes are. Please explain them more clearly, give some examples of which trades were useful before but are not useful now. Just saying "this is bad, do it systematically" doesn't really help. We need explains of why it's bad (not just how to "fix" it) before we'll change anything.

We're not trying to ruin the game, we're trying to improve it. I think the food and market changes do both. Maybe some small adjustments are necessary, that's why it's in beta now, so you guys can test it out and provide constructive feedback.

To be honest I think these changes add more depth and skill to the game. Rushing for iron is no longer viable, you have to find ways to produce food AND as much iron as possible. Everyone has to adapt their strategies, find new tactics that are most effective. I mean, it wasn't like we really planned the Remake the way it was before. The previous food values were just randomly guessed by Krom or I years ago, everyone became used to them, then suddenly when we make it like the original everyone complains because your old strategies don't work as well now. Well, find some new ones that do
It wouldn't have mattered what the original values were, people would have become used to them, and any change will always be complained about.

Hi Mulberry,

I guess you don't now me, neither do I know you, so it's safe so say that this is not meant to offend you personally. So please don't take this as a personal thing, I just completey disagree with you here.

In fact, I think you could not be more wrong. First of all you have to see, that the changes are not as serious as you describe them. They may hit your gamestyle, but this was not done on purpose.

I didn't take part in the tournament, so my opinion is not biased by a personal defeat or something. I watched some replays - and I cannot help but noticing, that your gamestyle was rather boring. It was nothing but a forced rush towards the highest number of units after pt. Then you defeated the enemies in the first clash. And as soon as the troops were gone, the match was over.

This was incredibly one-dimensional. Everyone adopted to this strategy, and I confess, that tried it too. As soon as someone tried to win by building a strong economy, he had no chance to win the first battle and thus the lost the match. No chance to safe your town with newly produced units. No chance to come back after the first battle at pt end.

You see, all of the changes actually do contribute to one big picture. They try to break the monotony that KaM Remake has in its current release. FInally they bring the economy back. It's a complex pattern now because you can't just focus on mass weapon production, but you have to keep a balance because mass production means a risk of dying now. This is the balance that you demanded.

The towers fit into that picture, because a tower doesn't prevent the enemy from attacking. At best, it's slowing the enemy down. And I hope that people understand that a tower inside your city is helpful. This requires a good plan at the beginning, which is skill. Camping still does not work (except it's done with skill), but also rushed don't work except you're skilled to balance your economy.

Quite some time ago I pointed out, that KaM Remake at the current state has two game modes only in theory. Battle and Building+Battle. But more or less, they were not that different, because both had one big battle, and the one with troops left after this battle had won. No second battle, no siege was neccessary. More or less, it was just over. Now things changed at least a small little bit.

And this is, what provides the fun for people. They have to develop their own balance. They don't have to rush for weapons neglecting the economy.
I'm only a mean player in KaM Remake, I never ever have the ambition to win (or even participate in) a tournament, that's why I dare to say that there are people out there who enjoy exactly this: the choice.
You say it yourself. It's the balance. Previously the remake was not balanced, because you _had_ to negelct the economy for a military rush. Now the economy is a bit more important, so you can't neglect it that badly. Still it's not the dominating factor, it's again the soldiers who decide who wins. This was a great choice by Krom&Lewin to do so. A subtle change, but still you can feel it.
You take the peace time as a given fact, but it's rather a fact of agreement. So why not add additional 20 minutes if you think that the initial battle has to have larger armies? In fact, pt has to change and adopt to the new balance.
The whole text that you wrote afterwards depends on the fact, that you see pt fixed at 60min. But there's really no reason to have this fixed. The new balance does not require to double the peace time, you merely have to give it a little extra time. So it does not end in long and boring games. You demanded checked arguments, why do you yourself provide this as a provocation rather than a fact?
I see the gap in your argumentation, because everything you said is based on a fixed peace time. But peace time is adjustable in reality, so your whole statement is untenable.

Well I love the change of the food, it feels like more part of the game to make food again, and feed your people. But like you said, it changes the whole game mechanic, wich isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I like the idea of having a smaller army after pt, now you produce like you say around 50 units, and then later on you will make 50-150 more. (depends on how long the game lasts). But well like you say,
it makes no sence to attack after pt, because towers are way to strong, except when emptying them with builders. I still think doing that is not fair, but I also agree that there's no other way.
A solution would be to increase pt but honestly, a game already takes a very long time, we have also other things to do so I don't see this as an option...

I'll suggest a possible solution to the gameplay balance problem. It's all about durability of the different unit types.

My solution is quite simple: Give to Units which require shield +1 life point.

If you do that, then all units in game will be worthy of training.
And horses more kickass than before (specially poor scouts which now can be killed by 2 militias).
---------------------------------------------------------------

Economic change (back to original) is great, but military balance continues sucking because in original game wasn't good either... hmm, it is not considered the fact that you need extra production time for these soldiers.

Small comparison
Lance Carrier: 3 hit points / leather + lance
Axeman: 3 hit points / leather + axe + shield

Everyone prefers Lancers, because they are as durable as Axemen in the battlefield... specially against mass shooters.
AND, Lancers mass make game non-cavalry mode. If Axeman had 4 hit points... we will see the big variety we wish to see.

The most sucky unit in-game now is Sword fighter, expensive and pussy dies against ranged very fast, so everyone ends producing Pikemen mass... As with Axeman, if this Iron unit had 4 hit points...
---------------------------------------------------------------

Before changing Stables... I'd rather see how cavalry performs if has 5 hit points (Scout and Knight).
Stables work preety fast, that's why demans 2.5 farms each one... but Unit has to be worthy.

Take note... 4 corns -> 1 horse (15 seconds rate -> Fast!)
If having them with 5 hit points doesn't promote as expected, then we can try with 3 corns -> 1 horse (2 farms x Stable).

I agree that making the peace time longer would solve many of the problems mentioned. But seriously, the games are too f***ing long already!You need at least 2 hours to play a game: waiting for people in lobby, having to live with someone lagging all the game (try to compare game clock with real life clock if someone lags continuously... 20 additional minutes lost on a 1,5h game, if not more), having to rehost after 15min because of a total newbie going out of stone or quitting... You propose to add 10min (or even 20!) to peace time, which would be great for economy, but for gods sake, with all the innocent changes that are really great for gameplay but crap for game time (more important towers ->encourages camping; or smaller armies->harder to destroy the enemy quickly), we're going to need 3 hours for one game soon... How does one win the match by building a strong economy? You said it yourself, the soldiers decide who wins. A guy who makes weapons versus a guy who makes a pretty city with hundreds of food and towers, will only result in having a stalemate. Again making the game longer - crap... Sieg, I really liked your post, and I agree with many things mentioned, but I totally understand where Mully's critical approach comes from.

Jeronimo's idea only fixes only the side problem mentioned here, but nevertheless I love it. Buffing up the shielded units was always mentioned but no one seemed to find a rationale for that, but now that xbows+pikemen is the most popular tactic, it may the the spot on. With that, everyone will need to use mixed armies I guess.

Believe me... that small change improves everything (even cavalry usage).
The resting issues reacomodate alone. You can still play with 60 PT.

If you need +10 minutes to make bigger army, you can still do it while scouting/fighting.
Why whinnying so hard? Indeed the problem has been the lack of military alternatives... but I guess my idea solves it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 comment for Mulberry: 9 farms -> 5 for bread, 4 for stables.
You can live and even have spare bread for something else.

Your comparison of 9 farms -> 9 bakeries is wrong. If you aim to eating the necessary + having horses.

I understand your frustation respect that Leather "via Market" is twice expensive in most cases, my brother also complained here at home... but it's because lots of players are used to play through market.

In the other side, you can still purchase horses at 5 chests or 2 iron bars... this remains untouced.
You can save Farm->Stable by doing this exchange which is same, tough buying Skins is not convenient anymore.

Okay then... On Mul's request I shall cast my gaze upon this topic and enlighten your minds with my opinion.
It's much harder to play now because food problems always lurk. But it's good, people didn't mind making farms and now they have to. You and me even made wine yesterday. I think it's great, if someone would produce wine (as fast as we did yesterday) in the previous release we would have laughed at them.
I actually like the lower amount of soldiers. In open battles, controlling your army is more important than before.
I agree with you here, this is a reason for concern. Although I approve of the tower improvement (they were undoubtedly too weak previously), the combination of smaller armies and more effective towers will strengthen mass tower tactics. So far I haven't had trouble with players who built 10+ towers though; time will tell us how bad it will be. Sometimes it's still easy to get through the tower walls for various reasons, and it does put your enemy at a economical disadvantage. Obviously it also has to do with the map you choose to play on: if players decide to make towers only on Volcano Valley or Paradise Island you might get a long and boring game, while on Back in the Desert it will be easier to find your way around them. I still think massing towers is a tactic that is not too hard to counter.
Yes, crossbowmen + lance carrier is overpowered. I used to make some pikemen in the past but I'm now faster at getting leather. I used to set my smithies to produce 10-20 iron weapons at a time because I might want to switch to pikes or swords and shields. But now I only make crossbows and iron armor and use everything else (especially lance carriers, often some militia and if I have much timber and little leather axe fighters) as a shield. Knights are an exception in my gameplay, as you know I love to have a couple of them.
I don't really know about the market values. I don't know what they were and what they are like now but expensive exchange rates sound good to me. I hate it when I have three pig farms and my enemy has just as many leather units while he has only one pig farm.
This is indeed an easy solution but not ideal since a game takes quite some time already. But as I said earlier I don't really mind about people having smaller armies now.
I disagree, that does not sound like Mul's tactic. I've played quite some games with him and he creates armies that nobody creates. His armies are varied; while I mostly make crossbowmen, lance carriers and militia (and sometimes a little cavalry), Mulberry succeeds in creating armies with all different units; even sword fighters and axe fighters. His armies are large after peace time but his economy is mostly such good that he will be able to recruit large amounts of soldiers during the rest of the game. If he wanted to 'rush towards the highest number of units after pt', as you described, he would just make crossbowmen/pikemen and lance carriers/militia like everybody else. But he invests in wooden shields and iron shields and horses too.
This is FAR from true, I've played games that lasted more than three hours. And believe me, there were more battles than just one. Our tournament match versus Luki and Woloszek is a good example (although it was a little shorter than three hours).
I've always approved this idea and I'll continue to support it. I'm not sure how '+1 life point' will affect balance, but what I mean is that units that require a shield really need a bonus. In our game on Volcano Valley some time ago I made 20 sword fighters, but they just MELTED in front of some crossbowmen... They are too expensive for the little use they are... Scouts are too weak as well. Knights have some use but you need to be careful. If I see some enemy knights I just think 'oooh, I'll send some lance carriers and crossbowmen'... But if things were as they should be I should wet my pants if I saw any knights or sword fighters.
On the other hand, axe fighters might then be too strong versus lance carriers, and the same applies to sword fighters and pikemen. Maybe crossbowmen just need to be less powerful.
I agree, we shouldn't strive for making games even longer.

I'd like to thank everyone for writing their opinions here, it's helpful even if most people have differing opinions
I know I was critical in my first reply here but I've been thinking about it and I agree there are balance issues that should be discussed and a lot of the stuff people have written here is very interesting.

Most of the balance changes we've made so far have centred around one principle:
No "technology" should be useless, or inferior when compared to another technology. All technologies should serve some purpose and nothing should be skipped from the game because it's never useful. Weaker technologies should still be useful because they are faster or cheaper (e.g. militia are very weak compared to other units but very cheap so they still serve a purpose)

Here are some examples:
1. In the past crossbowmen spam was an almost unbeatable tactic. All other units because basically useless, except for melee units which could be used as meat shields while your crossbowmen did the killing. We "fixed" this by reducing the accuracy of archers.
2. In r3392 food was basically useless. If you made a food production you would have less army than players who didn't, and there would be no real advantage from the food you produced. We have "fixed" this by making the hunger system like original KaM.
3. After fixing food it became apparent that wine was basically useless because it was very expensive to make and only restored a small amount of health. We've "fixed" this by reducing the number of fields required to 9 and the amount of health it restores increased to 30%.
4. People said that in r3392 bowmen were basically useless because crossbowmen are so much more effective, and bowmen aren't that much cheaper to produce. In the release candidates bowmen are now slightly more accurate than before, I don't know whether this has addressed the problem though, nobody has given feedback yet (see below).
5. At the moment axefighters/swordfighters are basically useless. They are marginally better than lance carriers/pikemen, but not enough to make anybody use them. This is sad because it's 2 units from the game that basically go unused, along with their awesome ability, storm attack! Same with scouts/knights to a lesser extent, they're still useful because they're so fast and manoeuvrable. Adding an extra lifepoint to units with a shield seems like a good idea to address this, I think it should be tested.
6. Regarding the market, it needs to be balanced so it is useful in itself, but so it does not make any other technologies redundant (i.e. there should always be good reasons to produce resources the old fashioned way rather than trading for them) I'm not saying this has been achieved effectively yet, we'll welcome suggestions for changes though.

Balancing these things is very difficult, that's why we do beta testing and listen closely to our community. Your feedback is very helpful.
It would be nice to see more variety in tactics that are effective such as:
- No swine farms, wine/mills/bakeries for food and extra stables where you'd usually have swine farms, then lots of iron production.
- Sausages+wine for food, meaning more corn can go to the stables.

Units with shields:
Currently axefighters and swordfighters have 3 lifepoints, knights and scouts have 4. Lets test it with +1 for both of them. (so axefighters and swordfighters have 4 and knights and scouts have 5) To be honest I'm not sure we should change it for knights/scouts, 5 is a lot of lifepoints and they were already more useful because of their speed.
Here is a patch FOR THE RELEASE CANDIDATES ONLY:

EDIT: This experimental file was removed. We will be testing other ideas after this release to find a solution, stay tuned.

Do NOT install this in r3392 because it will just crash the game and ruin it for everyone (no, you can't cheat like this it doesn't work). In the release candidate it will not let you join a lobby if the host has different data files, so you'll know whether players are using the changed version.
To install it, browse to "data\defines" and extract it. Delete units.dat and rename one of the two files from the zip to units.dat (unit-shields.dat is the changed one, unit-original.dat is the old one in case you want to revert)
Hopefully you can organise to play a few games with the change and see how it goes. Please post your feedback when you do. Make sure somebody still makes lance carriers/pikemen so you can compare it, you can't tell how well it works if everyone is using axefighters/swordfighters
Please remember, this is only a test, it won't necessarily be implemented.

Towers:
I see the point that camping behind 15 towers will be more effective now, but I'm not convinced it will be that hard to counter. Maybe somebody could try it? Play a multiplayer game and camp with towers and see how effective it is? (make sure the teams are fairly balanced though)
To those who say towers are overpowered, If one tower kills on average 3 units, that's costing you 3 wood + 2 stone + your labourers/serfs valuable time that could be spent on other buildings to kill just 3 units. I don't see how they're overpowered. Mostly towers are only charged once, so each tower usually only gets one chance to throw the rocks, it's rare in multiplayer that a tower is filled up again and throws all the rocks a second time. And also some towers are inevitably avoided because not many maps only have one really narrow entrance, so the person building them gets nothing from those towers but wasted time/resources.

Longer games:
This is definitely not something that we want. I don't think the food changes have made a big difference though, people still have quite large armies after 1 hour peacetime (especially people who have adapted their strategies). If you want to play a game with an epically big battle sometimes you can increase peacetime by 10-20 minutes for that game. Also our planned multiplayer mutators like "no hunger", "speed up during peacetime", etc. can be used (when/if they're implemented) if you want games like that in a shorter time period.

Archers:
Compared to r3392 archers now target units randomly rather than always the closest target. This means their fire is less "directed" and so inflicts less damage overall because units restore their lifepoints when archers aren't killing them systematically one by one. To counter balance this we've made them slightly more powerful. Also bowmen were made slightly more accurate than crossbowmen, previously they were the same. So far nobody has given feedback on these changes. I think the random targeting is undoubtedly better, but I think we might have made them a bit too accurate, what do you think? And has anyone noticed bowmen are more effective now? We need feedback

Release schedule:
This release candidate seems to be very very stable, so from a bugs point of view it's just about ready for release. However as I've mentioned about the balance changes haven't been tested enough. I think we'll probably end up doing a 3rd RC in a week or so because some of this balance stuff will probably need changing. I'd personally rather delay a bit and get it all sorted out. Better to do a lot of balance changes in one release than over multiple, so people don't have to adjust their strategies a lot with every release (no doubt we'll get complaints about these changes anyway from people who liked playing without hunger ).

I haven't discussed much of this with Krom yet, a lot of what I wrote here are my personal opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the KaM Remake developer team. For those of you wondering why Krom isn't more involved in this testing process, I usually organise the beta testing while Krom continues coding stuff for the next release. Of course we still discuss balance changes/tweaks together. This wasn't really planned, it just turned out this way, I guess we just naturally do what we enjoy/are good at. To be honest I don't mind this kind of coordinating/testing/balancing stuff, and Krom is certainly more skilled than I am at refactoring code and navmeshes

@Lewin: Hehe, thats right I'm also not as good at writing as you are

@Topic: I agree with Sieg, TDL and Lewin. Balance changes are needed. I agree with all suggested changes except for making +1hp. As said - 5hp is already too much. Footmen are good at stormattacks, thats their "knack", so maybe we should exploit that and make storm attacks a little better, so that they were an effective tactic. Maybe make them a little faster, a little more controllable or a little more organized (less scattery) ? Militia being most scattered and axe/swordmen being more organized?

Making storm attack more useful is another good balance change, since it's rarely used at the moment (network delay makes it harder to use too). Even so, I don't think anybody will make axefighters/swordfighters just because of storm attack. Lance carriers also have their own knack, they are very powerful against mounted units. That's at least as good as storm attack (maybe better) even if we improve it. Axefighters/swordfighters only have 3 hitpoints at the moment, increasing them to 4 would only make them the same as a knight/scout. I personally think increasing the hitpoints would be the best way to make these units useful again. I'm not sure whether I agree with scouts/knights being increased from 4 to 5 since that's higher than any other units in KaM, and knights/scouts are already very good for flanking. But they're weak against lance carriers/pikemen, so it does balance out to some extent.
I often see knights/scouts in multiplayer games, I can't remember the last time I saw an axefighter/swordfighter...

Maybe I'm the first in giving the new stats an intensive testing...
As far as I downloaded the archive, I made new map 64x64 and started making different kinds of confrontations for 1 hour.
Differents in numbers and combinations... tired of confirming the obvious, I reached a final conclusion: Balance is Ready.

Observations: Scouts & Knigths with 5 hit points aren't imba... It is finally nice to see Scouts doing something.
With the Knights I almost felt no difference (but surely a bit more durable).
Lancers with their UUU, and Pikemen with the UUUU (ouch!), eat those 5 hit points with good speed, as their weapon is destined for.

I laughed with Lancers vs Swordmen... it feels refreshing watching a Swordman fight against 4 lancers and tank them for 8 seconds!
Of course Swordman will die if alone, but having friends around they can make good kills now.

Stables should stay working at their normal rate (several farms), because you will like new cavalry... doesnt suck or die too fast vs compacted Xbows. I personally liked a lot the new performance from Scouts.
I have some farms but which to build... Bakeries/Swines/Stables? Gentlemen redesign your strategies.
------------------------------------------------------------

Archers feedback: I tested Archers+Pikemen vs Xbows+Lancers (first combo wins). I like how Lancers are now that of a "Militia good vs cavalry and durable vs Ranged"... but not anymore a crushing force in battlefield (when insanely massed).

Archers destroy inmobile targets faster than Xbows, thanks to new increased accuracy.
I mainly talk about destroying towers in a matter of seconds! If you have like 20 archers, you need 45 secs to take down a tower... so Tower Mass fails vs player with decent amount of archers.

1 more note: Archers still can take down those Swordmen with 4 HP... yes, isn't impossible and felt REAL (in timing comparison).
------------------------------------------------------------

@Krom: Storm Attack is Fail... disorganizes everything in your army, and doesnt provide a real bonus, just a messy frontal assault... in this game where position is important, sending disorganized waves is going suicide towards your enemy.

In my opinion, Storm Attack only works for not letting your opponen'ts army retret, like "Oh! I caught you! Time to die!", but this mostly works if you have BIG numbers and a good open terrain... almost never.

Imagine why Militia has this for free . Sometimes you see Mass Militia doing a massive charge, with no really good results.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Improving just Storm Attack wouldn't attract players attention because the problem passes through Units durability.
If developers still want to make this ability "more controlled" I have an idea...

When a unit from the squad gets in contact with an opponent, the soldiers stop running and immediatly walks towards target, or lets say "acomodate" to attack that enemy squad from theirs current position (surrounding him as always).

The idea behind a Storm Attack is preety simple: Is nothing more than a quick approach to enemy lines.
The best Formation to activate Storm Attack is full horizontal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The problem isn't in the strenght of axemen and swordsmen, problem is that there is no time for making this units like a mass..(becouse food is now very important). for me is +1 hp too much.. that is incredible + 33% hp for this units. make this change only for foot soldiers is depreciation for horse wares. if it's possible.. slightly upgrade armor of these units is better solution.. Is possible do armour value like 3,5 etc. ? or it must be just 0 or 1 or 2 or 3.