Balance testing release r4297

[Da Revolution]

Only when facing mounted units. And cavalry isn't as popular in the current format as it once was. Furthermore their popularity as an ranged unit counter will decrease because axefighters and/or swordfighters will become an ranged unit counter as well if this alteration would be implemented.

Then why put resources into the production of horses if you get the same effect as a regular axefoghter and/or swordfighter?

You do know that mounted units (Yes they actually got a shield) got buffed as well? I've never seen knights being this popular before. They eat militia and axefighters. Knights and scouts both have 1hp more than their not mounted equivalent.

I was actually more concerned about the fate of crossbowmen, as you said 'remain the same'. However they went through several changes.

Crossbowmen are still useful. I tend to make 40-50 after pt every game and it works really good for me. Especially since more people make militia nowadays.

Moreover, axefighters were always a stable unit. The only factor that makes them less popular than lance carriers is the fact that nowadays it's alot more difficult to gather wood quickly. But that has rather to do with the trade ratios of the market place, more specifically those to obtain tree trunks.

The only thing stable about them back then was that no one made them. I started massing lancers before i used the market for extra trunks, check their stats. You get way more meat for your wood. By the way you do know that the trade ratios are changed several times?

As last, please join the balance testing sometime so you really know about the dominant tactics. For example almost no one is making a lot of axefighters.

[-George Stain-]

Also, this second bonus axefighters and/or swordfighters would get is by implication contradictory to the rock paper scissors system. Mounted units are already a counter to ranged units. Giving ranged units two foes that are able to take them out quite easily, together with the enfeeblement of these ranged units will mess with the entire war engine. I thought ranged units were supposed to be an important unit on the battlefield. Mounted units were already hard for ranged units to take down. Let alone an axefighter and/or swordfighter with not only an attack bonus but also a defense bonus to these ranged units.

this is the worst problem for me, I agree with you in this point.

lancer 25 attack (100%) axefighter 35 attack (140%) = axefigher has 40% attack bonus from shield
Pike 35 attack (100%) swordfigter 55 attack (157%) = sworfighter has 57% attack bonus from shield

these bonuses are prety cool.. but nobody is using them becouse axe and swords are killers, but they gettind same dmg from archers as pikes and lancers, so everybody need meat shied.

So I think best way how to rebalance these type of units isn't just BOOSTED them + 1 pierce armor, but add + 1 pierce armor and remove or reduce attack bonus.. same can be for horse equivalent, cavalry unit is enought strong to kill 1hp archer, but problem is just to catch these archers, so cavalry is still best solution.

I played lot of games in relase candidate (patch). Swords and Axes really own battlefield.. market and rush is another story, please don't talk about personal strategies like.. "I can beat you with mass knights rush muahaha"

[Lewin]

@Plaguesworn: Axefighters and swordfighters were very rarely used before, lance carrier and pikemen were used as the main army with crossbowmen. The original game was very poorly balanced for multiplayer in my opinion. When we first got the Remake to work with multiplayer everybody made crossbows and militia only, because crossbows were very powerful. Since then we changed the aiming system and made them 2-3x LESS powerful (that was early 2012 I think). I think the balance is in a good space now, it's certainly far better than before. The KaM Remake is trying to fix the problems and limitations of KaM, we're not just trying to clone it. If you want the original balance you can always play KaM TPR.

This change to shielded units might be too much of a bonus, we're keeping an eye on discussions and replays. But I think it's better than before, now all units in the game are regularly used, before you rarely saw an axefighter or swordfighter.

10 extra attack is not enough of a bonus considering the cost of making a shield. That means you need 3 equipment instead of 2 so it's like a 50% increase in cost. Maybe if swordfighters/knights had +50% attack it would balance it, but then they'd be like barbarians. I think it makes sense for shields to block some arrows and give a small attack bonus.

[-George Stain-]

@Plaguesworn: Axefighters and swordfighters were very rarely used before, lance carrier and pikemen were used as the main army with crossbowmen. The original game was very poorly balanced for multiplayer in my opinion. When we first got the Remake to work with multiplayer everybody made crossbows and militia only, because crossbows were very powerful. Since then we changed the aiming system and made them 2-3x LESS powerful (that was early 2012 I think). I think the balance is in a good space now, it's certainly far better than before. The KaM Remake is trying to fix the problems and limitations of KaM, we're not just trying to clone it. If you want the original balance you can always play KaM TPR.

This change to shielded units might be too much of a bonus, we're keeping an eye on discussions and replays. But I think it's better than before, now all units in the game are regularly used, before you rarely saw an axefighter or swordfighter.

10 extra attack is not enough of a bonus considering the cost of making a shield. That means you need 3 equipment instead of 2 so it's like a 50% increase in cost. Maybe if swordfighters/knights had +50% attack it would balance it, but then they'd be like barbarians. I think it makes sense for shields to block some arrows and give a small attack bonus.

I agree with almost everthing, but do you really think that it's small attack bonus? produce 1 extra wood shield isn't problem for me becouse it's very convenient. +1 pierce armor and 40% more attack than lancer just for 1 poor wood shield..

now lancers and pikes are totaly out of countering circle. they are killed very easy with almost everthing what they can meet on battlefield..

[Debaron]

lancer 25 attack (100%) axefighter 35 attack (140%) = axefigher has 40% attack bonus from shield
Pike 35 attack (100%) swordfigter 55 attack (157%) = sworfighter has 57% attack bonus from shield

Where do you get the numbers from?

Anyway, remember that any advantage that infantry has over pikes and lances, horses also have over infantry. Therefore, it's important to also look at how meta develops. If infantry really dominate, won't people start using horses more? This would again necessate more pikes and lances, etc. So, this change of making infantry stronger may actually result in pikemen and lances being more important. Not in sheer numbers as a cheap way of getting a large army, but in a highly specialized role in protecting ranged attackers and infantry against cavalry, which I think is how they were designed to be used.

[Leeuwgie]

Not in sheer numbers as a cheap way of getting a large army, but in a highly specialized role in protecting ranged attackers and infantry against cavalry, which I think is how they were designed to be used.

100% agreed

[-George Stain-]

Not in sheer numbers as a cheap way of getting a large army, but in a highly specialized role in protecting ranged attackers and infantry against cavalry, which I think is how they were designed to be used.

100% agreed

this can work good without locking in fight.. but still facepalm guys.. axefighter and swordfighter are designed to be easily killed by archers, but they can easily kill pikes and lances.. now they are redesigned to be uber units without weaknes.. (overspam my swordfighters and axefighters with your cavalry.. I really want to see it ) horse unit is just more expensive equivalent for foot soldier, it's not counter.. it's just counter against archer units..

[Nissarin]

this can work good without locking in fight.. but still facepalm guys.. axefighter and swordfighter are designed to be easily killed by archers, but they can easily kill pikes and lances.. now they are redesigned to be uber units without weaknes.. (overspam my swordfighters and axefighters with your cavalry.. I really want to see it ) horse unit is just more expensive equivalent for foot soldier, it's not counter.. it's just counter against archer units..

Light/heavy cavalry beat axe/swordfighters, axe/swordfighters beat lances/pikes, lances/pikes beat light/heavy cavalry, it's that simple. Ranged units provide support, they don't really play rock, paper, scissors with others and as such the there is no counter to them, unless developers decide to implement bombers or something.

I don't know if you're just trolling or you're completely ignorant about how the battles look like in the middle ages, which KaM is trying to "simulate".

[Romek]

Not in sheer numbers as a cheap way of getting a large army, but in a highly specialized role in protecting ranged attackers and infantry against cavalry, which I think is how they were designed to be used.

100% agreed

this can work good without locking in fight.. but still facepalm guys.. axefighter and swordfighter are designed to be easily killed by archers, but they can easily kill pikes and lances.. now they are redesigned to be uber units without weaknes.. (overspam my swordfighters and axefighters with your cavalry.. I really want to see it ) horse unit is just more expensive equivalent for foot soldier, it's not counter.. it's just counter against archer units..

Nah its not like you think. They still have weakness :

1.] They are not cheap - You still need + 1extra iron bar and + 1 extra coal compared to pike/x-bow. I can agree that making shield for axefighters is not big deal but they are not so strong like swords.

2.]You cant produce them so fast like x-bow/pike or bow/lance cos they need shield and u need time to make that shield.

3.]They are slow. Its not so easy to flank with them or send them fast to help your team mate especialy when map is big.

4.]They cant shot - You can say that they cant drive a car or fly too but I just want to show that its kind of weaknes beacause they need place to fight.

[-George Stain-]

Light/heavy cavalry beat axe/swordfighters, axe/swordfighters beat lances/pikes, lances/pikes beat light/heavy cavalry, it's that simple. Ranged units provide support, they don't really play rock, paper, scissors with others and as such the there is no counter to them, unless developers decide to implement bombers or something.

I don't know if you're just trolling or you're completely ignorant about how the battles look like in the middle ages, which KaM is trying to "simulate".

in middleage were more lancers than all archers, xbows, sworfighters, axefighters together.. maybe not, but still much more than in our "simulator" (it depend on nations and war traditions)

and I don't think that cavalery beating foot soldiers if you compared it with cost of them..

Romo you are right.. but don't forget about storm attack (will be usefull after upgrade) and against foot soldiers like axes and swords don't exist any bonus like against cavalry.. even they have superior attack and now superior defence. Just saying..

[Leeuwgie]

Not in sheer numbers as a cheap way of getting a large army, but in a highly specialized role in protecting ranged attackers and infantry against cavalry, which I think is how they were designed to be used.

100% agreed

this can work good without locking in fight.. but still facepalm guys.. axefighter and swordfighter are designed to be easily killed by archers, but they can easily kill pikes and lances.. now they are redesigned to be uber units without weaknes.. (overspam my swordfighters and axefighters with your cavalry.. I really want to see it ) horse unit is just more expensive equivalent for foot soldier, it's not counter.. it's just counter against archer units..

Well, spamming only isn't really succesfull imo. I thought the same as you at first. And yes 40 swordsmen at your door after 60 mins is really scary for sure. Still I know a mix of units is better. I will try to explain. I've played many games in the beta before replying here because I didn't want to agree with this change without knowing for sure if swordmen are really balanced now. I've done 40+ swords or 80+ xbows (with a nice group of militia) to find out if spamming is an easy win or not. I lost both games. Since then I rather go for 20-25 swords and 15-25 xbows instead. We all tried mass swords/knights and militia because it's really powerfull but is it 100% succesfull? If the rush is stopped the rusher can easely be counterattacked because his base is halfdead already just because he ignored a decent foodsupply and can spam some more militia only. I agree with you that the sword + bow combo is really strong, I use it alot myself lately. If you try this you normally can't go for 40 swords because it will take you time to set up some early farms and pigfarms for leather production later on. So if you're lucky (read: play on a decent loc/don't screw up) you have about 30 swords and 30 bows and a nice group of militia. However bows can't kill swordmen like xbows do, even when they received a bonus. That's why I prefer some xbows mixed in with the bows. If I want some xbows my number of swords is lesser as a result. Same as when I expect someone to go for knights. I need some pikes so I have even less swords. It is commonly known that in the public release nothing is better then massing xbows with a cheap meatshield in front like militia or lance carriers. Why mix units? The more xbows the better. There is no reward for players who take the time and trouble to bring some swordsmen to the battlefield, because they die at the same rate as pikemen. For me it's logic that (in the shieldpatch) they keep the same attack vs pikemen and are more resistent vs arrows at the same time. If you really think that in the next release the xbow is replaced by the swordmen, and massing them is the key to victory think twice. Just watch replays of players who play this game alot. Not that you see the same army all the time but most of them go for a mix of units. Luckely we see alot less xbows in the beta. Without some xbows you probably lose but with only xbows you lose for sure, atleast that's what I noticed. The game is certainly more balanced now. Because mass xbows fail players go for swords instead but they still want some xbows and knights. Because knights are really good now (and of full use since anti-horse isn't the main meatshield anymore) players use them more then before so it's wise to protect your ranged units with a couple of pikes. What I try to make clear is that this way all iron units are used and as a result spamming a single unit is eleminated. Ofcourse you want to train some units more then others. Probably swordsmen or axeman because they are the backbone of your army. Ofcourse it's still possible to go for knights only or pikes only but you really take a risk, because they both have a hard counter. If the enemy has pikes your knights are useless. If you go for pikes only and the enemy has swords, you will surely lose even when you outnumber him. Swordmen/axefighters have only soft counters so they should be the backbone of your army imo. There are 2 succesfull combo's possible: swords + bows or xbows + axemen. For me the first combo works better since your bows can defeat axeman/xbows while your swords should have no problems with the axemen. On the other hand, combo 2 can really be hard to defeat because they likely outnumber combo 1. There are all kind of different strategies possible. Succes depends also on what the enemy has, that's why I try to do different buildorders. Here are some of the buildorders that are used in the beta:

#1) swords + bows: set up 3 farms asap for 2 early pigfarms (will give you enough skins for about 40 bows) and concentrate on iron asap to make armor, shields and weapons for swordsmen only (about 30-40 possible). Try to make militia aswell.
+ strong melee army, very usefull if you want to rush. You should have enough food using this strat.
- weaker ranged units, knights can be a problem.

#2) Xbows + axemen: concentrate on farms, extra wood and gold early. No need to rush for iron right away, xbows are easy to spam. Around 40 axemen and 30-40 xbows shouldn't be too hard to produce. The extra wood can be used for militia.
+ Nice rush army, you likely outnumber the enemy. Easy to keep spamming after peacetime. Food shouldn't be a problem using this strat.
- Swords are still difficult to beat. Make sure you have enough goldchests.

#3) Swords + militia only: concentrate on extra wood and gold asap. No need to set up a huge base with farms, some fish and maybe a baker is enough. Just go for for 3 ironmines, 2 smelters and 2 armor and 1 weaponsmithy as early as possible (before 30 mins ingame). If they receive enough resources you could make about 40 swordmen total. Make also as many axes and goldchests as possible. The earlier you stop expanding your base, the more axes you can make, so your build should be finished at about 45 mins. No real need to build towers since your plan is to rush the enemy right away. If you decide to go for knights instead of swordsmen make sure you set up 4 farms for 2 stables before going for weapons.
+ Excellent rush army, in most cases you should own your enemy unless he receives help from teammates.
- Food is tricky, especially after peacetime, so you slowly die and your production stops so you are easy counterattacked if the rush fails. No ranged units and towers makes you even more likely to be defeated soon.

#4) Swords + xbows: for this strat the only thing that is really important is to make weapons asap, at some locations it's possible to start producing weapons before 20 mins. Don't focus on wood or food early. Get a gold production up after iron. If you have 3 smitthies running smoothly build some extra woodcutters/sawmills and some farms. 3 farms, 3 mills. 3 bakers and 2 inns should keep your citizens alive. Expand your iron weapon production by adding another armor and weapon smitthy for xbows. If you have a foodproduction up concentrate on making axes for militia. Also a 3rd goldsmelter is usefull to have because you lacked producing goldchests early game. About 20-30 swordmen, 20-30 xbows + 30-50 militia is possible with this strat.
+ Strong iron army capable for rush or defence.
- Keeping your citizens alive (and thus continue producing weapons) can be hard.

I personally use #1 and #4 with most succes lately. Sometimes I add some knights and pikes too, but rarely scouts or lance carriers. I also like a mix of sword/axemen and xbows/bows. And there is also the possiblity to go for late leather. The gameplay in the shieldpatch is alot more fun imo. Anyway, here is a replay where all players did different buildorders. Strange that none of us did any horse though. Interesting buildorder by Pizza (loc 7) here, going for leather only, trading even his iron for more leather. Matt (loc 2) used buildorder #3 in this game, showing how powerfull this rush can be but also how weak his lategame was. Bludmaster did an awesome build on loc 3 while kruci (loc 4) went oldschool pikes and xbows. Romek (loc 5) and me (loc 6) did some serious swordsmen spam too. And Weekend showed how buildorder #2 works on loc 8. Fun game, not flawless but pretty balanced.

http://www.mediafire.com/?699a6udpe26d0b8

[dicsoupcan]

I have to be honest that #2 is not exactly a rush army, since i could do 30 axefighters and 45 xbows with a big base. And i believe i mentioned before it had not really a chance against a rush army (the #3 you mentioned). But since people have less xbows now i might try 15 swords 20 xbows 30 axefighters, that might be a bit stronger since swordfighters are beasts.

On an unrelated sidenote with no offense intended, could you please not make a big wall of text next time? it took me a long time to read this^^

[pawel95]

I´am going to the future now. Krom has said that next Test Release will be MAYBE in ~1 month after coding and fixing.
So my question is,will it be possible Krom/Lewin to test first this nice "random" idea from Lewin: To boost stable speed a little bit? I think with this bossting it is possible that we have than 2 big + in our MP games.

1.) Scouts would be hopefully made more by players
2.) You could make more Knights and so having nice defense against "?!Overpowered?! Swordmen".

What do you think, testing would be nice from my view, because its not that hard to rechange it than,if this idea is just shit than in reality


pawel95

[Mixons]

I think someone wrote about this(maybe Mully), that trade trunks for horses is really too easy(after pt you can even have 15-20 horses or more). Will you change it?

[pawel95]

If I remember correctly i have read on lewins+kroms google page that this point is already in there mind to change. "Stables are not needed anymore than"