Re: Mongol unit stats

by **barocca** Fri 25 Jul 2008, 22:42

while i am freshly awake i have chillins duty this morning,
this is the one day of the week that mrs barocca can sleep in
(and to tell the truth i wish i could sleep in this morning too)

i am going to try to work on the graphics component and get all that in order,
that involves adding action pages, shields and weapons text files too,

then over the enxt week or three ill chuck them one by one into a unit prod,
add deadpages, and finally add their new names into the loc files

please keep coming with tweaking costs etc..
:bow:

by **^Glyndwr^** Fri 25 Jul 2008, 23:10

Take care m8, real life is very important.
We will keep coming up with the ideas. Very Happy

You have my msn addy.

by **^HUN^** Fri 25 Jul 2008, 23:14

Will do. I am worried about that Korean sword....one jav max. Will it then be a lesser sword unit in melee to compensate for its extra weapon? Adding a shield sounds good and should make this unit a bit slower than those without.
No worries about not making the lobby (we want the REAL guys not the imposters, so your hard work is appreciated)
Any further suggestions or ideas will post them here. That goes for everyone .... Let's bounce a few ideas around.

by **Tomisama** Sat 26 Jul 2008, 02:59

I have seen many ancient prints where Japanese gunners were using pav like shields, both in siege and field. The STW of no-shield came from the movie Ran, but I really think having that shield was more common (or as common as not). I think that Portuguese guns might get a boost from having one.

*bows*

by **barocca** Sat 26 Jul 2008, 06:12

have long thought of adding pavisse to archers and guns,
but...
adding shields to existing unit anims is definately not my specialty,
as far as i can tell you need to manually make a "position" entry for each animation on each "page" of the text file in the shield folder,
an awful lot of work,
the alternative would be to manually draw a shield on each anim on each "page",
again a lot of work and neither option are my specialty,

if someone else were to do the work i am sure we could incorporate the unit. Razz

by **barocca** Mon 28 Jul 2008, 02:57

another Monk Faction Unit (or maybe for all factions??)
Kanabo

what sort of stats??
would have a very nasty attack, poor defence,
i would imagine the user would have good armour, maybe a small unit??

by **barocca** Mon 28 Jul 2008, 14:03

also the song cav unit has an archer capability,
do we need a 3rd horse archer at this stage?
(i dont really think so)

by **^HUN^** Mon 28 Jul 2008, 19:14

Kanabo unit....

30 or 20 man unit. Armour similar to the Katana Samurai? Lighter than NI. Attack stats slightly higher than normal monks. Defensive stats similar but slightly higher than Nodachi? With charge bonus of the Nodachi. A twin bladed naginata would be a great weapon but I don't know if that's possible.

I like the idea of certain units being faction specific, don't know how others feel about this?

Song cav....
Less ammo than normal HA? 12 arrows instead of 36?
I agree, I don't think we need another HA unit ... until the Hwarang HA when/if Korea become a seperate faction.

by **^Glyndwr^** Mon 28 Jul 2008, 23:11

^HUN^ wrote:Kanabo unit....

30 or 20 man unit. Armour similar to the Katana Samurai? Lighter than NI. Attack stats slightly higher than normal monks. Defensive stats similar but slightly higher than Nodachi? With charge bonus of the Nodachi. A twin bladed naginata would be a great weapon but I don't know if that's possible.

I like the idea of certain units being faction specific, don't know how others feel about this?

I like the idea.

^HUN^ wrote:Song cav....
Less ammo than normal HA? 12 arrows instead of 36?
I agree, I don't think we need another HA unit ... until the Hwarang HA when/if Korea become a seperate faction.

Good judgement ^HUN^ you are more familiar with stats than I

by **barocca** Tue 29 Jul 2008, 21:58

the kanabo was an oak staff that was metal shod for roughly half it's length,
the shod end had metal knobs.
it was a heavy anti cav armour piercing weapon, designed to crush armour and snap horses legs.
over time the staff was shortened and became metal, making the weapon even heavier.

the full metal variant was increadibly unweildy, but a single blow was the end of the encounter. If you missed it was hard to recover and you left yourself exposed to an easy counter attack.

i would prefer to issue the unit with the earlier oak/iron combo,

this would prove usefull against heavy cav and naginata infantry,
an effective anti-cav unit needs good unit cohesion/formation and excellent discipline.

stats?
(a 30 man unit sounds good)

by **^HUN^** Wed 30 Jul 2008, 22:12

Kanabo...
walk...6
run...10
charge...12
ch/bonus...6
attack....6
defend....0
armour....3
morale...10

Katana Samurai...
w...6
r...10
ch...12
ch/b...3
att...5
def...2
arm...4
mor...8

by **barocca** Thu 31 Jul 2008, 22:14

i have long held that other stats factors have an impact on unit battlefield ability and results.

many of these have been dismissed as having no measurable impact in online gameplay

i'd like to talk about a couple

i'll go through them when i have time, but for today :-

if you will all open your brday strategy guides to page 52,
charge bonus and push back effect.

the thing that caught my eye here was the momentum that a unit builds up during a charge,
it takes 2 to 3 seconds of charging to build up maximum momentum,
and that as long as the "man" has momentum and has a win or pushback he gets an additional attack on a new target, (which may be the same target if it was pushed back)
the attacker loses a little momentum each time he strikes,
once all momentum is gone the charge ends.
(a man that was previously pushed back has a +6 against him if subsequently attacked)

what is not explained is momentum as a quantifiable factor,
does the charge speed differentail to runing speed increase momentum?
or does every unit have the same maxx momentum?

i would imagine that cav have more natural momentum than inf,
and that momentum value is linked to the run/charge differential.

something we need to test?

AFRAID OF
a unit (striking) that is afraid of the defender has -4 added to the kill chance
a unit (striking) that the defender is afraid OF has +2 added to the kill chance
(more about afraid of later - chillin's are afoot)
:bow:

by **barocca** Fri 01 Aug 2008, 22:30

now what i am thinking with the run/charge differential is make the charging speed much greater than the run speed and see what happens.
Is momentum a statutory figure, or is it linked to the difference between run and charge, or linked to the charge value?

if we can find what increases momentum we can make a unit more effective at charge.

AFRAID
my making two units afraid of each other we can give them a -2 against each other, but normal vs other units.
(a striker afraid of def has -4, a striker that is feared by def has +2)
we could, for example, make spears inf afraid of each other, meaning they will take longer to kill each other and thus can be better at "pinning" spear units..

WE CAN ALSO make yari cavs (mong and jap) afraid of heavy cavs (mong and jap),
this means heavy cav will survive better vs yari cav,
but can still be slaughtered by spear units!!!!

more later
:bow:

(edit - in a very early version of the mod i had heavy cav afraid of musk/arq's - this actually made those units very adept at "clubbing" HC when it rained)

by **^HUN^** Sat 02 Aug 2008, 14:29

At present, the Mongol units are not balanced with Japanese, which is why we have been using uneven koku levels. There are situations that don't feel quite right and until the correct unit costs and stats are implemented, this will be the case.
Last night, Glyndwr and myself tested 6k Mongols against 9k Japanese and we both agreed the resulting battle was good. Over the weekend, I think we should try a few more of these.
I really feel we should concentrate on getting the new units in place, with the stats and costs that we have suggested. A few battles will soon highlight any obvious imbalance and then we can consider ways to address them. Using Afraid Of mechanics may be one option but I would err on the side of caution. The penalties/bonuses may upset gameplay by introducing unrealistic combat results, eg, I would not expect to see penalties/bonuses applied ad hoc, in a situation where one unit is depleted and another full strength (whether these figures change to consider variables such as tiredness, losses, etc I am unsure).
I would not worry too much about the current Yari cav/MHC match up, Mongol cav units are still only 2/3 the size (40v60) and Yari cav have anti cav bonus. I don't think they would be quite so effective against 60 MHC, but I would still expect them to win as their function is as an anti cav unit. Ideally, in a straight match up, I would expect to see Yari cav reduced to around 20 men before winning.

by **barocca** Sun 03 Aug 2008, 04:00

i would like to point out that mongol heavy cav do not have to be "cavalry" at all.

to be "cavalry" a unit needs to be a combo unit.
It has to comprise 2 unit bifs (horse and rider)
the animation CAN be complete in one file, as long as one bif is designated "horse" and one "rider",
which is used to "generate" the actual animation is not important. (clear so far??)

I had previously used this attribute to allow much larger display animations than would normally be possible by putting half in one file, and half in another.

Now cavalry has bonuses, and penalties.
Cavalry is subject to anti-cav
Cavalry suffer in Trees
Cavalry are larger targets for missiles

Cavalry have bonuses,
they gain armour in combat for riding a horse,
they automatically gain "pushback" against any infantryman that is not facing them armed with spear, pike or pole,
and i suspect cavalry have extra momentum from charging (also important in h2h)

imported cav from shogun WERE generally self contained with the solitary exception of Mongol HA's,
which is no longer the case, i have (as explained) taken advanage of the multi-bif requirement to improve Samurai Cav,
The exception of the Mongol HA's being multi bif is a pity, because they are the one unit that I think deserve to be functional in trees and to not have anti-cav applied. Losing the pushback bonus would also not bother them, how often do you charge a formed infantry formation with HA's?
But we cannot do that with them. They need both their bif's to disply them.

This multi-bif=cav quirk is, however, something to keep in mind for the future.
(mongol HC are self contained - i will assign them a dummy horse)
:bow:

by Sponsored content