Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
Horses should have stamina... a horse, even a Mongolian/steppe horse, when armored, is going to fatigue, albeit not as quickly as a destrier.
The amount of damage cavalry does to infantry upon charging (clearly not referring to spears) is insulting... if you're hit by an armored destrier, carrying a fully armored knight, we're talking about getting hit by half of a (small sized car) going 25 mph at a charge, possibly more. You are not brushing that off and it sure as hell isn't doing a comparative "4ish" dmg. lol
As the troops are, roughly speaking, based upon historical units--I'd have to say that arguably, and taking into account the suggested history of the in-game history, the Battanian units should not be the best. I'd expect almost anyone but them to come out on top as their units are largely based upon Franco-Celtic units, whose martial prominence was achieved much, much earlier than their other in-game contemporaries. Obviously balance demands there be certain concessions to this end, but really, if anyone has an advantage I'd say other options abound.
Eh, yes and no.
it really depends on the arrow and bow in question, as well as mitigating factors like angle, range, and wind.
You've got it backwards, at least if we're talking about actual military strategy and performance. All other things being equal archers on foot should always be able to defeat archers on horseback, first because the horses themselves are nice big targets, and second because on foot you can shoot faster and more accurately then you can from horseback.
read through all the comments please
What you said is very true about Agincourt. So much so, I said the same in my actual post in the eighth paragraph. I hid it well lol. :D
Again and as you, myself and others rightfully suggested, the victory was because they took advantage of weather mainly. Heavy mud and maybe high ground (can't remember, they may have been at the bottomish or at least, the incline of another hill, which provoked the French charge), which the plate clad Horses and Troops couldn't get through. They got stuck and probably were immobile from constantly slipping and then were just lambs for the slaughter by the more lightly/non-armoured English troops that were planning to take advantage of the situation.
The difference between that era and say the era of this game (which is mostly ancient/Byzantine, is that armour is much less effective than steel plate, with most armour being leather at the time (I read something about leather armour possibly not being really a thing in early eras and only the richest/advanced civilizations used leather, let alone bronze etc.).
So you have an English Longbow, the Recurve and crossbows (the latter 2 having better piercing power) in an era where the best armour available is no where near the level of protection you need vs. those ranged weapons. Which in game is various forms of chain mail etc. Maybe Vlandians with their layered armoured Hauberk and Heavy Coats, or the most expensive noble armours.
Essentially, the only armour English Longbows historically had an issue with and could't easily (well at all) pierce save for lucky joint hits, was full medieval steel plate armour. Which led to the crossbow as a counter and later, firearms that made armour null and void.
If there's any issue with Battanian Fians as they are now, it's the Greatsword melee weapon that tends to be the best in slot like glaives as you tested out. I have seen other troop vs troop videos that proved this as well with Fians winning almost every melee matchup.
Even in this case you could argue:
1. These are highly trained Battanian Noblemen. The best foot warriors even if they are also Marksmen. Not sure how you get 1000 nobles to fight or how big Battanian family trees are but whateva lol.
2. Because of limitations of being highly infantry centric, Battania needs a very good if not mary sue melee/archer as a pinnacle unit. Their other infantry, even Oathsworn are not on par with other faction Infantry for the "infantry faction."
3. They are the special unit for Battania and not part of the usual roster and thus are harder to come by.
4. Battanian fighting style is all around two handed weapons like Highland/Mountain Blades. so its hard to justify giving them a one handed weapon instead. They can't be given a sword and board because they need the ammo for their main purpose.
That said I agree in principle: I like the idea of a possible boost for cavalry vs ranged weapon welding units or units that have switched their weapons from ranged right before getting hit. Maybe a debuff penalty to all units recently switching weapons or formations for like 5-10 seconds.
Also the melee capabilities of Battanian Fians could be tuned down a notch (or maybe a charge bonus vs. archer troops would be enough) and instead make the Battanian Oathsworn a pinnacle melee unit that's hard to beat toe to toe. The damage from Fian should be coming from their bows (which it does in proper tactical setups), not their OP Two Handed prowess. That way a Battanian player is more prone to use various unit types to protect their main archer line (using Oathsworn/top skirmish units), rather than 100% Fians and just hit the I win button even in melee/open field. The Fian should be able to stand their ground, but not overwhelm top tier infantry with melee. :)
TLDR: Agincourt was won by mud, luck (they actually got the rain they were waiting for) and great English strategy vs. an overconfident French army. Longbows (and Recurve bows which tend to pierce better than Long), easily pierced pretty much all armours save for Full Steel Plate Armour, which took the Crossbow to defeat and later firearms. So the rain of Longbow Death is historically correct for this game's armour. It would be interesting to see a bonus to cavalry vs. ranged units or vs. units that recently changed weapons/formation. Fian melee could be lowered slightly so it doesn't surpass top elite melee units and Battanian late game melee/skirmish made better in response.
On a more practical note, I just want to add this.
I think "player agency" needs to be taken into account here. The AI is sure as heck NOT going to stack 500 of 'any' unit during the campaign. Thankfully, AI armies 'tend' to be fairly balanced (faction quirks aside). Yes, we've all seen exceptions, but those are the exceptions.
However, If you as the player are going to stack 500 of a single "mary sue" unit (to borrow a phrase from the guy above me), and thereby imbalance your game, that's on you.
"Well, one unit beat all the others." Well is that avoidable? Pair up every unit in the game tournament style, and "one unit" MUST come out on top. Right?
It's similar to Total War, where players find a single "great unit," make a full 20-stack army out of that single unit, and then complain that the unit is "overpowered." Yet, the unit is being used in a way that it was never intended to be used. In the course of normal gameplay, no single unit will ever form an army all by itself. This just is not something that will be experienced in the course of normal play.
As such, I think the Battanian Fian Champ fits his role perfectly - as the pinnacle unit of the Battanians, that compensates for a lot of the faction's other shortcomings.
This also bears repeating, and I think it was overlooked through much of the discussion.
Vanilla cavalry is just plain terrible, mechanically 'and' stat wise.
So, cavalry, the real 'counter' to Fian Champs - and archers in general - is actually just broken right now until TW somehow fixes the current cavalry situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekU5k8jrS7M
I exited the game promising myself to keep just that small group of 20 and have them run around as a diversion or something and let the actual killing be done by my archers and footmen. At least THEY can kill things without me needing to call in sick for a week before they're done.
Still kind of get shredded by Fian Champions in melee though which is all sorts of stupid.
Was the map open ground? If it was, try a wooded map and see the results.
Yeah, I tested it on several maps and the results were always the same. The Fians barely used their bows. Only one or two volleys of arrows and then they entered melee killing everyone.
Agincourt--yes, mud, but not so much with respect to 'luck', it had been raining all week also the English used stakes, driven into the (freshly ploughed) earth to protect their archers from cavalry charges (this was a new/innovative technique for the time) and took advantage of occupying a field that was bounded by woods on either side--this kept the cavalry from being able to flank the wings (which were longbowmen). No high ground came into play on this one, but the French cavalry definitely got bogged down in the mud as you rightly say and were easily picked off.
The insane thing about this battle was that it was over in possibly as little as half an hour, and the English were outnumbered 2 to 1, at least. Henry was a clever bastard, and he used every advantage he had--including the bravado/overconfidence of the French who wrongly took comfort in their superior numbers. Henry wasn't lucky, he was an exceptionally prudent tactician.
With respect to armor---I definitely think you have a point here, excepting some cultures--the Roman Empire, be it western or eastern definitely had the funds to bankroll iron, heavy armor for the bulk of its forces... the legions were decked out in segmentica, that was made of iron, and as far back as Alexander, the Greeks/Macedonians wore bronze breast plates, greaves, helms, etc--the Macedonians also slept in their armor too, so that they would be ready at a moment's notice. If you ever get a chance to read The Campaigns of Alexander the Great they give insane, but nevertheless accurate accounts of the Macedonians massacring the much less well armed, and often, albeit, unlucky or unwise Persians. Likewise the Celts were fabulously talented metal workers and even the Romans couldn't match them there--but yeah, most everyone else outside of Asia was working with leather and in many cases cloth armor. Some of that cloth armor, however, was surprisingly resilient.
I'd say the hypothetical debuff you refer to should come in the form of a severe morale penalty, perhaps based on the number of enemy cavalry units in proximity to said archers. Seeing a line of cavalry charge at you is pretty unnerving, and I think even hardened troops realize, "We can't get them all, and the one's we miss are going to keep coming and turn us into hamburger." This game, despite the introduction of formations, tends to be much more of a free for all than other strategy titles I've played and things happen that most likely would not haver happened on a real battlefield, at least not intentionally/under the supervision of a moderately intelligent commander. AKA archers allowing the infantry to outpace them/leaving themselves open to repeated cavalry charges from all sides--or the cavalry sprinting willy nilly around the battlefield like planes in a dog fight, rather than forming up, charging, then reforming up and charging again.