Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

[SnuggleBunnies]

Anything to make Rhomphaia less garbage. Worse unit for cost in the game hands down. Loses to significantly cheaper medium foot and still too poor quality/armour to take on any sort of cavalry unless defending on rough terrain or flanking (but again this is just as true of medium foot that cost 10 points less). I'd argue making them significantly cheaper as I (and other players using Thracians I've noticed) never take any beyond the mandatory single unit. Just plain flat out bad.

Likewise Axe Huscarls are worse than Spear Huscarls in 99% of conceivable situations (I'd been reflecting on this lately and see MPV7 reached the same conclusion). Maybe make them a point or two cheaper? I still tend to take them just because you -need- high quality infantry to create opportunities for your shieldwalls. But they're so well-armoured that the heavy weapon bonus almost never comes into play anyway..

Falxmen seem about right. Can give legions a run for their money and fend off most cavalry but easy to shoot up due to their complete lack of armour. I've gotten good results out of them (though they also force you to take the offensive as you don't want them stationary in a battleline getting turned into pin-cushions) and also found ways to deal with them when facing them.

Haven't played as or against the Irish much so I won't comment on them.

Thracians really aren't that bad. Sure, Protected Medium Foot Swordsmen can fight them on an even basis. But unlike those swordsmen, Thracians can fight Spearmen on even terms, and suffer no -50POA penalty for fighting across an obstacle. They can fight off Light Spear cavalry in the Open without great risk, though Lancers are another story (as they should be). Ultimately I tend to prefer Impact Foot, but if it's a choice between Medium Foot Spearmen and Thracians, I'll choose based on the opponent - Spears vs cavalry, Heavy Weapon vs Legionaries and the like. Finally, Heavy Weapon get 100 melee POA vs Elephants, Swordsmen get none.

[vakarr]

Isn't the main point of the Rhomphaia unit to face off against more heavily armored Roman infantry?

Maybe in-game but they don't do very well. They first appeared at least a century before the Romans did in their region, around the time that the Thureos came into general use in Hellenistic armies, so I theorise that they were a response to the introduction of larger, "tower" type shields, over which they could reach over the top. I think they should be rated "above average". This would fix a lot of their problems.

[edb1815]

Isn't the main point of the Rhomphaia unit to face off against more heavily armored Roman infantry?

Maybe in-game but they don't do very well. They first appeared at least a century before the Romans did in their region, around the time that the Thureos came into general use in Hellenistic armies, so I theorise that they were a response to the introduction of larger, "tower" type shields, over which they could reach over the top. I think they should be rated "above average". This would fix a lot of their problems.

Good point. Thanks.

[oscarius]

They will definitely still lose to even mediocre legionaries or Republican hastati on open terrain. I think you're confusing the -Dacian- Falxmen, who can fight toe-to-toe with legionaries quite well and are a useful unit in a lot of circumstances, with the -Thracian- Rhomphaia who will get chewed alive by just about any other average foot (medium -or- heavy) in the game. Average + Protected + Heavy Weapons + 42 points = not very good against anything. Being slightly better at fighting elephants doesn't really justify that they will get their asses beat badly by other medium foot (thureophoroi, scuttari, auxilla who cost exactly the same). As for fighting cavalry, lancers and cataphracts will still (rightfully I agree) chew them alive while it's generally foolish to charge noble/armoured cavalry head on into steady medium foot anyway (where they likely won't have more than a 15-20 percent chance of a winning charge). With the recent patch changes the charge sticking is even less likely.

Thracians are a average-to-slightly-below-average competing army *in spite* of this unit rather than because of it. Thankfully there's other good troops you can put your points into.

As it stands I'd recommend up-gunning them to 'above-average' to represent them as the badasses of the Thracian army (who my extremely thorough research of looking at a wikipedia page tells me "were highly sought due to their ferocity in battle") or a mild drop to their points (40? 38?). In-period the unit is far more likely to be fighting other foot than elephants and being slightly better at fending off cavalry charges and elephants is small consolation for just how badly they perform against all other infantry in their price range.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I would not be totally opposed to a boost to Above Average with corresponding cost increase. Keep in mind they are on totally even terms fighting both Thureophoroi and Auxilia though.

[vakarr]

I would not be totally opposed to a boost to Above Average with corresponding cost increase. Keep in mind they are on totally even terms fighting both Thureophoroi and Auxilia though.

Maybe against auxilia (not sure about that) but they are inferior to thureophoroi on melee turns, which is why I don't use them (or any of the later Thracian lists) and use Classical Thracian spearmen instead. With them I came second in the tournament and got one of the best scores of any player in the tournament overall.

[melm]

I would not be totally opposed to a boost to Above Average with corresponding cost increase. Keep in mind they are on totally even terms fighting both Thureophoroi and Auxilia though.

Maybe against auxilia (not sure about that) but they are inferior to thureophoroi on melee turns, which is why I don't use them (or any of the later Thracian lists) and use Classical Thracian spearmen instead. With them I came second in the tournament and got one of the best scores of any player in the tournament overall.

Why Thracian with HW inferior to thureophoroi? I think both of them have 100 POA in melee, don't they?

[rbodleyscott]

To recap, this is what I am trying to achieve. (And I know some of you have other objectives, but we can't all agree on everything, and we can't please everyone when there is no consensus view).

1) Thracians should not have the advantage vs hoplites/thurophoroi. They are currently equal in combat against each other, except in difficult terrain, where the Thracians have a significant POA and cohesion advantage over hoplites, and open terrain where hoplites have a CT advantage. Against Thureophoroi the Thracians are equal in all terrains.
2) Falxmen, although cost effective, are currently (despite fully cancelling armour advantage) at a very significant disadvantage against Roman legionaries - because of the Romans' Impact Foot capability, the CT malus for Warriors fighting Heavy Foot in open terrain, and the Roman CT bonus for being Heavy Foot. So I don't want to alter the balance there, except vs (putative) uparmoured legionaries, if these were added to the game.
3) Axe-armed Armoured huscarls probably should have a slight POA advantage vs Spear-armed Armoured huscarls, to offset their reduced efficacy vs most mounted troops. (Although they aren't really in danger against those anyway).
4) Fully-armoured men-at-arms should have an advantage vs less well armoured billmen, beyond their quality advantage.

My current proposal is that HW should not cancel armour advantage, but instead both sides should have their protection rating adjusted prior to calculating armour advantage.

When HW troops are fighting HW troops, or fighting non-HW troops who have equal or better armour rating:

1) The side with HW have their close combat armour rating reduced by a flat 80, or by 56%, whichever is greater. (Armour rating cannot be reduce below 0)
2) The side without HW have their close combat armour rating reduced by a flat 100, or by 75%, whichever is greater. (Armour rating cannot be reduced below 0)

Armour advantage is then calculated as normal, using the adjusted armour ratings.

1) Thracians vs thureophoroi will both have their armour ratings reduced to 0 prior to calculating armour advantage, so neither side gets any. This maintains the status quo.
2) a) Falxmen vs standard Roman Legionaries will both have their armour ratings reduced to 0 prior to calculating armour advantage, so neither side gets any. This maintains the status quo.
b) Falxmen vs uparmoured Roman legionaries (armour rating 150). The legionaries have their armour rating reduced from 150 to 37.5, giving them +18 POA for armour advantage. (After rounding down occurs).
3) Axe-armoured armoured huscarls have their armour reduced to 20, and their spear-armed counterparts have their armour reduced to 0, giving the Axe-armed huscarls +10 POA for armour advantage.
4) Fully-armoured men-at-arms (armour rating 300) have their armour reduced to 132, and their armoured billmen enemies have theirs reduced to 20, giving the men-at-arms +56 POA for armour advantage. (Which might or might not be a bit too much, depending on points costs)
5) Axe-armed armoured huscarls vs unprotected Irish foot have their armour reduced to 20, giving them +10 POA for armour advantage. (But they are also heavy foot vs medium foot, and Superior, so overall have a much larger advantage)

This appears to achieve all my objectives, although it is a bit kludgy to explain in the manual. However, tooltips can simply show the result of the calculation without the workings out.

[MVP7]

That sounds like pretty good system. Looking forward to testing it in beta.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I would not be totally opposed to a boost to Above Average with corresponding cost increase. Keep in mind they are on totally even terms fighting both Thureophoroi and Auxilia though.

Maybe against auxilia (not sure about that) but they are inferior to thureophoroi on melee turns, which is why I don't use them (or any of the later Thracian lists) and use Classical Thracian spearmen instead. With them I came second in the tournament and got one of the best scores of any player in the tournament overall.

Thracians and Thureophoroi are in fact on completely even terms against each other: +100 POA for Spears, +100 POA for Heavy Weapon, both Protected, Average, Medium Foot. Incidentally, the classical Thracian Spearmen are, other than name and appearance, identical to Thureophoroi. Thureophoroi armies are not generally tournament competitive. I'm using the Thracians in the Digital League right now, Biblical Division A. My ending score is 5 wins 4 losses - totally mediocre, in an era with no Impact Foot or Phalanxes, in other words the safest environment for such troops.

As for your current solution idea, Richard, I like it a lot. It is inelegant to explain, but the ending balance seems far more logical for certain matchups than we have or would have under the current systems. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works in action.

[rbodleyscott]

As for your current solution idea, Richard, I like it a lot. It is inelegant to explain, but the ending balance seems far more logical for certain matchups than we have or would have under the current systems. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works in action.

Now I just have to code it so that it works correctly for units that are not 100% HW.

Oh joy.

[MikeC_81]

As for your current solution idea, Richard, I like it a lot. It is inelegant to explain, but the ending balance seems far more logical for certain matchups than we have or would have under the current systems. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works in action.

Now I just have to code it so that it works correctly for units that are not 100% HW.

Oh joy.

I am just wondering where the precise 80 or 56% numbers came from. Is it the Thracians vs Theuro/Hoplite thing. Why is it they get +100 in melee vs swordsmen who get +50. It feels like a lot of mathematical gymnastics to keep this one thing in check. If a less clunky system is in place that is more intuitive and accessible but breaks the balance, other knobs can be adjusted like points or PoA interactions to regain it?

[rbodleyscott]

As for your current solution idea, Richard, I like it a lot. It is inelegant to explain, but the ending balance seems far more logical for certain matchups than we have or would have under the current systems. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works in action.

Now I just have to code it so that it works correctly for units that are not 100% HW.

Oh joy.

I am just wondering where the precise 80 or 56% numbers came from. Is it the Thracians vs Theuro/Hoplite thing. Why is it they get +100 in melee vs swordsmen who get +50. It feels like a lot of mathematical gymnastics to keep this one thing in check. If a less clunky system is in place that is more intuitive and accessible but breaks the balance, other knobs can be adjusted like points or PoA interactions to regain it?

Here is one that is a bit simpler:

1) (After calculating armour advantage POA in the normal way) HW cancels the first 50 POA of enemy armour advantage.
2) In melee phase combat: Armoured or better protected HW troops get an extra +10 POA against anything except elephants. (Justified on the basis that their armour allows them to fight less cautiously than less well-protected HW troops)

Affecting the previously mentioned examples as follows:

1) Thracians vs thureophoroi - same effect as current rules.
2) a) Falxmen vs standard Roman Legionaries - same effect as current rules.
b) Falxmen vs uparmoured Roman legionaries (armour rating 150). Legionaries get 75 - 50 = 25 POA armour advantage.
3) Axe-armoured armoured huscarls get +10 POA vs Spear-armed armoured huscarls. (And everyone else).
4) Fully-armoured dismounted men-at-arms with HW (armour rating 300) vs Armoured billmen (armour rating 100), get 100-50 = 50 POA armour advantage. (The +10 POA for armoured or better HW nets out as both sides get it)
5) Axe-armed armoured huscarls vs unprotected Irish foot get +10 POA. (But they are also heavy foot vs medium foot, and Superior, so overall have a much larger advantage)

[MVP7]

That sounds like a good system as well. Simpler but with pretty much the same end results.

I like the example POA values more as well. 50 POA armour advantage for Fully-armoured dismounted men-at-arms vs Armoured billmen sounds about right as does the 25 POA advantage for well armoured legionaries.

How are you planning to handle units with less than 100% HW? Is the armour reduction and 10 POA bonus effect scaled to the proportion of HW in the unit?

[rbodleyscott]

How are you planning to handle units with less than 100% HW? Is the armour reduction and 10 POA bonus effect scaled to the proportion of HW in the unit?

Yes

[melm]

I played with the number a bit, but the simple one is more succint than what I did. However, I am still conservative on HW +10POA against spear. Spearwall can be more tight than HW, can't they? Shall we give spearmen tight formation bonus? Besides, Axe Huscarl is already good at smashing Irish, do we really need another +10 bonus?

[rbodleyscott]

Beta version v1.5.22 will be coming soon. It has:

1) (After calculating armour advantage POA in the normal way) HW cancels the first 50 POA of enemy armour advantage.
2) In melee phase combat: Armoured or better protected HW troops get an extra +10 POA against anything except elephants.

[MVP7]

Looking forward to the 1.5.22!

I played with the number a bit, but the simple one is more succint than what I did. However, I am still conservative on HW +10POA against spear. Spearwall can be more tight than HW, can't they? Shall we give spearmen tight formation bonus? Besides, Axe Huscarl is already good at smashing Irish, do we really need another +10 bonus?

Regarding tightness of formation, at least the Viking Shieldwall (with or without Dane Axe) is not a shoulder-to-shoulder phalanx, it's loose enough to let the men fight effectively. The "Spearmen" shieldwalls are not strictly armed with spears, it's just the best FoG2 category for the mixed weapons and tactics involved. "Heavy Weapon" shieldwall doesn't mean everyone is using heavy weapons but that the proportion of Dane Axes is much higher than before.

Dane Axes are also not used by swinging them around wildly like modern games and movies might make it look like. If use of Dane Axe required the shield wall formation to be broken down into an overall less effective form, the Dane Axe would never have been adopted into shield wall tactics.

Then there are the wider historical and balance issues: Why would the Viking Huscarls (particularly well armoured troops) have "upgraded" from spears to Dane Axes if the latter was categorically a worse weapon against everything they faced on regular basis? This development, I think, is far more important fact to consider than the possible isolated mechanical pros and cons and formation tightnesses of the individual weapons.

[mceochaidh]

Coming late to this but I think it is highly likely that the Irish at Clontarf (to pick the most famous example) were in a formation no less tightly packed than the Danes. Axes were used in great numbers on both sides. The formations of the Irish were so tightly packed that a chariot could run on top. I can find the exact quote but don't have it at present. I think the axe armed Irish should be HI or at least some of them should.

[melm]

Looking forward to the 1.5.22!

Regarding tightness of formation, at least the Viking Shieldwall (with or without Dane Axe) is not a shoulder-to-shoulder phalanx, it's loose enough to let the men fight effectively. The "Spearmen" shieldwalls are not strictly armed with spears, it's just the best FoG2 category for the mixed weapons and tactics involved. "Heavy Weapon" shieldwall doesn't mean everyone is using heavy weapons but that the proportion of Dane Axes is much higher than before.

Dane Axes are also not used by swinging them around wildly like modern games and movies might make it look like. If use of Dane Axe required the shield wall formation to be broken down into an overall less effective form, the Dane Axe would never have been adopted into shield wall tactics.

Then there are the wider historical and balance issues: Why would the Viking Huscarls (particularly well armoured troops) have "upgraded" from spears to Dane Axes if the latter was categorically a worse weapon against everything they faced on regular basis? This development, I think, is far more important fact to consider than the possible isolated mechanical pros and cons and formation tightnesses of the individual weapons.

I just can't imagine that two-handed axe Huscarl can form shieldwall because simply they don't have another spare hand to hold the shield. If it's single-handed axe, it could, however in FOGII, it looks like that they are using two-handed axe. If we call it HW unit, majority of them should use Axes, shouldn't they?