Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
SnuggleBunnies
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:24 pm

oscarius wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 am
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
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:57 am
Contact:

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by vakarr » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:38 am

edb1815 wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:21 pm

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
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by edb1815 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am

vakarr wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:38 am
edb1815 wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:21 pm

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
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by oscarius » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:57 am

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
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm

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
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:57 am
Contact:

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by vakarr » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:29 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm
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
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:45 am

vakarr wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:29 am
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm
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
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22325
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:07 pm

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.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MVP7 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:38 pm

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

SnuggleBunnies
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:16 am

vakarr wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:29 am
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”